Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

Interesting

Hi James,
I personally agree with your article and statements about the fallen lost world blaming supposed climate change for any disasters.
We need Jesus not hysterical politics grounded in evolution that doesn’t exist.

If you want to learn about science don’t use Google. Get a PhD in it.

I agree whole heartedly. Man has left Jesus outside and He is knocking to come in. We must mend our relationship with God and He will pour out blessings in abundance.

Congratulations on a really great expose of climate alarmism!!!!!

This was obtained off the internet …

Bewildered Scientists…A Global Warming Crisis Fails To Appear: Sea Level Rise Grinds To A Crawl
By P Gosselin on 2. February 2018
Over the past months a spate of scientific papers published show sea level rise has not accelerated like many climate warming scientists warned earlier. The reality is that the rise is far slower than expected, read here and here.
Scary scenarios abound
The latest findings glaringly contradict alarmist claims of accelerating sea level rise. For example the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) here wrote sea levels would “likely rise for many centuries at rates higher than that of the current century”, due to global warming.
In 2013 The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) wrote here sea-level rise in this century would likely be 70-120 centimeters by 2100″ (i.e. 7 – 12 mm annually) and that 90 experts in a survey “anticipated a median sea-level rise of 200-300 centimeters by the year 2300” (i.e. on average circa 7 to 10 mm every year).
It’s important to note that the above scary figures given above are mostly based on computer simulations, where parameters are simply assumed by the scientists.
Evidence in fact points to deceleration
Using these modelled estimates, the globe should now be seeing a rapid acceleration in sea level rise. Yet no evidence of this can be found so far. In fact the real measured data show the opposite is happening: a deceleration in sea level rise is taking place.
Instead of the 7 – 12 mm annual sea level rise the PIK projected in 2013, a recent study appearing in the Geophysical Research Letters in April 2017 corrected the satellite measured sea level rise downwards from 3.3 mm annually to just 3.0 mm over the past 24 years – or less than half what PIK models projected.
Only 1.5 mm/year
Worse, satellite data measuring sea level have turned out to be far more complex and uncertain than one would wish, and evidence is piling up and showing that satellite data likely have been overstating sea level rise. For example when measuring sea level rise along coastlines (where people actually live)using tide gauges, the rise has even been far slower. Renowned Swedish sea level expert Axel Mörner published a paper in 2017 showing an observed sea level rise rate of only 1.5 – 2.0 mm/year.
Second half of the 20th century slower than in the first half
In another newly published paper by Frederiske et al. 2018 just this year, oceanographers estimate that global sea levels rose at a rate of only 1.42 mm per year between 1958 and 2014. That figure closely coincides with the results of Dr. Simon Holgate from 2007. According to the Holgate study: “The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003).”
The Holgate result was confirmed by another 2008 paper authored by Jevrejeva et al, which found the fastest sea level rise during the past 300 years was observed between 1920 – 1950 with maximum of 2.5 mm/yr.
In other words: global sea level rise has decelerated since the 1950s.
At less than 2 mm annually, sea level is rising at only one sixth of the 12 mm per year rate projected by the PIK in 2013.

“Not here to worship what is known, but to question it” – Jacob Bronowski. Climate and energy news from Germany in English – by Pierre L. Gosselin
Browse: Home / 2018 / February / 04 / World Leading Authority: Sea Level “Absolutely Stable”… Poor Quality Data From “Office Perps”…IPCC “False”
By P Gosselin on 4. February 2018

German-speaking readers will surely want to save the text of an interview conducted by the online Baseler Zeitung (BAZ) of Switzerland with world leading sea level expert Prof. Nils-Axel Mörner.
Photo right: Nils-Axel Mörner
Few scientists have scientifically published as much on sea level as Mörner has.
Yet because he rejects the alarmist scenarios touted by the media and alarmist IPCC scientists, the Swedish professor has long been the target of vicious attack campaigns aimed at discrediting him – yet to little effect.
Mörner, who headed of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics (P&G) Department at Stockholm University from 1991 to 2005, has studied sea level his entire career, visiting 59 countries in the process.
Sea level hijacked by an activist agenda
In the interview Mörner tells science journalist Alex Reichmuth that climate and sea level science has been completely politicized and hijacked by an activist agenda and has become a “quasi religion”.
According to the BAZ, recently Mörner has been at the Fiji Islands on multiple occasions in order “to study coastal changes and sea level rise”, and to take a first hand look at the “damage” that allegedly has occurred due to climate change over the past years.
IPCC is false
The Swedish professor tells the BAZ that he became a skeptic of alarmist climate science early on because “the IPCC always depicted the facts on the subject falsely” and “grossly exaggerated the risks of sea level rise” and that the IPCC “excessively relied on shaky computer models instead of field research.”
He tells the BAZ: “I always want to know what the facts are. That’s why I went to the Fiji Islands.”
“Very poor quality data” from “office perps”
Mörner also dismisses claims by the Swiss ProClim climate science platform who recently announced that the Fiji Islands are seeing a rapid sea level rise. According to Mörner the data were taken from poor locations. “We looked over the data, and concluded that they are of very poor quality” and that the researchers who handled the data were “office perps” who were “not specialized in coastal dynamic processes and sea level changes”.
Many of them have no clue about the real conditions.”
Sea level “absolutely stable”
Mörner tells the BAZ that sea level at the Fiji islands was in fact higher than it is today between 1550 and 1700. Coral reefs tell the story and “they don’t lie,” the Swedish professor said. He added he was not surprised by the data because “it is not the first time the IPCC has been wrong”.
Over the past 200 years: “The sea level has not changed very much. Over the past 50 to 70 years it has been absolutely stable”.
“Because they have a political agenda”
Not only is sea level rise due to climate change at the Fiji Islands exaggerated, but the same is true worldwide as a rule. When asked why are we seeing all the warnings from scientists, Mörner tells the BAZ: “Because they have a political agenda.”
Mörner warns readers that the IPCC was set up from the get-go with the foregone conclusion man was warming the globe and changing the climate: Mörner says: “And it is sticking to that like a dogma – no matter what the facts are.”
When asked if sea level rise poses a problem for the islands, Mörner answers with one simple word: “No.”
Strong evidence solar activity impacts sea level
The Swedish professor also tells the BAZ that the rates of water rushing into the ocean due to glacier melt are exaggerated and that thermal expansion of the ocean is minimal. Mörner adds:
Sea level appears to depend foremost on solar cycle and little from melting ice.”
Junk surveys produce “nonsense”
When asked by the BAZ why he became skeptical, Mörner recalls the “great anger” from an IPCC representative when he spoke at a 1991 sea level conference in the USA. He was surprised by the reaction, alluding to the fact that it is normal to have different views in science. And as the years followed, he became increasingly aware of the falsehoods made by the IPCC and the organization’s refusal to admit to them.
On the subject of publishing research results:
Publishers of scientific journals no longer accept papers that challenge the claims made by the IPCC, no matter the paper’s quality.”
In his decades long career, Mörner has authored some 650 publications, and he tells the BAZ that he has no plans to stop fighting. “No one can stop me.”
Near the end of the interview Mörner calls the claim that 97% of all climate scientists believe global warming is man-made “nonsense” and that the number comes from “unserious surveys”.
In truth the majority of scientists reject the IPCC claims. Depending on the field, it’s between 50 and 80 percent.”
Cooling over the next decades
Mörner also sees little reason to reduce CO2 emissions, and calls the belief in man-made climate change a religious movement driven by public funding.
In conclusion Mörner tells the BAZ that he thinks solar activity will likely decrease and that cooling will ensue over the coming decades.
Then it will become clear just how wrong the global warming warnings are.”
The Person who Set the Stage for Entire Deception of Human-Caused Global Warming (AGW) – Stephen Schneider.
Guest Blogger / April 11, 2019
By Dr. Tim Ball,
Most of the world still believes that humans are causing climate change. The belief persists, despite the evidence of deliberately corrupted science exposed in leaked emails, and consistently failed forecasts. It persists without any empirical evidence. Unnecessary policies and massively expensive policies evolved from the deception of certainty. Carbon taxes and alternative energies that are unable to replace fossil fuels without some massive breakthrough in energy storage capacity continue to drain budgets and divert from solving real problems. The momentum behind this deception is amazing and at present unstoppable. It is driven by a certainty that is supported by concocted evidence from the pre-programmed, pre-determined outcome, computer models. There is no empirical evidence, so how and why does the belief continue? How did the idea gain and maintain this force? I believe, there is one person to blame because he set the tone and created the mantra that facts don’t matter; he made it necessary to maintain the illusion of AGW at all cost. It was so effective that even to ask questions is to put you in a category of societal repulsion. You become one of those “deniers.”
I was very annoyed when I saw the eulogy to Stephen Schneider in the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It reads in part;
The Synthesis Report of the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is dedicated to the memory of Stephen H. Schneider, one of the foremost climate scientists of our time.
Steve Schneider, born in New York, trained as a plasma physicist, embraced scholarship in the field of climate science almost 40 years ago and continued his relentless efforts creating new knowledge in the field and informing policymakers and the public at large on the growing problem of climate change and solutions for dealing with it. At all times Steve Schneider remained intrepid and forthright in expressing his views. His convictions were driven by the strength of his outstanding scientific expertise… His association with the IPCC began with the First Assessment Report which was published in 1990, and which played a major role in the scientific foundation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. His life and accomplishments have inspired and motivated members of the Core Writing Team of this Report.
The last sentence tells the story but only if you know the complete involvement of Schneider in the greatest deception in history.
The dilemma for all these early advocates of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) was that if they knew climatology, they knew that the work of the IPCC was corrupted science. If they didn’t speak out, they were complicit in the deception. If they didn’t know, and a remarkable number didn’t, then they are incompetent. Often, some only became aware of the deceptive science because of an untoward circumstance, such as associating with a known skeptic.
Schneider knew because he published a book about global cooling in 1976 titled, “The Genesis Strategy” when cooling was the consensus. He wrote,
“There is little food stored to cushion the shock of the kinds of weather problems that so suddenly and unexpectedly damaged crops in 1972, 1974 and 1975, and there is growing evidence that such damaging weather may occur more frequently in the next decade than in the last one. The most imminent and far reaching [danger] is the possibility of a food‐climate crisis that would burden the well to do countries with unprecedented hikes in food prices, but could mean famine and political instability for many parts of the nonindustrialized (sic) world.”
The author of the NYT article summarizes that Schneider was
“…reflecting the consensus of the climatological community in his new book, “The Genesis Strategy.”
I was part of the climate community at the time but knew from the historical records and understanding of underlying mechanisms that this was just another climate cycle. Too many people exploited the pattern of the moment driven by funding, career enhancement or political persuasion. None of them looked at the science or worse and they only picked the science that appeared to confirm their situation. They jumped on what I call the trend wagon and argued it would continue forever. It was wrong, cynical, exploitive and had nothing to do with the amoral and apolitical positions and work that are essential to science.
Stephen Schneider set the tone for what followed. His mendacious, manipulative philosophy entered the public arena with his 1989 interview in Discover magazine, part of which said,
On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but& which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
Sorry Stephen there is no decision between effectiveness and honesty. The fact he could even suggest that there was underscores and exposes the corrupt thinking that created and drove the massive deception. The problem is that people like Schneider are evil geniuses. It one thing to have such ideas, it is another to implement them. It parallels Maurice Strong’s implementation of the idea of “getting rid of the industrialized nations.”
In 1996 Schneider co-chaired a conference that put his idea of being effective without being honest into operation. It was a non-IPCC conference but included all the key players involved in the IPCC corruption ,and the CRU leaked emails. In fact, the conference titled was a manifesto on how to proceed, how to end-run science and the truth in every way. The conference titled “Characterizing and Communicating Scientific Uncertainty.” I urge you to read and weep but learn what Schneider did. Here is the opening paragraph.
Uncertainty, or more generally, debate about the level of certainty required to reach a “firm” conclusion, is a perennial issue in science. The difficulties of explaining uncertainty become increasingly salient as society seeks policy prescriptions to deal with global environmental change. How can science be most useful to society when evidence is incomplete or ambiguous, the subjective judgments of experts about the likelihood of outcomes vary, and policymakers seek guidance and justification for courses of action that could cause significant societal changes? How can scientists improve their characterization of uncertainties so that areas of slight disagreement do not become equated with purely speculative concerns, and how can individual subjective judgments be aggregated into group positions? And then, how can policymakers and the public come to understand this input and apply it in deciding upon appropriate actions? In short, how can the scientific content of public policy debates be fairly and openly assessed?
An Inconvenient Deception: How Al Gore Distorts Climate Science and Energy Policy Kindle Edition by Roy Spencer
Updated 2nd Edition: Al Gore’s new movie An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power is reviewed for its accuracy in climate science and energy policy. As was the case with Gore’s first movie (An Inconvenient Truth), the movie is bursting with bad science, bad policy and some outright falsehoods. The storm events Gore addresses occur naturally, and there is little or no evidence they are being made worse from human activities: sea level is rising at the same rate it was before humans started burning fossil fuels; in Miami Beach the natural rise is magnified because buildings and streets were constructed on reclaimed swampland that has been sinking; the 9/11 memorial was not flooded by sea level rise from melting ice sheets, but a storm surge at high tide, which would have happened anyway and was not predicted by Gore in his first movie, as he claims; the Greenland ice sheet undergoes melt every summer, which was large in 2012 but then unusually weak in 2017; glaciers advance and retreat naturally, as evidenced by 1,000 to 2,000 year old tree stumps being uncovered in Alaska; rain gauge measurements reveal the conflict in Syria was not caused by reduced rainfall hurting farming there, and in fact the Middle East is greening from increasing CO2 in the atmosphere; agricultural yields in China have been rising, not falling as claimed by Gore. The renewable energy sources touted by Gore (wind and solar), while a laudable goal for our future, are currently very expensive: their federal subsidies per kilowatt-hour of energy produced are huge compared to coal, natural gas, and nuclear power. These costs are hidden from the public in increased federal and state tax rates. Gore is correct that “it is right to save humanity”, but what we might need saving from the most are bad decisions that reduce prosperity and hurt the poor.
My closing plea —

Prov 3:5 Lean on, trust in, {and} be confident in the Lord with all your heart {and} mind and do not rely on your own insight {or} understanding.
Prov 3:6 In all your ways know, recognize, {and} acknowledge Him, and He will direct {and} make straight {and} plain your paths.
Prov 3:7 Be not wise in your own eyes; reverently fear {and} worship the Lord and turn [entirely] away from evil.
Prov 3:8 It shall be health to your nerves {and} sinews, and marrow {and} moistening to your bones.

James, our country burns. Take another look at the Science. It is disappointing to note the tension here between Science and faith when the same God who spoke and called all life into being , is also the one who gave Scientists brains. Surely global warming- no matter what definitions you want to use, are a result of humankind’s greed and lifestyle. Isn’t it time to acknowledge this and make some changes? Of course as Christians we believe that all are called to repent and that creation waits eagerly for the renewal that Jesus will bring, but does this mean we don’t act responsibly in the meantime?