Okay, gun fetish folks, tell those 20 dead elementary school children at Sandy Hook School in Newtown, CT. why you think everyone should be packing firearms!

Indoctrinated? Well apparently thats what you need to think of me as. It helps in lowering me down to a level where you feel you are above me in some way.

If you think about what I said it makes sense. If the planet warms and nothing comes from it so what right? But that warming causes changes in the climate of the various regions on this planet.

The planet is warming we all know this. In the long run it doesn't even matter whats causing it to happen. What matters is are we prepared to deal with the consequences?

We never will be if politics are allowed to dictate this issue. Sadly people like you just cant do that. Please correct me if I am wrong.

So Global warming is NOT about warming per say, LOL good lord you are indoctrinated.

Warming isn't the issue per se. Its what that warming is doing to the weather patterns that is the problem. If seasonal precipitation and temperatures goes too far out of the norm then crop yields may be affected up to the point where the region may become unsuitable for growing a particular crop. The medieval warm period showed positive side effects of a warming pattern. It became possible to grow grapes for wine in England.

But I am sure some areas had crop failures as a result of the medieval warm period.

This new period of climatic shift will cause problems. But dealing with it is a matter of being smart.

Warming periods are benificial to mankind, longer growing seasons, less heating required, (less carbon if that makes you feel better) Historicly the world has suffered in cold cycles and boomed during warmer ones.

Annnnd I might add that if control is what they are after then keeping the people's heads up their rears and focused on "other" issues would be logical play in the grand scheme of control.

Divide and conquer!

What a better way to do that than keeping people hyperpolarized?

If we are fighting each other we won't go after them will we?

So keep on keepin on. Its what "they" want!

Why control us when they could just kill us by setting loose a virus leading to a worldwide epidemic?

Your position on control just doesn't jive with logic.

Look anywhere in the world you say Tiredofit. Well I dont have too. Because I know full well that if control is a goal smaller numbers of people would be easier to control.

That being said don't you think they would rig the system as it were to lead to less people being around. A good way of doing that is to not do anything about climate change or prepare for the effects of it in case there is nothing that can be done to limit/stop it.

Believe me once it gets further along and it starts affecting crop yields in a big way mass death by starvation will happen. Maybe not here but certainly somewhere.

Oh and the effects that it will have on the worlds fisheries.

"So if we resist GOVT we reisit GOD????"

You misquoted me and, by extension, the Bible.

I said that the Bible, in Romans 13:1-2 says,

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

And verse 3 links “higher powers” to government: “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. “

If you have a problem with those words I believe, I suggest you take it up with their author instead of calling me a fraud for sincerely believing them.

Again, I thank you for providing me with the opportunity to remind others, and myself, of what the Bible says.

Harry you demonstrate yourself a fraud

So if we resist GOVT we reisit GOD???? I guess GOD must support abortion

Nope.

Well Harry, if you are indeed a Christian, you cannot support the abortion agenda of the left, or do you?

These words conflicted with everything I had been taught. I had a dilemma—believe what I had been taught or believe the Bible. I chose to believe the Bible. Therefore, I don’t fear any government conspiracy (much less such an implausible conspiracy), since the Bible calls the ruler God’s minister to me.

Once again, I thank you for your patience and for providing this opportunity to explain the reasoning behind my beliefs.

The Bible I swore to believe says I “have not been given a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.” So I fear nothing, including government, and my sound mind tells me there is no political conspiracy involving thousands of scientists.

The Bible also speaks directly to the role of government. Romans 13 says that the ruler is “ordained of God,” and those who “resist the power, resist the ordinance of God.” The ruler is “a minister of God to you for good.” The ruler is “not a terror to good works, but to evil.”

And as to fearing the government: “Will you then not be afraid of the authorities? Do what is good, and you shall have praise of the same.”

You only need fear the ruler if “you do that which is evil…; for he bears not the sword in vain: for he the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath on him who does evil.”

Now I’ll explain my feelings on a large government conspiracy to use climate science to control us.

I understand how one could fear that, particularly since many proposed solutions involve submitting to authority and acting as a group.

I understand because of my pioneer heritage. My Scotch-Irish ancestors came to the Ohio Valley before Anthony Wayne made the Valley safe for white settlers by winning the Battle of Fallen Timbers in 1794.

Folklorist Alan Lomax called us Appalachian Scotch-Irish “a rebellious, restless, dissenting folk.” I grew up in a family that still reflected this attitude; we always respected government. I myself eagerly embraced it as a young adult.

So I quite understand how people can see government as a feared enemy.

But something happened to change my attitude. I became a Christian. I decided to believe the Bible over everything I had been taught, and even what I saw with my eyes.

I said earlier that one person’s actions, even if they are fraudulent, don’t make a conspiracy. Jones’ remark, however, wasn’t even fraudulent, according to no less eight major investigations from the following organizations:

The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee ,

The Independent Climate Change Review of the UK,

The International Science Assessment Panel of the UK,

Pennsylvania State University (two separate reviews),

The EPA,

The Department of Commerce,

And the National Science Foundation.

Here’s how Jones explained it himself in a BBC interview:

“This remark has nothing to do with any ‘decline’ in observed instrumental temperatures. The remark referred to a well-known observation, in a particular set of tree-ring data, that I had used in a figure to represent large-scale summer temperature changes over the last 600 years. The phrase 'hide the decline' was shorthand for providing a composite representation of long-term temperature changes made up of recent instrumental data and earlier tree-ring based evidence, where it was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written) were not rising…”

Jones’ explanation makes sense to me.

Tiredofit,

I’ve finally found time to get back to you. Thank you for being patient.

You asked about Phil Jones’ “hide the decline” remark in the context of a vast conspiracy involving scientists.

We can’t consider Jones’ remark proof of a conspiracy involving thousands because a single person’s words don’t constitute a conspiracy. More on this later.

That being said, let’s look at Jones’ remark, which, by the way, was written way back in 1999, before a large body of information subsequently supported his conclusions.

The width of tree rings has historically reflected warmer and colder years. However, since 1960, tree rings have varied from that pattern. Scientists don’t know why. Jones was attempting to reconcile the differences in tree ring width and measured atmospheric temperatures between 1961 and 1981.

I took this from ww w.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/climategate-bogus-sceptics-lies

So there was an anomaly in tree rings, not a decline in temperatu

Welcome back Nancy

Want to see what a lack of regulation in industry looks like?

Look at texas and their recent explosion.

Oil companies certainly will "do the right thing", just ask any community in the world where a spill has happened, then said company walked away with a slap on the wrist.