Global Warming Farce

Suppose someone comes along and says, based upon their analysis, the stock market is going to completely crash in 2012. It doesn't. Then they say it's going to in 2013. Suppose it doesn't. And the next year and the next. Some years it goes down some, other years it goes up some, but mostly it stays about the same. Would one conclude their model is wrong, that they need to adjust it?

In the 70s, it was predicted global cooling was going to happen. It didn't. Now they are predicting global warming is going to happen. Now that their prediction has been going on for a couple of decades, one should question how has their prediction worked out. Are they accurate, or way off? How close to reality have their predictions been? Should their model be adjusted?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/19/an...riously-flawed/

Global warming is happening. The evidence is all around us. Warmer seas generate more evaporation and more winds, including more tropical storms. We've seen a large number of hurricanes, cyclones and typhoons in recent years, more so than average. But along with the increased evaporation and winds, more precipitation is brought overland in general. Think floods. We've seen those too. Winds have a somewhat counter-effect in some areas, in that the normal weather patterns may be shifted or blown in another direction. Some areas will have less precipitation than others, but the overall average precipitation will be increased. The actual temperature may change only very slightly, but the pendulum is swung harder with more energy input. This means more extreme weather patterns in both directions, cold and hot. Some areas will have the heat, other areas will have it cooler. This would be consistent with global warming, for the pendulum is swung harder as more energy (heat) enters the system.

As for scientific explanations of the situation, I have no idea why the thought leaders don't speak more clearly on the issue. It seems they don't understand it well themselves. But there is also the unfortunate politics of the oil industry entering the equation, as they feel they have something to lose if the public were to catch on to the idea of reducing its oil consumption to avert global warming.

God has built into our planet, just as He has done with our bodies, a number of good checks and balances. It's not easy to heat the whole planet. There are counter-effects, such as plankton/algae blooms, that can help to absorb more of the radiant thermal energy of the sun and convert it to chemical energy. Meanwhile, man destroys large plants (trees) and swings the pendulum back the other way. We know that in the end, God will be upset with those who have "hurt the earth." There are many ways to do so these days.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Many did predict increased hurricanes. But it didn't happen last year. Many predicted droughts overall, but you are saying increased precipitation? I think that gets to the heart of the matter: Many attempt to predict the weather, but most do not agree and hardly any every get it right.

At what point would your predictions be disproved? Or could they?

Talk to most anyone in a country closer to the equator. "Climate change" is real. Aka "global warming." The Amazon just had a "100-year flood" too. It's everywhere. Thailand had its "100-year flood" recently. Bangkok was under a lot of water. If it were just one location, I suppose it could be called a fluke. But it's not. Australia had massive flooding just a few years ago. Myanmar, India, and many other places can be added to the list.

"Snow" is included in the "precipitation" category. Shallow thinkers attribute it to "global cooling." It's not. It started with warmer seas and more evaporation.

Science knows no such thing as absolute proof. But there is plenty of evidence.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Regarding hurricane predictions, it's complex. Global warming essentially means there is increased heat energy present in our atmosphere. Heat causes several effects: 1) Increased evaporation of water (warmer waters evaporate more readily); 2) Increased winds are generated (again, powered by heat); and 3) Increased capacity of the atmosphere to hold moisture.

The increased evaporation and winds can elevate the chances of tropical storms, to a degree. However, the tropical storms always start with a depression (a low-pressure area) in which evaporation levels are increased and winds tend to be vertically oriented. A powerful jet stream wind which crosses through would disrupt the depression and/or alter its tendency toward rotational movement. So the same heat which increases wind generation affects both vertical and horizontal winds to a degree, and the horizontal winds will disrupt the vertical and rotational winds of a tropical storm. So it's difficult to make an accurate prediction of major tropical storms given the increased odds of their being disrupted by increased jet stream winds. The jet stream is not exactly stationary, but can shift north or south, whithersoever it "listeth" (to use KJV terminology).

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green Cochoa,

On this question of global warming I am in general agreement with you, especially since I moved here to Iceland which meteorologist have called the "weather kitchen of Europe."

We do not understand why we are experiencing close to 10 C daily in February. It should still be winter, but is like spring.

Yes, isn't it. Which confirms the major point I was making. Do you have anything you wish to object to the predictions which were made "cried out" in the 1990's coming true or not?

kland,

I don't know exactly which predictions you might have in mind. If you are referring to the predictions of increased numbers of hurricanes, I don't believe that such predictions are possible. However, if I understand the science correctly, I believe I might be able to accurately predict that tropical storms (hurricanes, cyclones, typhoons) will generally be increasing in intensity though their frequency may be unpredictable. This would be true because as the sea surface warms it is better able to spawn the tropical storms and to feed them. The storms will tend to grow larger and stronger when they are permitted to escape the disruptions of the jet stream. In other words, it's a bit of an exchange. In exchange for less predictability of frequency, we have an increased chance of more intense storms. Both are caused by increased temperatures.

Regardless of the tropical storm activity, if scientists are measuring the average world precipitation per year, I would expect the average to rise if indeed we are experiencing global warming. If there is global cooling, the average would tend to decrease, but the amount of snow, hail and ice would increase while the decrease was noted in rainfall. For a time. If the globe cooled enough, precipitation of all varieties would decrease.

Those are my thoughts based on the few studies and observations I have had in the area of climate science. Living in Taiwan for some years opened my eyes to understand more about tropical storms. I have been caught in the eye of a typhoon that was stronger than Katrina. (Katrina landed as a Cat. 3, this one was just between Cat. 4 and Cat. 5 when it made landfall.) I have watched the tremendous power of the winds as they tore signs and trees to shreds before my very eyes. The brick/block building shuddered, and we were all praying for our safety.

I have experienced at least four or five typhoons as strong or stronger than Hurricane Katrina while in Taiwan, and yet the mainstream media back in the homeland does not cover it. Partly this is because there are much fewer fatalities in Taiwan. But the Philippines gets its share of direct hits as well, and they don't typically fare so well. Thousands have lost their lives there, and the US news rarely says much about it.

Here is a link to info about a super typhoon that has recently made landfall in the Philippines.

Typhoon Bopha, Dec. 2, 2012


Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Here are some questions I see on the topic:
1) is there global warming?
2) is it man-made?
3) is it bad?
4) is C02 the only solution?

I think on #1, that there is some warming. Not the the degree that it has been reported or predicted, but there has been change. #2, is it man-made? What were the conditions in the past? Was there an ice age? If there was a period of ice, we certainly did not come out of it by industrialization. We should ask Johann maybe, why Greenland was called Greenland? Settlements there thrived for over 300 years, and were occupied for 500 years. Jonestown in North America was settled 400 years ago. How did it fair? Vinland is fairly well agreed upon as being Newfoundland. "Vinland", "vine-land". Do we grow grapes in Newfoundland today? Nope. Was the weather different in the past? Very probably. There has been global warming on Mars. It must be because of all our rovers!!! :-) Or is it perhaps of changes in solar output? Some studies have suggested that the majority of our warming is because of changes in the sun.

#3, is the warming a bad thing? It is if you live in certain areas. But other areas, warming is a very good thing. So it depends on your perspective. Johann, is 10C this time a year a BAD thing in Iceland???

#4 is CO2 the only solution? This one has huge political ramifications. A report in 2006 based on the U.N. report on the global environmental impact of farming showed that we could cut greenhouse gases in half in 10 years by a change in diet, with no changes in transportation. Ha! Fat chance that will happen!

Green, I didn't expect you to speculate and make up some predictions. I was referring to those shown in the link. Maybe you didn't read it.

The post I responded to had no link in it. I never noticed a link, nor followed one.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416

"Often focused on century-long trends, most climate models failed to predict that the temperature rise would slow, starting around 2000."

"Getting this right is essential for the short and long-term planning of governments and businesses "

I guess so. People may not buy into the higher taxes. Or allow for businesses to profit from the carbon credits.

", for unknown reasons. It could be a combination of factors or some as yet unknown natural variations,"
"The climate system is not quite so simple as people thought,"
"Many of the exact effects are still unknown."

Hmmm. Sounds like they haven't a clue what the weather is going to do. They just don't know.

"Greenhouse gas emissions have hit repeated record highs with annual growth of about 3 percent in most of the decade to 2010, partly powered by rises in China and India. World emissions were 75 percent higher in 2010 than in 1970, UN data show."

But yet, the warming has slowed. Isn't that strange. The other thing is with all these extra efforts to curb them, the emissions still hit record highs....

"The IPCC has consistently said that fluctuations in the weather, perhaps caused by variations in sunspots or a La Nina cooling of the Pacific, can mask any warming trend and the panel has never predicted a year-by-year rise in temperatures."

Yep. Our puny little efforts to heat up or cool down the whole outdoors can be dwarfed in a very short amount of time.

"A study by Dutch experts this month sought to explain why there is now more sea ice in winter."

More ice! Due to global warming? Or is it global cooling?
Or is it just more complex than we thought and we just don't know?

"UK's coldest spring since 1963 claims 5,000 lives:"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...horrendous.html

"It's been the coldest March and April in 113 years, according to Environment Canada's senior climatologist David Phillips."
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/coldest-spring-century-180736620.html


"According to NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), 2013 brought us the second latest start to spring spring in US history. The only recorded year in which the beginning of spring was colder was 1975."
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2013/04/second-coldest-spring-in-us-history/

What happened in the 70s?
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
Too funny! Sad thing is the same arguments and urging is going on because it's too hot. Or is it too cold? But, "The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."
Yeah. Hmm hmm.



"Crack government scientists with supercomputers, predicted in January that this spring was going to be super hot!"
NOAA graph at: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/us-headed-for-the-coldest-spring-on-record/

What is claimed by scientists is that the global warming produces, not exactly temperature rise, but extremes in temperature an in drought and floods, which is precisely what is happening.

This colder than usual Winter here in Canada and an also colder than usual Spring right up to and including today does seem to make one wonder if global warming is a farce.

Could it be???

It looks like the picture is worsening. It is cool this year, but wait about two or three years from now, say 2015-2016. Do you see the trend in the graph below measuring sea ice as a thermal indicator? Look at the fluctuations, both up and down, and how the pendulum has been swinging with increasing energy. This shows that the natural balance of things is being upset, and "climate change" may well be the best term, as both upward and downward swings are gaining impetus.



The most consistent thing about that graph is its fluctuations. The upward and downward movements might nearly be summarized in a sine wave, and it is regular enough in these movements to offer some good clues about what is coming ahead.

This graph demonstrates what I've been saying all along--that the pendulum is swinging harder. I expect more snow in winter due to global warming. The recent flooding is also clear evidence of warming. The warmer the planet, the more precipitation overall.

We need not be ignorant who have read the end of the book.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The RESTRAINT is being removed...

We see it around us here in Iceland. A German company from Bremen is getting permission to build a huge international harbor in the north eastern corner of our country. This harbor will service the boats sailing between China and Europe through the previously closed waters, closed by ice.

Much of the ice is disappearing, increasing the temperatures of the oceans, but also causing more storms in our area, and I hear the storm howling outside my window while I am writing this. It is tearing the green leaves off the trees. We were warned so we tied everything that could blow away. Our neighbor had not tied down his trashcan, so we saw the contents blowing in different direction, but fortunately he braved the storm and was able to pick it up without blowing away himself.

So Green, therefore we conclude we will have periods of warmth followed by periods of coldness with variations in between.

1980 to 2013.

Green, based on the science you understand, would you say that is an adequate sample size to base any conclusion on a change given how long life has been on this earth? And have you come across in statistics and research something called "outliers"? If you throw 2007 out, what does the chart tell you? About even, possibly an increasing amount of sea ice. Why is September 9 a valid reference point for comparison? If other dates are chosen and it shows something different, would you reject them?

Have you calculated what percentage of time you are using to make a future claim?

All I hear you saying is that we have global warming because we are having warmer winters, colder winters, winters with more snow, winters with less snow, ....

In other words, you ain't sain' a thing.

What if we had only started keeping the data from 2010? What conclusion would you make if "thats all we had"?

kland,

Do you disagree that the pendulum is swinging harder now than in times past? Do you disbelieve Jesus' words in saying that in the last days we will hear of earthquakes, floods, famines, and pestilences in diverse places? Do you recognize the trends in this direction as the modern fulfillment of those words?

Mrs. White says this: "Those who place themselves under God's control, to be led and guided by Him, will catch the steady tread of the events ordained by Him to take place."

I guess the question boils down to this: "Have I placed myself under God's control, to be led and guided by Him?"

If I have, I will not fail to see these events for what they are. If I have not, it appears I will not recognize them for what they are. It's one or the other. Whose side am I on?

A corollary question would be: Whose side is modern "science" on?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green - is God "causing" the increase swings? If so, how?

God has prophesied these things, APL. Prophecy does not equate to "cause," although it certainly can. Recognizing that the prophecies are being fulfilled is not the same as trying to point fingers at the causes of the fulfillments.

It is my belief that until the "It is finished!" declaration, God mostly works in our favor to prevent total destruction and to limit the damages that we, through demonic forces, bring upon ourselves.

I would expect you would agree with this. Where we may disagree is concerning events post-probationary time.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

With the information you presented, one cannot determine if the pendulum is swinging "harder". Actually, due to the lack of information, one is unable to determine if there even is a pendulum swinging at all.

I do not disbelieve Jesus' words. I do not see any correlation with His words about the future and poor science, or more accurately, wild conclusions.

I recognize that some trends based on my very, very, limited and short lifetime do indicate things are different today than yesterday. I also recognize that many worse things have happened way before my lifetime. And I also recognize that even 100 years falls way way short of making wildly speculative conclusions, and even much less of a mere 30 years.


Science, or the global warming hype bandwagon? In the 70s they were telling us the world was going to freeze over due to global cooling. You are falling for a political ploy for extracting money. The only science involved is the abuse of science.

I don't disagree bad things are going to happen. They have been happening for 1000s of years. And the Bible tells us that it's going to get worse in the future. But there are too many chicken littles running around proclaiming the sky is falling. They are looking forward with great expectations to disaster and willing that it happens before its time.

What I'm saying is you haven't seen anything yet. You are blaming everything on the weather, but weather happens. As you said, it's been fluctuating. It has fluctuated way more in the past, so how can you possibly conclude anything based on mere 30 year record?

And you seemed to have avoided my question about, What if we had only started keeping the data from 2010? What conclusion would you make if "that's all we had"? Why is 30 years adequate and not 3?

And WHAT is God going to do post-probation, inflict pain and torture? That is the work of a different power, not God. And to say that it is God, is siding with that other power.

Do you reject this inspired commentary?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

You may find a way of explaining away that passage, but how do you explain this one?



God's wrath is still to come. It will begin to be shown, unmingled with mercy, in the seven last plagues. One of those plagues, according to the Bible, may well be related to "global warming."



Notice that in all of these judgments, those looking upon the scene declare that God is righteous in executing these things.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Here are some interesting statistics:









When Revelation 16:9 comes about "And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give Him glory" they will explain away this plague (act of God). They assume that "It's only global warming."

It is a fact that in mountain ranges of western Canada the glaciers are retreating and some fear many will disappear.
I remember what they looked like 50 years ago compared to what they look like today, and the difference is very apparent.

These glaciers (especially the Columbia ice field) are the main source of fresh water rivers for a lot of America, so this isn't something to be unconcerned about.

When a glacier melts more snow and ice than it receives, it begins to recede. These glaciers are receding.

Now glaciers tend to move (coming and going over centuries of time) so is this due to global warming or is this due to some other cyclic phenomena governing glaciers?

I agree, dedication. I have also witnessed the receding of the Canadian glaciers personally, as I have done a fair bit of hiking in Canada's mountains. I could here tell miracle stories of God's protection as we hiked over hidden crevasses and slippery ice cliffs. (And I would not claim to be a "professional" mountaineer, as perhaps Mountain Man is.)

I've seen some articles in the news about how sandstorms and rocky avalanches have contributed to the receding glaciers, by creating dark spots in the white landscape that attract the sun's rays and heat. These then melt the ice. It has been my personal experience to visit boulder-embedded glaciers, and to see the danger of walking around them, for they create a void, sometimes several feet in width, around the boulders which have heated and melted the surrounding snow and ice.

Some might point to this and see it is a phenomenon that is separate from global warming that causes this, to which I would query in return, "Why are so many glaciers suddenly experiencing this same phenomenon at the same time?"

Let's go back to the basic principles of what atmospheric warming will do:

1) Generate winds (think sandstorms, jet stream, tropical storms, and all else related to wind currents, including tornadoes from the mixing of cold and warm air masses)

2) Increase evaporation and sublimation of water

3) Increase the capacity of the atmosphere to hold water

4) By a combination of the above principles, increase the total precipitation received on land (think dew, rain, hail, sleet, frost, snow)

5) On account of #4 above, increase the likelihood of flooding

The above points are almost incontrovertibly being proven to have had a greater impact in the most recent decade than for many years prior. Scientists can argue. The facts stand as silent witnesses.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Here is another good article on the topic.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/09/1...-in-antarctica/

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

And I don't think any is denying that weather changes. Across much of the U.S. there was drought last year. That has a direct impact on people. If glaciers receded and people are depending upon their water, that will have an impact on them. No one is denying that. But both of those facts do not mean that man has caused them or that it is even different than normal. "Normal" being defined long term and not based upon 30 years.

And that is the question! But given that glaciers have receded dramatically over much of the land, (it was halfway down the U.S.!), one would have to do much detailed research to determine if this is even a blip on the screen of history.

Interesting. Did you notice nothing listed between 2001 and 2011? So all you listed is some years have different things happening than other years.


And not to forget the New Madrid earthquake of 1812.

Does more snow match with less glaciers?

Seems like random speculations on your part.

Guess another good example of what models failed to predict.

But it does prove that even some of the smartest people on Earth might not know just how much they still don’t know.

PIERRE, S.D. (AP) — A record-breaking storm that dumped 4 feet of snow in parts of western South Dakota left ranchers dealing with heavy losses, in some cases perhaps up to half their herds, as they assess how many of their cattle died during the unseasonably early blizzard.

http://www.advertiser-tribune.com/page/c...=1&nav=5016

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/20...end-burt-rutan/

It's an excuse to pollute the air with chem trails --
SKY SHIELD TO COMBAT GLOBAL WARMING

and make people seriously sick.


http://rense.com/general15/chemusmilitarycontinues.htm

.

Might be the reason for the early 4 feet of snow?

This is making me to start considering chem trails as real...

http://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Global-Warming/Why-the-CIA-Is-Worried-About-Geoengineering.html

Part of one comment:

I was only being partly funny.

But yikes!UPDATE: 100,000 Cattle Die in Engineered Storm
And double yikes!Monsanto Buys Weather Company Climate Corporation
And we're doomed for sure!Rothschild’s, And The Geoengineering Empire

More news on the topic of warming, courtesy of the Washington Post.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Leviticus 18:24-25 Defile not you yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: 25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof on it, and the land itself vomits out her inhabitants.

U.S. climate report says global warming impact already severe



The government’s newest national assessment of climate change declares that increased global warming is affecting every part of the United States.

The report released Tuesday cites wide and severe impacts: more sea-level rise, flooding, storm surges, precipitation and heat waves in the Northeast; frequent water shortages and hurricanes in the Southeast and the Caribbean; and more drought and wildfires in the Southwest.

National climate assembly

(The period from 2001-2012 was the warmest on record globally. Every year was warmer than the 1990s average.)

“For a long time, we have perceived climate change as an issue that’s distant, affecting just polar bears or something that matters to our kids,” said Katharine Hayhoe, a Texas Tech University professor and a co-author of the report. “This shows it’s not just in the future; it matters today. Many people are feeling the effects.”

The federal climate assessment — the third since 2000 — brought together hundreds of experts in academia and government to guide U.S. policy based on the best available climate science.

The authors of the more-than-800-page report said it aims to present “actionable science” and a road map for local leaders and average citizens to mitigate carbon and other gas emissions that warm the planet.

But the report ran immediately afoul of conservative critics who called it a political document, aimed at giving President Obama a leg up on regulating major polluters such as power plants. In their opinion, regulation costs jobs. Obama, who is increasingly focusing on climate change, spent part of the day talking about the report with television meteorologists from across the country.

Echoing the findings of a recent global report by climate scientists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, U.S. scientists said that the climate is changing in the United States and that the warming of the past 50 years was primarily caused by emissions of heat-trapping gases released by humans.

Burning coal for electricity, using gasoline to fuel vehicles, clear-cutting forests and engaging in certain agricultural practices that remove carbon-trapping vegetation contribute to the problem, the assessment said.

By the end of the century, temperatures could be up to 5 degrees higher, even if the nation acts aggressively to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It could be up to 10 degrees hotter if emissions are high.

The higher the temperature, the more dire the impact. Extreme weather in the United States caused by climate change has increased in recent decades, the report said.

The decade starting in 2000 was the hottest on record, and 2012, the year Hurricane Sandy followed an epic summer drought, was the hottest ever recorded in the nation’s history, the report said. U.S. temperatures are 1.3 degrees to 1.9 degrees Fahrenheit higher now than they were in 1895, and most of that increase — 80 percent — occurred over the past 44 years, the assessment says.

Alaska warmed twice as fast as the rest of the country in the past 60 years, leading to permafrost thaw that is causing highways and even airport runways to sink. (I can attest to this having lived there for 16 years)

Anyone who says there is no climate change is either daft or republican.

"The nations raged, but your wrath came, and the time for the dead to be judged, and for rewarding your servants, the prophets and saints, and those who fear your name, both small and great, and for destroying the destroyers of the earth.” Rev 11:18

Does this not strike you as funny? One of the coldest winters on record, and now we get one warm day, and all the alarmists are out in full force talking about global warming!

Yawwwn.


Let's take this:
"U.S. temperatures are 1.3 degrees to 1.9 degrees Fahrenheit higher now than they were in 1895, and most of that increase — 80 percent — occurred over the past 44 years, the assessment says."

Say that in the last 44 years, temperatures have increased 2 degrees.

Then what does this mean:
"Climate change is leading to heat-stress events, forcing people with respiratory illnesses to turn to devices such as inhalers or to hospitals, the federal assessment said. It is resulting in more severe allergies and waterborne illnesses as pathogens increase. Minority communities are particularly vulnerable."

Really?! Two degrees in 44 years led to more severe allergies? Notice what it doesn't say. When these more severe allergies was recognized. Was that 43 years ago, or this spring?

Temperatures are more than 2 degrees warmer in Texas than in Canada. Does that mean there are huge increases of severe allergies in Texas than Canada? Do facts support that?

Oops. That was a dirty word, wasn't it: "Facts". It's not about facts, but drama.

Polar bears are going to forget how to swim to shore and drown.

Double Yawn....


Sorry, cry wolf too many times, no one is going to believe you. Keep changing predictions when past predictions don't come true, no one is going to believe you.

It's nothing but a political maneuver and way to fleece the gullible masses.

Ask yourself, what would indicate that there is no global warming. If the answer is, nothing, it's non-disprovable, there you go.





"“The Pacific Ocean is the place with the most extreme problem with acidification and salmon, mussels, things heavily affected,” she said."

Or.... could it be from radiation spewing from Japan?

I lived in Alaska for 16 years and I have seen the effects of global warming more than anyone else here other than probably Johann who also lives in a more arctic environment.

I have seen glaciers disappear in our lifetime that were there for thousands of years then poof they're gone.

I have seen the disappearance of permafrost and the heaving of roads that could swallow your whole car. It was never like it is now and the effects are just starting to really disrupt things. Islands are fleeing like the prophecy states.

Look at the following links!
Over 50 dead seals, sea lions, whales, walrus recently stranded in Alaska

Alarm as record numbers of seals & sea lions ‘starving to death’ along California coast

http://enenews.com/category/location/japan


It may be because of something man-made. But don't think it's because some little boy left the front door opened and "warmed up the whole outdoors".

Do you really think this is an example of the results from global warming of 1-2 degrees? Really, better check the links. Man-made, yes. Global warming, no. Man-made global warming, no.

Rather than believing government propaganda coverup, better inform yourselves and be aware of what is happening in this world. If everyone knew what was really happening, there might be a panic, a real uproar, a stampede, a wailing in the streets. But they spin it and say it's only because of air we're breathing out, stay calm, nothing really to worry about other than raising taxes.

As the government of Japan's schools say, we live in a harmful world, so the kids better get used to it, and no you can't bring your own lunch to school, you must eat what we provide - local "hot" meals.

The world is crashing and how do people respond, change your light bulbs and save pennies a year! A cover up and an extortion for profits. Or a feel-good-pat-yourself-on-the-back for ... changing light bulbs!?

Meanwhile, the oceans are dying. And it has nothing to do with temperature. But it does have something to do with "hotness".

The oceans are dying because of the imbalance of the pH levels because of the increase of CO2 levels in our atmosphere which is also causing global warming. Kland It's sad that you're so willing to argue about something that you obviously know nothing about.

40 years ago looking at the horizon anywhere but California or New York you could almost see blue sky touching the horizon. Today anywhere you go there is a solid band of orange haze for a 10 degree arc above the horizon because the whole world is covered in air pollution. This air pollution is made up of some of the most harmful elements known to man but over 40% of what it is comprised of is CO2 which acts like a thermal blanket that does not allow heat energy to escape into space. The reflection of the sun off of the oceans is what is causing the majority of the heat buildup because of this thermal blanket, not kids leaving the door open. Then when you take away all the trees there is a loss of biomass to absorb CO2, and because it is heavier than air and stays close to the ground it gets absorbed by the oceans or lakes. (Have you noticed how many lakes have algae overgrowth lately?)

Ocean acidification is the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. An estimated 30–40% of the carbon dioxide released by humans into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers and lakes. To achieve chemical equilibrium, some of it reacts with the water to form carbonic acid. Some of these extra carbonic acid molecules react with a water molecule to give a bicarbonate ion and a hydronium ion, thus increasing ocean "acidity" (H+ ion concentration). Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14, representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans. Earth System Models project that within the last decade ocean acidity exceeded historical analogs and in combination with other ocean biogeochemical changes could undermine the functioning of marine ecosystems and many ocean goods and services and destroy our oceans within our kid's lifetimes!!!!!!


Increasing acidity is having a range of harmful consequences, such as depressing metabolic rate and immune response in some organisms, and causing coral bleaching.

JSOT is right on this one. Carbon dioxide causes acidification of water, just by air contact. This is why some people claim that distilled water is not good for you, because, by virtue of having been distilled, it is even more apt to absorb carbon dioxide and become acidic. However, acidic water is not necessarily unhealthful--at least not to us. If it were, soda pop would be put out of business quickly, because the carbonation in them is much stronger than what would occur naturally in water given our present atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide.

But what does the acidification of the water do to the rest of our environment? I don't think we even know much about this yet. It certainly does change things.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

More global warming in the news.

http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/study-dangerous-storms-peaking-further-north-south-past-0514

Here's a piece of that article.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Satan uses men to destroy the earth for his purposes. He knows his time is short and he wants confuse and destroy as many as possible because for every soul that finds redemption in Christ he knows he must suffer the final penalty of their sin. Every soul he can destroy before the end he will not have to pay for because they pay for their own sins with their own blood at the second resurrection. He as the scapegoat Azazel will have all the forgiven sins of the redeemed placed on his head and suffer in the flames of hell for those sins. He has spent 6,000 years learning to manipulate the forces of nature to destroy as many as he can in the last days to shorten his fiery sentence.

“An enemy has done this.” Matthew 13:28

"Satan delights in war, for it excites the worst passions of the soul and then sweeps into eternity its victims steeped in vice and blood. It is his object to incite the nations to war against one another, for he can thus divert the minds of the people from the work of preparation to stand in the day of God.
Satan works through the elements also to garner his harvest of unprepared souls. He has studied the secrets of the laboratories of nature, and he uses all his power to control the elements as far as God allows. When he was suffered to afflict Job, how quickly flocks and herds, servants, houses, children, were swept away, one trouble succeeding another as in a moment. It is God that shields His creatures and hedges them in from the power of the destroyer. But the Christian world have shown contempt for the law of Jehovah; and the Lord will do just what He has declared that He would-He will withdraw His blessings from the earth and remove His protecting care from those who are rebelling against His law and teaching and forcing others to do the same. Satan has control of all whom God does not especially guard. He will favor and prosper some in order to further his own designs, and he will bring trouble upon others and lead men to believe that it is God who is afflicting them.

While appearing to the children of men as a great physician who can heal all their maladies, he will bring disease and disaster, until populous cities are reduced to ruin and desolation. Even now he is at work. In accidents and calamities by sea and by land, in great conflagrations, in fierce tornadoes and terrific hailstorms, in tempests, floods, cyclones, tidal waves, and earthquakes, in every place and in a thousand forms, Satan is exercising his power. He sweeps away the ripening harvest, and famine and distress follow. He imparts to the air a deadly taint, and thousands perish by the pestilence. These visitations are to become more and more frequent and disastrous. Destruction will be upon both man and beast. “The earth mourneth and fadeth away,” “the haughty people . . . do languish. The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.” Isaiah 24:4, 5.—The Great Controversy, pp. 589, 590.


I find it very interesting how so many conservative "Christians" (so called) are thinking that men have nothing to do with the things that are happening on this planet.

I would venture to say that anyone who claims there is no such thing as climate change or global warming are not truly Christians in the righteous sense.

The majority of Christians think that God will protect them from the things coming on the planet when it is actually they who are the cause of the problems by not listening to God, and He is withdrawing His Spirit and allowing Satan to give them the fruit of their reward.

What can we do about it? Take care of your souls and come before God with trembling and repentance so you are not held responsible by your lack of faith in the prophecies of God and His testimony.

I was shocked to see the "global warming farce" as a heading on a seventh day Adventist website, but then I found out who was responsible and it made sense then.

Could we have some facts, or do facts matter to your opinion?

James, it's sad that you are so unwilling to look at the obvious. No where in your response (nor Green's) do you address the ongoing nuclear disaster. An indication of your ignorance of the facts.

You could have showed how 2 degrees increase causes sores, death, tumors, skin problems of sailors going through the area. You could have dismissed the nuclear cause and showed how nuclear radiation does not cause sores, death, tumors, skin problems of sailors going through the area. But instead, your response is glaringly lacking of any response about that -- an indication of your lack of knowledge. You are out of touch with what is happening in this world. Obviously, you did not read the links...

Why did you say that? Did you even read what I wrote?

Here's some more links. Will you consider them?
Tons of ‘highly radioactive’ liquid pouring out of Reactor 2 each day

Experts find “alterations in 30 genes, s...ling wildlife”

Professor: Concerns Fukushima is impacting Alaska; “Unusual animals showing up dead”

Fukushima police travel 1,000 miles to interrogate her, examine computer — Officer: We only go outside prefecture for “potentially dangerous criminal” — “May be held without bail… without right to see lawyer”

HBO: ‘Genetic passports’ for major population exposed to nuclear radiation? “It has deformed their genes, sorry it’s a bit of a bummer” — Twins attached by organs growing outside body, ’1-eyed cyclops’, babies with giant heads

Fukushima U. Prof.: Impossible to make it so people can live here — Top Govt Spokesman: Nosebleeds & nuclear disaster NOT related
("Govt Spokesman". What was Green saying about soda not being allowed if it was harmful....)

Over 50 dead seals, sea lions, whales, walrus recently stranded in Alaska — Dozens of seals suffering from baldness, skin sores — Experts: “Marine transported Fukushima radionuclides… may represent a new stressor to ecosystem”

Expert: “There’s just very few of the birds left” in the high contamination from Fukushima plant, “things are not looking good” — Spider webs looked ‘strange’ (PHOTO) — Animals response to radiation over twice as bad as in Chernobyl — “Implies effects are stronger in Fukushima”

Will you read the links? Or is there any need because you have already made up your mind? Someone who pretends to be a "prophet" sure seems to have a high and mighty opinion of their own knowledge. (or lack thereof)...

If you aren't going to respond intelligently to the links, then guess there's not much of a discussion with you. I have shown how the global warming propaganda doesn't fit the facts. I have shown where real problems were being covered up with the propaganda. If you ignore it, and don't even attempt to refute it, what does that say about your opinions?

Fill a balloon full of CO2 and see what it does.

I have been protesting what happened at Fukushima for years now. I have family that lives in Alaska which is the main path for the prevailing winds, and that is a whole other subject.

Here is a chart for how levels of CO2 have been rising.

Kland, since we do find agreement on the issue of Fukushima I have a lot of information on the subject, and if you want to start another thread I will gladly share it.

I do not claim to be a prophet, but I have been given the prophetic gift at my Lord's pleasure. It is at His command, not mine. I pray for light and He gives me what He wants me to know. Usually it is a clue that leads me to find the right information to answer the prayer. Sometimes it's a full on prophetic vision or dream or inspiration.

I thought since you seemed to be someone who was against the conservationist movement based solely off how you presented this thread that you had information about me and my involvement in the Fukushima issue.

You see I have been a strong activist for the US government to get involved in the cleanup efforts in Japan and have been stalked by haters online for years because of it. People literally call my home and threaten me because of my activism.

When you lightly mentioned Fukushima earlier I thought you were one of them who have stalked me online. I apologize for thinking that. But you have to admit that it is kind of strange for someone who makes fun of the Climate change issue to be so assertive on the nuclear disaster.

Please forgive me, and start a new thread and I will gladly supply all the information you want to encourage your mission.

The cover-up going on in Fukushima is one of the most horrendous travesties on our planet right now. We ARE in agreement.

No. No I don't have to admit that. You said "Climate change". It used to be "Global warming". That in itself shows the problem. The change to Climate change implies you realize it's not warming but don't know whether it's cooling, warming, or staying the same, but it must, it certainly must, at least you hope it must be changing somehow....

It's a farce, it's a hoax, it's a distraction from the real issues. Such as the Fukushima meltdown, the New Mexico "accident", the deteriorating storage containers throughout the world. A distraction and a coverup of the plots to keep the people sick, keep them involved in feel-good things, so they miss out on the political maneuverings, the setting in place for the end-world showdown.

You said, "because it is heavier than air and stays close to the ground it gets absorbed by the oceans or lakes". Can you show facts which support that idea? What is "miscibility"?

Is that a lot? Has it reached the proper level? Has it exceeded the proper level? What IS the proper level?

Spin doctors: Global warming is endangering many species of wildlife and fisheries.

The truth: Experts agree that many species of wildlife and fisheries are endangered globally due to the large release of radioactivity into the ocean

Spin doctors: Less than a 2 degree temperature increase is causing 300 seals to suffer hair loss. And everyone knows that the ocean temperature doesn't vary in temperature.

The truth: Also investigated was the possibility of contamination from the Fukushima nuclear plant

Spin doctors: Global warming is causing mutations in butterflies.

The truth: New study reveals deaths and mutations ”increased sharply’ from exposure to Fukushima contamination, “especially at low doses” — ‘Small’ levels of cesium may be ‘significantly toxic’ — Smithsonian: “In other words, things don’t look good for the animals living around Fukushima”


Expect to see an increased level of promotion of problems "attributed" to global warming as the observable signs of radiation poisoning start coming to light more and more.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and you shove it in my face. So you do want to be an instigator and do not want to be rational.



http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Carbon+Uptake


How the oceans absorb carbon dioxide is critical for predicting climate change

carbon chemistry
Figure showing the change in carbon chemistry relative to preindustrial carbon dioxide

Air-sea gas exchange is a physio-chemical process, primarily controlled by the air-sea difference in gas concentrations and the exchange coefficient, which determines how quickly a molecule of gas can move across the ocean-atmosphere boundary. It takes about one year to equilibrate CO2 in the surface ocean with atmospheric CO2, so it is not unusual to observe large air-sea differences in CO2 concentrations. Most of the differences are caused by variability in the oceans due to biology and ocean circulation. The oceans contain a very large reservoir of carbon that can be exchanged with the atmosphere because the CO2 reacts with water to form carbonic acid and its dissociation products. As atmospheric CO2 increases, the interaction with the surface ocean will change the chemistry of the seawater resulting in ocean acidification.

Evidence suggests that the past and current ocean uptake of human-derived (anthropogenic) CO2 is primarily a physical response to rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Whenever the partial pressure of a gas is increased in the atmosphere over a body of water, the gas will diffuse into that water until the partial pressures across the air-water interface are equilibrated. However, because the global carbon cycle is intimately embedded in the physical climate system there exist several feedback loops between the two systems. For example, increasing CO2 modifies the climate which in turn impacts ocean circulation and therefore ocean CO2 uptake. Changes in marine ecosystems resulting from rising CO2 and/or changing climate can also result in changes in air-sea CO2 exchange. These feedbacks can change the role of the oceans in taking up atmospheric CO2 making it very difficult to predict how the ocean carbon cycle will operate in the future.



If you went scuba diving in the ocean on a still day and look up at the surface from about 30 feet down you can literally see tiny bubbles of gas entering the ocean. This is the CO2 displacement. The ocean swallows the CO2.

I guess there is no hope for us to agree since you know so much more than me and are unwilling to get along.

Global warming is a fact, it is the what is driving climate change and you probably are who I was thinking you were.

Yep, I agree.

I am not disputing the carbon cycle. Not sure what you are trying to say.

I'm having a hard time accepting that. Could you provide some support?

If either one is true, I would agree with the other. But I think you are making some sort of mathematical statement that is defined by itself. Been awhile, so I don't remember the term.


Nope. Sorry to disappoint you. I think you are paranoid.

AP: Drastic plunge in baby California pelicans — Zero born in multiple study areas — Expert: “The bottom dropped out”; From 1,000s to 10 or less, unknown why it’s occurring

Unknown why it's occurring? How much money does it take to cause someone to say they don't know why? Blame it on the weather, but no idea what really is happening, huh?

Could it be..... death by radiation?

Reports: “Experts agree many species of wildlife and fisheries are endangered globally due to large release of radioactivity into ocean” at Fukushima — “Has Fukushima radiation entered New Zealand ecosystem?”


Concerned officials now considering ban on Japan food items — Nuclear scientists previously told gov’t to halt all imports after finding high radiation levels — Never implemented due to fear of hurting bilateral relationship

That should shock you if nothing else would. Poison the rest of the people because of a "fear of hurting bilateral relationship"?! Guess it's spread the pain...

May 21, 2014: Wednesday [TEPCO] began to dump controlled quantities of water with low radioactivity into the sea. This is the method it plans to start using to reduce the alarming accumulation of contaminated liquid

Guess so. If you dump it now, it won't accumulate later.

Meanwhile, people in the US are changing their lightbulbs to those containing hazardous substance in an effort to make themselves feel like they are helping the mother earth god.

Haven't you ever been under the waves of the water and seen the very tiny (smaller than a millimeter) bubbles that do not come back up from the water? They very slowly fall into the water, and dissolve eventually. That is CO2 absorption happening. It creates a layer of tiny bubbles near the surface of the water but in the right conditions this layer can go very deep.

Have you ever seen a salt water fish tank? They don't use chemicals to lower the pH any more, they use CO2. And the bubbles do not percolate up, they stay inside the water until they absorb. You can literally SEE IT!

I have done many experiments with CO2 and College level studies on CO2 absorption. I know what I'm talking about.

The future of pH Balancing hydroponic growth chambers could be the use of CO2. But the problem is that it displaces O2 (Oxygen) which is more important to the roots. So the trick is to lower root temps (between 62-65 F) so it holds more O2, then the CO2 can be injected into the nutrient solution to lower the pH to as low as 5.8, which is ideal for many crops when hydroponically growing. Most hydroponic systems already use atmospheric CO2 for expedited growth but soon they could be injecting the nutrient solution too. As long as the environment is sealed they do not need to inject O2 into the solution because the plants produce enough themselves. They just place the air pumps for the bubblers in the grow area.



In a controlled environment with oceanic atmospheric pressure, as CO2 diffuses into the oceanic brine (salt water), the top, more concentrated layers (indicated in red) begin to sink in waves of tiny bubbles, triggering a convective process that churns up fresh brine and speeds the salt water’s CO2 uptake. The arrows in the last frame (right) indicate the direction of flow.

James, this comes across as so out in the wild yonder to me. But that doesn't mean it's not correct. I could just be ignorant.

So, you can convert me into a believer by presenting some scientific support
or...
you could continue with the "you can see" bit.

Think so-called global warming is killing 14 out of 15 newborn horses in Fukushima?
Better think again.

Think global warming threatens to decimate entire population” of species in Oregon — Sudden 50-fold increase in recent weeks — Entire ecosystem could be disrupted — “We have no clue”

Better think again. Think before you are fully assimilated by the government propaganda and are no longer able to think....

The image I presented is from a scientific study, what do you think I designed that myself?

No, I do not think that. I think the Global warming issue is separate, and the Fukushima issue, and the fact that the Oceans are becoming so full of plastic that it is causing defects in fish and humans, and a thousand other issues are complimentary to each other, but not the same issue, except that Satan is loving it.



I have said it before, but you keep ignoring me that I believe Fukushima is a huge mess. But I was not talking about Fukushima here. I was keeping to the subject of the thread.

The issue of plastic in the oceans is a WAYYYY bigger issue than Fukushima if you want to address big issues. It has an immediate impact on every continent in the world.

The issue of global warming is even a smaller issue than the pollution we are pumping into the skies to cause global warming. But Global warming from air polution is still real.

Air and drinking water Pollution are our biggest threats...

"...Satan is exercising his power. He sweeps away the ripening harvest, and famine and distress follow. He imparts to the air a deadly taint, and thousands perish by the pestilence. These visitations are to become more and more frequent and disastrous. Destruction will be upon both man and beast. “The earth mourneth and fadeth away,” “The haughty people ... do languish. The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.” Isaiah 24:4, 5.{CH 461.1}

The whole issue is about men forsaking God, forcing Him to withdraw His Spirit to protect us.

But James, that doesn't show that the bubbles you see is carbon dioxide. And it was an illustration. How about some science.

Thank you. But there are too many who are promoting that CO2 is our biggest threat and totally ignoring air and water pollution. That is the point I'm trying to make.

I'd disagree with that. Plastic floating in the ocean is not going to kill wildlife like radiation is doing today. Plastic floating in the ocean is not going to contaminate the produce fields along the west coast like radiation is doing today. Plastic floating in the ocean is not going to spread radiation fallout like it is coming from Japan doing today.

What I'm trying to say is that all the global warming people are blaming things on imaginary issues and ignoring the real cause. Global warming is a farce to overlook the real cause. If you read the reports from enenews, which is just a collection from other sites, you will see many places have just stopped monitoring radiation, have raised the allowable limits so they can say it's below acceptable levels, and they don't even test for radiation. But they insist any problems is not from Japan, that there is no radiation, that if there were, radiation is healthful to people.

Man I wish I could take you by the neck and point you in the right direction. God has put this on my heart for years. I am an expert in this field. Why do people just assume they know more than someone else?



It is estimated that plastic in our oceans kill over 30 million birds and 5 million sea animals per year.


This whale washed up on a British beach. In its stomach....the remains of 23 plastic bags.

This next one also died from plastic...



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ch-In-stomach--

If you think that the few still born births that are occurring because of Fukushima is worse for the planet than the plastic garbage floating in our oceans you are mad and totally ignorant of what is really happening. Here is link to a search I did on images of the animals that are being killed by ingesting plastic.

click here for images of sea animals killed by plastic



If there are this many pictures then imagine how many died without a camera man taking pictures!

[img]http://www.no-sea-and-earth-pollution.org/index_files/garbage-floating-in-ocean.jpg[/img]

What is the greatest threat?

I don't know --
But I do know that mankind is destroying the earth.
With their garbage
With their chemicals
Insecticides, herbicides and all manner of other drugs and chemicals to make things bigger, mature faster, resistant, etc etc

With radiation
Even our food is being "radiated" so it doesn't spoil so fast.
With their messing around with genetics of plants and even animals.
Robbing food plants of their ability to reproduce
Cutting down trees and forests --the lungs of the earth.
The list goes on and on.


Years ago there were a lot of colorful small birds -- blue birds, swallows, finches and many others, now its rare to see one, we only have the bigger crows, and magpies in plenty.


Rev. 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time thou... shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

No wonder 2 Peter 3 tells us only a fire that shall dissolve the very elements and melt them with fervent heat will cleanse the earth before God recreates everything new.

Climate Chiropractor?

Ummm, could it be because other people ask, why do some people just assume they know more than someone else?

Obviously they don't know more, as most recently pointed out.


Well, that's significant.
So why are you talking about "ones"?

I don't recall saying the biggest issue are a few still born births (deaths?). I recall saying things like an entire species being or threatened with being killed off. Like adult sea stars basically exploding their contents. Like 30-50 % of them diseased.

Your word, not mind, but I would agree someone is ignorant.


Maybe you are not reading.

For reasons that remain baffling to scientists, starfish are dying by the millions, in the grips of a mysterious wasting disease that dissolves their bodies into goo. “I’d do beach walks along a 50-m stretch of shoreline, and count 500 or 1,000 of them,”

“It affects over twenty species on our coast and it’s been causing catastrophic mortality.” [...] From what Harvell and her team see as they survey beaches [of Washington's San Juan archipelago], there’s not much time for these starfish [...] “My expectation is that within the next month all of the stars will die.”

All of the stars will die. I agree it hasn't happened yet, there are still some alive, but wouldn't you think all stars, 20 species, would indeed be catastrophic rather than "one"?

If sea stars are wiped out along these shores, there’s a potential for not just local, but global extinction.

“This is the largest disease outbreak that we know of ever in the oceans. [...] I’m expecting that in the next two weeks we will lose virtually all the stars at this site [in Washington]


S. California fishermen ‘skunked… haven’t seen a squid’, usually 10,000+ lbs/day — ‘Complete crashes’ at oyster hatcheries — Sardines, mackerel missing in areas — Pelican sites alarmingly deserted — Record # of sick sea lions — Ultra-rare whales appear after decades — Mammals, birds, fish in odd places



Yep, totally.

Yes, that's a good example of the fraud going on. But some many have bought into it hook, line, and sinker.

There's one now.

I would venture to say that anyone who believes government propaganda about imaginary man-made global warming is denying creation and the flood of the Bible.

Because James, I know what the evolutionists say, but what do you say has caused tropical fossils to be found at the poles and other such latitudes? This earth has been heating up and cooling down ever since. Why even today is much cooler than yesterday and it's the middle of June!

I've worked on the oilspill in Valdez AK and was a consultant on the oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico. My work has been valued in the field of global tragedies. I don't say these things lightly. You have a strong opinion that you seem determined to foster. I have actually been there, and worked to resolve issues. I lived in Alaska and seen the effects of global warming. I've been around the world several times and have seen the sky so full of polutants that it chokes babies. I've been to Mexico City and other places where there are absolutely no controlls on air polution. And then I come back here and listen to people like you who seem to have never been out of their back yard saying there's no effect on warming the planet globally from air polution and it literally disgusts me. I'm done here.

The Exxon Valdez oil still was an environmental disaster, but how does working on that project produce expertise in global warming exactly?

Was much of the area of Canada and North America once covered by Glaciers? Yes. Did they disappear? Yes. Ice age floods causing the drainage of Lake Missoula is the best explanation for the Bretz floods of Eastern Washington, Oregon and the Columbia Gorge, and it happened in a matter of weeks. That ice melted. Why? Industrial pollution? Nope.

Why was Greenland named Greenland?

Is it right to change historical data on temperatures as shown above in the "chiropractor" link?

James, besides working on the oilspill not making you an expert on global warming, how does seeing air pollution mean it causes global warming?

What we are getting at is some base scientific method concepts which you seem to be having problems with whether it is seeing bubbles means you know what is in them, working on the oilspill means you are an expert in an unrelated field, seeing babies choking means the world is warming. I think your disgust has more to do with you not understanding the scientific method than anything else...

Until you address the link APL gave, I can only count you being as dishonest as Hansen. Is it allowed to change historical data? Does that mean it was wrong in the past? If so, is it correct now, and how do you know that?

Please address the fraud in the link.

APL, I didn't fully understand how Hansen adjusted the temperature record? Was it picking and choosing what years to show, using a different scale, or just straight forward changing the data?

From the article:

Dr. Hansen realized he had a problem when he took over – that data didn’t look anything like a hockey stick. So he fixed it! You can do such cool stuff when you are pushing an agenda, and you control the historical record.

Fig.B.gif (410×678)

The figure below shows Hansen’s remarkable changes to the pre-1975 temperature data. He simply removed that pesky warm period from 1890 to 1940.

...

Undaunted by reality, all the evidence, and millions of temperature records – in the year 2000 Dr. Hansen and Tom Karl at NOAA adjusted the US temperature record to make it look like Hansen’s already adjusted global temperature record.

...

Conclusion. US and global surface temperature records are so corrupted as to be meaningless. Below are some news stories from the 1930s. July of 1936 was the hottest month in US history. The summer of 1934 was the worst drought in US history. Half of the lower 48 states set their all-time temperature record during the 1930s. The most powerful hurricane to ever hit the US happened in 1935.

Islands are disappearing into sea from it's rise. The south and north poles are losing ice at faster speeds than ever in history.
The seas are rising at 1 1/2 inches every ten years for the past five decades, that might not sound like a lot to you, but if you would only think about how much water it would take to raise the ocean even one inch, you know that is a lot of ice that has to melt, since water expands when frozen, so in it's liquid state water has less volume. So less displacement and higher water levels means much more than 2 inches of liquid water are actually added to make up for the lost ice and raise the levels at the same time.

And what is inside that ice? More CO2 and methane, so when it melts it releases what was trapped in it. So it exponentially accelerates the effect.

Here are some of the places in our world being effectd by the rise of water right now.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25086963

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/

I understand that at one time there were no Ice caps before the flood. We as Adventists know this. The upper firmament protected the earth like a giant bubble suspended above the planet and made the climate equalize, and this oceanic bubble came crashing down at the flood and exposed the two poles to extreme cold and this caused the rapid spread of glacier ice across both ends of the planet. The only unfrozen parts of the flood waters were between the tropic belts. forcing all the population to begin between the ice caps after the flood.

And of course there is an expected level of attrition of the melt of the sea and glacial ice because of the trapped gasses in the ancient ice melts themselves. I get it.

BUT to say that the billions of tons of coal and fossil fuels being burned every year, day after day, has no effect on the warming of the planet is pure ignorance.

Do you know how much oil is used every day? 85 million barrels a day is how much the world uses! At 42 gallons to the barrel, that’s three billion, five hundred and seventy million gallons of oil (3,570,000,000) PER DAY!!!

Niagara falls has a flow rate of 150,000 U.S. gallons per second.

3,570,000,000 gals of oil / 150,000 gallons per second Niagara flow rate = 23,800 seconds of flow equivalent.

In other words, if by some horrific means you were able to replace the flow over Niagara falls with nothing but oil for 6.6 hours a day, that’s how much oil the 6 billion inhabitants of the earth burn every single day of every year, and have been for more or less the past ten years.

I saw an oil spill of only 500,000 barrels of oil and it literally covered every square inch of a hundred miles of shoreline, and that spill is listed as the 54th largest ever. So imagine 54 worse spills than something that killed every living creature for a thousand square miles in the ocean! The sound of those creatures dying in the night will haunt me for the rest of my life.

How much coal do we use in a year? World coal consumption was about 6,743,786,000 short tons in 2006 and is expected to increase 48% to 9.98 billion short tons by 2030. That's over 7 BILLION tons per year. Where do you think that is going? Does the byproducts disappear? No it goes into the air to suffocate us and our planet. Add on top of that deforestation and you have a total mess on our hands.

And the reason why I listed the projects I have worked on is to show my level of responsibility. I am a respected participant. My designs were used in the BP oil spill. God gives me thoughts that people respect. I do not claim the thoughts of my own. But I am who God showed the plans to. And when I got in touch with their engineers through a friend of mine they rushed to have me give all the designs to their engineers.

Can any of you say that?

When I prayed about how to stop the underwater blowout this is what I saw in my mind from God.



(In the vision it had a much pointier tip to help guide it into the hole through the massive pressure more effectively)

A simple mechanics tap that can be threaded into the end of the broken well head, threading the pipe while permitting pressure to escape through the fluted sides until enough of the threads are secure the hold the pressure then slowly taper off like a valve just by twisting it in deeper.

The engineers told me that I was the ONLY person to offer this concept and one of them said "quite frankly I can't see why we didn't think of this."

It could be fitted right on to the end of any one of the drill booms and only cost about $50K to manufacture and fit, and they now have this concept ready for any new contingency.

Simple right? GOD gave me that idea. (and about a thousand others like it)

The only original thought that they received from over 10 million emails and phone calls. How did I get through to them? By prayer and God sending the right people to hear it.

I spent about ten hours in conference with them telling them all the details and dozens of emails. Then another ten hours being told that I have no rights to the concept because that was part of the the online agreement, but I never asked for anything. They just had to cover their butts.

Imagine how much that idea is worth to them?

The point is, God motivates me to the extreme issues of our planet and I respond. I don't just sit back and whine about it. I pray and say "use me" and God does.

Initially I thought he just selectively presented the data, or selectively chose a benchmark point of data, all of which are just different viewpoints even if manipulative. But when I had read this part, "temperature records are so corrupted as to be meaningless", it caused me to re-evaluated my thought and that maybe he just "changed" the data! I take it you believe this is what it means, that it was just pure outright fraud from Hansen, Karl, and NOAA.

It's sad that James has bought into their fraud. Think he will be susceptible to buy into the Sunday fraud, too?

James - you quote an internet blog without attribution, the whole Niagra Falls comparison. Why not give the source? Hmm...
http://slipr.com/2009/10/02/how-much-oil-does-the-world-use-in-a-day/

Which oil spill did you see that was 500,000 barrels? The Exxon Valdez spill was 260,000 barrels (11,000,000 gallons).

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, none of which we have seen.

Wiki:

"According to official reports, the ship was carrying approximately 55 million US gallons (210,000 m3) of oil, of which about 10.1 to 11 million US gallons (240,000 to 260,000 bbl; 38,000 to 42,000 m3) were spilled into the Prince William Sound. A figure of 11 million US gallons (260,000 bbl; 42,000 m3) was a commonly accepted estimate of the spill's volume and has been used by the State of Alaska's Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and environmental groups such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club. Some groups, such as Defenders of Wildlife, dispute the official estimates, maintaining that the volume of the spill, which was calculated by subtracting the volume of material removed from the vessel's tanks after the spill from the volume of the original cargo, has been under-reported. Alternative calculations, based on the assumption that the official reports underestimated how much seawater had been forced into the damaged tanks, placed the total at 25 to 32 million US gallons (600,000 to 760,000 bbl; 95,000 to 121,000 m3).

So they were carrying 55 million gallons and 11 million gallons were in the one storage tank but to keep the ship from sinking they had to counter balance the ship by pumping crude from the other side of the sip into the storage compartment that was damaged. This was my very close friends assessment who actually was a part of the command center for Exxon at the time. He is how I got on the spill making $36 per hour cleaning rocks with high pressure sprayers.

I had to go back and refresh myself for the amount of oil they were carrying and I was wrong about that part, but the fact that they under estimated the amount that was lost is a known fact to many who were involved.

So it is estimated that the amount was double of what was publicly announced. Or do you commonly listen to the perpetrators to find the level of their guilt?

Fukushima is way worse than what TEPCO is publicly declaring and you know this, so why would you accept Exxon's assessment?

James, what islands have disappeared into the sea from 1 1/2 inches of sea level rise? And if they have, what coastal areas have disappeared, because the sea level would be the same from the disappeared island to the mainland coast, right? Me thinks you are regurgitating blogs with no thought as to what you are copying and pasting.


And James, what's all this talk about oil and oil plugs and how many ideas you received for solving problems? None of that proves nor disproves there is any global warming.


Since you seem to appear to have a lot of knowledge on technical things, could you tell us what geoengineering means. And could you give us insights into HAARP? That is if you are not going to tell us why it is

What about geo-engineering? Do you mean fracking or off shore drilling?

While working in my Fathers Acoustical ceilings company (TIECO Acoustics)in Alaska we put the ceilings in the secret facilities that HAARP is installed in, and I talked with engineers there daily for two years so I do know a lot about it actually. We won the contracts for Poker Flats, Elmondorf, Greely and Eilson AFB.

I can tell just by the fact of you bringing this question up that you are out in the stratosphere in your conspiracy theory mindset. Add that kind of rational on top of denying the Global warming that every single major scientist in the world is attributing to the burning of fossil fuels and you are one strange duck.

And like I said before, the point about me mentioning the oil spills that I have worked on was to show my level of responsibility, and my mission and level of commitment. And to show that I have seen more than most people on the issue of conservation.

The amount of oil we use every day was to show how much fossil fuel is being burned daily. So what do you think the outcome will be? None? Let's just pretend that the amount of oil and coal we burn doesn't have any effect and the byproducts just magically disappear?

Antarctica set record sea ice since recordings started in 1979 per the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s The Cryosphere Today



The previous record anomaly for Southern Hemisphere sea ice area was 1.840 million square kilometers and occurred on December 20, 2007.

Global sea ice area, as of Sunday morning, stood at 1.005 million square kilometers above average.

You must have looked long and hard to try to find anything that remotely supported your ideas.

Sorry, Arctic sea ice isn’t really ‘recovering’

Washington post BY BRAD PLUMER September 19, 2013

Over the past few decades, the sharp decline of summer sea ice in the Arctic has been one of the clearest signs that the Earth's climate is changing rapidly.

So it's time to check in with the sea ice again now that we've reached the end of the 2013 summer melt season. Here's a chart from the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) showing the extent of sea ice in the Arctic this year (red line) — that is, the area of ocean with at least 15 percent ice:



A few things jump out. The ice extent for 2013 hit a low of 5.099 million square kilometers on Sept. 13. That was the sixth-lowest minimum on record and about 23 percent below the long-term average, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

But there was still a lot more Arctic ice this year than there was in 2012, when the sea ice extent shrunk to just 3.413 million square kilometers, the lowest minimum by far since satellite measurements began. So what happened? Has the Arctic started to recover, as the Daily Mail recently suggested? Not exactly. Here's why.

Short term variation vs. long-term trends

The Met Office in Britain recently pointed out that there are all sorts of reasons why sea ice extent can bounce around from year to year:

-- temperatures naturally vary from one year to the next;
-- the amount of cloud can affect the amount of surface melting;
-- summer storms can also break up ice, which can accelerate the melting process;
-- settled conditions can be more conducive to ice forming;
-- winds may act to spread out the ice or push it together.

Those variables can help explain why sea ice didn't decline in 2013 as much as it did last year: “In 2012 we saw a record low which was likely to have been influenced by a storm which swept through the region in summer, but this year’s weather conditions appear to have been less conducive to ice loss," noted Ann Keen, a sea ice scientist at the Met Office.

Here is an article from National Geographic from 2012 when sea ice hit the record low.

Arctic Sea Ice Hits Record Low—Extreme Weather to Come?
Global warming to blame for highest observed decline, scientists say.

Current Arctic sea ice (bluish white) compared with the 1979-2010 average sea ice minimum (outlined in orange).

ILLUSTRATION COURTESY SVS/NASA

Ker Than
for National Geographic News
PUBLISHED AUGUST 28, 2012, CORRECTED SEPTEMBER 10

Arctic sea ice is thawing at a historic rate, scientists say. In fact, a recent analysis of satellite data "utterly obliterates" the previous record, set in 2007.

The chief culprit? Global warming. The potential upshot? Longer and more intense extreme-weather events such as heat waves, cold spells, and droughts. (Read more about extreme weather in National Geographic magazine.)

On Monday, researchers at the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said the rate of Arctic sea ice decline is now the highest that has ever been observed for the month of August. In August of this year, the sea ice disappeared at an average rate of about 35,400 square miles (91,700 square kilometers) per day—or about twice as fast as normal, NSIDC scientists say.

Moreover, the area of Arctic sea ice around the North Pole had shrunk to 1.58 million square miles (4.1 million square kilometers)—the smallest measurement since 1979, when satellite observations began.

By comparison, said NSIDC's Julienne Stroeve, Arctic sea ice cover in the 1970s and '80s at this time of year was typically in excess of 2.7 million square miles (7 million square kilometers).

The worst news of all? The new record probably won't last long. With up to three more weeks of the melting season left, said Stroeve, the total is likely to shrink further.

"It will be below 4 million square kilometers (1.5 million square miles) before it's all said and done."

(See "Shrinking Arctic Sea Ice Linked to Snowier Winters?")

Sea Ice: Why Is This Year Different?

Scientists think the old record—1.61 million square miles (4.17 million square kilometers) on September 18, 2007—was made possible by a "perfect storm" of conditions that included an unusually persistent weather pattern known as an anticyclone, or high-pressure ridge, in the region that led to clear skies, which allowed more sunlight to reach the ice and melt it.

But weird weather doesn't seem to be a factor this time around.

"There's no persistent weather pattern that's emerged this summer," Stroeve said.

"The ice is just thinner than it used to be. So it doesn't really matter so much what the summer weather does anymore—the thin ice melts out easier during the summer melt season."

In a new study, detailed recently in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, Stroeve and her colleagues analyzed nearly two dozen computer climate models to determine the extent to which global warming is responsible for the increasing shrinkage of Arctic sea ice.

Her team determined that human activity can be blamed for some 60 percent of the observed rate of decline since 1979, with the rest due to natural climate variability.

"If you run these climate models and you don't put in the observed record of greenhouse gases, none of them show the ice declining," Stroeve said. "None of them are able to capture what's happening today without including greenhouse gases." (Learn about the greenhouse effect.)

Climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also predict that Arctic summers will be completely free of sea ice in the coming decades if global warming continues unabated.

In light of the new record low, said Jennifer Francis, a climate researcher at Rutgers University's Institute of Marine and Coastal Science, "I'm definitely thinking that we're going to see [ice-free Arctic summers] earlier than most people have suggested.

"I think it could happen anytime within the next 30 years," instead of 50 years or more that some models predict, said Francis, who was not involved in the study.

In the summer of 1974 my Father was the general foreman on the Trans-Alaska pipeline Pump Station 1 before the pipeline had even been built. (He moved down the pipeline during the build and remained General foreman until 1979 when he became a private contractor for Alyaska.) In summers he used to bring me to Prudhoe Bay where the pipeline begins to see the polar bears, as far as I know, because of my fathers clout, me and my brother where the only kids, except the Eskimo children that live up there, permitted to come to the pump station in those days. One night in June in the middle of the night while the wind was blowing we heard this thunderous crash and the earth shook. I was only 11 years old and was terrified. I ran out into the hallway to see if I could find my dad. No one else even got out of their rooms and I thought that was very strange. How could these men sleep through the end of the world? I opened my dad's door to his room and he was sound asleep. I woke him up and told him what happened and he laughed and said "that's the sea ice, every summer it crashes against the shore when the wind blows".

The whole area is totally flat from erosion from recent ice cover and movement. The Ice pack covered the whole Arctic ocean north shore of Alaska even in summer as recent as the 1960's but had receded to a mile or two off shore in the 1970's. Look at that map above now. the ice is hundreds of miles off the north shore of Alaska in summer. That is just within my lifetime. You picked the wrong person to get into a pissing match about arctic ice.

So APL, I must report where I get even a portion of what I include in my posts, but you can totally quote information and charts from another source using none of your own words and not have to report where you got the information? And you misquoted the intent of the chart you used!
Here is where you got that chart...
Website "What's up with that?"

You used the chart of Antarctica sea ice and reported it like it was for the whole world. That is very deceitful.

This is the chart that went along with the quote you directly used without giving credit to it. "Global sea ice area, as of Sunday morning, stood at 1.005 million square kilometers above average."



But if you look at the chart you will see that the overall trend globally is significantly downwards. The peak that your quote was pointing to is right around the average yearly peak. Just because it is above the nominal overall average does not mean it is above the peak average. You cannot point to the seasonal peak and compare it to the average. The averages are still decreasing. The peak average is way lower than 30 years ago and you would be shocked if you could see what it looked like 50 years ago. The fact that you got that information from the same website that I did and you skewed the evidence to comply with your lie proves that you will lie to make a point. That is not a Christian response.

Antarctica is a continent of land mass but the Arctic has no land mass and is ALL ICE.

From NSIDC;

"almost all of the sea ice that forms during the Antarctic winter melts during the summer. During the winter, up to 18 million square kilometers (6.9 million square miles) of ocean is covered by sea ice, but by the end of summer, only about 3 million square kilometers (1.1 million square miles) of sea ice remain.

Because sea ice does not stay in the Antarctic as long as it does in the Arctic, it does not have the opportunity to grow as thick as sea ice in the Arctic. While thickness varies significantly within both regions, Antarctic ice is typically 1 to 2 meters (3 to 6 feet) thick, while most of the Arctic is covered by sea ice 2 to 3 meters (6 to 9 feet) thick. Some Arctic regions are covered with ice that is 4 to 5 meters (12 to 15 feet) thick.


(The above antarctic pictures are not to the same scale as the Arctic pictures obviously, at least 3/1 scale difference).

According to scientific measurements, both the thickness and extent of summer sea ice in the Arctic have shown a dramatic decline over the past thirty years. This is consisistent with observations of a warming Arctic. This trend is a major sign of climate change in the polar regions and may be an indicator of the effects of global warming.

Here is the real total global sea ice extent decline graph...



And this graph only goes to 2008.

So since there is over 5 times more sea ice by volume in the Arctic than the Antarctic and the major differences in sea ice has been verifiable in the Arctic do you think it is proper for you to point to a tiny blip in the sea ice levels of the Antarctic and say it is relative to the whole worlds sea ice? So the Arctic has shown a Significant decrease of 4.1% (~500,000 km2; 193,000 mi2) per decade. And the antarctic has shown a Small increase of 0.9% (~100,000 km2; 39,000 mi2) per decade, so the total global average is declining by almost 3.9% per decade!
So for you to point to sea ice levels that rose these past two years contradicting a huge downward trend, when it is obvious that the levels do fluctuate, is very deceptive. Then to say that this implies the overall sea ice is increasing is a blatant lie. You should be ashamed of yourself, but of course you will not be.

No.

It appears I have come across something of which you are not an expert in and know everything about! Maybe you should do a search on it.


Actually, "ionosphere", is the key word you should look up with geo-engineering.

I'm surprised an SDA would reject conspiracies. Do you not understand that there's been a conspiracy going on since the foundation of the world? Do you not understand there's a certain religious entity that's been plotting and planning since the apostles' time, have their hand in most every war, in most every government, and in most every church? Are you not really aware of this?

What would you do if you saw a video interviewing government personnel and they admitted manipulating the environment on a large scale and has been going on for decades? And such information even shown on public broadcasts such as the Discovery Channel? (Another keyword to look up with the others) And seen google earth images of the antenna farms?

Me thinks you do not know as much about things as you promote yourself as knowing.


Me thinks you do not know much about making wide sweeping general statements of which you nor anyone else could possibly verify, either!


Whatever the amount of oil we're using every day, whatever one thinks the outcome will be, what effect the pollution were generating every day, all this has nothing to do with whether it is or is not causing global warming.

You don't seem to understand this. Perhaps the scientific method is another thing you don't know much about? Do you know what the null hypothesis would be in this situation?

NOAA Reinstates July 1936 As The Hottest Month On Record

So you think they are altering our ionosphere with HAARP? Is that what you are saying?

That is what I meant by knowing what kind of mindset you have. All the nutjobs of the world think that the US government is destroying our Ionosphere with HAARP, but it was just a testing facility and will be shut down within a year. What will you have to complain about then?

From Wiki;

HAARP is a target of conspiracy theorists like, who claim that it is capable of modifying weather, disabling satellites and exerting mind control over people, and that it is being used as a weapon against terrorists. Such theorists as yourself have blamed the program for causing earthquakes, droughts, storms and floods, diseases such as Gulf War Syndrome and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, the 1996 crash of TWA Flight 800, and the 2003 destruction of the space shuttle Columbia. Commentators and scientists say that proponents of these theories are "uninformed", as most theories put forward fall well outside the abilities of the facility and often outside the scope of natural science.

Stanford University professor Umran Inan told Popular Science that weather-control conspiracy theories were “completely uninformed,” explaining that “there’s absolutely nothing we can do to disturb the Earth’s [weather] systems. Even though the power HAARP radiates is very large, it’s minuscule compared with the power of a lightning flash—and there are 50 to 100 lightning flashes every second. HAARP’s intensity is very small.”

You are one of those nut jobs!

The Ionosphere is an extension of the Thermosphere. So technically, the ionosphere is not another atmospheric layer.

The upper atmosphere is ionized by solar radiation. Which is billions of times more powerful than the HAARP radio towers could EVER produce. That means the Sun's energy is so strong at this level, that it breaks apart molecules. So there ends up being electrons floating around and molecules which have lost or gained electrons. When the Sun is active, more and more ionization happens!

Different regions of the ionosphere make long distance radio communication possible by reflecting the radio waves back to Earth. It is also home to auroras. The experiments they were conducting was to find out the different effects of high frequency radio waves with an excited Ionosphere. In other words they were trying to find ways of communicating when the suns activity is at it's highest without disruption.

The nut jobs think its purpose was to change weather and destroy the planet. You are one of those type of people!

Ok, now I understand what you mean about corrupted data. They are just wrong, manipulated at will, and can never be relied on.

That seems odd they would bother changing it back. Worried they'd get caught or do you think they have some future plans?



James, do you think it is right to change historical data on temperatures? Of what basis do you conclude the world is getting warmer? Yesterday's corrupted data or today's corrupted data?

Kland I lived in the perfect petri dish to see the outcomes.

The climate of Alaska has changed so radically in my lifetime it is not even funny.

The permafrost used to be so thick you could build anything on it and it would stay. Now EVERYTHING is shifting up there. The roads are unsafe in many areas because of the shift. You can be driving down the road and a huge hole opens up and swallows your car because of melting permafrost. I'm sure many people in Canada could tell the same stories. The reports from Russia are the same and they have more permafrost than Alaska and Canada combined.

It's a fact that climate has changed.




Do you know what is trapped inside permafrost? More CO2 and Methane, so when it melts, just like sea ice it introduces double the amount of Greenhouse gasses so it speeds up the process. By my scientific friends analysis we are already past the tipping point and the Governments know this. That is why they are living so blatantly for today. If we were to totally stop burning fossil fuels we would not see the full outcome of the present emissions for 30 years and by then it would already be too late. All the sea ice would be gone, all the permafrost would be melted, all the oceans corral reefs would disappear. We have already destroyed more than the earth can rebound from. But we aren't even slowing down we are speeding up. More rain Forrest destroyed every day, more air pollution because of coal and oil use. More everything nasty. The great scientific minds know this.

Jesus must come soon because we turned our planet into a poison pit.

This is what really gets me... where did all the coal and oil come from? The flood correct? everything got buried and we are digging and sucking it up to burn it. So one world disaster has turned into another. The first destruction of the planet was by water, the second is BY FIRE! And there is still enough left over in the ground that when Jesus comes back the third time He will ignite it to cause hell and melt the surface to have a blank slate to renew the earth.

NASA: Satellite which will END man-made CO2 debate in orbit at last
Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 finally makes it into Space.

The satellite – which will study the absorption of sunlight by carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere – is the third attempt to get a CO2-measuring craft into space by the American space agency. The OCO-1 in 2009 and follow-up Glory in 2011 both failed when they weren’t able to complete their first stage separation.

NASA had to abandon the scheduled launch of the OCO-2 yesterday, when there were problems with the launchpad water flow.

The blast-off was particularly difficult to get right because US rocket boffins only had a 30-second window to get the sat into orbit to join the A-Train, a constellation of five international Earth-observing crafts that fly in close formation, constantly monitoring the planet.

OCO-2 is now the best carbon dioxide monitoring satellite in orbit by a long way, capable of taking up to 100,000 useful readings per day. The next best only returns around 500 measurements a day that are totally unimpeded by cloud cover.

Boffins hope that OCO-2’s data can offer clarity on just how much impact human activity has on carbon dioxide production and the processes the gas undergoes in the atmosphere, which will hopefully help lead to some answers on if and how we can do something about climate change.

http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/

OCO-2 will not be measuring CO2 directly; but actually, the intensity of the sunlight reflected from the presence of CO2 in a column of air. This measurement is unique like a fingerprint, and can be used for identification. The OCO-2 instrument will use a diffraction grating (like the back of a compact disk) to separate the incoming sunlight into a spectrum of multiple component colors.

The instrument measures the intensity of three relatively small wavelength bands (Weak CO2, Strong CO2 and Oxygen O2) from the spectrum, each specific to one of the three spectrometers. The absorption levels will indicate the presence of the different gases. By simultaneously measuring the gases over the same location and over time, OCO-2 will be able to track the changes over the surface over time.

The OCO-2 spectrometers will measure sunlight reflected off the Earth's surface. The sunlight rays entering the spectrometers will pass through the atmosphere twice - once as they travel from the Sun to the Earth, and then again as they bounce off from the Earth's surface to the OCO-2 instrument. Carbon dioxide and molecular oxygen molecules in the atmosphere absorb light energy at very specific colors or wavelengths.

The OCO-2 instrument uses diffraction grating to separate the inbound light energy into a spectrum of multiple component colors. The reflection gratings used in the OCO-2 spectrometers will consist of a very regularly-spaced series of grooves that lie on a very flat surface.

The characteristic spectral pattern for CO2 can alternate from transparent to opaque over very small variations in wavelength. The OCO-2 instrument must be able to detect these dramatic changes, and specify the wavelengths where these variations take place. So, the grooves in the instrument diffraction grating will be very finely tuned to spread the light spectrum into a large number of very narrow wavelength bands or colors. In fact, the OCO-2 instrument design incorporates 17,500 different colors, to cover the entire wavelength range that can be seen by the human eye. A digital camera covers the same wavelength range using just three colors.

OCO-2 measurements must be very accurate. To eliminate energy from other sources that would generate measurement errors, the light detectors for each camera must remain very cold. To ensure that the detectors remain sufficiently cold, the OCO-2 instrument design will include a cryocooler, which is a refrigeration device. The cryocooler keeps the detector temperature at or near -120° C (-184° F).

I watched the lift off two days ago.

Now we will know just how bad it really is. JT

From the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory/ California Institute of Technology. (the place we spend billions of dollars to check this stuff)

I wasn't asking where you lived.

And is the length of your lifetime significant? Is that the standard, your life? What about before then?
The climate at our house has changed radically from yesterday. Think that's significant?
What is really radically different is the climate of northern regions today versus about 4,000 years ago. It's been warming radically ever since.

At what point do you think it stopped warming?

And before that, it cooled radically different from before. Do you disagree with the creation record? Why do you think there are tropical fossils found up there?

You are making an assumption here. Even if it could be shown the earth was warming, it doesn't mean anything about CO2, methane, man-caused, or anything else.

By the way, did you ever say if you understood the scientific method?

You think it a disaster that all that carbon got buried and removed from the immediate environment?

James, do you think it is right to change historical data on temperatures? Which corrupted data do you go by? Yesterday's corrupted data or today's corrupted data?

"explaining that “there’s absolutely nothing we can do to disturb the Earth’s [weather] systems. "

Is this what I've been trying to say?

At first, I thought you meant they were just presenting it in a way that the following illustrates. This graph is presented by a self promoting reporter in his attack against Wakefield. At first glance, or from a surface reader perspective, it appears that vaccinations rates were cut in half. But when you look at the scale, you notice the total rates only dropped slightly over 10%. Depending upon the "n" value, it may not even be significant. But even assuming it is significant, dropping from the highest of 91.9 to the lowest of 79.9%, would one use the words "fell" or "slumped"? True, they did decline, but if you used a graph with the full scale, you would have to look close to see any difference. However, this isn't fraud (assuming he didn't change the data), but merely presenting the data in a manipulative way to try to exaggerate his point.

But this isn't happening with the weather data. It's just outright changed!

And James just simply ignores that....

OK we'll see. You keep your opinion and I'll keep mine.

You keep your opinion and I'll keep mine? But you never gave your opinion of why historical whether data was just plain changed and why it was permissible to do that.

And James, you talk about conspiracy theories. But you never addressed my response. You probably meant false conspiracy theories.

But why have you fallen for one of the biggest false conspiracy theories of all time: Global Warming caused by man? Is why you think this conspiracy is true and not others is because you believe it?


(You saw bubbles, therefore you know what they are. No need to test.)

I told you that I have done college level experiments on CO2 absorption. Three of my best friends are college level professors. I have a much deeper comprehension on this subject than you obviously do. What have you shared? Your statements go against every major study done in the past ten years. I have quoted NASA and the Jet propulsion laboratory. For you to contradict them without any support is the biggest joke I have ever heard on this website. Are we supposed to just take your word for it? What do we pay NASA for anyways, to lie to us? According to you that is the case which means according to you every major scientist and climatologist in the world are involved in some kind of conspiracy to mislead the public. All of the data has been changed so you say.

I know what I am talking about on this subject and yes in the right atmospheric conditions you can see CO2 absorption in the oceans. Go to any salt water fish tank that uses CO2 to adjust the pH levels and you can see this process for yourself.

And by the way, data is corrected all the time when it is found to be inaccurate!

How do you "correct" raw historical measurements?

And then "re-correct" them?

James, which NASA experts do you believe:

• The ones who originally published the data?
• The ones who "corrected" the data?
• Or the ones who "corrected" the "corrected" data?

Which are the true experts?

And I learned the scientific method covers more than, "I think, therefore it's true". Doesn't it cover measuring and testing rather than believing? Do you know what the scientific method is?

Maybe not. Did you just say that if you have intelligent friends, that makes you intelligent, too?

My statements about you seeing and therefore believing?
Or my statements about questioning what is it permitted to just arbitrarily change historical data?

When NASA or NOAA changed historical whether data, did that go against every major study? Or did you mean just not "in the past ten years"?

By the way, why did you pick and choose ten years? That seems a little.....


Who contradicted them? Themselves? NOAA?

Are we supposed to just take your word that bubbles you see are made up of CO2?

Did I say "all"? Did I say "every"? Do you say "all"? and "every"? Hmmm... Maybe you don't know?

But good point. If all scientists say, or most, or some, that must mean it's true.

Therefore, if you believe everything scientists say, and you don't think they would ever lie to us, then you must believe in evolution.

The amount of data collected by ice cores recently has been the significant reason for any corrected data. In regards to temp data changes, having access to temperature data previously unreleased from our war enemies has made the difference. They need to have access to temps from the whole world to accurately model the temp changes. Now we have all the data.

CO2 levels vary greatly from place to place so when they adjust the data it is usually because more samples have been taken with a higher degree of accuracy from previous singular samples.

They use averages to compile more accurate data, so when they have one sample that says one thing and another 50 are taken after that show slightly different data they compile it into an average.

1930 is when the first core samples were taken but it wasn't until 1990 that we had a reliable way of extracting the data accurately from all the core samples taken. Or do you just suppose that there was no learning curve and they just knew immediately what they were looking at? Then they had to go through all the samples taken to get an accurate estimation of pre modern samples. But just in the time frame since 1990 when they had the same testing techniques they use today, they can prove that CO2 is rising dramatically in step with temps.

Some do get it right:



Destruction by fire has increased. One wildfire burned 9,300 acres in the fire season before GW set up the abomination of desolation on 9/20/01. But in the next fire season, there were four major fires that burned 1,255,276 acres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wildfires ): more than a 100-fold increase in one year.

But fires vary annually: 386,159 acres burned in the 10-years from 1992-2001.

After 9/20/01 in the 10-year fire seasons from 2002- 2011, 13,515,746 acres burned.

Before GW set up the abomination of desolation, less than half a million acres were burned by wild fires in 10-years: after, the increase was over 13-MILLION acres in 10-years.

And destruction by flooding has increased. There were 13 floods in the USA 1990-2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floods_in_the_United_States:_1901% E2%80%932000 ).

In 2001, Texas flooded to Louisiana with 41 deaths. 2002 was unremarkable. But after GW reached his hand across the gulf to clasp the hand of the Roman Power (Pope John-Paul II, June 2004), Hurricane Katrina took the lives of 1,836 people and devastated the Gulf Coast.

In the 10-years since 9/20/01, 20 major floods struck America. Each surpassed the destruction and deaths of all the floods in the preceding two decades combined.

And after Massachusetts enacted gay marriage, New England had “a once in 500 year flood event.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floods_in_the_United_States:_2001%E2%80%93present)

And now at least two major floods hit the US every year: floods: along the Mississippi, Red River, and like those from hurricanes – Isaac, Katrina, and Sandi, they have increased. And this flooding is to increase until the end.

Again some do get it right:



Floods and fire were addressed in my previous note. Before and after GW set up the abomination of desolation: earthquakes (not really a weather event) in the USA for the 10-years 1992-2001 (28,857) to the 10-years 2002 to 2011 (41,244).

There were 7 tornadoes with 3 fatalities in 2001 before GW set up the abomination of desolation on 9/20/01. Afterwards tornadoes struck monthly for 3-months: September 24, October 24, and November 23-24 until 91 tornadoes killed 15 people. This sample is reflective of the big picture like fires, floods, and earthquakes.

What man is doing affects the weather. Turning 20 million barrels of crude oil a day into hot gasses has to be offset by some other mechanism in the earth's echology.

And man's defiance of God stays His hand from holding back the winds of strife.

When GW set up the abomination of desolation there was a marked change in fires: cause and effect.

When GW (the apostate Protestant prince of America's Constitution) reached his hand across the gulf to clasp the Roman power Katrina followed.

When Massachusetts enacted gay marriage, an epic 500-year flood followed.

Man's actions are destroying the earth (both his mismanagement and his disregard for God's moral teachings). Man's spiritual and physical activity have impacted the created world all the way back to Eden by "the evil which man brought into the world by disobedience."

How does the Indonesian earthquake fit your scenario? The Japanese earthquake. This killed more that only of the events you speak about? Is it God that is causing all these troubles?

I guess I had not considered that quote predicted faulty forestry management and the forest fire suppression of the past years.



Why is it called, "500-year" flood?

Ooops....

1950 - 3,500,000 acres - Chinchaga fire - British Columbia and Alberta - Largest North American fire on record

1910 - 3,000,000 acres (1,200,000 ha) - Great Fire of 1910 - Idaho;Montana;Washington - Killed 86 people, including 78 firefighters

Hmmm. As one theologian says it, the shoe is too small for the foot.

My study has focused on the US, the power that replaced the papacy and that is to be the last power to persecute God's people.

As God's Spirit is being withdrawn from the world, Satan is becoming more active. And these "natural disasters" are a means to warn men of what is ahead and lead them to God.

The best I follow it: occasionally there is local flooding.

And there are severe floods that are not expected to happen once in a 100-years or even worse ones that could come once in 500-years.

But now these floods that were 1 in 500-years are expected on a 50-year cycle.

From the context, my focus was primarily on the USA.

An occasional 1 million or even 3 million acres burned in a single year might impress you and others. But that falls far short of 13,515,746 acres.

I looked at the 10-years in the USA just before 9/20/01 and the 10-years immediately after Bush II set up the abomination of desolation.

Now if the Spirit of Prophecy is not accurate, please show us a 10-year cycle before 9/20/01 that had more than 13,515,746 acres burned. Pick any 10 consecutive years that you want before 9/20/01. And to keep from mixing apples with oranges, they MUST BE in the USA including Alaska. Is there even a 10-year cycle with 6 Million acres burned?

This is your opportunity to show us a better shoe size if there is one.

Would a Chinese Christian come to the same conclusion as you have? A Russian? An Indian? Historicism has had its problems, not that it is all wrong, but who do you believe? Uriah Smith? The "new view" from the SDA seminary? His Child? Who? Or perhaps there is more the the question? In stead of what, who? Who causes the 7 last plagues? Who is the active subject in the book of Revelation? The common view is that it is God that causes the plagues. Is that right? In the seals, the trumpets and the bowl, is it God that is the acting subject? Or is is Satan? It fits the demonic. Knowing the who, is more important that knowing the what, or so it seems to me...

Do you ask this so that you won't have to change your shoe size?

Knowing that the United States is the last power to rally the world against God's people: everyone should be very interested in how the image-beast is forming the image to the beast and how America's actions will soon attempt to persecute God's people to extinction.



It is the USA that has polluted the planet to the degree that it is today. And now the USA asks China and developing third world countries to cut their pollution levels and thus cut their GDP to save the planet. it comes across as the rich man trying to keep the poor man down.

Republicanism has taken up the rally call: keep the kids out at the border.

Protestantism has turned to capitalism.


The 7 last plagues will take care of themselves. America is preparing the planet for them. We saw the blood of dead men during the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. the next time it will not be stopped. I discussed “megacryometeors,” with Dr. Jesus Martinez-Frias of Nasa (the lead researcher of the phenomenon). During the star wars testing, in multiple tests, America released hundreds of pounds of lithium-barium dust to make high altitude clouds for testing Laser optics. The abnormal high altitude dust clouds are in deteriorating orbits. NASA knows the exact orbit of each dust release. And they know of all the reports of megacryometeors (time, date, weight, and number of megacryometeors). They can correlate altitude of dust cloud release, longitude/latitude, amount of dust released, and corresponding megacryometeor event years later. Thus they can predict the orbital path of the dust and project impact zones and when the megacryometeor plague should begin to fall.

Dr. Jesus Martinez-Frias thought my theory interesting and broke off the conversation. NASA does not want liability for the destruction that soon is to befall earth from their introducing dust into the atmosphere at altitudes far above that which occurs in nature.

But we will see that man is destroying the planet and God has an arsenal of hail laid up for the day and hour of His choosing.

By the way did you find any 10-year period prior to 9/20/01 where more than 13.5 million acres burned. I think not, because natural disasters are increasing. And many of them are manmade. But thought I'd ask.

His child, are you saying only those in the U.S. will be saved? That only they are God's people? Or are you saying that other Christians in other countries need to see the fires and floods happening in the U.S. and even if they aren't as bad as the ones they are experiencing, it must mean something?

I suppose you have a reason for picking and choosing a "10 year cycle"?


I suppose no one can dispute that statement because if someone said China pollutes more, you would say China isn't part of God's people....



And James would say all that is a false conspiracy.

Not at all! The foot is large. The events of the last days are not limited to North America. Yes, the image of the beast will be setup in the United States, but its effect will be global. It may be BO who helping form the image. Will he finish it? Perhaps; perhaps not. And if not, where will you be on the issue? EGW warned about this. Read GC457.1 and following. She also indicates that if the Advent people had done their part, this whole mess would have been over by now, and BO would not have even been born.

No. When the Bible talks about Israel and Judah should we get the impression that only the Jews will be saved?



No. When the Bible talks about Israel and Judah should we get the impression that only the Jews are God's people?



I am saying that GW set up an abomination that desolates on 9/20/01 and that when the 10 years before his action are compared to the 10-years that followed, there is a remarkable increase in floods, Tornadoes, fires, and earthquakes.



When I did the initial study in 2010-2012, I compared the 10 years before 9/20/01 to the 10-years after it rather than doing a 1-year study because 1-year can fluctuate widely. There has been a tremendous increase of natural disasters in the USA that aligns with my understanding of the Spirit of Prophecy.





Never imagined such. Apparently there is a miscommunication and you are speaking about what you think about what I said. That can become a straw man. (From 1776 until today the US has been a world leader in pollution due to our industrialization. China has been relatively slow to change from rural agriculture to ...





There will always be those that speak ill of what they do not understand. But I will have to let James speak for himself.

That is true BUT Do you suppose that I limit my understanding of the Bible to North America?

Daniel 7:17 identifies 4-kings from the earth. The prophetic earth is the USA according to Revelation 13. So while the prophecy is revealing things about 4 American Presidents, why would a Bible student turn from the Bible's focus on America to look elsewhere? Wouldn't that be like getting out a Diesel Ford manual to work on a gas Chevy?




Yes and EGW also warns:

We need to pray for discernment that we will not go to either extreme. When the Bible identifies the very men who are going to implement the Mark of the beast, we should avail ourselves of the particulars and not be satisfied with supposed Present Truth that leaves the believer in limbo.

And I am interested if you have found a 10-year fire period prior to 9/20/01 that had more than 13.5 million acres burned. Since, I look for truth, I could not continue to preach that fires have increased in the USA after 9/20/01 if indeed you have evidence to the contrary.

Your silence on that issue leads me to conclude that you cannot find any evidence to refute my original statement and therefore it must be correct as I stated it. If you have proof that I have misspoken, present it and I will learn and change.

You believe that the four kings are four American presidents. That has not yet been established as far as I have seen.

You have said that Massachusetts passes a gay marriage law, and bam, 500 year flood. Cause and effect? What caused the flood, how did that happen? Can you explain?

The Mississippi has flooded repeatedly. The Scab lands of Eastern Washington were caused by a major flood event. Your claim that the "published" fire events is absolute proof of the end times. One needs to understand why fires are larger now. In the past, there was no fire suppression. Old growth forests had tall trees with open space around the trees. With in implementation of fire suppression, vegetation filled in the open spaces. Now fires can be more catastrophic. Was this due to enactment of gay legislation, or just the folly of man in general? Incidentally, the fire that cause the greatest lost of life in Wisconsin, near where I grew up. That fire, in 1871 caused between 1500 and 2500 deaths. The shoe still does not fit.

Ok, arbitrarily picked and chosen.



Oh? Something must have been miss-communicated. What about:

Hmmm....

False accusations will get you nowhere.

I heard on the radio that many who are most concerned about global warming also use the most energy.

That's funny because Gallop Poll just recently came out with a study that say America (who by far uses more energy per capita than any other nation) is the least concerned about global warming.

http://pollingmatters.gallup.com/2014/03/why-are-americans-not-more-worried.html

"One of the most interesting, and to many most important, public opinion puzzles of our time is the evidence that the American public simply does not share a sense of urgency or a perception of the need for urgent action on the issue of climate change."

I wonder where you would hear such convoluted information? Would it be on FOX news perhaps?

Velella velella jelly fish stranding on the beach. About 2 miles long and about 4 yards wide.

sea stars dying by the millions on West Coast — Like the Black Death, only faster and deadlier [...] “Something has changed in the marine environment to lead to this unprecedented scale of an outbreak.”
(Oh, really?)

Millions of fish found dead on California coast The die-off is the third in three weeks. On July 18, thousands of white croakers washed up on Manresa State Beach [...] July 25, scores of dead anchovies washed onto the beach at Capitola
A gooey substance was found floating in the water and health officials were contacted […] officials have not identified what that ‘gooey’ substance was other than it didn’t pose a threat to public health.
(No idea what it is, but we know it's not a threat? ok....)



So some may think this is a sign of global warming. But is it? Or is it from the continuing radiation spewing out of Japan?



Surges in airborne radioactive releases have gone on for years at Fukushima — Exceeded 25,000 times normal level — Radiation alarms sound for hours at plant — ‘Extensive’ areas being impacted

Nuclear waste “flowing out to sea” from underground tunnels at Fukushima — 950 Billion Bq/m³ of cesium in Unit 2 shaft next to ocean — 11,000 tons estimated in tunnels — ‘Stream’ of moving water — Gov’t regulators ‘urgently assessing’ problems, ‘sense of crisis’ needed

Fukushima debris “waist high” on Canadian island; “Catastrophic death” trapped in nets, it’s horrifying; 15-mile long lines of floating trash — Journalist: Radioactive tsunami debris found far from Fukushima plant — Global concern over spread of contamination

http://enenews.com/researchers-radioacti... off California, levels spike to 400% normal — Crew then discovers ‘island’ of tsunami debris — Never seen so much garbage in ocean before — TV: “Disturbing new images from Pacific… looks like islands of plastic” 1,000 miles from coast — 7 tons and 80 ft. long, can walk on it as if land

James, while the plastic is a problem, the much bigger problem is the radiation in it.

It's funny that you quoted this "Millions of fish dead on California coast" article because the article said...

“Well it happened again folks. Millions of dead anchovies overnight. It’s not Fukushima”

I'm telling you that the waters are being polluted to to an alarming degree by plastic. I would lay heavy odds that the "gooey substance" found next to the dead fish was pelagic plastics. Haven't you heard of the "Great Pacific garbage patch"?



WAYYYY BIGGER PROBLEM THAN FUKUSHIMA!!!!!!

And in this quote you used about the dead fish, while it was a result of the tsunami that hit Japan it was not because of the radiation. You should read the articles better if you are going to use them to prove anything. The tsunami ripped everything off the land and drug it out to sea including drift nets. A few of those drift nets finally made it to the shores of Canada full of dead fish. (which was probably only a fraction of the nets that were actually lost and still out there!) It was NOT the radiation that caught those fish in the drift nets. The tsunami carried megatons of floating plastic into the ocean and no one cleaned it up, they just left it, and it all got caught in the Pacific currents and it took this long to make it to the Canadian shores.

http://enenews.com/fishermen-fukushima-d...ma-plant-videos

I'm going to say it again, while the radiation from Fukushima was very bad, and we are still feeling the effects of it, it is nothing compared to the garbage that the world dumps or allows into the sea every day. Plastic is killing the oceans and God has put it on my heart to warn the world about it, but no one seems to care. God will destroy those who disregard the warning and destroy the earth. This is a solemnly faithful witness.

I forgot where I got this link from. I thought it was from APL, but I couldn't find it here.

How the Global Warming Scare Began - John Coleman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=SyUDGfCNC-k

James, could you comment on the video?

Plastic - do we even know what is happening to the plastic in the ocean? NO. 99% of the plastic is MISSING.

June, 2014 - Science Magazine:
http://news.sciencemag.org/environment/2014/06/ninety-nine-percent-oceans-plastic-missing

Best-case scenario for the fate of the missing plastic? It’s sinking from the weight of organisms sticking to it or in animal feces and getting buried on the ocean floor, Law says. “I don’t think we can conceive of the worst-case scenario, quite frankly. We really don’t know what this plastic is doing.”

Radiation continuing spewing into the air and ocean and you think plastic is a bigger problem?

No one knows what to do about it, how to stop it, no way to clean it up and you think plastic is a bigger problem?

Kids in Japan getting cancer, animals getting deformed, people dying, our west coast becoming contaminated and you think plastic is a bigger problem?

The radiation is killing the oceans, contaminating the soils, people seeing it as the end of the world and you think plastic is a bigger problem?



Well, I suppose you could always change your light bulbs and pat yourself on the back. Or use paper bags....


James dear, what do you think was enenews.com's purpose of listing it on their website? Why do you think people commenting on the articles think it has something to do with radiation? Do you think they are all wrong?



Official: “Unfortunately, the fuel itself is exposed” at Fukushima — Scientist: Our tests show contamination isn’t going away… reactors are leaking out into ocean… there’s still a problem — PBS: Plume of water tainted with radiation is reaching to other side of Pacific

TV: “Mysterious die off of young salmon” in Pacific Northwest — “Healthy… and then they die” heading out to sea — “Far less plankton than normal… There are too many questions” — Researchers now testing for plankton and Fukushima contamination off West Coast

Alaska: “Scientists alarmed by new mystery disease” — Pacific Northwest: “Alarming changes” — “Couldn’t believe my eyes” — “Scientists really stumped… It’s kind of an alien thing” — “Gotten much, much worse… a horror show… could wreak havoc on entire ecosystems from Mexico to Alaska”

TV: Huge increase in dead and sick sea mammals on California coast — Unprecedented numbers, annual record broken in 7 months — Starving, drooling, brain damaged, suffering seizures — Sea lions ‘mysteriously’ vanishing on other side of Pacific — Experts: We don’t know what’s happening


James, why don't you go to them and say there is no mystery, no need to be stumped, that you know what is happening and try to say with a straight face that the reason animals are dying is because of...... plastic.....

(Think they would believe you?)
By the way, why do you suppose they are stopping to post death rates of sea lions, stopping from measuring radiation counts, etc.?



How the Global Warming Scare Began - John Coleman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=SyUDGfCNC-k

James, could you comment on the video?

Are you seriously going to blame everything happening in the oceans worldwide on Fukushima? How long have you been an conservationist? Have you even visited any site? I have traveled the world going to hot spots when I can and you have no clue what you are talking about.

Do you know how much toxic waste Russia has dumped into the Arcticic ocean? Have you heard of Stepovogo bay? You think Fukushima is bad, look into that place and see the real horrors that lead to starfish dismembering themselves.

Russia dumped 19 radioactive ships Plus 14 Nuclear Reactors into ocean

The catalogue of waste dumped at sea by the Soviets, according to documents seen by Bellona, and which were today released by the Norwegian daily Aftenposten, includes some 17,000 containers of radioactive waste, 19 ships loaded with an unlisted amount radioactive waste, 14 nuclear reactors, including five that still contain spent nuclear fuel; 735 other pieces of radioactively contaminated heavy machinery, and the K-27 nuclear submarine with its two reactors loaded with nuclear fuel.

From 1946 through 1993, thirteen countries used ocean disposal or ocean dumping as a method to dispose of nuclear/radioactive waste DIRECTLY INTO THE OCEAN BY THE TONNAGE!!!!. The waste materials included both liquids and solids housed in various containers, as well as reactor vessels, with and without spent or damaged nuclear fuel. Since 1993, ocean disposal has been banned by international treaties. (London Convention (1972), Basel Convention, MARPOL 73/78) But do you think they really stopped? If Russia thinks so much about land treaties where they are in open rebellion against the United Nations and taking over Crimea and trying to take the Ukraine with sights set on Belarus and the Baltic states you think some treaty will stop them from disposing waste any way they want?

This is what we can prove!!!

Ocean dumping of radioactive waste 1946-93
Country dumped

USSR 38,369 0 874 39,243 1959-92[10] Arctic ; 20 sites, 222x103m3 and reactor w or w/o spent fuel,
Pacific Ocean (mainly sea of Japan); 12 sites, 145x103m3
Russia 0.7 0 2.1 2.8 1992-93 Arctic ; 3,066m3,
Pacific Ocean 6,327m3
Belgium 0 2,120 0 2,120 1960-82 NE Atlantic 6 sites, 55,324 containers, 23.1x103tons
France 0 354 0 354 1967-69 NE Atlantic 2 sites, 46,396 containers, 14.3x103tons
Germany 0 0.2 0 0.2 1967 NE Atlantic 1 site once, 480 containers, 185tons
Italy 0 0.2 0 0.2 1969 NE Atlantic 1 site, 100 containers, 45tons
Netherlands 0 336 0 336 1967-82 NE Atlantic 4 sites, 28,428 containers, 19.2x103tons
Sweden 0 3.2 0 3.2 1959,61,69 Baltic sea 1 site, 230 containers, 64 tons, NE Atlantic 1 site, 289.5 containers, 1,080 tons,
Switzerland 0 4,419 0 4,419 1969-82 NE Atlantic, 3 sites, 7,420 containers, 5,321 tons
UK 0 35,088 0 35,088 1948-82 NE Atlantic 15 sites, ?? containers, 74,052 tons
and 18 sites off coast of British isles more than 9.4 TBq
USA 0 2,942 554 3,496 1946-70 Mid/NW of Atlantic (9), Gulf of Mexico (2) total 11 sites, 34,282 containers, ? tones,
Mid/NE of Pacific Ocean, total of 18 sites, 56,261 containers, ? tones
Japan 0 0 15.08 15.08 1955-69 South of main island, 6 sites 15 times, 3,031 containers, 606x103m3
New Zealand 0 0 1.04 1.04 1954-76 East coast of New Zealand, 4 sites, 9 containers, 0.62m3
South Korea 0 0 no data 1968-72 Sea of Japan, 1 site 5 times?, 115 container, 45 tons
Total 38,369 45,262 1,446 85,077 Subtotal of all volume reported is 982,394m3.
*Some countries report the mass and volume of disposed waste and some just tonnage. The US did not report tonnage or volume of 90,543 containers.



Arctic ocean dump sites of radioactive waste. SU: Soviet Union (38,369TBq), RU: Russia (0.7TBq), SE: Sweden.



We're talking about millions of tons of radioactive waste directly into the oceans that we know for a fact. And you worry about runoff at Fukushima? Notice the United States in there? We refused to give the amount we dumped!

Hazardous waste water treatment and hazardous waste landfills in Russia

Industrial hazardous waste generated in the areas of St. Petersburg and Leningrad Oblast is currently transported to the Krasnyi Bor hazardous waste landfill located at the border of St. Petersburg and LO, approximately 45 km southeast of St. Petersburg. Krasny Bor is located by the River Izhora, which discharges to the River Neva and further directly to the Baltic Sea. The landfill is operated by the City of St. Petersburg. Krasnyi Bor has been identified by HELCOM as one of the worlds “hot spots” posing a severe risk of detrimental impacts on the Baltic Sea because of hazardous substances emissions with a need for prompt remedial action. Illegal dumping of hazardous waste has been and still is common in Russia regardless of any treaty! No hazardous waste treatment plant that would meet the requirements for proper hazardous waste treatment currently exists in the entire Russia.

According to the United Nations, some companies have been dumping thousands of TONS of radioactive waste and other hazardous materials into the coastal waters of Somalia, taking advantage of the fact that the country had no functioning government since the early 1990s so everyone is using there coast as a dumping ground.

We're not talking about leakage of radioactive water or a little air pollution here, we're talking about spend fuel rods encased in barrels that are 50 years old that are just now starting to leak! It gets me so mad to read stuff from people like you focusing on the little itty bitty scraps that the media feeds you and blame everything on our planet on that event.

But I am supportive of your indignation against what you see. I'm just saying that the plastic in the oceans IS MUCH greater a problem than Fukushima by ten thousand times. The direct dumping of active radioactive waste is BILLIONS of times worse!!! For a thousand years worse!!!

As far as the plastic problem Do you know what eating polymers does to living creatures? It's as bad as drinking crude oil.

Do you remember the BP oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico? You want to know how many billions of times worse that was to our planets oceans than Fukushima?

Some of the lakes and even parts of the arctic ocean in northern Russia and China are so polluted with toxic radioactive waste that they do not even freeze in -20F weather!!!



China is coming on strong, and has surpassed Russia for pollutants within the last ten years.

Made in China: Our Toxic, Imported Air Pollution
Mercury, sulfates, ozone, black carbon, flu-laced desert dust. Even as America tightens emission standards, the fast-growing economies of Asia are filling the air with hazardous components that circumnavigate the globe.

http://discovermagazine.com/2011/apr/18-made-in-china-our-toxic-imported-air-pollution

“There is no place called away.” It is a statement worthy of Gertrude Stein, but University of Washington atmospheric chemist Dan Jaffe says it with conviction: None of the contamination we pump into the air just disappears. It might get diluted, blended, or chemically transformed, but it has to go somewhere. And when it comes to pollutants produced by the booming economies of East Asia, that somewhere often means right here, the mainland of the United States.

Jaffe and a new breed of global air detectives are delivering a sobering message to policy makers everywhere: Carbon dioxide, the predominant driver of global warming, is not the only industrial by-product whose effects can be felt around the world. Prevailing winds across the Pacific are pushing thousands of tons of other contaminants—including mercury, sulfates, ozone, black carbon, and desert dust—over the ocean each year. Some of this atmospheric junk settles into the cold waters of the North Pacific, but much of it eventually merges with the global air pollution pool that circumnavigates the planet.

These contaminants are implicated in a long list of health problems, including neurodegenerative disease, cancer, emphysema, and perhaps even pandemics like avian flu. And when wind and weather conditions are right, they reach North America within days. Dust, ozone, and carbon can accumulate in valleys and basins, and mercury can be pulled to earth through atmospheric sinks that deposit it across large swaths of land.

Pollution and production have gone hand in hand at least since the Industrial Revolution, and it is not unusual for a developing nation to value economic growth over environmental regulation. “Pollute first, clean up later” can be the general attitude, says Jennifer Turner, director of the China Environment Forum at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. The intensity of the current change is truly new, however.

China in particular stands out because of its sudden role as the world’s factory, its enormous population, and the mass migration of that population to urban centers; 350 million people, equivalent to the entire U.S. population, will be moving to its cities over the next 10 years. China now emits more mercury than the United States, India, and Europe combined. “What’s different about China is the scale and speed of pollution and environmental degradation,” Turner says. “It’s like nothing the world has ever seen.”

Development there is racing far ahead of environmental regulation. “Standards in the United States have gotten tighter because we’ve learned that ever-lower levels of air pollution affect health, especially in babies and the elderly,” Jaffe says. As pollutants coming from Asia increase, though, it becomes harder to meet the stricter standards that our new laws impose.

The incoming pollution has sparked a fractious international debate. Officials in the United States and Europe have embraced the warnings of the soft-spoken Jaffe, who, with flecks of red and gray in his trim beard, looks every bit the part of a sober environmental watchdog. In China, where economic expansion has run at 8 to 14 percent a year since 2001, the same facts are seen through a different lens.




China’s smog-filled cities are ringed with heavy industry, metal smelters, and coal-fired power plants, all crucial to that fast-growing economy even as they spew tons of carbon, metals, gases, and soot into the air. China’s highways are crawling with the newly acquired cars of a burgeoning middle class. Still, “it’s unfair to put all the blame on China or Asia,” says Xinbin Feng of the Institute of Geochemistry at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, a government-associated research facility. All regions of the world contribute pollutants, he notes. And much of the emissions are generated from making products consumed by the West.

Our economic link with China makes all the headlines, but Jaffe’s work shows that we are environmentally bound to the world’s fastest-rising nation as well.

Dan Jaffe has been worrying about air pollution since childhood. Growing up near Boston, he liked to fish in local wetlands, where he first learned about acid rain. “I had a great science teacher, and we did a project in the Blue Hills area. We found that the acidity of the lake was rising,” he recalls. The fledgling environmental investigator began chatting with fishermen around New England. “All these old-timers kept telling me the lakes had been full of fish that were now gone. That mobilized me to think about when we burn fossil fuels or dump garbage, there is no way it just goes somewhere else.”

By 1997 Jaffe was living in Seattle, and his interest had taken a slant: Could pollution reaching his city be blowing in from somewhere else? “We had a hunch that pollutants could be carried across the ocean, and we had satellite imagery to show that,” Jaffe says. “And we noticed our upstream neighbors in Asia were developing very rapidly. I asked the question: Could we see those pollutants coming over to the United States?”

Jaffe’s colleagues considered it improbable that a concentration of pollutants high enough to significantly impact American air quality could travel thousands of miles across the Pacific Ocean; they expected he would find just insignificant traces. Despite their skepticism, Jaffe set out to find the proof. First he gathered the necessary equipment. Devices to measure carbon monoxide, aerosols, sulfur dioxide, and hydrocarbons could all be bought off the shelf. He loaded the equipment into some university trucks and set out for the school’s weather observatory at Cheeka Peak. The little mountain was an arduous five-hour drive northwest of Seattle, but it was also known for the cleanest air in the Northern Hemisphere. He reckoned that if he tested this reputedly pristine air when a westerly wind was blowing in from the Pacific, the Asian pollutants might show up.

Jaffe’s monitors quickly captured evidence of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, hydrocarbons, radon, and particulates. Since air from North America could not have contaminated Cheeka Peak with winds blowing from the west, the next step was identifying the true source of the pollutants. Jaffe found his answer in atmospheric circulation models, created with the help of data from Earth-imaging satellites, that allowed him to trace the pollutants’ path backward in time. A paper he published two years later summarized his conclusions succinctly. The pollutants “were all statistically elevated when the trajectory originated over Asia.”



Officials at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency took note, and by 1999 they were calling Jaffe to talk. They were not calling about aerosols or hydrocarbons, however, as concerning as those pollutants might be. Instead, they were interested in a pollutant that Jaffe had not looked for in his air samples: mercury.

Mercury is a common heavy metal, ubiquitous in solid material on the earth’s surface. While it is trapped it is of little consequence to human health. But whenever metal is smelted or coal is burned, some mercury is released. It gets into the food chain and diffuses deep into the ocean. It eventually finds its way into fish, rice, vegetables, and fruit.

[img]https://d13uygpm1enfng.cloudfront.net/article-imgs/en/2013/02/01/AJ201302010087/AJ201302010088M.jpg[/img]

When inorganic mercury (whether from industry or nature) gets into wet soil or a waterway, sulfate-reducing bacteria begin incorporating it into an organic and far more absorbable compound called methylmercury. As microorganisms consume the methylmercury, the metal accumulates and migrates up the food chain; that is why the largest predator fish (sharks and swordfish, for example) typically have the highest concentrations. Nine-tenths of the mercury found in Americans’ blood is the methyl form, and most comes from fish, especially Pacific fish. About 40 percent of all mercury exposure in the United States comes from Pacific tuna that has been touched by pollution.

In pregnant women, methylmercury can cross the placenta and negatively affect fetal brain development. Other pollutants that the fetus is exposed to can also cause toxic effects, “potentially leading to neurological, immunological, and other disorders,” says Harvard epidemiologist Philippe Grandjean, a leading authority on the risks associated with chemical exposure during early development. Prenatal exposure to mercury and other pollutants can lead to lower iq in children—even at today’s lower levels, achieved in the United States after lead paint and leaded gasoline were banned.

Among adults, University of California, Los Angeles, neuroscience researcher Dan Laks has identified an alarming rise in mercury exposure. He analyzed data on 6,000 American women collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and found that concentrations of mercury in the human population had increased over time. Especially notable, Laks detected inorganic mercury (the kind that doesn’t come from seafood) in the blood of 30 percent of the women tested in 2005–2006, up from just 2 percent of women tested six years earlier. “Mercury’s neurotoxicity is irrefutable, and there is strong evidence for an association with Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis,” Laks adds.

Circumstantial evidence strongly pointed to China as the primary origin of the mercury; the industrial processes that produce the kinds of pollutants Jaffe was seeing on Cheeka Peak should release mercury as well. Still, he could not prove it from his data. To confirm the China connection, and to understand the exact sources of the pollution, researchers had to get snapshots of what was happening inside that country.

One of the first scientists with feet on the ground in China was David Streets, a senior energy and environmental policy scientist at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. In the 1980s he was at the forefront of the study of acid rain, and in the 1990s he turned his attention to carbon dioxide and global warming as part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Streets began focusing on emissions from China about 15 years ago and has since become such a noted expert that he helped the Chinese government clean up the smoke-clogged skies over Beijing before the Olympics in 2008.

Nevertheless, Streets considered the endeavor important because China is full of the two biggest contributors to human-generated mercury, metal smelting and coal combustion. Smelting facilities heat metal ores to eliminate contaminants and extract the desired metal, such as zinc, lead, copper, or gold. Unfortunately, one of the consistent contaminants is mercury, and the heating process allows it to escape into the atmosphere in gaseous form. Similarly, coal contains trace amounts of mercury, which is set free during combustion at power plants.

Streets began by studying reports from China’s National Bureau of Statistics. China’s provinces provide the central government with detailed data on industrial production: how much coal they burn, how much zinc they produce, and so on. “China is very good at producing statistical data. It’s not always 100 percent reliable, but at least it’s a start,” he says. Those statistics help the Chinese government monitor the economy, but for Streets they also quantified China’s mercury-laden raw materials.

The numbers from the statistics bureau told Streets the total amount of mercury that might be emitted, but he also needed to know how much actually made it into the air. To obtain that information, he turned to pollution detectives—a group of professional contacts he had met at conferences, along with graduate students who spent time in his lab. Most of the time, Chinese factories turned these “spies” away. “Factory owners had nothing to gain and a lot to lose,” Streets says. “They were nervous that the results would get leaked to the government.”

Yet some of Streets’s moles got through by guaranteeing that the data would stay anonymous. Once inside, they took samples of raw materials—zinc ore in a smelting facility, for example—and installed chemical detectors in smokestacks. After a few days of data collection, they passed the information to Streets.

The statistics Streets collected were hardly airtight. Factory foremen and provincial officials were not above providing inflated data to make themselves look more productive, and the managers who were willing to let his inspectors take measurements were often the very ones with nothing to hide. “There’s still a lot of uncertainty,” Streets concedes, “but we know more than we did before.”

In 2005 Streets and his team reported their first tally of human-generated mercury emissions in China, for the year 1999. The scientists estimated the amount at 590 tons (the United States emitted 117 tons). Almost half resulted from the smelting of metals—especially zinc, because its ores contain a high concentration of mercury. Coal-burning power plants accounted for another 38 percent of Chinese mercury emissions, and that percentage may be going up. As recently as 2007, China was building two new power plants a week, according to John Ashton, a climate official in the United Kingdom.

Streets’s team published a subsequent inventory estimating that China’s mercury emissions had jumped to 767 tons in 2003. “Mercury emissions in China have grown at about 5 to 6 percent a year,” he says. “It’s pretty much undeniable.”

Streets had shown that China was churning out mercury, but he was left with a big uncertainty: What happened to it on its journey aloft? Finding the answer fell to Hans Friedli, a chemist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) who had spent 33 years working for Dow Chemical. Friedli had found his own path into the esoteric world of pollution forensics. Back in the early 1990s, a conversation with his neighbor, an NCAR scientist, sparked an interest in wildfires, a major source of mercury emissions. By 1998 he had a full-time job tracking the toxin for NCAR.

With its copious mercury emissions (not only from industry but also from volcanoes, wildfires, and dust storms), Asia drew Friedli’s interest. China would never allow him to do aerial studies in its airspace, but in 2001 he heard about research flights off the coasts of Japan, Korea, and China designed to track dust particles emanating from the mainland. Friedli convinced the research team to take him along to measure mercury concentrations in the atmosphere. Throughout April 2001, 19 researchers, professors, and grad students took 16 flights aboard a cavernous retired Navy C-130 plane custom fit with 19 instruments for measuring pollutants like carbon monoxide, sulfur, and ozone.

During each flight, Friedli sat at his station awaiting readouts from his mercury sensor: an intake valve that sucked in air and guided it over a gold cartridge within the plane. Any mercury in the air would be absorbed by the gold. Every five minutes the instrument rapidly heated the gold, releasing any trapped mercury.

Plumes of mercury-laced air near the earth’s surface are mixed with other pollutants, but at 20,000 feet Friedli discovered concentrated mercury plumes soaring eastward toward North America. He concluded those plumes must have circled the entire globe at least once, releasing more ephemeral pollutants like carbon monoxide so that the mercury stood out even more.

Eager to follow the trail of Asian mercury plumes, Friedli set his sights across the Pacific, off the West Coast of the United States. In a series of 11 research flights in 2002, he identified a plume that looked very much like the ones he’d found near China the year before. Specifically, the plume had a carbon monoxide-to-mercury ratio that served as a fingerprint for gases from the same source.

What Friedli detected was just one detail of a much larger picture. Mercury plumes can wobble in latitude and altitude or park themselves in one spot for days on end. Emissions from 
China—and from the United States, and indeed from every industrial country—feed a network of air currents that, as equal-opportunity polluters, serve up toxic mercury around the world.

Drawing insights from research by Friedli and Streets, Jaffe looked at his data anew. If mercury were arriving from China, he should be able to detect it, yet his operation on Cheeka Peak showed no such signal. Conducting reconnaissance from a plane, he realized why. The peak, at 1,500 feet, hovered below the mercury plume line. Seeking a higher perch, he chose Mount Bachelor, a ski resort in central Oregon with an altitude of 9,000 feet.

In late winter 2004, Jaffe and his students huddled deep in their down jackets, bracing against a bitter gale that buffeted the chairlift ferrying them and their costly equipment to the summit. Inside the mountaintop lodge they installed a small computer lab and extended tubes outside to vacuum up the air. Later that year they conducted a similar experiment in Okinawa, Japan.

Back in Washington, they plotted their analysis of mercury in the air against satellite data showing wind currents. “My hypothesis was that we would see the same chemicals, including the same ratio of mercury to carbon monoxide, from Mount Bachelor and Japan,” Jaffe says. The numbers showed exactly the expected similarity. “This was a real ‘aha’ moment for us, because the two regions were phenomenally close.”

It was the first time anyone had decisively identified Asian mercury in American air, and the quantities were stunning. The levels Jaffe measured suggested that Asia was churning out 1,400 tons a year. The results were a shock to many scientists, Jaffe says, because “they still couldn’t wrap their heads around the magnitude of the pollution and how dirty China’s industry was.” They were only starting to understand the global nature of the mercury problem.

Over the years, Jaffe’s Mount Bachelor Observatory has also monitored many other noxious pollutants wafting across the Pacific. One major category is sulfates, associated with lung and heart disease. When sulfur dioxide exits China’s coal and oil smokestacks, it converts into sulfates in the air. “Sulfates are water-soluble and get removed from the atmosphere relatively quickly, creating acid rain that falls in China, Korea, and Japan,” Jaffe says. Yet some of the sulfates stay aloft, finding their way here and contributing to smog along the West Coast.

The biggest pollutant coming out of Asia, at least in terms of sheer mass, could be dust from the region’s swelling deserts. “It’s not a new phenomenon,” Jaffe says, but it has gotten worse with deforestation and desertification caused by poorly managed agriculture. About every three years, a huge dust storm over China sends enormous clouds across the Pacific. “We can visually see it,” Jaffe says. “It usually hangs around for about a week. We’ve tried to quantify how much it contributes to the particulate loading here, and it’s a little under 10 percent of the U.S. standard on average each year. It’s a significant amount.”

[img]http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/83000/83554/China_tmo_2014113.jpg[/img]

Chinese dust has obscured vistas in U.S. national parks, even on the East Coast. The amount of dust is widely variable and can hit rare extreme peaks. The highest level recorded was from a 2001 dust event. “It reached approximately two-thirds of the U.S. air quality standard at several sites along the West Coast,” he reports. One study from Taiwan tracked avian flu outbreaks downwind of Asian dust storms and found that the flu virus might be transported long-distance by air spiked with the dust.

Perhaps the most counterintuitive traveling contaminant is ozone, commonly associated with ground-level pollution in cities. Volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides from Asian cars and industry mix in the atmosphere as they cross the Pacific Ocean and convert in sunlight into ozone, a main ingredient in smog, Jaffe explains. When air with high ozone concentrations touches down in North America, it can pose the classic dangers of urban smog: heart disease, lung disease, and death.

Jaffe recently coauthored a paper on Asian ozone coming to America. It found that ozone levels above western North America creep upward every spring. “When air was coming from Asia, the trend was strongest. That was the nail in the coffin,” Jaffe says. “The increase was estimated at 0.5 part per billion [ppb] per year. But that’s huge. In 10 years that’s another 5 ppb. Let’s say the epa orders a 5 ppb reduction and we achieve that, and yet, because of the growing global pool, in 10 years that gets wiped out. We’ll have to keep reducing our emissions just to stay even.”



The underlying message of Jaffe’s detective work should not be all that surprising: All of the world’s atmosphere is interconnected. People have accepted this notion when it comes to carbon dioxide or the chemicals that eat away at the ozone layer, but Jaffe is finding that they are still coming to terms with the reality that it applies to industrial pollutants in general.

The fact is, those pollutants are everybody’s responsibility, not just China’s. The epa has estimated that just one-quarter of U.S. mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants are deposited within the contiguous U.S. The remainder enters the global cycle. Conversely, current estimates are that less than half of all mercury deposition within the United States comes from American sources.

Then again, the United States has spent considerable effort over the past half-century trying to clean up its act. China is still much more focused on production. To fuel its boom, China has become a pioneer in wind power but has also begun buying up huge inventories of coal from markets around the world. Streets recently estimated that China’s use of coal for electricity generation will rise nearly 40 percent over the next decade, from 1.29 billion tons last year to 1.77 billion tons in 2020. That is a lot more pollution to come.

“It’s a classic example of a tragedy of the commons” Jaffe says, referring to a dilemma in which individuals act in their own self-interest and deplete a shared resource. “If 20 people are fishing in the same pond, with no fishing limit, then you catch as many as you can because it will be empty in weeks. Nobody has an incentive to conserve, and the same goes for pollution.”

The discovery of the global mercury cycle underscores the need for an international treaty to address such pollutants. Under the auspices of the United Nations, negotiations have at least begun. Jaffe, Streets, and China’s Xinbin Feng are now consultants to the U.N. Environment Programme’s Global Partnership on Mercury Atmospheric Transport and Fate Research, which helped contribute data that led to a proposed U.N. mercury treaty in 2009.

When it comes to some pollutants, China has taken important steps. For instance, recent policies encourage desulfurization and other filtering technology in power plants. But convincing developing nations to move aggressively on mercury may be at least as tough as mobilizing them against carbon emissions. “This is not considered a pollutant that urgently needs to be controlled on the national level,” Feng says. “It’s not fair that you emitted so much mercury and other pollutants when you had the chance to industrialize. You had 200 years, and now you want to stop other countries from developing too.”

“We need to be concerned,” Jaffe counters in his low-key way. “There is no Planet B. We all live downwind.”

[img]http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/beijing_smog_21.jpg[/img]

This NASA satellite photo of East Asia documents a common path for industrial pollutants once they enter the atmosphere; along the way, South Korea and Japan can receive acid rain resulting from China’s sulfate emissions. Satellite images and atmospheric models such as these have helped Jaffe demonstrate how mercury and other emissions from China feed into a complex network of air currents that distribute pollutants across the globe.

James, you make an excellent case that there are many worse hazards to worry about than supposed global warming or plastic! I had been aware that up along the northern Europe/Russian coasts that radioactive wastes were dumped, but were in "contained" in containers. Except those "containers" are starting to corrode and leak. All this in addition to Fukushima could be contributing to the unusual deaths.

Is there something specific about radiation presented on the enenews.com site you wish to dispute? There's some there that speak about that Fukushima and U.S. uses different types of nuclear

(It only posted part)

[uses different types of nuclear] power fuel than over in Europe and Russia. A type that is much worse than theirs. What do you know about that? Also, you seem to be saying that 200 trillion bq/kg or 4 peta-becquerel per kilogram range is nothing compared to what has been going on. So, would you say there should be no problems for anyone who wish to move to the pacific northwest? No problems for those who eat seafood since it is minor compared to before? That is, we shouldn't panic and be all worried, move to the west coast if we desire, go about life as if Fukushima didn't happen?

If so, perhaps you should inform all the posters at enenews.com that they needn't be worried because a lot there think the end of the world has come. Oh, and also inform the make that, "some" of the authorities in Japan who's all worried about the coincidental thyroid cancer increase.

The radiation that comes from the Fukushima nuclear reactors is exactly the same as every other reactor, so I assume you are talking about reactor #3 which had been fueled by a small fraction (6%) of plutonium containing mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel, rather than the low enriched uranium (LEU) used in the other 5 reactors? Plutonium-239 is one of the three main isotopes demonstrated usable as fuel in nuclear reactors, along with uranium-235 and uranium-233. The resulting air contamination from the plutonium is no worse than using Uranium, and the Uranium would be at much worse doses by volume.

Plutonium is the main isotope used in Nuclear powered weapons, but the resulting contamination from Fukushima would be a lot less from the reactor meltdown using 6% Plutonium than the contamination from even 1 100% plutonium powered nuclear weapon. Over 500 atmospheric nuclear weapons tests were conducted at various sites around the world from 1945 to 1980. As public awareness and concern mounted over the possible health hazards associated with exposure to the nuclear fallout, various studies were done to assess the extent of the hazard. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/ National Cancer Institute study claims that nuclear fallout might have led to approximately 11,000 excess deaths, most caused by thyroid cancer linked to exposure to iodine-131. You want to talk about contamination? Those things were designed to spread destruction, but we used them like they were toys. Fukushima looks like a play toy for a play toy compared to the atmospheric tests that America has done.


Baker Shot", part of Operation Crossroads, a nuclear test by the United States at Bikini Atoll in 1946





Above are the per capita thyroid doses (in rads) in the continental United States resulting from all exposure routes from all atmospheric nuclear tests conducted at the Nevada Test Site from 1951–1962 and only 50 tests were conducted there during that time frame. Imagine what the concentration has been in the air since then when over 500 tests have been conducted world wide!!! Notice how far the thyroid contamination spread just for 50 tests. Now imagine the whole world doing tests above ground for over 500 atmospheric tests.

The 6 Fukushima reactors where built during immense political pressure to build safely, so they tried to design it to pack the most punch in the smallest design. They made six smaller reactors instead of one big one for fail-safe purposes, but they then fired all six of them up and didn't expect a tsunami to wipe four of them out.

(How stupid to assume that for a country that is built where tsunami's and earthquakes are common)

This new discovery is very concerning for Tokyo today from Energy News. I have had several friends report that the situation is way worse than initial reports have said, and I have told you before that I am very concerned about this situation. And I will say it again that I am not trying to say Fukushima is not a major disaster. Like I reported to you before I am very concerned about the effects of Fukushima. I was on several Google+ threads trying to drum up concern about it because of the reports that do not make it into mainstream media. The issue is way worse than TEPCO is reporting.

I am also concerned about why the Governments of the world had allowed the perpetrators of the crime to be allowed to police their own crime scene, which is the best way to sweep an issue under the carpet. Especially since they were already sited by the Nuclear regulatory commission for falsifying documents before the incident. That is like letting Herman Goering investigate himself in the Nuremberg trials.

But I am only trying to say here that the plastic in the oceans is WAY worse than effects of Fukushima on the fish and wildlife in the ocean and to the world in general. The one does not negate the other. If you only knew how bad the oceanic plastic problem really is you would not even question this statement.



And the meltdown at Chernobyl was 10,000 times worse than what happened in Fukushima because of the size of the reactor. Those winds head east to us also. They didn't even come close to doing as much investigation as they have for Fukushima, and everyone just assumed that the particulates would dilute into the atmosphere and no one would be hurt. That was the biggest lie ever perpetrated.

The new report from Japan is terrible news for the residents of Japan. The major debris field from the explosion went in a straight line south right to Tokyo, while the radioactive plume went right into the prevailing North-easterly winds which hit Alaska first. Then the Oceanic currents went to the Pacific Northwest of the United states.

And as for your question about moving to the Pacific Northwest... I wouldn't... these issues from China are only going to get worse so it would be something to worry about even more in the future. And I am officially done with eating salmon which live in the pacific. All of this information should cause us to question the consumption of fish from the sea. All of that terrible information leads us to know how bad it really is out there. I would never let kids swim in the ocean now and that is a terrible thing to have to say.

Just to show you my past concern about this exact issue here are some G+ articles I posted last year on the 'Nuclear Energy' community on this subject. Everyone in that community are pro-nuclear and they take offense to anyone claiming nuclear is bad and they laugh at the damage caused by Fukushima. You can tell the dialogue gets quite heated but I can say that several of those people were effected by what I posted and we continue to be corresponding with me as friends on these subjects a year later although they blacklisted me on the Pro-Nuclear community.

https://plus.google.com/105336100538645819591/posts/5UJ8JufUtPD

https://plus.google.com/105336100538645819591/posts/LEz6n7jVkMf

https://plus.google.com/105336100538645819591/posts/4R7qRnqXs7z

https://plus.google.com/105336100538645819591/posts/ThZVnVZjueh

Huh - your character in your G+ posts are just like they are here and your "friends" call you out on it.

quote: Wow, James can't take what he gives: "Daniel, How dare you criticise me."

We only criticize your words, James, because you're so uninformed and downright nasty. In other words, you're not an honest broker of information. So, keep it up. We'll continue with facts that underscore your lack of concern for truth.

This from one of your "friends". And there are more.

Hate to suggest additional un-information, but:



Fukushima has released up to 120 Quadrillion becquerels of radioactive cesium into North Pacific Ocean — Does not include amounts that fell on land — Exceeds Chernobyl total, which accounts for releases deposited on land AND ocean

The total amount of decay-corrected 134Cs in the [subtropical] mode water was an estimated about 6 PBq [petabecquerels, i.e. 6 quadrillion becquerels] corresponding to 10–60% of the total inventory of Fukushima-derived 134Cs in the North Pacific Ocean. […]
The study also states the releases of 134Cs and 137Cs were equivalent, resulting in a total of 120 PBq into the N. Pacific. This total does not include releases deposited on land or in other bodies of water.

Chernobyl Comparison: A report by the Nuclear Enrgy Agency states that when more detailed deposition data eventually became available, the United Nations estimated the total Chernobyl release of 137Cs at 70 PBq. 134Cs is estimated to have been 53.7% of the 137Cs — approximately 38 PBq of 134Cs — resulting in a total of 108 PBq. Unlike the Fukushima total reported above, this does include all 134Cs and 137Cs releases from Chernobyl — not just what was deposited in the ocean.


Nuclear Consultant: Fukushima reactors released about 3 times more radioactivity than Chernobyl — Japan crisis is unprecedented in size, complexity, and consequences — Yet disaster is not over and can become much worse — Very far from being stabilized

The amount of radioactivity that has gone into water that was leaked into the basements is estimated to be roughly three times the amount of radioactivity released during the Chernobyl accident. This issue is vastly underestimated.


Plutonium from Fukushima went further than Chernobyl — Researchers ‘surprised’ their most plutonium-contaminated sample was from site farthest from Fukushima plant — Concern material is flowing into Pacific Ocean from land

Transport of Pu to longer distances in Fukushima than in Chernobyl may be explained by the different accidental conditions that prevailed at both sites. In Chernobyl, the Pu bearing particles were larger because of the graphite fires, which likely explains that they deposited at a shorter distance from the power plant.



James, were you citing something about the "10,000 times worse", or was that a personal measurement you made?
Or?

Alas when the 7 plagues are going full force and the sun is scorching folks, will people take comfort in knowing that it is not a plague from God, but only the global warming problem that they overlooked for decades? Those that have destroyed the earth must come to their senses about global warning when they curse God for the plague that they realize they brought upon themselves.

What?....

MSNBC: Largest epidemic ever seen in world’s oceans hits West Coast
Bruce Menge, Oregon St. Univ.: [I can't] find even a single star. “Deep down, I worry this might be a harbinger of some impending, major problem resulting from climate change… a complete alteration of coastal ecosystems”… Wasting syndrome appeared… the same time that deep, cold water rose up and filled the area… so perhaps it is not warming waters.

I guess they have to have something by which to blame the people for the irresponsible things they have done to destroy the earth.

What a sad state of things as sea life is being destroyed. Though it's probably due much more to all the garbage that has been dumped into the Oceans over many years. Huge amounts of Toxic garbage in huge containers were dumped into the oceans, that are probably rusting away now, releasing the toxics into the waters -- then there are all the oil spills, and the nuclear disasters that are spewing deadly toxic waste into the air and water. There are also a large amount of ships/subs down there sunk during the world wars. These ships also leak oil, radiation and other toxins as they rust away. Mining corporations dump 180 million tons containing arsenic, lead, mercury, cyanide and over thirty other dangerous chemicals into oceans, rivers, and lakes around the world each year.

One sources estimated an average of 706 million gallons of oil pollution entering our oceans each year.

Less than 10% from natural causes
Off shore oil drilling -- 2%
Tanker spills -- 5%
Air pollution from cars, industries etc. 13%
Boat maintenance and travel 19%
And most of the remaining 60% comes from sewer, drain and road run off into the oceans. Much of this comes from improper disposal of engine oil.

So while there may be some truth in climate change, the things destroying the planet are far more in number and complexity.

http://www.denverpost.com/weathernews/ci_26921046/denver-weather-record-cold-snow-tap-wednesday
Denver broke two records Wednesday.

The city's 6-degree high on Wednesday shattered a 98-year-old record for the coldest high on this date. And, according to a National Weather Service tweet late in the evening, the temperature had fallen to -5 degrees at Denver International Airport — a record low for the date.

The previous record low of -4 was even older, set more than 130 years ago in 1882.

http://kwgn.com/2014/11/12/bitter-cold-k...-and-icy-roads/
DENVER — The coldest air from our current Arctic blast arrived in metro Denver Wednesday afternoon. And with it comes record-breaking dangerously cold temperatures.

The high Wednesday only got to 6 degrees, which set a for the lowest maximum temperature for the date. The old record was 9 degrees set on Nov. 12, 1916.

As the snow moves out and the skies clear, even colder temperatures will descend along the Front Range, with a low Thursday morning expected to be minus 12 degrees. But if the skies clear earlier, even colder temperatures are likely.

http://kwgn.com/2014/11/13/record-shattering-cold-slams-colorado-denver-hits-low-of-minus-14/
The low in Denver Thursday night into Friday will be in the single digits, but nowhere near as cold as just 24 hours earlier.

Denver shattered two low temperature records in a matter of hours when the mercury plummeted as skies cleared from the recent storm early Thursday morning.

The temperature reached minus 13 degrees just before midnight, breaking the record of minus 4 degrees set on Nov. 12, 1882. And just before 3 a.m. Thursday, the temperature reached minus 14 degrees, breaking the previous record low of minus-3 set on Nov. 13, 1916.

The National Weather Service says Thursday’s mark ties for the second-coldest temperature at any point in November in recorded Denver history.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/envir...d-sweeps-nation
Many climate experts around the world say the ongoing freeze is just the start of a new period of global cooling sparked largely by decreasing solar activity. More than a few scientists are even warning that the planet is headed for another “Little Ice Age,” with potentially devastating consequences for humanity. Even the discredited climate-alarmism apparatus at the United Nations has quietly lowered its wild temperature predictions. Political analysts, meanwhile, are now forecasting the imminent demise of what critics refer to as the “cult” of global-warming hysteria.
...
In Antarctica, a gaggle of “climate scientists” and “journalists” who set off hoping to show the world that Antarctic ice was melting ended up getting their ship stuck in record levels of ice cover — in the summer.
...
Of course, alarmists, appearing increasingly detached from reality, are trying fiendishly to keep the global-warming hysteria — and the taxpayer funding for their alarmism — from melting away entirely. Realists, though, are calling them out. “So record cold is now evidence of man-made global warming? What evidence would disprove climate change?” wondered Climate Depot editor Marc Morano in a recent segment on CNN. “It seems like no matter the weather, everything that happens proves it.”


(that was from January 2014!)



Global Warming Alarmists Stuck In Antarctic Sea Ice
The alarmists set sail for Antarctica with a plan to show the world how badly alleged man-made “global warming” was wreaking havoc across the region. Instead, their Russian-flagged ship was frozen in place after sea-ice coverage hit record-high levels this year. (2013)

For a cute video on the failed alarmists predictions:

http://epaabuse.com/7627/videos/top-10-failed-global-warming-predictions/

Reasons why Christians should be cautiou...ing are listed.
This from 2006. Even then it was becoming obvious there was something wrong:

So, essentially CO2 has increased 60%. This 60% rise in CO2 and its equivalency units has resulted in approximately a 0.6°F (0.3°C) rise in temperature. At this rate, a doubling of CO2 will produce only a 1°F temperature rise.

Also see
Global Warming’s top five claims: fact or fiction?

Interesting question kland!

My understanding is that ice is building back up on Antartica. Yet, ocean levels are rising all around the world. I do believe based on rising ocean levels that global warming is real. It's just not everywhere at once.

You hit the nail on the head with a wafflehead 18 oz. hammer on that one. That nail drives deep.

Americans may not notice much of a difference because, for the most part, America is sheltered from the greatest effects of global warming. Consider, for example, that the eastern "seaboard" is bounded by the Atlantic, a relatively small ocean for the northern hemisphere, and one that gives much less opportunity for experiencing major tropical storms. The reason for this is that, due to the Coriolis effect, tropical storms in the northern hemisphere generally move east to west. Therefore, the Pacific storms, which tend to be much greater and more frequent, don't affect North America very much at all (a rare storm may start next to Mexico and hit the Baja peninsula). The "hurricanes" that America experiences are fewer and further between than the tropical storms to be had in Asia called "typhoons." Remember Haiyan? WAY bigger than Katrina. WAY. America would be alarmed about global warming if Haiyan had lammed into Florida instead of the Philippines.

The overall effect of global warming is to produce greater precipitation of all forms, including snow. But this may not be in every place at once. Local variation may cause some to feel that the warming is not happening. But it's happening somewhere else. We've sure had a rainier year this year than last, and even the non-Christian (animist) government official I spoke with last week regarding the very strong wind we'd had that day remarked that this kind of wind had been unprecedented in this country prior to this year.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Weather patterns are based on relatively recent record keeping. Since the Flood, regions around the world change continuously - sometimes radically (going from tropical to desert and back again). These changes happened way before over population and human caused emissions. Forest fires, volcanoes, and solar flares are responsible for the continuously changing weather patterns - drought, rain, snow, ice, etc (the presence or absence of) impact where humans can live. Human caused emissions add to the ever changing weather, but pales in comparison to the naturally occurring conditions. Deforestation is huge, too.

More than all of this is the fact nature obeys God. It is not self-acting. The weather behaves the way it does because God does what He does. Nature would cease to act - yea, cease to exist - if God ceased to act, ceased to employ it.

Ocean levels are rising? Is this another failed prediction since we were told they would only rise an inch in many years. Unless someone is exaggerating. Could we have the facts, please?



Speaking of failed predictions, wasn't just a few years ago they saying America was only starting to experience more and more storms. Prediction failed.

Now you're (or "they") are rewriting them.

Really? I recall they saying that over all it would be less precipitation, rampant droughts.

Could we have some facts, please?

And make sure they are facts and not anecdotal feelings.

By facts relating to the predictions I mean, show what prediction was made, what year it was made, what time frame it would happen in, and then show whether it came true or not.

From what I've seen, it is less accurate than tomorrows weather prediction.

I agree with the first part of your comment but as brought out many times before, you last part fails. God is not the destroyer. It is not His will, it is not His plan, it is not his intent to cause disaster. You are wrong about God.

For the global warmer promoters: How would one go about determining if there is or is not global warming, how would you set up the experimental design?

Our planet is too big to detect small changes, because those changes will make any number of apparently disconnected disruptions to the normal weather patterns. Detecting global warming on planet earth is about as difficult as detecting mercury toxicity in the human body--there are just too many variables for any human mind to wrap around all of them. Just like doctors can hardly agree on the mercury, because it can cause everything from loss of memory to osteoporosis and a host of things between, so also will scientists have difficulty establishing any single variable to watch as an indicator for global warming. It's just not that simple. There is no single variable--there are multiple variables. The planet's balance is irreducibly complex to the point of going beyond the best computer models a human mind might produce.

That said, there are some things that simple logic can tell us. It's an intuitive art more than a concrete intelligence-based analysis of facts and data. Some who have natural physics intuition will come to the answer more readily than those who must have "evidence" before they will accept anything. For my part, the evidence is sufficient to show what is happening. The news, in fact, just said that 2014 is the earth's hottest year on record since the time when record keeping began.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201412

I remember hiking up to some glaciers years ago that are mostly not there anymore. That would be a part of the ocean's rise, I suppose.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Again, what is "normal weather patterns"? Normal for the last 40 years? Normal for the last 400 years? Normal for the last 4000 years? Nature is not self-acting. Nature obeys God. Yes, human-caused emissions and deforestation play a part in global warming - but a small part. Again, nature is not self-acting. Nothing we do, in and of itself, causes the forces of nature to behave a certain way. Nature obeys God. He employs nature to serve His will. For example, the Great Flood was His will. It was not the result of humans mismanaging natural resources. Nature is not self-acting. It cannot act in response to human actions. Without God, nature can do nothing. Nature can only act in accordance with how God chooses to employ it. Inspiration is crystal clear:

MM, the flood was NOT God's will! God is not the destroyer. It is not His will, it is not His plan, it is not his intent to cause disaster. You are wrong about God.

But you are right in questioning what "normal weather patterns" are.

You are so right! I agree!

Yes, you are so right!

Ooops. Hang on everyone, here we go.

Something so complex, of which is beyond computer models a human mind might produce, Green is going to tell us "the truth".

Facts and data don't matter.

Sounds like an air of arrogance. Like, 'some who are more intelligent than others just know ...'

First, art surpasses facts and data, but then "evidence is sufficient"? Ummm...


Facts and data don't matter, but yet you wish to try to present some if it does support your art form?

You just said, "The planet's balance is irreducibly complex to the point of going beyond the best computer models a human mind might produce", but yet you are trying to say that detecting global warming is possible and can be shown?

"was the highest among all years since record keeping began in 1880."

135 years. Is that enough to base a judgment on? Is that "small changes" or big? How does one determine that, from intuition and feelings? Then how does one determine who's intuition and feelings should be used to try to generate panic and/or tax people more?

By the way, the link says December (one month, small time period, small temperature record, 02°C) was the warmest on record, the ocean was the warm for the year. Not quite what you said, "the earth's hottest year on record". One of them there "art forms"?

Ah, there goes anecdotal feelings. Maybe an art form rather than facts and data? So I guess if you feel facts and data don't support global warming, then my request to present them doesn't work.


Again, you are presenting pages which seem to suggest facts and data and models and possibly experimental design, but yet you say it's impossible, but yet you quote them.

You feel there surely must be, there just must be global warming.

I, MM, and others feel the weather patterns have been changing since the flood and even since sin. There are periods of warmth followed by periods of coolness as there are periods of drought followed by periods of floods. The middle of the United states was covered by glaciers and have since melted way before any so-called man-made global warming.

If this was the 1970's you'd be crying global cooling. Then there was 1800-and-frozen-to-death.

By not showing how predictions did or did not come true, by not even attempting to suggest an experimental design just reinforces my opinion about the alarmists. And you put it so well, global warming is an art form rather than based upon science.

Face it - Climate happens.

Worried about something which is not supported by facts and data, when you should be worried about pollution, landfills filling up, wanton waste of resources, contaminated water, etc. And most important of a more immediate threat, something that facts and data do support, which can be quantified by data is the radiation spewing out of Japan!


Japan Scientists: High radiation levels near West Coast after Fukushima disaster — Almost 30 Bq/m3 of cesium offshore — Secret documents reveal US gov’t previously ordered radiation test results in Pacific be hidden to avoid contamination fears

Gov’t Expert: West Coast will soon be hit by 800 Trillion Bq of Fukushima Cesium-137 — Nearly equal to amount of fallout deposited on Japan — Levels in Pacific “higher than expected” — “Main body of surface plume has reached off coast of US” — Never slowed down while crossing ocean, contrary to prediction

Gov’t Officials: Fukushima should be declared uninhabitable — “Conditions are getting worse, we have to move people away… we can’t wait” — “Someone has to do something” — “Just like evacuation of children in WWII” — Newspaper: “Fukushima youths ready to desert irradiated hometowns”


Someone's "art form" is hiding the real threats to this world...

By far, my primary indicator are the ocean levels. To raise the level of an ocean, and I'm not talking about high and low tides, takes a lot of water. By far, the largest amount of water available are the polar ice caps! We see floods on land when mountain ice melts, so it only figures that polar ice melting would cause the ocean levels to rise.

So, what would cause the polar ice to melt? Global warming.

I listen a fair amount to a guy named Ben Davidson of Suspicious0bservers.org. He is adamantly against the idea of global warming. Yet, the ocean levels are probably two feet higher today than thirty years ago.

There just isn't any other explanation that I know of.

That's partly right. Of the two poles, only the Antarctic ice really matters, and only that which has come from the continental ice. The rest of the "iceberg" type ice has no effect on sea levels, whether it melts or grows. However, glacial ice will have an impact. The world's glaciers have been receding for decades--which probably accounts for as much as anything of the sea level rise. But now, Antarctica is joining the figures in a more noticeable way.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

From our window we see one of the many glaciers that are receding or disappearing. It was a beautiful mountain all year, but the snow cap is now smaller in the summer.

While ice melting would seem to increase sea levels, what I heard "predicted" probably a decade ago is that the sea levels were going to rise an inch in the next 100 years. And they felt that was dramatic. Could be, could not be. But the relevance here is you are saying something totally earth-shattering! Really?! Two feet in the last 30 years! That's simply amazing. I wonder why that's not in the news. Could you show where you got that?

Sure. Many glaciers are retreating. Here are a couple of sites that present the facts on this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm

That second site states two dominant factors in glacial retreat: 1) air temperature increase; and 2) reduced precipitation in the area of the glacier. I would like to pose a completely different reason, based on personal observation and some other reports I once saw regarding some of the glaciers in Europe: a change in the glacial surface, perhaps on account of wind. I have personally observed glaciers that are pocked with holes due to boulders, rocks, and gravel having been scattered upon their surface. The rocks, unlike the pure white snow that normally sits atop the glacier, reflecting the sun's rays and keeping it cool, heat up significantly in the sun, and melt the ice around them. The dark colors of the rocks, gravel, etc. that have blown upon the glacier change the overall level of heat at its surface, so that instead of melting mostly at the bottom under the crushing pressure of the weight of the ice, the glacier is melting almost as much at its surface, and fissures can be formed by the meltwater that further serve to break up the glacier and hasten its downward descent to warmer altitudes. (One has to have done some glacier climbing to fully appreciate some of these observations.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

A huge tunnel has just been opened in one of our glaciers, Langjökull. Tourists are pouring in there to see the inside of a glacier. Come and see for yourself!

This past winter has been an exceptionally cold winter. Several of our mountain roads are still closed because the snow hasn't melted. So the climate might be getting colder again? Our temperatures are adusted not as much by the sun as by the currents that come our way from the Gulf of Mexico. We have had a number of years when it was much colder, then again periods with warmer climate. Hvo knows when we get a long cold period again? The scientist have not reached an agreement on that yet, reagardless of what you read on the net.

I guess that's not as unique position as I had thought...

NOAA: Beaches full of dead baby sea lions off California, many aborted fetuses — Garbage bags filled with animals along coast — Carts in freezer overflowing with bodies — Official: Pollution may well have had an effect… We deliberately didn’t test for it

I’m not at all sure whether pollution had an effect — it might well have — and one could certainly test that. I just wanted to state that we deliberately didn’t test all the possible variables.”

Sounds familiar, huh? Since they already know it's global warming, there's no point testing for pollution (and for sure not radiation!) and let facts and data get in the way of opinion.

From what you've said/summarized: You think they should pollute the environment in order to have tested for that? I, for one, am glad that they would deliberately refrain from such testing. They have the better judgment on this one.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I'll try to find that report,

It was interesting because these people were Americans, and I think some Europeans, living on a small island. Even though their homes were about three hundred feet from the shore, that only represented about two feet in elevation. Well, now the water has risen to the point it's up to their homes and they will need to leave soon because their children were becoming scared.

And yes, this was reported. This was made available to the public.

I hope to get back soon.

Is Ben Davidson also an alchemist? I visit fairly often the ocean where I grew up 75 years ago. The ocean is no higher at any points there now than where I remember it being when I went fishing to get food for my cat. I still see the same rocks there above sea level where I used to climb. True, some of the sand has drifted, but that does not affect the rocks. Some of the old piers have been removed, but the rocks remain.

Whaaaa?

Maybe try reading the link.

Now some people suggest that the ocean piles up around some islands more than others. But consider that some islands have sunk. Which I recall being reported. And which is a totally different issue than any supposed rising sea levels.

Hi All!
I am new to this site, so please forgive me if I mess up my posts.

A fascinating topic, I haven't read through the entire thread, so sorry if this has been mentioned already. I receive periodic email updates from an American SDA gentleman named Scott Christiansen. He is a brilliant fellow, who bases his ministry on the theory that life on Earth, as well as its various systems (hydrological, atmospheric, etc.) are all interrelated and have been declining at a faster and faster rate since the acceptance of sin and death by Adam and Eve.

This makes sense, since it was not just humanity, but also all that our ancestors were granted dominion over that was cursed by sin. Mr. Christiansen has written a book called, Planet in Distress, based on Matthew 24:6-8. I highly recommend it, as well as his website of the same name with numerous archived articles. He sources his material from various government agencies, universities, satellite and historical data, as well as some extremely knowledgable individuals.

It is quite remarkable how the connections are made between changing weather patterns, earthquakes, droughts, social unrest and war. Since reading Planet in Distress, I have come to what I believe to be a much clearer understanding of Matthew 24.

Here is the website:

http://planetindistress.com/tag/scott-christiansen/

By the way, has everyone heard about Pope Francis' encyclical on the environment? Seems as though the Beast is awakening!


"And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh."

Luke 21:28

Jesus promised to bless the Jews in Canaan. The land would provide abundantly. "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."


Seems to me whether or not the land and weather provides blessings is up to Jesus. Nature is not self-acting. It obeys Jesus. It can only do what Jesus employs it to do.


Most of the natural disasters plaguing the earth is the result of the Flood - which Jesus caused. Jesus works by employing the forces of nature to accomplish His will. There are times when Jesus commands holy angels to cause devastation. And there are times when He permits evil angels to cause destruction - but within strictly enforced imitations. Evil angels are not free to wreak havoc as they please.

Yes, I had heard the pope jumped on the global warming wagon. And thought if that's not telling, what would be!

In your link, when looking at the depletion of fish, I think one needs to keep in mind the toxic kills from the radiation spewing from Japan. Whether there was some decline in the past has all be eliminated from the crash with the radiation kill. Any thought of decline and it's reason is now non-relevant. They're gone. History.

Those are some awe inspiring quotes, Mountain Man!  Thank-you for them.  

I agree that God promised to bless the Israelites and cause their land to flourish, if they obeyed His Word.  The rest of the unbelieving world was not so fortunate.  
Although, those who loved God were sheltered by His Grace, as were Noah and his kin, the remainder of the world was left to reap the results of sin, death.

I believe it is true that the Lord is in control of everything, including the natural world and may override any occurrence He wishes.  I also believe that He has given humanity free will.  If the majority chooses to use the planet carelessly and greedily, then our Lord will acknowledge that choice: they shall be allowed to reap what they have sown.  In order that the fruit of sin may be exposed.  

"And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth."

Revelation 11:18

Joseph and the children of Abraham were saved from famine when God revealed the future through  Pharaoh's dream.  The rest of the unbelieving nations were left to suffer.

"For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places."

Matthew 24:7

As with Noah and Joseph,
I believe we have also been warned beforehand, so that not only will we see the results of sin, were it allowed to spread throughout the unfallen universe: we will have the privilege of witnessing the mercy and power of the Lord God to save to the utmost those who trust in Him!

"A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; [but] it shall not come nigh thee.
Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked.
Because thou hast made the LORD, [which is] my refuge, [even] the most High, thy habitation;
10 There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling."

Psalms 91:7-10

Republicans in the USA are getting restless, some have even begun to criticize the Pope's environmental stance.  Jeb Bush basically said, he should stay out of politics!  With the rapid growth of the catholic population in the States,  I think we will see the Beast begin to flex his secular muscles very soon.

The Pope is also scheduled to address Congress and the UN in September.  Should be an interesting fall, prophetically speaking!

Pope Francis stated that he would like to have entered the USA through the Mexican boarder as a show of support for (mostly catholic) immigrants.  Unfortunately his schedule would not allow the extra time...



I agree, the radiation from Japan is the death knell For the Pacific.  
The International Atomic Energy Agency is actually recommending Fukushima start dumping radioactive coolant water directly into the pacific.

Radiation has already reached the west coast of North and South America, from Chile To Canada.  
On the bright side, soon coastal cities won't need streetlights, the glowing ocean water should be more than sufficient to illuminate the roads.   

In honor of that Golden Calf, the Almighty Dollar, corporate controlled governments keep firing up more and more reactors.  
Jesus is coming soon!

Prodigal One, so true. Thank you.

Yes, Jesus promised to bless them if they obeyed and to counteract the work of the evil one. But Jesus does not cause disaster, destruction, nor sin. Jesus is not the evil one. Jesus is not the destroyer.

MM, you are wrong about Jesus.

We have to grow in grace and trust that there is hope for others as well. How else will sinners find their way to Jesus?

Johann,
Hopefully, as the unsaved world sees the terrible events taking place on the Earth, many will turn to God. I wonder though, will it be as the days of Noah with only a few saved, or with the outpouring of the Latter Rain, will it be thousands or even millions?

Will we be able to count the saved? An outpouring of the Holy Spirit is promised on all, old and young, male and female wil take part.

With the lack of understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ among His chosen people, many will leave our ranks and others will join in the final days.

Blessings kland,

I haven't found what I was actually talking about, but, this is basically the same.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/03/27/world/climate-rising-seas.html?_r=0

Some estimates are as high as as 2 feet in 30 years.

This is another;

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...climate-change/

"Sea level rise on the U.S. East Coast has accelerated much faster than in other parts of the world—roughly three to four times the global average, a new study says."

How? Kind of gives a new meaning to so many feet above sea level, doesn't it? As in, above which part of which sea?

Yes the article talks of currents, but isn't that a temporary momentary thing.

Ok, analysis:
(based upon what they wrote)
Fact: East, 3.8 mm versus 1 mm average.
Extrapolation: Could rise 7-11 inches
Then a bunch of scaremongering.

Sorry, scaremongering extrapolation of millimeters.


Now the other site said it had raised 10 inches since 1880. Different from what some have said. Which is true?

I recall reading or seeing about Kiribati before. Their problem is sucking out fresh water for crops and other uses allowing salt water to encroach. Then the article I saw took off on rising sea levels. Not the real problem. But gives them publicity for their abuse of natural resources. It's a real problem for them, but nothing to do with global warming or rising sea levels. Their problem would exist even if there was nothing else happening anywhere else. They have multiplied and are taking out more fresh water than they have resources for.

But if you are the governor of the Island, and people have watered their fields with salt-contaminated fresh water because of over pumping of freshwater, and you see you could get some publicity, sympathy, and funding, wouldn't you go for it?


But if before they were talking about an inch over the next century, and they have taxed us more and put on restrictions on things, and now they are saying it's feet over a few years, then it would follow that we can conclude that what they think they are doing to stop it is not working.

An article, I believe it was on the Planet in Distress website, said there is a correlation between the added mass of water from polar melt in the world's oceans to the recent huge increase in volcanic activity, particularly in the Pacific Ring of Fire. Think of applying pressure to a pimple: pop goes the world!

The inter connectivity of God's creation is amazing. Whatever the cause may be, when one system is degraded every system pays the price. The great domino effect of sin continues to wend its serpentine path, God's voice echoes down through the millennia: "Adam, where are you!".

Alas, the Devil's diversions are spectacular and insidious, while we debate the cause of the changes happening all around us most miss the point. I believe the Lord is trying desperately to get our attention; it would appear, the majority of the world does not hear Him... "

"But as the days of Noe [were], so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."
Matthew 24:37-39

kland wrote;

"Now the other site said it had raised 10 inches since 1880. Different from what some have said. Which is true?"

I can only go by that information which is made available. If it doesn't turn out to be true, then of course I will change my mind accordingly.

Unfortunately, we are all stuck listening to reports that may not be trustworthy. Between our government and the other governments of the world and all these different industries, there is very little we can truly trust.

This is an interesting documentary about Antartica;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeJiuWkBWzw

They make the point that Antartica receives less precipitation than the Sahara Desert. But, they never ask the question where all that ice came from then!?! Some of the ice is so tall that it actually buries mountains. Yet, without any rain or snow to speak of, where did all that ice come from?

But, I'm sure a global flood is impossible. We must consider our sources when reading all this data we get from governments and industries.

It all boils down to one thing....

Climate Happens.

Hundreds of wildfires in BC and Saskatchewan, it looks like an old fashioned London fog here in Alberta. 300 wildfires in Alaska and many more in Siberia. As of June 30, Alaska has already broken its all time record for total acreage burnt and there are months of fire season left.

Blackened ground absorbes heat faster, which in turn hastens permafrost thaw, which then increases fire risk. Things are speeding up!

I recall the SW U.S. had lots of acreage burnt a decade or more ago.

The New Consensus: 100 Percent Of Scientists Agree That Global Warming ‘Stopped’ Or ‘Slowed Down’
“We didn’t find a single paper on the topic that argued the rate of global warming has not slowed (or even stopped) in recent years,” wrote scientists Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger with the libertarian Cato Institute.

“This is in direct opposition to the IPCC’s contention that global warming is accelerating, and supports arguments that the amount of warming that will occur over the remainder of the 21st century as a result of human fossil fuel usage will be at the low end of the IPCC projections, or even lower,” the two scientists added. “Low-end warming yields low-end impacts.”

There's more than meets the eye when there is a biased agenda...

‘where is the global warming we were promised?’
Scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) once predicted a temperature rise of 0.2 degrees per decade – but are now baffled by the fact our planet’s temperature has not increased for almost two decades.

Update: Melting permafrost and Global Warming
New research, however, supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF), counters this widely-held scientific view that thawing permafrost uniformly accelerates atmospheric warming, indicating instead that certain arctic lakes store more greenhouse gases than they emit into the atmosphere.

Two glaciers that were on the map of Iceland in my youth have now disappeared.Most of the large onew are getting smaller, but for how long?

Personally, we should be prepared to admit that science may never have answers to certain questions. Such as how and when life began.

We should also be prepared to admit some problems may be manufactured and scientists are part of the problem.

Between the wine of Babylon and the sorceries of Babylon, Bible Prophecy may be by far the best source of information.

The restraining Spirit of God is even now being withdrawn from the world. Hurricanes, storms, tempests, fire and flood, disasters by sea and land, follow each other in quick succession. Science seeks to explain all these. The signs thickening around us, telling of the near approach of the Son of God, are attributed to any other than the true cause. Men cannot discern the sentinel angels restraining the four winds that they shall not blow until the servants of God are sealed; but when God shall bid His angels loose the winds, there will be such a scene of strife as no pen can picture. {6T 408.1}

I know there were glaciers across half of the U.S. but now they are gone.

Climate Happens.

Will the ice return? We are told now that the month of June was the coldest June we have had here in Iceland for a hundred years. How does that sound?

You won't have much longer to wait.

Hey Child - do the plagues come before or after the close of probation?

You should consult Ellen.

Is the foundation laid that climaxes in the 7 last plagues?

Or do the 7 last plagues mysteriously spontaneously arise?







Is global warming a foretaste of what is to come during the last plagues? Or is it an unrelated fluke that has nothing to do with anything?

You quote revelation about the last plagues. But the last plagues are not allowed until after the close of probation, "when it is forever too late to repent".
Does God cause the last plagues. A number here on the forum think so. Did God cause the plagues of Egypt? A number on this forum think so.

Wasn't that covered in my post?


"Already a few drops of God's wrath have fallen upon the earth; but when the seven last plagues shall be poured out without mixture into the cup of His indignation ..." {5T 212.4}

"The plagues of God are already falling upon the earth...God permits them to come..."--3MR 311 (1902).

Can anything happen without God's permission?
If God permits something, did He...?

God permitted Satan to work out his principles. Did God cause Satan to sin? Nope.

Can I ask what these last number of posts have to do with Global Warming?

Hello Al!!! Follow the thread. Or should I say, drops... Drops of what?

Before you can say is it a foretaste, you have to show that it's happening. Can you?

How would you go about it? What would you compare it to, to determine whether warming, cooling, or following a repeating pattern?

Kland,
As it was in Noah's day, when it was raining there was no doubt. Be patient a little longer. When we can prove it without a doubt it will be to late to do anything. And what was preventable will cause human suffering everywhere.

So that's all you have to offer, you believe it to be so? Who told you it was so?

2Ti_2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

Blessings everyone,

To me, this issue rests with who you listen to. There are conflicting evidences and contradictory reports on how much ice is melting and how much are the oceans rising, etc....

The Bible does warn us that in the last days the earth, including nature, will be in great turmoil and I can clearly see that.

Yes, that's what's under question. Are you rightly dividing the word? So far, you've offered nothing but your opinion and no evidence to support it.

And that was my question, you say you can clearly see that, but what are you comparing it to? Especially given you admit there are conflicting evidences and contradictory reports, how can you say "you can clearly see that"?

Is it the preponderance of the evidence that is needed?
Will God ever take away all possibility to question?

Yes, evidence is needed to take a position on global warming. Otherwise why did you choose not to say it's global cooling?

Your comment about God taking all possibilities to question is not relevant until you show God is doing it or that it even is happening. You can't just make up things and say God supports them and anyone who disagrees with you is disagreeing with God.

Sounds like 'David Koresh is the messiah and if you disagree with me you are against God'.

Satan knows this and is preparing a 'explanation' using these scientist to keep the people from the true nature of the changes that will come..

Man-made and natural disasters are devastating our planet. No doubt about it. Eventually Catholics, Protestants, and worldlings will blame it on Sabbath-keeping and Seventh-day Adventists.


"Satan is exercising his power". Or, are man-made and natural disasters the result of humans consuming fossil fuel?

I really like the point Mountain Man has made.

As sin and sinners gain more control over the affairs of mankind, we can expect to see the results in polluted food, water and air. We can expect to see the weather of the planet to be adversely affected. As Jesus said in Matthew 24; We can expect to see more natural disasters and more powerful natural disasters.

God still uses these as signs even if the world believes they can explain these events away in a natural manner. As if spiritual beings don't exist. As if God and angels and demons don't exist.

The everlasting Gospel has been made available to all mankind and we need to keep it before mankind as long as we can.

Jesus said He will "destroy them which destroy the earth". So, certain humans will be held responsible for destroying the earth. Exactly how is not clear. However, Satan is the greatest offender. He is doing more to destroy the earth. Jesus, of course, is permitting it. Jesus is also working to ensure evil angels do not exceed the destruction He is willing to allow. Jesus is still in control.

The El Nino effect is ramping up with an eye on exceeding the 1997/98 season.

Link

I agree Mountain Man!


The following is an excerpt from April 9, 2015, the Planet in Distress site:

Here is the link-
http://planetindistress.com/2015/04/09/california-get-ready-for-a-wild-ride/



"...surface temperature anomalies off the west coast of the Americas (especially north America) run to as much as 3C (more  than 5F).  That much water heated to that much of an anomalous temperature for that long takes a massive amount of energy.  A mind-boggling amount of energy.  And that much energy concentrated in one place can change the weather over the rest of the planet for an extended period.  So here we see how changes in systems (arctic ice extent, for instance) can change patterns in our atmosphere (jet stream, surface winds) which then changes our weather pattern, driving far more disasters.  And when I say “far more” I mean far more than the current number of disasters, which is three times the number of disasters we were seeing just 30 years ago.
What we are seeing now is the strengthening of the El Nino situation in the Pacific Ocean.  In practical terms, what that means is that a huge surge of very warm water (essentially, twice as anomalously warm as what we see off the west coast) is now surging toward the eastern Pacific in a sub-surface wave called a Kelvin wave.  You can see the remnants of a previous Kelvin wave off the coast of Peru in the above map.  The El Nino that is being set up will combine thermal forces with the hot water already in place and one of two things will likely happen, depending on where the Kelvin wave peters out of steam:  If the wave slows and stops in the mid Pacific, which is very unusual but quite possible, then the drought in California will likely intensity and extend in duration.  In other words, it will be yet hotter and dryer in California.  If, on the other hand, the Kelvin wave surges all the way to the west coast of the Americas, then it will probably create such a thermal disruption of the prevailing system that that it will break down the long-standing high pressure ridge and California will get rain.  Lots of rain.  Way, way too much rain.
In other words, it seems that the system is setting up to give California two bad choices:  A record-breaking heating and drought or record-breaking rain and flooding.  It is of course possible that we may yet see both in turn in the next 12-16 months.  Either way, it will be a wild ride for California.  And however the scenario develops, it will likely mean drought for Australia and South America, with drought (and possible monsoon failure) in India and elsewhere in Asia.  Expect to see a tremendous surge in disasters.  If you look at the disasters tracked in the EMDAT database, you see a tremendous surge in 1998 (a super-El Nino year).  With the ocean heat already in place, it seems we are again setting up for a similar disruption with similar locally catastrophic affects.  And if we again follow the wildly exponential growth in disasters that we saw from 1980 on in the graph below (years before 1980 are discounted because the disasters are reported on a global basis and data is progressively less dependable the further back you go), then expect to see a “stair-step” to an entirely higher level of sustained global disasters."


I highly recommend checking out the complete article and University of Maine ocean temperature map at the link above!



Ellen White has this to say:

“Men in responsible positions will not only ignore and despise the Sabbath themselves, but from the sacred desk will urge upon the people the observance of the first day of the week, pleading traditions and custom in behalf of this man-made institution.  They will point to calamities on land and sea-to the storms of wind, the floods, the earthquakes, the destruction by fire – as judgments indicating God’s displeasure because Sunday is not sacredly observed.  These calamities will increase more and more, one disaster will follow close upon the heels of another; and those who make void the law of God will point to the few who are keeping the Sabbath of the fourth commandment as the ones who are bringing wrath upon the world. ”  (The Southern Watchman, June 28, 1904)

One of the possible scenarios mentioned above was:

"If, on the other hand, the Kelvin wave surges all the way to the west coast of the Americas, then it will probably create such a thermal disruption of the prevailing system that that it will break down the long-standing high pressure ridge and California will get rain.  Lots of rain.  Way, way too much rain."



"On Saturday, 1.03 inches of rain fell in San Diego, setting a new record for wettest day in July and pushing the month to the wettest July on record. An additional 0.66 inches fell Sunday, and as of Monday morning, the monthly rainfall total was an incredible 1.7 inches. The previous wettest July on record was in 1902, when 0.92 inches of rain fell. Los Angeles set a new record for wettest July, too, after 0.38 inches fell over the weekend."

Washington Post, July 20, 2015

Prodigal One, thank you for sharing. I expect pastors and politicians to begin talks concerning legislating Sunday Laws. I also expect evil angels to begin personating holy angels and deceased people sharing on Headline News the need to keep Sunday holy. Until then - things will continue as usual (more unrest, more disease, more disasters, etc).

Associated with the two horned beast. Isn´t that the United States?

In my childhood all stores in this country were closed on Sundays. When I came to the US in 1951 I noticed that many stores were open on Sundays. It surpriced me because I was expecting the Sunday laws in USA.

Today many stores are open in this country on Sundays, and it seem to be going that way in Europe. We will have to wait and see how things develop in the futire.

Yes, it's only a matter of time. I wonder if Pope Francis will mention Sunday keeping in connection to his environmental speeches to Congress and the U.N. in September?

In Canada most stores in the bigger cities are open seven days a week.
In the small town where I live, almost everything is closed on Sunday.
We joke that they take in the sidewalks on Sunday!

There is an Evangelical Missionary Church on main street, it has a sign out front that says: "Sun. Worship - 11:00 am".
It makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time...

With the increasing number of disasters worldwide a scapegoat will soon be needed, things could change very quickly.


"The agencies of evil are combining their forces and consolidating. They are strengthening for the last great crisis. Great changes are soon to take place in our world, and the final movements will be rapid ones".—Testimonies for the Church, vol. 9, p. 11.

It sounded as if you were saying because California got an inch of rain, you expect they are going to legislate Sunday laws, etc.

The severe drought followed by record breaking rainfall in California is part of an increasingly severe pattern. Sister White prophesied that this course of events would occur just before the Sunday law was instituted:

"They will point to calamities on land and sea-to the storms of wind, the floods, the earthquakes, the destruction by fire – as judgments indicating God’s displeasure because Sunday is not sacredly observed.  These calamities will increase more and more, one disaster will follow close upon the heels of another".




“Men in responsible positions will not only ignore and despise the Sabbath themselves, but from the sacred desk will urge upon the people the observance of the first day of the week, pleading traditions and custom in behalf of this man-made institution.  They will point to calamities on land and sea-to the storms of wind, the floods, the earthquakes, the destruction by fire – as judgments indicating God’s displeasure because Sunday is not sacredly observed.  These calamities will increase more and more, one disaster will follow close upon the heels of another; and those who make void the law of God will point to the few who are keeping the Sabbath of the fourth commandment as the ones who are bringing wrath upon the world. ”  (The Southern Watchman, June 28, 1904)

Speaking of severe weather, I have to go round up my family right now: the weather service has issued a tornado watch for my area! Please keep us and all of those in the path of the increasing disasters coming upon the world, in your prayers.

Jesus is coming soon!

TV: US scientists testing for radiation in dead whales as mysterious die-off in Pacific continues — Now 14 carcasses reported, expert warns “death toll could still rise” — “Whales may have consumed something toxic… trying to find an explanation for this unusual event”

"Wynne thinks the whales may have consumed something toxic…"

Really? No lie.


Yes, they will blame it on global warming, blame that on man, and then legislate Sunday laws and it's really because of men destroying the earth with radiation factories. And a no-care attitude to prevent or have a contingency plan.


TV: Nuclear waste overflowing into Pacific Ocean at Fukushima — Officials: Impossible to stop the spill anytime soon — Torrential rainfall from approaching typhoon already too much for plant to handle

Yahoo News: Mutated plants near Fukushima gain internet fame — Pics show centers fused together, petals growing out of sides, ring-shaped flower with 4 stems — US Gov’t Expert: Plant abnormalities can be induced after only 24 hours of exposure to radioactive fallout (PHOTOS)
"The atmospheric dose is 0.5 μSv/h at 1 m”…"

Plutonium is flowing into Pacific, will for many years to come — Strontium in ocean hits record level, huge increase reported since April (VIDEO)
3 of the nuclear cores at Fukushima Daiichi are in direct contact with groundwater. Nuclear power designers and engineers never anticipated that possibility.

Maybe the scientists who have no idea of the die-offs should consider the news as a possibility?


From a user comment:
'Why is Pope Francis so obsessed with the devil?'

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/20/living/pope-francis-devil/index.html

People seem to think Francis is a 'simple shepard'. Couldn't be farther from the truth. He's a Jesuit, and he has spent his life studying this. Jesuits are not 'simple'. Jesuits are well aware of the occult practices of the .0001%.

Excellent post APL.

Could you reference that U.N. report you mentioned in #4?

Where is Alchemy - what have you done with him?The UN report is Livestock’s Long Shadow –Environmental Issues and Options, released in November of 2006 from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, livestock [livestock refers to beef cattle, dairy cattle, chickens, pigs, and a few other animals domesticated for food uses] emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to every one of the most serious environmental problems. (The release of this report was not covered by any of the major news outlets, only a few mentions are found on the Internet.)

Some commentary on the topic can be found at the following links:

https://environment.newscientist.com/art...eatest-threats/

https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2006nl/dec/truth.htm

https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2006nl/dec/globalwarming.htm

https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/jan/warming2.htm

I thank God for that APL.

Again - the point is not necessarily global warming. Certainly the focus on industry and transportation that the government has is misdirected if the UN report is to be believed. More importantly is the destruction of the environment that animal farming causes aside from the global warming fear.

Certainly you have heard of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. But did you hear of the hog manure spill into the New River in North Carolina which dumped twice as much waste by volume, 22 million gallons, than the Exxon Valdez and killed millions of fish and contaminated coastal resorts? Why did we not hear more about this? Example, see the following: http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/05/swine-flu-genes-traced-to-north-carolina-hog-farm.html

And what about diseases such as swine flu and bird flu that comes from the crowded conditions of these megafarms? And do you know that eating these animals makes you more susceptible to getting these infections? Thinking about Neu5Gc (google it).

Here is an example of an illness that meat eating predisposes you to: http://www.nature.com/ki/journal/v76/n2/full/ki2009131a.html

No, I had not heard of this hog manure spill. I greatly appreciate your mentioning it.

Another excellent post, APL.

I'm back.

Nevertheless, it is Satan who is doing the most to disrupt things causing man-made and natural disasters. Jesus is giving him more and more authority to cause death, disease, and destruction. Expect Sunday Laws to follow sometime in the not-so-far-distant future.

When the U.N.'s IAEA is encouraging the Japanese to dump radioactive water directly into the ocean as, "...a sustainable solution to the problem of managing contaminated water", it makes one wonder: are they deliberately trying to kill the oceans?

Satan often uses human beings to accomplish his goals. It is easy to see that he is hard at work: "Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the SEA! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time." Revelation 12:12



"May 2015 – JAPAN – Tokyo Electric Power Co. should consider discharging water contaminated by the Fukushima Daiichi reactor meltdowns into the Pacific Ocean, the International Atomic Energy Agency said. More than four years after the nuclear power-plant disaster in Japan, the United Nations agency renewed pressure for an alternative to holding the tainted water in tanks and offered to help monitor for offshore radiation. “The IAEA team believes it is necessary to find a sustainable solution to the problem of managing contaminated water,” the Vienna-based agency said in a report. “This would require considering all options, including the possible resumption of controlled discharges into the sea.’"


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...nto-sea-un-says

Amen MM!!

Especially since the Supreme Court ruling on marriage in late June of this year.

Praise the Lord! Thank you for not saying Jesus is causing man-made and natural disasters and not saying Jesus is causing death, disease, and destruction.

The entire surface of the earth was changed at the Flood. A third dreadful curse rested upon it in consequence of sin. As the water began to subside, the hills and mountains were surrounded by a vast, turbid sea, Everywhere were strewn the dead bodies of men and beasts. The Lord would not permit these to remain to decompose and pollute the air, therefore He made of the earth a vast burial ground. A violent wind which was caused to blow for the purpose of drying up the waters, moved them with great force, in some instances even carrying away the tops of the mountains and heaping up trees, rocks, and earth above the bodies of the dead. By the same means the silver and gold, the choice wood and precious stones, which had enriched and adorned the world before the Flood, and which the inhabitants had idolized, were concealed from the sight and search of men, the violent action of the waters piling earth and rocks upon these treasures, and in some cases even forming mountains above them. God saw that the more He enriched and prospered sinful men, the more they would corrupt their ways before Him. The treasures that should have led them to glorify the bountiful Giver had been worshiped, while God had been dishonored and despised. {PP 107.4}

The earth presented an appearance of confusion and desolation impossible to describe. The mountains, once so beautiful in their perfect symmetry, had become broken and irregular. Stones, ledges, and ragged rocks were now scattered upon the surface of the earth. In many places hills and mountains had disappeared, leaving no trace where they once stood; and plains had given place to mountain ranges. These changes were more marked in some places than in others. Where once had been earth's richest treasures of gold, silver, and precious stones, were seen the heaviest marks of the curse. And upon countries that were not inhabited, and those where there had been the least crime, the curse rested more lightly. {PP 108.1}

At this time immense forests were buried. These have since been changed to coal, forming the extensive coal beds that now exist, and also yielding large quantities of oil. The coal and oil frequently ignite and burn beneath the surface of the earth. Thus rocks are heated, limestone is burned, and iron ore melted. The action of the water upon the lime adds fury to the intense heat, and causes earthquakes, volcanoes, and fiery issues. As the fire and water come in contact with ledges of rock and ore, there are heavy explosions underground, which sound like muffled thunder. The air is hot and suffocating. Volcanic eruptions follow; and these often failing to give sufficient vent to the heated elements, the earth itself is convulsed, the ground heaves and swells like the waves of the sea, great fissures appear, and sometimes cities, villages, and burning mountains are swallowed up. These wonderful manifestations will be more and more frequent and terrible just before the second coming of Christ and the end of the world, as signs of its speedy destruction. {PP 108.2}

The depths of the earth are the Lord's arsenal, whence were drawn weapons to be employed in the destruction of the old world. Waters gushing from the earth united with the waters from heaven to accomplish the work of desolation. Since the Flood, fire as well as water has been God's agent to destroy very wicked cities. These judgments are sent that those who lightly regard God's law and trample upon His authority may be led to tremble before His power and to confess His just sovereignty. As men have beheld burning mountains pouring forth fire and flames and torrents of melted ore, drying up rivers, overwhelming populous cities, and everywhere spreading ruin and desolation, the stoutest heart has been filled with terror and infidels and blasphemers have been constrained to acknowledge the infinite power of God. {PP 109.1}

Said the prophets of old, referring to scenes like these: "Oh that Thou wouldest rend the heavens, that Thou wouldest come down, that the mountains might flow down at Thy presence, as when the melting fire burneth, the fire causeth the waters to boil, to make Thy name known to Thine adversaries, that the nations may tremble at Thy presence! When Thou didst terrible things which we looked not for, Thou camest down, the mountains flowed down at Thy presence." Isaiah 64:1-3. "The Lord hath His way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of His feet. He rebuketh the sea, and maketh it dry, and drieth up all the rivers." Nahum 1:3, 4. {PP 109.2}

More terrible manifestations than the world has ever yet beheld, will be witnessed at the second advent of Christ. "The mountains quake at Him, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at His presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein. Who can stand before His indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of His anger?" Nahum 1:5, 6. "Bow Thy heavens, O Lord, and come down: touch the mountains, and they shall smoke. Cast forth lightning, and scatter them: shoot out Thine arrows, and destroy them." Psalm 144:5, 6. {PP 109.3}

"I will show wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke." Acts 2:19. "And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great." "And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found. And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent." Revelation 16:18, 20, 21. {PP 110.1}

As lightnings from heaven unite with the fire in the earth, the mountains will burn like a furnace, and will pour forth terrific streams of lava, overwhelming gardens and fields, villages and cities. Seething molten masses thrown into the rivers will cause the waters to boil, sending forth massive rocks with indescribable violence and scattering their broken fragments upon the land. Rivers will be dried up. The earth will be convulsed; everywhere there will be dreadful earthquakes and eruptions. {PP 110.2}

Thus God will destroy the wicked from off the earth. But the righteous will be preserved in the midst of these commotions, as Noah was preserved in the ark. God will be their refuge, and under His wings shall they trust. Says the psalmist: "Because thou hast made the Lord, which is my refuge, even the Most High, thy habitation; there shall no evil befall thee." Psalm 91:9, 10. "In the time of trouble He shall hide me in His pavilion: in the secret of His tabernacle shall He hide me." Psalm 27:5. God's promise is, "Because he hath set his love upon Me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known My name." Psalm 91:14. {PP 110.3}

Before the flood there were immense forests. The trees were many times larger than any trees which we now see. They were of great durability. They would know nothing of decay for hundreds of years. At the time of the flood these forests were torn up or broken down and buried in the earth. In some places large quantities of these immense trees were thrown together and covered with stones and earth by the commotions of the flood. They have since petrified and become coal, which accounts for the large coal beds which are now found. This coal has produced oil. God causes large quantities of coal and oil to ignite and burn. Rocks are intensely heated, limestone is burned, and iron ore melted. Water and fire under the surface of the earth meet. The action of water upon the limestone adds fury to the intense heat, and causes earthquakes, volcanoes and fiery issues. The action of fire and water upon the ledges of rocks and ore, causes loud explosions which sound like muffled thunder. These wonderful exhibitions will be more numerous and terrible just before the coming of Christ and the end of the world, as signs of its speedy destruction. {3SG 79.1}

Coal and oil are generally to be found where there are no burning mountains or fiery issues. When fire and water under the surface of the earth meet, the fiery issues cannot give sufficient vent to the heated elements beneath. The earth is convulsed--the ground trembles, heaves, and rises into swells or waves, and there are heavy sounds like thunder underground. The air is heated and suffocating. The earth quickly opens, and I saw villages, cities and burning mountains carried down together into the earth. {3SG 80.1}

God controls all these elements; they are his instruments to do his will; he calls them into action to serve his purpose. These fiery issues have been, and will be his agents to blot out from the earth very wicked cities. Like Korah, Dathan and Abiram they go down alive into the pit. These are evidences of God's power. Those who have beheld these burning mountains have been struck with terror at the grandeur of the scene--pouring forth fire, and flame, and a vast amount of melted ore, drying up rivers and causing them to disappear. They have been filled with awe as though they were beholding the infinite power of God. {3SG 80.2}

These manifestations bear the special marks of God's power, and are designed to cause the people of the earth to tremble before him, and to silence those, who like Pharaoh would proudly say, "Who is the Lord that I should obey his voice?" Isaiah refers to these exhibitions of God's power where he exclaims, "Oh that thou wouldest rend the heavens, that thou wouldest come down, that the mountains might flow down at thy presence as when the melting fire burneth. The fire causeth the waters to boil, to make thy name known to thine adversaries, that the nations may tremble at thy presence. When thou didst terrible things which we looked not for, thou camest down, the mountains flowed down at thy presence. {3SG 81.1}

"The Lord is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked. The Lord hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet. He rebuketh the sea, and maketh it dry and drieth up all the rivers. Bashan languisheth, and Carmel, and the flower of Lebanon languisheth. The mountains quake at him, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein. Who can stand before his indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? His fury is poured our like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him. {3SG 81.2}

"Bow thy heavens, O, Lord, and come down. Touch the mountains, and they shall smoke. Cast forth lightning, and scatter them. Shoot out thine arrows, and destroy them." {3SG 81.3}

Greater wonders than have yet been seen will be witnessed by those upon the earth a short period previous to the coming of Christ. "And I will show wonders in the heavens above, and signs in the earth beneath, blood and fire and vapour of smoke." "And there were voices and thunders and lightnings, and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake and so great. And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found. And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent; and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail, for the plague thereof was exceeding great." {3SG 82.1}

The bowels of the earth were the Lord's arsenal, from which he drew forth the weapons he employed in the destruction of the old world. Waters in the bowels of the earth gushed forth, and united with the waters from Heaven, to accomplish the work of destruction. Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {3SG 82.2}

In the day of the Lord, just before the coming of Christ, God will send lightnings from Heaven in his wrath, which will unite with fire in the earth. The mountains will burn like a furnace, and will pour forth terrible streams of lava, destroying gardens and fields, villages and cities; and as they pour their melted ore, rocks and heated mud into the rivers, will cause them to boil like a pot, and send forth massive rocks and scatter their broken fragments upon the land with indescribable violence. Whole rivers will be dried up. The earth will be convulsed, and there will be dreadful eruptions and earthquakes everywhere. God will plague the wicked inhabitants of the earth until they are destroyed from off it. {3SG 82.3}

The saints are preserved in the earth in the midst of these dreadful commotions, as Noah was preserved in the ark at the time of the flood. Christ appears in his glory, and calls forth the righteous dead. The living saints are changed, and, with the resurrected dead, are borne away from the earth by angels to meet their Lord in the air. The earth is left like a desolate wilderness. {3SG 83.1}

. . .

Those majestic trees which God had caused to grow upon the earth, for the benefit of the inhabitants of the old world, and which they had used to form into idols, and to corrupt themselves with, God has reserved in the earth, in the shape of coal and oil to use as agencies in their final destruction. As he called forth the waters in the earth at the time of the flood, as weapons from his arsenal to accomplish the destruction of the antediluvian race, so at the end of the one thousand years he will call forth the fires in the earth as his weapons which he has reserved for the final destruction, not only of successive generations since the flood, but the antediluvian race who perished by the flood. {3SG 87.1}

Satan works through the elements also to garner his harvest of unprepared souls. He has studied the secrets of the laboratories of nature, and he uses all his power to control the elements as far as God allows. When he was suffered to afflict Job, how quickly flocks and herds, servants, houses, children, were swept away, one trouble succeeding another as in a moment. It is God that shields His creatures and hedges them in from the power of the destroyer. But the Christian world have shown contempt for the law of Jehovah; and the Lord will do just what He has declared that He would--He will withdraw His blessings from the earth and remove His protecting care from those who are rebelling against His law and teaching and forcing others to do the same. Satan has control of all whom God does not especially guard. He will favor and prosper some in order to further his own designs, and he will bring trouble upon others and lead men to believe that it is God who is afflicting them. {GC 589.2}

While appearing to the children of men as a great physician who can heal all their maladies, he will bring disease and disaster, until populous cities are reduced to ruin and desolation. Even now he is at work. In accidents and calamities by sea and by land, in great conflagrations, in fierce tornadoes and terrific hailstorms, in tempests, floods, cyclones, tidal waves, and earthquakes, in every place and in a thousand forms, Satan is exercising his power. He sweeps away the ripening harvest, and famine and distress follow. He imparts to the air a deadly taint, and thousands perish by the pestilence. These visitations are to become more and more frequent and disastrous. Destruction will be upon both man and beast. "The earth mourneth and fadeth away," "the haughty people . . . do languish. The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant." Isaiah 24:4, 5. {GC 589.3}

And then the great deceiver will persuade men that those who serve God are causing these evils. The class that have provoked the displeasure of Heaven will charge all their troubles upon those whose obedience to God's commandments is a perpetual reproof to transgressors. It will be declared that men are offending God by the violation of the Sunday sabbath; that this sin has brought calamities which will not cease until Sunday observance shall be strictly enforced; and that those who present the claims of the fourth commandment, thus destroying reverence for Sunday, are troublers of the people, preventing their restoration to divine favor and temporal prosperity. Thus the accusation urged of old against the servant of God will be repeated and upon grounds equally well established: "And it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, Art thou he that troubleth Israel? And he answered, I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father's house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou hast followed Baalim." 1 Kings 18:17, 18. As the wrath of the people shall be excited by false charges, they will pursue a course toward God's ambassadors very similar to that which apostate Israel pursued toward Elijah. {GC 590.1}

So, again, Jesus is in control of "global warming". He either causes, commands (holy angels), or permits (evil angels) things to happen that result in death, disease, and destruction. That is, He either causes the forces of nature wreak havoc, or He commands holy angels to do it, or He permits evil angels to do it. Neither holy angels nor evil angels can supply the power, the energy, the life force that makes the forces of nature act. Only Jesus can do that.

So God is the ultimate cause of rape, murder, sickness and disease. Praise God!

MM, are you disagreeing with yourself?
Or are you just not sure of yourself?

That is, do you agree or disagree with the first quote here?

APL, there are times when Jesus chooses to intervene and prevent things like rape, murder, disease, etc. However, there are plenty of times He chooses not to intervene and prevent them.

Kland, my comments agree with the Bible and the SOP quotes I posted. There is no discrepancy or contradiction.

If the devil were not permitted freedom to commit acts of evil, how then would his true nature be manifest? Satan's claim that his rule is the way to happiness and emancipation, his charge that the Law of God is restrictive and unjust, must be shown to be a lie. The Earth is the courtroom of the Universe, when the devil has been allowed to present his case, and the fruit of evil is exposed, the perfect Law of God will be exhonorated.

Jesus is not the cause of the disasters and violence coming to pass on this
planet: He is merely allowing the prosecuting attorney (Satan) to state his case.

God is giving Satan enough rope to hang himself, so to speak.

I was talking about your comments contradicting your comments.

Guess the grass is black and the wind is pink, eh?

Kland, my comments do not contradict one another - just like the quotes I posted do not contradict one another. Jesus is in control. He manages the consequences of choices so that they play out in ways that serve a successful outcome of the great controversy. He leaves nothing to fate, chance, natural law, men, or evil angels. Nothing happens without His involvement - either causing it Himself, commanding holy angels to do it, or permitting evil angels to do it according the limits He sets and works to ensure are not exceeded.

Do you believe we should interpret the Bible and SOP passages that plainly say Jesus causes death, disease, and destruction to mean Jesus permits evil men and/or evil angels to do it?

Ho do you explain the Bible and SOP passages (see quotes posted above) that plainly say otherwise?

You did contradict yourself. Only when questioned, did you backtrack.

What do you say, do you believe we should interpret the Bible and SOP passages that plainly say God slew Saul or that Saul committed suicide? Which?

MM - why do you ignore EGW's clear statements in how this all works? Such as GC35-GC37 and COL84? How do you reconcile these statements with your belief that God causes sickness, disease and death, and it is not God, but sin? Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer. {CH 168.2}

Kland, I did not contradict myself. I did not back track. You are mistaken. Please repost the post you believe reflects me contradicting myself.

PS - You did not answer my question. Please do so.

APL, the Bible and the SOP make it very clear Jesus causes death, disease, and destruction. The Bible and the SOP are also very clear Jesus commands holy angels to cause death, disease, and destruction. And the Bible and the SOP clearly say Jesus permits evil angels to cause death, disease, and destruction.

Do you believe the Bible and the SOP expect us to interpret everything above to mean Jesus withdraws His protection and permits evil angels to cause death, disease, and destruction? If so, do you think it makes Jesus less culpable?

Nature is not self-acting. Every single law, principle, and function in nature is 100% dependent upon Jesus to act. Hearts beat because Jesus makes them beat. Clouds form and produce rain because Jesus makes them do do. Plants and animals and and insects and people grow and live because Jesus makes them do so. Everything on earth plays out the way it does because Jesus does what He does. Natural disasters are able to do what they do because Jesus does what He does. Nature is not self-acting. Evil angels cannot supply the life force nature needs to do what it does. Only Jesus can supply it.

Evil angles are allowed to manipulate the forces of nature - but they cannot supply the life force necessary for it to act. Nor can evil angels manipulate the forces of nature to cause more death, disease, and destruction than Jesus is willing to allow. Jesus works to ensure evil angels do not exceed the limits He sets and enforces. Again, everything plays out the way it does because Jesus does what He does to ensure it plays out accordingly - no more, no less. "God will use His enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth of God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored." {LDE 242.3}

MM - AGAIN - how do you reconcile ALL the writings of EGW on the topic? You have not yet done so. MM - why do you ignore EGW's clear statements in how this all works? Such as GC35-GC37 and COL84? How do you reconcile these statements with your belief that God causes sickness, disease and death, and it is not God, but sin? Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer. {CH 168.2}

Her statements do not require reconciliation. They are perfectly clear. There is nothing ambiguous about them.

Please answer my questions (posted to you above).

In other words, you won't even try to reconcile them.

The following is my God and High Priest:
Hebrews 7:25-26
25 Why he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come to God by him, seeing he ever lives to make intercession for them.
26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

Your god is not harmless as you readily admit.

This topic is about global warming.

Let's stay on topic and not imply that our Savior is responsible for the mess that mankind has made of this planet.

I think we all agree that God's protecting hand is being withdrawn to allow sin and satan to fully demonstrate the results of their rebellion.

What are those results?

But dedication - some view God AND Satan as causing disease, disaster, and death. Global warming falls into the disaster category.

MM - I have answered your question, same question, many times. Read {DA 58.1} Now, how do you reconcile ALL the EGW quotes? The judgments of God do not come directly from Him, but in.....

The quotes you have given show the results of sin: the flood came in response to sin, Sodom was destroyed as a result of sin. Satan tempts humans to sin; therefore, he and those who choose to continue in sin, bear ultimate responsibility. "The wages of sin is death." This is the Law, God cannot break His own Law. Satan knows this; and so, his goal is to lead us into sin in order to destroy us.



The mechanism for disaster where sin is not the sole cause is clearly enunciated in the book of Job.

"...the book of Job, which would be read with the deepest interest by the people of God until the close of time."

THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES
February 19, 1880




The remaining evils are the result of sin. In many cases, such as famine, war, etc., these sins are not necessarily individual, rather they are corporate. This world, together with all of its diverse populations, and finely balanced systems, began to die the moment Adam sinned.

"And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities."

Revelation 18:4-5

Let us not make the mistake of blaming the Lord of Love and Light for the consequences of our own sin!

I don't see where you answered my question (although, I suspect you believe, yes, all quotes must be interpreted to mean Jesus permits evil angels to cause death, disease, and destruction). Here is how I answered your question:


How do I reconcile the quotes which clearly, plainly say:

1) Jesus Himself causes death, disease, and destruction. "Since the Flood, fire as well as water has been God's agent to destroy very wicked cities." {PP 109.1}
2) Jesus commands holy angels to cause death, disease, and destruction. "The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits." {GC 614.2}
3) Jesus permits evil angels to cause death, disease, and destruction. "In accidents and calamities by sea and by land, in great conflagrations, in fierce tornadoes and terrific hailstorms, in tempests, floods, cyclones, tidal waves, and earthquakes, in every place and in a thousand forms, Satan is exercising his power." {GC 589.3}

It's really rather quite simple, isn't it. All three sets of quotes are true and right. They do not contradict one another. "The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of His subjects and for their safety, punish the transgressor. God does not work on the plan of man. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice. {LDE 241.2}

ProdigalOne - that is the problem, many look at sin as not having intrinsic consequences, but that they must be extrinsically applied. It is a judicial problem, a legal problem. You break the rules, you will then have punishment meted out to you. But the punishment that comes from sin is intrinsic, the wages of sin is death, not execution. Christ demonstrated the consequences of sin in Gethsemane and on the cross.

What mess? Human-caused pollution? Auto emissions? Industrial waste? Our contribution to the problem is minute compared to mother nature's contribution. One volcanic eruption, one forest fire does more to cause global warming than years of human waste and pollution.

So, the question remains - Who is responsible for all the natural disasters devastating our planet and disrupting weather patterns? There is a precedence. The Great Deluge. Was the Flood man-made or God-made? How we answer this question impacts how we view global warming.

I believe the Bible and the SOP make it painfully and abundantly clear Jesus employed the forces of nature to cause the Flood, to cause global death and destruction. Jesus did not command holy angels to do it. He did not permit evil angels to do it. He did it Himself.

Others believe Jesus simply withdrew His protection and permitted either nature or evil angels to cause the Flood and the death and destruction of the entire world. This view assumes nature is self-acting. Which is not true. It also assumes Jesus gave evil angels permission to employ the forces of nature to cause the Flood. Which is also not true.

Global warming, natural disasters, weird weather patterns, etc are more than likely the cause of Jesus doing three fundamental things - 1) employing the forces of nature Himself to cause death, disease, and destruction, 2) commanding holy angels to employ the forces of nature to cause death, disease, and destruction, and 3) permitting evil angels to employ the forces to cause death, disease, and destruction. So, again, it is very possible that global warming and its effects are the cause of Jesus doing all of the above, all three of these things.

Sin did not cause the Flood. Jesus employed the forces of nature to drown the vast world. ". . . God drowned the vast world." There was nothing intrinsic or cause-and-effect about it. The wages of sinning is second death - not a global flood. The Antediluvians did not cause the Flood by violating natural laws.

MM says they were executed. Yeah, better fear that god!

APL, the inspired passages posted above speak for themselves. They do not require interpretation. ". . . God drowned the vast world". Inspiration cannot say it more clearly. Interpreting this insight to mean Jesus withdrew His protection and permitted evil angels to drown the vast world undermines the truth.

Also, saying sin caused the Flood in some natural, intrinsic, cause and consequence way undermines the truth. The Antediluvians didn't do anything that caused the water above and below the earth to drown the vast world.

The same thing is true of the recent rash of natural disasters currently upsetting the balance of nature. The sins of mankind are not causing volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, lightning forest fires, etc.

MM, "the wages of sin are death", death in all of its forms. Not only the "second death". If Adam had never sinned, there would be no first death, no second death, no Flood, no Global Warming. These all occurred as a consequence of sin.

Are you familiar with the judicial concept of "mandatory sentencing". Here in Canada, the Conservative government has been bringing it in over the last couple of years. Basically, mandatory sentencing means that if an accused criminal is found guilty of a crime, there is a fixed sentence. The judge has no discretion to impose a different punishment.

If someone is found guilty of burglary and the mandatory sentence is five years, the judge has no choice, he or she, must impose a five year sentence.

Adam was given dominion over the Earth. He chose to surrender that dominion to Satan. The mandatory sentence for Adam's sin was death. Since Adam willingly surrendered the Earth to death, God had no choice but to execute the sentence. Adam was the one who had a choice, God did not.

At various times, the Earth has become so infected by the disease of sin that God has been forced to disinfect it or risk losing all of humanity. So, He sent the Flood, so, He destroyed Sodom, because sin is contagious, not because He wanted to, He did it because of His great Love for humanity.

Sin is, like a disease, progressive. In a single human life it grows from the lesser sins of childhood, white lies and stealing candy, become adultery and violence. In the human race, it grows from the single sin of Adam, to seven billion souls lying and cheating, starving and inventing more and more efficient ways of murdering each other. But, the effects are also physical: before the Flood, humans lived lives spanning many centuries; they were larger of stature, stronger, and smarter. As sin progressed, we became smaller, our lives were shortened, etc.

The same is true of the Earth. As you yourself posted: there were huge forests filled with gigantic, awe inspiring trees, nature was strong and vital in all of it's forms. After the Flood, as the lives of humans were shortened, so nature became stunted, a mere shadow of its former glory. Along with humanity, the planet showed the signs of sin: weakness and death.

The progression of the disease of sin has not ceased. Species after species falls to extinction, the oceans become less able to support life, the air darkens and warms, crops fail, the very crust of the Earth becomes weak. The wages of sin are manifest in the steadily degrading World. The fruit of the Deceiver is shown in all of it's deathly stark reality.

If not for sin, none of this would be...

Prodigal One, I believe the reason the wages of sin includes the first death is because Jesus paid our sin debt of death "from the foundation of the world". In so doing He made it possible for mankind to live a long, lingering first death eventually ending in sleep followed by a resurrection, judgment, and sentencing (either eternal life or eternal death).

A&E would have died the second death the day they disobeyed had Jesus not intervened. "In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Also, "death, instead of being immediately visited upon the transgressor, should be transferred to a victim" (1SM 230). What would have caused them to die "immediately" that "day"? Punishment. Not natural causes. There was nothing toxic about ingesting the forbidden fruit.

Jesus had to bar access to the tree of life after A&E sinned. Otherwise, sinners would have eaten and lived "forever". And therein lies the reason humans suffer a long, lingering first death. That is, they gradually, eventually die because Jesus denies them access to the tree of life (not because sinning in and of itself causes sinners to die). Otherwise, regularly eating from the tree of life could not empower them to live "forever".

Yes, it does seem off topic. However, MM is suggesting something atheists make fun of creationists with. They ridicule them about fossils or other things saying they say that God put them there. That is, any unexplained things means: God did it.

He's saying it's not what the "result" is, but what the "cause" is. What MM is suggesting is that if there is global warming, God did it. If life in the sea is being killed off, God did it.

Some say El Nino causes bad weather.
Some say La Nina causes bad weather.
Some say being between El Nino and La Nina causes bad weather.
But MM says God does it.

Then after being thanked for not blaming Jesus, you then realized your mistake and backtracked:


Interesting suggestion you are making here. While you are saying that your god causes disaster, or causes satan to cause harm, or permits him to, now you're suggesting that humans, even though at a minimal level, can cause pollution to damage the environment. Beyond your god's control.

Tell us. With the ongoing Fukushima dumping radiation into the ocean and killing off the life: Is that due to man or your god? Did your god cause the tsunami to set the nuclear reactor disaster in place? Or did man cause it by failing to have a backup plan when things go wrong? Did your god want to poison the ocean and caused the earthquake to do it? Or did your god only want to kill life and destroy property and never intended to poison the ocean, but due to man's failure for failing to take care of protecting the nuclear reactors, some things happen beyond his control?

Seems to me you have a bit of dilemma here.

Isn't that what satan said?

It's what Eve understood.
Ge 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
Ge 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Ge 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food,

Yes kland - that is exactly what Satan said. MM has fallen for the lie it would appear, that God is vengeful and severe.

Interesting quotes, will have to study this deeper..

How does God punish? By letting the natural consequences of sin play out. God is not the executioner of the sentence against sin. Now does God "punish"?

We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy. It is the restraining power of God that prevents mankind from passing fully under the control of Satan. The disobedient and unthankful have great reason for gratitude for God's mercy and long-suffering in holding in check the cruel, malignant power of the evil one. But when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint is removed. God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. Every ray of light rejected, every warning despised or unheeded, every passion indulged, every transgression of the law of God, is a seed sown which yields its unfailing harvest. The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan. The destruction of Jerusalem is a fearful and solemn warning to all who are trifling with the offers of divine grace and resisting the pleadings of divine mercy. Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin and to the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty. {GC 36.1}

Remember to also study who killed Saul and compare that with what MM listed as no contradiction. Since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, then any supposed contradiction is a reflection on the reader.

The Bible and the SOP both say Jesus employs the forces of nature for weal or woe. Nature is not self-acting. Evil angels are not free to manipulate the forces of nature as they see fit. Jesus permits them to cause death, disease, and disaster within the limits He establishes and works to enforce.

No dilemma. It is very clearly spelled out in the Bible and in the SOP. Jesus is in control. Nothing - nothing - happens without His intimate involvement. Things play out the way they do because Jesus manages things the way He does.

Would you then agree, that God is then responsible for all the evil in the world because He enables it?

A woman is rapes, then it is God will. She could not be raped unless God wanted it to happen. Calvin would be pleased.

So are you saying that man did not do anything wrong in choosing a poor place for the reactor, having no backup plan, no protection from waves? That your god caused man to do poor planning?


Or are you saying that man needn't worry about such useless details because.... god did it.


Wow, what freedom! That relieves a lot of the responsibility. Maybe you could talk to our president and just say give any country who want's to go nuclear full blessing. Legalize drugs. In fact, have no laws.

Anything bad which results..... MM's god did it.

God of Fire.
God of Water.
MM's god: the god of death, disease, and disaster.

Officials: “Trillions of becquerels of radioactive material still flowing into sea” at Fukushima — Map shows nuclear waste coming up from bottom of ocean far offshore — Japan TV Journalist: “Contaminated seawater will circulate around globe… disaster like a huge cloth expanding everyday”

Wonder why MM's god is doing this.

Attorney for US Navy Sailors: Third death from exposure to Fukushima fallout — Baby with brain cancer has died — Reporters afraid to publish stories related to case — Professor: USS Reagan sailors were first people to be hit by plume outside of plant

Well, as long as it is MM's god doing such things, we needn't worry ourselves. Whether baby or coverup.

You are adding ideas by using words like "enables" and "wanted". You and I both agree Jesus withdraws His protection and permits horrible things to happen for reasons that make sense to Him. There are times when He chooses to intervene and prevent horrible things from happening, and there are times when He chooses not to intervene, when He chooses to permit them to play out in accordance with the limits He sets and works to enforce. He leaves nothing to fate, chance, natural law, or evil men or evil angels. He works to ensure things do not play out in ways that exceed the limits He is willing to allow. When circumstances force Him to withdraw His protection and permit horrible things to happen - He hates it. He never wants horrible things to happen. But all too often circumstances force Him to permit it. In heaven He will explain why and it will make perfect sense - but it will not eliminate the sadness.

Kland, please choose your words carefully. Take the time to be kind. There is no excuse for being rude and harsh. You can express your thoughts without the inhumane treatment. Such behavior violates forum rules. Please be kind. I doubt you would be as cruel face to face. Do not let the internet hinder you from exercising common courtesy.

Yes, we are free to manage our choices. However, Jesus is free to manage the outcome of our choices. He can intervene in ways that do not violate freewill - the freedom to think and act. For example, a criminal is free to point a pistol and pull the trigger. However, whether or not the bullet causes harm is up to Jesus. He is free to intervene and prevent harm. There are a gazillion ways He can do so without violating freewill.

So, the question remains - Why does Jesus withdraw His protection and permit evil men and evil angels to cause death, disease, and disaster?

But you say God (god?) directly causes sickness, disease, and death and disasters. That god is indeed, harsh, severe, and exacting.

Reading it again, I could see how it could be taken. But I didn't mean, "Wow, what freedom" in that sort of way, ending with a period. I meant it as one who is amazed, relieved. "Wow! Man, what freedom!" exclamation sort of way.

Really? Put it in terms of the nuclear disaster that's happening. Where is free will in that, of the questions I asked? Or is this where Jesus is not causing death, disease, and disaster, that is, men are exercising free will in this case? And if that could be the case, does that mean you yourself can look at the disaster, but have no idea whether Jesus caused it or whether Jesus permitted it?


I don't understand. You said Jesus causes death, disease, and disaster.

You are adding words again. If you intend to share my view please stick to the words I use. In fact, simply quote me. My words are very clear. Easy to understand. They do not require interpretation.

It is true that there are times when Jesus employs the forces of nature to cause death, disease, and disaster. However, my question above pertains to those times when Jesus withdraws His protection and permits evil men and evil angels to cause death, disease, and disaster. Are you willing to answer my question?

PS - Please note that I refer to Jesus and not a "god" you made up. It is offensive when you substitute my words with insulting words when referring to my posts. Please be kind.

Yes, you have said clearly, "God" causes sickness, disease and death.

Jesus is in control of the outcome of our choices. People chose to install a thermonuclear power plant. Jesus chose to allow a storm to damage it. He also managed the fallout. He is in control - not fate, not chance, not natural law, not evil angels. It really doesn't matter if Jesus chose to withdraw His protection and permitted evil angels to cause the damage, or if He commanded holy angels to do it, or if He chose to do it Himself. The outcome is the same, namely, things played out according to the way He was willing to allow.


See my post to APL above.

That is correct (although I usually say Jesus). But that isn't what my question is asking. Are you willing to answer my question?

PS - We should stay on topic. My question is aimed at global warming. I believe the disasters typically blamed on global warming are the result of Jesus allowing evil angels to manipulate the forces of nature - not the result of human pollution.

How do you know? How do you know it is not God. Is not Jesus God? I don't know how you could possibly tell from your point of view. I'm not sure why you ignore the SOP, for if you did not, you would easily tell.

Amen, Mountain Man.
Let us remember the words of Paul:

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law."
Galations 5:22-23

If we have passion, but no Fruit, we do not belong to Christ!
What good is it to win the argument, yet lose your soul?

Mountain Man, I agree that Jesus allows or limits evil angels destructive powers.
This gives rise to two questions: why does Jesus either allow or limit demonic power, and how do evil angels accomplish their foul manipulations?

I believe that the book of Job gives us some major clues as to what is happening: this planet is a courtroom; Satan is the prosecutor; Jesus is the defense council; Humanity is the evidence; all unfallen beings throughout the universe are the jurors; and God is on trail.

If God allows Satan too much power, then the Earth will be swiftly destroyed and no one will be saved. On the other hand, if God limits Satan too much, the Devil will not be able to make enough of a case to show the contrast between the opposing views of the prosecution and defense councils.

How God arrives at the proper balance between permission and restraint only He knows.
It is sufficient for us to comprehend His motives.

As for the second question: God occasionally works through miraculous means, but for the most part, He uses people. So it is with Satan. Since, he was the highest of the angelic host, second only to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we must assume that his understanding of physics, ecology, hydrology, seismology, meteorology etc. is surpassed only by God.

With this in mind, it is perfectly plausible that given Devine permission, he is capable of manipulating the physical functioning of the Earth and its concomitant systems. The requirement then is gaining permission to do so.

Since Adam and his descendents were granted dominion over the Earth, the Devil's first step would be to obtain their acquiescence. He can then say to the watching universe: "Humanity has accepted this course. Therefore, if God does not allow it, He is unjust!"

Lets examine one among the numerous examples of this process in action:

"Amid substantial public opposition, Japan on Tuesday restarted one of more than 40 atomic reactors that were taken out of service in wake of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster. Kyushu Electric Power Co. said it had restarted the No. 1 reactor at its Sendai plant in Kagoshima prefecture"

Sci-Tech Today


Fukushima is still spewing life devouring radiation into the Pacific, and the Japanese leadership is already green lighting nuclear reactor restarts! Japan is located on one of the most active geological sites on the entire Pacific Rim of Fire. This makes it a target for numerous earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and tsunamis. It is also, extremely vulnerable to huge Pacific typhoons.
(Both God and Satan know what the logical conclusion of this scenario will be)

Since Fukushima, "...Japan has had to make up for that lost generating capacity largely by burning coal and natural gas. Japan, which has little fossil fuel of its own, must import that material, and power costs have risen substantially for businesses and households. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who came to power in late 2012, says Japan needs nuclear power and can operate plants safely. Utility companies have suffered and Japan's trade deficit has risen. That has complicated Abe's efforts to improve the economy."

ibid.


Could Japan survive without nuclear power generation? Yes! Would it be more expensive, monetarily? Yes!
(Satan working through human leaders to destroy lives and the planet)

"For the love of money is the root of all evil".
1Timothy 6:10

" 'Japan's big business association is under the strong influence of the nuclear power lobby, and it has long demanded that the government restart the plants as soon as possible,' said Koichi Nakano, a professor of Japanese politics at Sophia University in Tokyo. This lobby 'is very well represented among the power elite behind Abe's government, so it has long thought that if this government cannot resume nuclear power generation, no other government can.' "

ibid.

Much of Prime Minister Abe's campaigne funding came from the "power elite", who have a financial interest in restarting Japan's nuclear reactors.
(Being a master of human psychology, Satan knows exactly how to manipulate us into helping him to destroy ourselves and the planet)

"For the love of money is the root of all evil".
1Timothy 6:10


"...not everyone is convinced the NRA's (Japanese, Nuclear Regulation Authority) new measures are sufficient. Others have complained, for example, that the NRA approved a management plan for the Kyushu plant even though its operator had not finished conducting some earthquake stress tests on some aging equipment, and some documents were incomplete. Others say evacuation plans and other emergency measures are still inadequate."

" 'The new so-called strict guidelines do not meet global standards and focus on hardware, whereas the main lesson of Fukushima is that human error was a major factor contributing to the meltdowns," said Jeffrey Kingston, a professor at Temple University and author of "Contemporary Japan.' 'This means much better training and nurturing a culture of safety, but it is clear that these significant risks remain unaddressed in the rush to restart. Yet again corners are being cut and public safety is being risked to help the bottom line.' "

ibid.

(Satan working through people: his deceptions convince those in charge of safety that the "bottom line" is of more import than human lives and the planet)


"For the love of money is the root of all evil".
1Timothy 6:10

As God unites with humanity for our salvation, so Satan unites with humanity to accomplish our destruction.

For instance, if Satan, with his supernatural knowledge of hydrology, meteorology, and volcanology, knew that a huge increase in volcanic activity was releasing greenhouse gases in amounts nearly fatal to the Earth's weather and ecosystems: would he not work mightily to influence leaders around the world? Would he not dangle massive amounts of money in front of their eyes and blind them to the consequences of their greed? Would he not, as he did with Eve in the Garden, mingle truth with a lie and convince them that global warming is a completely natural phenomena. Knowing full well that nature was at its tipping point and just one more feather-light straw would crush the spine of the Earth?

What is Satan's plan for humanity?

Just a few thousand more coal burning generators, a few hundred million more cars, a few million less hectares of forest, and we will all be "rich and in need of nothing", while billions of unsaved souls slowly starve to death on a dead planet that once bore the image of God's Perfect Love...

Prodigal One, thank you for sharing. Great insights. I am thankful Jesus is in control. I am glad He manages the outcome of our choices. I am happy He leaves nothing to fate, chance, natural law, evil men, or evil angels. I am grateful He works to ensure nothing and no one exceeds the limits He sets.

APL, please answer my question.

I suppose it doesn't matter to you really whether Jesus allowed or caused damage. And that's why you see no need to answer the question of how do you determine whether Satan causes harm or Jesus does.

But then, how can you be so sure Jesus allowed the storm to hit rather than caused it?

But then, how can you be so sure Jesus allowed the fallout to blow around the world rather than caused it to blow?

But then, how can you be so sure Jesus allowed the fallout to kill the life in the ocean rather than killing it Himself?


I believe the results of Fukushima are going to cause people to blame global warming on them. I believe Fukushima is playing a major part of the end of the world. But global warming will be blamed, and people will pat themselves on the back for changing their lightbulbs and think they are helping.

How do you know, given your idea about the character of God, that He didn't cause men to choose a poor place, cause the storm to blow, cause poor planning or a lack of a plan, and then just arbitrarily kill the animals to promote Sunday laws?


Or are you saying, it makes no difference?

What have they got to lose? They're toast anyway, just as well make some money on the way down.

But what about the rest of us? They had no problem in producing toys with lead paint. Can you imagine how they dispose of contaminated materials? Spread the pain.

There should be an absolute ban on Japanese imports to any other country!

Again, it doesn't really matter if Jesus Himself is employing the forces of nature to cause the death, disease, and disasters people blame on global warming or if He commands holy angels to do it or if He permits evil angels to do it - the results are the same, namely, Jesus is in control of the outcome of the Great Controversy. He manages the consequences of our choices in ways that ensure things play out according to His will. He does not sit back and permit evil men and evil angels to manipulate things however they see fit. Jesus does not make people make bad decisions. They are free to think and act as they choose. However, Jesus is free to manage the outcome of their thoughts and actions ensuring things play out according to His will. For example, Jesus is free to intervene and prevent man-made disasters. He could have prevented 911. He could have prevented Fukushima. But for reasons that make sense to Jesus He chose to allow things to play out the way they did. More than that, He worked to ensure they did not play out some other way. He leaves nothing to fate, chance, natural law, evil men, or evil angels.

1) "Since the Flood, fire as well as water has been God's agent to destroy very wicked cities."
2) "The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits."

Kland, I have answered your question. Now, please answer mine.

Why does Jesus withdraw His protection and permit evil men and evil angels to cause death, disease, and disaster? Why doesn't He intervene and prevent it?

I do not know where you answered it unless you are saying it doesn't really matter.

But I don't see why you are asking your question because you say, along with not knowing whether harm comes from Jesus or satan, you say some of the time, Jesus withdraws His protection and permit evil men and evil angels to cause death, disease, and disaster. So not sure why you are seeking an answer to that.

kland, I don't know how MM can know what happens from his belief that God can cause sickness, disease, and death and Satan can cause sickness, disease and death. He keeps asking why God withdraws, but how does he even KNOW that that is the case? He needs to answer that first. But then we have MANY examples of how sickness, disease and death happen, and SOP comments which he wants to ignore, that sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power, not God. And that is a universal truth, as evidences by Christ Himself. Only from this standpoint can one understand what is happening in our environment.

Good point. And I had thought I was asking him something similar, but he avoided answering.

If it "really doesn't matter" whether Jesus causes death, disease, and disaster or whether satan causes death, disease, and disaster then the exhibition of Jesus' character cannot be distinguished from satan's character.

He seems to think there is "good" character and "bad" character, but how does he not know someone is so in tuned with God that he expresses God's "character" 100%?

It's the general population that is "toast". The wealthy corporate types will have "secure" retreats to hide out. Alas, no one can escape judgement, no matter how rich.

Incidentally, the rest of the world isn't exactly controlled by billionaire saints. Obama just gave Shell Oil permission to drill in the arctic. Imagine a spill up there!

Here's a nice one from Canada's "elite":


"A Nova Scotia environmentalist is criticizing federal Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq's decision to approve an "almost inconceivable" offshore drilling plan from Shell that allows up to 21 days to contain a subsea blowout, despite the U.S. requiring the same company to cap blowouts within 24 hours."
CBC News

Apparently, it's cheaper for an oil company to bring in capping equipment from Norway than have it on standby. Sable Island National Park is only a couple of kilimeters from the drill sites, but who cares, right? The love of money is all that matters!

Again, it doesn't really matter if Jesus Himself is employing the forces of nature to cause the death, disease, and disasters people blame on global warming or if He commands holy angels to do it or if He permits evil angels to do it - the results are the same, namely, Jesus is in control of the outcome of the Great Controversy. He manages the consequences of our choices in ways that ensure things play out according to His will. He does not sit back and permit evil men and evil angels to manipulate things however they see fit.

Jesus does not make people make bad decisions. They are free to think and act as they choose. However, Jesus is free to manage the outcome of their thoughts and actions ensuring things play out according to His will. For example, Jesus is free to intervene and prevent man-made disasters. He could have prevented 911. He could have prevented Fukushima. But for reasons that make sense to Jesus He chose to allow things to play out the way they did. More than that, He worked to ensure they did not play out some other way. He leaves nothing to fate, chance, natural law, evil men, or evil angels.

The Bible and the SOP are crystal clear:

1) "Since the Flood, fire as well as water has been God's agent to destroy very wicked cities."
2) "The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits."


The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits.

Why does Jesus withdraw His protection and permit evil men and evil angels to cause death, disease, and disaster? Why doesn't He intervene and prevent it? In the context of the death, disease, and disaster commonly blamed on global warming it is obvious to me Jesus causes it or allows it for reasons that make sense to Him.

Most of the time His "restraining power" intervenes and prevents things from happening that would have otherwise wreaked hellish havoc. Nevertheless, there are times when Jesus causes, commands, or permits horrible things to happen. Why? The answer is plainly laid out in the following LDE excerpts:


PS - Yes, I realize - "GOD TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT WHICH HE ALLOWS OR DOES NOT PREVENT." - are the words of the editors.

How can you be so sure that He allowed it rather than caused it?

I'm cool with it either way. The quotes I posted above present both sides. In the final analysis one thing is certain - Jesus is in control. He works to ensure the Great Controversy plays out according to His will. As it is written:

"The program of coming events is in the hands of the Lord."

". . . God will bring His purposes to pass."

". . . the complicated play of human events is under divine control. Amidst the strife and tumult of nations, He that sitteth above the cherubim still guides the affairs of the earth."

". . . in the Word of God the curtain is drawn aside, and we behold, above, behind, and through all the play and counterplay of human interest and power and passions, the agencies of the All-merciful One, silently, patiently working out the counsels of His own will."

Whether environmental disasters are being caused by God, Satan, humanity, or a combination of them (I believe the latter) is not so important as the fact that they are occuring more and more frequently. Whatever the apparent cause, what matters is the effect. How do we and the unbelieving masses react?

More and more, people everywhere are discussing the changing world. As believers, should we not take these occurrences as God given opportunities to spread the Three Angels Message? I think we can all agree that none of these changes would be happening if God were not, in some way, permitting them. The question is, why is He allowing things to worsen so rapidly?

I believe these disasters are just the beginning and that they are warnings from a merciful God: believers, prepare, purify yourselves, wake up, warn the world; unbelievers, events beyond your control are coming to pass, open your eyes, hearken to the voice of the angels, "the hour of His judgement is come"!

Our Father is opening doors for us on a scale never seen before! And we squander our precious energy bickering over how squeaky the hinges are.
WE MUST ALL BE WITH ONE ACCORD IN ONE PLACE!

Open your eyes! The Second Beast is stretching his Dragon lips to speak!

Your hair is wet. Your hands, your arms, your face, water runs down your cheeks like tears for the lost. Can you not feel it? The first drops of Rain have begun to fall...

A Time to Witness—"The Lord has enlightened us in regard to what is coming upon the earth that we may enlighten others, and we shall not be held guiltless if we are content to sit at ease, with folded hands, and quibble over matters of minor importance...." – {3SM 388.6}

Here is a bit of scientific evidence that, whatever the cause, things are RAPIDLY changing on planet Earth. The University of Maine collates water temperature data gathered from various satellites and buoy arrays such as the ARGO buoy swarm,  etc.
I trust everyone here is savvy enough to acknowledge the effect ocean temperature has on specific weather systems and climate in general?

The data below is from two days ago:


http://planetindistress.com/2015/08/18/t...h-this-picture/

Prodigal One, thank you. If we cannot say why Jesus is permitting man-made and natural disasters to cause wide spread death, disease, and disaster then we are in trouble. The quotes I posted above explain why. Time to read and heed.

"Time to read and heed!" Amen, Mountain Man!


Here are some weather records that might be of interest to those of you who read the University of Maine data:


July 2012 was the hottest month on record!
http://www.weather.com/news/news/noaa-report-july-20120808

July 2014 tied with July 2013 for the world's fourth hottest on record!
http://www.weather.com/science/news/july-2014-worlds-fourth-hottest-july-noaa-20140819

July 2015 was the hottest month for the entire planet ever recorded!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/july-2015-was-the-hottest-month-on-modern-record-1.3197748

It really is important to know what to warn the world of.

Is it really "good news", to tell the world that they better shape up or God is going to hurt them more than ever? Is that what we should warn them of?

Or is it that it doesn't really matter whether sin is hurting them or God is hurting them, but the important thing is they are going to get hurt more if they don't shape up?

Is that really "good news", is that really what we should warn them of?

Kland, the Bible takes the guess work out of it. Here's what Jesus said about it:

Revelation
14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive [his] mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here [are] they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

So you are attempting to validate my question?!

Kland, I will ignore your strawman statement (the quote you show does not say it is "good news"). I said, "they are warnings. If you are about to drink from a poisoned cup and someone warns you is it bad news, possibly; although, I think it would be worse news to be warned after drinking a fatal dose of the poison of sin and disobedience.

Is it really "God hurting them" if they choose to drink the poison of sin after He has warned them, in fact pleaded with them, not to?

I do believe it is good news that it is not yet too late, the sinner can turn from sin and be plucked from the coming fire. I also believe it is good news that the things coming to pass on the Earth presage the end of evil and the imminent arrival of our Lord!

Kland, Jesus stated the truth in the Scripture posted above in language so clear no one in their mind can mistake it.

You're missing the point. MM is not saying that God is warning them not to drink the poison, but that God is the one poisoning them.

P.S. Don't know what you are talking about a strawman, but I find those who accuse others of strawman, are generally dishonest. Are you an exception? Maybe due to not understanding my point?

You think it's clear, but have difficulty stating who killed Saul.


If Iran were to be allowed to use centrifuges for producing nuclear bombs and missiles, would you say they would be making use of the same destructive power as Japan did by failing to have a backup plan for their nuclear reactors resulting in all kinds of death and destruction?

Kland, you posted a quote from me, not Mountain Man. If you had a point to make concerning his words, it would seem more practical to post his statement not mine.

Your strawman argument was putting words into my mouth, the quote you posted had no mention of the unsaved being destroyed as "good news". You then proceeded to argue agains something I never said. This is a classic strawman approach and is in fact dishonest.

I have seen you post the generalization: "I find those who accuse others of strawman, are generally dishonest." before. Generalization is the path to prejudice and bigotry.

Again, Revelation 14:9-12 is too plain to misconstrue.

You said, warn the world. About what? You were responding to MM and me, saying we need to be of one accord. With what? You were talking about MM. So was I, but your argument was not valid.
[/quote]

Rev 14 does not talk about Saul. The point is that if you have difficulty stating who killed Saul, how can you be clear on anything else?


If Iran were to be allowed to use centrifuges for producing nuclear bombs and missiles, would you say they would be making use of the same destructive power as Japan did by failing to have a backup plan for their nuclear reactors resulting in all kinds of death and destruction?

Can you show support for that statement?

(Or is this supporting evidence for mine?)

1 Chronicles
10:4 Then said Saul to his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. So Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.
10:5 And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise on the sword, and died.
10:13 So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, [even] against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking [counsel] of [one that had] a familiar spirit, to inquire [of it];
10:14 And inquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.


Staying on topic. Jesus chose not to intervene and prevent the fallout at Fukushima. Nothing happens without Jesus' permission. King Saul died because Jesus chose not to intervene and prevent it. The man-made and natural disasters commonly blamed on Global Warming is the result of Jesus choosing not to intervene and prevent them.

The Third Angel's Message describes the results of Jesus choosing to rain down fire from above and to raise up fire from below. Nature is not self-acting. Jesus cannot simply withdraw and allow nature to work destruction of its own accord or volition. Nature would cease to work if Jesus ceased to employ it. Fire would not burn or exist if Jesus ceased to employ it. Nature works because Jesus works it.

I realize you believe Jesus need only withdraw His protection and the forces of nature would naturally unleash its pent up power and wreak indiscriminate death and destruction. But the Bible and the SOP clearly say something very different. Listen:


No one can read the above testimonies and conclude nature is self-acting, that Jesus need only withdraw and permit nature to wreak havoc of its own accord and volition.

(Noted you did not state yourself who killed Saul.)

You suggest that I think nature is an intelligent being. I'm wondering if you understand entropy.


Well, right now I was talking about Iranians. Do you think they are self-acting to the limits Jesus permits? If so, then
If Iran were to be allowed to use centrifuges for producing nuclear bombs and missiles, would you say they would be making use of the same destructive power as Japan did by failing to have a backup plan for their nuclear reactors resulting in all kinds of death and destruction?

I did not think this statement required support. I read the same post almost word for word several weeks ago and assumed that you were merely repeating yourself. Since, it might require days of searching to find the quote (I do not recall what thread it was in), it is possible that someone else said it. If this is the case, I apologize for my misstatement.

I do find it odd that you used the same phrase as another member? Perhaps, it is just a coincidence? Then again generalizations are contagious. I do stand by my point that such generalizations lead to prejudice and bigotry.

It is too obvious in the passage I quoted to require human commentary or interpretation. King Saul killed himself because Jesus did not intervene to prevent it.


The laws of thermal dynamics are not self-acting. They work because Jesus employs them.


You can name anyone or anything - the answer is the same, namely, nothing happens without Jesus' permission. Jesus can intervene at any time and prevent anything from happening. Fukushima happened because Jesus chose not to intervene and prevent it. This answer applies to everything that has ever happened in the history of the world. Nature is not self-acting. Jesus cannot just sit back and allow the laws of nature to play out of its own accord or volition. Nature would cease to work if Jesus chose not to employ it. It sounds like you disagree with this truth. It seems like you believe nature is self-acting, that Jesus need only stand back and allow it to act of its own accord or volition (and that in so doing He is somehow less culpable or not responsible at all).

Mountain Man said:

"It is too obvious in the passage I quoted to require human commentary or interpretation. King Saul killed himself because Jesus did not intervene to prevent it. "




Mountain Man, what is your view of free will.  Was humanity created in God's image in that we were given free will?   

If Saul's choice was suicide, God could only have interceded by rescinding the gift of free will.  In effect, this would have made Saul into a mere marionette.  The love and worship of a marionette would be vain and less than worthless.

Is that a choice God could or would have been able to make without besmirching His own character?

What are your thoughts?

Well, right now I wasn't talking about nature being or not being self-acting. I was talking about Iranians. Actually, not the Iranians, but the nuclear destructive power they want to use. Do you think they are self-acting to the limits Jesus permits? If so, then If Iran were to be allowed to use centrifuges for producing nuclear bombs and missiles, would you say they would be making use of the same destructive power as Japan did by failing to have a backup plan for their nuclear reactors resulting in all kinds of death and destruction?

Not addressing that right now.
Not talking about nature, not talking about it acting on it's own accord. What I'm talking about are the Iranians.

Do you think Iranians are self-acting to the limits Jesus permits? Or is this what you were trying to say, that Iranians cannot act within the limits that Jesus permits? That they cannot act on their own?

Then I would have to ask you something similar to what ProdigalOne asked about free will.

Kland, it doesn't matter what the Iranians do or don't do with nuclear material. What matters is what Jesus does or doesn't do about it. Even if Iran owned all the weaponized nuclear material in the world, it wouldn't matter because Jesus is in control. If Iran were to launch nuclear bombs, whether or not they explode and inflict casualties is up to Jesus. He can intervene and prevent them from causing harm. Or, He can choose to allow them to spread death far and wide. The responsibility rests with Jesus - not Iran, not evil angels.

If death, destruction, and misery are His choice, if "the responsibility rests with Jesus", then how can the Lord hold anyone guilty of breaking the Commandments?

This line of reasoning would appear to lay responsibility for sin upon God?

APL, the sin has already been committed. Sinners are free to sin. Jesus doesn't intervene and prevent sinners from choosing to sin. Instead, Jesus is free to intervene and prevent the consequences of their sinful choices from playing out negatively. Or, He can permit it to play out this way or that way however He sees fit. The responsibility of how things play out rests with Jesus.

Yes it does.

Oops! This post was written in response to Prodigal One's post (not APL):

The responsibility rests with Jesus. The only reason terrible things happen is because Jesus chooses not to intervene and prevent it. However, it is more accurate to say He is sometimes forced to permit things to play out in terrible ways. Why? Because of the Great Controversy. The rules of engagement dictate how things can play out. Jesus is not at liberty to allow things to happen that are not best for the Great Controversy. Because He can do no wrong, Jesus will always do the right and best thing under the circumstances. Sometimes that means causing or commanding terrible things to happen. And sometimes it means permitting evil men and evil angels to do terrible things. Either way, Jesus is in control. Humans are free to think and do; and Jesus is free to manage the outcome of their actions and choices. Nothing happens without His permission. The responsibility rests with Jesus.

The planet destroying things blamed on Global Warming are happening because Jesus is choosing not to intervene and prevent them. Why? Why is Jesus allowing natural and man-made death, disease, and disasters to happen so frequently, so devastatingly? What purpose does it serve? What is His end goal?

I believe you have hit the nail on the head, Mountain Man.
The point is not who is doing it, but what is happening and why?

Surely, the increasing troubles on planet Earth should be directing our thoughts to God, and to the state of our own souls: are we as a Church and as individuals, prepared for the momentous events we can see are soon to occur? Assuming we have accepted His forgiveness, are we actively cooperating with the Holy Spirit's work of purification in our hearts and minds, so that we may overcome and be ready to stand with our Lord through the coming time of darkness?

Of course we must be constantly on the lookout for the signs Jesus gave us through the Bible and the Spirit of Prophesy. We must be vigilant, faithful, Watchmen. A thread such as this should be for us to compare notes and observations. The city of God has walls facing the four corners of the Earth. One guard alone cannot see in every direction. We should be giving the warning to each other as well as the world. We must become "of one accord".

The Devil instigates times of trouble to frighten and confuse us, to divide us, to "sift us like flour". The Lord God permits Times of Trouble to increase our faith, to refine us like gold, to pull back the curtain and open our eyes, to unite us as one righteous body prepared for His coming!

Are we constantly engaging in fruitless arguments over details that cannot help our holy work? Let us turn away from the Devil's diversions. Let us join ourselves together in brotherhood, in the Love of Christ. Let us raise our voices in harmony, a chorus of prayer for the Spirit of God to sanctify His Body. Together, let us seek the strength to deliver the Final Warning and hasten the coming of our Mighty King!

In Jesus name, let it be!

My hands are lifted up and I'm shouting, Yes. Be it.

This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Ephesians 4:18; Proverbs 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them. {DA 764.1}

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe. {DA 764.2}

But not so when the great controversy shall be ended. Then, the plan of redemption having been completed, the character of God is revealed to all created intelligences. The precepts of His law are seen to be perfect and immutable. Then sin has made manifest its nature, Satan his character. Then the extermination of sin will vindicate God's love and establish His honor before a universe of beings who delight to do His will, and in whose heart is His law. {DA 764.3}

Sigh.

Sigh.......


Double Sigh!


You seem to have a propensity of answering questions not asked. Even when asked again and again, you answer some other question.


I didn't ask what matters.

I didn't ask whether it would inflict casualties.
I didn't ask if it was up to Jesus.

I didn't ask if Jesus could intervene or not.

I didn't ask where the responsibility rests.

What I did ask was:
If Iran were to be allowed to use centrifuges for producing nuclear bombs and missiles, would you say they would be making use of the same destructive power as Japan did by failing to have a backup plan for their nuclear reactors resulting in all kinds of death and destruction?

But something tells me you are wishing to avoid answering the question I ask and choosing to answer what is not asked. It IS indeed very tedious in trying to converse with you when you don't respond to what is asked.

So let me try to meet you where you are:

If Jesus were to cause the Iranians to use centrifuges for producing nuclear bombs and missiles, would you say

Jesus would be making use of the same destructive power as

Jesus did when He caused Japan by failing to have a backup plan for their nuclear reactors resulting in all kinds of death and destruction?


Do you understand the question? Is it the same destructive power in both instances?

I don't know enough about nuclear material to answer your question. Is nuclear material the same in power plants and bombs blasts? Why do you ask?


Same answer as above.

Kland, why did Fukushima happen? And, why didn't Jesus intervene and prevent it?

Imported from elsewhere:


No, I do not. Thank you for asking (instead of assuming).


I believe APL's view explains it best, namely, Jesus withdraws His protection and permits evil men and evil angels to torture and kill innocent women and children.


He rightly bases his idea on passages like the following:


APL believes Jesus has never acted in a violent way. In so saying, he means things like the Flood, the fire that killed Sodom, the fire that killed Nadab and Abihu, the fire that killed the soldiers sent to apprehend Elisha, the demise of Ananias and Sapphira, etc happened when Jesus withdrew His protection and permitted evil angels to do it. Things like that need to happen, from time to time, it's just that Jesus leaves it up to evil men and evil angels to do it. Otherwise, it wouldn't happen.

Maybe that's why you do not answer? Let's assume a general definition of nuclear power: Fission. Not a certain type of fission. Not a certain type of fission from a certain type of element. Just fission in general of anything.

(And by the way, Iran's premise is they need the centrifuges for producing fuel to fuel nuclear power plants. Meaning, the material inspectors would be inspecting for would not be distinguishable regarding what the intended result was.

And by the way, we are not talking about the explosion, but the long term destructive power that is killing the wildlife which is being construed as global warming.

And by the way, consider the irony of Japan being bombed with nuclear bombs leading to long term destructive power hurting wildlife and people and now it's from their own power plants.
)


Using fission in general of any material:

So now, can you answer the question?

If Jesus were to cause the Iranians to use centrifuges for producing nuclear bombs and missiles, would you say Jesus would be making use of the same destructive power as Jesus did when He caused Japan by failing to have a backup plan for their nuclear reactors resulting in all kinds of death and destruction?

Excellent quote Mountain Man!

"Men cannot with impunity reject the warning which God in mercy sends them. A message was sent from heaven to the world in Noah's day, and their salvation depended upon the manner in which they treated that message. Because they rejected the warning, the Spirit of God was withdrawn from the sinful race, and they perished in the waters of the Flood." G.C. 431.1


The repercussions of humanities rejection of God's Spirit had not completely occurred to me. In effect, Probation ended for those "men of renown". With their long years of experience, potent intellects and sheer physical attributes, the evil wrought in that arrogant generation must have been staggering.

I wonder, as the rain began to fall, did they sit around debating whether it was caused by God, or Satan, or perhaps by one of their own perversions of the Earth's natural forces?

Brothers and Sisters, it's time to get on the boat!

"But as the days of Noe [were], so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." Matthew 24:37

Prodigal One, thank you for sharing. Amen!

Again, why did Fukushima happen? And, why didn't Jesus intervene and prevent it? You haven't answered these questions. Do you think Jesus caused Fukushima to happen? Or, do you think He allowed it to happen by choosing not to intervene and prevent it? Personally, I do not believe Jesus caused Fukushima to happen. I believe He allowed it to happen by not intervening and preventing it.

You asked, "If Jesus were to cause the Iranians to . . . ." Do you think Jesus causes people and nations to do things? Or, do you believe He respects freewill? Personally, I do not believe Jesus causes people and nations to do things.

You asked, ". . . would you say Jesus would be making use of . . . ." I do not believe Jesus makes use of things. Instead, I believe He permits things to happen by not intervening and preventing them. But more than this, He works to ensure the things He permits do not exceed the limits He sets. He manages them.

You asked, ". . . as Jesus did when He caused Japan . . . ." Again, Jesus does not cause people or nations to do things.

Amen!
Amen!
Amen!

The world of sin is on the edge of destruction.
There is salvation and hope ONLY in Christ.