Global Warming Skeptics on the Increase

In 1992 Al Gore said, “Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.” Around this time last year, (3/4/2007), I wrote about a number of “significant” skeptics to the global warming phenomenon. I began with how, in about 30 years, climate hysteria has gone from the threat of a pending ice age to the belief that human beings are causing a devastating heating of the earth. Well, it seems the number of “significant” skeptics is growing significantly, and more-and-more they’re letting their voices be heard.

Perhaps the most prominent man-made global warming “denier” is John Coleman, the co-founder of The Weather Channel. Not only has he called global warming a “non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam” (he even refers to it as “the greatest scam in history”), he advocates suing Al Gore and anyone else selling carbon credits, so as to “finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.”

Coleman was a featured speaker at the International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC), sponsored by the Heartland Institute, held March 2 to March 4 of this year in New York City. The conference had nearly 100 speakers and 400 participants. The theme of the conference was, “there is no scientific consensus on the causes or likely consequences of global warming.”

Joseph L. Bast, the conference host and president of The Heartland Institute, reported that present at the ICCC, along with Coleman, were “more than 200 scientists and other experts on climate change, from Australia, Canada, England, France, Hungary, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Sweden, and of course the United States,” coming from the “Universities of Alabama, Arizona State, Florida State, Mississippi, Ohio State, Oregon State, and Virginia; from George Mason, Harvard, The Institute Pasteur in Paris, Johns Hopkins, and the London School of Economics.”

They also reportedly came from, “The University of Monash, Nottingham, Oslo, Ottawa, Rochester, Rockefeller, and the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. And from the Russian Academy of Sciences, Suffolk University, Westminster School of Business (in London), and the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.”

Around two-and-a-half months prior to the ICCC, the U.S. Senate released a report that contained the objections of over 400 scientists to, “major aspects of the so-called ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming.” The reported noted that, “These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.”

The report also noted that, “The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.”

Some brief highlights from the report:

Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem stated that, “First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!”

Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences said, “Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double, man would not perceive the temperature impact.” Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo – Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil added, “The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming.”

Lastly, French Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, stated, “Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up’ - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises,’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen is bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless ac­ceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!” (A link to the Senate report, as well as other global warming information, is on my homepage.)

In spite of the man-made global warming doomsayers’ statements to the contrary, it seems that this debate is far from over. Exclaiming last year that, “Global warming is not a crisis,” Lord Christopher Monckton, a former policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher, challenged Al Gore to a public debate on the matter. He ended his challenge with, “May the truth win!” That would be “convenient.”

Copyright 2008, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

The Resurrection

At this time of year Christians celebrate Easter, or as I prefer, Resurrection Sunday. As one scans history, no other date put such a mark in time as when Jesus Christ shed His grave-clothes and departed the tomb.

Of all the religions of the world, only Christianity claims an empty tomb for its founder. The physical resurrection of Jesus is the cornerstone of Christianity. British theologian Michael Green said it well when he noted, “Without faith in the resurrection there would be no Christianity at all.” Noted biblical scholar, professor, and author Wilbur M. Smith said that, “The resurrection of Christ is the very citadel of the Christian faith. This is the doctrine that turned the world upside down…” Indeed it did.

According to C.S. Lewis, “In the earliest days of Christianity an ‘apostle’ was first and foremost a man who claimed to be an eyewitness of the Resurrection,” or more accurately, a witness of the resurrected Christ. He adds that, “to preach Christianity meant primarily to preach the Resurrection.” And preach they did.

The transformation of the disciples of Jesus is one of the greatest evidences of His resurrection. For decades following Jesus’ death and resurrection they preached His “good news.” Biblical references and strong extra-biblical sources have almost all of the disciples dying martyrs’ deaths. James, the son of Zebedee, according to Scripture was, “put to death by the sword (probably beheaded).” According to early church historians Peter was crucified in Rome, and Paul (of course not one of the original 12, but an apostle nonetheless) was beheaded there. Strong church tradition has Thomas, the “doubting” disciple, being run through with a spear.

The manner of martyrdom of the other disciples is less clear, but strong evidence suggests all, save John, died horrific deaths because of their faith. Their unwavering efforts spread the gospel to many regions of the world, including Rome, Greece, Armenia, Persia, Syria, India, Egypt, Libya, Arabia, and North Africa.

The faith of Jesus’ Apostles spread to thousands upon thousands in a relatively short period of time. Many of the early believers suffered intense persecution as well. Fulton Oursler, in The Greatest Faith Ever Known, notes that “Thousands of these men and women would die themselves in the arena, burning on pitch-soaked pyres, crucified, they would die for Jesus Christ, and for the Faith, the Church that Christ founded.”

The persecution of the church continued for centuries. After Constantine’s conversion in the year 312 the church passed from persecution to privilege. Councils were called, the Scriptures were translated into various languages, and missionaries carried the gospel to ever farther reaches of the world.

The impact that Christianity has had on the world can be measured in practically every facet of life. Everything from the family, to science, government, medicine, art, literature, business, and so on, has felt the impact of the message of the Resurrection of Christ.

The world’s first university, birthed in 1088, was The University of Bologna in Italy. It was founded to teach canon law. The second oldest university, The University of Paris, grew out of the cathedral schools of Notre-Dame and soon became a great center for Christian orthodox studies. Dr. Alvin J. Schmidt, in his book Under the Influence: How Christianity Transformed Civilization, points out that every college established in colonial America, except the University of Pennsylvania, was founded by some denomination of Christianity. He adds that, preceding the Civil War, 92 percent of the 182 colleges and universities in the U.S. were established by some branch of the church.

Many of the greatest artists in history: Rembrandt, Michelangelo, Donatello, Da Vinci, and Salvador Dali were Christians. This is evident in that many of the great works they produced were scenes or characters from Scripture. Beethoven, considered by many to be the world’s greatest composer, composed some of the most profound Christian masterpieces of history. Johann Sebastian Bach was, as one scholar put it, indeed “a Christian who lived with the Bible.”

Take note of the number of influential charities inspired by Christianity. Among them are The Salvation Army, Campus Crusade, Catholic Charities, Habitat for Humanity, and the YMCA. Also, about 25% of U.S. hospitals are Christian.

The great nation that we inhabit was founded almost exclusively by Christians and upon Christian principles. The United States has become perhaps the most influential nation in world history. Standing for freedom and justice and operating out of love, this nation, whether through its government or private citizens, has come to the aid and rescue of billions of people around the world.

The current year is 2008. This is not 2008 years from Caesar, Buddha, or Mohammed, but from the birth of Jesus Christ. Dan Flynn notes that, “The attempt to replace Anno Domini (AD) and BC (Before Christ) with BCE (Before Common Era) and CE (Common Era) is yet another exercise in futility. Doesn't this Common Era, after all, begin with the life of Christ?”

The impact of Christ’s resurrection can be seen in institutions and nations, in virtually every facet of life, as I said earlier, but I think it is most noticeable in the lives of individuals. We may measure our years from His birth, but our hope is in His resurrection.

Copyright 2008, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

The New York Times' effect on McCain

“We can try to understand the New York Times’ effect on man,” the Bee Gees sang around three decades ago in their smash hit Stayin’ Alive. Since the New York Times’ latest tabloid journalistic, thinly-sourced, slime job/hit piece, “Stayin’ Alive,” politically speaking, is what John McCain is trying to do. Although, since the story broke, the “effect” for McCain has not be so bad after all, and could even turn out to be quite a blessing-in-disguise for him.

In fact, since the story was published, the NY Times has come under more scrutiny than McCain has. How ironic, but not surprising, is the fact that the article appeared at all in the NY Times is more of a story than the story itself. It is not surprising because the story is full of innuendo and circumstantial evidence. It practically begs readers to draw their own negative conclusions regarding the almost certain Republican presidential nominee, John McCain. This after the NY Times endorsed McCain in late January.

The story implies an affair, around a decade ago, with a female lobbyist, Vicki Iseman. I use “implies” rather loosely, because there are no named, on-the-record sources and all that the unnamed sources reveal is that certain people around McCain, suspecting something romantic was going on, tried to limit Iseman’s access to the Senator.

All of this is, “according to two former McCain associates,” whom the article later admits, “had become disillusioned with the senator.” Were they disillusioned to the point that they perhaps wanted to hurt the Senator politically? Did their disillusionment come about as a result of being “former” associates (Were they fired?)?

Both Iseman and McCain have directly denied any affair.

The story first surfaced around two months ago, on December 20 in The Drudge Report under the headline: MEDIA FIREWORKS: MCCAIN PLEADS WITH NY TIMES TO SPIKE STORY. Drudge reported that, “Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz has been waging a ferocious behind the scenes battle with the NEW YORK TIMES…and has hired DC power lawyer Bob Bennett to mount a bold defense against charges of giving special treatment to a lobbyist!”

Drudge continued with, “The paper's Jim Rutenberg has been leading the investigation and is described as beyond frustrated with McCain's aggressive and angry efforts to stop any and all publication. The drama involves a woman lobbyist who may have helped to write key telecom legislation. The woman in question has retained counsel and strongly denies receiving any special treatment from McCain.” There was no mention of an affair in this report.

Drudge also reported that, “McCain has personally pleaded with NY TIMES editor Bill Keller not to publish the high-impact report.” Keller, on the Times website, the Friday after the story ran, said, “I was surprised by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision [to publish] with readers who described themselves as independents and Democrats joining Republicans in defending Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap shot.”

Regarding it as more than a “cheap shot,” The Weekly Standard reported that, “The editors of U.S. News & World Report and Time magazine both said publicly that they would not have published the article. It was not, to borrow a phrase, fit to print. The piece was so underwhelming that many believe the paper must have more evidence that, for whatever reason, it decided not to publish.”

However, just as one person’s manure is another person’s fertilizer, McCain is looking to cash in on the Times ineptitude. A campaign aide stated two days after the story ran, that a campaign fund-raising letter ripping the story and pleading with contributors to fight back “was the most successful to date.”

With this latest sorry effort, all the Times has done, besides galvanize conservatives against them, is reinforce the belief of many that The Gray Lady is going a bit senile.

Copyright 2008, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

The Case for John McCain

Just how conservative is John McCain? It has been particularly interesting to watch, listen, and read about this issue. With the withdrawal of Mitt Romney, it also will be interesting to watch as McCain tries to sell himself to those skeptical of his conservatism. Many conservatives have contended that he is a liberal masquerading as one of their own. Some conservatives have gone so far as to say that there is little difference between John McCain and Hillary Clinton, and the country would be served equally well with either one occupying the White House. This all makes for high drama, and high ratings, but I don’t buy it. I do not see McCain as a liberal, and I don’t think it was reasonable to conclude that he was more liberal (in general) than his chief rival, Mitt Romney.

I’m not alone in this assessment either. National Review, a leading conservative journal (and an endorser of Romney), recently noted that, “McCain has a more consistent conservative record than Giuliani or Romney…This is an abiding strength of his candidacy.” Bill Bennett, in a recent article concluded that, “There is a great deal of difference between Senators McCain and Clinton (and Obama).”

The McCain haters, at least those with an audience, pinned their hopes on Romney. It is beyond me how a governor from “The People’s Republic of Massachusetts” became the darling of many diehard conservatives. His record as Governor is as liberal as one would imagine.

For example, in 2002 Romney responded to the National Abortion Rights Action League’s candidate survey with, “I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose…Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs…” Interestingly, he refused to respond to the candidate questionnaire sent to him by Massachusetts Citizens for Life. His platform during the 2002 governor’s race said that he “would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts.”

Twice Romney sought and received the endorsement of the homosexual group, Log Cabin Republican Club. During his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, his organization distributed bright pink flyers during Boston’s annual Gay Pride events, which said, “Mitt and Kerry [his running mate] wish you a great Pride weekend! All citizens deserve equal rights regardless of their sexual preference.”

Now Romney ran for President as a pro-life, pro family conservative. I’m not saying he wasn’t sincere in his policy reversals, but his conversion at least appeared politically convenient. However, I would have enthusiastically supported him over Clinton or Obama.

Some claim that if McCain gets elected, he will make a political “left turn.” Why were those supporting Romney so sure that he wouldn't pull the same thing? As has been widely reported, McCain’s lifetime American Conservative Union rating is 83. This puts him right behind Fred Thompson’s 86, who was the favorite of most conservatives early on. From 2003 to 2006 McCain averaged a 79% rating from National Right to Life and during that same period he averaged a 0% rating from the pro abortion groups Planned Parenthood and NARAL. From 2003 to 2006 McCain averaged a 6.5 % from the liberal National Organization for Women, and a 100% from the conservative Concerned Women for America. (Interest group ratings for many politicians can be found at www.vote-smart.org)

The Family Research Council, founded by James Dobson (who refuses to personally support McCain’s candidacy), as recently as 2003 rated McCain 100%. Interestingly the founder of the Christian Coalition, Pat Robertson, found it acceptable last November to endorse the thrice married, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control Rudy Giuliani (who also was once a darling of other very vocal “conservatives”).

President Bush is no perfect conservative either (whatever that is). However, he has been steadfast as Commander In Chief, has given the country tax cuts, has overseen significant economic growth, and perhaps most importantly, appointed the strict constructionists Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court.

Whatever a conservative’s concerns with John McCain, and there are legitimate ones, the dual roles of Commander In Chief, and appointer of Federal Judges, should be enough to cause any reasonable conservative to give him some benefit of the doubt.

Concerning McCain as Commander In Chief, even some of his most outspoken critics such as conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, admit that, “The world’s bad guys would never for a moment think he would blink in any showdown, or hesitate to strike back at any enemy with the audacity to try again to cripple the U.S. through terror.” Contrast that with Barak Obama, who has about the same foreign policy experience as I do, or with Hillary Clinton who said recently that her first act as President would be to begin the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq within 60 days.

On the Federal Judiciary, the Wall Street Journal recently said, “there is no reason to believe that Mr. McCain will not make excellent appointments to the court. On judicial nominations, he has voted soundly in the past from Robert Bork in 1987 to Samuel Alito in 2006.”

Given all of this, I will eagerly vote for John McCain in November over the likes of Clinton or Obama. If you call yourself a conservative, I hope you will do the same.

Copyright 2008, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason

Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Our Nation's Greatest Asset

As we approach “Super Tuesday,” which involves primaries or caucuses in 24 states, including Georgia, the political rhetoric is going to reach a level that is almost unbearable. As the candidates talk about domestic issues, such as health care and education, one phrase that will almost certainly be uttered by practically every candidate will be, “our nation’s greatest asset.” The use of this phrase will be in reference to our children. I believe they are just a bit off base with this bold declaration.

I’m not sure if it is appropriate to refer to any one item as a nation’s “greatest asset.” I believe that certainly there are many important factors that support a strong and healthy nation. Children would be on the list; however, ahead of them I would place a few things—foremost would be strong and healthy marriages. (I can’t believe I have to say this, but by marriage I mean the union of one man and one woman.)

I believe that at the foundation of any great nation there must be a healthy view of and a great respect for marriage. That is the best hope for our children. Government programs and politicians’ promises mean very little when children are growing up in homes full of conflict and strife, or in homes where the marriage between their parents has ended.

Strong and healthy marriages lead to strong and healthy families. Strong and healthy families lead to strong and healthy communities. Strong and healthy communities lead to strong and healthy churches, schools, businesses, governments, and so on. Each of these institutions lies at the heart of a great nation.

If politicians want to demonstrate that they care about children, then taking a strong stand for marriage (along with modeling a strong and healthy marriage) would be a great start. In “Marriage and the Law: A Statement of Principles” published by the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, the authors note that, “Children raised outside of intact marriages have higher rates of poverty, mental illness, teen suicide, conduct disorders, infant mortality, physical illness, juvenile delinquency, and adult criminality. They are more likely to drop out of school, be held back a grade, and launch into early and promiscuous sexual activity, leading to higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases and early unwed parenthood.”

I submit that the single most damaging phenomenon to children in our culture is not poverty, or a depraved media, or poor education, but the breakdown of the traditional family. Too many children are not growing up in homes with their mother and father present and active.

I would also submit that the greatest gift that parents can give a child is a strong and healthy marriage. Recently my wife and I have been participating in a Bible study on parenting. The study is called “Growing Kids God’s Way” from the worldwide ministry of Growing Families International (www.gfi.org).

Early in the study, marriage is referred to as, “the Crown of Creation.” The study points out that the husband-wife relationship “must be viewed as the priority relationship in the family,” with, “all other relationships (functioning) subject to that of the husband and wife.” They added that, “You can never be a better parent than you are a spouse.”

 I believe that after an individual’s relationship with his or her Creator, the “priority” relationship in the universe is the husband/wife relationship. When this foundational relationship breaks down, many suffer. The study also notes (as I alluded to earlier) that chaos in the family equals chaos in society.

If we want to solve the many social ills that plague our culture, changes need to begin at home. Traditional marriage needs the respect and support of government, the law, the church, and individuals alike. Otherwise, our nation as we know and love it is in great peril.

Copyright 2008, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason

Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com