IMG_9989IMG_9995IMG_9972 IMG_9962 IMG_9950 IMG_9929

IMG_9954 IMG_9982 IMG_9965 IMG_9958 IMG_9948 IMG_9925 (1) IMG_9920 IMG_9949 IMG_9964 (1) IMG_9925 IMG_9984 IMG_9966 IMG_9959 IMG_9968 IMG_9971 IMG_9925 IMG_9928

We live in a world wracked with bloodshed, cruelty, violence, fear and sorrow.  What is the solution offered by our elected officials?

Last week the National Post gave us this enlightened view from Ottawa:

“Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion says climate change is the “worst threat we are facing this century,” and that current emissions-reduction targets from major emitters don’t go far enough.

It’s a marked departure from the previous Conservative government, which had said the Islamic State and Russia were the greatest threats to Canada, if not the world.”

I care a lot about nature.  I don’t use any pesticides and plant a great variety of trees, bushes, herbs and flowers to provide a habitat for the myriad little creatures that share this earth with humanity.  But I’ve read more than enough about the climate change/global warming crowd to regard most of them to be either dolts or hucksters.

Do these naifs actually believe that closed societies, or totalitarian systems, or corrupt governments are going to accurately and honestly produce emission figures that will impede their economic development?  China most certainly gave the world wrong  emission numbers,  but who among the crowd living high on climate scare fortunes knows how to correctly tally the carbon-dioxide output of other countries?

IMG_9981The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC) was caught flat-footed in fraudulent suppressing of data that did not tell the story they wanted told:

Hucksters saw there were fortunes to be made in the green revolution giving impetus to sustain and intensify fraudulent claims.  Governments in the democratic west caved in and environmental taxes continue to rise now, depleting private pockets while bloating government coffers.  Al Gore, the man who grew wealthy on his contrived ‘truths’ owns houses, cars, planes but tells others to decrease their footprint.

Rachel Notley blithely informs Albertans they’ll have to pay her government almost $500./yr more, ….for the good of the planet.  That amount will scarcely touch the wealthy Premier, but not all Albertans are rich oil barons.

No doubt some of the Kyoto to Paris zealots deeply believe what they are doing is for our collective good, but Gore and IPCC are just two examples of people who are not pure as the driven snow.

But the truth about our changing climate will always elude these folk, whether they be zealots of charlatans.  The truth is not hiding, and has always been there in plain view, but to coin Mr. Gore,……….it is an inconvenient truth.

The entire earth was once a very different place, a place of profound beauty and perfection and abundance.  The earth’s geology tells us that something of a global catastrophic nature occurred, something that captured billions upon billions of vibrant life forms, birds, plants, animals, insects, fish, and slammed them into a cementing slurry.  All around the world, that is what the rocks reveal.  Sedimentary layers, some thick, many paper-thin laminae contain perfectly preserved flora and fauna.  That preservation could only occur under very specific conditions;…..RAPID BURIAL, REMOVAL OF OXYGEN and A HEAVY OVERBURDEN.  (Something like placing flowers between two wax papers and using an iron to preserve them). Some of that plant and animal life got compressed into what is now the earth’s vast stores of oil, gas and coal, and some, (as in BILLIONS) got buried too rapidly to allow the normal processes of decay to occur.  

And so we find pancake flat, as well as jumbled sedimentary deposition in China, in Morocco, in Britain, in the United States, in Russia, in Canada…….just examine slate, shale, sandstone, limestone anywhere on earth.   I took a picture of our fossil books.  The ruling paradigm of ‘our evolutionary ascent’ permeates all these books, but read enough of them and you know evolutionists are flailing about for a coherent explanation.  Water is a major descriptive in discussion of the burial process. The only constant for the last hundred years of these just-so stories is that evolution MUST have happened.  Because you see, if we are not the product of eons of evolutionary change from nothing that exploded to something, somewhere and somehow crawled its way up to emerging as nuclear scientists,….. why then if that scenario can be shown for the complete nonsense it is,……….well then Who, what, when, why……….Oh no!  We cannot allow a Divine foot in the door!!!   It really boils down to Divine creator, or blind, unguided material organizing itself into beauty, order, complexity and mind.

Evolution is a terrible lie, one that can be clearly seen by anyone who just steps back and allows their mind to inform them, using your common sense, instead of allowing mindless indoctrination to rule.  We have been created by God.  He made us in His own image.  He made humans to rule over the earth, to steward it.  Jesus says if we seek for Him, we will find Him,  If we ask, we will receive from Him,  if we knock on His door, He will open Heaven to us, beginning now and after death for all eternity.

The climate change furor tries to portray carbon dioxide as evil.  In fact growers pump it into greenhouses, to enhance plant growth.  Both our North and South Poles has, once abundant, tropical life buried in fossil rock.   Plant and animal life was lush and robust in that world before the global flood.  Many living things were significantly bigger pre-flood.

The conditions after God’s judgement on the world of Noah’s day were radically different.  There clearly was an ice age after the flood, some 4,500 years ago, and the world has been a harsher, colder place since then.

Climate/weather is always changing.  Sun flares, deep ocean currents, jet-streams, volcanic activity, earthquakes, tsunamis are big events that regularly impact the earth.

The expensive, egotistical tax-funded party in Paris is a delusion.  We can and should care for the earth, but we are not gods.

The photographs above show fossil rock with paper-thin layers.  Between these can be found, on the same plane, fish, birds, insects, leaves, flowers, seeds.  Life once living in seas, on dry land and in the air can be found pressed together into fragile thin layers. Look at your real world, then look at earths flat sedimentary layers, containing untold billions of once-living things.  The story that each layer represents the passage of time, much time, long periods of time is patently fraudulent.   No time passed between one pancake-flat layer and the one above and the one below.  You are looking at an astounding singularity, the Biblical global flood.

fossils of antarctica

Fossils of the Arctic



Countdown to Paris: New World Order II   (The red highlight is mine)

Countdown_To_ParisThe United Nations adopted the climate change agenda in the 1980s and has since developed it into an all-consuming, ambitious framework through which to tackle a number of earlier progressive causes, from gender inequality to sustainable development. The coming Paris climate conference, under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, is the culmination of a concerted effort launched 70 years ago this year.

The founding of the UN in 1945 was a response to the outrage of two world wars, and the UN’s charter provides it with a mandate to broker peace and global order and to limit war and disorder. That mandate includes an economic and social dimension predicated on the idea that a more prosperous and socially cohesive world will be a more peaceful one.

On the political side of its mandate, the UN has had moderate success. On the economic and social side, however, it has focused on an increasing array of fads, cajoling member governments into adopting a wide range of agendas and resolutions favoured by the so-called international community, a term adopted by the media to describe activists with agendas.

The UN’s efforts to establish a New International Economic Order (NIEO) in the 1960s and 1970s and its current focus on “saving” the planet give one a strong sense of déjà vu.

The focus for much of the early effort was the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), established in 1964. Its high point was the fourth conference in Nairobi in 1976, at which governments agreed to establish the Integrated Program for Commodities (IPC). But by the time of the Manila (1979) and Belgrade (1983) conferences, governments were losing their enthusiasm for the NIEO. Over the course of the 1980s, more and more developing-country governments realized that their development goals were more likely to be met working through the trade regime embedded in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and its successor, the World Trade Organization (WTO), than through UNCTAD.

The WTO now has twice as many members as GATT had during UNCTAD’s heyday, and many developing countries have embarked on serious efforts to open their markets to global competition. Most have turned their backs on the dirigiste policy preferences of the NIEO and are beginning to see positive results.

UNCTAD still exists but is now a mere shadow of its earlier self, its many meeting rooms standing idle for much of the year.

Over the past few decades, a new focus on sustainability and the climate change agenda suggest another attempt to establish a new world economic order is underway. This time it is science that is being harnessed to meet the political objectives of those committed to warding off the alleged crisis of global warming and the equally alleged deteriorating state of the global commons, with the goal of ushering in a world more to their liking.
Climate change professor Mike Hulme from the UK’s University of East Anglia baldly asserts: “We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us. … Rather than trying to ‘solve’ climate change … we need to approach climate change as an imaginative idea, an idea that we develop and employ to fulfill a variety of tasks for us. Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical and spiritual needs.”         [Now THAT IS CREEPY!]

For Hulme, the climate change “crisis” provides a convenient basis upon which to tackle such UN perennials as population control, income redistribution, and sustainable development. Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), has enthusiastically taken up this theme. At a Brussels press conference, she explained that climate negotiations are “probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves. … 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.”

The NIEO appears to have morphed into the quest for sustainable development, with all its questionable economic assumptions intact but now covered with a new coat of environmentalist paint.

For many environmentalists, even switching to new forms of energy is problematic because it delays de-industrializing advanced economies.
James Speth, a leading American environmentalist, maintains that: “The prioritization of economic growth is among the roots of our problems. … Economic growth may be the world’s secular religion, but for much of the world it is a god that is failing – underperforming for most of the world’s people and, for those in affluent societies, now creating more problems than it is solving.” The media’s current favourite Malthusian, Bill McKibben, adds in a familiar lament: “growth may be the one big habit we finally must break.” For anti-growth environmentalists, industrialization, capitalism, and population growth are the satanic trinity that must be exorcised in order for the planet to survive. In their view, even sustainable development places too great a burden on the planet.

The new economic order on offer would involve massive increases in government regulatory activity and control leading to significant costs for economies that are already stretched from fiscal overreach due to the continuing growth of government programs.
Michael Hart, Professor Emeritus at Carleton University, held the Simon Reisman chair in trade policy at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs.