Investment and other financial matters

Archive for September, 2012

climate "scientists" vs physicists

Question: What could a climate "scientist" bring to the debate among

physicists over the interaction of cosmic rays with the Earth’s

atmosphere?

Answer: the coffee.

more  http://tinyurl.com/3c27tsq

.
posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Climate "Science's" Tangled Web

Climate "Science’s" Tangled Web

09/01/2011

Recent days have seen a number of announcements about our changing

climate. As it turns out Arctic ice is rebounding, sea levels are

dropping and things just are not going according to the IPCC’s plan for

catastrophic global warming. Faced with reversal after reversal, it

might seem logical for mainstream climate scientists to admit that they

are wrong, that global warming is not taking place at a breakneck pace,

but this has not happened. Instead, climate change apologists are

weaving a tangled web of excuses-hot is cold, wet is dry, up is down. No

matter what happens to the world we live in, the root cause according to

the doomsayers is always the same: it’s always global warming’s fault.

more – http://tinyurl.com/3vr9uuh

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comment (1)

Packing Heat – The Fraud of The Global Warming Cult

Packing Heat – The Fraud of The Global Warming Cult

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/07/packing-heat

By Peter Ferrara on 9.7.11 @ 6:07AM

The theory that human activity is causing potentially catastrophic

global warming is not science. It is politics, driven by special

interests with ideological, political and economic stakes in the

theory.

For environmentalists, global warming corresponds with the

authoritarian goal at the core of their movement: repeal of the

industrial revolution (which President Obama’s EPA has begun to

implement). For governments, it presents an opportunity to vastly

expand their power and control through taxes, regulation and

bureaucracy.

The theory also presents an opportunity for the United Nations to

vastly expand its power and control. As an organization of world

governments who would also gain enormously from acceptance of the

theory, the UN is doubly corrupted as an honest broker on the issue.

Yet, perversely, governments

across the globe have delegated authoritative inquiry on the

issue to the UN through its Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC).

Wily environmentalists have also successfully weaved

economic stakes in the theory for some in the business community,

starting with tens of billions — growing into

hundreds of billions — of government subsidies for

businesses that will pose as potential producers of the

"green energy of tomorrow." This enables wily politicians to attempt

to snooker voters with promises of "green jobs." Of course, those jobs

would only become available if self-supporting producers of abundant

low cost energy are replaced with an entire "green" industry that can

survive on corporate welfare while producing unreliable high cost

energy

for the economy (resulting in job loss and a  decline in

America’s standard of living).

What is so shocking is the way formerly objective, reliable Western

science has been seduced by all these interests into intellectual

corruption in service of the global warming fraud (less shocking when

you consider the tens of billions in "research" funding provided by

the above special interests).

But don’t forget that scientists live and breathe in the far left

environment of the academic world. Thus, many of

them have social and ideological interests in advancing the global

warming charade.

The confluence of all these special interests and their money has now

corrupted the broader scientific community. Formerly venerable,

objective, respected scientific bodies such as the National Academy of

Sciences have been taken over by politicians in scientific drag.

Formerly independent scientific journals and publications have gone

the same route rather than suffer the social and financial opprobrium

that service to the truth will entail.

This growing intellectual corruption is greatly magnified by our

thoroughly politicized Old Media, which operates today only in service

of politically correct causes. Consequently, so much of the public

discussion on global warming that we see is actually "play acting,"

with supposed scientists, journalists, media commentators, politicians

and others posing as if objective science actually demonstrates the

danger Oscar for his role in posing as savior of the planet, which

actually reflects

delusional mental illness in the man who almost became our president.

But the politicization of Western science means the decline of Western

science as well. That in turn augurs the decline of Western

civilization, as objective science was a foundation of the rise of the

West for centuries.

Climate Change Reconsidered

But real, objective science continues to flourish at little noticed

work stations, offices, and independent institutes and foundations

across the globe. The budding international headquarters of this

worldwide counterrevolution has now flowered at the Chicago based

Heartland Institute, which

bravely soldiered on in devotion to real climate science when even

compatriots told them objectivity on this issue was a

lost cause.

In 2009, Heartland published the 858-page Climate Change Reconsidered,

a comprehensive, dispassionate, thoroughly scientific refutation of

the theory that human activity is

causing global warming. That served as the first answer to the

quadrennial Assessment Reports of the UN’s IPCC. No one is

knowledgeable about the true scientific debate over global warming

until they have read and analyzed this thorough publication. Play

acting commentators should be challenged for their response to this

report, and publicly dismissed if they have none.

On August 29, Heartland released a 400-page follow up report titled

Climate Change Reconsidered, reflecting the same thorough, objective,

dispassionate analysis of the theory of global warming, and updating

the science and developments. Heartland will continue the pattern of

presenting full scientific alternatives to the UN’s IPCC Assessment

Reports (AR), planning to produce another full report in 2013 when the

next IPCC AR is expected. Heartland has also sponsored

annual international scientific conferences on climate change, several

of which I have attended.

Hundreds of scientists from across the planet are now speaking out in

opposition to the corruption of climate science. Among them are Fred

Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science at the University

of Virginia, and the founder and first Director of the National

Weather Satellite Service; Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor

of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Roy

Spencer,

Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama at

Huntsville, and U.S. Science Team Leader for the AMSR-E instrument

flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite; William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett

Professor of Physics at Princeton University; Syun-ichi Akasofu,

Professor of Physics and

former director of the International Arctic Research Center at the

University of Alaska; Patrick Michaels, Research Professor of

Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and past

President of the American Association of State Climatogists; and David

Douglass, Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester. Physics

icon Freeman Dyson expressed similar skepticism in the New York Times.

These scientists are as good and as credentialed as any working on the

UN’s IPCC Assessment reports.

The just released Interim Report concludes that "natural causes are

very likely to be the dominant cause of the climate change that took

place in the twentieth and the start of the twenty-first centuries. We

are not saying that anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHG) cannot

produce some warming or have not in the past. Our conclusion is that

the evidence shows they are not playing a substantial role."

The authors add, "the net effect of continued warming and    rising

carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere is

most likely to be beneficial to humans, plants, and wildlife."

The Evidence Shows

The theory of global warming holds that carbon dioxide (CO2) and other

greenhouse gases produced by human civilization collect in the

atmosphere. They let radiation from the sun in, but like a greenhouse

they prevent the radiation from escaping back out, leading

temperatures to increase, potentially to catastrophic levels. Humans

cause CO2 emissions primarily by burning fossil fuels like oil, coal,

natural gas, and wood, which was the foundation of the industrial

revolution.

But the established temperature record from the official sources is

not consistent with this theory. Throughout the 20th century and into

the 21st, CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions continually

increased, yet temperatures did not steadily increase. Surface

temperatures in the U.S. were warmer in the 1930s than they are today.

From 1940 to the late 1970s, U.S. surface temperatures declined,

despite all the increased

burning of fossil fuels during that period, leaving no significant

difference at that point from 1900. This decline actually

prompted speculation at the time that a new ice age was coming.

Surface temperatures then increased until the

unrelated El Nino weather phenomenon in 1998, sponsoring the global

warming hysteria. Since 1998, surface temperatures have actually

declined again.

More reliable and relevant is the satellite data on global atmospheric

temperatures, which is not distorted by the

location, coverage, and surrounding activities of land based weather

stations (highly unreliable outside the U.S. and

Europe), and covers the whole planet. The satellite data starts

in 1979, and shows no increase in global temperature trends

until 1998, when El Nino caused a sharp temperature spike. Since then

the satellite data again shows that global atmospheric temperatures

have declined.

If supposed greenhouse gas emissions were causing global warming, then

we should have seen a far more steady increase in temperatures. What

the objective scientists are now saying is that this up and down

pattern of temperature is far more consistent with natural causes. The

temperature variation patterns follow variations in solar activity

(like sunspots) and major ocean current temperature trends. For

example, a major

influence on global temperatures is what is known as the

Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which turns from warm to cold and

back every 20 to 30 years, as cold water from deep

in the ocean cycles up and is warmed by the sun. This PDO variation

seems to follow closely with the actual temperature variation trends.

Global temperatures were also warmer than today during the Medieval

Warm Period, a period of several hundred years around 1000 A.D, when

now icy Greenland was named and actually farmed by settlers (who long

since fled as the cold and ice advanced). Even higher temperatures

prevailed during

a period known as the

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comment (1)

It is all coming to head racisim multicuty hollowed them under the knees and it is crumbling under its weight

We are about to witness some historical events unfold. EU block has
hit the wall, we are just not hearing the media bleat about it yet.
America is past hitting the wall stage, it is just the multyculty
slaves there havn’t figured it out and are working for free. Here in
Australia and NZ, who knows. For China, bad bad bad. If you got debts
then nothing to worry about but if you got fiat cash holdings, too
late by the looks of it. Those who got suckered in by the Gold, worse
is yet to come. Bottom line if what you own can’t be eaten, worn, or
lived in it’s worthless. Remember you heard it here first.

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

The Moral High Ground

The Moral High Ground: The Left’s "morally superior" policies kill

millions and impoverish billions

09/08/2011

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276395/moral-high-ground-jim-l…

Soon after I published an article questioning the global-warming

orthodoxy, the world’s foremost hypocrite, Al Gore, informed anyone

who still listens to him that my position is akin to racism. The wise

course of action would be to ignore the rants of a man who desperately

needs the world to remain fearful of carbon, the element on which all

life on earth is based. If that fear were to vanish, how would he

continue to rake in the millions needed for the purchase of his next

beach house?

But enough is enough. Why should I sit quietly and let myself be

branded a racist? In fact, will someone please explain how the Left is

always assumed to have the moral high ground in these kinds of

debates? I am particularly curious about this, as leftist policies

continue to destroy the lives of tens of millions in this country and

billions worldwide.

Let’s go through just a small part of the evidence.

The Left has fought the spread of genetically modified (GM) foods with

every weapon in its arsenal. Leftists did this in the name of

combatting a long list of "potential risks" that never materialized.

They have been permitted to overlook the fact that their assaults on

GM food were not cost free. For instance, they have greatly delayed

and in some places stopped cold the use of rice modified to increase

vitamin A content. For the Left this is cause for celebration. In

fact, widespread use of this "golden rice" would have prevented a

half-million cases of child blindness a year. So the next time someone

talks to you about the evils of genetically modified foods, remind him

of the millions of poor children this crusade has condemned to a

lifetime of blindness. How do folks prepared to allow millions to

needlessly go blind still command the respect of any truly moral

person?

However, even looking the other way as children go blind pales in

comparison to the needless starving of millions that has occurred

because anti-GM-food groups have frightened and bullied the people and

governments of Africa into forbidding the use of GM seeds. Such seeds,

modified to resist the effects of drought and disease, would make

Africa self-sufficient in foodstuffs. But for most African farmers

they remain unavailable because of the successful efforts of American

and European anti-GM-food groups. Even though every American consumes

GM foods on an almost daily basis, with no ill effects, they remain

off limits to those most in need.

There is no reason the Somali child pictured below needs to be hungry

except for the fact that some groups are working overtime to prevent

his country from growing the food needed to feed him. What do you call

people who are willing to let millions starve to death rather than let

them grow food that scientists long ago proved safe?Why the anti-GM

groups are not condemned for crimes against humanity escapes me. For

that matter, as these groups have made it their life mission to starve

poor Africans, Asians, and other peoples of color, how come they have

never been branded as racists?

And malnutrition is not the only problem afflicting Africa and other

poor regions of the world. Among the greatest scourges is malaria,

which infects 250 million and kills 1 million every year. In fact, in

Africa, one in every five childhood deaths is a result of malaria. If

you are a reader of average speed, then consider that ten to twelve

children will have died from malaria between the time you started this

article and the time you finish it. None of this is necessary. Malaria

was vanquished in the United States and Europe through the copious use

of DDT. But this blessing has been denied poor African nations because

Rachel Carson in her 1962 book Silent Spring blamed DDT for killing

eagles and other birds.

Fifty years later Carson’s discredited work remains a rallying cry for

environmentalists who tirelessly work to ensure that poor nations do

not have access to DDT, favoring instead a cocktail of methods that

have been proven ineffective. Interestingly, I was once accosted by an

environmental zealot over that last statement. He wanted to know what

proof I had that other methods were ineffective. I pointed out the

continuing deaths of a million people and asked how long he had been

involved in the environmental movement. When he told me he had been

doing this for a dozen years I casually mentioned that during his

activist years he had worked for a movement responsible for killing

two times as many persons as perished in the Holocaust, and that was

just from malaria-related deaths alone. Yet he thought, and probably

still thinks, that he occupies the moral high ground.

In truth, almost all the harmful effects attributed to DDT have been

proven not to exist. Moreover, the benefits of DDT use can be achieved

using a fraction of the quantity used to eradicate malaria in the

United States. Just what do leftists have against blacks, particularly

blacks in Africa, that causes them to push policies that sicken and

kill them by the tens of millions? And why do they get to claim they

sing with the angels as they preside over this slaughter of innocents?

Let’s move on a bit. That most stupendous of hypocrites, Al Gore

again, uses more electricity in a week than 28 million poor Ugandans

use in a year. Still he gets to brand me a racist for doubting his

unsupported claims about global warming. The simple fact of the matter

is that alternative sources of energy are inefficient, unreliable, and

very expensive. If poor countries are forced to adopt alternative

energy sources over cheap carbon-based energy, then there is no

feasible scenario in which developing nations will be able to afford

even a fraction of the energy required to escape poverty. As the

Ugandan Fiona Kobusingye points out in a recent article:

Not having electricity means millions of Africans don’t have

refrigerators to preserve food and medicine. Outside of wealthy parts

of our big cities, people don’t have lights, computers, modern

hospitals and schools, air conditioning – or offices, factories, and

shops to make things and create good jobs. Not having electricity also

means disease and death. It means millions die from lung infections,

because they have to cook and heat with open fires; from intestinal

diseases caused by spoiled food and unsafe drinking water; from

malaria, TB, cholera, measles, and other diseases that we could

prevent or treat if we had proper medical facilities.

She goes on to say, "Telling Africans they can’t have electricity and

economic development – except what can be produced with some wind

turbines or little solar panels – is immoral. It is a crime against

humanity." And she concludes, "We need to stop listening to

global-warming witch doctors, who get rich telling us to keep living

‘indigenous,’ impoverished lives."

Yet I am the one Al Gore brands as a racist.

But the damage the warmists are doing or hope to do does not end

there. To save a planet that stopped warming in 1998, they want the

United States and other industrial countries to reduce carbon output

by 80 percent by 2050 (many are shooting for 2020), relative to a 1990

baseline. Let’s assume we multiply our wasteful spending on solar and

wind power tenfold. If we do, then on particularly sunny and windy

days we may eventually get 25 percent of our energy from those

sources. That leaves us short about half the energy we need to support

current GDP levels. As studies demonstrate that every 1 percent

reduction in power causes a 0.7 percent reduction in GDP, I wonder how

the warmists plan to employ the additional 25 million Americans thrown

out of work.

Moreover, in the world’s emerging economies each 1 percent loss of GDP

causes almost 2,500 premature deaths per 100,000 population. So, if

the warmists get their way, they would kill off about 50 million

persons a year on their way to a 2050 nirvana. One could plausibly

claim that as soon as the pain became apparent, politicians would

immediately reverse course before more damage was done. Such a belief

would be comforting if we were not witnessing the destruction of huge

amounts of food in order to turn it into inefficient and costly

energy. One would think that global food riots and millions of

starving people would cause a rethinking of our priorities. But this

year, American farmers will grow more corn for ethanol than for food.

After all, why should the empty bellies of countless children get in

the way of saving the planet from warmist fantasies? Look again at

that picture of a starving black child and tell me whose policies are

racist.

How about something closer to home? Data released last week show that

America’s jobless rate among black teenagers was 46.5 percent, and the

overall rate of black joblessness is double that of the white

population. Why? One needs to look no further than liberal policies

implemented in our major cities, which have destroyed the black family

unit, discouraged business investment, and subsidized the worst

education system in the developed world. In fact, if a foreign power

tried to force our education system on inner cities, we would send in

the Marines to stop it.

Instead, we let leftist-dominated teachers’ unions run an education

system that ensures half of the students trapped in it will be

unemployable upon graduation. When these unions are called to account,

they attack the critics as wanting to hurt the children. For how much

longer will unions be allowed to claim they are "all about the

children," while in fact they are wrecking those children’s futures

and condemning many of them to spend the rest of their lives in

poverty? And why am I

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (2)

Perfect example of blatant lying and wild exaggerations of left wing media

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rocky-kistner/scientists-warn-extreme-w…

I picked out one of many many wild crazy lies, there are so many

falsehoods in this article that one hardly knows where to start.

The lie:

"Now we’re on track to have a possible record-breaking number of

hurricanes; three cyclones now spinning in the Atlantic and Gulf could

threaten our rain-soaked coasts and waterways."

The reality:

1) We haven’t had a single actual hurricane make landfall even though

we are about three quarters of the way thru the hurricane season.

2) We are up to tropical storm Nate, that is the 14th named storm of

the season. None so far qualifies as a hurricane except for Katia,

which is not expected to make landfall in North America.

3) Not even close to record numbers or record strength.

It doesn’t get any more propagandic than that. We’re all gonna die

folks, unless we give the IPCC all our money and our first-borns. Make

the rich pay.

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Horngate

http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2011/09/horngate.html

Horngate
African droughts are a well known and historical problem. The Sahel
(left map), the vast territory south of the Sahara, for instance, has
a long record of past droughts. So, every time you hear Al Gore
talking about droughts, you should suspect some inconvenient truths
are being omitted.

And that is the case with the Sahel droughts mentioned in the Climate
Reality site above. It talks about the great Sahel drought, best known
because of the "Do They Know It’s Christmas" song. What it does not
mention is that since then, the Sahel has been getting greener! The
Global Warming Policy Foundation did an excellent briefing paper on
this. But this is no news today, and National Geographic was already
trying to explain the unexplainable two years ago!

Al Gore should know about it, so he will probably be switching his
focus to the Horn of Africa, where a severe drought is underway. As
can be seen by the map on the left (detail here), several areas of
Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia are experiencing famine or severe food
shortage. The UNHCR has a special site on the issue.

While these droughts have caused some tens of thousands of deaths, and
some 750 000 could die in the next four months, one would imagine that
the IPCC would have predicted it. Think again! If you go to the IPCC
page regarding the fractional change in precipitation changes over
Africa in this century, you might find something shocking:

Now, if you’re not familiar with Africa’s geography, check it out
again: the IPCC, in the Fourth Assessment Report, which gave them the
Nobel Prize, is predicting a major rainfall increase, in the exact
same region where the drought is underway! And I just can’t get it,
because these are predictions for a warming world. So, something must
be wrong, very wrong, inside the IPCC and their 21 models…

It gets worse. FEWS (Famine Early Warning Systems Network), which also
has some very interesting data, was concluding last year:

The observed drying tendency is the opposite predicted by the 4th
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC ) assessment.

Further down the document, more detail is provided:

The observed rainfall tendencies are substantially different from the
results presented in the most recent (4th) Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) assessment (Christensen and others, 2007).
Chapter 11 (Regional Climate Projections, Christensen and others,
2007) of the IPCC Working Group I report indicates that eastern Africa
will likely experience a modest (5 10 percent) increase in June-July-
August precipitation, a result our work, although not looking at the
same months, suggests is unlikely.

Chris Funk, who works with FEWS, saw it coming, along with La Ni a
last year. In an article in Nature (registry needed) last month,
intitled We thought trouble was coming, Chris gives an idea why this
was mishandled:

The global climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change were never intended to provide rainfall trend
projections for every region. These models say that East Africa will
become wetter, yet observations show substantial declines in spring
rainfall in recent years. Despite this, several agencies are building
long-term plans on the basis of the forecast of wetter conditions.
This could lead to agricultural development and expansion in areas
that will become drier. More climate science based on regional
observations could be helpful in addressing these challenges.

This is the most important part. Not only has IPCC been useless in the
last decade, but has been committing severe errors. But now, Horngate
clearly shows us that IPCC has been contributing to several tens of
thousands of deaths, because of inferior climate investigation, and
misleading guidance. It is the time to shutdown an UN agency, that is
doing more harm than good! And maybe, Al Gore will talk about all this
inconvenience in a week…

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (2)

WHO IS JESUS ????????

WHO IS JESUS?

Without a doubt, you have often heard the claim that Jesus is God, the
second person in the "Holy trinity." However, the very Bible which is
used as a basis for knowledge about Jesus and as the basis for
doctrine within Christianity clearly belies this claim. We urge you to
consult your own Bible and verify that the following conclusions are
not drawn out of context:

1. God is All Knowing…..but Jesus was not
When speaking of the day of judgment, Jesus clearly gave evidence of a
limitation on his knowledge when he said, "but of that day and hour
knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in Heaven, neither the
son, but the Father." Mark 13:32 , and Matt 24:36. But God knows all.
His knowledge is without any limitations. That Jesus, of his own
admission, did not know when the day of judgment would be, is clear
proof that Jesus is not all-knowing, and that Jesus is therefore not
God.

2. God is All Powerful…..but Jesus was not
While Jesus performed many miracles, he himself admitted that the
power he had was not his own but was derived from God when he said,
"Verily, verily I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but
what he seeth the Father do…" St. John 5:19. Again he said, "I can
of mine own self do nothing: as I hear I judge: and my judgment is
just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father
which hath sent me." St. John 5:30. But God is not only all-powerful,
He is also the source of all power and authority. That Jesus, of his
own admission, could do nothing on his own is clear proof that Jesus
is not all-powerful, and that therefore Jesus is not God.

3. God does not have a God…..but Jesus did have a God.
God is the ultimate judge and refuge for all, and He does not call
upon nor pray to any others. But Jesus acknowledged that there was one
whom he worshipped and to whom he prayed when he said, "l ascend unto
my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God." St. John
20:17. He is also reported to have cried out while on the cross, "My
God, my God why hast thou forsaken me?" Matt 27:46. If Jesus were God,
then couldn’t this be read, "Myself, myself why hast thou forsaken
me?" Would that not be pure nonsense? When Jesus prayed the Lord’s
prayer (Luke 11:2-4), was he praying to ! himself? When in the garden
of Gethsemane he prayed, "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup
pass from me: Nevertheless not as I will but as thou wilt." Matt
26:36-39. Was Jesus praying to himself? That Jesus, of his own
admission and by his own actions, acknowledged, worshipped, and prayed
to another being as God is clear proof that Jesus himself is not God.

4. God is an invisible spirit…..but Jesus was flesh and blood
While thousands saw Jesus and heard his voice, Jesus himself said that
this could not be done with God when he said. "No man hath seen God at
any time." St. John 1:18. ‘"Ye have neith! er heard His voice at any
time nor seen His shape." < st1:place>St. John 5:37. He also said in
St. John 4:24. "God is a spirit and they that worship him must worship
him in spirit and in truth." That Jesus would say that no one had seen
or heard God at any time, while his followers both saw and heard him,
is clear proof that Jesus was not God.

5. No one is greater than God and no one can direct Him but Jesus
acknowledged someone greater than himself whose will was distinct from
his own.
Perhaps the clearest indication we have that Jesus and God are not
equal, and therefore not one and the same, come again from the mouth
of Jesus himself who said in St. John 14:28, "My Father is greater
than I." When someone referred to him as good master in Matt 19:17 ,
Jesus responded, "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but
one, that is God…" Furthermore, Jesus drew clear distinctions
between himself and God when he said, "I proceeded forth and came from
God, neither came I of myself but He sent me." St. John 8:42. Jesus
gave clear evidence of his subordination to God, rather than his
equality with God, when he said in Luke 22:42 , "not my will but thine
be done" and in St. John 5:30 , ! "I seek not mine own will but the
will of the Father which hath sent m e." That Jesus would admit that
he did not come into the world on his own initiative but was directed
to do so, that he would acknowledge another being as greater than
himself, and that he would negate his own will in deference to
affirming the will of another, give clear proof that Jesus is not the
Supreme One and therefore Jesus is not God.

Conclusion
The Church recognizes the Bible as the primary source of knowledge
about God and Jesus. But since the Bible makes it clear that Jesus is
not the Supreme Being and the Supreme Being is not Jesus, upon what
basis have you come to believe otherwise?

My brother or sister, the belief that the Supreme Being is a Trinity
is false and completely inconsistent with the words of Jesus as
presented in the Bible. God is one, not three. He is a perfect unity.

If you are interested in the truth about God and your relationship to
Him, we invite you to investigate the religion of Islam.

What is the word of God about Jesus:

A. Regarding Sonship of Jesus:
That is Jesus, son of Mary, in word of truth, concerning which they
are doubting. It is not for God to take a son unto Him. Glory be to
Him! When He decrees a thing he but says to it "Be", and it is.
(Qur’an 19:34,35).

And they say, ‘The All-merciful has taken unto Himself a son.’ You
have indeed advanced something hideous. The heavens are well nigh rent
of it and the earth split asunder, and the mountains well nigh fall
down crashing for that they have attributed to the All-Merciful a son;
and it behoves not the All-Merciful to take a son. None is there in
the heavens and earth but comes to the All-Merciful as a servant
(Qur’an 19:88-93).

Truly the likeness of Jesus, in God’s sight, is as Adam’s likeness; He
created him of dust, then said He unto him, "Be", and he was. (Qur’an
3:59).

People ! of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion, and
say not as to God but the Truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was
only the Messenger of God, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and
a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers. and say not,
‘Three’, Refrain, better is it for you. God is only One God. Glory be
on Him – that He should have a son! To Him belongs that which is in
the heavens and on the earth, God suffices for a guardian. (Qur’an
4:171)

B. Regarding Jesus being God:
And when God said. ‘O Jesus son of Mary,did you say unto men, "Take me
and my mother as gods, apart from God?" He Said, ‘To You be Glory! It
is not mine to say what I have no right to. If I indeed said it, You
knew it, knowing what is within my soul, and I do not know what is
within Your soul; You know the things unseen. I only said to them what
You did command me: "Serve God, my Lord and your Lord." And I was a
witness over them, while I remained among them; but when You did take
me to Yourself the Watcher over them; You ar! e the witness of
everything. (Quran 5:116,117)

C. Regarding Crucifiction of Jesus:
And for their unbelief, and their uttering against Mary a mighty
calumny, and for their saying, ‘We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of
Mary, the Messenger of God’…yet they did not slay him, neither
crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them. Those who
are at variance concerning him surely are in doubt regarding him, they
have no knowledge of him, except the following of surmise; and they
did not slay him of certainty… no indeed, God raised him up to Him;
God is Almighty, All-Wise. There is not one of the people of the Book
but will assuredly believe in him before his death, and on the
Resurrection Day he will be a witness against them. (Qur’an 4:156-159)

IF YOU WISH TO KNOW MORE ABOUT ISLAM, WE PREFER TO VISIT THE FOLLOWING
WEBSITES:

http://www.islam-guide.com

http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran

http://www.islamhouse.com/s/9661

http://www.thisistruth.org

http://www.quran-m.com/firas/en1

http://kaheel7.com/eng

http://www.knowmuhammad.com

http://www.rasoulallah.net/v2/index.aspx?lang=e

 http://imanway1.com/eng

http://www.todayislam.com

http://www.thekeytoislam.com

http://www.islamland.com

http://www.discoverislam.com

http://www.thetruereligion.org

http://www.beconvinced.com

http://islamtomorrow.com

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran

http://www.quranforall.org

http://www.prophetmuhammed.org

http://www.chatislamonline.org/ar

http://www.dar-us-salam.com

http://youtubeislam.com

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

'Abatement sourced from overseas…' will cost us nearly $10b pa

http://www.abc.net.au/news/specials/climate-change/emission-reductions/

…comprises more than *half* of the ‘abatement’

400 Mt pa x $23/t = $9.2b of taxpayers money paid overseas.

Unbelievable.

How did we get into this situation where a totally *unrepresentative*
PM, propped up by a couple of *unrepresentative* Independents ignores
the polls and imposes this shit on us?

"SUPPORT for federal Labor has collapsed in metropolitan Sydney and is
so low in Queensland that former prime minister Kevin Rudd would be the
only government MP to hold his seat in the state if elections had been
held last weekend".

"…the number of people who thought they would be worse off … still
remained at 69 per cent from 77 per cent in April. The number of people
who thought they would be better off rose to 9 per cent from 6 per cent
in April".
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-tax-campaign-…

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comment (1)

No Evidence Global Warming Is Making Hurricanes Worse, nee: Irene Wasn't All That

Ryan Maue, at Florida State University, tracks global tropical cyclone
energy back to 1970, which is the time at which adequate data on
hurricane winds became available. His "Accumulated Cyclone Energy" (ACE)
index peaked in the mid 1990′s and in recent years has been at or near
the lowest point ever recorded.

However, there is an interesting trend in Atlantic hurricane activity.
The Department of Commerce’s National Hurricane Center (NHC) is naming
tropical storms that they clearly would have ignored in previous years.
  … Frankly, some of our recent "tropical storms" have pitiful
presentations, looking more like small clusters of thunderstorms than
the familiar pinwheels of nascent hurricanes.

Why NHC is doing this, and why they kept Hurricane Irene’s "category"
(one through five) high despite  acknowledging that hurricane hunter
aircraft were having trouble finding enough wind, has more to do with
risk aversion …

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/irene-wasnt-all-that/

Nye is still a doofus (upgraded from buffoon).

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments