Why I trust God OVER any Scientist when it comes to Man Made Climate Change | Beaufort County Now | This past week we had a historic event take place because saw the Roman Catholic Pope visit the United States. | Roman Catholic Pope, United Nations, New York City, Philadelphia, The Pope, Roman Catholics, Leonardo da Vinci

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Why I trust God OVER any Scientist when it comes to Man Made Climate Change

    Publisher's note: Rod Eccles is the host of the nationally syndicated radio show, The Rod Eccles Show, and we are most happy to have Rod as an extended member of our growing BCN family.

    This past week we had a historic event take place because saw the Roman Catholic Pope visit the United States. He visited the President at the White House and he gave a speech. He visited a historical joint meeting of Congress and he gave a moving speech. He visited the United Nations in New York City and he gave a speech. He visited the city of Philadelphia, and he gave a speech.

    The Pope gave a lot of speeches over the past week. And one of the constants in his speeches was this idea of Man Made Global Climate Change. The problem is, the Pope knows very little about this so-called science and he is reacting to what those around him tell him about the issue.

    I bring this up because the Pope has great influence even in nations that are not heavily populated with Roman Catholics. The people and leaders listen to the Pope because they usually are not political, but the problem with this influence is that it is based on faulty science at best and just plain flat out lies at worst.

    You see, way back in the day, as we like to say in colloquial speak, when a very famous artist, philosopher, scientist, thinker was alive and well, he looked at the natural world around him and changed the way people thought. He tried to change what was already the established "science" of the day.

    Leonardo da Vinci was a great thinker and his imagination lead him to many discoveries and theories that later proved to be true and eerily accurate. He showed that the earth had changed dramatically since God created it, in spite of the fact that the settled science of the day said the earth was basically unchanged since God created it and placed man upon it.

    Today we know for a fact that the earth has gone through massive changes over the centuries and millennium. In fact if we could get a time machine and go back to the time of Christ, just 2000 years or so, we would be hard pressed to recognize the earth from our vantage point.

    That is how much the earth has changed since then and to think most of that change had nothing to do with mankind. The same is true of our climate. We can go back in time and see for a fact that the great warming period of 950 to 1250 AD had nothing to do with mankind. Indeed, a man was in no position to affect or effect the climate of that time.

    But then if you fast forward to about 1650 to 1770, the earth entered to what is often called the Mini Ice Age. This is the time of Charles Dickens. He wrote his novels about an England that knew snow and cold and we know this to be factual. That period of time was colder than it is now. Just as scientists believe that the warming period was warmer than it is today.

    So within the short history of man, we have a tremendous amount of climate change that could not have been initiated by a man at all. This brings up the point of Leonardo because he challenged the so called "settled science" of the day. He showed and proved that conventional wisdom of the time was wrong and it was wrong because the base cause or base belief was wrong.

    This is also true for climate change. You see the main problem with this theory is that we do not have an accurate base from which to establish this unnatural change. What the Pope fails to understand is that God gives us a base from which we can judge our sins and our deeds and actions be them be good and honest or sinful and evil, but we do not have such a base for defining our climate.

    In order to determine that our climate is getting out of control, we would have to know the perfect base from which to establish our scientific data. We do not have such a base because we simply do not know what that base is. So we assume the change happens from a base that we chose during our recent lifetime and history and that base is after the Industrial Revolution.

    With this false base established, those with certain agendas can dictate the outcomes of that science and thus dictate how man must be governed in order to meet the objective of those that believe in climate change. The problem is their objective is to preserve the perfect climate, which, as history has proven, does not exist.

    Thus the Pope and any other political leader that signs on to such a notion as Man Made Global Climate Change have not looked at the historical evidence and the evidence provided in the earth's history which was placed there by God Himself.

    Frankly, I will trust God over any scientist any day of the week. After all, God created science and He knows all. We are still discovering what He created and, in fact, we know very little. But isn't it interesting how some people think they have all the answers. The problem with their answers is that often they are wrong and we the people suffer for their mistakes.




Comments

( October 2nd, 2015 @ 5:17 pm )
 
The basic nature of Mother Earth is cycles of relationships like air to CO2. Trees are the basic component and if we are too aggressive in cutting without replanting we pollute rivers and streams and the earth heats up without the absorption of the foliage. When we view our humanity as a partner with Mother Earth, we have a long history ahead. Otherwise Mother Earth will get rid of us. . .
( September 30th, 2015 @ 4:40 pm )
 
COWSPIRACY is the Netflix Documentary about 51 per cent of air pollution is produced by the Meat Industry.
( September 30th, 2015 @ 12:28 pm )
 
These are all flawed arguments. I'm working on an article related; be patient.
( September 30th, 2015 @ 10:49 am )
 
I have made a time lapse study of the temperatures variations in the old folks home and the results are inconclusive. The time frame for this study was tightly controlled and measured over a period of at least 5 minutes. No animals were harmed during this experiment. I have been paid no money nor have I published this in any peer review scientific publication.
( September 30th, 2015 @ 10:27 am )
 
Climate Change is big money and to some remarkably stupid people, almost entirely Democrats, i.e. Solyndra. That scandal alone would sink almost any Republican.

And how about the EPA e-mail scandals, their anti-Constitutional enforcement of what may be fake laws - pure lawlessness. And for what - the Religion of Climate Change. As per hypocritical Liberals, "There is a separation of church and state in America". Obviously not for them.

Yes Bobby Tony, follow the money.
( September 30th, 2015 @ 10:19 am )
 
Follow the Money is always the best indicator of authentic research.
( September 30th, 2015 @ 10:16 am )
 
Liberals treat Climate Change as a religion to the point of ridiculousness, with no math, whatsoever, as to the cost, which confirms another scientific hypothesis of mine - Liberals can't do math.

The fraud Al Gore did not help their case in the least.
( September 30th, 2015 @ 10:09 am )
 
If I had time and interest, I could spend the rest of my life researching this. Here is the Google result of just a simple "Climate Change" Search. It seems there are varying opinions.

About 141,000,000 results (0.38 seconds)
I have previously tried to stir the pot with the post below but it gave out of steam or CO2
beaufortcountynow.com
( September 30th, 2015 @ 5:13 am )
 
Netflix documentary says meat production causes 51 per cent of air and water pollution but the Beef Industry sues everybody who reports this.
( September 29th, 2015 @ 8:53 pm )
 
I'm done with this. It's wasting time
( September 29th, 2015 @ 8:22 pm )
 
Well, then it is not partisan. That's cool.

But, of course, no public money would be involved. And then it is just talk, simply talk.
( September 29th, 2015 @ 8:05 pm )
 
Christopher, I think if you review the discussion, you will see the argument is not about the facts of Climate Change but our beliefs about it. When you take my money by force and spend it on something that I may not agree with, then it becomes a partisan issue. It would be just as partisan if your tax money was spent on an advertising campaign stating that there is no such thing as Climate Change.
It makes no difference on what the right or wrong of the issue is it is the nature of life that all things are partisan. Since most of the research on Climate Change is funded by tax money, there is no alternative but to have partisan disagreement. Imagine a government that took the position that the 3% of active climate scientist were correct and the 97% were wrong. Would you then agree that it is partisan? If something is prejudicial towards a particular point of view, you can call it partisan, regardless of which side you are on.
I think you will find that in human endeavors nothing is absolute. Since the beginning of time, everyone knew that the earth was the center of the universe, until about 1514 when a guy names Copernicus postulated a different scientific theory.
View All Comments



Tillis Presents Purple Heart Medal to North Carolina Veteran Politics with Rod Eccles, Editorials, Op-Ed & Politics John Locke Foundation: Prudent Policy / Impeccable Research - Volume CXXV


HbAD0

Latest Op-Ed & Politics

Come with us as we look into the Looking Glass for answers that most ignore or simply can't see.
David Drucker of the Washington Examiner highlights a political fault line exposed by Georgiaís new voting law.
Graham Piro of the Washington Free Beacon reports on labor unionsí response to the presidentís bloated infrastructure package.

HbAD1

There is a known revolutionary in the NCAE. Does this frighten you? It should, and here's why!
As was shown in the first article in this series, ďdiversity, equity, and inclusionĒ is a misleading term, indicating a radical political agenda rather than a set of ethical principles.
David Catron of the American Spectator argues that President Bidenís questionable approach to bipartisanship is likely to cost Democrats control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
For a very long time, there has been a great deal of debate in this country about China and whether or not they were a real threat to the United States.
Itís no surprise the number of homeschool families swelled during the COVID-19 pandemic.

HbAD2


HbAD3

 
Back to Top