Today's News | Christian Views
| Home | Community | WorldMagBlog | Commentary | Previous Posts | Podcasts | Contact Us | Subscribe |
On our turf
Experts say the threat of domestic terrorism is growing
FULL STORY
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration
Bitter pill: GOP senators swallow hard as judicial nominee David Hamilton is confirmed
Just friends: Obama’s Asia agenda steered clear of any tough talk on human rights abuses 
Morning!
Today’s quote is from an essayist and poet: “Three grand essentials to happiness in this life are something to do, something to love and something to hope for.”
All original content Copyright © 2009 WORLDmag.com and may not be reproduced without permission
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
Click to Print
Include Comments
back to top68 Comments to “Whirled Views 6.17”
Oh, I thought that they were a claim to victimhood, a government to provide for you, and no requirements or resposibilities place on you.
Report comment to moderator
Joseph Addison
Report comment to moderator
Good quote, but incomplete. To be happy, one must also find something to be grateful for.
Report comment to moderator
To give another answer to Cheryl D’s question about nursery care in the church.
I went back to work yesterday and a new guy is working in our department. He was getting ready to go eat his lunch and stopped by my desk to introduce himself. He had a Bible and a book of devotions by Smith Wigglesworth (the name makes me want to giggle). Turns out he is a lay minister and he and his wife moved here to take a position in a church (wouldnn’t tell me which one) but realized they had made the wrong decision. I showed him Cheryls question and asked what his answer would be. He shook his head and said WE make Christianity so complicated. Christianity is easy. We impose all sorts of rules and regulations. He then told me how Wigglesworth would read a passage of scripture and say OK I will believe that. No deep and pondering thoughts and questions; just OK I will believe. Wouldn’t it be great if we could all be that way?
Report comment to moderator
How about that big Kandahar prison break? I hope next time instead of leaving Taliban fighters in Afghan custody (where they can bribe the warden and guards, smuggle in weapons and other escape tools) we pack them off to Gitmo.
Or if not Gitmo, then perhaps we could pack them off to a prison in Iraq. That would be great, since Afghanis dont speak Arabic and Iraqis dont speak Afghan.
Report comment to moderator
Kim, an unexamined and un-examinable religious text? Sounds a bit like the Quran!
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner I think I was headed for the “faith of a child” aspect. I was looking at the surface of just believing in God.
Report comment to moderator
Surprised this doesn’t have its own thread already:
Pro-life drugstores market beliefs
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A: Oh, I thought that they were a claim to victimhood, a government to provide for you, and no requirements or resposibilities place on you.
Actually, it’s: Professing to belong to a religion whose founder taught compassion for the poor; and yet, having an irresistible urge to mock and scorn the poor; and to sit in the pew feeling good about yourself despite the contradiction.
Report comment to moderator
MY wife used for a man who said, “Every man needs a reason to get up in the morning.”
While I was away from home for a year, at the Naval War College, I modified his saying,
“Every man needs a reason to go home at night.”
Report comment to moderator
My wife used to work for a man
Report comment to moderator
Joe B: Enjoy your virtual iced coffee!
Report comment to moderator
Victoria–I do agree with you in a sense. Ideally it would be great for the whole family to sit together, like they probably did in the times you mentioned. However, in our particular church, we have several sweet senior saints who have literally complained when a baby *sneezes* in the worship service. So, these days it is usually best if there is at least a nursery provided. Also, in my own position (where I have absolutely no family to ever help with the little ones, and my hubby is gone pretty much all day and into the night) it sure is nice to get a little break sometimes. I’m sure some will find that selfish. So be it…
Report comment to moderator
Chas, were you in submarines or surface targets?
Report comment to moderator
I read SteveG’s link, and I plump for the right of a private pharmacy to pick and choose what it wants to sell, especially on the rights of conscience.
It might be another question if the pharmacy were just one among a larger chain, but since the fellow owns his own store, he should have the right to choose.
Report comment to moderator
sawgunner #5: It is my understanding that the Kandahar prison was in the control of the Canadians.
momoffour #13: I believe someone should reminds those “sweet senior saints” that Jesus said not to forbid little children from coming to him.
Note to David L (from yesterday’s WV): You asked if WORLD is endorsing Mormonism because there was a quote from a Mormon. Have you ever wondered if the quotes from Greek pagans used meant they were endorsing polytheism? No, because it is just a quote.
Report comment to moderator
Kim on faith–
I’ve been noticing a divide in Christian circles between the gentle faith that accepts the Bible, studies it, and asks no deep, unanswerable theological questions. And then there is the questing faith which looks at the Bible, sees a question, and attempts to answer it knowing that none will be found (e.g. free will vs. election).
And strong fundamental/evangelical Christians often practice both kinds. Perhaps both kinds are necessary.
Report comment to moderator
The Subaru broke down yesterday, but fortunately (hehehehe, we know Who was there!) son was driving to work on that same portion of road where husband was stranded, directly in front of a repair place, and was able to drive him to work. No cell phone needed. Was there a recall of old cars this month that we missed? Anyway, hubby got to pay Canadian prices rather than USofA prices. Oh, that is not such a good thing. Well, on the brght side, we have no more cars to break down!
Report comment to moderator
On the nursery question – my thoughts are that a nursery is needed. I was most annoyed when my church had a nursery, but it was never staffed. What point is there? I sometimes went to church with my baby, while my husband worked. If I had to spend most of the service in the nursery, why did I bother to come? Now, the nursery is staffed each week, by volunteers. Although I use it every week, I do not volunteer for this ministry. That isn’t my gift, and I know it. I serve other ways, and let others do what they are good at. I am grateful to be able to learn and worship without distraction.
Also, we put our daughter in the nursery about halfway thru the service. All kids leave for Sunday School, after Communion, offering, etc. That’s when our daughter goes to the nursery. They only thing they really miss is the sermon.
Report comment to moderator
Some churches have checked out their nursury staff very carefully, even doing background checks. I would want one that is very careful about who is in there.
I have never belonged to a church that had enough resources to staff one. My daugher’s churches all have nursuries available to them. One has paid staff, I believe. In that one, my daughter has volunteered also, sometimes for pay, sometimes not. She is a preschool teacher so is fitted for the job. She also has two little ones three and one years old.
I love children, but the nursury is even difficult for me. Unless, it is staffed by pretty much the same few people all the time, the children are usually not happy to be left with a stranger. When one cries or tries to escape, they all do. And I have had some try to get out! I would never, ever want someone in there because they are forced to be there.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner: I don’t understand your question. I think it was about the NWC. I was a civillian at the time. The DOD (and other agencies) send a certain number of civillians. I was there for a year. My service in the Air Force was long ago.
Re: Nurseries. My son and grandchildren went to nurseries. It helps the parents during the worship service. I don’t mind children in church. But it irritates me when a grownup says, “sheeeeeh” to an infant. It only complicates things.
Report comment to moderator
#5 Sawgunner,
Well, the supreme court just created the largest imaginable jailbreak at GIRTMO.
Report comment to moderator
I ran into another article by a Global Warming denier, and found some interesting things in light of what SteveG said about the Oregon Project.
He claimed (at first) that the Oregon was a hoax and that at most there were only 200 creditable climate scientists on board that project. I responded that 200 scientists was a significant number, and that I could dispute that “consensus” claimed by the media in reporting 2500 scientists cited in the IPCC’s study also.
This article points out that “while critics of the petition have pointed to fake signatures (e.g., Janet Jackson, Perry Mason, etc.) no doubt put there by those wanting to discredit it, none have attacked the science and evidence cited in the paper.”
So yes, by all means, refute the science in this paper instead of making ad hominem attacks on the project. As well, if it really is a hoax SteveB, please point to sources that have discredited it in some way besides pointing out fake signatorys.
This same article points out all kinds of fallacies and misinformation in Gore’s movie, as well as in the IPCC’s study.
I read also that on March 4th, the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in which “more than 500 scientists closed the conference with what is referred to as the Manhatten Declaration. In short, they declared that “global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life. . . There is not convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change. . Now, therefore, we recommend that world leaders reject the view expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided, works such as An Inconvenient Truth.”
Now just how many of you have heard of this conference and it’s conclusion? Was there Big News about it? I hadn’t heard a peep about it to tell the truth.
Just makes me angry is what it does. When people want to railroad over me and quell all dissent, by lying about the consensus, and spewing incorrect data, and wreck our entire economy based upon spurious theories that are far from proven, and then come to find out that Gore and company stand to make TONS of money off of it, then it starts to really get under my skin. If anything it makes me even more militant against those who think they know better than the rest of us.
It’s a long read, but worth it I think. Hope our resident Global Warming Enthusiasts will respond…
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner,
I think we should take the GITMO prisoners and put them into the empty jail cells in Afghanistan immediately and have them guarded and re-interrogated by Afghanis who have had their family killed by the Taliban.
If they escape at least we can shoot them there.
Report comment to moderator
Nurseries – These days our church nursery is for a parent to take their crying baby to, if needed. There is a speaker in there, so the sermon can still be heard (once the baby settles down).
Report comment to moderator
Make It Man: “while critics of the petition have pointed to fake signatures (e.g., Janet Jackson, Perry Mason, etc.) no doubt put there by those wanting to discredit it, none have attacked the science and evidence cited in the paper.”
It isn’t just the presence of fake signatures, although the fact that they’re there is evidence that there is little control of authenticity. It’s that the OISM and its backers cite the large number of signatures and imply that they are all from reputable and qualified scientists, when in fact only a small fraction — less than 1 percent of the total — come from people seriously knowledgeable about the relevant fields. (Assuming even those are all genuine.)
Whatever “science and evidence” there may be in the paper — and as far as I know it’s not a scientific paper, it’s a petition — is discredited by the simple fact that the vast majority of climate scientists won’t sign on to support it.
Report comment to moderator
Ah… so as far as you know, there is no rebuttal to the science in the paper, which is here under the heading of “Click here to see this peer reviewed research paper.”
So basically you’re talking through your hat when you say “it’s not a scientific paper, it’s a petition” and “discredited by the simple fact that the vast majority of climate scientists won’t sign on to support it.”
Because number one, you didn’t know it was a peer reviewed paper, and number two I’m not sure you know what you’re talking about when you say “vast majority of climate scientists”.
Um.. what vast majority? You mean that “vast majority” of “2500″ in the IPCC study? Give me a break Steve.
Show me a rebuttal that doesn’t consist of your shallow argument as noted above. Show me where the science in the paper has been rebutted. Give me solid points why the sun isn’t causing Global Warming. Give me solid points where anthropogenic cause of Global Warming has been proven. Otherwise cease and desist, because obviously you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.
Report comment to moderator
You would do well to read both of the links I give above, and dispute the comments and observation they make rather than the small quotes I give.
I’ve read several credible sources now that have indicated that the earth has been cooling for the last ten years, (and the greatest drop in temp was just last year at .7 degrees!) and not warming disastrously as Gore and the rest of the hysteric, money grubbing, fortune telling, Global Warming crowd has predicted with their clear plastic orbs in the midst of the media carnival.
Report comment to moderator
Good point Karen that I had forgotten. I once attended a Catholic church with a friend. They had a “cry room” at the back of the sanctuary. It was glassed in and soundproof but the adult with the misbehaving child could still see and hear the priest.
Report comment to moderator
I love the idea of cry rooms. And I can see an adult other than the parent, but known to the family, taking a child back there to give a weary mom a break. But biblically parents’ most important duty is to train their children in God’s Word. I’m not going to argue that such a requirement means that nurseries aren’t allowed, but it certainly does mean that their use shouldn’t be encouraged or mandated–that children actually need to be under the preaching of the Word as much as adults do.
Since we have lost the better portion of a generation raised in nursery, children’s church, and youth group (75 to 80% of churched kids leave the church by the end of their first year of college), I think it’s at least worth considering whether having them in church with us, as Scripture seems to have encouraged all along, might be worth the inconvenience now for the joy later. Most in my family have thought that it was.
Ironically, one relative writes books for children’s church workers. But my own parents and most of my siblings chose to keep kids in the service, though nursery and children’s church were available. Though I don’t have kids, that is the choice I made a long time ago as well–and my not having kids shouldn’t refute the validity of that choice, since my siblings who made that choice have followed through and there’s no reason to expect that I wouldn’t. I did have foster kids in the service with me, and trust me that it wasn’t always easy to do that. (I had very active children, according to others who saw them as well as my own observation.)
Again, I’m not saying that it’s “wrong” to use the nursery–but I am saying that churches should do everything possible to allow and encourage families to stay together, because that may not be the biblical command but it is certainly the biblical pattern.
Remember that my mom raised seven children, and had three within a little more than three years in her forties, and a husband who worked nights when we were babies. I’m assuming she had as much difficulty with squirming kids as anyone else, but that happened to be a priority to her, and a priority to most of her children as well. We didn’t grow up to say, “Church was so boring and incomprensible that my own children will be in the nursery and children’s church.” Rather, we felt that being raised in church was a blessing, and one we want for our own children. Once again, I’m not saying everyone needs to follow that pattern, but it is worth it for those who do, and churches ought to enourage it or minimally not dicourage it.
Report comment to moderator
I agree completely, Cheryl. My point is, what about all the (mostly) older folks in the congregation (I’m speaking of my church, but I know there are others) who disapprove of children in the church. We have no intention of leaving our church. THe Word is preached soundly and we have a strong family of believers. BUt there are MANY who have been there “forever” who feel strongly that the children need to be removed during the service–their opinion bears much weight to the elders of our church. Yet, most of them are unwilling to man the nursery. I have read many posts here about this subject along the lines of “It’s just not my gift to serve in the nursery.” I’m sure those people are sincere, but truly if everyone says that then who will? To be honest, one of my least favorite things to do is hang out with teens. Sorry, it just is. But if I kept to that attitude, and all my mommy friends did too, who is going to reach out to the young ladies of our congregation?
Okay, I think I’ve changed topics now. Honestly, it’s not the whole nursery thing that gets me fired up. It’s the complete lack of willingness on many if not most older women’s part to mentor us young moms. It just seems like so many older women have the attitude of, “Oh, I’ve already been through that stage and I don’t want to do it again.” Sometimes I feel like begging for help.
Report comment to moderator
I didn’t mean that last part as intended to anyone here. Honestly, the gals on WOW have offered me MUCH more mentoring and prayers than any older women in my fellowship.
8*)
Report comment to moderator
Make It Man: Ah… so as far as you know, there is no rebuttal to the science in the paper, which is here under the heading of “Click here to see this peer reviewed research paper.”
And where was this paper published other than the OISM Web site? Why is there no information on just who were the reviewers?
Um.. what vast majority? You mean that “vast majority” of “2500″ in the IPCC study? Give me a break Steve.
I am not arguing in favor of IPCC either.
But if the OISM position were as obvious and clear as you allege, they would not have to resort to pumped-up numbers on an uncontrolled petition to prove it.
I see now that they are no longer accepting online signatures, so maybe they are beginning to grasp that they have a real credibility problem. When the scrub all the unverifiable signers out of the number they already have, I’ll be really impressed.
Report comment to moderator
“I am not arguing in favor of IPCC either.”
So then just what are you arguing? You indicate that you’re not entirely sure that Global Warming is anthropogenic. And you’re not arguing for the IPCC either.
My main point is that most of this Global Warming hype is just that, and that there’s very little interest in looking at the facts before jumping on the bandwagon to spend billions of dollars for what seems to be very little effect on Global Warming – even if it’s going on. In fact there’s lots of interest in censuring the dissent, and branding those who are sceptical as deniers.
The highly ironic thing is that the very people who denigrate Christians and Iintelligent Design proponents are the very ones ignoring how very un-peer reviewed the supporting science for anthropogenic global warming is and just how hyped up this whole issue is. There’s an ocean full of irony right there…
Report comment to moderator
In fact, I’d like to know just what your sources are that show how the “vast majority” of climate scientists think Global Warming is a fact.
Report comment to moderator
And what do you think of the information that was presented on the OISM’s website? So far you’re just bolstering the conclusion that I’ve come to, and it’s that you cannot support your position by answering the points brought up by the sceptics. You must denigrate (as usual with the GW supporters) the sceptics instead of answering points.
Report comment to moderator
I know, Momoffour, I know. The biblical mandate is for older women to teach…and younger women to listen. Too often, neither happens. Not a good thing. The elders who scowl at babies in the service are quite simply out of line, biblically–Jesus said not to forbid the little ones to come to Him.
Report comment to moderator
It could be, however, that those older people simply cannot hear the service with babies making a racket. Hearing aids can make background noise hard to take. I have been in churches with poor acoustics, and even I had a hard time hearing over several fussy babies!
I guess I don’t mind the idea of a nursery. I think they are a great tool to allow parents to get some worship and learning time in. I do think, however, that at a certain age, kids can learn to sit through a service and behave. After all, kids are in school at age 5 – and they sit there. Kids older than 3 can certainly be a part of the service, if the church is set up that way.
Report comment to moderator
This gets even more rich…
Here’s a link to John Coleman’s (founder of the Weather Channel) remarks to the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change.
You think that the OISM project is a scam eh? And by your own admission only about 200 of those scientists that signed the petition were climate scientists right? So I guess you think that indicates they have a credibility problem?
So how about this. I’ll quote John Coleman:
Hmmmm.. So if these 200 scientists from the OISM project and 500 scientists from the International Conference on Climate Change who produced the Manhatten document mentioned above, and the list of 450 scientists from Senate Env. Public Wks Committee, and the over 1000 scientists who protested the Kyoto Protocal were not enough sceptics to provide a scientific consensus, then just what is?
The “2500″ scientists in the IPCC study I guess.
So how about the IPCC study eh? How many real Climate Scientists actually supported the conclusion that CO2 drove Global Warming?
Well according to Dr. John McLean, who issued a detailed report of the IPCC reviewers there are as few as 23 independent reviewers and that only 4 explicity endorsed the hypothesis.
Well. That’s a vast majority all right.
Wow me some more.
Report comment to moderator
MIM – not only that, but I have heard that Mars is also warming up. That must be because the Martians are running too many cars, and not paying enough attention to their industrial pollutants. Right?
Report comment to moderator
TL,
I’ve mentioned that fact quite a few times here on the blog and not once has any GW enthusiast had anything remotely relevant to say on that subject…
Report comment to moderator
TL,
Read the John Coleman link above. It’s a pretty easy read, but I guarantee you it’ll raise your blood pressure when you begin to realize the motivation behind all this hype. It’s two fold. One is the self perpetuating nature of the IPCC which seeks to get reparation from countries like ours for countries that supposedly suffer from our industrial activities. So as to accomplish this CO2 has been fingered as the culprit….
And then when you see just how much Al Gore benefits from the Carbon Credits scam then you’ll begin to see red…
Report comment to moderator
I haven’t followed these arguments, but I suspect the driving factor is that there is money in global warming. If you don’t believe in man-made global warming, you don’t get grants to study it, you don’t get money to fight it and you don’t get to sell carbon credits.
Report comment to moderator
If MIM noted that Mars is also warming, I missed it, but I don’t follow the science threads all that much. I have never heard this in any other forum. One wonders why. Sounds like a good question to ask Al Gore to explain.
Report comment to moderator
I agree, TL, about kids being able to sit through church. All of ours, once they hit three, have done that. So right now all of them are. And I truly love having our family worshiping together. It is hard work to train them, but fully worth it.
And Cheryl D–you made a good point adressing the fact that the younger women need to listen to advice given by the older godly women. Too many think they’ve got it all figured out. I, for one, did NOT have it figured out; but there was no one willing to clue me in. Maybe they were afraid I would not listen???
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, folks, for dominating so much of the conversation today; and for sounding “snooty.” I’ve had a rough day at home with my own little brood, and am feeling worn out. I won’t get relief until the end of July when hubby returns…Think I’m going to go hide under a tree and read my Bible.
Blessings!
Report comment to moderator
John Coleman asks this question at the end of his speech:
“If CO2 is not the culprit in global warming, is the selling of carbon credits a financial fraud?”
Report comment to moderator
MIM: Carbon credits not only is a fraud, it’s a scam that will cause a financial crisis.
What happens is the government creates a commodity. This is not pork bellies, corn, oil, gold, or tulips. This is nothing. It’s a commodity that has no intrinsic value and will vary not by supply and demand but by government decree.
When this bubble bursts, credit and mortgage crisis will seem tame.
People will have invested big money in a congressional decree.
It seems so obvious to me. But no one else is talking about it.
Am I missing something?
I used to work in configuration management. One of our first questions on a new system is:
“How is this going to work?”
Report comment to moderator
Humor me while I share a church story. I went back to work when Chloe was 8 weeks old. I treasured the time I had with her at night and on the weekends so I most certainly did NOT put her in the nursery. As she got older George started having me put her in the nursery for most of the service and he would go get her for communion. (We were 8 o’clocker’s and in the Episcopal church that is when most of the older people show up because it is Rite 1)
One Sunday it was raining cats and dogs. George wasn’t going to go get her from the nursery. An older gentleman who sat behind us every Sunday nudged George with an umbrella, George turned around to see what he wanted and he asked wasn’t George going to get the baby for communion. Chloe made it to communion that Sunday too!!!
Report comment to moderator
What a great day. Most people don’t know this but about 30% of the people that live in Phoenix are illegal aliens.
My daughter was just in car wreck on the freeway. A Hispanic man changed lanes in a crazy way according to my daughter and cut her off. She was in the slow lane, she slammed on the breaks but she hit the guy because she just couldn’t stop in time. His car was smashed up as bad as hers according to her but he left the scene of the accident and took off because he was probably an illegal alien, didn’t have insurance and Phoenix is no longer a sanctuary city so the cops check the citizenship of all people that the law comes in contact with. The guy would have been arrested, turned over to ICE and deported.
As it is he caused at least $2,500 damage to my daughters car that comes out of my pocket. It’s bad enough the whack job socialists have their hands in my pocket but they want to give amnesty to these people who already have their hands in your pocket – and they want more.
It is just disgusting. I hope they catch this guy and put him in prison for leaving the scene of an accident.
Report comment to moderator
Well, the Romanians have one up on the left in the USA. It seems that the socialist candidate for mayor of town was running against a conservative who happened to be dead. The conservative was elected overwhelmingly. The reason given was priceless.
The townsfolk realized that a dead conservative was better because the dead man couldn’t fulfill a socialist’s hope for change and they figured change toward socialism of any kind was a bad idea. I’m also guessing that vampires in the area are also socialists with blood dripping from their fangs – not a pretty sight.
Report comment to moderator
Make It Man: I don’t know who to believe or what to think on the climate change issue. I do see signs that things are changing, but I have no idea whether it’s new or cyclical.
I think it is much to easy to dismiss it all as a hoax. The idea didn’t come out of nowhere. But I also don’t know how much support the more alarmed side has.
I remain undecided, and what I’m arguing against here is not the position against, but taking either position with an assumption of certainty.
Report comment to moderator
Well the silence from the GW enthusiasts is deafening…
chirp, chirp, chirp…
Report comment to moderator
Llama,
Why is it that it seems everywhere you turn it’s the Democrats that stymie economic growth and want to spend enormous amounts of money on demoralizing, harebrained, or immoral schemes?
Report comment to moderator
Well that was interesting.. Our posts must have crossed.
Steve, you once seemed so certain. What happened to the “vast majority of scientists”?
You write:
“The idea didn’t come out of nowhere.”
You are quite right.
If you want to see some interesting stuff, read the history of the IPCC. You can see links to it from John Colemans document I mention above.
The history of the IPCC is quite revealing, the idea didn’t come out of nowhere. The folks at the UN have an agenda.
Report comment to moderator
Oh but it just gets better!
I believe it was Chas earlier that said follow the money. And if you do, it gets scarier. Check this out. From Marc Sheppard, on the American Thinker site.
http://tinyurl.com/6ksllc
This piece ties it all in nicely. It’s all about globilization, wealth redistribution on a massive scale. Think trillions here folks. Which govt will then redistribute as they see fit. It’s not just the questionable science involved, it’s what the govt and UN want to do with all the money they’ll extort from private business with that science, that is the end game behind it. Some of them would like to have govt takeover of private companies. I bet oil is the first to be pounced on. Hey, Hugo got away with it, why can’t they? People like this one, in the article;
“It seems that giddy anticipation of further power gains next year — combined with hope of the most liberal among them living in the White House — has caused many Dems to lower their guard with respect to their aims. Just last month, before a House Judiciary Committee, Maxine Waters apparently cared little for Shell Oil President John Hofmeister’s response to her questions about guaranteeing a drop in oil prices were he allowed to drill off US shores. Visibly flustered, the California Democrat let slip to an astonished audience:
“And guess what this liberal would be all about? This liberal would be all about socialize — uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies.”
What still escapes me is just why anyone might be surprised by her faux-pas. Such is precisely the Left’s rationale for jumping aboard the bogus GHG bandwagon in such earnest almost to the very man and woman.”
And it all hinges on scientist going along with it.
Report comment to moderator
Momoffour, are there any young people in your church who could come watch your kids for a few hours once a week, especially with your husband away? I’ve had two teen-aged girls helping me out that way for the last several months, and that’s been a huge help to me. I give them some money for gas and feed them lunch when they come. They watch the boys, fold laundry, pick up toys, etc., and just give me a break. I think it’s been one of the ways God is preserving my sanity!
Anyway, I’m praying for you.
Mumsee, I asked my hubbie about long-term effects of meth exposure in kids. As far as he knows, there have not been any studies done, so there’s no published literature out there that addresses the questions you raised last week. Sorry!
BTW, how’s your car situation?!
Report comment to moderator
AJ,
exactly what I was getting at.
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee,
On the meth exposure. My son studied what happens when the body is exposed to certain chemicals, and the change to the brain with a lot of drugs is permanent. I do not remember the details, since my son is a zoology major, and I’m just a mechanic with a poor memory, but it impressed my son so much that he didn’t even want to try any alcohol after that.
I’m searching for the pictures of accelerated aging I saw once, and came across this book. I haven’t read it or even viewed the short video here by the author, but here’s the link on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Beautiful-Boy-Fathers-Journey-Addiction/dp/0618683356
If I find those pix, I’ll post a link back for you.
Report comment to moderator
This isn’t for the faint of heart.
Faces of Meth:
http://www.drugfree.org/portal/drugissue/methresources/faces/index.html
This site shows not only photos but discusses all the other associated problems:
http://www.anti-meth.org/photos2.html
Especially shocking to me is the photo sequence of the attractive blond woman who looks to be about 80 after 10 years of use.
Even more tragic is what happens to children stuck in a home affected by this awful drug.
Report comment to moderator
MIM,
Here’s another good piece on the scam known as global warming. There is not a consensus of scientist. Politicians are another story.
http://tinyurl.com/6nczvz
Report comment to moderator
I forgot to add this in #61, from the link;
“A June 2nd piece at WaPo lamenting the Senate’s probable failure to pass S.3036 (for now) further exemplified the left’s disregard for the science by stating that:
“The world has clamored for U.S. leadership on climate change. Yet for seven years the Bush administration denied and dithered while the planet warmed.” [emphasis added]
An interesting accusation, particularly considering that the planet stopped warming 2 years before Bush took the oath in 2001, has been cooling since 2002 and that this year’s was the fourth coldest May since 1979.
That’s right — the University of Alabama, Huntsville just published its satellite-derived temperature anomalies for May. The figures depict a global temperature drop of 0.195°C between April and May, and a drop of 0.379°C since May of last year. Anthony Watts, one of myriad scientists attributing recent cooling (and global temperature anomalies overall) to the activity of that yellow dwarf star at the center of our solar system and other historically correlative natural forces, notes that: [emphasis in original]
“Even more impressive is the change since the last big peak in global temperature in January 2007 at 0.594°C, giving a 16 month ∆T of -0.774°C which is equal in magnitude to the generally agreed upon ‘global warming signal’ of the last 100 years.”
Please consider those words carefully.”
Report comment to moderator
And this is just priceless;
“Even if true, why then does Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine’s petition against global warming alarmism continue to add signatures to its over 31,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 with PhDs? Just who are the UN’s “expert reviewers” whose opinions have been elevated to the realm of “indisputable?”
Solomon contacted the Secretariat of the IPCC to learn the names of these 2,500 scientists and just what exactly they endorsed. Writes Solomon:
“I planned to canvas them to determine their precise views. The answer that came back from the Secretariat informed me that the names were not public, so I would not be able to survey them, and that the scientists were merely reviewers. The 2,500 had not endorsed the conclusions of the report and, in fact, the IPCC had not claimed that they did. Journalists had jumped to the conclusion that the scientists the IPCC had touted were endorsers and the IPCC never saw fit to correct the record. There is no consensus of 2,500 scientist-endorsers. Moreover, many of those 2,500 reviewers turned thumbs down on the studies that they reviewed – I know this from my own interviews with them, conducted in the course of writing a book about scientists who dispute the conventional wisdom on climate change.”
OK, I’m done. Goodnite all.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, I read that when you posted that the first time. Good article I thought. I find it quite amazing and highly ironic that those who would denigrate Christians and Intelligent Design proponents for being stupid and anti-science would swallow this scam hook line and sinker – all in the name of science.
Report comment to moderator
I quoted that same stuff to Steve G on one of the recent Whirled Views, and I still didn’t get much response other than that the OISM project was a hoax….
Report comment to moderator
The OISM project is not a “hoax” necessarily, but it has a great number of problems, foremost among them the fact that the vast majority of the 31,000 signatures are unverified, and even if they’re all valid, most of them are NOT from climate scientists.
Why this documented fact doesn’t seem to matter to people like Make It Man and The Real AJ, I don’t understand. I agree that some, even many, climate scientists don’t agree that anthropogenic warming is happening. But there is nowhere close to 31,000 of them.
Truth matters, y’know.
Report comment to moderator
Truth matters as long as it doesn’t disagree with your beliefs you mean…
If you can’t be bothered to read the science paper and refute it’s claims, but keep harping on the fact that not all the signatory’s can be legitimate, then you’re missing the whole point. And you really don’t have anything to say about the issue. Who cares about all the signatorys? What about the shoddy pseudo scientific claims made by Al Gore et al?
Even if only 10% of those signatories are relevant (and I think it’s probably more than that with 9,000 PHD’s signing on) it’s still only a minor point.
What about the paper and it’s points? The truth I want to get at is what is actually happening. Is the earth warming catastrophically or not? If it is, is man causing it? The stuff I’ve been reading indicate to me, that the IPCC has been indulging in politics and wealth redistribution more than it’s indulged in science, and that Al “$how me the Carbon Credit$ $tock dividend$” Gore has more to gain than votes or credibility by promoting the GW scare.
And you still haven’t answered my other question. Where do you see a “vast majority” of scientists supporting the Global Warming claims? Sources please.
Report comment to moderator
“The OISM project is not a “hoax” necessarily, but it has a great number of problems,”
Name some of the other ones. You’ve hinted that there may be some, but I’ve not seen one iota of evidence so far.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!