I just suffered through the last conversation I will listen to where an ignorant person tries to explain why the ‘terrorists’ are perverting Islam and how Islam is actually a ‘peaceful’ religion.  THAT IS NOT WHAT MUHAMMAD TAUGHT!

To those who believe the ‘terrorists’ have perverted Islam, I say that it is a violation of Natural Law, the principles of sound reasoning and basic civic duty to:

— Speak from ignorance — especially when your words place others in mortal jeopardy!

— Refuse to educate yourself!

— Reject correction when it is offered by those who know more than you!

— Reject the truth once you have learned it!

If I sound angry, I apologize.  I am not angry; I am frustrated.  For the last three days, I listened to radio talk show host, Mike Broomhead, as he admitted he does not know Islam, then went ahead and old his audience that the ‘terrorists’ believe in a perversion of Islam.  According to Broohead, the ‘radical’ Muslims have perverted the teachings of Muhammad much the same way the Westboro Baptist church has perverted the teaching of Christ.  Then today, Broomhead put a Westernized Sunni Muslim on the radio to support his claims that the ‘terrorists’ are following a perverted teaching of Islam.  Even Beck, who claims to have written his book, “It Is About Islam,” has told his audience that the ‘terrorists’ are following a perverted understanding of Islam.  Well, I am telling anyone who will listen, these people are all wrong about Islam and the teachings of Muhammad (and several of them are flat-out lying about it).

The root of the problem is that Jesus told His followers that those who live by the sword will die by the sword, while Muhammad boasted that he and his followers would be victorious by the sword.  The two religions are negations of each other.  This means you cannot make direct comparisons between them.  If you do, you will be wrong — period!  I have written that it is against Natural Law and the principles of logic and sound reasoning to accept heresay when you can go directly to the source.  This is why I ignored what I was hearing about Islam from our politicians, the news and from commentators and took the time to read the Qur’an for myself instead — just like Jefferson and our founders did.  And, just like Jefferson and our founders, I discovered the truth about Islam is much different from what these people have been telling us.

Did you know that the Qur’an is a mess?  You cannot make a religion from it.  You need the Sunna for that.  The Sunna is a collection of Hadith, or sayings and customs of Muhammad.  You also need Muhammad’s official biography.  This is because you have to have Muhammad’s example of how to live Islam, or none of the Qur’an will make any sense.  The Sunna and official biography of Muhammad are all official holy books in Islam.  They are also where the truly ugly side of Islam hides.  Very few in the West are even aware of the existence of these other Islamic holy books, let alone what is in them.  If they were, then they would not be so accepting of the ignorance and lies coming from our ‘leaders.’

Islam was created by Muhammad.  He is the sole creator of this religion.  There were no other co-founders.  This makes Muhammad the soul and highest authority on what Islam is and is not.  His words end all discussion and debate on any issue concerning Islam.  Muhammad said this very same thing.  In fact, he made it a command to all Muslims:

Qur’an 4:65

“They can have no Faith, until they make you (Muhammad) judge in all disputes, and find in their souls no resistance against Your decisions, accepting them with complete submission.”

Qur’an 33:36

“No Muslim has any choice after Allah and His Apostle have decided a matter.”

 

Qur’an 4:114

“He who disobeys the Apostle after guidance has been revealed will burn in Hell.”

Muhammad also claimed to be the ‘perfect’ man, and that his example was the ‘perfect’ example for all Muslims to follow:

Qur’an 33:21

“You have indeed a noble paradigm in the Apostle of Allah.” [A second translation reads:] “You have in (Muhammad) the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern of conduct for anyone to follow.” [A third reads:] “Verily in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example for him who looks unto Allah and the Last Day.” [A fourth reads:] “Certainly you have in the Messenger of Allah an excellent prototype.” [A fifth says:] “You have indeed a noble paradigm [archetype, exemplar, standard, model, or pattern] to follow in Allah’s Apostle.”

Muhammad even went so far as to equate himself with his god, Allah, in that Muhammad commanded Muslims to pray to him.  Muhammad even said Allah and the angels prayed to him, Muhammad:

Qur’an 33:56

Allah sends His Salat on the Prophet (Muhammad) and also His angels too. O you who believe! Send your Salat on him (Muhammad), and  greet him with the Islamic way of greeting (salutation i.e. As-Salamu ‘Alaikum).

Salat means:

• 1. the ritual prayer of Muslims, performed five times daily in a set form.

So, what did Muhammad say about terrorism?  He said:

Bukhari:V4B52N220

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.’”

What did Muhammad say about Jihad?

Qur’an:2:216

“Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims), though you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and like a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not.” [Another translation reads:] “Warfare is ordained for you.”

If you are a non-Muslim and you have a Muslim friend, you might want to consider what Muhammad said about Muslims taking non-Muslims friends:

Qur’an 3:118

“Believers! Take not into your intimacy those outside your religion (pagans, Jews, and Christians). They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin. Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths. What their hearts conceal is far worse. When they are alone, they bite off the very tips of their fingers at you in their rage. Say unto them: ‘Perish in your rage.’”

Qur’an 60:4

“We reject you [non-Muslims]. Hostility and hate have come between us forever, unless you believe in Allah only.’”

And if you think your Muslim friends are telling you the truth, you might want to consider this:

Bukhari 84: 64

Whenever I tell you a narration from Allah’s Apostle, by Allah, I would rather fall down from the sky than ascribe a false statement to him, but if I tell you something between me and you (not a Hadith) then it was indeed a trick (i.e., I may say things just to cheat my enemy). No doubt I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, where-ever you find them, kill them, for who-ever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.”

In case you do not understand, Muhammad gave true believers permission to lie to non-Muslims to protect themselves and/or to further the cause of Islam.  Muhammad also said that, toward the end of time, many will claim to be Muslims, but they will be false Muslims and that true Muslims should kill them.  In fact, Muhammad told the true believers to kill anyone claiming to be Muslim but who disobeys Muhammad’s commands:

Ishaq:322

“Allah said, ‘Do not turn away from Muhammad when he is speaking to you. Do not contradict his orders. And do not be a hypocrite, one who pretends to be obedient to him and then disobeys him. Those who do so will receive My vengeance. You must respond to the Apostle when he summons you to war.”

Qur’an 33:60

“Truly, if the Hypocrites stir up sedition, if the agitators in the City do not desist, We shall urge you to go against them and set you over them. They shall have a curse on them. Whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain without mercy – a fierce slaughter – murdered, a horrible murdering.”

Qur’an 4:90

“If they turn back from Islam, becoming renegades, seize them and kill them wherever you find them.”

Now you know why so many Muslims kill others we believe to be Muslims.  It is because they are following Muhammad’s command to kill the apostates (fake believers) who refuse to obey Muhammad’s commands.

But what of all the supposedly ‘peaceful’ passages in the Qur’an?  For the most part, they come from the first 3 years of Islam, before Muhammad said Allah told him to wage war on non-believers.  About this and many other things, Muhammad said:

Qur’an 2:106

“We do not abrogate any of Our verses (of the Qur’an) or cause it to be forgotten except [unless] that We substitute it with something better or similar; don’t you know that Allah has full power over everything?”

In other words, the ‘peace’ verses were erased and replaced with the commands to wage war until there is only Islam.

But, please, don’t take my word for it.  Read the Qur’an and Hadith for yourself.  Read Muhammad’s biography, the one Islam accepts.  Test it all against history.  Here is a start.  The following each contain passages from the Qur’an and most widely accepted Hadith, all of which are fully cited.  But understand, the passages in these links are but a few select choices.  There are many more.  In fact, 1 in every 55 verses in the Qur’an commands killing.  The Hadith are even worse.

FOR TRUTH SEEKERS ONLY: What Muhammad Actually Said About ‘Muhammad’

FOR TRUTH SEEKERS ONLY: What MUHAMMAD Actually Said about Islam and Terrorism

FOR TRUTH SEEKERS ONLY: What Muhammad Actually Said About Jihad

FOR TRUTH SEEKERS ONLY: What MUHAMMAD Actually Said about Islam and Fighting

FOR TRUTH SEEKERS ONLY: What Muhammad Actually Said About Befriending Infidels

FOR TRUTH SEEKERS ONLY: What Muhammad Actually Said About Lying

FOR TRUTH SEEKERS ONLY: What Muhammad Actually Said About ‘Abrogation’

FOR TRUTH SEEKERS ONLY: What MUHAMMAD Actually Said about Muslims Who Disobey Him (or Try to Change/Leave Islam)

Know that by posting this, I honestly put my life at risk.  Muhammad would see this post as an insult, and so will all true Muslims.  This means they have been commanded to kill me.  I do not fear, as my faith is in the Lord, Jesus Christ.  If you look into it, you will find that Islam is the literal negation of Christianity.  There is no more antichrist religion in this world than Islam.  In fact, in Islamic end times prophecy, their savior is the ‘Antichrist; in the Bible’s Book of Revelation of Jesus Christ.  They champion everything the Bible condemns, and condemn everything the Bible exalts.  And Muhammad left them with a final command to wage war against the entire world until there is only Islam.

UNDERSTANDING ISLAM: Do Not Be Fooled, Know What The Black Flag Of Islam Represents

News Headlines Affirm OYL Posts: Islam Working Toward End Of Days!

 

This is the third in a series of posts addressing the issue of ‘Climate Change.’ In my first post, I explained why ‘Climate Change’ is not based on sound science.  In my second post, I backed that up by showing the history of ‘Climate Change’ shows a pattern of changing between warming and cooling scare.  This will be the most difficult post yet, as, in this post, I will attempt to prove there is a direct link between ‘Climate Change’ and global Communism.  This will be difficult for two reasons.  First, the connections require a rather broad knowledge of political history; both American and international.  But second, it will be difficult because I have to convince you this is real.  That is a difficult task because the same people who hide behind the issue of ‘Climate Change’ have used the idea of ‘Conspiracy Theory’ to protect themselves from being exposed by people such as myself.  Whether you know it or not, you have been conditioned to dismiss me and any evidence I present, and you have been conditioned to do so by the very same people who seek to enslave you using the scare of ‘Climate Change.’  If you will stick with me and give careful consideration to what follows, I believe that I can either convince you I am correct, or provide you with the bread crumbs necessary for you to do the research that will allow you to convince yourself.

A CLEAR EXAMPLE

I want to start with a speech given by President Jimmy Carter.  I’ve chosen this speech because it is not only connected to the issue of ‘Climate Change,’ but it is also one of the easy examples to expose and explain.  The speech was given on April 18. 1977.  In this speech, President Carter connected the energy crisis to something he called ‘the moral equivalent of war.’  That phrase — ‘the moral equivalent of war’ — is a ‘dog whistle’ phrase for those who are behind all of this.

DOG WHISTLE POLITICS

If you are politically inclined, you have probably heard a politician or political commentator accuse an opponent of using a ‘dog whistle‘ phrase.  In America, these accusations most often come from members of the political Left, and are aimed at those on the political Right.  There is good reason for them to make these accusations: it is because they are actually correct, but that is a subject for another post.  What you need to understand is that our politicians and their allies in the media and academia speak a different language.  They learn it in their Ivy League schools and their exclusive societies.  They use this language to communicate openly without fear of the public understanding what they are actually saying.  But, if you know enough history, and where to look to find it, you will discover that you can learn their language.  And once you do, you will come to understand that these people have been openly boasting about their plans for decades.  They’ve just done so using language that leads you to believe they are saying something with which you agree when, in fact, they mean the exact opposite.  During the recent Democrat Primaries, Hillary Clinton used a ‘dog whistle’ term when she said she was an early Twentieth Century Progressive. If you know what that meant, you knew she was declaring herself to be a Communist who seeks to take over without violent revolution.  When President Carter mentioned ‘the moral equivalent of war,’ he was saying much the same thing.

AMERICAN PROGRESSIVISM IS COMMUNISM WITHOUT REVOLUTION

This was first devised by President Woodrow Wilson.  In 1913, Wilson wrote a paper named “What is Progress?”  In which he said that he desired Communism for America, but he realized Americans would never revolt.  Therefore, he decided he would have to bring Communism to America through a series of small, incremental steps.  He called them ‘progressive steps,’ but said he would use the term ‘progress’ in an American way — so it would be accepted without ever knowing what Wilson really meant.  You see, in the early 1900’s, Americans were proud of the ‘progress’ they were making in technological terms.  We were building massive buildings, bridges and dams.  This is what Americans thought of when they heard the word ‘progress.’  But Wilson used the term to advance the small, progressive march toward Communism.  Wilson openly boasted about what he wanted, but he did so in a way that no one except those inside his circles would understand.  In short, he intentionally deceived the American people.

All of this is explained in the essay he wrote (I linked to it above).  Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and most every other intellectual leader in the American Left knows this.  What’s more, they admit it all the time.  You just have to know history so you know what words and phrases to watch for.  Once you know the history behind these words, you will understand how correct I am — and you will never be fooled by these people again.

THE MORAL EQUIVALENT OF WAR

“The Moral Equivalent of War” is a paper written in 1910 by a man named William James (Read the link.  It tells you this man influenced President Carter).  For as far back as humanity can remember, leaders have used war as a means of controlling the population.  It provides a enemy against which to focus the people’s attention, thereby uniting them and putting their support behind their leader.  It also provides a reason for the people to sacrifice — even to the point of total deprivation of necessary goods and inherent rights.  However, the American Civil War, followed by the First World War caused political leaders to re-think the practicality of using warfare as a means of focusing and controlling their people.  Modern warfare was too destructive: both in terms of lives as well as the economy.  What they needed was something that was not as destructive, but which would cause the people to united and suffer loss of comforts and rights equally as well as war did.  Hence, the quest for “The Moral Equivalent of War.”  So, when President Carter connected the energy crisis to ‘The Moral Equivalent of War,” he was telling his political allies that he intended to use environmentalism as a weapon against the American people and their way of life.

ENVIRONMENTALISM

After the debacle they caused for themselves in the 1960’s, when they tried to get the youth of America to rise up in a violent Revolution and overthrown the American government, the Communists moved back to the ‘Progressive’ approach. Once they decided to do so, they needed a cause they could use that would scare the American people enough that they could be united, but united in a way that would justify giving up their material comforts as well as their liberties.  The Communists chose the environment as their ‘Moral Equivalent of War.”  What’s more, they tried to support it by invoking the name of ‘science.’ The idea is simple: if you can convince the people that ‘science’ has ‘proven’ that their way of life is destroying the planet and would lead to the death of millions, you could convince them to surrender themselves to you.  Once again, tying science to the Progressive agenda leads us back to Woodrow Wilson.

WILSON AND THE ‘SCIENCE’ OF ADMINISTRATION

The rise of bureaucracy can be traced directly to Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive movement.  This time, Wilson wrote a paper called, “The Study of Administration.”   In this paper, Wilson argued that government should be run by scientists.  Each area of ‘science’ would get its own division, or bureau.  These bureaus would make all decisions for the nation, and the decisions would never be wrong because they would be ‘scientific.’  The only thing the nation would need then is an elected dictator.  He explained that in his essays, “Leaders of Men” and “The President of the United States.”  This dictator would then ‘manage’ the bureaucracies and you would have the perfect government.  It would be perfect because it would be ‘scientific.’

MODERN SIGNS OF WILSON’S LEGACY

Once you know this history, you will start to see the signs in every story advocating the ‘Climate Change’ agenda.  When President Carter launched his ‘war’ on energy, he did not call for a national campaign to make us energy independent.  Instead, he called for rationing.  This is not the ‘American’ way.  Kennedy demonstrated the American way.  He challenged us to go to the moon in ten years and we did it.  But Carter, influenced by Progressives (who are Communists by another name) chose a Communist approach.  Instead of finding a solution, he attacked our way of life, which also attacked our rights and liberties.  This is always the way with ‘Environmentalists.’  Their solutions are never focused on how to do something in a way that will not harm the environment.  Instead, their solutions always attack the economy by calling for things that lead to economic restraint as well as the surrender of individual rights and liberties.

AL GORE CALLS FOR POLITICAL PUNISHMENT

The drive to cement ‘Climate Change’ as the final ‘Moral Equivalent of War” has grown to the point that one of its most public leaders has openly called for political leaders who question the authority of the government’s ‘scientists’ to be punished:

Gore says climate-change deniers should pay political price

Now, on the surface, this can be explained as Al Gore calling for the people to punish their political leaders for questioning or rejecting the ‘Climate Change’ agenda.  But one should never assume such innocent explanations when dealing with a Communist — especially a Communist who uses ‘dog whistle’ phrases like Al Gore does.  Notice that there is a real price being pushed by Gore in his call for punishment:

“We need to put a price on carbon to accelerate these market trends,” Gore said, referring to a proposed federal cap-and-trade system that would penalize companies that exceeded their carbon-emission limits. “And in order to do that, we need to put a price on denial in politics.”

This is pure Communism/Fascism: the use of government power to penalize and control of one’s enemies.  The only problem is, no matter how many laws one passes allowing this, it is un-constitutional.  Not only does it violate equal protections, it violates the Bill of Attainder clause (a bill written specifically to punish an individual or individual industry).

UN OFFICIAL ADMITS ‘CLIMATE CHANGE’ A VEHICLE TO ATTACK CAPITALISM

Earlier, I told you that you just need to know where to look to find that these people are open about what they want and how they intend to do it.  I also told you the media and most of academia is in league with the Communist ‘Climate Change’ agenda.  Well, here is a story that the media hid from you, and for good reason:

U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

She was talking about Capitalism.  Now, ask yourself these questions:

What political agenda seeks to eliminate Capitalism?

Why does the American left — Progressive/Communist by its own admission — align with and support the UN over its own government?

Why do the ‘solutions’ proposed by the ‘Climate Change’ agenda always penalize the American economy without a corresponding penalty being applied to nations guilty of much more pollution that the United States?

And why do environmentalists in America always demand solutions to perceived problems that prohibit economic activity and restrict individual rights and liberties?

LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS

My dear reader, ‘Climate Change’ is not based on sound science.  It changed its name from ‘Global Cooling’ to ‘Global Warming’ every thirty years until, finally, it gave up and adopted the name ‘Climate Change’ — so it can claim to be correct in all cases.  Finally, the solutions pushed by the ‘Climate Change’ people never actually try to solve the problem by looking for solutions that do not restrict economic and personal freedom.  Instead, they always push ‘solutions’ that require people to surrender their material comforts and personal liberties to government control.  What’s more, the only country ever really asked to pay for any of this is America.  China, Russia and India are nearly always exempted from any of the draconian cuts that are demanded of the U.S., a nation already many times ‘cleaner’ than either of the other three I just mentioned.  There is no logic in any of this — unless you know the history of Communism/Progressivism in the United States.  Once you know that history, and learn their language, you will see that they are the ones behind the ‘Climate Change’ agenda — and they always have been.  They are not looking to ‘save the planet.’  They are looking to destroy the United States and Capitalism so they can seize global control of the world.  They have said so, and you can find it — if only you know where to look, and have the courage to believe them!

[NOTE: to properly understand Wilson’s influence on the present, one must read all four of his essays mentioned in this post, and read them together.  They rest upon each other, with pieces from each part of his greater agenda being contained in each of the essays.]

This is the second in a series of posts about ‘Climate Change.’  In my first post, I addressed the science behind ‘Climate Change.’  In this post, we are going to examine the history of ‘Climate Change.’  For most of us, history only goes back as far as we can remember; say, sometime in our early adolescence. Before the time we became aware of the world, we tend to think of history in abstract terms.  We know there was a past, but we don’t really see any connection between it and the present.  But the world existed before we became consciously aware of it, and the things that happened in the past are actually very relevant to us today.  You see, events of the past drive the events of the present.  Unfortunately, too few of us care to bother learning about or trying to understand the past, so we do not see or understand how the past is still influencing current events.  This makes it very easy for people with hidden agendas to fool or deceive us, as I will soon demonstrate.

If you are under the age of forty, you probably do not remember that there was a ‘Climate Change’ scare in the 1970’s, only it was called by a different name.  In the 1970’s, ‘science’ was convinced that we were entering into another ice age.  There were catastrophic predictions about shrinking environments where agriculture would be possible due to encroaching ice fields, and predictions of mass extinctions and death on a wide scale.    It was in all the media outlets: magazines, broadcast news and televisions shows.  Many of the same personalities who would warn us about global warming in the 1990’s first started by trying to raise awareness about global cooling in the 1970’s.

But the predictions of global cooling failed to materialize and, soon, they turned to warnings about global warming.  The warnings about global warming reached a fevered peak in the 1990’s.  They were accompanied by the same magazine, news paper, broadcast news and television show coverage.  The media celebrities that had pushed global cooling in the 1970’s suddenly switched over and started pushing the idea of global warming.  The only problem was, the warnings never materialized.  Instead, the earth started cooling again.  This is when they switched to the term we have today: “Climate Change.”

However, this cycle of hysteria over the environment goes back much further than 1970.  In fact, it goes back at least 115 years.  But this is only the history of the modern ‘climate scare.’  You can find stories that sound very similar to those of today warning about ice caps melting and impending catastrophe as a result of warming or cooling as far back as 1855!

So, why doesn’t our media tell us about the history of these predictions of doom due to climate changes only to see those predictions fail to materialize?  If the media is about reporting facts, why wouldn’t they tell you that before ‘Climate Change,’ there was ‘Global Warming,’ and before that, ‘Global Cooling,’ and before that, more ‘Global Warming,’ and more ‘Global Cooling’ before that?  Why do the media and our political and even economic leaders continue to push an idea that has never proven to actually happen?  And how could a ‘scientist’ make any claim to there being evidence for anything other than the fact that the earth has a natural cycle of slight warming and cooling?

Well, there is an answer to that question.  I answered it in my first post on this subject, and I’ll answer it again here.  The people pushing the idea of ‘Climate Change’ are using it to hide their true agenda.  I’ll explain why they use ‘Climate Change’ to disguise their agenda in my next post.  For now, it is enough to know that the majority of people pushing for action to prevent warming or cooling do not really care about warming or cooling.  They care about money and/or power — period!  As I said, I’ll explain and defend this claim in my next post.  Until then, please read a short list of some of the stories about global cooling/warming that have been printed over the last century or so.  And, please, pay close attention to the dates, and to the period of time between when they switch from cooling to warming and back again. You’ll find there is a roughly 30 year cycle in play here — sort of like all ‘science’ has done is discover a natural trend in the earth’s normal climatic cycle.

Climate Change Timeline – 1895-2009

For at least 114 years, climate “scientists” have been claiming that the climate was going to kill us…but they have kept switching whether it was a coming ice age, or global warming.

• • 1895 – Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again – New York Times, February 1895
  • 1902 – “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times
  • 1912 – Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age – New York Times, October 1912
  • 1923 – “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune
  • 1923 – “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post
  • 1924 – MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age – New York Times, Sept 18, 1924
  • 1929 – “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming?
  • 1932 – “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World
  • 1933 – America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise – New York Times, March 27th, 1933
  • 1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”
  • 1938 – Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
  • 1938 – “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune
  • 1939 – “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post
  • 1952 – “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” – New York Times, August 10th, 1962
  • 1954 – “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report
  • 1954 – Climate – the Heat May Be Off – Fortune Magazine
  • 1959 – “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures” – New York Times
  • 1969 – “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” – New York Times, February 20th, 1969
  • 1969 – “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000” — Paul Ehrlich (while he now predicts doom from global warming, this quote only gets honorable mention, as he was talking about his crazy fear of overpopulation)
  • 1970 – “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post
  • 1974 – Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine
  • 1974 – “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” – Washington Post
  • 1974 – “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed” – Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger
  • 1974 – “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times

• 1975 – Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable – New York Times, May 21st, 1975
• 1975 – “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine
• 1976 – “Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend” – U.S. News and World Report
• 1981 – Global Warming – “of an almost unprecedented magnitude” – New York Times
• 1988 – I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer climate simulations indicate that thegreenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves. – Jim Hansen, June 1988 testimony before Congress, see His later quote and His superior’s objection for context
• 1989 -“On the one hand, as scientists 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 doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands 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 need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means 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” 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.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Discover magazine, October 1989
• 1990 – “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy” – Senator Timothy Wirth
• 1993 – “Global climate change may alter temperature and rainfall patterns, many scientists fear, with uncertain consequences for agriculture.” – U.S. News and World Report
• 1998 – No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998
• 2001 – “Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.” – Time Magazine, Monday, Apr. 09, 2001
• 2003 – Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration” – Jim Hansen, NASA Global Warming activist, Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb?, 2003
• 2006 – “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore, Grist magazine, May 2006
• Now: The global mean temperature has fallen for four years in a row, which is why you stopped hearing details about the actual global temperature, even while they carry on about taxing you to deal with it…how long before they start predicting an ice age?

OK, let me start by stating that I am well aware that, for a great many people, this is an emotional subject. If you happen to be one of those people who gets emotional over the issue of ‘Climate Change,’ I am going to ask you to try to set your emotions aside for a few minutes while we examine whether or not we are actually dealing with a matter of science, or if there just might be a hidden agenda hiding behind this issue.

Again, if you are one of the many people who have strong emotional feelings about the question of ‘Climate Change,’ let me ask you a couple questions.  How do you feel about the specific gravity of Carbon?  How emotional do you get when people discuss the strength of chemical bonding?  Does the moment of inertia of your car cause you anxiety when you drive down the road?  I trust the answer to all of these questions is no, but do you understand why it is no?  It is no because science, true science, is without emotion: or at least, it’s supposed to be (if it’s not, then it’s not science).

So, why do so many people become so emotional over the question of ‘Climate Change?’  There is actually an answer to this question, and I’ll get to it at the end of this post.  First, let’s look to see if we can determine if there is any sound science involved in the debate over ‘Climate Change.’  We’ll do this by using another investigative technique: by applying simple logic to determine whether or not the scientific method has been properly applied to the investigation of ‘Climate Change.’

The first thing we have to understand is that ‘science,’ like logic, is nothing more than a method of investigating a question about the world around us.  And, like logic, it has rules that must be diligently followed.  In logic, if we break a rule, it is called a fallacy, and it can mean that everything else that follows is useless.  Well, the same thing applies to science.  If the rules are not faithfully followed, whatever conclusions are drawn afterward are suspect, at best.  So let’s look at a few of the scientific rules that are key to the question of ‘Climate Change.’

First, before a person can determine whether or not something is changing, they must determine the ‘normal’ state of that thing.  For example: the ‘normal’ temperature of the human body is considered to be 98.6’F.  However, there are variances to this value.  For some people, their ‘normal’ body temperature might be a little lower or a little higher than 98.6’F.  This means we cannot set a fixed number for something like the ‘normal’ temperature of the human body.  Instead, we have to set a range.  Now, can anyone tell me what the ‘normal’ temperature of the earth is, and what the range of variation is?  I’ll help you: the answer is no!  No one has any idea what the ‘normal’ temperature of the earth is, or what the normal variation is, either — and that is a fact.  This means no one can tell you whether the temperature of the earth is higher or lower than it should be, because they do not know what it should be to being with.

Next question: what is the normal ‘Life Cycle’ of the earth?  We believe we know that the earth has gone through periods where it was much hotter than it is today, but also much colder.  We also believe these periods of warming and cooling are cyclical: they repeat over a period of many thousands of years.  So, what is the normal ‘Life Cycle” of the earth?  How often does it reach its hottest point, and what temperature is that?  And how often does it reach its coldest point?  And what temperature is that?

Another question: we believe that this cycle of heating and cooling has been going on for many millions of years before man existed on this planet.  So, what caused the warming?  And what caused the cooling?

Now, I have said we believe we know the earth has been hotter and colder, but we do not actually know this to be true.  We can only assume.  This is because we were not present millions of years ago, so we could not make actual observations.  All we can do is study the earth as it exists today and extrapolate what it might have been like in the past.  In other words, we are making a ‘scientific guess.’  Now, I am not saying that these guesses are not valid.  In many cases, they are based on sound theory, but on theory none the less.  And a theory is — by definition — a guess.  It may be based on a large volume of observations, and all of those observations may suggest that a certain conclusion is reasonable, but that does not prove the conclusion is true.  Unless we can actually observe it, then it will always remain a theory, and a theory is a guess.  So our best guess suggests the earth has gone through regular heating and cooling periods long before man existed.

So, assuming we have guessed correctly, and the earth does go through a regular cycle of heating and cooling, what caused them before man?  Now, before you answer, let me ask you what caused the extinction of the dinosaurs?  I can remember when ‘science’ had ‘proven’ it was an ice age?  Now ‘science’ has ‘proven’ it was a large meteorite strike.  How about the smallest particle of matter?  Do you remember the progression of ‘proof’ ‘science’ took us through with that?  First, there was the molecule, then the atom, then the electron, proton and neutron, then quarks and lipids, now there are even smaller particles. So, what caused the dinosaurs to die off and what is the smallest particle of matter?  If a person is honest, the answer is, “We don’t know for sure, but the best evidence suggests…”  What does ‘suggests’ mean?  It means we are making a guess!  And before anyone objects by saying we will eventually learn the ultimate truth of these questions, please understand that you do not know that.  That statement is, itself, an assumption — a guess.

This brings us to the next problem in the question of  ‘Climate Change”‘ the problem of ‘assumption.’  Let’s assume the earth is heating up and we have discovered that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising.  Why do we just assume the CO2 is the reason for the rise in temperature?  There may be a correlation, but that does not mean causality.  By that, I mean the presence of CO2 does not necessarily mean that CO2 is causing the rise in the temperature.  It could very well be a byproduct of the temperature increase.  Here’s another way to look at the problem.  If you come upon a car accident and you discover the driver of one of the cars involved has a broken leg, do you assume broken legs cause car accidents?  I mean, why not.  Now all we have to do is make it illegal to drive with a broken leg and there you go: no more car accidents.  Now, I know this is an absurd illustration, but the point is valid.  We do not know whether the CO2 is actually causing the temperature increase (if there actually is one), or whether it is a byproduct of that increase.

At this point, I can already hear people arguing that ‘greenhouse gases’ cause temperature increases, and that man is the cause of those greenhouse gases.  To that I say: that is just a theory, and a theory is a guess!  And, in this case, not a very valid guess.  Why do I say that?  Because we cannot control for the gases without first knowing — beyond shadow of a doubt — what caused the earth to warm and cool before man existed.  If you do not know the causes in the past, you cannot control for them today.  Furthermore, we have not demonstrated tat man is actually the cause of any additional CO2 that may or may not be in the atmosphere.  Until we know the cause of warming and cooling in the past, and can demonstrate that man is the cause of any additional CO2, the greenhouse gas theory is not only a guess, but a bad guess.  It is a bad guess because it is based on several levels of unproven assumptions, therefore, it cannot accurately be tested.

The scientific method requires that we be able to observe, form hypotheses (guesses), then test to prove or disprove our hypotheses.  In fact, this is a key part of the scientific method.  Without the ability to test, there is no science.  But how can one test something one does not fully understand?  We don’t know all the variables involved in the warming and cooling of the earth, so how can we control for them?  We can’t, and it is not only arrogant to say we can, it is bad science.  We do not know the ‘normal’ temperature of the earth.  We do not know what caused the earth to warm and cool before man existed.  We do not know whether CO2 is a cause or product of warmer temperatures.  We do not know if man is actually the cause of increased CO2.  And we have absolutely no idea what variables may be vital to this entire system that we have yet to discover or fully appreciate, which means, we do not fully understand the process of global warming and cooling.  If we need evidence that my argument is valid, we need only look at the computer models.  They programmed by people who support the ‘Climate Change’ theory, but they still fail to prove the predictions.  This means, even when programmed by the people most sympathetic to and most invested in the theory, the tests fail to support the hypotheses.  Under the rules of good science, this means the hypotheses have been proven wrong.  So how, in good conscience, can we then say that this is ‘settled science’ when there is no sound way to prove any of this?

There’s one more thing I need to mention.  A ‘consensus‘ is not sound science.  There was a time when the ‘scientific consensus‘ said that blacks were of ‘inferior’ genetic material to whites.  Now, if a ‘consensus‘ makes something true, then was ‘science’ right back then?  And if so, then are they correct today, or did the facts change because the ‘consensus‘ changed?  Because, if facts can change just because of a majority opinion, then let’s all decide that gravity repulses matter so we can all fly.  Yes, I am using strong illustrations, but I am doing so for a reason.  The reason is simple: you cannot support the ‘Climate Change’ ‘consensus‘ unless you accept the inferiority of blacks and our ability to revers gravity by ‘consensus.’  To accept the former and reject the latter would be logically inconsistent, or, in other words, un-scientific!

This brings us to the last point I’d like to make about the scientific method before I close. Sound science demands that we follow the evidence, not bend the evidence to fit our desires.  In other words, if the most sympathetic ‘Climate Change’ ‘scientists’ cannot designs models that accurately predict and then demonstrate their theories, they must abandon their theories and look for new one.  The quest to turn lead into gold is a good example.  After centuries of failure, we finally accepted that the hypothesis was flawed and abandoned our attempts to turn lead into gold.  Sadly, we have a difficult time doing this when we are emotionally invested in our theories.  Socialism would be another excellent example.  It doesn’t work.  It can’t, because it violates the Natural Laws of economics.  Yet, for reasons other than science, people keep trying to make it work.  There are many such examples in the field of ‘science,’ and ‘Climate Change’ is among them.  Now, I am not saying that the climate isn’t changing, or that man is not adding to that change.  In fact, I believe both are happening.  All I am saying is that we cannot say that man is the sole cause of that change, and, if he is, how — exactly — he is changing the climate.  For all we know, we’re improving it.  We simply do not and cannot know for sure, and a good (i.e. honest) scientist will admit this (and many of them have, the media just will not tell you about them).

That brings us to the end of this post. I promised to answer the question of why people get so emotional over supposedly ‘scientific’ matters.  Well, the answer is simple, but it is also unpopular.  People get emotional because they are appealing to the idea of ‘science’ to camouflage an agenda — period!  If their claim to ‘science’ is destroyed, then there agenda is exposed.  If an agenda has to be hidden, then there is a reason for it.  Usually it is because people will not support the agenda.  Therefore, the camouflage must be protected or the agenda will be exposed, the people will reject it, and the agenda will fail.  This is why people get emotional over things that should be devoid of all emotion.  There’s even a valid method of testing my claim.  Look for and follow the trail of money and or power attached to anything supposedly driven by ‘science.’  If you find a flow of money and/or power, you have found an agenda hiding behind a claim to ‘science,’ not an actual matter of real science (I mean, seriously, think about it: why would real science need public funding if it actually generated power and cash?).