Tag Archive for rhetoric

Global Warming Gets A Little Flaky

flake“Do not consider it proof just because it is written in books, for a liar who will deceive with his tongue will not hesitate to do the same with his pen.”

– Maimonides

I am skeptical of man made global warming. Having said that, I like to think that I am open to any reasonable interpretation that the data bears out. For many years we have been plied with data and computer models of an impending climate crisis. I have observed these reports and have tried to keep an open mind despite the socio-political bent of the scientists who are eager to produce them.Recently, however, the mask has slipped and much of the behind closed doors “research” of some of the leading global warming climatologists has been revealed.

Emails from climatologists at the Climate Research Unit based at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom have surfaced due to the work of some computer hackers. The fact that the hackers were wrong in illegally obtaining the documents doesn’t change the content that has surfaced. Included in the documents are attempts by these climatologists to suppress data that is “problematic” to their models. In other words, they attempted to cover-up findings that contradicted their global-warming worldview.

Covering the story syndicated columnist and author Jonah Goldberg writes:

First, the climate change industry is shot through with groupthink (or what climate scientist Judith Curry calls “climate tribalism”). Activists would have us believe that the overwhelming majority of real scientists agree with them while the few dissenters are all either crazed or greedy “deniers” akin to flat-earthers and creationists. These e-mails show that what’s really at work is a very large clique of scientists attempting to excommunicate perceived heretics for reasons that have more to do with psychology and sociology than physics or climatology.

Second, the climate industry really is an industry. Climate scientists make their money and careers from government, academia, the United Nations and foundations. The grantor’s want the grantees to confirm the global warming consensus. The tenure and peer-review processes likewise hinge on conformity. That doesn’t necessarily mean climate change is untrue, but it does mean sloppiness and bias are unavoidable.

So what does this do for the whole global warming discussion? Well, with the Copenhagen climate summit on the horizon we should be highly cautious about any agreements for carbon emission reductions. Such agreements, in my opinion, are nothing more than attempts to confiscate wealth from developed nations to distribute to the third world. If we want to aid the third world, which the US does, we should do so under the umbrella of charity not of “science”. Let there been no ambiguity that until global warmings’ leading scientists begin to act like scientists and not charlatans they are not deserving of our ears or our wallets.

By the way, did you hear about the record snowfalls across the U.S. this year? Poetic justice? It does seem to make global warming out to be a little flaky.

Snatching Them From A Fire

fire“And have mercy on those who doubt: save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh.”

– Jude 22-23

No voter in their right mind wants a government run health care system. They may want health care that is affordable, or that covers pre-existing conditions, but they don’t want socialized medicine. About the only class of people who could desire such a system are politicians who could exempt themselves from it. So, when our representatives in Washington share story after story of people begging them to fight for the “public option” who are these people?

Well, I figure that the opinion on government run health care breaks down into four categories based on information and activity level. These four categories are represented in the grid below:













The group highlighted in green are the ones being used by those who are perpetrating this great government expansion experiment. They are the ones making up they 30 to 40 % who say in the polls that they want the President’s reforms to pass. They are also the best targets of persuasion by those who know the inherent evils of such legislation.

So how do we reach out to these people? Well, just like a fireman pulling someone out of a fire. We forcefully, but gently explain to them that they are not experiencing euphoria but smoke inhalation and patiently but persistently lead them back to clear air. This is no easy task but if you know the truth it is one that you must fulfill.

This great undertaking also means that those of us armed with the truth should act as rescuers and not brawlers. Shouting at the arsonists may make you feel better, but to the poor soul trapped in the fire it only causes them to back away when you offer them a hand. The goal here is not to change the mind of the politicians but of the vulnerable electorate who could help the rest of us send those same politicians home in 2010.

So when you get that, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore” feeling, take a deep breath of smoke free air and think about those poor souls who have been blinded by the socialists smoke. Then put on your nomex and go see if you can snatch someone out of the flames. It will do you both good.

Is It Compassion?


“The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.”

– Thomas Jefferson

Can a person truly be considered compassionate if he doesn’t give of his own resources to take care of others? Pardon my skepticism if I answer this question with a resounding, “No!” I am utterly disgusted with the positioning of many politicians in both parties. They see themselves as such great benefactors deciding how to spend money taken from one group to benefit another. Is this, however, compassion?

We have seen this played out so clearly in the recent health care debate. Many politicians want to use funds taken from one group to provide health care to another. There is no doubt that there are people who need health care and cant afford it. These folks should be cared for by some entity, preferably a private one. This transfer of funds, however, is not compassion. It cant be compassion unless it is an individual willingly giving of what he has to another individual who is in need. So if government run health care is not compassion, what is it?

The greatest compassion that we can show is the compassion of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Beyond that we can open our hearts and wallets and help provide for those around us in need. We as individuals can do what nameless, faceless bureaucratic entities cannot. Lets take this charge to show our culture what is true compassion. Government run health care is not.

The Politics Of Rhetoric


“Political language. . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

– George Orwell

It is a shame that politicians are famous for saying one thing and doing another. How many times have we seen elected officials boldly proclaim their fidelity to a certain issue and then “change their mind” once they get elected? What has happened to our society that we as a people can be so easily duped by the politics of rhetoric?

One perfect example of this concerns the issue of abortion. This issue above many others has become a rhetorical playground for many would be elected officials. During the last presidential election cycle, then candidate Obama stated the following:

So examining the rhetoric here, then candidate Obama stated that he wished to reduce abortions. Has he done anything in his first 100 days to reduce abortions? Lets compare his rhetoric with his actions:

This is why we as Americans have lost faith in our government and in our elected officials. This is why we are cynical about politics. It is high time that we as authentic Christians set the example for all to see that we are people of integrity and that when we say yes it is yes and when we say no it is no. When we become people of character then we will be more likely to elect people of character. Allowing this kind of political “shell game” to continue is too costly. If you doubt that, then meditate on the number 40 million and picture those beautiful babies not alive today because we tolerated the politics of rhetoric.

HT: Pastor Kevin DeYoung