What Susan Stamper Brown writes is STUPID. Below is more of her idiotic rant but when she blames clean air for global warming, she forgets one MAJOR detail. Before the industrial revolution, the air was clean of chimney stack coal burning industrial rubbish and of car exhausts. And there was not a hint of global warming then, WHEN THE AIR WAS CLEAN. So clean air doesn't induce global warming. CO2 does. Simple. 

Here some Susan rubbish:

Today, with more than 15,000 fulltime employees-strong and led by environmental extremists, Obama's Environmental Protection Agency is an agency gone-wild. A report just out by the Institute for Energy Research [IER] concludes the EPA's finalized "Clean Power Plan" is filled with about as much junk as the EPA and contractors just pumped into Colorado's Animas River.

The Clean Power Plan effectually triggers the skyrocketing electricity prices Mr. Obama duly promised years back. Nevertheless, the EPA says the plan will save thousands of lives, improving the climate and our health. That is, barring additional EPA-caused environmental disasters.

I presume then, we should trust the EPA, naively ignoring the effect high energy prices would have on low income families. Even EPA Chief Gina McCarthy admits, "Low income minority communities would be hardest hit." Should we also ignore that former Obama administration Assistant Secretary of Energy, Charles McConnell says the costly and burdensome Clean Power Plan will, at best, only reduce global temperatures by a negligible one-hundredth of a degree, Celsius?

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/environmental-protection-agency-does-more-harm-than-good-143673/#Sxm20U1ywqdjsZm5.99

Meanwhile some other dude says:

Under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, a section added by the 1990 Amendments, the EPA has a legal obligation to limit carbon pollution from power plants. After consulting with major stakeholders and the public over a period of years, the EPA has issued standards that give states maximum flexibility to cut carbon pollution and help to protect Americans from the adverse effects of climate change.

Opponents have attacked the Clean Power Plan with claims of economic calamity, job loss and higher energy costs. Many of the same claims were made 25 years ago. But we do not have to accept a false choice between a healthy environment and a strong economy. The truth is that the U.S. has worked to strengthen public health and environmental protections for decades and our economy has continued to grow — allowing Americans to reap the rewards of good health and economic growth.

If the opponents succeed, the health of many Americans will be endangered, as will the United States’ role as a global leader on climate change. Repealing the Clean Air Act wouldn’t just undo our progress on climate; it would also dismantle standards that protect Americans from a whole host of widespread and harmful pollutants such as ozone, a key component of smog.

The opposition to our bedrock environmental laws is wrong and misplaced. The effort to protect our climate and to encourage new investments in renewable energy as engines of economic growth will ensure that our children inherit a safer environment and a better economic future.

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 gave us cleaner air and better health. They also have allowed us to take meaningful steps to address climate change. I urge lawmakers in Washington and across the country to protect the American people and honor our environmental legacy by supporting the Clean Air Act and the Clean Power Plan.

Meanwhile Charles McConnell (quoted by Suzan) is an interested party to demonise "clean air":

Charles “Chuck” McConnell is the Executive Director of the Rice University Energy and Environmental Initiative.

Prior to joining Rice University, McConnell was Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy at the U. S. Department of Energy with responsibilities for office operations and managing the oversight of Fossil Energy's Research and Development program (encompassing coal, oil and natural gas) and the U.S. Petroleum Reserves.

Charles McConnell will not piss in his own yard and will say falsities such a the "negligible one hundredth of a degree". This figure is inaccurate as if plucked out of thin air.

The only comment I could find on the "Christian Post" about the Climate Paris Agreement is the following rubbish by Dr. Jerry Newcombe. His text in Italics — Gus COMMENTS IN CAPS BOLD

I am a layman and not a scientist (though neither are Al Gore nor President Obama), but I can't help but feel the "sky is falling" mentality related to global warming is a myth.

AL GORE AND OBAMA ARE MORE INTELLIGENT THAN YOU, DUDE...

From what I understand:

1. The earth has not warmed significantly since 1997, according to the satellite data (the most reliable source). Thank you, Ted Cruz, for masterfully pointing that out at a hearing on the subject.

THIS IS RUBBISH, THE SATELLITE AND OTHER TEMPERATURE DATA IS LAYERED TO VARIOUS ALTITUDES AS WELL AS GROUND LEVEL. THE NOT SO SIGNIFICANTLY" IS AROUND 0.3 DEGREES C UPWARDS SINCE 1997, AT GROUND LEVEL. TED CRUZ IS NOT SCIENTIST EITHER AND HE UNDERSTAND ZIP ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING.

2. The "climategate" scandal in 2009 and 2011, never fully recognized by the left, proved that climate alarmists fudged raw data on global warming, in order to increase perceived warming.

THE CLIMATEGATE "SCANDAL" WAS RESOLVED AND ACCEPTED BY ALL SERIOUS SCIENTISTS (THOUGH SOME DENIALIST IGNORANT SCRIBES ARE STILL HARPING ON ABOUT THIS EVENT) SHOWING THERE WAS NO TEMPERING OF DATA, NO FUDGE, NOTHING TO INCREASE PERCEIVED WARMING. ALL THERE WAS WAS A MORE ACCURATE READING OF DATA FROM SENSORS AS WELL AS A MORE COMPREHENSIVE EXTRAPOLATION OF SPACE AND TIME OF LOCATIONS. 

3. The computer models of predicted global warming, so prominent in Al Gore's movie, have proven unreliable. Beisner told me, "On average, they predict twice the observed warming over the relevant period. Over 95% predict more warming than observed."

RUBBISH. ALL MODELS APART FROM A FEW MORE ADVANCED MODELS ARE VERY CONSERVATIVE IN THEIR ESTIMATE OF THE PROGRESSION OF GLOBAL WARMING, INCLUDING THE EFFECT ON THE OCEANS. IT HAS BEEN SHOWN THAT MOST COMPUTER MODELS ARE ABOUT FIVE TO TEN YEARS BEHIND IN THEIR PREDICTIONS AND CURRENT OBSERVATIONS.

4. The famous hockey stick graph of Gore's movie, showing a sudden rise in global temperatures, has been refuted.

REFUTED BY WHOM? NO SCIENTISTS WHO IS STUDYING THIS GLOBAL PROBLEM HAS REFUTED THE CURVATURE OF THE INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE DUE TO THE EXTRA CO2 (FROM FOSSIL FUEL). THE SCALE OF THE INCREASE IS STILL OPEN TO DEBATE, BUT THE INCREASE IS IRREFUTABLE.

5. The supposed consensus of scientists alarmed about global warming is exaggerated. Beisner says, "The claim of 97% consensus that global warming is real and manmade ... is both misleading and simply false ... The real consensus is more likely around 53 to 60 percent."

THE REAL CONSENSUS OF SCIENTISTS ON THE SUBECT IS CLOSER TO 99 PER CENT. ALL SCIENTISTS WORKING FROM THE REAL DATA ARE 100 PER CENT SURE THAT THE EXTRA CO2 FROM FOSSIL FUEL IS THE PRESENT CULPRIT. 

THIS IS WHY 150 WORLD LEADERS IN PARIS AGREED TO A NEW SYSTEM TO TRY AND LIMIT CO2 EMISSIONS.

DR JERRY NEWCOMBE WRITES BULLSHIT.

Assad, Iran and Hezbollah engage in the mass murder of Sunnis. Isis returns the compliment and takes Yazidi, Shia and Christian women as their sex slaves. But then Moses commanded the Israelites to fall upon their enemies and kill everyone except “women that have not known a man by lying with him”. Those they could keep for themselves.

It may be objected that the New Testament is less gory that the Old. But Christ no more forbad slavery, rape, torture and genocide than did the Ten Commandments. Christians in power engaged in orgies of persecution of one another, of non-believers, of witches and of Jews. Indeed, the true Judaeo-Christian tradition was the 1,600-year tradition of Christians murdering Jews. What civilisation Judaism and Christianity possess came from the outside. They did not reform themselves, which is why calls for a Muslim reformation so spectacularly miss the point. Civilisation came from the battering that religion took from the Enlightenment, from sceptics, scientists, mockers and philosophers, who destroyed their myths and exposed the immorality of their taboos.

Charlie Hebdo told us a truth that too many do not like to admit: anyone who tries to do the same to Islam today can end up dead. 

read more: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/09/hold-dear-enlightenment-values-in-iliberal-times-charlie-hebdo

In this context, religions are the mean to conquest (mind, land, treasure). The end game is territory (mind, land, treasure). The results are ruthless (mind control, space to breed more devotees, blood money)

Last week, on the day after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that 2015 was by far the hottest year on record, the energy industry’s chief lobbyists gathered in a downtown Washington ballroom to tell each other that the real problem was not global warming, but rather efforts by the Obama Administration — and Pope Francis — to contain global warming.

The remarks of these lobbyists suggested that many of them live on a different planet, where climate change is not an urgent challenge but rather is the obsession of ideological malcontents.

The meeting, held annually, is sponsored by the United States Energy Association, whose chieftains are not the CEOs of America’s oil, coal, and gas companies. Rather, they are the heads of the Washington-based trade associations that lobby against regulation of greenhouse gases and toxic pollution. They mostly are former corporate lawyers or Capital Hill functionaries who worked their way up and now receive enormous-for-DC salaries to serve at the beck and call of actual energy executives.

I think most of us are grateful to the men and women of America’s energy companies for providing the power that fuels so much of our lives. The question is, now that the evidence of human-made global warming is overwhelming, what do these companies want to do about it? Will they continue to deny the dangers of climate change and vilify those who seek to slow it? Or can they instead change course and devote more of their skills and resources to innovations for cleaner energy, innovations that could make their companies, not to mention the Earth, more sustainable in the long term?

From the words of their monochromatic lobbyists, spoken at the podium of the State of the Energy Industry Forum, it seems that many in the industry plan to keep fighting for another century of dirty energy.

read more: http://www.republicreport.org/2016/energy-lobbyists-gather-blame-obama-and-the-pope/

Read article at top... By the way, in about 20 years, the climate shift will be so pronounced that we'll start digging holes to live underground. January's weather in Sydney has been shocking — from heat-waves to sudden storms including tornadoes.

This universe just springing into being by chance is impossible. It takes a leap of blind faith to believe in evolution, unguided or guided. Of course, there are tiny changes within kinds. It seems to me usually when the evolutionists make their case, they point to these tiny changes.

The analogies to the improbability of evolution by a random process are endless.

• A hurricane blows through a junkyard and assembles a fully functioning 747 jet.

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-odds-of-evolution-are-zero-188089/...

Jerry Newcombe is a committed christian — a comedian with a bad sense of timing. With the letters Dr in front of his name, he tries to be seriously serious with "analogies to the improbability" of evolution. 

Zero chance? "A monkey sits at a typewriter and types thousands of pages. He types out word for word, with no mistakes, the entire works of Shakespeare." (Note that in this silly Jerry analogy the monkey is a male)

Quite funny really. The point that the good Dr does not see yet is that Artifical Intelligence will be able to do this monkey-trick in less than ten seconds flat. Evolution isn't an entity but a fluid result of random events that had far more than one in billions chances to assemble matter in a system which does not have a purpose. Even our personal and species survival is irrelevant to the space/time/energy that floats out there. Evolution isn't a hurricane that blows through a junkyard. There is no junkyard and there is no hurricane. The "evolution" of RNA and DNA is about relationships of atoms that developed affinities in a sometimes conducive, sometimes detrimental environment. It took 4 billion years for this "hurricane" to be able to relatively assemble a 747... 

There is zero chances that a god would create a universe that we did not understand for many years because Churches put the car wash on curiosity and exploration of what's what. When we do scientific observations, we can see with clarity that humans are part of the evolution/extinction conundrum. Unfortunately, genetics are far more accurate than is comfortable to the simplistic religious mind, especially those with a Dr. in front of their names, who can keep a few blue-rinse oldies under the spell of false news, because the indoctrination and the brainwahshing is curiosity deprived.

There is zero chances that after having created humans in his image, god would become irate for not being adored by "His" (god is a male) creation. There is zero chances that an "original sin" would have been committed by the idiot biblical ancestors. There is zero chances that god would send "His" (god is male) son to give redeeming points against the "orignial sin" by being crucified by an angry mob and some Roman loonies. This narrative does not make sense at all, despite all the sugar coating of the "love of god" — which to say the least has been a revived concept, after the churches were loosing ground with their brimstone "eternal damnation" to enlightenment.

There is zero chances that god exists, in any format possible and imaginable from Jewsih to Muslim beliefs. ZERO. God does not make sense, nor does the idea of god fit the reality. 

read from top...

Alan Jacobs teaches literature at Baylor University, and is the author of How To Think: A Survival Guide for a World At Odds.  It’s a book whose slimness and conversational elegance makes it not only a pleasure to read, but also something slyly, even disarmingly, profound. How To Think is very much a book of the moment, for the moment, and beautifully expresses the spirit of its author. I can say that because Alan has been a friend for years. He’s such a clear and generous thinker that when I disagree with him on an issue — and I do — my first impulse is to assume that I’m wrong, and then interrogate my premises and my logic.

Alan agreed to answer a few questions about the book via e-mail. Below, the transcript of our interview:

 I initially thought How To Think would be a basic primer of informal logic. It’s not that at all, but something more interesting. What’s the book about, and why did you write it?

Last year, when the Presidential election campaign was ramping up here in the U.S., and my British friends were being roiled about by the Brexit debate, I was working on a different book (an academic one), but kept being distracted by all the noise. It seemed to me that everyone was lining up and shouting at everyone else, and no one seemed able to step back from the fray and think a bit about the issues at stake. More and more what attracted my attention was what seemed a complete absence of actual thinking. And then I asked myself: What is thinking, anyway? And what have I learned about it in my decades as a teacher and writer? I sat down to sketch out a few blog posts on the subject, and then realized that I had something a good bit bigger than some blog posts on my hands. So I set my other book aside and got to work.

You write, “The person who wants to think will have to practice patience and master fear.” What do you mean?

Practicing patience because almost all of us live in a social-media environment that demands our instantaneous responses to whatever stimuli assault us in our feeds, and gives us the tools (reposts, likes, faves, retweets) to make those responses. Everything in our informational world militates against thinking it over. And mastering fear because one of the consequences of thinking is that you can find yourself at odds with groups you want to belong to, and social belonging is a human need almost as important as food and shelter. I’ve come to believe that our need — a very legitimate need! — for social belonging is the single greatest impediment to thinking.

In a passage about “forbidden knowledge,” you discuss a popular myth in our society: the idea that the bold explorer who risks the security of his community in search of the truth arrives at a happier, more satisfactory place at the end of his journey. In fact, as you say, we can’t be sure at all where the quest for truth will take us. It is possible, like Dante’s Ulysses, that our unbounded search for truth will lead us to disaster. Are there things that a thinker can do that will keep him on a responsible track — that is, neither too fearful, nor overcome by hubris?

As Jack Nicholson says to Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men, “You can’t handle the truth!” — but even if we could handle it, we may overrate our capacity to find it. We have to acknowledge the dangers of hubris at every stage of the journey. Edmund Burke spoke for all wise persons when he wrote, “We are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason; because we suspect that this stock in each man is small, and that the individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and of ages.” And let me add to that something that W. H. Auden once wrote:

In our culture, we have all accepted the notion that the right to know is absolute and unlimited. The gossip column is one side of the medal; the cobalt bomb is the other. We are quite prepared to admit that, while food and sex are good in themselves, an uncontrolled pursuit of either is not, but it is difficult for us to believe that intellectual curiosity is a desire like any other, and to recognize that correct knowledge and truth are not identical. To apply a categorical imperative to knowing, so that, instead of asking, “What can I know?” we ask, “What, at this moment, am I meant to know?” — to entertain the possibility that the only knowledge which can be true for us is the knowledge that we can live up to — that seems to all of us crazy and almost immoral.

This idea of “applying a categorial imperative to knowing” is vital — and scandalous, to many of us. More on this in later answers.

read more:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/thinking-clearly-with-alan...

See also (MA 15+ restricted):

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/28619

Read from top...

By Michael Brown at CP...

... I get slandered, maligned, misrepresented, and attacked on a daily (or hourly) basis for standing against LGBT activism; critiquing radical Islam; presenting Jesus as Messiah to my Jewish people; challenging atheism; confronting doctrinal errors in the Body; not being a Calvinist (or a Catholic or something else); being pro-life; being pro-Israel; being pro-Holy Spirit.

Read more:

https://www.christianpost.com/voice/two-christian-leaders-have-branded-m...

Michael Brown is a busy-busy boy... So has the Holy Spirit since the beginning of the universe, 13.5 billion years ago... Designing black holes, shitholes and several billion galaxies with several billion stars of a million kinds in each, some like the sun having another 5 billion years to burn before judgement day, unless we blow this little planet ourselves before that, kept HS (the Holy Spirit) busy-busy. Meanwhile, using a guy, Jesus Christ, who died as recently as 2000 years ago, to polish the monkey out of our origin, with some "morality" to erase an "original sin" is a stupid belief that does not make any sense... Read from top...

Israel is slaughtering unarmed men! Israel is killing women and children! Israel is butchering babies! It's time for the world to condemn this genocidal nation!

As I wrote in my last column, things are falling into place just as scripted by Hamas. The terrorist organization recruits and sends its young men on suicide missions. Israel responds with the expected force. The media reports the events along anti-Israel lines. Then the nations of the world rise up to condemn evil Israel.

I previously cited Aaron Klein and Melanie Phillips, both of whom pointed out how the secular media plays right into Hamas's hands. Since then, David Friedman, our ambassador to Israel, also weighed in, dubbing the protests and the ensuing casualties "a public relations event."

He said, "If I could give a word of advice to the media, if they purport to care so much about the Palestinian cause: this coverage of Palestinians running to the fence, burning tires — it's the fuel or the lubricant for further malign behavior."

He added, "there's a reason why Hamas sends impressionable kids to the front, telling them that the border is safe to cross. They want them to be killed or injured, to make the front page of the paper."

That is the satanic and cynical strategy of Hamas.

Read more:

https://www.christianpost.com/voice/right-on-cue-the-world-condemns-isra...

Michael! MICHAEL!!!

Are your named after the Archangel Michael? Who cares!!! You are a wicked person. Really! Are you a real jew, with a Christian belief or a fake Christian with a Jewish attachment? Your columns in general are piss, but this one is beyond shit. REALLY BAD... WAKE UP TO ISRAEL's SLOW deliberate DESTRUCTION OF THE PALESTINIANS... By whatever lies and means... 

Read from top.

...

The first 50-60 trips, I virtually always flew economy. The last 100 or so, I've virtually always flown business, often at the expense of those inviting me.

But with the intensity of my schedule (which I wouldn't wish on others) and with my height, it's a good investment to make. Yet it would not be a good investment for us to own a private plane, even an old one.

The point is that every ministry and organization has to evaluate how to disperse the funds it receives. Stewardship is the key word here.

My second question is this: Does Jesse Duplantis's announcement bring reproach to the gospel? Does it make it more difficult for other Christian leaders to raise funds for their work? Does it play into the image of the self-serving, manipulative televangelist?

In the end, if God told Jesse to believe Him for a $54 million jet, and if the Lord gives him that jet in response to his faith, so be it.

My recommendation is that, in such cases, we follow Paul's guidelines set forth in Romans 14 (in a different context): "The faith you have, keep to yourself before God" (Rom. 14:22). There's no reason to announce it to the world.

Read no more:

https://www.christianpost.com/voice/evangelists-private-jets-generosity-...

Michael, stop proselytising in jets, on horseback or in sandals... The premise is gross. Keep to yourself before god... 

Read from top.