The Reality of Climate Change

A Canadian scientist @KHayhoe who helped write the fairly recent climate report is visibly “frustrated” these days because what President Trump said about man-made global warming where he agreed with some of it, and flat-out disagreed about its predictions. While criticizing the report for being unfair to the US in particular while not involving other nations who pollute a lot more. The President went on to say that we are the cleanest we ever been. Emissions in the US has been decreasing. It decreased roughly by 3 percent last year. Moreover, CO2 levels worldwide haven’t been increasing either, its been flat for the last 3 years. To disagree with the report according to Katharine Hayhoe is like denying the existence of gravity which many mainstream creationists have heard this argument before involving evolution. So they are using the same argument but for a different issue.

Now before I go any further, I want to explain something, this is not a normal topic because the goal of this blog is to focus more on creationism and evolution along with new discoveries in science but since there are similarities in how some Scientists get so caught up in a particular narrative which we have seen in various explanations of evolution vs observations instead of allowing the evidence to lead, this topic gets addressed from time to time. Let’s begin…

Those of us who are old enough or those who younger but have read some history in this area might know that there was a little ice-age that would eventually doom mankind which began around the late 1880s when records of the weather began to be kept on a regular basis and used today. Then a shift occurred in the early 1980s to a belief in man-made global warming which was later renamed as “climate change” as we know it today. Scientists who believe in man-made climate change argue for a fixed climate. Historically, the weather has changed, there have been three major warming periods for example which happened long before the industrial era. The earth also has experienced cooling periods before the industrial era. This means the climate is a complex system that is changing and will change in the future. To try to change that to a “fixed climate” is not logical.

Like similar reports before it, this one paints a picture of the demise of the human race, economically, health and safety. Historically civilizations have done better under the warming periods than in cooling periods. Not only that but vegetation also does better in warming periods than in cooling periods. Vegetation also does better with a higher level of CO2. If you ever have visited a commercial greenhouse, the concentration of CO2 is generally 4X higher inside than in the surrounding environment on the outside. Why? Because the plants grow better, produce better. When the plants grow better they tend to absorb the CO2 as food then in return, the plants produce more oxygen for the environment! If you look at the condition of plants over the last 30 years or so you will notice that the earth has become greener as a result of more CO2. If we get rid of CO2, plants would decrease and eventually die which means life would cease. Of course, it is not possible to get rid of all the CO2 on earth. Right now fossil fuels are the most efficient way of creating energy for human consumption. It’s doubtful that it will change anytime soon, however, alternative energy isn’t a bad idea and may have more of an impact many years down the road but there are problems with cost, innovation, the market, all of which, restrict its possible potential, and even with this potential it still isn’t enough to replace fossil fuels entirely. I’ll go more into later on in another post on this issue sometime in the future. 

Another factor often times overlooked in these reports is water vapor which is a major greenhouse gas. Why are scientists who believe in climate change not concerned about water vapor? Because lawmakers cannot regulate it in order to control people’s behavior in its use! What about fires like in California? Aren’t they increasing because of man-made global warming? This, in general, has been mentioned in this recent report and often pointed out by man-made global warming advocates. In the 1920s and 1930s, there were way more wildfires in the United States which burned a lot longer and burned more land than today. Why? It is simple, fewer people and better technology! There weren’t as many people to fight those fires, and getting water to the fires was much more difficult back then as they didn’t have things like airplanes or helicopters to dump tons of water on the fires.  Transporting people in general to the fires or out of the fires is much easier today compared to back then. Since it wasn’t plausible to fight a fire with water due to the lack of means, instead, people had to make firebreaks and wait for the fire to burn itself out! So wildfires are not burning as much as they did in the past! However, there is a connection with forest management and wildfires! No connection with man-made global warming and wildfires!

What about the ice-caps melting causing a massive increase in the sea level and the polar bears starving? The ice-caps show the earth’s weather doesn’t act as one unit. The North pole has been decreasing while the South Pole’s ice has been increasing in the last 20 years. Icebergs are different in the South than in the North. Air circulation is different and other factors make them different thus the ice is affected differently. This in itself doesn’t prove man caused it to happen. Polar bears are another animal, the population of polar bears has increased over the years so much so that they wander into settled areas looking for food. A reduction in population would promote a healthier population much like they do with certain animals in the United States.

In conclusion, the recent report like other reports before it is geared toward trying to motivate people for action within a certain narrative. Money is also a factor, universities get more funding based on embracing man-made global warming. For example, there were not global warming skeptics who were allowed to contribute to the recent report. Usually, governments do not allow funding for skeptics so naturally, you’re going to discover more research papers that are for this issue rather than against it. And professors that may question man-made global warming are often censored in the public schools from giving students another side of the argument. The only fear that they have is the gravy train along with other political issues might be affected if the public doesn’t go along with their narrative of promoting a fixed climate. There is no hard evidence that man causes weather changes nor can fix them to the desired level that certain scientists feel comfortable about. The earth’s weather made changes in the past and will do so in the future as the Lord will’s it.  

 

 

 

 

 

Consensus Hinders Science

We have heard the claim that most scientists agree, take Darwinism as an example, if most scientists agree, that it is a fact.

“the scientific theory of evolution is accepted by mainstream scientists around the world as the cornerstone of biology and the single, unifying explanation for the diversity of life on earth and is, therefore, beyond question.”

When consensus talks, it’s like the Pope talking in regards to Scripture. But there is a major problem with this philosophy. In 1961, the American Heart Association came out with a study that suggested a low-fat diet prevents heart disease while a high-fat diet causes it.  Consensus spoke, it was “beyond question” so for a period of time no clinical trials were conducted to test its conclusion! It basically became the law of the land. 

However, there were attempts for clinical trials, but when the evidence from these trials was contrary to the consensus, researchers decided to put an end to the research! The researchers also made a decision to not publish their findings for 16 years! It would be like a creation scientist researching the Ica Stones and testing them for which have been complicating evolutionists for years because these rocks contain very clear dinosaurian representations. The reason why it complicates evolution is that these drawings from pre-Colombian cultures would falsify the belief that dinosaurs were not around when man roamed the earth. There is controversy because the stones were not discovered by the experts. However, one can test to know where or not the stones are what they are from the past or if they are some modern drawings.  So far no such test has been done on the stones, evolutionists would be hard press to conduct one, instead, some sit back and claim consensus. 

It was the same with soft tissue from ancient animals which evolutionist claim was impossible before 2007. While they are right about the preservation part of the organic material, they are anti-science when soft tissue from a dinosaur was discovered by accident by one of their experts so they eventually had to accept its existence but when it came to the reality that soft tissue is not millions of years old, like how they treated the human diet, and the drawings from the pre-Colombian cultures, they bury the evidence in order to keep their narrative. Because organic material degrades very quickly. This a fact. And if evolution couldn’t have happened slowly, there is no evolution. Therefore, the denial.

Consensus has done a better job of keeping most of the research in a box concerning evolution, but it hasn’t been as successful with the human diet. Last year in 2017 a study which has caught the attention of some people in the United States was published in an “open access” medical journal called, “The Lancet report” on the initial findings of the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology.” The largest of its kind across 18 countries which included 135,000 people total.  

Most mainstream nutritionists including one that I had a conversation with about my health a couple of years ago, suggested intake of more carbs while reducing meat, and dairy intake and so on. In other words a low-fat diet. However, this new study discovered that people with low-fat diets had a higher risk of heart disease than those with a lower carb diet confirming other studies that were buried during the late 60’s and early 70’s. 

Also…

“Benefits of fruit, vegetable and legume consumption appear to be at a maximum for both non-cardiovascular mortality and total mortality at three to four servings per day (equivalent to 375–500 g/day).”

Getting the human diet right is very critical because every 40 seconds someone in the United States has a heart attack! Of course, it is not the only component because heredity also plays a key role in heart disease along with lifestyles like smoking or not non-smoking.

Consensus has failed to follow standard science research protocol, strictly going by proper research procedures, and lack of replication. This mess is compounded by the fact that once an idea becomes popular within the mainstream, it becomes near impossible to overturn along with countless millions of dollars to preserve its narrative. There is a reason why consensus has failed science. Consensus protects certain beliefs in science by not allowing anyone to think outside the box.

It’s beyond question that consensus has hindered scientific research along with a need for change!  This will help improve science for the better!

Evolutionists Use Propaganda Tactics

When Barack Obama became President in 2008, he eventually became known as the first “social media” President. Cass Sunstein who worked within the Obama administration, who was in charge of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, suggested a plan to undermine opposition by paying people to go online to promote their political agenda using propaganda tactics. Social Media like twitter, facebook, and youtube were altering trends and information in favor of certain candidates like Hillary Clinton.

But in 2016, a major surprise happened in the United States. A businessman who was considered to be the least electable among both Democrats and Republicans with no political experience won the election! Shortly after the election, there was talk about how misinformation which became known by liberal media outlets as “fake news” helped Donald Trump get elected and would later be used as a label against them by the new President himself!  

Hillary supporters like the Washington Post, NY Times, CNN and others were set on a mission, demonize the newly elected President of the United States, also demonize major political and conservative figures who oppose their viewpoints which would result in more control over the flow of information.  They believe by controlling the flow of information would condition people to see things their way. Facebook and Google which have become one of the major hubs people use to obtain information helped Hillary’s campaign. Facebook began to block conservatives from trending even though it was a popular subject matter and Google was rearranging its search engine results for more positive aspects of Hillary. Eventually, Google defunded conservative news and commentary on youtube because Trump was elected!

Twitter had its own trending arrangement. It would filter out certain words for example if those words contained “Trump is great” and someone tweeted you a message that contained those words, Twitter would block you from seeing the message. The bottom line is this if people choose to get their information through certain media whether that be social media or regular media, and depending on its ownership, which the majority of it is liberal, they are going to manipulate the information that you are getting. So one has to weed out the good from the bad.  

The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon - Season 1

Jimmy Fallon was under siege by liberals who said he was too soft with Trump on his show and later on some liberals complained that he wasn’t political enough on his show meaning he wasn’t being anti-Trump enough. It wasn’t like he was a pro-Trump supporter, rather, he far from it but prior to the criticism, his comedy wasn’t as political as other talk show hosts.  Fallon later said he was sorry to have Trump on his show in the first place and promised to be more anti-Trump. If Donald Trump didn’t get elected this wouldn’t have been an issue. Ellen who said she would never have Trump on her show because she wouldn’t have anyone on her show whom she didn’t like. Ellen actually did have Donald Trump on her show but that was before he was elected so she must have liked him then.

There were rumors of Jay Leno being replaced despite being number one in the ratings for 20 years and even on his last week of the show he was still number one because he was too critical of former President Obama. In 2008 on CNN, Chevy Chase made an interesting comment, he stated that he used his position which was on a popular tv-show called, “Saturday Night Live” in order to help elect Jimmy Carter in the 1970’s. How did he do that?  “I just went after him,” Chase said. He wanted Ford out of office and since he had millions watching him, he thought, “why not do it?”

Chevy Chase went on to say, you think we meaning the stars on Saturday Night Live are just mocking these political figures like Sarah Palin because she is funny? No Chevy, I don’t! They are doing for propaganda purposes to advance a certain political agenda to their viewers. This is why there was so much pressure of Fallon to be way more anti-Trump than he wanted to be, this is why Ellen started to say that she didn’t like Trump so the President wouldn’t be invited on her show despite him being on her show prior to his election! This is why Jay Leno was replaced, he wasn’t advancing their political agenda the way they wanted it.

Donna Brazile

This is why former DNC Chairperson, Donna Brazile, did not apologize at first, for leaking CNN’s debate questions and topics to the Hillary Clinton campaign during the Democratic primary, rather she denied it. Later on, she finally admitted to the leaking of debate questions and three days went by before she finally gave an apology. And lastly, when there was no more use for her, she threw Hillary under the bus by writing in her book that Hillary and the DNC rigged the primary against Bernie Sanders!  And it wouldn’t be just Hillary, if Bernie was the nominate without collusion on who was going to win the candidacy, Donna would have gladly leaked CNN’s debate questions to his campaign as well and never admit to such an unethical deed unless she was caught for the sake of helping the DNC remain in control of the government! 

It’s another reason why she continues to undermine the Presidency of the United States with her allegations. By suggesting there was meddling by Russians with the Trump campaign that somehow put him over the top with a victory while never mentioning that her own party along with Hillary’s campaign hired Russia through a law firm to find dirt!  Which was compiled into a dossier which was later then leaked to the media on Russian collusion with Donald Trump that has to lead nowhere after a year as far as criminal activity or charges were concerned. If anything, it’s against US laws for a campaign to hire foreigners in that sort of operation as well as funneling money through a law firm to do it rather than reporting it! Brazil continues with the propaganda as she believes it will help her cause and her party but the responses towards her haven’t been all that positive, telling her she should get over it, her party lost, we have future elections.  

Propaganda is not confined to news outlets, political campaigns, late night talk show hosts, but Hollywood as well who are also invited and attend the White House Correspondents Dinner.  The dinner is supposed to be for serious journalists rather than entertainers. But as we can see, it is a blur now between the two but they share one major thing in common and that is propaganda. One name has dominated the headlines in recent times and that is Harvey Weinstein who is an American film producer and former film executive. On the latest count, 91 women have come forward to accuse him of either sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape. Weinstein had two lives, one was making profits off of producing movies many of which advanced his other life and the other was going after women who were not interested in him.

Harvey Weinstein

Weinstein went as far as hiring an army to protect him which included a high-level law firm who would then hire former government spies for the purpose of finding dirt on his victims which later would be used against them. Even in his contract with his company, it said he couldn’t get fired if he paid settlements with his own money to women. His law firm which also represented a major newspaper in the United States would attack reporters or editors who tried to talk to some of his victims. An ex-Jewish spy befriended one of the victims by pretending to be a victim herself. The spy would then obtain weaknesses from the victim and then reported it to Weinstein who would later use it against his intended target. This is not a movie, this has been going on with Weinstein for many years!

Women were not the only victims in Hollywood, but young children as well and it might be worse. Horror stories of young kids being molested by adults in Hollywood who took advantage of their Hollywood ties as well would groom the kids as victims. Even went so far as making movies such as two older men living with one younger child whom they were not related to as a family. The production wasn’t intended to make huge profits but rather used as propaganda in order to try and change the culture’s view of their narrative which was a sexual perversion.

The latest propaganda movie which has been already been declared an Oscar candidate is to be released on November 24, 2017, which is…“Call Me By Your Name” where it depicts a relationship with a 24-year-old man with a 17-year-old boy. There are perverts in Hollywood who don’t care about sexual assault or sexual harassment who believe adults can have romantic relationships with kids. The movie attempts to normalize the behavior in our culture along with grooming future victims for themselves. Hollywood has used numerous movies to advance not just certain behavior but also certain political agendas which they believe will help them normalize their sexual perversion. 

Science Image

Ok, before moving on, I want to make it clear that this is not a political blog per say nor a Hollywood review of movies and its workers, but the reason why I brought this up is the fact that evolutionists try and do the same thing with their narrative of what they call science! They campaign for evolution, Hollywood produces very one-sided presentations of evolution in their fictional stories, mainstream media which includes newspapers, magazines, and tv. Fox News will give evolution great media coverage without questioning it. However, with Fox News sometimes the hosts do not always agree with evolution but the rest of mainstream media is fully pro-evolution. Not only with evolution but certain political issues as well.

Even though there is so much propaganda with evolution either through the media or public education, campaigners for evolution are stunned that so many continue to reject the theory! Ryan Dunk from Syracuse University wrote in his blog

“Despite over a half-century of education reforms aimed at better science instruction, nearly 40 percent of Americans reject the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution.”

 Making an implication that Darwin-skeptics are science deniers which isn’t true:

“It is our hope that these studies, followed by a larger study comparing science and non-science students, will help us to develop curricular interventions that can meet students where they are and help lead them towards an understanding and acceptance rather than denial of scientific knowledge.”

The scientific method consists of a method of a procedure consisting of systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. There is nothing wrong with the scientific method mentioned above that would be anti-biblical.

We observe many advances in science concerning technology, robotic machines, smartphones, self-driven cars, and in about 10-12 years from now most cars get their power from electricity whether that be 100 percent or hybrid, the days of gas cars will eventually be eliminated. The days of humans driving cars will also eventually be eliminated.  And so much more!

Dunk’s accepted method for teaching evolution which is common today in public schools uses a grotesquely exaggerated representation of the data. Calling evolution “the unifying explanatory framework of biology”…Things like medical science and biomimetics have no use for evolution. Some may give credit to evolution, but that is different than actually using it in the research. Molecular biology is another one when it comes to describing molecular machines, evolution has no use. Molecular biology is the biology of the future!  

Microbiology

So where does the issue come from? It’s origin, it boils down to, do you believe nature comes from God or evolution? Fatty oil for example which is known to degrade quickly be able to preserve itself through massive environmental changes, as well as longevity for millions of years or things like activity on Pluto so far away from the sun, is still billions of years old rather than frozen and inactive because of its old age located in a cold environment.  Observations in our solar system have confirmed youthfulness because of things like activity on planets and moons. along with the rings of Saturn. If anything, a young universe does and will show more interesting stuff than an old frozen one!

Planet Earth in outer space. Imaginary view of blue glowing eart

Observations here on earth also indicate youth rather than 4.5 billion years old. Those who teach evolution generally will hype the Green River varves in Wyoming as evidence for an old earth. However, there are well-preserved fish and birds located throughout the sediments which don’t indicate annual deposits. Their presence indicates a catastrophic burial. Evolutionists have argued that high concentrations of alkaline were also present in the water which made it possible to preserve the dead animals. That explanation is not realistic because high concentrations of alkaline would disintegrate the dead animals. Do you know what alkaline is used for? It’s commonly used for dishwashers for its ability to cut grease! It’s not a preservative by any stretch of the imagination. It doesn’t fit basic chemistry in that way! And lastly, the consistency across the formation, there is none, which leads one to a conclusion that annual deposits are not happening. 

Green River Rock

There is plenty of evidence of a young earth and universe but for this post I went over just a few of them and perhaps someday, more of them will be posted, moving on…

Evolutionists do not want the public to believe intelligent design namely, God is responsible for nature and the universe. They want evolution to be their God sort of speak. Even though there is a lot of evidence which contradicts their theory, they require unconditional acceptance like a cult would require.  Since 1998, it is taught as an irrefutable fact rather than a theory that can be questioned. 

Evolutionists want students to deny the abrupt appearance of complex body plans found in the fossil record, how intelligent designs relate to nature and God, living fossils, the origin of consciousness, human exceptionalism and so on…! The explanations in evolution resemble science fiction movies rather than actual science. Science is a great tool to gain information, Evolution is a tool which uses propaganda tactics that leads to nowhere but it is assumed to be everywhere by its followers!  

Mark Armitage vs California State University

When Mary Schweitzer first discovered soft tissue in a T-Rex back in 2005, she encountered much criticism but later on her discovery was vindicated. Unlike Mark Armitage who got fired in 2014 from the University for his research which was published in a peer-preview paper which went international.

“Yet no one else has lost a position over such a paper. So the question is: Why did Armitage alone get fired? There must have been something else.” 

How many creationists discover soft tissues in fossils and publish their findings in secular peer-review papers? The firing of Mark Armitage was on the basis of religious discrimination which was groundbreaking without a doubt in order to set an example for future creation scientists who are thinking of publishing their findings while working for a University as a creationist. I will get more into his case in a moment. I would like to introduce Mark to those who are unaware of him as well as reminding those on who he is.

Mark Armitage  was a microscopy laboratory director at the University of California which duties included teaching students on how to use very complex equipment. He also has 30 publications to his credit. It was 2012 when he made a stunning discovery. In a horn of a  Triceratops horridus specimen assumed to be 65 million years old in the framework of evolution, not reality. The horn was 48 inches long which contained soft tissue that was about to become bone and what is really interesting it was discovered in the presence of bacteria, insects, and plant material. Organic material degrades very rapidly especially when you have bacteria, and insects present. This is a fact!  Mark goes into great detail on his amazing discovery in the video below…

On to Mark Armitage’s case, the paper in question which leads to his firing at the University was first published in American Laboratory magazine in that same year when he made the discovery then in 2013,  the discovery was published in a peer-reviewed journal called, Acta Histochemica where he made no mention of creationism nor a young earth in his conclusions. It was all about what he had found in the fossil! Yet, not long after that he was fired with some lame excuse that there was a lack of funding to pay for his salary and a need for his services (teaching students on how to use very complex equipment).

Superior Court Judge Dalila Lyons issued in July a tentative ruling against the university’s request for summary judgment. And in October 2016 it was announced that the university settled out of court paying Mark Armitage 15 times more than his annual salary. Apparently, the university had plenty of funds for a huge cash settlement which could have been used for his salary. It was a clear win for Armitage and creationists who pursue jobs in the field of science at universities!

On a side note, here is another video which refutes old earth creationists who have embraced the time frame of evolution (but not evolution itself) on the preservation of soft tissue…