The environmentalist movement's latest target is fracking. Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is the process of extracting shale gas from deposits underground. Natural gas releases less CO2 than oil into the environment. For these reasons, environmentalists concerned with global warming should be pleased to be moving away from oil and toward natural gas, but instead they are trying to stop it, state by state as well as on the federal level.
This is because their real goal is not about reducing carbon emissions, but the radical change of getting people out of their cars and into public transportation. Not satisfied with incremental moves, environmentalists want to rush the process of moving people out of the suburbs and into tiny apartments located in big cities in order to satisfy their unproven, junk-science speculation that using natural sources of energy like oil and gas is bad for the earth.
Fracking started becoming prevalent in the U.S. about five years ago. The U.S. has plenty of natural gas reserves; the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates supplies will last for 230 years. more >>
During a recent visit to California, President Obama reconfirmed he is a devout believer in man-caused climate change and policies he proposes show he is willing to risk the wellbeing of our families and harm the economic future of our country in support of an unsettled theory he believes is a settled science.
The inconsistencies, distortions and falsifications unveiled during Climategate in 2009 matter not. Nor does the fact we have experienced fewer tornadoes and hurricanes the past three decades and extreme temperatures are nothing new to planet earth. The jury is still out, or so says a 987-page Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report mentioning the words "uncertain" and "uncertainty" 1300 times and "key uncertainties" more than 50 times. If IPCC scientists admit the science is not settled, and no one, save God, truly knows why the climate periodically shifts, is not the president a bit presumptive?
Might this be much ado about nothing as authors Christopher Booker and Richard North suggest? In their book "The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with 'Climate Change' Turning out to be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History," they discuss how a "small group of global warming zealots who have repeatedly rigged evidence to support their theory" persuaded media and politicians "to land us with what promises to be the biggest bill in history." more >>
What was the world like in 2013 for the planet's most marginalized and vulnerable communities?
1. Syria's Civil War more >>
As world leaders at the UN Climate Summit reached an agreement to tighten the shackles of oppressive global warming regulations late November, God laughed, and the moisture from his breath touched the earth, painting the place where the Christmas story began, the Holy Land, white with snow December 13.
The same day, the Arab Spring region witnessed an Arab winter, when dusty desert streets were dusted with the first snowfall in 112 years. And last week, Australia's summer landscape became a winter wonderland.
Be it hot, cold, or in between, disciples of the pseudo-religion of global warming, will cite these natural occurrences as proof of man-caused climate change, forgetting the One who created it all did not forget to make allowances for man's existence on this planet. more >>
Super Typhoon Haiyan and the anniversary of super storm Sandy should remind all of us of the tragic suffering that is part of living in the post-fall world, affected by both human sin and the divine curse (Genesis 3).
But is Rev. Darren A. Ferguson, of Mount Carmel Baptist Church in Far Rockaway, NY, whose home and church Sandy destroyed, right to insist that "climate change" made Sandy stronger than it otherwise would have been?
Assume for a moment (though there is good reason to doubt it) that the world's been warming rapidly and beyond the bounds of natural variability and that, as he put it, "we are the primary cause." Does that entail that Sandy was more powerful because of it? more >>
Whenever talking heads and political pundits start debating climate change, I honestly wish that I could turn the clock back one year and a few days to when Hurricane Sandy hit the Northeast. Rush Limbaugh and other climate change deniers would likely be saying drastically different things if they had spent a few days here with us in Far Rockaway, NY. They would have trouble explaining the fact that in this New York City peninsula where I live and pastor a church, the Atlantic Ocean and Jamaica Bay had not met in over 50 years, but that is exactly what they did on October 29th, 2012.
I would invite them to read climatologist Dr. Kevin Trenberth's article, Hurricane Sandy mixes super-storm conditions with climate change, in which he says that "the oft-asked question of whether an event is caused by climate change" is "the wrong question. All weather events are affected by climate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be." I would invite them to listen as I advocate within my church and community for environmental stewardship, which, in my opinion, means that we have to be faithful with the earth that God has given us. Finally, I would invite them to walk through my "hood" to see homes still abandoned one year later, families still displaced one year later; a community devastated and families still fragmented one year later. These are the human and communal costs of our continued faithlessness – the effects of what Christians call sin – to our inattention to, and destruction of, our environment and planet.
I would ask these know-it-all pundits, who lack any scientific credentials but still claim to have expertise by virtue of the large audiences they regularly misinform, to walk the streets of my community and see that their continued denial of this issue often gives credibility to those who sit in seats of power. Their words and influence provide justification for holding back funding to reduce climate change and mitigate its impacts on vulnerable communities that await the next inevitable "natural" disaster. I would ask them to talk to the everyday people who have been affected by this issue, without the cameras, without the promise of a ratings boost, and on our terms. They need to hear the voices of everyday Americans who, one year and six days ago, may have had no knowledge of the science of climate change, but now have experienced its reality. We have been not just affected, but devastated by it. more >>