Check out this article by David Evans: Are Carbon Emissions the Cause of Global Warming? This is very revealing, but I can guarantee that you won't see much of this research in the media.

Ice Core Data Reverses — 2003

It was the early, low resolution ice core data first gathered in 1985 that convinced the world that CO₂ was the culprit: CO₂ levels and temperature rose and fell in lockstep over the last half a million years, to the resolution of the old ice core data (results from 1985–2000, data points over a thousand years apart). It was assumed (bad assumption #1) that CO₂ levels controlled the world's temperature.

After further research, new high-resolution ice core results (data points only a few hundred years apart) in 2000–2003 allowed us to distinguish which came first, the temperature rises or the CO₂ rises. We found that temperature changes preceded CO₂ changes by an average of 800 years. So temperature caused the CO₂ levels, and not the other way around as previously assumed. The world should have started backpedaling away from blaming carbon emissions in 2003.

Greenhouse Signature Missing — 2007

Second crucial point, August 2007: There are several possible causes of global warming, and they each warm the atmosphere at different latitudes and altitudes — that is, each cause will produce a distinct pattern of hot spots in the atmosphere, or "signature." The greenhouse signature is very distinct from the others: warming due to greenhouse would cause most warming in the tropics at about 10 km up in the atmosphere:

Theoretical Greenhouse Signature (UN climate models)

As of August 2007, we've measured where the warming is occurring in a fair bit of detail, using satellites and balloons. The observed signature is nothing like the greenhouse signature. The distinct greenhouse signature is entirely missing:

Observed Warming (Hadley Centre radiosonde observations 2006, confirmed by more measurements published in 2007)

There is no hotspot in the tropics at 10 km up, so now we know that greenhouse warming is not the (main) cause of global warming — so we know that carbon emissions are not the (main) cause of global warming.

Evans then goes on to describe why the original models were wrong - it was assumed that higher temperatures would mean more rainfall, and more high cloud cover that would intensify the warming effect. Instead, observations reveal that this cloud cover has actually lessened.

He also presents data that shows that the warming trend has waned since 2001. I have heard this from other sources as well, including climatologists who have predicted a natural cooling period will occur within the next 10 years.

To those who believe that the currently predominant global warming hysteria is accurate: please consider that there is more scientific evidence coming out that is contradicting the old evidence that the global warming hysteria is based on. The scientific landscape surrounding this is changing, despite Gore's claims that it is "settled."

Labels: politics

I can't seem to have time to do a lot of blog writing, but it ends up I'm still contributing to the web at large. James Taranto (WSJ's Best of the Web, one of my daily reads) has been criticizing the FairTax lately, as well as Mike Huckabee (who is a strong, vocal supporter of the FairTax). On Tuesday he finally gave a list of reasons why he's critical of the FairTax, and over at the FairTax blog I posted a comment about it that they ended up reposting as a post all in itself. I'm flattered. You can read my response and well as take a peek at the original post that quotes Taranto's criticism.

Just about any criticism of the FairTax can be met with a reasoned, logical response. Maybe that's one of the reasons I like it. All Taranto needs is some time with some FairTax supporters who can answer his criticisms.

Labels: politics

I don't normally post videos. But this one is just too funny. I laugh every time I watch it. Enjoy.

Labels: fun

So it's December. And yes, I know I've been silent lately. I do plan on finishing my thorough review of Viola's book. But this post is not about explaining why I haven't been writing much lately.

Josh Brown asked me to write a guest post on his blog, titled The Consumptive Church: The Model Speaks Volumes. If you follow Josh's blog at all, you probably know that I comment on his blog frequently. Usually trying to push the conversation here or there. Josh and I are quite opposite politically, but it's fun and helpful to see where we intersect spiritually. In any case, he did a great job describing our blogging relationship in the introduction.

I won't repost my whole article here, but here's an obligitory quote:

Jesus’ approach to ministry, and the realization of the early church, went directly against the norms of the Jewish religion (as well as the similar Roman/Greek pagan religions that were abundant outside of Israel). The church continued to be a counter-cultural movement until Christianity found favor with the Roman government and was subsequently polluted and corrupted by becoming the “official” religion of the state.

But the New Testament is clear. We are called to live simply. This is not so that we can give all of our money to the church so that the church can be extravagant. That basilica/cathedral style of religion is simply the Jewish and pagan systems repackaged with a new name.

Head on over to read the full post. Thanks to Josh for giving me a guest spot. And I'll be back here with more stuff soon.

Labels: church, house church