Polar Warming

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

I recently visited the San Diego zoo and met with a couple of polar bears while there. They were playing in the pool and having a splash and weren’t too worried about the temperature around them. Next to the polar bear exhibit, however, was a large scale graph (20 feet tall) of the upward trend of CO2 levels that many claim is making things hotter around the world. But aside from the propaganda at the zoo and elsewhere, global warming is a myth. The truth is we are witnessing something very different. Polar warming, not global warming, is what the scientific data says we are seeing, which is why we see some polar bears floating on ice cubes up north instead of living it up in San Diego’s zoo.

Science is not always for the scientist. Al Gore is not a scientist yet he is the chief propagandist for global warming worldwide claiming he stands for scientific integrity. He says that manmade CO2 is causing changes in temperature but he says this with religious conviction and not scientific analysis. The trouble with the belief that global warming is real is that people don’t seem to know what science is really all about and how conclusions should be made based upon scientific data. Here’s a brief outline:

  • Science begins and ends with data. Philosophical science does not require empirical data but empirical science does. Without the data born of experiment, there is only philosophical or religious perspective.
  • Science shows relationships between parametric data obtained in a test and develops functional mathematical formulas that show these functional relationships. These formulas show the causal relationships between various parameters of data and how the natural world works together.
  • From the math of empirical science comes the principles of science or laws of nature. These principles, or laws, are expressed in mathematical, not polemical terms. Taken together (data, math/causality), this is how science arrives at natural laws; but we are often told that philosophical science is good enough, when it really isn’t. The world of global warming is not lacking in philosophical perspective. However, empirical science requires the testing of that perspective, which requires real data.

NASA has a website dedicated to the data associated with global warming (see links below). From this you can see for yourself that the data shows polar warming at the North Pole where the polar bears are beginning to float on ice cubes made of icebergs. This then shows that global warming is nothing more than polar warming and we need to refine our perspective apart from philosophical and political demagoguery.

I was an intern at NASA Ames in the Fall of 2008. I learned then that money for research didn’t always come from tax payer dollars. Often money comes from grants that people write proposals for. And when the money comes from grants, reports have to be written to show what that money was spent on. So if NASA employees use grant money for research, the reports they write on their research are more of a receipt of the money spent than a peer reviewed science paper. And the joke goes that if you write a report then you have to present (a trip to Las Vegas anyone?!). Peer review happens later at a presentation at some seminar after the report was written, not before. So the volumes of reports published on the subject of global warming do not represent real science as much as the real money that scientists have made from global warming.

Scientists and Al Gore alike want to make money. Gore has made more than $400,000,000.00 but how much have the scientists made off the fad of global warming? Global warming is a gravy train for anyone who wants to jump on it. Reports do not represent science as much as the money people have made off of global warming. The media often says but ignores here the motto, ‘follow the money!’

Science is supposed to follow the data. The NASA data graphs show polar warming. Couple with that the real data of CO2 levels taken over an 11 year period (see link below) that show the increase of CO2 in both northern Alaska and in Oklahoma. The measure in both places agree but the capture of CO2 levels in northern Alaska suggest that this is nature made CO2 and not manmade CO2. Following the data, we can see that nature made CO2 is causing the changes in the temperature of the North Pole – not manmade CO2.

Manmade CO2 has been accused of causing global warming but the data shows that nature made CO2 dwarfs the production of manmade CO2. And water vapor is far more prevalent in our atmosphere, which dwarfs the level of nature made CO2. Manmade CO2 doesn’t have a chance in influencing our global climate.

When CO2 levels rise, the temperature rises as well (the effect of “positive radiative forcing”). But while the popular idea is that man is causing this, the data shows (both in Alaska and Oklahoma) that nature is causing this. The difference between the data from Alaska and Oklahoma is minimal. The data from the northern most part of Alaska shows that it is as far removed from manmade CO2 as possible for measurement. And as it agrees with the data in Oklahoma, manmade CO2 is not changing the total value of nature made CO2 by any appreciable degree. Nature made CO2 is in the driver’s seat.

As we follow the data, polar warming is being caused by nature made CO2, which causes the ice to melt at the North Pole, which causes the water to evaporate, which causes the water vapor level in the atmosphere to rise, which causes the temperature to rise…and on and on. This is an explanation of causality that is scientific, based upon data, and makes sense.

Global warming does not show causality but only speculation (philosophical science) about the association between manmade CO2 rising and temperatures rising. This association is not causality and without a causal relationship born of data, there is no science for global warming.

Global weather patterns have been described as stochastic systems or as chaotic systems. As global warming advocates advocate an analytic solution to this problem, they oversimplify the problem and guess at the solution. Instead of making the problem worse by guessing, we need to work the problem of science without political confusion. Liberals always oversimplify solutions that make problems worse. Killing the American economy won’t fix the rise in temperatures at the North Pole.

Global warming advocates have a political agenda. Environmentalists at large have an appetite for political power and are addicted to power like a drug. Take away their power and they will have withdrawals like a heroin addict. But that is what has to be done. Take the political element away from global warming so we can focus on the science, which readily points to polar warming caused by nature made CO2.

I’ve shown you the data and the causality for polar warming and removed politics from the mix. Maybe we should reserve science for the scientists who get peer reviewed before they publish and reserve legislation for legislators who give us a chance to see what they want to pass into law before they pass it. Show me the data, the math/causality, and the legislation; put up or shut up!

DDT was an environmental problem that followed the data/causality/legislation path and succeeded. They showed the many instances (data) of dead animals, fish, and wildlife and the connection (causality) with DDT. They put together legislation we could debate on together as a nation (remember: We the People?) to end the production and use of DDT. This passed and we have a better environment for it. Put up or shut up is not an idle statement. Either show us your data/causality/legislation or take a hike. If you don’t have it, then you don’t have it!

We live in a society of increased confusion. It is time to make sense out of this issue. Polar warming makes sense when one follows the data. The causality of increased temperatures follows the increase of nature made CO2. And the political agenda is simple enough to prevent radical environmentalists from destroying our economy for a rush of power. Put up or shut up; it’s as simple as that. Show me the data, show me the math/causality, and show me the legislation. It’s up to you.

 

NASA Data Graphs

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a004200/a004252/2014_update_robinson_composite.mp4

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=4252#

CO2 Data

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

 

Religious Freedom

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Religious freedom means many things to many people. Some believe they can excuse bad behavior with a malicious cloak of religious excuses. Others understand that God gave us the freedom to do what is right. Religious freedom is in fact God’s gift to us and we need to understand our responsibility both to defend it and to practice it morally.

Religious freedom was advocated in the 17th century America by Roger Williams. His work later influenced  Thomas Jefferson  in the 18th century . The ideas one gave to the other have defined our religious freedoms ever since. It is worth noting what those ideas were and what they originally meant.

Roger Williams once said that God erected a…,

“…hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world. ”

Jefferson paraphrased William’s quote saying,

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

Jefferson wrote to the Baptist association in Danbury, CT, using William’s phrase because he was the first person to allow the Baptist Church to settle in America in his colony of Rhode Island. Jefferson simply quoted the famous Baptist when writing to the Baptists, equating the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom with a wall of separation between Church and State.

Roger Williams also said,

“True it is, the sword may make…a whole nation of hypocrites; but to recover a soul…, that only works [by] the all-powerful God, by the sword of his Spirit in the hand of his spiritual officers.

Similarly, Thomas Jefferson said about state enforced religion,

“What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites…”

Jefferson was familiar with Williams’ ideas and continued to paraphrase much of Williams work on religious freedom.

Williams later used the 10 Commandments and the Calvinist principle of the 2 tablets to espouse the separation principle.

…the Spirit handles the duties of the saints in the careful observation of the second Table, in their civil conversation or walking towards men, and speaks not at all of any point or matter of the first Table concerning the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus…

Referring to Romans 13, Williams saw government’s role limited to man’s behavior and not involved with man’s worship of God. To explain this Williams used the Calvinist idea of 2 tablets (Tables) of the 10 Commandments.

The first tablet (Table) of the 10 Commandments represent man’s duties to God (Commandments 1-4) whereas the second tablet (Table) of the 10 Commandments represent man’s duties to mankind (Commandments 1-4) . The separation of Church and State meant that government had authority based on the second tablet but not the first. Based upon the moral code of the second tablet, the separation of Church and State was never the separation of Morals and State.

Thomas Jefferson echoed Williams when he said,

“…the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty…”

Jefferson understood what Williams was saying about religious freedom. When Jefferson wrote tot he Danbury Baptists about ‘separation,’ he began that paragraph saying,

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions…”

Jefferson’s use of the separation of Church and State phrase of Roger Williams applied the separation of tablets principle, which included a stand on practicing moral habits. Jefferson concluded his paragraph saying,

“Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”

For Jefferson, the separation of Church and State did not allow people to excuse their public duties of morality, which is contrary to the modern atheist perspective. Jefferson understood the 2 tablets argument of Williams and applied it in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association as a definition of separation. Government is supposed to deal with behavior (2nd tablet) not beliefs (1st tablet). The separation of Church and State was never the separation of Morals and State.

Roger Williams called the capitol of his colony ‘Providence’ and through his separation principle advocated that God’s Divine Providence would support those nations who provided religious freedom for the people; but Providence would punish or remove his support from nations that did not. Providence, then, is a divine rod of support and defense for religious freedom and another example of the separation of Church and State principle.

Texas history shows this principle of Providence in action. When the nations of Spain, France, and Mexico supported religious freedom during their colonization efforts in Texas, God prospered them in Texas. But when they removed religious freedom, God removed them from Texas.

I have written a book that explores this and more called:

The History of Texas and of Religious Freedom

Click on the title above and you’ll be redirected to the Amazon.com website for this book.

Thomas Jefferson was quoted in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association as erecting a wall of separation between Church and State. However, he noted,

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people…”

and,

“Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience…”

Jefferson understood the principles of religious freedom that had been debated from the 1780s in Virginia unto the day he became President. The No Preference principle was argued in the various state legislatures, in the ratifying conventions of the Constitution, and in the first Congress that drafted the First Amendment. Jefferson himself even applied the No Preference principle in his administration as a guiding policy for religious freedom. No Preference is how the separation of Church and State was originally applied.

No Preference became the guiding principle in the Constitution for the new Republic of Texas (1836), which said,

”Third. No preference shall be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship over another, but every person shall be permitted to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.”

This is how Texans understood the meaning of the U.S. First Amendment. No Establishment was No Preference; Free Exercise was Free Conscience. Texas’ Constitution of 1836 defined the original meaning of the First Amendment’s religious clauses.

Texas and a majority of the states in the United States of America continue to have the No Preference rule guiding religious freedom in their constitution’s bills for religious freedom. As an example of how to apply the separation of Church and State, government should protect and at times facilitate religious freedom for all sects and religions.

In 1947, the Supreme Court changed the No Preference principle and instituted a new idea of Strict Separation. The Court dismissed the idea of the State providing for all religions and said that the State could not provide for religion at all. They even tried to quote Thomas Jefferson’s phrase of Church and State separation but misquoted him saying,

“The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.”

Jefferson got it right but Everson got it wrong. The separation of Church and State according to the No Preference rule that Jefferson followed as an example of the separation of  Church and State allowed government to support of all religions or no religion at all. Jefferson even funded missionaries and Bible to the Kaskaskian Indians.The modern Court, however, see things differently.

Religious freedom in modern America is under attack. The Court outlaws traditional marriage as they make in-laws of homosexual couples. They dismiss the will of the People who said no to gay marriage across the nation and they even dismiss the Will of God concerning moral principles about sodomy (aka homosexuality). Our Civil and Religious freedoms are under attack and the Court is a willing accomplice.

We have the freedom to do what is right. There is no right to do what is wrong. There are no human rights that are not morally right. Civil laws must be based upon moral laws. The government should support and defend religious freedom for all. These statements are all true about the original meaning of the separation of Church and State.

Let’s have a conversation about religious freedom and restore its original meaning in government practice. We share these freedoms so let’s share our views with each other. I welcome a healthy conversation.

Creationism

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Creationists advocate the role of God as Creator found in the Bible and do two things: 1) support a theistic view in science and 2) oppose the atheistic views of scientists.

Creationism often tries to verify God’s existence by a proof of science. This is backward in that science begins with the idea that God put laws into nature to govern it with. As such, science is a theistic venture.

Science in empirical terms should be used to validate or invalidate philosophical, not religious viewpoints. Religion or irreligion may present a philosophical thesis for review but empirical science cannot validate a religious or irreligious viewpoint.

Many believe that evolution is atheistic, when it is not. Originally Charles Darwin was a theology student whose only degree was in theology and his seminal thesis called “Origins…” was a theological treatise using the philosophical tool of induction to present his view of speciation. Darwin’s natural theology was natural selection. As such it was originally theistic and atheists have adopted it given it inherent materialist approach to nature – it doesn’t include an active God working in nature.

Evolution is not science in the strict sense of experimental science. It is a philosophy; it isn’t even a theory. All attempts to validate evolution empirically have failed. Although Darwin (pangenesis) and neo-darwinists (chance and genetics) have attempted an experimental proof of evolution, they have failed to gain a single data point. No data, no science. Evolution is nothing more than a religious philosophical viewpoint of life and the universe around us.

History can outline the development of evolution and I’ve written two books on the subject:

The Evolution of Evolution: A Theory in Chaos

The Alchemy of Evolution

These books are available on Kindle.com. Just click on the titles above and you’ll be redirected to their website for these books.

I prove using historical principles that evolution is both a modern day myth born from ancient myth and that it is modern day alchemy born from medieval alchemy. You’ll be confronted with the reality that evolution is not modern science at all but the failed ideas of the past that have only been repurposed and presented in modern school textbooks.

Take a look at the material and join me in a conversation about evolution. I’m available to those not playing games and welcome challenges to my understanding. Together we will learn and grown in our knowledge.

Welcome to a Christian Conservative Blog

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Hi,
My name is James Carlson. I have been working in the religious and political communities for over 3 decades and have published 5 books on Kindle.com. This website is dedicated to giving the reader a chance to share their views and read a weekly column I will post for your review.

Below is a list of the 5 books I published on Kindle.com. They address the issues of religious freedom, political conservatism, evolution, and theology. You’ll find that I love the history of ideas, which is the common thread throughout each of these books.

Please keep the comments on these topics clean but challenging. You do not have to agree with me but please show respect and I’ll do the same. We have a free country and can publish our views freely but we also have a responsibility to keep it clean and on topic. Together, we may learn something new.
Thanks,
James

Here is a list of my books on Kindle.com. Click on the title and you’ll go to the website for each book.

The History of Texas and of Religious Freedom

Conservatives and the Republican Party

The Evolution of Evolution: A Theory in Chaos

The Alchemy of Evolution

Scrupulosity: Answering the Tough Question, “Can You Lose Your Salvation?”