Bill Nye once on gender probability, A Limerick

What makes you a girl or a boy?

As Chromosomes unfurl with joy

its XX or XY

only 2, and that’s why

it’s woman or man, let’s enjoy.

Or, as the French say: Vive la différence! But then again, the French have a fully gendered language. Everything has a gender, male or female, nothing transgender.

We have come a long way. Bill Nye, the “Science Guy” showed a skit on Netflix that I cannot repost here, it is so gross, essentially claiming that anything goes sexually, and anything is “morally” equivalent. (By objecting to it, I guess it makes me a homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, omniphobic hater.) Or, maybe I am like the Bill Nye of the 1990’s, here using a girl to explain probability.

From this we learn that the Bible is right:

Genesis 1:27, KJV  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

This is not hate, it is God-given biological truth.

 

Scientists’ march on DC, a Limerick.

A scientists’ march on D.C. ?

It can’t apolitical be.

For they must get their grants

through political chants.

Conform or get cut, can’t you see?

Sometimes in the near future there will be yet another march on Washington. This time it is from “concerned scientists” that want to take politics out of science, be allowed to be true scientists with no biases or prejudices.  To prove the point they have laid down the ground rules for participation in the march and produced this manifesto: There are certain things that we accept as facts with no alternatives. The Earth is becoming warmer due to human action. The diversity of life arose by evolution. Politicians who devalue expertise risk making decisions that do not reflect reality and must be held accountable. An American government that ignores science to pursue ideological agendas endangers the world.

Let’s take a look at that manifesto. There are certain things that we accept as facts with no alternatives. What happened to scientific curiosity? Is science ever settled? Do they mean there is nothing new to discover?

The Earth is becoming warmer due to human action. Well, for once I agree. We are returning CO2 to the atmosphere in increasing amount, and that is good. If nothing else changed, the logarithmic temperature increase with increased CO2 levels would cause the earth to warm up by 0.9C for a doubling of CO2, more if there is a gain in the system, less if there is negative feedback. The gain factors are mostly due to increased evaporation from warmer oceans, the negative feedback is supplied mostly through increased clouds, coming from increased absolute humidity. (I realise there are many other factors affecting climate, but this is a start, science is by no means settled). What is observed is that the earth is getting greener, and the increased CO2 from 280 PPM to 405 PPM makes the earth able to feed another two billion people without starving, not to mention plants and animals, and also use less water in doing so. Check the figure:increaseThe growth without added fertilizers 11%, extrapolated from the beginning of burning fossil fuels to now the increase is about 42%. This is a transfer of wealth from areas burning the fuel to agricultural areas, mostly in developing countries.

The diversity of life arose by evolution. Now that is a limiting statement. While there is great evidence for adaption, a valid scientific explanation for evolution simply is not credible, apart from intelligent design. The math is not there for another explanation, the DNA code is too complicated and complete including repair codes, start and stop codes to induce aging, and with codes to allow for future adaption already built in!

Politicians who devalue expertise risk making decisions that do not reflect reality and must be held accountable. The number of guilty politicians are too numerous to count.

An American government that ignores science to pursue ideological agendas endangers the world. Agree. No government exemplified this more than the Obama Government.  The Trump administration will restore balance in science, no longer excel in nonsense like this from Charles Bolden  “When I became the NASA administrator — or before I became the NASA administrator — he (Obama) charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science … and math and engineering,”

With Obama gone, it’s time for NASA to return to science and space exploration, a Limerick.

Let NASA get back into space

forget all that Climate Change chase.

No more Muslims to praise

or true science debase.

Explore God’s creation – and grace!

In July 2010 NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said in an interview that his “foremost” mission as the head of America’s space exploration agency is to improve relations with the Muslim world.

Shown here is NASA Administrator Charles Bolden. (YouTube)

Shown here is NASA Administrator Charles Bolden. (YouTube)

 

Though international diplomacy would seem well outside NASA’s orbit, Bolden said in an interview with Al Jazeera that strengthening those ties was among the top tasks President Obama assigned him. He said better interaction with the Muslim world would ultimately advance space travel.

When I became the NASA administrator — or before I became the NASA administrator — he charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science … and math and engineering,” Bolden said in the interview.

NASA has not been the same since. Let us turn back to the original mission for NASA, to forward science and understanding of God’s universe through space exploration!

 

The Pope: Priests to preach global warming.

The sin of the world: Unbelief!

The Pope has surrendered: Good Grief!

To the climate change lot;

It’s the globalist plot.

But Jesus, our only relief.

Who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creation rather than the One having created— Who is blessed forever, amen. Romans 1:25

“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman.  “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Genesis 3:4-5

What did God say?  From Genesis 9:8-17

Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: “I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”

12 And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”

17 So God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth.”

So the Pope has exchanged the Gospel of Jesus Christ, salvation from sins through belief in Him, redemption through His death on the cross and His resurrection, and substituted it with the gospel of global governance to save the world from global warming. The claim is they do it for science when global control is their true aim.

The truth is that the promise of God is in the clouds. They act as a near perfect regulator to prevent overheating. We will never exceed the temperatures of the Minoan optimum, but we will go to another ice age. Greenlandgisp-last-10000-newThe increase in CO2 will delay the onset of the next ice age by at least 2000 years.

God’s promise to Noah is quite profound: ( Genesis 8:21b-22) “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

22 “As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night
will never cease.”

How are the harvests coming?  Thanks to increased CO2 the earth is getting greener! 11% without additional fertilizers, benefiting both people and animals. O2 is increased!increaseThis means another billion or more will be rescued from starving, the increase is the greatest in developing countries.

I doubt this is what the Roman Catholic Priests’ will be preaching from the pulpits.

Instead, this is what they will learn: The Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences is the world’s oldest, longest running scientific mission. That body, which advises the pope on matters of science, has concluded that global climate change is real and is caused, at least in significant part, by human activity.

This is important to the Church because creation care is part of our mission. We are called to be stewards of creation. It’s also important because climate change can exacerbate the ills of poverty. Poor people in much of the world are the most vulnerable to changes.
In the western, industrialized world, a drought means bottled water becomes more expensive. In the developing world, a drought means people starve and die.

Unfortunately, the issue is politicized. In the late 1970s, when the issue threatened the financial interests of the fossil fuel industry, the political lobbies, chiefly in the United States, financed a massive political disinformation campaign to manufacture the illusion of dissent within the scientific community.

We know because this manipulation of public opinion has been caught and documented. The fossil fuel industry funds nearly all of the climate change skeptics, going so far as to commission questionable studies, to financing think tanks, and even paying individual bloggers. The deception continues today.

Few things could be further from the truth. The established community of experts agree with frightful consensus that the planet is warming because of human activity. And while nature may play a role in the natural heating of the planet it is known that the Earth’s temperature is dynamic, humans are clearly responsible for much of the present warming.

The Earth’s temperatures are spiking faster that at any time in history. The speed of the warming is so great, it is fueling extinctions and other crisis. Natural selection, evolution and adaptation cannot keep up with the pace of rapid change.

Climate change is costing lives already, and will continue to cost more lives in the future.

source: http://www.catholic.org/news/green/story.php?id=72433

the whole pontification    http://www.clerus.va/content/dam/clerus/Ratio%20Fundamentalis/The%20Gift%20of%20the%20Priestly%20Vocation.pdf

 

 

Climate change is on balance good! A Limerick and explanation.

The Epoch named Anthropocene:

Man’s fire appeared on the scene.

CO2, it is good

makes it green, grows more food.

To call it THE threat, that’s obscene.

We live in a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene, where Earth faces the immediate danger of runaway heat catastrophe. So says Science Advances  09 Nov. 2016: Nonlinear climate sensitivity and its implications for future greenhouse warming.  The paper claims that as temperature increases due to increased CO2 levels the climate sensitivity also increases leading to global heating runaway. To prove the point it provides the following graph:

globaltemperatureIt was timed for the day after the U.S. election to highlight the necessity of complete adherence to the Paris accord. This accord is one of  the accomplishments of the Obama administration, as President Barack Obama said April 22, 2016: “Today is Earth Day — the last one I’ll celebrate as President. Looking back over the past seven years, I’m hopeful that the work we’ve done will allow my daughters and all of our children to inherit a cleaner, healthier, and safer planet. But I know there is still work to do.

Can this really be true that implementing the Paris agreement is our only chance to avert this disaster?

I still remember well the first Earth Day, April 22, 1970, the 100th anniversary of Lenin’s birth. It was in Philadelphia, and Ira Einhorn,Earthday1070IraEinhorn later known as the Unicorn killer was master of ceremonies. At that time the great fear was that we are heading for another ice age because of all the acid rain the coal burning electricity plants spewed out, and having just visited Pittsburgh, I totally agreed and was ready to jump in and help. The acid rain was said to wipe out the trouts in the Northern, acidic lakes, and pollution was seen everywhere. Being from Sweden and having just 6a00d83451580669e2019b01ece999970bimmigrated I was appalled at the lack of concern for the environment, and the imminent threat of the coming ice age. Even Time Magazine jumped into the fray and wrote about the rapid increase of the Arctic Ice cover and other signs of the onset of a new Ice age. Average temperatures was to be maybe up to seven degrees colder by the year 2000, so prepare!

Having been raised in Sweden, born in a town on the granite covered shores of lysekil-swedenSkagerrak there were signs of the last ice age everywhere. Sweden is still recovering from it and is rising out of the ocean at a rate of up to three feet per century and has been doing so since the inland ice began to melt. Of course this contributes to sea levels rising in the rest of the world.  The Ice Age left evidence of cataclysmic events as the climate switched from cold to warm. I still remember when as a lad my father took me to a place in Western Sweden, called “Brobacka” where there are  around 40 “jattegrytor” (giant kettles),  including the biggest giant kettle in the Nordic countries, measuring 59 feet  wide. They were formed when large rivers formed under the rapidly melting icepack. We learned in school about ice ages, and that we are at the end of the interglacial period, and we narrowly avoided a new ice age in the 1600’s and are thankful it didn’t happen then.

The normal climate for the earth is that we are in an ice age, which is a very stable period, but for  some reason an imbalance occurs and the climate switches abruptly to an interglacial period. After a few thousand years we go back into an ice age and stay there for around 100000 years and the cycle repeats. The question is, what mechanism is ruling ice ages and interglacial periods?

antarctic_icecoreTDoes CO2 concentration drive climate change? From the chart above it seems so. Properly plotted there seems to be a near perfect alignment.  But to find what is cause and effect we need to expand the time scale as is seen in the figure below:

end-of-ice-age-edWe can see from these charts that CO2 concentrations and temperature follow each other closely, but, and this is important:  Air Temperature rises first, then comes the increase in CO2 and finally the rise in ocean temperature. As ice melts and the ocean temperature increases it releases CO2, and this leads to a further temperature rise.  But at some time the temperature stops rising while CO2 levels still rise.  Since about 10000 years ago the temperature has been slowly decreasing and so has the CO2 levels. The Coral reefs make carbonates, the bogs make cellulose, the oceans revert to cooling and start to absorb CO2 again.

Give thanks for “the pause” and clouds. A Limerick.

What is the reason for the cooling? Could it be volcanic eruptions?

Maybe, but volcanic eruptions are temporary and does not cool the climate for more than a few years. Meanwhile enjoy the vegetation during this interglacial warm period.leaf-areaIt is true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,  second only to water vapor in importance.It is responsible for about 9 degree Celsius rise in global temperature, and if CO2 increases, so does its greenhouse effect. The increased temperature leads to more water vapor in the air, and water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas, so there is a risk of reaching a “tipping point” when we could experience a thermal runaway of the planet. All of this is true, so U.N. and many governments around the world have sponsored studies to model  climate change, over a hundred models have been constructed, they all come up with rather gloomy forecasts. The research is so intense that over 3 billion dollars of government monies are spent yearly on climate change research.

All models show a similar pattern, a fairly steep and more or less linear rise in temperature as CO2 increases. There is only one major thing wrong with them. They do not agree with what is happening to the global temperature. We have now had 224 months (Sep 2015) without any global warming. Since then there has been a rather strong el nino, much like the one in 1998 and global temperatures have been at new record temperatures after adjustment of old temperatures.

Back to the climate models chart

CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1What is wrong with the models? They all assume a passive earth, where there is no negative feedback to the changing environment. It turns out, the earth has a “governor”, and it can be expressed in one word, albedo, which means “whiteness” or how much of the incoming sunlight that gets reflected back into space. The major albedo changes of the earth are the appearance of clouds. How do the models do on clouds?

CloudmodelsNone of the models agree with reality when it comes to clouds. It also matters what type of clouds there are, and when they occur. Night clouds keep the warm in and increases the greenhouse effect. Daytime clouds reflects the incoming sunlight and the result is a net cooing effect.

Other albedo changers are the amount of ice around the poles, but even land use changes such as forests cut down and replaced by agriculture and urbanization.

When there is snow or ice on the ground, more sunlight gets reflected and it gets colder still. Urban heat islands are warmer than the surroundings, airports are warmer than its surroundings. Interestingly, that is where we are placing our new weather stations. (This is great for pilots that have to evaluate take-off and landing conditions, but is less than ideal for climate research. But then again, climate research has moved from the realm of physical science to political science, where different rules do apply.)

The most important albedo changers of the earth are clouds. Without them no land based life would be possible since clouds serve both as rain makers and temperature stabilizers. If there were no clouds the equilibrium temperature at the equator would be around 140 degrees F.

Over the oceans, in the so called “doldrums” where there are no trade winds, the mornings start with a warm-up, and when the conditions are right a shower or thunderstorm occurs. The ambient temperature is usually between 84 and 88 degrees when this happens. As CO2 concentrations increase thunderstorms occur a few minutes earlier and last a little bit longer, but they are no more severe and as a result the average temperature stays the same.

See the following chart. It is divided into five regions, Arctic, North temperate, tropical, South temperate and Antarctic.uah-lower-troposphere-temperatureThe next region is the North temperate. This includes the desert areas. In desert areas of the world this temperature regulator doesn’t work well, so deserts will receive the full force of temperature increase which is 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit per doubling of CO2 levels.

In the temperate region the temperature increase will be somewhere in between. Dry days will be warmer, cloudy and rainy days will have the same temperature as before, since the cloud regulator starts to function.

The Arctic and Antarctic regions are a special case. None of the models have done a good job at modeling the clouds at the poles, especially the South Pole. (See the cloud chart above.) The Arctic will warm up more than 2 degrees F, how much is a question. In the South average temperatures will rise from – 70 degrees F in the interior all the way to maybe – 63 degrees F, and come closer to freezing in the summer at the northern edges. There may be added snowfall that will expand the ice sheet. The Antarctic ice sheet has set new records since record keeping began, and war 2 years ago bottoming out at 30% more ice than the 30 year average. Recently even the Antarctic ice sheet been receding.

The North Pole region is even more complicated since it is partially land, partially ocean. The oceanic ice cap has been shrinking  at a fairly constant rate the last 30 years, but since 2012 it broke the trend and grew back to break the trend line. The winter snow cap has remained at about the same level year to year with a slightly positive trend line, this year being no exception.  So, why is the snow cover growing slightly, but ice cover shrinking? The common explanation has been global warming, but the ice cover kept shrinking even as the temperature increase leveled off. There are two possible explanations: Warming oceans and changes in pollution. The North Atlantic Oscillation has been mostly positive (warmer) since 1970 and has only recently turned negative, so that is certainly part of the cause of the shrinking of the icecap, but another candidate is even more likely: Carbon Pollution. With that I do not mean CO2, but good old soot, spewing out from the smokestacks of  power plants in China. 45% of all coal burned is burned in China, often low grade lignite with no scrubbers. The air in Beijing is toxic to humans more days than not. Some of that soot finds its way to the arctic and settles on the ice, changing its albedo, and the sun has a chance to melt the ice more efficiently. This occurs mostly in the months of August and September when the Sun is at a low angle anyway, so the changing of the albedo has very little effect on temperature. The net result of all this is that the temperature in the North Pole region will rise about 4 degrees Fahrenheit for a doubling of the CO2. This will have a very minor effect on the Greenland ice cap since they are nearly always way below freezing anyway (-28 degree C average). The largest effect will happen in August and September in the years when all new snow has melted and the soot from years past is exposed. This happened two years ago with a sudden drop in albedo for the Greenland ice. It will also lead to an increase in the precipitation in the form of snow, so the net result is the glaciers may start growing again if the amount of soot can be reduced.

An interesting fact is that the sunlight reflection is larger over water than over ice in August and September in the Arctic, co melting the Arctic ice reduces the greenhouse effect.

The conclusion is: The temperature regulator of the earth is working quite well, and the increase in temperature at the poles is welcome as it lessens the temperature gradient between the tropics and the polar regions, which in turn reduces the severity of storms, and tornadoes, since they are mostly generated by temperature differences and the different density of warm, humid and dry, cold air.

 

hurricaneshurricanesmajor

 

tornadoes

 

tornadosvsco2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Polar Bears will do quite well, their numbers have more than doubled in the last 50 years.

Will droughts increase? The data does not indicate so:

sdata20141-f51

What about ocean acidification? As CO2 increases, a lot of it will be absorbed in the oceans, thereby making the oceans more acid. This is true, but CO2 is a very mild acid and has a minor acidic influence. Of much more importance is acid rain. At one time in the 70’s some lakes in Norway had a Ph. of about 4.5, enough to kill most trout fishes. In Sweden it was said they fertilized their rivers and lakes four times as much as tilled soil, leading to significant acidification of both the Baltic and the North Sea. The Baltic Sea is still in danger of total oxygen depletion. By comparison to these dangers CO2 in the ocean is only a very minor disturbance. Clean the rivers and lakes first!

ph-feb-ocean-800

Oh, and one more thing. The sea level rise is a natural phenomenon of tectonic plate movements, the Atlantic Ridge is rising and the Eastern Seaboard is sinking.  These movements will continue to occur regardless of the climate.

John Kerry said in Indonesia the other day: “The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand. We don’t have time for a meeting anywhere of the Flat Earth Society.  And in a sense, climate change can now be considered another weapon of mass destruction, perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.

The opposite is true, increased levels of CO2 is a major vehicle of wealth distribution. (Green is increased plant growth, red is decreased,  1982 – 2010)

increaseThe increase in temperature is manageable and even desirable in most regions of the world, desert areas and areas prone to flooding being the exception.

In conclusion:

CO2 is a clean gas, necessary for life, and an increase in the amount of CO2 is highly desirable.

The very minor increase in temperature is on balance beneficial, since it leads to a less violent climate, with fewer storms, hurricanes and tornadoes.

The increase in CO2 makes us able to feed another 2 billion people on earth, not to mention additional wildlife.

Ocean acidification is a problem, not so much from CO2, but from sulfuric acid, nitrates and other pollutants. The major offender: China.

The increase in precipitation is beneficial, except in areas already prone to flooding. It is especially welcome in arid areas. The chart below show no increase in heavy rains as CO2 increases.

heavyrainfallvsco2

On the other hand the great conservationist SARAH PALIN once said: “We’ve got to remind Americans that the effort has got to be even greater today toward conservation because these finite resources that we’re dealing with obviously – once oil is gone it’s gone, once gas is gone, it’s gone. And I think our nation has really become kind of spoiled in that arena.”[Fox News, Hannity’s America, 10/12/08]

Coal, oil, peat, wood  and natural gas are our best raw material to sustain life as we know it, and are far to valuable to waste on electricity production, so let us switch electricity production to thorium based nuclear energy

. https://lenbilen.com/2012/02/15/nuclear-power-and-earthquakes-how-to-make-it-safer-and-better/

https://lenbilen.com/2012/02/15/eleven-reasons-to-switch-to-thorium-based-nuclear-power-generation/

https://lenbilen.com/2012/02/15/eleven-more-reasons-to-switch-to-thorium-as-nuclear-fuel/

https://lenbilen.com/2012/02/15/nuclear-power-why-we-chose-uranium-over-thorium-and-ended-up-in-this-mess-time-to-clean-up/

https://lenbilen.com/2012/01/31/energy-from-thorium-save-500-million-from-the-budget-now/

Coal can be converted to jet fuel and gasoline, air planes have no alternative fuels.

I welcome constructive comments. Tell me where I am going wrong. I have done my very best to look at what is really happening to the earth and from there draw conclusions, rather than rely on climate models.

 

 

 

Climate change is now “Atmospheric Radicalization”. A Limerick.

Maybe governments will actually listen if we stop saying “extreme weather” & “climate change” & just say the atmosphere is being radicalized

 

The “Atmosphere Radicalized?”

Old “Climate Change” is now despised.

With this Washington speak

their hot air starts to reek

of Ozone. “Free radicals pride!”

On “The sin of the world” and “The lie”, what does that mean?

On “The sin of the world” and “The lie”, what does that mean?
I am a man. I tend to forget anniversaries. They sneak up on me like a thief in the night, and suddenly and without warning I have to think and act fast to come up with something to celebrate the occasion. For women it is usually no problem. They do remember.
People react differently when disaster strikes. On a Monday, October 2, 2006 a man in Nickel Mines, Pa opened fire, killed 5 and wounded 5 Amish school girls in their little one room schoolhouse, then killed himself. The world reacted with horror, but the Amish attended the killer’s funeral and the murderer’s widow attended the funeral of one of the girls. The next Monday the school and privies and fence was no more, the yard and adjacent field was plowed. There was no trace there ever was a school. They chose not to remember the crime against their fellow men, but desired to follow the Lord Jesus’ admonition: “And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us”
Not so the Muslims.
On November 14, 1914, in Constantinople, capital of the Ottoman Empire, the religious leader Sheikh-ul-Islam declared an Islamic holy war on behalf of the Ottoman government. He Sheikh-ul-IslamMuhammadspeaksurged his Muslim followers to take up arms against Britain, France, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro in World War I.
The Fatwa reads in part: “Of those who go to the Jihad for the sake of happiness and salvation of the believers in God’s victory, the lot of those who remain alive is felicity, while the rank of those who depart to the next world is martyrdom. In accordance with God’s beautiful promise, those who sacrifice their lives to give life to the truth will have honor in this world, and their latter end is paradise.”
The following years nearly two million Christians, mostly Armenians were executed in a genocide. The men were hanged or beheaded, the women and girls were stripped naked, raped and then crucified by the thousands.
On November 14, 2014, exactly 100 years later the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. hosted a Muslim Friday prayer, off limits to Christians.
Coincidence? I think not.
The intent was good, reconciliation between Christians and Muslims. “If we show our good will, they will reciprocate, and the world will be a better place with peace and good will MuslimsinWashingtonCathredraltoward men.”
Nothing could be further from the truth.
When John the Baptist saw Jesus coming he proclaimed: “Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world”.
Why is “the sin” singular? There are many sins, in fact everything that is not in perfect accordance with God’s will can be called a sin.
In a way the Muslim prayer in the Washington Cathedral is a good example of “the sin of the world”.
The Muslims issued the call to prayer, the men (separate from the women” prostrated themselves with their face to Mecca and their derrieres towards the crucifix, proclaiming “Allah Akbar”. In so doing they declared the Washington Cathedral “Dar-al-Islam”, territory claimed for the Islamic Caliphate in perpetuity. But that is not “The sin”.
The sin is denying Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, Crucified, buried and resurrected. Somehow, in the minds of the Episcopal Church leaders, this is less important than ecumenism. The Muslims, while acknowledging the virgin birth of Jesus Christ deny his death, burial and resurrection. If they did accept this, that would make Muhammad a liar, thus blaspheming the Prophet.
There was a woman, Christine Weick, who drove all the way from her Tennessee home to deliver a message of truth to the Muslim worshipers: “Jesus Christ died on that cross over MuslimChristianthere. He is the reason why we are to worship only Him. Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior.”
She continued, “We have built, and allowed you here in mosques across this country. Why can’t you worship in your mosque, and leave our churches alone?”
She was quickly escorted out of the Cathedral and prayer continued with their faces to Mecca and their derrieres towards the cross.
The Sin is unbelief in the Lord Jesus Christ and the redemption, God reconciling us back to himself through the power of the cross. The sin of willfully separating ourselves from God and rejecting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is what John the Baptist referred to when he said: “Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world”.
Now for “The lie”.

Lies seem to be increasing, especially in politics. (Politics as you know comes from two Greek words: Poly which means many, and ticks which means blood sucking pests) Politics is also the art of the possible, where you bring different factions together and come to a solution that is mutually beneficial for all parties. This only works if the negotiations are based on truthfulness rather than lies.
So, what is “The lie”?
Satan is referred to as “the father of lies”, but that is lies in plural, and we are perfectly capable of lying ourselves, so let us not involve him here except for one thing: It started in the Garden of Eden. Satan, in the form of the serpent said: “Did God really say…?” This started the ball rolling and man was separated from God.
There are two scriptural references to “The lie”
Romans 1:24-25 (NKJV) Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
“The lie” can be best explained as refusal to accept and worship God as the Creator and sustainer of all things, and a strangely fitting anniversary can best explain the lie.
LeninOn April 22 1870, VladimirLenin (Владимир Ильич Ленин) was born. He is the father of modern revolutionary communism, atheistic and centered around the idea that power comes from the barrel of a gun.
April 22 1970, exactly 100 years later it was time for the first Earth day.
Coincidence? I think not.
It started innocently enough with Ira Einhorn (The unicorn killer) as master of ceremonies in Philadelphia, PAearth-day-Einhorn-02 “We only have one earth, so we need to take care of her.” That’s what Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin believed. So he organized the movement. The mantra was: “By the year 2000 the earth will be 10 degrees colder than today unless we act to clean up our air”. This lead to the creation of the EPA, a Clean Air Act, and the threat of the new ice age was averted.
This was a great success, and the environmentalists grew bolder and wanted more action on pollution and habitat protection, but the movement was taken over by the communists, socialists and humanists that saw population control as the main goal to save the planet. They formed a coalition under the banner of “saving the world from the coming environmental catastrophe”.
It was now getting warmer again after the temporary cooling during the 60’s and 70’s, so the earth day movement needed a new attack point to continue their fight for a better and sustainable earth. They found an unlikely ally in Margaret Thatcher, who had her run in with the coal unions that was ruining Britain’s economy, mining coal seams as narrow as a few inches. She wanted to do away with unprofitable coal and concentrate on nuclear power, and the greenhouse effect of CO2 started to get promoted. It took on a life of its own. Research money was suddenly available to study the atmosphere and climate.
Let me pause here and indulge in a personal anecdote. Many years ago, around 1977 Dr. James Lovelock bought a number of HP Gas Chromatographs to set up in the remotest corners of the earth to study pollution and its effect on the climate. What he found was an unexpectedly large amount of dimethylsulphide (DMS) (ref 3)microbes_sar11 in the atmosphere, and that acted as a condensation point for cloud formation. He was then a paid consultant for Hewlett Packard, so he came over from his native England a couple of times a year, always willing to hold a seminar for us engineers, and at one of them he sprung “Daisy-world” on us, before it was published, mostly to see if we could poke holes in his hypothesis. It involved a world that consisted of only two flowers, black daisies and white daisies. The computer simulation starts out with a cold world and a weak sun. The sun warms up until suddenly black daisies appear and cover the earth. This warms the earth some more and white daisies appear. As the sun varies in intensity the mix of white and black daisies changes and this keeps the earth at a stable temperature, as they have different reflective properties. He then went on to say that the whole earth is like a living organism.
Some time later he presented the paper and the next year we asked him how it was received. “You won’t believe it”, he answered. ”Now there are people who actually believe the earth is a living organism. They demand follow-up articles that justifies their belief.” He had partly himself to blame, the name he chose was the GAIA hypothesis, Gaia being the Mother earth Goddess. Talking about religion the Mother Earth people now had their goddess, and expressions like. “The earth has a temperature” became commonplace. For me, being a Christian I read with wonderment what God has to say about the Ecosystem.

We find this in Genesis 1:6-8 (NIV) And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
The creation story is interesting reading. God takes a whole day out His busy schedule of creation just to create the clouds. In days three to five of creation He adds the statement “And God saw that it was good”, on day six it was “very good”. Could it be that God knows the ecosystem is fragile and we are going to mess it up beyond repair? Exactly why was it then very good? Could it be it was very good after the whole creation was complete, all the components that make up a stable ecosystem was put in place? First then could He finally say: Genesis 1:31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
Let us hurry back to our quest for something other than pollution that acts as a negative feedback to make the temperature system stable. With some anxiety (we are part of the ecosystem, so we better try to understand it) but also assurance we return to the GAIA factor.
As is mentioned before, Dr. Lovelock had found unusually high amounts of dimethylsulphide (DMS) in places far from any pollution source. Something must have put it there. It turns out DMS is a waste product from phytoplankton, an abundant life form in the oceans, low on the food chain. As ocean temperature rises, phytoplankton levels increase, suggesting a possible feedback mechanism. The DMS molecules act as a condensation kernel for the formation of Clouds. This is something that it is hard to get a grip on. Clouds have a positive feedback as they hold in heat once captured by the earth, but that is more than offset by the large negative feedback that is caused by the albedo factor. The white clouds act as a reflector, and more of the solar energy gets reflected back out into space. This negative feedback factor can be as high as – 1.9 W m-2/°C. This means there is a strong negative feedback in the ecosystem keeping the earth from boiling over since water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.
None of this mattered to the Mother Earth people believing in GAIA. They formed a coalition with the communists and socialists and Global Governance advocates and convinced U.N. that CO2 was bad and needed to be controlled, and so IPCC was formed to give the scientific justification why it was necessary to control CO2 emissions. I do not know how many Global Climate models there are out there, but I have seen (1) a chart with 73 Climate models, all pointing to a rapidly warming earth, plotted versus reality, which shows a more or less stable temperature versus time. But the models are all paid for by Government money, so the more, the merrier. They all do a lousy job modeling clouds, so no wonder they fail. (2) But they produce the result the funding agencies demanded for continuing funding, so the charade goes on. The models are all based on a positive feedback with increasing temperatures. When it gets warmer, the atmosphere can hold more water vapor, and since water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, it gets warmer still. In reality, the opposite is true. With increased water vapor there will form clouds earlier and lasting longer, leading to a negative feedback that tends to keep temperatures more stable. More CO2 will aid in that stability. Granted, there is still increasing temperatures with increasing CO2, but instead of a gain of 2 to 3, which the models predict, there is an attenuation of about 2 to 3, so the real temperature rise is one ninth to a quarter of what the models predict.
But the models are useful for one thing: To create an urgency in people, so they will go along with Global Governance, or an unelected government taking control of the energy resources.
But even that is a side issue. The real issue is people control as expressed in Agenda 21. The world has about 7.1 billion people, and some have calculated that an ideal, sustainable world has room for only 700 million people, if enough areas are set aside for wildlife and nature preserves. After all, the animals were here first!
This attitude is expressed in a number of recent government advisers.JonathanGruber
The “architect” of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber’s abortion advocacy is of a particularly pungent eugenics variety. He’s on record repeatedly making the case from social science that abortion is a “social good” because it reduces the number of “marginal children,” by which he means urban poor—those he says can be counted on to commit crimes if they were ever born.
The Presidential Science Advisor John Holdren has a plethora of population control suggestions:John_Holdren_official_portrait_small
Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.
One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.
On Involuntary fertility control :…
A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.
Toward a Planetary Regime:

Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.
We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force:
If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.
This is more than enough to give a hint on what the Obama Administration meant by “Fundamental transformation
This is what happens when people start to serve “The Creature rather than the Creator” and that is “The Lie”.

The connection between “The sin” and “The lie”, represented by Muslims annihilating Christians, and progressives annihilating people is their hatred for the Cross. The Muslims deny Jesus Christ as redeemer by his substitutionary death on the cross, and the progressives deny the cross as redemption of mankind, substituting God with man as redeemer.

This explains the hatred of the cross. It is an offense and a stumbling block for the unbeliever.

Lennart Bilén, 2014

(1) Real temperature over time versus predicted by models.

CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1

(2) Model cloud cover versus rality

Cloudmodels

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(3) https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/16/ocean-bacteria-are-programmed-to-alter-climate-gases/comment-page-1/#comment-2216450