It’s time to apply endangered species, wildlife and economic laws fairly and equitably .

“… gleaming white wind turbines generating carbon-free electricity carpet chaparral-covered ridges and march down into valleys of Joshua trees.” This is “the future” of American energy – not “the oil rigs planted helter-skelter in [nearby] citrus groves,” nor the “smoggy San Joaquin Valley” a few miles away.

The Forbes article’s poetic paean to Aeolian energy nevertheless voiced consternation that a 300-megawatt “green” turbine project might kill some of the magnificent California condors that are just coming back from the edge of extinction – and the project might be cancelled as a result.

Indeed, the US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) has asked Kern County to “exercise extreme caution” in approving projects in the Tehapachi area, because of potential threats to condors. The “conundrum will force some hard choices about the balance we are willing to strike between obtaining clean energy and preserving wild things,” the article suggested. Hopefully, it concluded, new “avian radar units” will be able to detect condors and automatically shut down turbines when one approaches.

All Americans hope condors will not be sliced and diced by giant Cuisinarts. But most of us are puzzled that so few “environmentalists” and FWS “caretakers” express concern about the countless bald and golden eagles, hawks, falcons, vultures, ducks, geese, bats and other rare, threatened, endangered and common flying creatures imperiled by turbine blades.

And many of us get downright angry at the selective, indeed hypocritical ways in which endangered species and other wildlife laws are applied – leaving wind turbine operators free to exact their carnage, while harassing and punishing oil companies and citizens.

In 2011, following an intensive million-dollar, 45-day helicopter search for dead birds in North Dakota oil fields by FWS officials, US Attorney Timothy Purdon prosecuted seven oil and gas companies for inadvertently killing 28 mallard ducks, flycatchers and other common birds that were found dead in or near uncovered waste pits. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the companies and their executive officers faced fines of up to $15,000 per bird, plus six months in prison. (They eventually agreed to plead guilty and pay $1,000 per bird.)

Also in 2011, an FWS agent charged an 11-year-old Virginia girl with illegally “taking” a baby woodpecker that the girl had rescued from a housecat, even though she intended to release the bird after ensuring it was OK. The threatened $535 fine was finally dropped, after the FWS was deservedly ridiculed in the media.

The mere possession of an eagle feather by a non-Indian can result in fines and imprisonment, even if the feather came from a bird butchered by a wind turbine: up to $100,000, a year in prison or both for a first offense. Poisoning or otherwise killing common bats that have nested in one’s attic can cost homeowners thousands of dollars in fines.

Wind turbine companies, officers and employees, however, are immune from prosecution, fines or imprisonment, regardless of how many rare, threatened, endangered or migratory birds and bats they kill. In fact, FWS data show that wind turbines slaughter some 400,000 birds every year. If “helter-skelter” applies to any energy source, it is wind turbines, reflecting their Charles Manson effect on birds.

The hypocritical Obama-Purdon-FWS policy certainly protects, promotes and advances an anti-hydrocarbon, catastrophic global warming agenda that is increasingly at odds with environmental, scientific, economic, job-creation and public opinion reality. It also safeguards wind turbines that survive solely because of government mandates, taxpayer subsidies … and exemptions from laws that penalize and terrorize the rest of us.

It may be true that housecats and reflective windows kill more songbirds than turbines do. However, that oft-cited defense of wind energy Cuisinarts is irrelevant to the birds and bats discussed here.

Even if avian radar and turbine shutdown systems do eventually work, and can actually and abruptly stop turbine blades before they butcher an approaching bird, should they be limited to condors? Shouldn’t they be required for eagles and falcons – and for hawks, ducks, flycatchers, bats and other protected species? Geese, for example, to prevent a repeat of the December 7, 2011 massacre of numerous snow geese by wind turbines along upstate New York Route 190, as reported by a motorist?

Why aren’t wind developers and permitting authorities required to consider the lost economic benefits of butchered birds and bats, which do so much to control rats and insects that carry diseases and destroy crops? Shouldn’t that analysis be made mandatory, as more wind projects are proposed, thereby posing an ever-increasing threat to numerous species – and even to the survival of some?

Of course, even condor protection alone could reduce affected turbine electricity output to 20 or even 10% of rated capacity, instead of their current 30% average. Adding other protected species would drive nearly all actual wind turbine electricity output down below 5% – making the turbines virtually worthless, and driving the exorbitant cost of wind energy even higher.

But why should wind turbines be above the law? In fact, why should we even worry about reducing their electricity output?

America’s environmentalists, legislators, judges and bureaucrats have already made hundreds of millions of acres of resource-rich land off limits – and rendered centuries of oil, gas, coal, uranium, geothermal and other energy unavailable. The Environmental Protection Agency’s anti-coal zero-pollution rules, intense opposition to the Keystone pipeline, and looming restrictions on hydraulic fracturing for natural gas are already further impairing electricity and other energy availability and reliability.

This government-imposed energy deprivation is already driving families into energy poverty and sending more jobs overseas.

Put bluntly, wind energy is unsustainable. It kills unconscionable numbers of bats, raptors and other birds. It requires billions in perpetual subsidies – and billions more for (mostly) gas-fired backup generators. It impacts millions of acres of scenic, wildlife and agricultural land – and depends on vast amounts of raw materials, whose extraction and processing further impairs global land, air and water quality. Its expensive, unreliable electricity kills two jobs for every one supposedly created.

A far more rational public policy would cut out the costly, unreliable middleman. It would forget about wind turbines, simply build more gas, coal and nuclear generators, to generate reliable, affordable, sustainable electricity – and apply the same laws fairly and equitably to all energy sources.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

 

WesternFront America

The Environmental Protection Agency has begun to feel our breath on their necks and they are lashing out.

An article by Lisa P. Jackson entitled “Too Dirty too Fail — House Republicans’ assault on our environmental laws must be stopped.” appeared in the L. A. Times October 21^st 2011. In the article, the author says the following: “Since the beginning of this year, Republicans in the House have averaged roughly a vote every day the chamber has been in session to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency and our nation’s environmental laws. They have picked up the pace recently — just last week they voted to stop the EPA’s efforts to limit mercury and other hazardous pollutants from cement plants, boilers and incinerators — and it appears their campaign will continue for the foreseeable future.” (Ms. Jackson is the administrator of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.)

To this I say: “Hallelujah!” If America is fortunate enough to actually have a Congress and White House controlled by Republicans, after next year’s election, one of its priorities should be the abolishment of the EPA.

The EPA is the “Vatican” of the pagan religion “Environmentalism.” In this century, and the last, so many have turned from the worship of a supreme being, we call God, to what we used to call “paganism”… the worship of nature, or the environment, or… more specifically… Environmentalism.

Yes, Environmentalism HAS become a religion. Well, actually, it always was, it has just come back into favor in the past 100 years, or so.

I do feel it is incumbent on the Republican Party to “put down” the EPA. After all, it was the administration of a Republican President, Richard Nixon, which established the Environmental Protection Agency in the first place. So the GOP owes it to America to put the EPA out of its misery … or rather, relieve America’s misery by abolishing the EPA.

The EPA is the government agency from Hell. It has grown in size and power like an insatiable beast. Its tentacles have spread throughout America and reached into nearly every aspect of American life. No one in America is safe from the EPA.

And it continues to gorge and grow. Just last November The Wall Street Journal published an editorial entitled: “The EPA Permitorium.” In the article the WSJ said: “The scale of the EPA’s current assault is unprecedented, yet it has received almost no public scrutiny. Since Mr. Obama took office, the agency has proposed or finalized 29 major regulations and 172 major policy rules.”

Look. It was bad enough that the EPA declared CO2 a greenhouse gas. Many in my generation learned in their elementary school science class that CO2 is absolutely necessary for everything on earth to … LIVE.
Then the EPA decided to look into regulating DUST … you know … >DIRT tossed into the air and carried on the wind currents.

“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is considering a crackdown on farm dust, so 21 Senators signed a letter addressing their concerns on the possible regulations.

The letter dated July 23 to the EPA states, “If approved, would establish the most stringent and unparalleled regulation of dust in our nation’s history.” It further states, “We respect efforts for a clean and healthy environment, but not at the expense of common sense. These identified levels will be extremely burdensome for farmers and livestock producers to attain. Whether its livestock kicking up dust, soybeans being combined on a dry day in the fall, or driving a car down the gravel road, dust is a naturally occurring event.”SOURCE.

Consider this from an editorial in the Oil & Gas Journal: “EPA, acting under authority of a loopy decision in 2007 by the Supreme Court, started down this wayward path in part to press Congress into action on climate change. Lawmakers should consider that an institutional affront. In the face of last year’s collapse of cap-and-trade legislation in the Senate, in fact, they should see EPA’s persistence as the potential for a constitutional crisis.

This is an Executive Branch agency claiming control of a major dimension of the US economy in contradiction of the will of the people as expressed through Congress. Congress must stop it. Congress must set clear and permanent limits on the maverick agency’s authority and behavior. Congress must act soon.” (SOURCE.)

Just reining in the EPA will not do. It is not nearly enough.The agency needs to be permanently put out of business. No government agency should ever have the power or the reach of the current EPA. Shut it down, lock the doors, board-up the windows and throw away the key.

J. D. Longstreet

Conservative? Then visit “INSIGHT on Freedom” at http://www.csadispatch.blogspot.com/ Find conservative comment on nearly everything at “INSIGHT on Freedom!”

 

WesternFront America

Millions of Americans recently celebrated the demise of the Environmental Protection Agency’s job-killing ground-level ozone regulations. While a toast was appropriate, we shouldn’t drink too much champagne just yet.

As with the Battle of Midway and Lt. Col. James Doolittle’s Tokyo Raid in early 1942, White House action on this single EPA rule is merely a welcome victory in a long struggle. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce may have declared, “Now, at least they’re listening,” but other observers say the EPA and Obama administration are still tone deaf.

Indeed, a major factor in the White House decision on ozone was a map showing that 85% of America’s counties would be out of compliance with the Clean Air Act if the new rules were implemented. That would mean no new construction or manufacturing projects could begin – and no jobs “created or saved” – until billions are spent to bring existing facilities into compliance with arbitrary new ozone standards.

Many of those counties are in politically important states like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia – which better explains the administration’s sudden “conversion,” than does any supposed recognition that its rules are unnecessary and harmful. Moreover, the ozone rule was not killed; it was postponed until after the 2012 elections, to safeguard jobs: White House, administration, Democrat and SEIU jobs.

The administration’s mile-long regulatory freight train merely paused to shunt the ozone boxcar onto a siding, to be retrieved later. The engines and remaining cars are still roaring down the tracks, heading for a collision with a sick economy that has left 14 million Americans jobless, 9 million forced to take part-time work, 2.5 million who have given up looking for jobs, and 46 million on food stamps.

Orchestrated environmentalist outrage over the delayed ozone rule may deflect attention from the rest of the freight train, and make it easier to impose hundreds of other regulations. In fact, reams of complex Dodd-Frank financial rules and Obamacare health sector regulations are still onboard, as are National Labor Relations Board unionizing schemes, Agriculture and Interior Department land use regulations, and many others.

The Energy Department continues to lavish taxpayer dollars on expensive wind and solar projects that provide minimal energy at exorbitant cost, even after two more solar companies went bankrupt, costing Americans another $1 billion and 1,900 jobs. Solyndra alone cost US taxpayers $535 million, to create 1,100 temporary jobs at $485,000 apiece. They’re all gone now.

Citing Energy Department reports, the Washington Post reports that the $39-billion loan guarantee program, which President Obama promised would “create or save” 65,000 jobs, has instead spawned a measly 3,545 new, supposedly permanent jobs – after blowing nearly $18 billion, or $5 million per job.

Green jobs? Greenback jobs is more like it – taxpayer greenbacks for Obama and cronies. Worse, by draining billions from taxpayers, consumers and productive sectors of the American economy, the administration is killing two to three traditional, sustainable jobs for each greenback job it creates.

Then there is EPA, which even in this toxic environment remains the biggest single job-killing agency in government. Its ozone rulemaking is just one of dozens it has planned, finalized, or brought to the brink of sign-off and implementation.

Unable to get cap-tax-and-trade passed in Congress, EPA has its economy-killing carbon dioxide rules waiting on a railway siding, until the November elections spur a regulatory frenzy. It is still preparing coal-fired power plant emission rules to control the 0.5% of mercury that actually enters America’s atmosphere from those facilities, as well as expensive regulations on heavy-duty trucks.

“Cross-state” air pollution regulations will force utilities in a few states to install billion-dollar retrofits on coal-fired power plants that EPA computer models say could (minimally) affect air quality hundreds of miles away. EPA claims 20 states affect downwind states during the May-September NOx/ozone season, but demands that Florida shoulder 79% of the national responsibility.

It claims seven states affect Houston’s air quality, but wants Florida to provide 94% of the alleged benefits for the Texas city, 800 miles away, across the sultry, largely windless summertime Gulf of Mexico – after Florida utilities already reduced their NOx emissions by two-thirds since 2003. EPA also says Texas must retrofit power plants that might affect Illinois communities 400 miles away.

Even crazier, EPA is using outdated air pollution measurements to justify these rules. In reality, data from recent years show the supposedly impacted cities already meet national ambient air quality standards.

EPA’s “maximum achievable control technologies” (MACT) rules will impact power sources in factories and refineries. Its “reciprocating ignition compression engine” (RICE) rules will curtail the availability of thousands of backup, “peaking” and emergency generators at colleges, hospitals, malls, groceries and other facilities. When storms knock out power, or heat waves strain overloaded grids, the dearth of electricity will cause brownouts, blackouts and widespread chaos, especially in hospitals.

Coal ash and water quality rules will raise costs even further for nearly half of America’s power plants – and electricity users – for minimal environmental gain.

For three years EPA has used global warming claims to oppose the Keystone XL pipeline project, which could create hundreds of thousands of American refinery, construction, manufacturing, financial and other jobs – and stymie Shell’s oil drilling plans in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea.

In every instance, EPA claims “the regulatory benefits far exceed the costs.” However, as independent natural scientist Dr. Willie Soon and other analysts have documented, the health, welfare and environmental risks and benefits have frequently been exaggerated or even fabricated.

Worse, EPA steadfastly refuses to consider the significant adverse effects that its rules will have on human health and welfare. The cumulative weight of these rules will send energy costs skyrocketing and kill millions of additional jobs, Affordable Power Alliance co-chair Niger Innis points out.

Poor and newly jobless families will be even less able to afford gasoline, clothing, healthcare, proper nutrition and other basic needs, Innis notes. Many will suffer increased stress, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence and crime rates. Many low income families will be unable to afford proper heating during frigid winter months or air conditioning during summer heat waves. People will die.

Equally outrageous, while it may have shunted its ozone boxcar onto a railway siding, EPA is ramping up its campaign to rally support for its dangerous policies. Under its “Plan EJ 2014” initiative and other programs, the agency is “leading from behind” – funneling millions of taxpayer dollars to minority, low-income and environmentalist groups that will advance EPA’s rulemaking, permitting, compliance, enforcement and other agenda items under guise of “environmental justice” and “civil rights” claims.

The Environmental Protection Agency is setting the stage for a national disaster.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson insists she wants “a real conversation about protecting our health and the environment.” By all means, let’s have that conversation. It’s likely, however, that she and her radical allies will not enjoy it one small bit.

_______________

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

 

WesternFront America

The pre–Labor Day holiday run up was a good week for stating the obvious in the Washington Post.

An area high school student, who shall remain nameless, concluded that outsourcing her science project to the parents was passé, so she decided to see if it would be possible to recruit an actual scientist to do the work.

The enterprising young lady emailed “three or four chemistry professors” to see if they would be interested in analyzing how much of the chemical used to dry–clean clothes remained in the clothing after it was returned to the customer.

Most of her targets ignored her — possibly because they believe in ‘global warming’ and their cleaning involves going down to the river to beat cargo shorts on the rocks — but one recipient at Georgetown University agreed.

Sure enough, after extensive cleaning and testing, the brainiacs at Georgetown discovered that dry–cleaned sweater wool retained a perchloroethylene (PERC) level “as high as 126 parts per million.”

As my lovely wife, Janet, said, “Why wouldn’t it and so what?”

For that matter, sometimes my pants return from the dry–cleaners with crumbs in a pocket and I don’t make a federal case of it. (Although after reading about this science project I doubt I’ll be eating them again.)

I’d rather have that new dry–cleaned smell on my pants than the gravy stain that was there when I dropped them off.

To add a bit of context, the feds allow wine makers a sulfite level of 350 parts per million and people are intentionally drinking vino; to say nothing of asparagus makers who cool the crop in water containing 125 parts per million of chlorine — 41 times the amount you’ll find in your neighborhood pool.

But don’t get me wrong — I’m not criticizing our girl scientist. Her idea was simple and achievable — once she recruited a major university to do the heavy lifting. It reminds me of a project my engineer roommate was assigned in college. The professor told them to improve the design of an existing product, but to keep it simple. So students were redesigning Saturn rockets, gas spectrometers and racecars. Lester, on the other hand, showed how drilling four holes in dorm soap dishes would keep the Irish Spring from turning into mush. He received an ‘A.’

The problem I have is with the coverage of the project, which proves once again you don’t have to be hysterical to report on the environment, but it helps. The Post reporter writes as if she just discovered salmonella in her sprouts.

The story moves from the analysis of PERC remaining in small squares of cloth to discussing potential devastating health effects, particularly CANCER!!!, with the usual chemical alarmists.

One heavy–breathing example: “it was difficult to say how much risk consumers might face from wearing, say, dry–cleaned wool pants for a year or breathing air from a closet full of dry–cleaned clothes.”

I can see it now — edgy high school rebels who are pushing the limits will no longer be found under the bleachers stealing a few puffs. Instead, they’ll congregate inside a walk–in closet sniffing dad’s Brooks Brothers while the au pair wonders why Brittany seems so jittery.

A worry–wart at the University of Pennsylvania thought someone “who delivers dry cleaning for a living could face higher exposures than workers in a plant.” Dry cleaning delivery? Hmmm. Oh, yes, now I remember! He’s the man who arrives each morning after the milkman drops off the 2 percent and just before the Webvan driver gets here with the rest of the groceries.

Besides the threat to imaginary occupations, there is also danger for consumers. The team used a computer model to calculate that four newly–cleaned wool sweaters, placed beside a golden retriever inside a hot SUV with the windows rolled up, might produce the dreaded 126 parts per million of PERC that exceeds OSHA limits.

But the good news is the dog’s deathbed was extremely soft.

The problem I have with that ‘evidence’ is that I don’t pile clean sweaters inside my car like a North Korean nuclear waste dump. My cleaners may be cheap, but the clothes come to me in a fume–trapping bag.

Besides the symptoms of PERC overexposure are fairly obvious. If you feel confused, dizzy, drowsy, irritated and have a headache your discomfort is not being caused by your husband’s insatiable demands for sex or a bad batch of sour mash.

You’ve simply been spending too much time in the closet with the door closed admiring your wardrobe.

Michael R. Shannon is a public relations and advertising consultant with corporate, government and political experience around the globe. He can be reached at michael-shannon@comcast.net.

Michael R. Shannon
MANDATE: Message, Media & Public Relations
703-583-6277
571-969-1995 Google Voice
http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelrshannon
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-washington-dc/michael-shannon

 

WesternFront America

It may be “secular,” but environmentalism makes “Mother Earth” its object of special devotion.

By Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen

As we reflect on Earth Day 2011 (April 22) and on passionate appeals that we support environmental initiatives almost too numerous to count, we should also reflect on a fundamental new reality.

Environmentalism has replaced religion for many of its adherents.

The ending “-ism” denotes a way of thinking, perceiving and structuring one’s life. Every “ism” is based on underlying assumptions, principles and beliefs that tell its adherents what they ought to believe and do. Providing ethical guidance for its members is a major part of what an “-ism” does.

Followers of Judaism who observe Passover as their ancestors’ liberation from slavery in Egypt – and Christians who commemorate the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ at Easter – have no problem acknowledging that these are matters of belief.

They would never claim that science provides absolute proof of authenticity – although many find in science valuable support for the validity of their beliefs. Those who can see an underlying compatibility between science and religious faith are comfortable in both realms.

Environmentalism likewise provides ethical guidance. But its followers generally recoil from the suggestion that it’s a religion. The traditional buildings and rituals are absent; moreover, many adherents come from a background of explicitly rejecting “institutional” religions. Nevertheless, a careful examination of the basic assumptions shows that environmentalism indeed meets the criteria of a secular religion.

In environmentalism, “Mother Earth” (Gaia the Earth Goddess) replaces God as the object of special devotion, causing some of environmentalism’s subsequent assertions to be in direct opposition to fundamental teachings of Christianity and Judaism. Another cornerstone belief is that mankind is just one species among many; this view opposes the Judeo-Christian belief that God considers mankind to be very special.

Science appears to play a major role in environmentalism, but actually its role is distinctly secondary: Science is used subjectively, not objectively. After a set of beliefs has been established, various fields of science (and scholarly studies within those fields), are carefully sifted to select facts that support those beliefs. Facts and scientific fields that contravene or fail to support core beliefs are rejected or ignored.

That’s not the way science is supposed to work. However, it happens every day in environmentalism, as reflected in movies, magazines, blogs, television programs, newspapers – and legislative and regulatory initiatives.

In his excellent book, “The New Holy Wars: Economic Religion vs. Environmental Religion in Contemporary America,” Professor Robert H. Nelson likens the contemporary struggle between those two secular religions to John Calvin’s struggle against the establishment of Catholicism 500 years ago.

Nelson’s book concludes: “It is time to take secular religion seriously. It is real religion. In the twentieth century, it showed greater energy, won more converts, and had more impact on the western world than the traditional, institutional forms of Christianity.”

For the believing environmentalist, there is a certain “Garden of Eden” narrative: the beginning of evil came with the development of agriculture, when mankind rose above hunter-gatherer status and began to control and improve on nature to meet his needs. Thereafter came civilization and all its negative environmental effects and associations. The whole story hangs together within a religious framework.

In America today, the religion of environmentalism has the distinct advantage of being taught in the public schools, and receiving plentiful government funding. Some of its beliefs are fairly benign, such as sympathy for polar bear cubs. But other beliefs have had horrible consequences.

The chemical spray DDT is a powerful weapon against malaria. It wiped the disease out in the developed world. Sprayed on walls, DDT acts for six months or more with a single application, keeping mosquitoes out of homes, preventing them from biting, and killing any that land.

However, environmental activism and incorrect scientific interpretations led politicians to believe DDT harmed birds and fish, and the insecticide was banned in the United States in 1972. Since then, it has been largely purged from the disease control arsenal worldwide, even though malaria still infects a billion people in poor countries every year, killing up to one million.

Today, many environmentalists view the alleged dangers of using DDT as being worse than the misery and death caused by the disease. Since 1972, at least 20 million African children have died from malaria.

Throwing trash out of your car window is considered a sin by environmentalism. In other religions, allowing the preventable death of millions of children is a far greater sin.

This year Easter, Passover and Earth Day all came close together. Now may be a good time to ask whether environmentalism can be reconciled with traditional religions.

Most religious people who believe in God as Christians or Jews also want to protect the environment. They see ecological stewardship as part of their responsibility to God.

Indeed, that is the message of another excellent book, “Environmental Stewardship in the Judeo-Christian Tradition.” Published by the Acton Institute a decade ago, it is a brief collection of essays by Protestant, Jewish and Catholic scholars who have pondered how and why their own faith embraces care for God’s creation.

In all cases, these authors root their arguments in Scripture, abetted by an understanding of modern science. They stress that the word “dominion” used in the Bible does not mean people have a right to wreck the planet. Rather, it means mankind is a partner chosen by God to be a responsible steward of creation.

Emphatically, these Christian and Jewish authors do not regard mankind as just “one species among many.” And they don’t confuse “mother earth” with God.

Tom Sheahen is director of the Institute for Theological Encounter with Science and Technology, the leading Catholic organization that strives to bring faith and science together. Readers who wish to comment on this article may do so on this website, or at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=114517700573

 

WesternFront America

By J. D. Longstreet

Today is Good Friday. Traditionally the Day Christ was crucified. Today is also Earth Day. It is a date set aside to worship the earth (paganism). Today is also the birthday of Vladimir Lenin, (April 22^nd 1870). Lenin was a Russian Marxist revolutionary, author, lawyer, economic theorist, and political philosopher among other things. Lenin created the Soviet Communist Party.

We agree with the folks at “TheBlogProf” who say: “It is no coincidence that Earth Day, April 22, was chosen to coincide with the birthday of Vladimir Lenin. A day that celebrates communism as the gold standard of human civilization. Never mind that it has never worked as advertised, creating disorder rather than order. Environmentalism, the religion du jour of the 21st century, has very similar ends of government control under the guise of being good stewards of the planet.” (We recommend you read the entire article HERE.)

Please note how the writer at TheBlogProf refers to environmentalism:

“Environmentalism, the religion du jour of the 21st century … ”

In our opinion, the writer is dead on. Environmentalism has become a full-fledged religion.

As I have said before: we have a hodge-podge of religions is America. Having said that, we have to admit that some are uplifting while others are, well, just plain goofy.

I learned early on in my education that one of the most interesting discoveries, made by anthropologists, is that the human animal will, somehow, create a religion – or religions. Scientists tell us the human animal must have belief in something that gives meaning to his, or her, existence. We human animals long for a power greater than our own. It seems to come in our wiring. I happen to believe that is true.

If I may be allowed to explain: If one believes in the divine creator, as I do, then one believes the human animal was created by that divine creator referred to simply as God. Just as a child will long for his parents I believe humans long for their parent – God. Seems to me, that is an explanation for the longing man has for a divine being and leads him to create an “idol” of practically anything that will provide him a focus point for that parent he instinctively knows is there — yet remains unseen.

I am not a theologian. But, I must tell you I think my explanation for man’s endeavor to close the gap between man an God, existent since the Garden of Eden, is as good as any. Christians will tell you that Christ, God’s Son, came to this earth and closed that gap 2,000 years ago. He was perceived by the corrupt government of his day as a threat and, as a result, he was executed. Christians believe that three days later he rose from the dead and returned home but not before promising to return and clean up the mess we have made.

That was around 2,000 years ago. Things have changed for the worst. In this century, and the last, so many have turned from the worship of a supreme being, we call God, to what we used to call “paganism”… the worship of nature, or the environment, or… more specifically… Environmentalism.

Yes, Environmentalism HAS become a religion. Well, actually, it always was, it has just come back into favor in the past 100 years, or so.

One thing I want to set straight before continuing, nature is not God. It is my belief that GOD created nature. Now, we can continue.

Michael Crichton, in his “Environmentalism as Religion” remarks made before the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco in 2003, summed it all up rather nicely, I think:

“The believers in environmentalism believe and preach that we should live in unity with nature, or the environment. They believe that in the beginning we did. They believe that we are now living in sin because we have polluted the earth. We will be visited with a judgment day and the judgment will be death, for the whole planet, unless we repent, (which means to turn around and go the other way) and make our way back to sustainability. You see, in the environmentalism religion, sustainability IS salvation.”” … Michael Crichton. See Crichton’s remarks here: HERE.

The environmental religionists are calling for us to repent. We are doomed, they say, as a result of pollution, global warming, running out of oil, the whole list of tribulations the environmentalist faithful are so sure are coming.

They believe that man and nature should co-exist in one accord. Humans have never done that. Why … because it is impossible. Man has always been at nature’s mercy. Nature is unforgiving. Nature will kill you in a split second! The evidence is all around me as I sit here writing in North Carolina where we were ravaged just last weekend by an assault force of tornadoes killing scores and damaging property that will take decades to repair, if ever.

Today, we have all the preachers of the Church of Environmentalism, preaching at us non-stop. They preach fear. They preach gloom and doom. They preach forsaking progress and returning to the days when man lived in harmony with nature, even though no such period ever existed in the history of mankind.

Many feel that inside that outer shell of green, the environmentalists so proudly wear, is the red of communism. Like a watermelon, on the outside it is green. Conversely, on the inside it is red. And therein lies the connection with Earth Day’s observance on the birthday of Vladimir Lenin one of the founders of communism.

The environmental movement is in direct conflict with the Christian religion and, in our opinion; Christians should stir clear of any involvement with the greenies, the “useful idiots” of the Marxists and communists, intent on the destruction of all those rights granted to man by God.

Earth Day is a pagan celebration, and I want no part in it.

J. D. Longstreet blogs daily at INSIGHT on Freedom at: http://www.csadispatch.blogspot.com/

E-Mail: longstreet1862@gmail.com

 

WesternFront America

By Willie Soon, Robert Carter and David Legates

Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It, is right about the need to focus on critical health and economic priorities. But he is wrong about human carbon dioxide emissions causing what is now being called “global climate disruption.”

By demonizing the gas of life, in league with Al Gore and Bill Gates, Lomborg commits several serious scientific errors. As independent scientists, with broad training in mathematics, physics, chemistry, geology and geography, we know CO2 is not a pollutant, and the notion of “carbon-free” or “zero-carbon” energy is inherently harmful and anti-scientific.

If nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, helium or any other non-toxic gas is pumped into a chamber containing air and a growing plant, the response is barely measurable. By contrast, if more CO2 is added, the plant and its root system benefit enormously, displaying enhanced growth and more efficient use of available water and nutrients.

Far from having detrimental effects, carbon dioxide has decidedly beneficial impacts on plants, aquatic and terrestrial alike, and a new study connects enhanced plant productivity to greater bird species diversity in China. How, therefore, can anyone conclude that human carbon dioxide is a pollutant that must be eradicated?

These facts erect a formidable barrier for “zero-carbon” advocates. By insisting that no human CO2 should be emitted, they are promoting continued suboptimal growth of food plant species in the face of impending global food shortages – and poorer functioning and less diversity in the global ecosystem.
Zero-carbon activists respond to these facts by asserting that human CO2 emissions cause “dangerous global warming.” They are wrong about this, too.

If rising atmospheric CO2 levels drive global temperatures upward, as they insist, why is Earth not suffering from the dangerous “fever” that Al Gore predicted? Instead, after mild warming at the end of the twentieth century, global temperatures have leveled off for the past decade, amid steadily rising carbon dioxide levels.

Lomborg’s claim that we need to “cure” so-called “unchecked climate change” is thus fallacious and contradicted by reality. Reducing human CO2 emissions will likely have no measurable cooling effect on planetary temperatures.

His insistence that we prioritize expenditures is spot-on when applied to genuine environmental and societal problems. However, it is irrelevant when the problems are mythical – or devised to advance ideological agendas. Moreover, even if human impacts on the global climate can actually be measured at some future date, humans currently lack the scientific and engineering understanding and capability to deliberately “manage” Earth’s constantly changing climate for the better.

Most certain of all, atmospheric carbon dioxide is not the “climate control knob” that anti-hydrocarbon alarmists assert, and it is irresponsible for Lomborg to claim his socio-political agenda will provide a low-cost solution for the global warming “problem.”

The scientific reality is that even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been unable to demonstrate a cause-and-effect scientific connection between rising human CO2 emissions and dangerous warming. To support global limits on CO2 emissions, in the absence of real-world data showing clear cause and effect, is scientific and policy incompetence on the highest order.
Imagine a drug company seeking FDA approval for a new drug, based on an analysis that says simply: “Our supercomputers say the drug is safe and effective. We have no clinical data to support this, but can think of no reason actual results would contradict what our computers predict. Moreover, failure to license the drug will be disastrous for patients suffering from the targeted disease.” Failing to demand actual dose-and-response studies, before licensing the drug, would be gross negligence on FDA’s part.

Between 2007 and 2009, US carbon dioxide emissions dropped approximately 10 percent, to their lowest level since 1995, largely because of reduced energy consumption during the recession. Similar CO2 emission reductions occurred in Britain, Germany, France and Japan.

Have their climates gotten better or less dangerous? Are they now a better place, for having a lower intensity carbon energy diet? Have global temperatures been statistically unchanged since 1995 because, or in spite of, Chinese and Indian carbon dioxide emissions increasing far more than the aforementioned countries reduced theirs?

These are practical, not rhetorical questions. As far as we can see, the only direct effect of decreasing CO2 levels via expensive renewable energy programs has been to cost more American and European jobs than would otherwise have been the case during the global economic recession.

The central issue is not whether rising CO2 levels will cause a warmer planet. The fundamental concern is whether globally warmer temperatures are factually worse (or better) for human societies – and more (or less) damaging to the environment – than colder temperatures (like those experienced during the ice ages and Little Ice Age).

Bjorn Lomborg, Al Gore and Bill Gates need to consider the likelihood that, driven by changes in solar activity and ocean circulation, Earth will cool significantly over coming decades. Damaging the global economy with ineffectual carbon dioxide controls, in a futile quest to “stop global warming,” looks stupid now.

Viewed later, with hindsight, it will be judged outrageously irresponsible.

Willie Soon studies sun-climate connections at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Professor Bob Carter is an emeritus fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs and chief science advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition. David Legates is a hydroclimatologist at the University of Delaware and serves as the State Climatologist of Delaware.

 

WesternFront America

“Low carbon fuel standards” mean higher costs, few environmental benefits and less liberty.

Within days, Majority Leader Harry Reid intends to bring sweeping energy and climate legislation to the Senate floor. He won’t call it cap-and-trade or cap-tax-and-trade, and certainly not a carbon tax.

“Those words are not in my vocabulary,” he says. “We’re going to work on pollution.”

Senator Reid’s twenty-pound bill will be laden with lofty language about “clean energy,” energy conservation, “green jobs,” reducing “dangerous” power plant emissions,  ending our “addiction” to oil, creating a renewable economy, and saving the planet from “imminent climate disaster.”

Environmental euphemisms aside, however, the legislation is really about imposing national “low carbon fuel standards” (LCFS) and forcing dramatic reductions in the use of oil, natural gas and especially coal. It would expand on existing laws, regulations and decrees, like the Environmental Protection Agency’s ruling that carbon dioxide somehow “endangers human health and welfare,” EPA’s June 30 invalidation of flexible air quality permits for Texas refineries, Interior Secretary Salazar’s offshore drilling moratorium, multiple state and federal renewable energy standards and mandates, and various state and regional “greenhouse gas initiatives” that restrict emissions from power plants and industrial facilities.

The EPA, Energy Information Administration, White House and Mr. Reid insist that America can easily limit hydrocarbon use and switch to “eco-friendly” wind, solar and biofuel energy – at low cost and minimal harm to families, businesses and jobs. However, their self-serving, other-planet claims are flatly contradicted by a host of studies by reputable analysts with a solid history of integrity and accuracy.

The most recent is a June 17 report by Charles River Associates, examining the “Economic and Energy Impacts Resulting from a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard.” Prepared for the Consumer Energy Alliance, the study looked only at transportation fuels. (Including coal for electricity generation and other uses would dramatically increase its cost estimates.) Nevertheless, the study found that national standards implemented in 2015 would:

* Increase average gasoline and diesel prices by up to 80% in five years, and 170% within ten years – sending regular gasoline prices soaring to nearly $5 per gallon by 2020 and $7.50 per gallon by 2025 (assuming other international price pressures remain unchanged);

* Spur sharp cost increases for petrochemicals in plastics, pharmaceuticals and other vital products;

* Reduce employment and consumer demand significantly, by increasing the cost of transporting people, equipment, supplies, raw materials, food and finished products – for work, school, healthcare, business, manufacturing, vacation and other purposes;

* Cut business investment by $200-320 billion annually, compared to the no-LCFS baseline;

* Slash gross domestic product by $410-750 billion annually by 2025;

* Cost 2.3 million to 4.5 million American jobs, including up to 1.5 million in manufacturing and 3.0 million in the service sector; and

* Force household purchasing power downward by $1,400 to $2,400 for a family of four by 2025 – impacting minority, elderly and other low and fixed income families worst of all.

None of this should be surprising. As President Obama himself has said, the very purpose of energy and climate policies like LCFS is to ensure that prices “necessarily skyrocket.” It is to force people to use less fuel, compel companies to change power generation and use practices, drive coal companies and utilities out of business, and force the development of new fuels and technologies that may or may not work.

All on the premise that we waste energy and are causing a planetary meltdown. Climate change is real, and has been since the dawn of time. But there is no consensus and no evidence that carbon dioxide is the primary factor in global warming and cooling, or that humans are causing a climate disaster. Assertions, assumptions and computer models are not evidence, and cannot justify what Harry Reid is pushing.

Restricting, taxing, regulating and penalizing the hydrocarbon fuels that provide 85% of America’s energy would severely hobble our free enterprise system and impact jobs, families, living standards, and basic rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Doubling the price of electricity in our industrial heartland – where coal provides 50-95% of all electrical power – would kill millions of jobs, and send millions of families into fuel poverty.

Renewable energy is intermittent, unreliable, land and raw materials intensive, and unsustainable without government mandates and constant infusions of “other people’s money” in the form of subsidies. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus might be ecstatic that an F/A-18 fighter jet recently flew on biofuel av-gas. But brewing $65-per-gallon fuel from camelina is hardly sustainable, even for the Defense Department.

As to the great utopian vision of “green jobs,” Spain’s subsidy-driven wind turbine industry cost the country 2.2 jobs for every eco-job it created, according to studies by Dr. Gabriel Calzada. And when the global recession hit, the subsidies dried up, the turbine-making jobs disappeared, and hundreds of wind and solar companies were driven to the precipice of bankruptcy.

Wind turbines, solar panels and electric cars require “rare earth” metals. America’s probable deposits are locked up in wilderness areas, which leaves China as the world’s predominant producer. So the bulk of the green manufacturing jobs will be in China – while we will get the temp jobs hauling, assembling and installing components made in the Middle Kingdom and shipped to the United States.

Thus, China, India and Brazil will continue to surge forward on plentiful coal and metals, cheap labor, affordable electricity, a can-do attitude, laxer environmental standards, and a rational refusal to accept legally binding carbon dioxide reductions. Thus, even if the USA went cold turkey, and completely shut down all greenhouse-gas-spewing factories, homes and cars, these developing country emissions would overwhelm our sacrifices within a few months, and atmospheric CO2 levels would continue to rise.

And for what? Cars and power plants are already 90% cleaner than their 1970s era predecessors. Climate change is moderate and primarily natural. Mr. Reid’s formula is all pain, for no environmental gain.

Even bright high school students understand this. US senators certainly ought to. But Harry Reid is hoping 60 do not. That’s the magic number he needs to regulate not just one-sixth of our economy (the healthcare sector), but 100% – because nothing happens without abundant, reliable, affordable energy. And enacting any form of fuel rationing legislation will put Congress and bureaucrats firmly in charge of our lives, liberties, hopes, dreams and rights.

Either Mr. Reid’s cadre doesn’t understand these basic facts – or they are so blinded by power, ambition, ideology and desire to control that they willfully ignore them.

Climate change truly is a huge moral issue. What the Political-Activist-Industrial Complex is doing in the name of preventing climate change and creating a green economy is un-American and immoral. Applied to poor countries, to restrict their access to abundant, reliable energy, it becomes lethal and inhumane. It can no longer be tolerated.

Be alert. Speak out. And beware of energy and climate dictators and charlatans, and any lame duck session that may come after citizens vote to replace many of the control freaks on Capitol Hill.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

 

WesternFront America

We now know that environmentalism is a religion. It is, of course, a pagan religion, but a religion, nevertheless.

So, I must ask the question: How can those who profess to be Christians, subscribe to the tenants of environmentalism, and be true to the teachings of Christianity? The answer is — they can’t.

Yes, I am aware that I am stepping off into deep water here, troubled water, to be sure.

“God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (From The Bible — Genesis 1:28)

This command from God to man was the first recorded “commission” given man by his Creator. Today that “First Commission” is in direct conflict with the teachings of those who see the earth, itself, as god (Gaia). They teach that man should submit to Gaia, Mother Earth, rather than obey the one, true, God and subdue the earth and make it work for us.

By and large, until the environmental movement/religion, man had subdued the earth. In fact, man was reaching out into the galaxy, the universe, seeking other “earths” to subdue. And that was good. However, these days the nation that leads all others on this planet, has decided it no longer wants to seek out new worlds to conquer. It now wants only to save the earth, our home, from man himself.

Do you detect the arrogance in such a goal? Man actually believes HE can destroy the earth. Recent events with a single volcano in Iceland should have given those who believe such tripe pause. And please don’t point to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico from the collapsed oil rig. Last I heard, some 4 to 5 million gallons of oil had spilled into the waters of the Gulf. Are you aware that each year some 62 million gallons of oil are naturally leaked into to the ocean from undersea deposits of oil? (SOURCE). Yes, it just seeps up through the sea floor.

Facts are stubborn things. Apparently, the environmentalists have bought so deeply into the fantasy that man is the ultimate being that they are blinded by the glare of their own self-righteousness and unapologetic arrogance.

The planet earth could wipe out all living beings: man, animal, plant, it makes no difference, in a matter of minutes, IF it had a consciousness and a mind with which to plan and then execute those plans. Earth has neither. Yet, at a moment’s notice, it could STILL wipe the surface of the earth clean of all living things.

If you have ever witnessed a dog shake its coat dry after a dip in a pond, or lake, or river, consider the dog’s coat as the surface of the earth. Observe how the dog’s coat moves right and left as the dog shakes and notice the droplets of water flying off the individual hairs of the dog’s coat. In much the same way, the earth could rid itself of the parasites on its surface.

And yet man feels he must protect mother earth? Protect her from WHAT, exactly? Long after every trace of mankind has been erased from this planet, earth will continue to spin and follow its orbit around the sun, quietly whiling away the millennia in the vastness of space and the infinity of time.

It is troubling, indeed, it is sad to recognize that most, if not all, of the mainline Christian religious denominations in America have bought into the hoax of Global Warming, or “Climate Change,” as they prefer to call it these days. But, it is not surprising. You see, in my opinion, most of the mainline religious denominations in America have been hi-jacked by the political left. That accounts for all the sermons on social justice, saving the environment, diversity, inclusiveness, etc.

Dear reader, I have to wonder, if the American Christians who have bought into this “clap-trap” actually believe that heaven is inclusive? If they cracked the covers of their bibles and read them a bit, they’d soon learn that heaven is certainly NOT inclusive — nor diverse — and there is no problem with the environment. If the pastors of the mainline denominations would teach more scripture and less Marxism from their pulpits, the average church-going American would already know this.

The evangelical Christians in America, much despised by the political left, seem to be the only Christian group not buying into the pagan belief in Gaia, or Mother Earth, and the necessity of man’s fealty to her. They believe than man should be a good steward of the earth, which they understand is but a “way-station” for man on his way to his ultimate home somewhere beyond space, beyond time, in the presence of God, wherever that may be.

Meanwhile, the struggle continues for the consciousness of man and for the soul of man. Environmentalism is but one of the many tools used by the forces of evil arrayed against those who remain true to their Christian faith.

I believe the environmentalism religion was spawned by the dark forces of evil as a weapon to be used for the destruction of man. It reeks of Marxism, and communism, and socialism, and collectivism. Not only will it NOT save the earth — on the contrary — by depriving man of the earth’s resources it will drive man back into a new Dark Age and pit us against one another in an epic struggle for our very existence.

It is time for the people of this earth to “Man-Up” and stop their whimpish ways and accept that for man to survive and thrive on this planet we must make use of its bounty to the fullest. Believe me, it will be here, renewing itself, long after you and I are gone.

© J. D. Longstreet

J. D. Longstreet blogs daily at INSIGHT on Freedom at: http://www.csadispatch.blogspot.com/

E-Mail: longstreet1862@gmail.com

 

WesternFront America

…Earth Day is Celebrated on Lenin’s Birthday

“It is no accident that April 22, Earth Day, is also the birth date of Vladimir Lenin, an acolyte of Karl Marx, the lunatic who invented communism as an alternative to capitalism.

Earth Day is naked communism.”

The above quote is by Alan Caruba from his article entitled: ‘The Naked Communism of Earth Day.” We urge you to click over to Alan’s site and read this very fine article. You will find it HERE.

Freedom to worship as you please is one of the hallmarks of, and rights guaranteed to, the citizens of the United States.

The Pilgrims came to the New World not to guarantee freedom of religion. No, they came to guarantee that THEY could worship, as THEY saw fit… not, necessarily, anyone else.

So we have a hodge-podge of religions is America. Some are uplifting and others are just plain goofy.

On of the discoveries, made by anthropologists, is that the human animal will, somehow, create a religion. It seems the human animal must have belief in something that gives meaning to his, or her, existence.

In this century, and the last, so many have turned from the worship of a supreme being, we call God, to what we used to call “paganism”… the worship of nature, or the environment, or… more specifically… Environmentalism.

Yes, Environmentalism has become a religion. Well, actually, it always was, it has just come back into favor in the past 100 years, or so.

One thing I want to set straight before continuing, nature is not God. It is my belief that GOD created nature. Now, we can continue.

Many so-called atheists are worshippers of nature, or the environment. If one worships it… it is your god. Seems to me, those atheists are not true atheists. They DO have a god; only it is a pagan god, the environment.

Michael Crichton, in his “Environmentalism as Religion” remarks, made before the Commonwealth Club, in San Francisco in 2003, summed it all up.

“The believers in environmentalism believe and preach that we should live in unity with nature, or the environment. They believe that in the beginning we did. They believe that we are now living in sin because we have polluted the earth. We will be visited with a judgment day and the judgment will be death, for the whole planet, unless we repent, (which means to turn around and go the other way) and make our way back to sustainability. You see, in the environmentalism religion, sustainability IS salvation.”” … Michael Crichton

See Crichton’s remarks here: HERE.

It is important to understand that, for the most part, those who would worship nature have never really experienced it.

Want to go camping? Out comes the insect spray, the mosquito netting, the snakebite kit, the calamine lotion, sunscreen, and on and on. The urban environmentalist tends to think of nature as something, with which, man can live in harmony. So far, that has never happened … in the history of mankind.

Animals eat other animals to stay alive. Then, of course, we humans, at the top of the food chain, eat the animals which ate the, you know, smaller animals. The weather is a constant threat to humans.

The harmony of nature and man is a myth. It has never been so. If you want to learn about nature, talk to a farmer, or a hunter. They know about nature. Most people don’t.

Most of us live in an insular world. We have created an oasis away from nature. Occasionally, we think we want to commune with nature so we take a road trip or a camping trip… and we take as much, or as many, of our amenities as we can cram in the SUV right along with us. If we actually come into contact with nature, it is by accident.

Man has always been at odds with nature. Nature is unforgiving. It will kill you in a split second.

So, the environmental religionists are calling for us to repent. We are doomed as a result of pollution, global warming, running out of oil, the whole list of tribulations the faithful are so sure are coming.

They have been wrong, so many times. Remember the ice age, which was to begin in the 1970’s? Where is it? It reminds me of the “nut” pacing the sidewalk with his “Repent, the world is coming to an end!” sign. When the world doesn’t end, he changes the date and keeps on pacing. The environmentalist simply changes the reason the world is coming to an end, and they keep on preaching doom and gloom.

You see, as with all religions, the environmentalist bases all these horrible things on faith. Yes, faith in his belief. He believes he is correct. It is his faith, his religion, and he will not be shaken.

So, we have all the preachers of the Church of Environmentalism, preaching at us none stop. They preach fear. They preach gloom and doom. They preach forsaking progress and returning to the days when man lived in harmony with nature, even though no such period ever existed in the history of mankind.

As a believer in one God, the Creator, I cannot buy into their religion. I believe that this planet, this ecosystem, if you will, was given to man, as his home, by the Creator. We are charged with being good stewards of our home. But, when we take such good care of it that we come to worship it, we have sinned and fallen short. And that, Dear Reader, is wrong!

To protect our home, the earth, we need to use hard science, not some knee jerk reactionism. We need to rely upon our common sense. To think that man, himself, can destroy the earth is laughable. It is the height of arrogance. The earth can wipe humankind out in a moment, in the blinking of an eye. Like a dog shaking it’s wet coat and flinging water droplets hither and thither, the earth could rid itself of it’s temporary visitors at anytime.

No, it’s time for clear thinking people to step back and take a serious look at the claims the fundamentalist preachers of environmentalism are making. Check the science, not the pop science, but hard science. There is where their claims will be proven, or dis-proven and hopefully discarded.

In the meantime, for those who profess to believe in nature’s God, the scriptures tell us that man cannot serve two masters. You cannot subscribe to the faith of environmentalism and maintain your faith in the God of, and the creator of, nature. You will serve one and forsake the other. Which will it be?

© J. D. Longstreet

J. D. Longstreet blogs daily at INSIGHT on Freedom at: http://www.csadispatch.blogspot.com/

 

WesternFront America