"Global warming is caused by the Son."
I saw this bumper sticker the other day and thought it was appropriate to go with this post.
I saw this bumper sticker the other day and thought it was appropriate to go with this post.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Global Warming
Large Families Ruining the Planet, Environmentalists Claimby Wendy Cloyd, assistant
Experts call it 'ridiculous' to say having more than two children is bad for Earth.
In order to stop global warming, people should recycle, drive smaller cars and limit procreation – at least according to a paper published today by Britain’s Optimum Population Trust (OPT).
“The most effective personal climate-change strategy is limiting the number of children one has,” the report states. “The most effective national and global climate-change strategy is limiting the size of the population.”
John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT, claimed if a couple has two children instead of three, it cuts the family's carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights from London to New York each year.
"The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights,” he said. “The decision to have children should be seen as a very big one and one that should take the environment into account.”
Stuart Shepard, a meteorologist and spokesman for Focus on the Family Action, said humans should never be placed on a scale against the amount of carbon dioxide they produce.
“We are created in the image of God,” he said, “and to say the planet would be better off without us contradicts the design of Creation."
Dan Gainor, director of the Business & Media Institute and Boon Pickens Free Market Fellow, said it's ridiculous that an organization touting itself as an environmental group is against one of the planet’s species.
“Human beings are the greatest resource we have on the planet,” Gainor said.
Such groups view people and animals as equals, he said. “But we’ve somehow ‘altered the balance,’ so that makes us bad.”
In the eyes of extreme environmental groups, the grizzly bear that attacks you in the wild is doing its job, Gainor said. In the eyes of those same groups, the activity of mankind is evil.
The OPT report came on the same day that Gainor found an article online by Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, who described humans as “the AIDS of the Earth.”
“This is the extreme, utterly bizarre end of the environmental movement that you see in science fiction movies,” Gainor said. “That’s how they view human beings – but conveniently never themselves. They think they’re the great enlightened ones.”
Shepard said such a mindset is obviously flawed.
"It's obvious to the rest of us that there's something fundamentally wrong with seeing everything on planet Earth as 'natural' except for the humans,” he said. “Why are we always viewed as if we were alien beings dropped on the planet by mistake?"
The OPT paper and the writings of Watson, Gainor said, are not isolated incidents.
“We’ve had Sheryl Crow calling for people to use less toilet paper; we’ve had Al Gore on Capitol Hill,” Gainor said. “And right now Congress is still considering a bill that would mandate what light bulbs we can use. This is the eco-movement. This is what Congress is acting on right now.”
Shepard said the report illuminates that the debate over global warming has never been about science – it's all about politics. "Global-warming alarmism is not a scientific issue that found political support," he said, "this is a political movement that was looking for something to exploit in hopes of attaining elected office."
In order to stop global warming, people should recycle, drive smaller cars and limit procreation – at least according to a paper published today by Britain’s Optimum Population Trust (OPT).
“The most effective personal climate-change strategy is limiting the number of children one has,” the report states. “The most effective national and global climate-change strategy is limiting the size of the population.”
John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT, claimed if a couple has two children instead of three, it cuts the family's carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights from London to New York each year.
"The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights,” he said. “The decision to have children should be seen as a very big one and one that should take the environment into account.”
Stuart Shepard, a meteorologist and spokesman for Focus on the Family Action, said humans should never be placed on a scale against the amount of carbon dioxide they produce.
“We are created in the image of God,” he said, “and to say the planet would be better off without us contradicts the design of Creation."
Dan Gainor, director of the Business & Media Institute and Boon Pickens Free Market Fellow, said it's ridiculous that an organization touting itself as an environmental group is against one of the planet’s species.
“Human beings are the greatest resource we have on the planet,” Gainor said.
Such groups view people and animals as equals, he said. “But we’ve somehow ‘altered the balance,’ so that makes us bad.”
In the eyes of extreme environmental groups, the grizzly bear that attacks you in the wild is doing its job, Gainor said. In the eyes of those same groups, the activity of mankind is evil.
The OPT report came on the same day that Gainor found an article online by Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, who described humans as “the AIDS of the Earth.”
“This is the extreme, utterly bizarre end of the environmental movement that you see in science fiction movies,” Gainor said. “That’s how they view human beings – but conveniently never themselves. They think they’re the great enlightened ones.”
Shepard said such a mindset is obviously flawed.
"It's obvious to the rest of us that there's something fundamentally wrong with seeing everything on planet Earth as 'natural' except for the humans,” he said. “Why are we always viewed as if we were alien beings dropped on the planet by mistake?"
The OPT paper and the writings of Watson, Gainor said, are not isolated incidents.
“We’ve had Sheryl Crow calling for people to use less toilet paper; we’ve had Al Gore on Capitol Hill,” Gainor said. “And right now Congress is still considering a bill that would mandate what light bulbs we can use. This is the eco-movement. This is what Congress is acting on right now.”
Shepard said the report illuminates that the debate over global warming has never been about science – it's all about politics. "Global-warming alarmism is not a scientific issue that found political support," he said, "this is a political movement that was looking for something to exploit in hopes of attaining elected office."
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Good Reading
What the Bible Says About Having Children
Can you imagine attending a wedding where the family of the bride prayed for her to have vast legions of children who would grow up to have dominion in the land for the glory of God? This was precisely the blessing offered by the sisters of Rebekah upon her marriage to Isaac. These sentiments beautifully harmonize with Scripture passage after Scripture passage which extol the virtue of trusting the Lord to control the womb and the necessity that believers be fruitful and multiply. For six-thousand years, believers viewed children as a blessing and reward of the Lord greatly to be desired. It was widely accepted that those who cut off their seed usually did so in violation of the express commands of God. Only in the last seventy-five years have child prevention and birth control become acceptable in the Church. Perhaps more than any other philosophical shift in the history of the Church, the modern anti-child philosophy has changed the way we view the role of fathers and mothers as well as the meaning of family life and multi-generational faithfulness. But genuine questions persist: Does the Bible address the question of child prevention? Is cutting off the godly seed ever an act of “good stewardship?” Are economic considerations a valid biblical ground for closing the womb? What about “natural” family planning? What about families that cannot have children? Is the widespread use by Christians of the “pill,” a child prevention device with abortifiacient potential, bringing judgment on the Church? Be Fruitful and Multiply answers these questions and makes the case that Christians should do more than just “trust God” for children, we should cry out to the Lord to bless the fruit of the womb.
By Nancy Campbell, Foreword by Douglas W. Phillips
Monday, January 08, 2007
Be Fruitful and Multiply
Ken Carpenter Featured on ABC's Nightline
Statistically speaking, there are really only two key groups having many children. The first are Muslims. The second are Christians (often home educators) whose hearts have turned to Christ and then to home, and who see the blessing of the fruit of the womb as God’s reward.
Now the secular world is beginning to take notice of this trend towards fruitful wombs. If you have not seen it already, you might be interested to watch the nationally broadcast interview with Ken Carpenter on the joy of large families. Ken is a tremendous man, a personal friend, and a featured speaker at the 2006 Christian Filmmakers Academy. He was interviewed on ABC News Nightline. I am grateful for his bold stand for the blessing of the fruit of the womb.
Posted by Doug Phillips
Be sure and watch the video!
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=2767898&page=1
Statistically speaking, there are really only two key groups having many children. The first are Muslims. The second are Christians (often home educators) whose hearts have turned to Christ and then to home, and who see the blessing of the fruit of the womb as God’s reward.
Now the secular world is beginning to take notice of this trend towards fruitful wombs. If you have not seen it already, you might be interested to watch the nationally broadcast interview with Ken Carpenter on the joy of large families. Ken is a tremendous man, a personal friend, and a featured speaker at the 2006 Christian Filmmakers Academy. He was interviewed on ABC News Nightline. I am grateful for his bold stand for the blessing of the fruit of the womb.
Posted by Doug Phillips
Be sure and watch the video!
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=2767898&page=1
Sunday, January 07, 2007
The Overpopulation Myth
Brian recently finished a book called Fewer: How the New Demography of Depopulation Will Shape Our Future by Ben J. Wattenberg. Very interesting.
From Publishers Weekly
What starts off as a persuasive statistical analysis dwindles into demagoguery in Wattenberg’s latest demographic exploration. Wattenberg (The Real America; The Birth Dearth), expanding on previous work, offers a detailed breakdown of trends toward global depopulation. The previous population projections, he considers, grossly overestimated peak population numbers, and even current U.N. projections, he says, tend toward the high side. The discrepancies are due to dramatically decreasing fertility rates throughout the world, he argues, making population growth rate much slower than anticipated. He predicts that after peaking in the next decades, the rate will drop sharply. Wattenberg’s book examines these numbers, their causes and their ramifications. Keeping his statistics comprehensible to the demographic novice, he makes a strong case against environmentalist praise of depopulation and skillfully analyzes the economic and social situations that might occur if his predictions play out. However, as Wattenberg surveys the reasons behind declining fertility rates, his arguments take an assertive turn. Wattenberg bemoans abortion, women who put careers before children, homosexuality and co-habitation without marriage—all with little of the statistical analysis that bolsters his initial arguments. Wattenberg himself says, "straightforward demographic numbers can engender mighty arguments," but doesn’t let his own numbers speak for themselves. Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
From Publishers Weekly
What starts off as a persuasive statistical analysis dwindles into demagoguery in Wattenberg’s latest demographic exploration. Wattenberg (The Real America; The Birth Dearth), expanding on previous work, offers a detailed breakdown of trends toward global depopulation. The previous population projections, he considers, grossly overestimated peak population numbers, and even current U.N. projections, he says, tend toward the high side. The discrepancies are due to dramatically decreasing fertility rates throughout the world, he argues, making population growth rate much slower than anticipated. He predicts that after peaking in the next decades, the rate will drop sharply. Wattenberg’s book examines these numbers, their causes and their ramifications. Keeping his statistics comprehensible to the demographic novice, he makes a strong case against environmentalist praise of depopulation and skillfully analyzes the economic and social situations that might occur if his predictions play out. However, as Wattenberg surveys the reasons behind declining fertility rates, his arguments take an assertive turn. Wattenberg bemoans abortion, women who put careers before children, homosexuality and co-habitation without marriage—all with little of the statistical analysis that bolsters his initial arguments. Wattenberg himself says, "straightforward demographic numbers can engender mighty arguments," but doesn’t let his own numbers speak for themselves. Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
