THE COALITION STAKES ITS CLAIM ON AFFORDABLE ENERGY

Posted on by

The claims supporting the global climate reset have persistently lacked predictive validity, a necessary pre­condition in the physical sciences. Rarely has the modelling convinced; and the scare campaigns, such as the nonsense from media creation Greta Thunberg, are just public relations pantomime. It is increasingly obvious that the routine threats that “time is running out” are just cynical scare mongering.

Previously the fact that it was blatant deception did not matter because the climate proponents enjoyed the support of the financial institutions and governments, which meant reasonable debate was suppressed. They are losing that support.

Financial fads usually disappear with great speed as the money moves elsewhere. It will be slower with governments. They are deeply ideolo­gically committed to net zero with a vast array of government regulations and funding for renewables, green government bureaucracies, local and global environmental organisations and agencies.  They will not reverse this easily.

Sadly, cheap and stable energy is essential for any economy to survive, particularly for industry. now that robotics and AI are essential components. Moreover, Australia has heaps of natural gas, oil and coal. We should have the cheapest energy for our industry and peope of any country in the world. AI Data Centres and robotics require lots of energy that is consistent not like wind and solar. Who can predict when the wind will blow, and the sun shines only during the daytime with no heavy cloud cover. With robotics and AI Amazon warehouses operate 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

In the end, it is always about the money, and I believe the financial sentiment is turning. The markets are realising that the massive investment returns in renewables will never materialise. Moreover, wind turbines and the transmission infrastructure needed are an eyesore.

Undoing the economic damage will take time, but eventually reality will even filter down to Australian policymakers. But don’t expect any among them to take responsibility for their delusions and errors.

After six months of vacillating over whether or not they should simply ape the government’s energy policies, the Coalition has come up with an alternative. Instead of destroying the Australian economy in pursuit of Net Zero, hopefully they’re going to prioritise providing Australians with affordable power. Whether they have the people to formulate the right strategy and communicate it to the public is debatable.

Fortunately, Jesus Millennial Kingdom is not too far distant. Biblical end times prophecies are playing out now and we may be in the last seven years of Daniel’s 70 weeks prophecy. For Christians this is wonderful as we know God will rapture us to heaven before He pours out His wrath on an unrepentant world with the Trumpet (Revelation 8) and Bowl judgements (Revelation 16). Following the Trumpet and Bowl judgements Jesus and the glorified Saints return to rescue Israel at the battle of Armageddon. Jesus and the Saints will rule the world for 1,000 years so that God fulfils the covenant He made with Abraham and confirmed with Isaac, Jacob and David that Israel’s Messiah, Jesus will rule the nations of the world from a magnificent new Jerusalem. During the time God pours out His wrath upon the earth He reconstructs the geomorphology of the world so that Jerusalem is on the highest mountain in the world.

“The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nation’s fell, and God remembered Babylon the great, to make her drain the cup of the wine of the fury of his wrath. And every island fled away, and no mountains were to be found.“ Revelation 16:19-20

The millennial Jerusalem sits on the highest plateau and has two rivers flowing out of its east and west sides. The mountain’s great height emphasizes Jerusalem as the centre of world authority, for all the nations will flow to it. A totally new construct. The millennial Jerusalem is nine times larger than the current city. All the land of Israel round about Jerusalem, which was encompassed with mountains, but now these mountains shall become a plain.

For more on Jesus coming Millennial Kingdom go to http://www.millennialkingdom.net.

IS CLIMATE CHANGE CAUSING SEA LEVELS TO RISE AT ALARMING RATES?

Posted on by

Examining over 200 tide gauge stations worldwide, researchers have found no global acceleration in sea level rise, contrary to wild predictions by climate alarmists and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

For decades, the public has been warned that human-driven climate change is causing sea levels to surge at alarming rates, threatening to swallow coastal cities by the end of the century. But a landmark new peer-reviewed study has found no evidence that sea level rise is accelerating worldwide.

sea level rise

Published in the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, the paper by Dutch engineer Hessel Voortman and researcher Rob de Vos analysed hundreds of tide gauge records. Their conclusion is stark: “Our analysis of more than 200 tide gauge stations around the world shows that there is no global acceleration of sea level rise”.

A First-of-Its-Kind Global Analysis

Unlike previous studies that relied heavily on climate models, Voortman and de Vos used observed data from tide stations stretching back at least 60 years. They found that the mean rate of sea level rise remains steady at around 1.5 mm per year — about 15 cm per century — similar to rates observed in the 20th century.

“The average rate of sea level rise in 2020 is around 1.5 mm per year,” Voortman explained. “This is significantly lower than the 3 to 4 mm per year often reported by climate scientists in scientific literature and the media.”

Their analysis showed that claims of acceleration are confined to a handful of isolated sites, typically explained by local conditions such as earthquakes, groundwater extraction or sediment shifts. “This pattern is inconsistent with sea level acceleration driven by global phenomena,” the authors wrote.

Models v Reality

One of the study’s most significant findings is the gap between observed sea level data and projections from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The IPCC’s 2021 report projected much higher rates of sea level rise, yet Voortman and de Vos found that “on average, the rate of rise projected by the IPCC is biased upward with approximately 2 mm per year in comparison with the observed rate”.

In other words, widely circulated claims of seas rising by three to ten feet this century are not supported by measured data. Instead, the study suggests that sea levels could rise by only six inches — about the same increase seen in the previous century.

“The graph shows the majority of locations to be above the blue line,” the authors noted of their comparison chart. “This indicates that the rate of sea level rise in the projections is too high compared to the empirical rate”.

Local Factors, Not Global Warming

Where acceleration was detected, it was almost always linked to localised factors rather than a global climate signal. For example, at Ayukawa in Japan, the 2011 Tohoku earthquake caused the land to drop suddenly by more than 80 cm, leading to a sharp spike in recorded sea levels.

In Bangkok and Mumbai, excessive groundwater extraction and rapid urban development explained unusual patterns of rise.

Voortman stressed that such anomalies should not be confused with evidence of global acceleration. “Nine stations did show an acceleration,” he explained. “But these stations are mostly located near stations that show no acceleration in sea level rise, making it unlikely that a global phenomenon such as global warming caused by CO2 is the underlying cause.”

A Stark Contrast with Media Warnings

These findings stand in sharp contrast with decades of dire headlines.

In 2019, New York Times columnist David Wallace-Wells warned, “We will see at least four feet of sea level rise and possibly ten by the end of the century.” That same year, The Atlantic declared, “The oceans we know won’t survive climate change.” The lattercited Princeton scientist Michael Oppenheimer, who predicted that sea levels would rise by more than 2 feet 9 inches by 2100.

Voortman was blunt about the failure to test projections against reality: “It is crazy that it had not been done,” he said, describing his review of whether any global study had actually compared projections with observations. “There were none.”

His work began with a 2023 paper focused on the Dutch coast, where he found no acceleration despite repeated warnings. That led to this global analysis with de Vos, revealing the same result worldwide.

De Vos, in an article reflecting on the research, criticised what he called the “IPCC narrative” around sea level rise. “One of the ‘crown jewels’ of the IPCC narrative is rising sea levels,” he wrote. “But our analysis shows that acceleration is not statistically demonstrable at almost all stations.”

The study is already being described by some commentators as a monumental embarrassment. Michael Shellenberger, a prominent climate analyst, called it “a massive scientific scandal” for showing that widely repeated claims of acceleration were unsupported by observational data.

For many Australians, the constant drumbeat of catastrophic climate warnings has been a source of fear, particularly for young people. The latest study raises important questions: if sea level rise is steady but not accelerating, how should Christians respond to narratives of crisis and alarm?

As believers, we are called to be people of truth. Scripture reminds us that God “did not give us a spirit of fear, but of power, love and self-discipline” (2 Timothy 1:7). While creation care remains vital, Christians can resist being swept along by exaggerated or misleading claims that foster anxiety rather than stewardship.

Voortman and de Vos’s research offers a rare moment of clarity in the climate debate. Their careful analysis of real-world data shows that global acceleration in sea level rise is simply not occurring. Instead, the seas are rising at the same modest pace as the last century, shaped more by local geology and human activity than by sweeping climate forces.

For policymakers, engineers, and families alike, the message is clear: do not build decisions on fear or exaggeration, but on truth grounded in evidence. The truth revealed in God’s Word. We know how the story of this fallen world plays out. Satan’s rule over this world is coming to an end. Next on God’s agenda for this fallen world is Jesus Millennial reign (http://www.millennialkingdom.net). In order to fulfill the covenant promises made to Abraham, David and the new covenant Israel’s Messiah, Jesus must rule the nations of the world. We have had 6,000 years of Satan’s rule now we will have 1000 years of Jesus rule before God destroys this cosmos and He creates a new Heaven and new Earth where only righteousness dwells.

“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.” Revelation 21:1-3

STEP CLOSER TO BIBLICAL ENDTIMES ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT

Posted on by

A new ruling from the United Nations has tightened the grip of climate change catastrophism.

In a 40-page mandate released on Wednesday, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) told nations to fall in line or face the World Court’s wrath.

Countries that fail to align with what amounts to Gaian worship will be punished with a similar ferocity of “justice” to those that commit war crimes, the court warned.

Consequences for not taking climate justice seriously, the ruling said, include “paying full reparations, restitution, compensation, and/or satisfaction.”

The ICJ added that any nation in breach of its Carbon Zero commitments — as outlined by the 2015 Paris Agreement, among others — must “employ all means at their disposal to ensure compliance.”

Despite the mandate not defining what compliance by “any means necessary” would look like, it’s fair to assume this means mutating Carbon Zero into Carbon Communism.

Lockdowns, personal carbon credit scores, carbon taxes, petrol car bans, energy rationing, and carbon passports are all measures prescribed by today’s climate catastrophists.

Carbon passports have already been tabled in the United Kingdom’s Net Zero nanny state, and are defined by the Institute of Sustainability Studies as:

Notably, the ICJ admitted climate change reparations may be “difficult to calculate, because of uncertainty about the role anthropogenic climate change played in causing the damage.”

Acknowledging its limited reach, the World Court concluded that it could only offer judicial advice in response to questions about who’s to blame and for what. At the same time, the ICJ said its latest “climate justice” ruling is unprecedented.

Climate catastrophism “is more than a legal problem,” the court determined. Rather, it is an “existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet.”

Unsurprisingly, the IJC finished by implying that the “lasting solution” was compliance with Carbon Communism.

The only satisfactory answer, it said, is social and political action that “changes our habits, comforts and current way of life in order to secure a future.”

Overall, the World Court’s so-called urgent and “game-changing” determination is toothless. It is ultimately only the opinion of the UN court in answer to young climate activists who claim that islands like Vanuatu are shrinking.

It’s of no surprise that UN boss and “global boiling” believer Antonio Guterres was overjoyed by his court advocating COVID-like, climate crisis mitigation mandates.

Following claims that the so-called “climate crisis was laying waste to lives and livelihoods,” Guterres welcomed the ICJ’s ruling.

“They have made it very clear,” he said, “that States are obligated under international law to protect the global climate system.”

“This is a victory for our planet, for climate justice and for the power of young people to make a difference.”

The science justifying the World Court’s opinion is based on social justice, not a complete rendering of all the facts and variables that make up climate science. If you think I’m exaggerating, note that the language of “oppressor and oppressed” is implied in the repeated use of “climate crisis” and “climate justice” — whatever the latter even really means.

The mandate is also non-binding. Unlike war crimes tribunals, the UN’s Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change is not enforceable. Not yet enforceable, anyway.

As I’ve noted above, lockdowns, personal carbon credit scores, carbon taxes, petrol car bans, energy rationing, and carbon passports are exactly what the 40-page ICJ advice points us towards.

This mitigation mandate is a glimpse of an encroaching darkness that has little to do with science and everything to do with socialism.

What activists mean by “climate justice” is Carbon Communism. That’s the shadow cast by this new globalist dictate, as it green-lights the growth of the Net Zero nanny state.

The science justifying the World Court’s opinion is based on social justice, not a complete rendering of all the facts and variables that make up climate science.

If you think I’m exaggerating, note that the language of “oppressor and oppressed” is implied in the repeated use of “climate crisis” and “climate justice” — whatever the latter even really means.

The mandate is also non-binding. Unlike war crimes tribunals, the UN’s Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change is not enforceable.

Not yet enforceable, anyway.

As I’ve noted above, lockdowns, personal carbon credit scores, carbon taxes, petrol car bans, energy rationing, and carbon passports are exactly what the 40-page ICJ advice points us towards.

This mitigation mandate is a glimpse of an encroaching darkness that has little to do with science and everything to do with socialism.

What activists mean by “climate justice” is Carbon Communism.

That’s the shadow cast by this new globalist dictate, as it green-lights the growth of the Net Zero nanny state.

The science justifying the World Court’s opinion is based on social justice, not a complete rendering of all the facts and variables that make up climate science.

If you think I’m exaggerating, note that the language of “oppressor and oppressed” is implied in the repeated use of “climate crisis” and “climate justice” — whatever the latter even really means.

The mandate is also non-binding. Unlike war crimes tribunals, the UN’s Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change is not enforceable. Not yet enforceable, anyway.

As noted above, lockdowns, personal carbon credit scores, carbon taxes, petrol car bans, energy rationing, and carbon passports are exactly what the 40-page ICJ advice points us towards.

This mitigation mandate is a glimpse of an encroaching darkness that has little to do with science and everything to do with socialism.

What activists mean by “climate justice” is Carbon Communism. That’s the shadow cast by this new globalist dictate, as it green-lights the growth of the Net Zero nanny state.

DO WE NEED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE OR GLOBAL WARMING?

Posted on by

To those who believe that the heavens and the earth were designed and created by God, there is ample reason to expect that the earth’s temperature will remain in a range to support life. In fact, God gave us that promise after He had judged the world with the flood of Noah’s day.

“While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and Summer, and day and night
shall not cease.” Genesis 8:22

Within this worldview, it makes perfect sense that the earth would have a temperature control system just like our bodies do since God designed them both.

Carbon Dioxide, CO2,  is very important to life on Earth. Plants grow using an incredibly complicated and brilliantly designed process called photosynthesis where about 50 enzymes and 100 cofactors work together to take CO2, water, and sunlight and convert them into sugars and oxygen. When plants are starved for CO2, photosynthesis does not work well. A “floor” of 180 ppm CO2 is the level at which plant growth becomes very difficult. If CO2 were to go below 180 ppm for any significant period, plant life would be in significant jeopardy. Without plant life on Earth, there would be no human life. Is it an accident that the CO2 concentration stayed in a range that allowed plants to survive, or was it by design?

A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25. The increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere increases the growth of plants. If you feel the need to worry about something, it makes more sense to worry about low levels of CO2 rather than high levels. As you can see, higher levels of CO2 are desirable for plants. As of January 8, 2015, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was 399.98 ppm. The growth rate for plants increases from 5–50% when CO2 levels are higher than current levels. The maximum growth rates for most plants occur when CO2 levels are in the range of 1,000 to 1,200 ppm. For humans, the negative effects of high CO2 don’t begin until about 5,000–10,000 ppm. When thinking about the consequences of higher levels of CO2, it is also important to remember that the greenhouse gas effect for CO2 diminishes at higher levels. The direct effect of the CO2 concentration is approximately logarithmic, which means that going from 200 to 400 ppm CO2 has about the same effect as going from 400 to 800 ppm. When pondering what we think the CO2 level should be, we should consider all the relevant issues (many of which are not mentioned here), including our ability to feed everyone on the planet.

The climate of the earth is incredibly complicated and currently not well understood. This is obvious when you look at the lack of success of the many different climate models. Currently, the models do not even match up well with the past temperatures, much less predict future temperatures.

Though it is relatively easy to estimate the amount of heat that greenhouse gases absorb and emit back toward the earth (climatologists call this “forcing”), it is much more difficult to determine how the planet will adjust to the additional heat (climatologists call this “feedback”). Essentially all the current climate models have overestimated the global temperature in the past and future. Many climatologists believe that there are stronger positive feedbacks within the climate than negative feedbacks. In other words, they believe that the climate amplifies warming caused by greenhouse gases rather than moderating it. If that were true, why hasn’t the global temperature already gone out of control? Negative feedback systems, like the thermostat in your house, are known to lead to stability; whereas positive feedback systems often lead to instability, like the deafening audio feedback when a speaker and a microphone are put too close together. It seems more likely that our climate is dominated by negative feedback since Earth’s temperature has been amazingly stable for at least 2,000 years with only a 1.3°F change.

Climatologists seem obsessed with understanding the effect of greenhouse gases and aerosols caused by man. But these have a minor effect relative to the major “natural” effects of clouds, water vapor, and “natural” CO2. Gaining a better understanding of these natural effects will allow climatologists to begin to make better models. Unfortunately, we would not be able to make highly predictive models now even if we understood clouds because there is not enough computing power available to do the calculations at the resolution necessary to accurately predict individual clouds.

Conclusion

It seems that politicians and the media have always been concerned about the climate. In the late 1970s, there was concern about global cooling. The temperature had declined for about 30 years, and many were convinced that we were headed for the next ice age. Almost immediately, the temperature started to rise and continued to rise until about the year 2000. Early in the new century, politicians were clamoring that the rise in global temperature was getting out of control and were blaming humankind for causing it. At the height of the concern about warming, it started to become obvious that the temperature increase had paused, and little change has been noticed for about the last 15 years. In the absence of a short-term warming or cooling trend about which to panic, politicians have turned to saying that weather patterns are much more extreme than in the past. Again, there is no convincing evidence to support this new claim when considering the longer-term perspective. Even the latest IPCC report significantly contradicts this view.13

The data are clear. The global temperature has been rising since the Little Ice Age. But today’s temperature is not unprecedented. Based on the best information we have, it is in the neighborhood of the temperature during the Medieval Warm Period, about 1,000 years ago. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and, therefore, is a factor in determining the global temperature. However, the concentration of CO2 in the air and global temperature do not correlate well over the long term, indicating that CO2 is not the dominant cause of today’s rising global temperature. The globe is warming, but it’s not your fault. Carbon dioxide is critical to plant life and must remain above about 180 ppm to sustain our only source of food. It is important that we investigate these issues and carefully examine the data so that we can prepare for the future, even if we find we are unable to significantly change the global temperature.

What is your worldview? Do you trust that God brilliantly designed and created everything and trust that He has your best interests at heart, or will you always be worried that the planet is on the verge of going out of control? As you ponder that, think of these things:

  1. A nuclear reaction in the sun’s core provides us exactly the right amount of heat, and the sun’s surface is the right temperature to provide us the visible light we need.
  2. Water, CO2, and methane from natural sources cause a greenhouse effect that is estimated to raise Earth’s temperature by about 59°F degrees. Otherwise, Earth would be frozen.
  3. Plant life and animal life are totally dependent on each other. Plants grow by consuming carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen. Animals grow by consuming oxygen and releasing carbon dioxide.
  4. The oceans are a tremendous stabilizing force for Earth’s temperature, and they contain a large reservoir of CO2.
  5. The hydrological cycle of evaporation and rain provides a mechanism for transferring heat around the earth and provides fresh water to plants and animals.
  6. Clouds help control the earth’s temperature by reflecting some of the sun’s radiation into space and by absorbing some of the heat radiated from the earth.

It’s all a part of a grand design. Evidence of God’s provision is everywhere.

“For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, so that they are without excuse” Romans 1:20

Taken from a great article by Dr Alan White, The globe is warming, but it’s not your fault. Dr. Alan White earned his BS in Chemistry from the University of Tennessee and his PhD in Organic Chemistry from Harvard University in 1981.

FANATICS AT COP28 – THE U.N. CLIMATE CHANGE SUMMIT

Posted on by
Like the Inquisition of Galileo (zero tolerance for dissent), climate science now follows this same Inquisition approach… and the tactics have been very much on display during the 28th annual UN Climate Change Summit, known as COP28, which is currently taking place in the UAE. Everything about this event is a complete joke; even on the COP28 website they have a fancy video filled with global celebrities whose theme is “No more waiting. It’s time to take action“. Hang on a sec. What exactly was the purpose of the previous 27 annual climate summits if there hasn’t been any action yet? Apparently, COPs 1-27 were complete failures in which absolutely nothing has ever been accomplished. But now it’s up to COP28 to finally get something done? This is hilarious given that most of the big shots who are attending COP28 are the same virtuous hypocrites who have flown in on their private jets year after year to all the previous summits. I guess they’re finally serious about doing something this time. One widely publicized exchange over the weekend was the “She Changes” panel… because feminism and gender identity politics has soooo much to do with climate change. The science is clear. So, this panel was basically the former President of Ireland, Mary Robinson, trying to demonstrate her virtue and genius by berating the CEO of Abu Dhabi’s national oil company. But the CEO wasn’t having any of it, at one point saying, “Stop pointing fingers. Show me solutions. Show me what you can do. Show me your own contributions,” and blasted her for creating even more divisions in an already polarized world. Then he committed the ultimate heresy and said that completely eliminating fossil fuels in the near future would “take the world back into caves” and that “no science out there . . . says that the phase-out of fossil fuel” will achieve the UN’s global temperature goals. The reaction was almost pandemonium as virtuous hypocrites around the world immediately voiced their opposition to the CEO’s dangerous wrongthink.
“The science is clear,” said UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who added that we must “stop burning fossil fuels– not reduce, not abate. Phase out.”
“The science is absolutely clear,” said Bill Hare, the chief executive of a government-funded climate non-profit. Completely eliminating fossil fuels “will enhance the lives of all humanity.”
“The science of climate change has been clear for decades”, said Professor Frederike Otto, listed as one of Time’s “100 most influential people in the world”.There’s that magical phrase again: the science is clear.
Now, I’m not attacking climate science or those who dedicate their lives to it; there’s plenty of solid data out there. Plus, I love clean air and water as much as anyone, and I do my best to conserve resources and be greener. I’m also rational about it, which is why I’m so much in favor of nuclear power. But there is a certain arrogance to saying “the science is clear” without acknowledging any uncertainty, or that many of their end-of-the-world predictions haven’t come to pass. There’s nothing wrong with being wrong. Science is a process of continuous growth, examination, and discovery. But to say “the science is clear” is to say that today’s conclusions are fully settled and will never change. If we’re intellectually honest, there are very few things we can say this about. Yet these people insist that “the science is clear” about eliminating fossil fuels. We MUST keep global warming below 1.5C, and the ONLY way to do that is to completely eliminate, i.e. “phase out” oil. No discussion about costs and benefits is allowed. Their view is the only view. The science is clear. It doesn’t help that they make a joke of themselves by having their virtuous hypocrite climate bosses fly in on private jets. And they insist on mixing in gender identity politics. In fact, at COP28 this year, there’s an entire theme on the agenda for “Gender and Inclusion”. The science is clear. But even if we accept the absolute certainty of their conclusions, there’s the matter of implementing their ideas. They demand, for example, that all energy be green. That means (in their definition) solar panels and wind power. Yet shifting to 100% green energy will require many critical resources (like copper and various other minerals) that the world simply cannot produce. And even if the production capacity existed, these same people insist on shutting down the world’s mines– because they’re bad for the environment. They don’t think realistically about implementation or costs versus benefits; they live in a theoretical dream world where TeraWatts of green power will simply fall from the sky. It’s bizarre that such unrealistic fanatics have so much influence in dictating global policy. And this is one of the reasons I’m so vocal about investing in real assets, in part to benefit from their irrationality. If the climate fanatics want to shut down mines, yet simultaneously create skyrocketing demand for copper from solar panel production, then it seems pretty likely that copper prices could soar. If they want to completely phase out fossil fuel production, that probably means oil prices will rise. If they want to require every business to become “net zero” and buy carbon credits, it probably means that the price of carbon credits will eventually be much higher. And if reason ever prevails– which it eventually does– and nuclear power is finally recognized as a viable solution– which it is already starting to be– then demand for uranium will go through the roof. But given uranium’s meager production and almost entirely drawn-down stockpiles, this also suggests that the price of uranium could one day go nuclear.I won’t say the science is clear… because it seldom is. But in a world run by fanatics, these sorts of ideas certainly make sense to consider.
Another great post by Simon Black, Founder of Sovereign Man Investment Advisory Service
The reality is that a world that has rejected its Creator is headed for God’s judgement. God has told us in advance what will unfold in the years before Jesus returns to bring righteous rule to the Earth with His Millennial Kingdom. God has unfinished business with the nation He established for His purposes. At the outset, God’s covenants with Abraham and David promised that a future Messiah would rule Israel and the nations. The new covenant given to Jeremiah, confirmed by Isaiah and repeated in Hebrews makes it clear God will have his nation, Israel rule the nations with a rod rod iron.

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke… For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” Jeremiah 31:31-33

“And as for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the Lord: “My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children’s offspring,” says the Lord, “from this time forth and forevermore.” Isaiah 59:21

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbour and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.” Hebrews 8:8-12

JESUS AND THE SAINTS WILL RULE AND REIGN WITH A ROD OF IRON IN THE MILLENNIUM

“The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority from my Father.” Revelation 2:26-27

She (Israel) gave birth to a male child (Jesus), one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which she is to be nourished for 1,260 days.” Revelation 12:5-6

“From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.” Revelation 19:15-16

Go to http://www.millennialkingdom.net for more information on what is next on God’s agenda for planet Earth.

ARE WIND FARMS, SOLAR, AND BATTERIES OUR BEST ENERGY OPTIONS?

Posted on by

“The Extinction Rebellion types who like gluing themselves to roads are right about one thing. It makes no logical sense to rail against coal and gas like Bowen does and yet export it to major ‘polluters’ like China and India. If you truly believe that CO2 will cause a climate catastrophe or global ‘boiling’ then why would you extract and export the stuff to be used by others, while investing $billions (perhaps $trillions) in solar panels and windmills imported from China in particular who has burnt our carbon to make the panels and windmills?

“And why would you cover thousands of square kilometres of our arable land and wildlife habitat with solar panels, windmills, and transmission corridors Doesn’t this mean we are actually paying China to pollute and destroy our wildlife and the planet? And if you don’t believe that the planet is going to boil then why spend all that money on Chinese imports when we could just burn the carbon ourselves in our own power stations? Doesn’t this seem mad? The logic of Labor is so conflicted that we are willing to impoverish ourselves for nothing. Indeed it is mad.”

“Bowen asserts that an SMR (small modular reactor) would cost $5 billion. Well, that means we could build at least 4 SMRs that would be hooked to the existing grid and generate at least 1GWh of electricity on 24/7 basis for 60-80 years! Bowen has not been keeping up with what Rolls Royce SMR is doing.

Rolls-Royce SMR will move away from the high cost and high-risk complex construction programme principles into predictable factory-built commodities. Approximately 90% of manufacturing and assembly activities are carried out in factory conditions, helping to maintain an extremely high-quality product – reducing on-site disruption and supporting international roll out.

“An equivalent solar farm would need to have a theoretical output of 3+GW and would need replacing at least 4 times in addition to the $20+billion for rewiring. These are your figures – nuclear is a bargain.”

SMALL MODULAR NUCLEAR REACTORS ARE THE WAY TO GO FOR AUSTRALIA AND THE REST OF THE WORLD. If that is the case then I suggest you look at investing in the two companies that look set to dominate this market. BWX Technologies and Rolls-Royce SMR Ltd. Westinghouse is also developing the “eVinci” Small Micro Reactor so it may be worth your while following its progress.

Whilst my calling is to alert the world to what God has next for this world – Jesus Millennial Kingdom, I could not resist bringing this opportunity to the followers of http://www.livingeternal.net. God has given me a talent for business and I am sure that Jesus will use me in business during His Millennial reign in some capacity. What about you, have you ever thought about how Jesus may use you during His Millennial reign on this earth? Remember, the curse has not been lifted, people are still born and die and Jesus and the Saints need to rule with a rod of iron. Remember, also that Satan is bound for most of the thousand years but when he is released he is still able to raise an army, their number like the sand of the sea, to come against Jesus and the Saints.

What is next on God’s agenda is not the new heaven and the new earth where only the righteous dwell.

USING FEAR TO CONTROL THE POPULATION

Posted on by

It happened with Covid 19 and it is happening with Climate Change and it will happen with Finance with “The Great Reset” planned by the World Economic Forum (WEF).

Climate Change

Where does Joe Biden get this rhetoric? “This is code red. The nation and the world are in peril.”

The WEF says, “Climate Change will be sudden and cataclysmic. We need to act fast.” on Jan 19th, 2021.

Patrick Moore says there’s no climate emergency. This isn’t coming from a nut job. It’s coming from the founder of the world’s largest environmental activist organization… It’s coming from a man regarded as one of the world’s most qualified experts on the environment. When asked why he left Greenpeace, he said: Greenpeace was “hijacked” by the political left when they realized there was money and power in the environmental movement.

How come you have not heard about the book called Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters. written by Steve Koonin. He is not just some crazy conspiracy theorist. He has an MIT doctorate in physics. And he’s the former chief scientist for BP and former Undersecretary for Science at the U.S. Department of Energy. After analyzing all the available science, he called all this climate alarmism “hubris.”

Yes, it’s true that the globe is warming modestly. But it has been warming since about the year 1700. For context, that was 150 years before we were using fossil fuels. And yes, it’s true that humans are having some type of influence. But the why and how aren’t as clear as they want you to believe. And the idea that we’re all going to die is complete BS. Listen to his conclusion:

“Very few people, and that includes journalists who report on climate news, read the actual science. I have. And what the data—the hard science—says is that… things are NOT that bad. Heat waves in the US are NO MORE COMMON than they were in 1900. Hurricane activity is NO DIFFERENT than it was a century ago. Floods have NOT increased across the globe over more than seventy years. Greenland’s ice sheet is NOT shrinking any more rapidly today than it was 80 years ago.

Many end times Bible Commentators have realized that the WEF proposed 2030 Global Reset could be the lead into the time when the Antichrist takes control and introduces the prophesied Mark of the Beast which everyone will have to take in order to buy and sell. The technology – microchips being inserted into people’s hands is already in use. The WEF elite has realized the control it will give them over people to introduce things that will according to their agenda be good for society as a whole. Bill Gates already has a patented chip that records everything even your medical history and vital signs e.g. blood pressure and heart rate. Imagine the control this would give governments. E.g. if your blood pressure is above a certain reading you would not be able to board a plane.

“Also it (Antichrist) causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.“Revelation 13:16-17

ZERO EMISSIONS: AUSTRALIA IS ON A DISASTROUS COURSE

Posted on by

Dr Jordan B Peterson explains why the goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050 is absolutely preposterous.

Jordan Peterson has taken aim at Anthony Albanese’s “impossible” 2030 and 2050 emissions reduction target as he condemned “power-mad globalist utopians” pushing for drastic climate action.

Peterson criticized the global movement toward net zero emissions before slamming the new Australian Labor Government’s recent move to legislate its climate agenda. He said the “utterly preposterous and inexcusable goal” of net zero by 2050 was both practically and conceptionally unachievable.

Peterson wrote in The Telegraph. “This by the way is a goal identical to that adopted last week by the utterly delusional leaders of Australia,” “Who additionally committed that resource-dependent and productive country to a 43 percent plus decrease – by 2005 standards – in greenhouse gas emission within the impossible timeframe of eight years. “This will devastate Australia.”

The debate raged in the first sitting weeks of the new Parliament and ended with Labor successfully passing its Climate Change Bill through the House of Representatives. The bill will enshrine into legislation the government’s Nationally Determined Contributions to the Paris Agreement of 43 per cent by 2030 and net zero by 2050.

RISE IN CO2 HAS GREENED PLANET EARTH:

Carbon dioxide emissions from industrial society have driven a huge growth in trees and other plants.

A new study says that if the extra green leaves prompted by rising CO2 levels were laid in a carpet, it would cover twice the continental USA. Climate skeptics argue the findings show that the extra CO2 is actually benefiting the planet.

Nic Lewis, an independent scientist often critical of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), told BBC News: “The magnitude of the increase in vegetation appears to be considerably larger than suggested by previous studies.

“It also suggests that projected atmospheric CO2 levels in IPCC scenarios are significantly too high, which implies that global temperature rises projected by IPCC models are also too high, even if the climate is as sensitive to CO2 increases as the models imply.”

And Prof Judith Curry, the former chair of Earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology added: “It is inappropriate to dismiss the arguments of the so-called contrarians since their disagreement with the consensus reflects conflicts of values and a preference for the empirical (i.e. what has been observed) versus the hypothetical (i.e. what is projected from climate models).

“These disagreements are at the heart of the public debate on climate change, and these issues should be debated, not dismissed.”

CLIMATE: A CHAOTIC SYSTEM

Dr. Andrew N Edmonds who did his Ph.D. in time series prediction of real-world chaotic systems back in the 90s created a piece of software called ChaosKit to do this analysis. And for a while it had some buzz attached to it, principally in the world of finance, but also climate scientists became interested and sent him data, asking him to run the analysis for them.

One such piece of data was a 500-year sequence of temperatures from Northern Italy. He tried ChaosKit software on it and the results came out as chaotic, with a time to a doubling of error, which agreed with Dr. Peterson’s view that climate was not predictable because the prediction errors “grew like compound interest”.

Dr. Edmonds got given more climate data after that with similar results. Since then, many researchers in Chaos Theory, but not climate change, have performed similar analyses of different aspects of climate with similar results. There is mounting evidence that this is true. For instance: (Boyan H. Petkov, Vito Vitale, Mauro Mazzola, Christian Lanconelli, Angelo Lupi 2015; Gualtiero Badin 2014; R. C. Sreelekshmi, K. Asokan, K. Satheesh Kumar 2012; V. Krishnamurthy 7).

Not only is it true that climate is chaotic, but the Lyapunov time, the time to a doubling of error is so short that it undermines all climate modeling. For instance, if climate scientists can predict next year’s average temperature to an accuracy of +/- 0.1 Deg C, then the best their models can do is +/-0.2, the next year, 0.4 the next, 0.8 the next, 1.6 the year after that. Average world temperatures hover around 2 deg C, so this is an enormous error after only 5 years.

By way of comparison, recent work has shown our universe is chaotic. (Bruce Dorminey 2021) The interactions between the sun and the planets form a complex non-linear dynamic system with feedback. Such systems are often chaotic, but in the case of our universe the Lyapunov time is around 10 million years, so useful to understand some aspects of long-term climate, but not to cause an imminent threat…

Dr Peterson is correct, therefore, in what he says. Dr. Edmonds said, “I’d be fascinated to know where Dr. Peterson first read about this. I first published something about this ten years ago. (Andrew N Edmonds 2011). I’d like to think he saw that. The arguments have not changed since.”

As time has continued the ridiculous predictions in Al Gore’s “An inconvenient truth” have turned out to be an inconvenient reminder of hubris. Unfortunately, ideas have massive momentum. The idea of a predictable climate is firmly embedded in people’s worldview, as is the idea that the trajectory of disease can be predicted. It’s hard for the layman to appreciate that the wonderfully predictable technology that enables me to type this and you to read it exists in the same world as the completely unpredictable and chaotic.

Scientists working in the “soft sciences”, and climate is one of those, have been able to ride on the coattails of the ‘hard sciences’ incredible accuracy.

In the end, this will undermine science itself, and those in the hard sciences will have to do something about it. Already the politicization of science caused by climate change has started to undermine other branches of science.

Dr. Edmonds believes that ultimately scientists will have to reject some of the wilder excesses of model-based predictions. In the social sciences, journals now reject papers based on small samples and poor analysis. He states, “Climate journals ought to ask for a thorough analysis of all sources of error in predictions, including the elusive but vital “model error”. If we actually knew the error bars on some of the wild predictions of doom that make their way into the newspapers, it’s unlikely we would give them any credence.”

Dr Edmonds provided the following Bibliography with his article. He said, I generally don’t give references when I write for Medium, but this stuff is contentious, so I’ve fired up Citavi.

Publication bibliography

Andrew N Edmonds: ChaosKit. ThinkBase LLC. Github. Available online at https://github.com/thinkbase-ai/ChaosKit.

Andrew N Edmonds (1996): Time series prediction using tools from Chaos Theory and supervised learning. University of Bedfordshire PhD Thesis. Available online at https://www.academia.edu/466858/Time_series_prediction_using_supervised_learning_and_tools_from_chaos_theory.

Andrew N Edmonds (2011): The Chaos theoretic argument that undermines Climate Change modelling. Watts up with that. Wattsupwiththat.com. Available online at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/13/the-chaos-theoretic-argument-that-undermines-climate-change-modelling/.

Boyan H. Petkov, Vito Vitale, Mauro Mazzola, Christian Lanconelli, Angelo Lupi (2015): Chaotic behaviour of the short-term variations in ozone column observed in Arctic. In Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation,

Bruce Dorminey (2021): Our Solar System’s Planetary Orbits Are Ultimately Chaotic, Says French Astronomer. Forbes. Available online at https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2021/11/19/our-solar-systems-planetary-orbits-are-ultimately-chaotic-says-french-astronomer/?sh=54f733973a35.

Gualtiero Badin (2014): A Search for Chaotic Behavior in Stratospheric Variability: Comparison between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. In Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences.

Joe Rogan: #1769 Jordan Peterson. The Joe Rogan experience. spotify inc: spotify inc. Available online at https://open.spotify.com/episode/7IVFm4085auRaIHS7N1NQl.

Larry Bell: A Cool-Headed Climate Conversation With Aerospace Legend Burt Rutan. Forbes. Available online at https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/09/09/a-cool-headed-climate-conversation-with-aerospace-legend-burt-rutan/?sh=403d4f267e03.

R. C. Sreelekshmi, K. Asokan, K. Satheesh Kumar (2012): Deterministic nature of the underlying dynamics of surface windfluctuations. In Ann. Geophys 30, pp. 1503–1514.

V. Krishnamurthy (7): Predictability of Weather and Climate. In Earth and Space Science 6 (2019), pp. 1043–1056. Available online at https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019EA000586 .

COMPLEXITY OF CLIMATE AND ENERGY SCIENCE

Posted on by

Dr Jordan B Peterson and Dr. Steven Koonin discuss the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports – the globally sourced research on climate change – and how policymakers take summaries of summaries from these to justify their green agenda, despite what the reports actually suggest. They also discuss starvation, obesity, green economics, and nuclear futures.

Dr. Steven Koonin, a University Professor at NYU, has served as the Department of Energy’s Under Secretary for Science, as Chief Scientist for BP, and as professor and Provost at Caltech. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a Governor of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, a senior fellow of Stanford’s Hoover Institution, and a Trustee of the Institute for Defense Analyses. Koonin holds a BS in physics from Caltech and a Ph.D. in theoretical physics from MIT. He wrote the recent bestseller “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters.”

It is important that this man has both dimensions: knowledge of climate science and energy production (technology, production, and business). Very few people have both perspectives, which is why you need to hear what he has to say.

What is not discussed in the media is the fact that the earth is becoming greener due to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, Since the 1980s the increase is 40%. This is wonderful. For example, the Sahara Desert has been reduced by 15%. There is no apocalypse in the future, we can manage well if we allow scientists like Dr. Koonin to guide the change to more climate-friendly energy sources. Small modular nuclear reactors will be in the mix.

TRUTH ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE

Posted on by

What really motivates those leading the Climate Change charge. In this video, Jordan Peterson interviews Dr. Richard Lindzen to talk about the climate change catastrophe narrative. I have given a lot of detail on his biography to prove that you should listen to what he has to say.

Climate is controlled by the Greenhouse effect. Is this correct? No, it is not and you will come to understand how futile the climate change catastrophe narrative is and how we have got to this crazy state with 97% of scientists agreeing with global warming. Administrative hyper-invasion of the technical schools is having a major impact. Also, many scientists would agree that increases in CO2 greenhouse effects are occurring, but would not agree there are tipping points that will result in catastrophic disasters.

Richard Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist. He has contributed to the development of theories for the Hadley Circulation, hydrodynamic instability theory, internal gravity waves, atmospheric tides, and the quasi-biennial oscillation of the stratosphere. His current research is focused on climate sensitivity, the role of cirrus clouds in climate, and the determination of the tropics-to-pole temperature difference. He has attained multiple degrees from Harvard University, and won multiple awards in his field of study such as the Jule Charney award for “highly significant research in the atmospheric sciences”. Between 1983 and 2013, he was the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT where he earned emeritus status in July of 2013.

Concerning climate change, Martyn Isles of Australian Christian Lobby reminds us of the following scripture.

‘The Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done. While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.”‘ Genesis 8:20-22

“As a first principle, the earth was made to be filled by us. It was made to resource that enterprise. The resources of the earth are given to us to use toward that end. It is not wrong to use the many resources God has placed within and on the earth.

As for the earth’s climate, it is *ultimately* controlled by God. His guarantee is that seasons and temperatures will be held within certain parameters which He ordains over the entire life of the earth – as long as it remains.

“He promises that food will be grown; that seasons will take place; that the weather will be both cold and hot …

“Whatever the temporal variations may be, the long-term guarantee is that God is in control for our good. That’s what the rainbow reminds us of.

“Take God out of the picture, and anxiety about those things which are above our pay grade gets out of control. That includes the weather.

“We get to “tend” and “keep” the garden (so by all means compost and recycle and whatnot – this is not a license to be reckless or to pillage), but we don’t control its ultimate paradigm.

“We are the creatures. He is the Creator. The reversal of that order is one of the timeless sins of the human race.

The scriptural statements on these matters (which actually make sense of the observable realities) are seldom invoked even by Christian leaders – probably for fear of being considered foolish.

“God’s words are good enough for me.” Also, God has told us the end of the story for this planet – Jesus returns to rule and reign for 1000 years and then the end will come.