Pop, pop, and poppety pop.

vlcsnap-2015-01-29-18h10m49s146 2

A friend once turned to me on a day that had no mercy in it and said, “you’re right, there is no God.” We were both watching something slowly unfolding, something cold and just petrifying cruel which couldn’t be stopped by either of us. We couldn’t exert any control over it, we could only watch; emasculated observers at the final end of world extinction event of any residual hope about how low us human beings could really get. Pop, there they go, pop, pop, another couple of the buggers. Pop, pop, and poppety pop and yet a few more of them.

At the time and in a vague distracted sort of way, it broke my heart to see him lose his faith, because I loved him as only one man can love another and I’d always somehow relied on him to be the last unwavering believer in some sort of floor of decency that none of us could ever drop through, though I’d never quite realised that until that moment. It was a sort of good-natured buddy buddy routine we did. I’d always dissed his notions of a big G, he’d always thought I was joking as he worked on converting me but I wasn’t. Not really.

He did have a certain something about him and whatever that was, it became an unexamined backstop of our friendship. He was my touchstone, a glimmer of hope and my ace in the hole, someone who’d pushed through all my tough-guy BS front and taken a deep look down into me and found the little me who still wanted to be a believer. He was always confident he’d get me back into the fold and I had a sneaking hope he just might pull it off because I wanted it, but I should have known I couldn’t protect him from the fire, because he’d never really seen the fire. That day, he saw it and it burnt that something out of him.

It roasted the poor bastard alive.

As bad days go, the complete destruction of the steady and sure religious underpinning of his life was the cherry on top of it all. Lord if you’re up there help an unbeliever out here, at least spare him because I knew he’d be no bloody good wrestling with all the doubts that have always nagged away at a godless creature like me. It was a slow, untreatable and seventy per cent, first class, New York primo steak, first degree burns injury that no amount of skin grafts could make better. In the end he became someone looking for nothing more than a meaningful way of checking out, but the reality was that he was just another casualty of that day.

It was a kind of delayed reaction thing which took a few more years of his life to play itself out. Corny but true, life has a habit of taking out the decent ones early, and again I watched and couldn’t do anything more than help see him out of the chaos his life eventually became. Hush up now, it’ll all be okay, I swear to Christ. You take your rest, I’ve got you. You just pop along now.

You stagger out of a few discos like that and it becomes clear that the common denominator, that promised basis of all religions simply doesn’t stack up with the reality – behave yourself, follow whatever scriptures you’re supposed to do and you’ll end up in Heaven, Nirvana or wherever deist carrot is being dangled. The innocents never even had the time to be bad boys or girls, so the whole idea of a life as some sort of test you run in order to earn entrance into some higher plain of existence is quite frankly open to question. The wake up message is as old as Agamemnon’s soldiers throwing Troy’s babies from the battlements of a city being sacked.

This is supposed to be a climate skeptic blog and we’re straying into areas theological, which I’m pretty sure most skeptics are uncomfortable with, but I’m afraid that atrophied appendix of a religious upbringing is the mainspring of why I blog. Relax, I’m not some born again Christian after you on the sly. Rather, anything I do here is out of a sense of fairness, which as a reason can be tinselled and tarted up to something as grand as ethics or dare I say it, morality.

Of late, notables like Andrew Montford, Peter Lee and somewhat indirectly Richard Tol, have dipped their toe into those murky waters to a slightly puzzled silence from the skeptic blogosphere. Where are you Matt? Even allowing for the stiffness of the articles, it’s about time they moved out of their comfort zones and made the human case for opposition to an agenda that’s supposed to save the Earth at our expense, and I mean that not only in terms of dollars and cents but lives lost.

Lives.

That’s what it’s all about. It’s not about us being proved right, about egos, about proving them wrong, but about fishing a few people out of a raging sea. We have to be focused, direct and a lot better than the stereotype we’ve always portrayed us as, so we can pull as many out as we can. The fundamental indecency of the whole thing is the widespread and unquestioned belief on both sides that it’s somehow a quasi-scientific argument, a fencing bout with supporters on each side cheering on their champions. It’s all too easy to see why the developing world see us, all of us, as totally irrelevant, if only because we behave like pampered children who’re puzzled that they don’t have any cake to eat.

I can point this very day at the harm being done to human beings by policies which are supposed to save people a century or so in the future. We don’t allow them GM crops, so they die. We don’t allow them to do coal-powered generation, so they die. We don’t allow them to DDT the arse off mosquitos that kill them with Malaria, so they die. We just don’t allow anything we think wouldn’t be good for them and they just obligingly die. It’s not a problem. Nobody sort of notices and anyway, mostly their arses aren’t white so they don’t actually count as real people.

We’ve already done the whole trip and totally ruined our own environment so there’s definitely no way we’d allow them to make the same mistakes. We’ll guide them forwards towards some medieval rustic, but yet beautiful and untainted existence skipping around the savannahs like seventeenth century French peasants and they’ll love us for doing it.

All I see are dire scientific predictions of an approaching Armageddon, which can only be prevented by throwing buckets full of money vampired out of the thin veins of our poor and passed on to the already rich. With a certain boring regularity, the predictions just fail to materialise and are therefore just ratcheted on a decade or two into the future. Nobody cares because it’s a feeding frenzy. Trough it baby, go for it. Get your fair share of the swill while it’s still good and hot and steaming.

I see nothing more than people lining their pockets. I see greed, I see lies, mendacity, deceit and raw naked academic thuggery being used to advance a discredited theory that’s been crumbling like a sandcastle before an incoming tide for the last decade. It’s being crushed under the Everest weight of real world data that simply refuses to conform to its projections. What the hell, nobody cares anyway.

You have enough bruising encounters with ethics in the real world and I’m afraid your wonderful standards slip because you end up with the choice of being a righteous prick who’s paralysed within a dilemma of your own artificial ethical framework or someone who’s decided to do something expedient right now because you yielded to your own humanity.

If you’ve ventured to knock around the edges of our comfortable existence in the rich world, that bad day will eventually pay you a visit and it’ll be make your mind up time – and there’ll always be an urgent window on it too. Do something now, right now, because if you keep chewing it over for the next few minutes, circumstances will effectively make your decision for you.

If policies are killing people for no better reason than an unproven theory, then those policies are simply misguided, and if those policies are pursued while turning a blind eye to their impact on the most helpless ones amongst us, then anyone knowingly supporting such policies are not simply bad or ignorant people, they are immoral, if not simply evil. Their finger might not actually be on the trigger, but to my mind they’re still doing the popping.

Perhaps we’ve finally reached the stage where it’s now been recognised that it’s not about whether there actually is a legitimate moral argument which can be made by climate skeptics, but that it’s actually the argument to be made.

©Pointman

Related articles by Pointman:

Tell me why.

Is there a moral dimension to being anti-environmental?

A family of sorts.

Click for a list of other articles.

Comments
33 Responses to “Pop, pop, and poppety pop.”
  1. Old Rooster says:

    Euripides wrote—
    I think,
    Some shrewd man first, a man in judgment wise,
    Found for mortals the fear of gods,
    Thereby to frighten the wicked should they
    Even act or speak or scheme in secret.
    Sisyphus, as translated by R. G. Bury, and revised by J. Garrett.
    Variant translation: He was a wise man who originated the idea of God.

    GK Chesterton wrote—
    It’s the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense. [“The Oracle of the Dog” (1923)]

    You hard-shelled materialists were all balanced on the very edge of belief — of belief in almost anything. [“The Miracle of Moon Crescent” (1924)]

    This has become popularly paraphrased in various forms but I’ll run with this one—

    When a man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything.

    I’m not sure if this short documentary😱 should lead us to hope or despair. Perhaps we can just take comfort from the fact that the North Koreans care and will come to our rescue if they can!😉😊❗️

  2. Blackswan says:

    Pointman,

    ‘A sense of fairness’ is common to any society, and it’s not always ‘tarted up’ as anything grand at all. In the most primitive of tribes ‘fairness’ is understood by all – steal my goat, steal my food, steal my woman – and you’ll pay, often with blood. That doesn’t apply to other tribes, and wars are waged to steal territory, seize treasures and livestock, capture slaves – but to steal from one’s own people invariably carries penalties. Unless …. you’re of the modern political/scientific class of the West.

    Then it’s open season on all, and taxpaying (now credit-addled) peons are the debt-slaves of the self-proclaimed ‘elite’ just as it’s always been.

    However, on the up-side, we also have a quaint concept called Democracy wherein our politicians are (theoretically) ‘the Servants of the People’ and they are ultimately accountable … to “We, the People …”.

    Aahh … but what about Big Business, multinational Corporations etc? Well, they too are ultimately accountable to us because we are that most treasured, albeit fickle, species … Consumers.

    So what has turned us from ‘Power to the People’ champions into a herd of weak passive creatures with a herd mentality? What has made us into fearful ignorant ‘victims’, guilt-ridden and full of angst lest we render the planet uninhabitable? Think about it. Nothing more than a dumbed-down Education System highjacked by the Marxist Left, and the propaganda whores of the MSM – all craven slaves themselves – to the Mighty Dollar.

    They get away with it simply because they can – and will continue to do so UNLESS we of the sceptic tribe, we who are capable of independent thought, hold them to account. And not just on our own behalf – but on behalf of those other ‘tribes’ whose wealth and resources are making the parasitic maggots fat and bloated while denying the hosts they feed on access to modern technology and a better quality of life.

    And Pointy, we don’t mind if our moral compass is “tarted up” and called ‘ethics’ or ‘morality’ or ‘integrity’ or ‘altruism’ – if it’s who we are and what we stand for, then it’s worth fighting for.

    Something those bastards will learn eventually about the sceptic tribe – we never give up and we never give in.

    • Old Rooster says:

      You’ve identified many of the significant factors that contribute to this current state of affairs but the foundation of it is where you began. The difficulty of larger social structures such as the megapolis and the multi millions nation to control its criminals and shysters compared to the family or tribe. Our current form of democracy and responsible government seems I’ll adapted to resist let alone defeat theses baleful influences. Will it require violent revolution or will a robust evolution alone suffice to repair this?

      • Blackswan says:

        Rooster, you ask “Will it require violent revolution …”? It seems such an eventuality has also occurred to the Elite and they are making provision for it.

        ‘Boltholes with airstrips’ in New Zealand that are being bought by world’s super-rich who want a hideout in case of ‘civil uprising’

        ”The world’s elite are snapping up properties in the tiny country, which they see as a shelter from the threat of terrorism, civil unrest and instabilities in the financial markets.”

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2931325/Super-rich-buying-property-New-Zealand-bolthole-case-west-goes-meltdown.html

        Mr Wallis told CNBC Africa at the Davos gathering that a New Zealand bolthole was ‘a way to get off’, adding: ‘if they (the wealthy) can get off onto another planet, some of them would. I think the rich are worried and they should be worried.’

        Beautiful New Zealand used to be the world’s best-kept secret … but no longer. Perhaps we should get those hanks of rope and lamp-posts ready before the bastards disappear with their ill-gotten gains.

      • Old Rooster says:

        How goes the old saw? You can run but you can’t hide. Wealth is no guarantee of wisdom is it? What little I do know of NZ might suggest that it too has its tensions and that cataclysmic events might just make it a place to avoid rather than flee to. Recall how the French saboteurs of the ‘Rainbow Warrior’ were easily tracked down. Is there really anywhere that remote in the Land of the Long Flat Vowel? Let’s all hope that it doesn’t come to such a pass but my confidence in that regard is on the wane right now.

        PS You think any might be interested in some Far Side of the Moon properties? They should buy now before the prices go up.😉😊❗️

  3. meltemian says:

    If you expect any sort of sensible comment from me DON’T confront me with pictures like that first thing in the morning………..I’ve come over ‘all unnecessary’ as my mother used to say!!
    Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn I think? That’s it, I’ll be back later after a cold shower……I may be some time.

    • Pointman says:

      LOL, please don’t ever change Mel.

      Pointy

      • meltemian says:

        Stop it Pointy, it’s bad for me at my age. Still it’s cheered me up this morning, we’re well into the rainy season here at the moment and everywhere’s under water, the dogs are bored, wet and miserable, the house smells of wet dog and it’s cold.

  4. Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:

    Always worth reading, Pointman makes a clear and certainly true point.

    JB Phillips wrote that “Your God is Too Small”. He was correct. My God is too small. With Job, I say, “Though he slay me, yet will I trust him.”

    Somehow, there is so much more to it.

    Mostly, Micah echos in my head, “Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.”

    We do no justice when green notions do so much harm. We forsake mercy when we coerce and foust our will and impose our ideals. We flaunt in pride when we are so confident in “what’s best.”

    First, do no harm.

    There are uses of adversity.

    • Old Rooster says:

      There’s more than a touch of a re–imagined Paganism in the Green Movement. These are the faithful that are preyed upon by the hucksters in the science establishment version of the Honoured Society. The works of writers such as Tolkien who had more reasonable concerns as to man’s impact on the green and pleasant land unfortunately have helped in recruiting a large number of the Western population whose response to environmental issues is largely emotional not rational. A sceptic response to the AGCC scams needs to address this emotional dimension as much as it unmasks the failure to adhere to scientific method by falsification of data and dubious use of statistics to arrive at ludicrous conclusions.

  5. manicbeancounter says:

    The moral case against climate policies becomes even greater when you start to consider the consequences of emerging economies “getting serious” on climate change. That is to either stop further emissions growth (like India, Brazil) or stop emissions growth and smartly reverse the emissions growth of the past few years (China). The consequence will be to drastically reduce growth, even cause a massive depression. The famines of the twentieth century would return, regimes would collapse, and countries break up into warring factions. As for stopping use of fossil fuels by the end of the twentieth century, nobody wants to even think about what it will do to the oil producing economies of the Middle East.
    The upshot is there will be no global climate agreement, but the people of Britain will still be lumbered with increasing energy bills and the decimation of manufacturing industry whilst pretending a country will less than 1.5% of global fossil fuel emissions can save the world.

  6. Paul 767 says:

    Hello Pointman; I’ve been a lurker here for some time………..came over from WUWT

    There is a reason for the collectivists folly, and it has to do with the philosophy they have been taught, and specifically their moral code. The world is being punished, not because we haven’t followed their moral code, but specifically because we are attempting to follow it. We are being “punished” not for our sins, but because of the moral code we have accepted. That moral code is Altruism, the belief that you must sacrifice yourself for your fellow man. Immanuel Kant defined it : “an action is not moral unless you derive no benefit from it WHATSOEVER. Notice the inversion of morality in that sentence: if you want to do good, and derive happiness in helping others, then you are not moral. The other side of the coin: If your actions meet their moral requirement (meant to help someone else), than ANYTHING you do to achieve your ends is A-OK. And they do; they lie, cheat, steal and kill to enforce and enact their code. Notice that the most horrific slaughters in history were carried out by the communists and fellow collectivists: over 100 million dead this last century. Notice too, their moral superiority while imposing their code.

    This is not to say that every fool who parrots their slogans has a clue about the fundamentals of their philosophy.

    I also have to chuckle when people claim that without a belief in God, you will have no moral compass……Although a moral code is necessary for functioning on this planet, man is born “tabula rasa”, so yes, most men need the help of philosophers to develop a rational moral code.

    Ayn Rand was the first philosopher to define a rational moral code, one which ties each Virtue to Reality. It puts the 10 commandments and the golden rule to shame.

    To define a rational moral code you have to answer 2 questions:

    1) What are values?
    2) Who should be the beneficiary of a person’s values?

    The altruist ignores the first question and says that “anybody but yourself” should be the beneficiary of your values.

    Rationality, Integrity, Honesty, Independence, Productivity and Pride are the Virtues required for man to live his life on this earth as a human being should. Each of these Virtues are necessities for living life in reality, and for obtaining the VALUES of Reason, Purpose and Self-Esteem.

    I once listened to a podcast of one of the leading intellectuals of the Secular Humanist movement (I can’t remember his name), and he said that SH was looking to define a rational moral code. Of course, they mix up Morality (how man should live) with Politics (how man should treat his fellow man) and the SH people will probably never abandon the Altruist code, so his task may be futile.

    Take the oath: “I swear, by my life, and my love of it, that I will never be a slave to another man, nor allow another man to be a slave to me”.

    Sorry for taking up so much space, but the subject is complex, and I just barely touched on it.
    Paul Richards

    • Truthseeker says:

      Paul,

      I think that you have touched on some important points here, but a recent debate with some long term friends of mine have clarified my thinking in this area.

      Collectivists to varying degrees dislike/distrust humanity. At the zealot end of the scale they hate humanity and want to destroy it. Various “moral” justifications are used to propagate these beliefs such as the environment. At the more popular end of the scale they merely distrust humanity and think it needs to be controlled. Those that want power use this to gain more power which is accepted for the “greater good”. The collectivists need victims to justify their moral preening and take authority that they are not entitled to.

      Collectivists;
      – Use victimisation to justify “doing something” whether it be race, gender, religion, etc. They assume weakness which perpetuates the inequality they are ranting against so that they always have a “victim” to help.
      – Have little or no intellectual integrity as they accept dogma as truth and authority as justification.
      – Their own hypocrisy is invisible to them because they believe that have the “moral right” to do whatever it is they think should be done.
      – Are the “useful idiots” of the power brokers whose only moral code is to increase their own power.

      Rationalists;
      – Assume strength and will allow others to stand up for themselves. They respect others enough
      to offer or allow them to ask for help if it is required.
      – Are always looking for more data because better information leads to better decisions. It is the content of what is being said that is important, not who is saying it.
      – Do not think they have the right to tell others how to live and live by their own rules because that is the part of the world that they can effect.
      – Distrust power structures because they always ultimately lead to bad outcomes.

      • Paul 767 says:

        Truthseeker

        Exactly correct; they regard man as evil because his nature is selfish………..unfortunately, (or fortunately) that is the one trait which ensures each man’s survival, selfishness being “concern with one’s own interests”. The collectivists, masters of propaganda and co-opting the meanings of words, have twisted the meaning of selfishness into “walking over the bodies of your victims” to achieve success. They have no concept of mutual trade to mutual benefit, of voluntary dealings with other men.

        Of course, since you are “too selfish to sacrifice yourself for your fellow man, you must be forced into the sacrificial furnaces at the point of a gun.” (Ayn Rand again).

        Their world view is from a whole host of 19th century philosophers who, rejecting religion as a philosophy, because science was extending the boundaries of knowledge, they proclaimed “society” as the new “god”. Lost in the stampede is the individual and his natural rights.

        Many of these followers of Rousseau, these enviromentalists, view man as being corrupted by civilization, that we have lost the beauty of “living in nature” which is the perfect world to them. Of course, Western civilization is the greatest evil, since we are the most civilized. They have no concept and never question how life living in “nature” really is: “nasty, brutish and short”. They also believe that we can return to that “perfect” state of man, in nature; that education and force can be used to turn us all into perfect humans.

        Immanuel Kant’s stated goal, on the other hand, was the reuniting the religious with science. Through all the twists of his “reasoning”, his labeling of the nuomenal and phenomenal worlds, he postulated that ordinary man cannot know reality through his senses, that only elites – such as himself – can know the real reality and the true truth, by reasoning divorced from reality. What is the one thing he excludes from his view? – man’s mind. cf: “Critique of Pure Reason” 1776.

        Most modern philosophers reject his reasoning, yet have accepted his results, and in particular, his moral philosophy – Altruism. This is the most powerful force on earth today, and it is what is destroying civilization. Even Christians are unable to disagree with it, except in degree, Notice how ineffectual the “conservatives” are against the “leftists” – because they cannot argue fundamental ideas and only disagree with the means of accomplishing the goal of altruism, the most evil moral code ever proposed on earth.

        It is a moral battle that we are fighting, as our host has highlighted, and understanding the philosophical underpinnings of the enemies of civilization is vital. The evil is the belief that you have no right to your own life, that you must sacrifice yourself to your fellow man and if you are too selfish to do so, then we have the right and duty to force you to. They employ every means in this battle, claim the necessity to destroy civilization to do so, make up fake alarms to do so, lie, steal, cheat and kill to do so. Until this moral code is defeated and eliminated, civilization has no hope…..

        As Patrick Moore has pointed out, the enviromental movement was co-opted by the leftists, who saw a perfect WORLD-WIDE ALARM to unite all peoples into defeating capitalism – the only system that allows free peoples to live as human beings should live.

        Take the oath: “I swear, by my life, and my love of it, that I will never be a slave to another man, nor allow another man to be a slave to me”.

        Paul

      • Truthseeker says:

        Paul,

        I am happy to take that oath if the word “man” is changed to “human”. Let us not allow any loophole in such an important statement of morality.

        Slavery is evil and not just for the slave but ultimately for the master as well.

    • Pointman says:

      Hello Paul. Perhaps a slight restatement of your thoughts ?

      The Laws of God, The Laws of Man.

      The laws of God, the laws of man,
      He may keep that will and can;
      Not I: let God and man decree
      Laws for themselves and not for me;

      And if my ways are not as theirs
      Let them mind their own affairs.
      Their deeds I judge and much condemn,
      Yet when did I make laws for them?

      Please yourselves, say I, and they
      Need only look the other way.
      But no, they will not; they must still
      Wrest their neighbor to their will,

      And make me dance as they desire
      With jail and gallows and hell-fire.
      And how am I to face the odds
      Of man’s bedevilment and God’s?

      I, a stranger and afraid
      In a world I never made.
      They will be master, right or wrong;
      Though both are foolish, both are strong.

      And since, my soul, we cannot fly
      To Saturn nor to Mercury,
      Keep we must, if keep we can,
      These foreign laws of God and man.

      AE Housman

  7. gallopingcamel says:

    You point out the immorality of “Mitigating CO2”, supressing DDT, supressing GM food and so on.

    You should like Alex Epstein:

    I first met Alex when he was an undergraduate at Duke university. While my colleagues at Duke were overwhelmingly left wingers there were many students like Alex who were not buying their message.

  8. waterside4 says:

    As usual Pointman, you describe a wonderful journey into the ethereal world of scientistrelegion.
    I am a 73 year old lifetime practising Catholic emanating from Galway.
    I would be obliged if you, or one of your erudite bloggers on here would have a look at this frightening article

    http://www.planetshifter.com/node/1724

    It appears to me to sum up the whole CAGW scam in one expose.

    It is particularly important when I am on the brink of loosing my faith of 70 odd years all because of the election of a Red Pope, who is apparently about to endorse the ‘Great Fraud’

    The responses should not be the usual anti catholic vitriol, as all the main stream religions are up to their oxters in the Mann Made Global Warming ordure.

    • Pointman says:

      Hello Waterside. I think the article details to some depth how much Western churches have confused care of the environment and care of people. Increasingly, it’s the former which is given priority. It’s as if they feel they can’t beat the Church of Gaia, so they’re cozying up to it in some weird ecumenical way. To a large extent, I expressed my views on that fundamental betrayal of the poor in a previous piece.

      https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/tell-me-why/

      I admire anyone who has the capacity for a true faith and can only say the current pontiff looks to be very disappointing, and that’s even before he indirectly defended the terrorists who attacked Paris. However, despite the infallibility doctrine, I feel he’s not someone worth abandoning your faith for. As we both know, the Church has had worse leading it, but it’s also had much much better too.

      I’d ask anyone else replying to exercise the normal civility we all practise around here.

      P

    • Old Rooster says:

      That’s quite an article that warrants more than the quick scan I gave it but I will try to do it justice soon.

      I come from a Protestant background myself (principally Anglican) but it is clear that much wooly mindedness has infiltrated the churches of the Judeo-Christian traditions in the post war era. Care for the environment has been displaced by its worship in many cases. The concept of proper husbandry or resources for the benefit of mankind has been supplanted. Fora such as this provide an opportunity to offer resistance to this.

      Don’t lose your faith please. You’ve been a practicing Christian for so long as has the Pope. Who knows any day now at least one of us may get it right. If we don’t there may always be tomorrow.😊 Remember the journey is at least as important as the destination.

  9. waterside4 says:

    thank you Pointman and Old Rooster.

    As both seem to agree that we are ‘up agin it’ as we say where I come from.

    My main issue is not particularly with our Head Honcho in a Poncho It is pretty obvious him being a Jesuit and being steeped in so called liberation theology, that he would embrace the Satanist MMGW doctrine.

    The other faith problem I have is with our local church here in Scotland. Our ‘progressive’ priest has joined up with an organisation called http://WWW.ecocongregation.org. This is yet another neo-pagan outfit straight out of the Gaia stable above.

    If any of you are interested enough, just look up http://www.cafod.org http://www.sciaf.org http://www.savethe children.org http://www.oxfam.org or any other so called charity you can think of.

    Without exception, if you type ‘global warming’ into their ‘key word’ internal search box, every one is singing from the AlGorian hymn sheet, by quoting the IPPC lies.

    This is bad enough as we can ignore or contribute to them as we see fit. My despair comes from when I look at the biased propaganda my grandsons are being fed at school. It is tantamount to child abuse.

    At the minute I am hanging on by my well worn fingernails to the shattered remnants of my faith.

    Thank you both for your time and solicitations.

    • Old Rooster says:

      I might be straying too far from the proper concerns of this site but I’d just offer the following to consider and also like the good sports coach suggest a return to the fundamentals—

      “Never despair, but if you do, work on in despair”: Edmund Burke

      “…All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well”: Dame Julian of Norwich

      I have had many other reasons to be suspicious of the bona fides of the big international charities but you raise an interesting connection here. You have presented me with a number of elephants. I shall have to digest them individually one piece at a time.

      • waterside4 says:

        As the eponymous cartoon Rooster character was wont to say “I say I say”
        Thank you Old Rooster.
        It would be be a mistake to look at this purely from a religious perspective.
        That despite the fact that the great global warming scam is a reinterpretation of our Judochristiantion heritage subsumed into the pagan Gaian Faith.
        If we revisit the original Club of Rome thesis they said global warming would as good a starting point as any for their global governance ambitions.
        All this tied in quite well with the Vatican 2 chaos in the Church of Rome. It is interesting to see the involvement of the Pope of that time in the UN.
        I am not by nature a believer in urban myths (despite being Irish) or a conspiracy theorist, but when you read the piece I alluded to, one could easily be persuaded otherwise.

    • Blackswan says:

      Waterside4,

      Convening of the religious bodies to such a climate gathering, is no different from the Climate gab-fests mustered by the IPCC – in this case a clutch of religious bureaucrats living large on someone else’s dime, all expenses paid, and all seeking a means to an end – money – and lots of it.

      These religious (and charitable) organisations are already the recipients of multi-million dollar taxpayer grants for servicing the needs of the poor and destitute because it takes the pressure off governments to deploy such services themselves. It’s been obvious to all for decades that to link ANY venture to the Climate Catastrophe is to turn on the money spigot – the cash flows, and there’s no accountability to justify its expenditure.

      As Western Christian congregations have dwindled in the last half-century, so have the tithes coming from the faithful, thus Churches now more than ever concern themselves with major commercial ventures. In Australia they run all manner of highly lucrative enterprises – ‘lucre’ being the point, after all.

      For anybody questioning their Faith, the question must be asked; exactly where has that Faith been placed? In the Scriptures and a belief in your God? …. or was such faith placed in the people who administer the behemoth organisational structures built to ‘service’ their religion? If the behaviour of such religious bureaucrats has shaken one’s faith, then perhaps the answer resides in the latter. In the modern world, maybe it’s time to rise above the venal behaviour of power and money hungry mere mortals. When money and power are the issue, human nature will always be found wanting.

      Australia’s Chief Climate Hysteric Prof Tim Flannery postulated that Mother Gaia was on the verge of attaining “consciousness” – that “she” was about to become an “entity” in her own right. It seems Gaia is a bit of a harlot – she’ll get chummy with anyone as long as money is involved.

      Considering that for centuries all Christian churches have sent thousands of missionaries around the world at risk of life and limb to convince Primitives that their Earth/Sun worship was pure paganism, endorsement of the concept of Gaia is about as big a religious/political back-flip as one could imagine.

      • Graeme No.3 says:

        Early 1960’s in England. Tall african from newly independent country, resplendent in tribal robes, is addressed by nervous englishman with “I am told that people worship the sun in your country”.
        Tall african (in perfect Oxford tones) “so you would in this country…if you ever saw it”.

        An indication that the english climate then may have been a bit cloudier?

      • Old Rooster says:

        Hmmm is Worship of the Son being surreptitiously replaced by Worship of the Sun? Sol Invictus returns in yet another manifestation.

  10. waterside4 says:

    Thank you Pointman, Old Rooster, and Black Swan, you have given me plenty of cud to chew over.
    The great article by Henry Lamb at http://www.planetshifter.com/node/1724 really does deserve more investigation.

    Together with our gracious host’s piece at https:thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/tell-me-why it really shows up the criminality of the Global Warming troughers.

    I will carry on fighting the good fight against the evil one Gaia, who has penetrated the church which I have loved and admired all my life.

Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...
  1. […] initially thought Pop, Pop, and Poppety Pop https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/pop-pop-and-poppety-pop/ was where I wanted to leave this reference, but this seems more […]



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: