Skip to content

20 Comments

  1. William Abbott
    08 December 2015 @ 9:46 am

    I notice the Professor is calling it ‘climate disruption.’ Tell Prof. Science Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a Gnostic heresy. The climate models prophetically revealthe secret knowledge of the future and man, now possessing the secret knowledge, can construct the artifacts of his collective salvation.

    But…“As for the prophet who prophesies of peace, when the word of the prophet comes to pass, the prophet will be known as one whom the LORD has truly sent.” Jer. 28

    The climate models of ten and twenty years ago utterly failed to predict the global temperatures of today. That is why Professor Wellenkamp calls it ‘Climate Disruption’, to obfuscate the model’s predictive failure. Out with AGW and in with the new nomenclature; ‘climate disrution’. He refers to weather events and presumes he possesses the ‘secret causal knowledge’ of those events. If he were being honest with weather history he would know there is nothing unique about the frequency or magnitude of the events alluded to. (The ten-year drought in major hurricane landfall for the continental US is very unusual, but not unheard of – it isn’t at all what he was alluding to anyway)

    I’m afraid there is a great deal of dishonesty in this new AGW Gnosticism. “I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth” …I don’t believe in Anthropogenic Climate Disruption.

    • sufferingsunfish
      09 December 2015 @ 7:01 pm

      I also don’t believe AGW is at all scientific or provable. Whatever is happening to the weather is, IMO, more likely cyclic. The Pope wants to lead out in the malarkey and that is significant. I’ll let the true believers comment on that aspect.

      • William Abbott
        09 December 2015 @ 8:01 pm

        Good science is testable. Like William Miller’s experiment. You could prove it wasn’t true. Jesus did not come. There was a Null Hypothesis.

        Climate disruption or ‘climate change’ lacks a a null hypothesis. Global warming is or isn’t happening. We have been talking and measuring for a long while. Lets talk about what we have observed, let’s not change the subject.

        Extreme weather events are a red herring and a stinky red herring at that. Anybody can be a weather historian. There are lots of facts to check. Guys like Wellenkamp just make stuff up and hope nobody calls ’em on it. They go about shouting “Denier!!” if someone refutes them.

  2. Anita
    08 December 2015 @ 2:44 pm

    Did The sda Church/GC sending a delegation for The climate conference? Many other churches and denominations did.

    • William Abbott
      08 December 2015 @ 3:08 pm

      I read today the Pope plans to intervene personally if they get bogged down in the details at Paris. I think the Jorge Bergoglio is out on the theological limb insisting we are committing collective suicide if we don’t believe the climate prophecies. We must collectively act now to save mankind, er humankind, er all living things. What an innovator when it comes to doctrine!

      • Ted Theus
        11 December 2015 @ 12:11 pm

        And the world is flat, right? Why is it such a novel idea that the pouring of pollutants into our atmosphere at unprecedented rates might damage what God created. After all, my Bible makes reference to man “destroying” the earth. Obviously, many elements of Climatology are not exact science but I choose to believe what over 95% of scientists tell us, particularly when they are supported by objective changes that we can see (melting ice caps, etc.) Right wing talking points certainly are not convincing.

        • William Abbott
          12 December 2015 @ 6:51 am

          “I choose to believe what they tell us” That is the point. We are talking about the future. The Scientists are relying on climate models that demonstrably have no skill. We know their models fail to predict the future. This should not be surprising. We have never been able to model the future; only the past. When it comes to predicting the future you are left with no other option but to believe.

          CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential for life on the planet. Plants thrive in a CO2 enriched atmosphere. Atmospheric CO2 has a global half-life of about 35 years. The complexity of Climate, weather, atmosphere reduce scientists to mere speculators when they use computers to model the future. Their models won’t even model the past.

          There is no correlation between outlier weather events and increasing atmospheric CO2. No science is needed here. Just a knowledge of history. The weather events they point to with alarm all have precedents. They have happened before in times when CO2 was less concentrated in the atmosphere.

          You and the pope can have your faith in man-made global warming. Its plain to see the prophets have prophesied falsely. Why believe them now?

  3. Bob Hawley
    11 December 2015 @ 10:19 am

    Just another dupe who has drunk the global warming/climate change hoax Kool Aid. It’s been proved they rigged computer models to produce the results they wanted and their hacked emails show they tried to cover things up. Science is never the result of consensus; it’s proved by empirical evidence. The entire hoax has been concocted by the left to subjugate and control the populace, which is always their goal. Time to wake up and quit funding these nitwits with our money.

  4. Roger Metzger
    11 December 2015 @ 5:30 pm

    The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

  5. macsamrad
    11 December 2015 @ 7:41 pm

    I would like to posit a variant of Pascal’s Wager here. If believers in climate change are wrong, the consequences of acting upon that belief are less devastating than if they are right, and nothing is done.

    • Roger Metzger
      12 December 2015 @ 6:53 am

      macsamrad,

      Please allow me to posit an alternative theory. If people are induced to refute the principles of our Constitution out of fear of “climate change”, that would be a worse outcome than trading away our God-given rights in and attempt to achieve a “global” response to “global warming”.

      Is it reasonable to assume that any “decisions” made at the “Climate Conference” will be fear-driven? How many really bad decisions have been predicated on fear? How many really bad decisions have been based on the best of intentions? Is it still true that what we should fear the most is fear itself?

    • William Abbott
      12 December 2015 @ 1:29 pm

      Pascal’s bargain is: You stand to lose nothing but gain everything believing in Jesus Christ. In doing something about AGW you gain nothing but you crush the poorest of the poor and spend astronomically.

      The poor need cheap abundant energy. To make the simplest improvements in their lives. To cook with clean fossil fuels, instead of environmentally acceptable cow dung. Or to deforest their nations for fuel like Haiti. Breathing the smoke and soot of cook fires compromises the health of millions in very measurable ways.

      The US has reduced CO2 emissions 24% over the last 20 years. All western countries are trending down. All the meaningful reductions must come from developing nations. There is no other place for them to come from.

      Lazarus and the Rich Man is a parable where the Rich are condemned for doing nothing to help the poor. CO2 reductions crush the poor and keep them poor the way CO2 reductions must, oug

      • Ted Theus
        13 December 2015 @ 11:20 am

        “Clean” fossil fuel is a misnomer. Those that think otherwise should spend a year in Beijing breathing the smog. The goals of climatology science are not only to push for alternative forms of energy but also to promote more efficient utilization of fossil fuels as we have successfully done, to some extent, in the U.S. Also, the concern is not just about extremely high CO2 levels, MANY harmful pollutants result from burning fossil fuels. If the best thing to come out of climate initiatives are cleaner air to breathe and water to drink, I’d still sign up. Of course, as with the Middle Ages, there will always be folks with their heads in the sand.

        • William Abbott
          14 December 2015 @ 8:10 am

          Developed countries used to have significant air pollution problems. The air quality exponentially improved in the west even as ever increasing amounts of extracted hydrocarbon (fossil fuel) was burned. The US population has doubled since 1960 over that time we’ve quadrupled fossil fuel consumption and the air is so much cleaner than it used to be. Remember LA? Ever hear about old London, England? or Denver’s brown cloud?

          I was talking about the poor in Africa and India. They burn charcoal, dung and wood often right inside their dwellings. How much more convenient, healthful and efficient if they have access to kerosene or even natural gas. But the climate alarmists are on the path of making it harder for the poor to improve their lives.

          I travel to China all the time. I have breathed the air in Beijing at its worst and also breathed the air in the outdoor kitchens in the countryside. Nobody likes it. Everybody wants to clean up the air. And they will as they prosper, just like developed countries did. But they aren’t going to be able to afford it chasing unworkable schemes involving windmills and solar panels.

          Come sit with me by the cook fires in Congo and breath deeply the smell and stench of poverty. Help these people. Don’t lord it over them that we can control the weather if only they wouldn’t build a power plant.

          BTW, atmospheric CO2 is not at extremely high levels. What exactly are you thinking?

    • William Abbott
      12 December 2015 @ 1:33 pm

      Pascal’s bargain is: You stand to lose nothing but gain everything believing in Jesus Christ. In doing something about AGW you gain nothing but you crush the poorest of the poor and spend astronomically.

      The poor need cheap abundant energy. To make the simplest improvements in their lives. To cook with clean fossil fuels, instead of environmentally acceptable cow dung. Or to deforest their nations for fuel like Haiti. Breathing the smoke and soot of cook fires compromises the health of millions in very measurable ways.

      The US has reduced CO2 emissions 24% over the last 20 years. All western countries are trending down. All the meaningful reductions must come from developing nations. There is no other place for them to come from.

      Lazarus and the Rich Man is a parable where the Rich are condemned for doing nothing to help the poor. CO2 reductions crush the poor and keep them poor.

      We can’t control the climate. We can’t even understand how complex weather is. Its gnostic balderdash. Its evil hubris. We are pretending (or lying) when we say we can.

  6. ER
    11 December 2015 @ 10:24 pm

    Why do most of these comments seem more political than moderate or realistic? We know that changes are occurring for whatever reason and that shouldn’t be a surprise given our prophetic understanding of the times we live in. And human beings are generally greedy, lazy slobs when it comes to the environment, whether that’s a major factor or not in the change.
    I conclude that being followers of right-wing politics is more important to some than religious teachings.

  7. Roger Metzger
    12 December 2015 @ 7:13 am

    ER, et al,

    If you can keep your head when all about you are loosing theirs and blaming it on you….

    My mother-in-law (rest her soul) told of a time when she assumed that all Christians were Republicans or at least voted Republican. She also told of her amazement when she discovered that some people she had decided were truly Christian turned out to more often vote for Democratic candidates.

    I don’t blame Christians (or anybody else) for avoiding “liberalism” by the current definition (which includes the use of Government to redistribute wealth) but that has led many Adventists to the same assumption as was made my my mother-in-law when she was young.

    “Classical liberalism” is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade. Up until around 1900, this ideology was generally known simply as liberalism. The qualifying “classical” is now usually necessary, in English-speaking countries at least…because liberalism has come to be associated with wide-ranging interferences with private property and the market. (MisesInstitute)

    Christians who think all Christians are “conservative” might want to revisit the classic definition of liberalism–or/and review how Ellen White used the term, “conservative”.

  8. danny bell
    12 December 2015 @ 8:13 pm

    The “White – oops Weather Lie”………

  9. earl calahan
    12 December 2015 @ 11:01 pm

    i’ve been around for close to ninety years, and several times we had global warming for a few years. And then we had global cooling for several years. People talked of not being able to stand the heat, and then when the cooling returned, they spoke of us freezing to death, and glaziers covering the whole USA. The weather we have had in the past has had these cyclic variations, since records were kept. Mankind does not cause these variations. There are the norm for the world. Volcanos spew more mineral particles into the air annually than mankind does in a thousand years. This is strictly a global political falsehood, being thrust upon the world strictly to permit the United Nations to formulate global policy for the whole world. The harbinger,of the push for the “‘One World Government”, that the Euro Union, and the world bankers, and U.S. politicians, starting with George Bush Senior, for many years, and most current politicos. Al Gore, has made hundreds of millions of dollars, promoting GLOBAL WARMING, as being caused by man. It’s a boondoggle scam to bring in a group power, telling you and your neighbors what you will do in the future, what you will eat, where you will live, what work you will do, collectively, for the good of all men. That is those who survive the winnowing out process, reducing the masses to 2 or 3 billion souls, of which is what is needed for the planets resources. O’ O’, ITS A CONSPIRACY, YOU CANT BELIEVE THAT.

  10. Roger Metzger
    13 December 2015 @ 6:27 am

    What is the difference between “conservationism” and “environmentalism”?

    My wife asked whether Dr. Wellenkamp’s participation in the climate change conference is sponsored by any entity of our denomination other than individuals. I’m almost afraid to ask. If that were so, I would be VERY embarrassed.