WHERE'S THE GLOBAL WARMING?
glenn
WHERE'S THE GLOBAL WARMING?
[the following article was found on the 'net]
Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8442739.stm
[Quote]
Page last updated at 06:46 GMT, Wednesday, 6 January 2010
Schools Closed And Travellers Hit As Snow Continues
<Photo>Snow at Gatwick Airport
Delays and cancellations are expected at airports
Hundreds of schools remain closed and travellers are facing another day
of disruption after blizzards swept across central and southern England.
More snow has also fallen in the parts of Scotland and northern England
worst affected by Tuesday's wintry weather.
Hundreds were stranded in their cars overnight on the A3 in Hampshire,
and on the A697 in the Scottish Borders.
Some rail operators have announced reduced services, and delays and
cancellations are expected at airports.
Among the airports closed is Bristol, which will remain shut until at
least 1000 GMT.
Up to 20cm (8in) of snow fell in parts of Scotland and northern England
on Tuesday causing travel chaos for millions of people.
Another 40cm (16in) has been forecast in some areas as the freezing
weather moves from north to south.
The Met Office said Dorset, Hampshire, Oxfordshire, Berkshire and
Wiltshire could see "exceptionally heavy" snow.
The UK is in the grip of its longest cold snap for almost 30 years.
'Widespread disruption'
Between 15cm (6in) and 30cm (12in) of snow is expected in some places
but there could be as much as 40cm (16in).
The Met Office said: "This is expected to cause widespread disruption to
the transport network and could lead to problems with power supplies."
Parts of Surrey, Hampshire, West Sussex, East Sussex, Buckinghamshire
and the Isle of Wight are also expected to be affected.
A six-year-old boy is in a critical condition in hospital after he fell
into an ice-covered garden pond in Crookham Common near Thatcham,
Berkshire. It is thought he had been under water for 30 minutes.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown said on the Downing Street Twitter site: "As
public services do all they can in this extreme weather, please look out
for neighbours and relatives in need of assistance."
Among other developments:
� Flights were delayed at Heathrow, Gatwick, Glasgow and Leeds-Bradford
� A section of the A66 in Cumbria was was shut in both directions
Southampton Airport closed on Tuesday evening as the snow fell in Hampshire.
A statement on its website said: "Snow has just arrived at Southampton
Airport and operations are temporarily suspended whilst snow is cleared
from the runway."
<clip>
Gatwick and Birmingham airports were also shut. London Luton was
reopened on Wednesday morning but passengers are being advised to check
with their airlines.
Many train operators will run revised timetables as they cope with the
freezing conditions.
These include East Coast, East Midlands, Chiltern Railways, First Great
Western, National Express East Anglia, South West Trains, Southeastern
and Southern.
Special de-icer trains ran through the night to keep tracks and overhead
cables free of snow and ice.
Among the roads affected by the weather were the A1 northbound at
Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, A30 eastbound in Cornwall, A27 westbound in West
Sussex, and the M27 eastbound and A3 northbound in Hampshire.
A jack-knifed lorry caused the the M54 eastbound in Staffordshire to be
closed.
In sport, Wednesday's Carling Cup semi-final between Manchester City and
Manchester United has been postponed, and horse racing has been
abandoned at Southwell and Hexham on Wednesday, and Huntingdon and
Ludlow on Thursday.
Why the cold weather?
Map showing winds from the north and north east bringing cold weather to
northern Europe
The current big chill is a result of high pressure over the polar
region, which has pushed cold air out of the Arctic towards much of
northern Europe, parts of Asia and the US. Winds from the north and
north east, rather than the south and south west, have brought freezing
temperatures to the UK.
Map showing the unusually cold temperatures across the UK
Provisional Met Office figures for December show temperatures for
much of the UK were 1.5C and 2.5C below the mean temperatures for the
last 30 years. Scotland saw temperatures dip still lower - from 2.5C to
3.5C. On Tuesday, temperatures in Scotland plunged to -15C in places.
Satellite image showing snow across China
Winds from the north also brought cold weather to parts of Asia,
with Beijing receiving its heaviest snowfall for nearly 60 years. At the
weekend, up to 30cm (12in) of snow fell in China's capital and its
neighbouring port city of Tianjin. Dozens of people have also died in a
cold snap in northern India.
Map showing how some parts of the world are colder than normal, while
others are hotter
However, while parts of the world suffer freezing temperatures, the
seesaw patterns mean other areas are warmer than usual, including
Alaska, northern Canada and the Mediterranean. Met Office figures for
the end of 2009 show some places dropped 10C below the average, while
others were 10C above.
[endit]
Note:
Where is the "Global Warming" ?
There has been unusual ("atypical, unseasonable) cold weather and snow
fall in the US, in China and in Europe and the UK.
I repeat, "Where's the Global Warming?"
The truth is, like many things "named" by Scientists, the term "Global
Warming" is an over simplification whigh is in gross error.
Yes, the Earth may indeed be getting a degree or two warmer on the
average -- but THAT is not the problem. The problem in Atypical Weather,
unpredictable Weather. Weather which is abnormal. And THAT is a sign
that the Third Seal has been opened.
Examine the evidence:
http://www.google.com/search?q=atypical+weather&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
http://www.google.com/search?q=unusual+weather&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
http://www.google.com/search?q=global+warming&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Here the nations of the world debate what to do about what is
distressing them.
http://www.google.com/search?q=global+warming+conference+copenhagen&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
--
Glenn
.
"Don't let your mind be cluttered with prevailing doctrine."
Alexander Fleming
.
Seon Ferguson
http://www.grist.org/article/its-cold-today-in-wagga-wagga/
The chaotic nature of weather means that no conclusion about climate can
ever be drawn from a single data point, hot or cold. The temperature of one
place at one time is just weather, and says nothing about climate, much less
climate change, much less global climate change.
r m
>
> • A section of the A66 in Cumbria was was shut in both directions
Maybe in other parts of the World e.g.
"Australia as a whole has been getting warmer for about 50-60 years
and it's actually been tending to get wetter."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/05/2785653.htm?section=australia
>
> There has been unusual ("atypical, unseasonable) cold weather and snow
> fall in the US, in China and in Europe and the UK.
>
> I repeat, "Where's the Global Warming?"
>
> The truth is, like many things "named" by Scientists, the term "Global
> Warming" is an over simplification whigh is in gross error.
>
> Yes, the Earth may indeed be getting a degree or two warmer on the
> average -- but THAT is not the problem. The problem in Atypical Weather,
> unpredictable Weather. Weather which is abnormal. And THAT is a sign
> that the Third Seal has been opened.
>
> Examine the evidence:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=atypical+weather&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=unusual+weather&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=global+warming&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
>
> Here the nations of the world debate what to do about what is
> distressing them.
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=global+warming+conference+copenhagen&i...
glenn
> <snip>
>
>
> The chaotic nature of weather ...
The key is in your own words: "Chaotic."
During early 1900's, during WW1 and WW2, Especially during the war in
the Pacific, a lot, a whole lot, of weather records were kept. During
the late 40's and early 50's, these records were studied by scientists.
It was noted, then, that there were "typical" weather patterns. What was
important about that fact, was that by using "typical" weather patterns,
certain predictions could be made with some reasonable expectation of
accuracy. In fact, some reasonable success in the war in the Pacific was
based on predictions made from these identifiable "Typical" weather
patterns.
In other words, in the early 1900's, say from 1900 (WW1) to about 1948
(WW2) the weather was NOT "Chaotic." There was Typical Weather.
That is the first FACT that so called "global warming" watchers have to
learn! If you can not get THAT, then you have no foundation on which to
base your predictions about "Global Warming." ALL predictions concerning
"Global Warming" are in fact BASED on the TYPICAL weather patterns
recorded since about 1900.
Therefore, there HAVE been long periods of time when the world's
weather, and more particular, perhaps, the weather in a specific
location, was "Typical."
Then, about the 1950's or mid 50's, weathermen began to use the term
"Atypical," as in "an atypical weather pattern." They began to use the
term "atypical" because their predictions and expectations proved WRONG!
Why? What was causing the weather, as based on the recorded TYPICAL
weather patterns to CHANGE, become UNPREDICTABLE?
So while "Global Warming" was not "Discovered" until perhaps 2000,
"Atypical Weather" was discovered in about 1955-1960.
Now to the terms "Global Warming" and "Climate Change."
I do not dispute that the average temperature of the world's ocean
surface or the earths atmosphere has risen by a degree or so since about
1948, or 60, or for that matter 1980.
Nor do I dispute that there has been some "Weather Change." Oh yes, the
weather is changing.
And I certainly do not dispute that the world's weather has become
"Atypical" -- or to use your word, "Chaotic."
What I dispute is, first, that the world's (or a selected location, such
as Waga Waga or perhaps the planes of Spain,) has ALWAYS been "Chaotic."
What I dispute is that "Global Warming" is a correct or accurate name
for the weather changes we now see.
However, regardless if "Global Warming" is an accurate term, I will tell
you this:
"Global Chaotic Weather" is a fulfillment of at least TWO Prophecies:
Luke 21:25-26, Rev 6:5-7.
glenn
>>
>> � A section of the A66 in Cumbria was was shut in both directions
Thanks for the link. Having spent a little time reading the article, I
believe it supports my position, below.
It's not just that it's colder than usual in Europe this winter, or that
it's hotter than usual this summer in Australia.
It's the unusual, atypical and unpredictable weather which is my point.
r m
>
> >> • A section of the A66 in Cumbria was was shut in both directions
>
> Thanks for the link. Having spent a little time reading the article, I
> believe it supports my position, below.
>
> It's not just that it's colder than usual in Europe this winter, or that
> it's hotter than usual this summer in Australia.
>
> It's the unusual, atypical and unpredictable weather which is my point.
There's all sorts of views. The one that's taken my fancy in recent
times has to do with Sun spot activity.
r m
Seon Ferguson
"glenn" <gamc...@spiritone.com> wrote in message
news:4b44485d$0$86453$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net...
> Seon Ferguson wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>> The chaotic nature of weather ...
>
>
> The key is in your own words: "Chaotic."
>
> During early 1900's, during WW1 and WW2, Especially during the war in the
> Pacific, a lot, a whole lot, of weather records were kept. During the late
> 40's and early 50's, these records were studied by scientists. It was
> noted, then, that there were "typical" weather patterns. What was
> important about that fact, was that by using "typical" weather patterns,
> certain predictions could be made with some reasonable expectation of
> accuracy. In fact, some reasonable success in the war in the Pacific was
> based on predictions made from these identifiable "Typical" weather
> patterns.
>
> In other words, in the early 1900's, say from 1900 (WW1) to about 1948
> (WW2) the weather was NOT "Chaotic." There was Typical Weather.
>
That is because the affects started to show from after ww2 onwards.
> That is the first FACT that so called "global warming" watchers have to
> learn! If you can not get THAT, then you have no foundation on which to
> base your predictions about "Global Warming." ALL predictions concerning
> "Global Warming" are in fact BASED on the TYPICAL weather patterns
> recorded since about 1900.
>
It is a fact that doesn't change the fact that global warming is real.
So let me get this straight, you think the "Bible" has more evidence then
the majority of scientists? Come on give me a break.
Wild Bill
"glenn" <gamc...@spiritone.com> wrote in message
news:4b44485d$0$86453$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net...
You were doing just fine until you threw in this bullshit!
Seon Ferguson
cr113
You're correct. In fact trying to draw conclusions from a few hundred
years is also pointless. The earth is billions of years old and it has
been much colder and much warmer than it is now. What bugs me is that
the people who believe in global warming are hypocritical. When it's a
cold spell it's just a short term data point. When it's a warm spell
it's global warming. Hurricane, global warming. Tornado, global
warming. How can you take them seriously?
rogue
> "glenn" <gamccl...@spiritone.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4b44485d$0$86453$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net...
>
> > Seon Ferguson wrote:
> >> <snip>
>
> >> The chaotic nature of weather ...
>
> > The key is in your own words: "Chaotic."
>
> > During early 1900's, during WW1 and WW2, Especially during the war in the
> > Pacific, a lot, a whole lot, of weather records were kept. During the late
> > 40's and early 50's, these records were studied by scientists. It was
> > noted, then, that there were "typical" weather patterns. What was
> > important about that fact, was that by using "typical" weather patterns,
> > certain predictions could be made with some reasonable expectation of
> > accuracy. In fact, some reasonable success in the war in the Pacific was
> > based on predictions made from these identifiable "Typical" weather
> > patterns.
>
> > In other words, in the early 1900's, say from 1900 (WW1) to about 1948
> > (WW2) the weather was NOT "Chaotic." There was Typical Weather.
>
> That is because the affects started to show from after ww2 onwards.
>
> > That is the first FACT that so called "global warming" watchers have to
> > learn! If you can not get THAT, then you have no foundation on which to
> > base your predictions about "Global Warming." ALL predictions concerning
> > "Global Warming" are in fact BASED on the TYPICAL weather patterns
> > recorded since about 1900.
>
> It is a fact that doesn't change the fact that global warming is real.
Actually, Seon, anthropogenic, or manmade, global warming is very
likely not real.
Surface temps peaked over ten years ago in 1998, yet the so-called
"greenhouse gases" that we are told cause this warming have continued
unabated. So let me ask you, if these greenhouse gases cause warming,
and we have continued to pour these gases into our atmosphere yet the
temps haven't continued to go up, why should be believe that AGW is
real?
Read the IPCC report. there in the preface of the report it tells you
that earth science is not like regular science. They are not able to
test their hypotheses, they are unable to reproduce their findings in
another environment and is their claims of global warming are any
indication, they can't predict what we will see based upon their
science. For example, we were told over ten years ago that the planet
would continue to warm, that the polar ice caps would melt, that sea
levels would rise, etc, etc.
What have we seen? Ice caps melt and then regrow. Some glaciers
melted and then started growing while other glaciers have continued to
grow. In the north, the ice is regrowing and the polar bear
population is continuing to grow.
Here is why I think the whole AGW phenomenon needs to be re-looked.
It's based on a very, very small window of data from the last 160
years, which is about all the time that people have kept detailed
records of the weather.
Yet, we have had weather on the planet for billions of years. We have
ice ages that last for 100,000 years followed by interglacial periods
that last roughly 11,500 years and then we are back into the ice age
again. Even during interglacial periods, we have periods of warming
and cooling, with little ice ages and warming trends. We had such a
warming trend prior to the little ice age where our greenhouse gases
are supposed to have gone as high as they are now. We have seen
studies where ice core samples taken that go back to the last ice age
show that our green house gas levels rose to be comparable to what we
see today, 800 years after the end of the ice age, which leads us to
wonder if perhaps the greenhouse gases aren't really the cause of the
warming, but the result of the warming trends.
What I see that is a problem is that we have a very small window of
data and people trying to extrapolate a situation from that small
window of data rather than looking at the big picture.
And now, since we are getting pretty close to the end of that 11,500
year window of the current interglacial and are looking at possibly
going into another ice age, we see the global warming alarmists who
once told us that the polar ice caps would melt and we would be living
in the movie "Waterworld," now saying instead that the new ice age we
may be going into is a result of global warming.
Really? It's going to warm up so much that we are going to go into an
ice age?
Really?
It would be funny if we didn't have people so ignorant of the history
and of the science trying to enact legislation that would increase the
costs of utilities on working class families even as we are trying to
recover from one of the worst recessions in our history because of the
incompetence of the last administration.
BTW, the "majority" of scientists do not embrace AGW. Given that
there are lists out on the web with names of over 31,000 scientists
who disagree with AGW, it's strange to see the claims of AGW alarmists
making the statement that the majority of scientists agree with them.
Don't just listen to me. Do your own research. You will likely see,
as I did, that AGW is the Intelligent Design of the weather set. It's
bad science and it tries to claim things to be factual when as yet, we
still don't really know. And worse, they will try to claim that if
you disagree with AGW, you must be a conservative and it's political.
Nope. I'm a liberal and the science just isn't there, IMO.
here's what we do know - we see more warming and cooling trends on the
earth's surface coming from solar causes than we do from man-made
causes.
Seon Ferguson
"cr113" <cr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d3468b91-7ba5-4ece...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Weather and climate are two different things. Do you expect under global
warming it is never winter in the UK and Europe and always hot? If so, maybe
you should research what scientists actually say. I'm not saying convert
just know a little what your debating against. I have been guilty of that in
the past...
glenn
>
>
> "glenn" <gamc...@spiritone.com> wrote in message
> news:4b44485d$0$86453$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net...
>> Seon Ferguson wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>> The chaotic nature of weather ...
>>
>>
>> The key is in your own words: "Chaotic."
>>
>> During early 1900's, during WW1 and WW2, Especially during the war in
>> the Pacific, a lot, a whole lot, of weather records were kept. During
>> the late 40's and early 50's, these records were studied by
>> scientists. It was noted, then, that there were "typical" weather
>> patterns. What was important about that fact, was that by using
>> "typical" weather patterns, certain predictions could be made with
>> some reasonable expectation of accuracy. In fact, some reasonable
>> success in the war in the Pacific was based on predictions made from
>> these identifiable "Typical" weather patterns.
>>
>> In other words, in the early 1900's, say from 1900 (WW1) to about 1948
>> (WW2) the weather was NOT "Chaotic." There was Typical Weather.
>>
> That is because the affects started to show from after ww2 onwards.
Agreed.
>
>> That is the first FACT that so called "global warming" watchers have
>> to learn! If you can not get THAT, then you have no foundation on
>> which to base your predictions about "Global Warming." ALL predictions
>> concerning "Global Warming" are in fact BASED on the TYPICAL weather
>> patterns recorded since about 1900.
>>
> It is a fact that doesn't change the fact that global warming is real.
I didn't say that global warming is not real.
I'm saying that the name, like a lot of names used by scientists, in
inaccurate, and what IS happening is a little more complex than the
earth's average temperature warming by two or three degrees.
No, I'm telling you that the majority of scientists are trying to tell
you What's happening -- and you are refusing to listen.
--
Glenn
.
Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.
Solomon
.
dolf
then the majority of scientists according to Glenn are deluded by Satan
and he thinks the Bible has more evidence than the majority of scientists.
On 8/01/10 1:12 PM, glenn wrote:
> Seon Ferguson wrote:
>> So let me get this straight, you think the "Bible" has more evidence
>> then the majority of scientists? Come on give me a break.
>
>
> No, I'm telling you that the majority of scientists are trying to tell
> you What's happening -- and you are refusing to listen.
>
I wrote:
> "glenn" wrote:
>
>>> The universe is at least 13 billion years old.
>> That is a lie of Satan.
>
> PROVE:
> 1. That it is a lie.
If...
a) It contradicts God's word
b) it makes God a liar
...then it is a lie
> 2. That it is "of Satan".
c) Satan is the father of lies
d) All that contradicts God's word is "of Satan."
glenn
>
>
> "cr113" <cr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d3468b91-7ba5-4ece...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 6, 1:17 am, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> http://www.grist.org/article/its-cold-today-in-wagga-wagga/
>>>
>>> The chaotic nature of weather means that no conclusion about climate can
>>> ever be drawn from a single data point, hot or cold. The temperature
>>> of one
>>> place at one time is just weather, and says nothing about climate,
>>> much less
>>> climate change, much lessglobalclimate change.
>>
>> You're correct. In fact trying to draw conclusions from a few hundred
>> years is also pointless. The earth is billions of years old and it has
>> been much colder and much warmer than it is now. What bugs me is that
>> the people who believe in global warming are hypocritical. When it's a
>> cold spell it's just a short term data point. When it's a warm spell
>> it's global warming. Hurricane, global warming. Tornado, global
>> warming. How can you take them seriously?
>
> Weather and climate are two different things.
Of course weather and climate are two different things...
...but NOT dis-connected things or /unrelated/ things.
Now perhaps you will tell me, is it weather that determines climate, or
does climate dictate weather?
Now, once you've been able to determine the cause and effect of weather
and climate, perhaps you'd be so kind as to explain the difference
between what climatologists and weathermen -- umhum, weather /persons/
-- have been predicting and what has actually been happening?
let me run some ideas by you, and you tell me where I'm wrong, OK?
a) The world's climate warms by 2 degrees:
1. The world's weather remains the same, but
Summer warms by 2 degrees, and
Winter warms by 2 degrees.
2. Some glacier melt, some polar cap melt
Sea levels rise 1 or 2 inches
3. Some forests, desserts wild life effected.
4. Food production in some areas begin to fall
b) The World's climate warms by 3 degrees:
1. The world's weather remains the same, but
Summer warms by 3 degrees, and
Winter warms by 3 degrees.
2. More glacier melt, some polar cap melt
Sea levels rise 2 or 3 inches
3. More forests, desserts wild life effected.
4. Food production in some areas fail
I would appreciate it, Seon, if you would point out to me just which
climatologist predicted what is actually happening?
> Do you expect under global
> warming it is never winter in the UK and Europe and always hot? If so,
> maybe you should research what scientists actually say. I'm not saying
> convert just know a little what your debating against. I have been
> guilty of that in the past...
>
>
glenn
> Excepting when its the Hubble Telescope peering back 13 billion years,
When did I deny that Astronomers could see 13 billion light years?
I didn't.
> then the majority of scientists according to Glenn are deluded by Satan
Why did I say that?
Did I say that because they believe the lie that the universe is 13
billion years old?
> and he thinks the Bible has more evidence than the majority of scientists.
Yes. Truth trumps a lie every time.
God created a mature man in a mature universe in Six days, and rested on
the seventh day -- and THAT is what you do not want to believe, Right Dolf?
dolf
see images 13 billion light years away that the universe must of
necessity be at least as old as that.
the expressions used were 'utter crap' and 'delusion'
On 8/01/10 2:06 PM, glenn wrote:
> dolf wrote:
>> Excepting when its the Hubble Telescope peering back 13 billion years,
>
> When did I deny that Astronomers could see 13 billion light years?
>
> I didn't.
>
>> then the majority of scientists according to Glenn are deluded by Satan
>
> Why did I say that?
you are engaged in avoidance of the quote provided. You know why you
said that.
I wrote:
> "glenn" wrote:
>
>>> The universe is at least 13 billion years old.
>> That is a lie of Satan.
>
> PROVE:
> 1. That it is a lie.
If...
a) It contradicts God's word
b) it makes God a liar
...then it is a lie
> 2. That it is "of Satan".
c) Satan is the father of lies
d) All that contradicts God's word is "of Satan."
>
dolf
see images 13 billion light years away that the universe must of
necessity be at least as old as that.
the expressions used were 'utter crap' and 'delusion'
On 8/01/10 2:06 PM, glenn wrote:
> dolf wrote:
>> Excepting when its the Hubble Telescope peering back 13 billion years,
>
> When did I deny that Astronomers could see 13 billion light years?
>
> I didn't.
>
>> then the majority of scientists according to Glenn are deluded by Satan
>
> Why did I say that?
you are engaged in avoidance of the quote provided. You know why you
said that.
I wrote:
> "glenn" wrote:
>
>>> The universe is at least 13 billion years old.
>> That is a lie of Satan.
>
> PROVE:
> 1. That it is a lie.
If...
a) It contradicts God's word
b) it makes God a liar
...then it is a lie
> 2. That it is "of Satan".
c) Satan is the father of lies
d) All that contradicts God's word is "of Satan."
>
> Did I say that because they believe the lie that the universe is 13
> billion years old?
>
>
>> and he thinks the Bible has more evidence than the majority of
>> scientists.
>
> Yes. Truth trumps a lie every time.
>
> God created a mature man in a mature universe in Six days, and rested on
> the seventh day -- and THAT is what you do not want to believe, Right Dolf?
>
I previously gave a perspective that even if the earth was void and
without form for billions of years, evident is the chronological
elements of the sun and moon with its eclipse fit is depicted as created
the fourth day and the whole process complete in 6 days as the
justification for the sabbath rest--That these are cosmological clues
which have a base 7 chronological understanding of Jubilees, Weeks and
Days associated with the Wednesday 20 March equinox and 364 days as 7 x
24 x 13 = 2184 days of the priestly service which had a reprise every
294 years or 6 Jubilees.
Your view of that cosmology is Gregorian, tropical and isn't compatible
with that.
glenn
> You scoffed and scorned the idea that if astronomers as scientists could
> see images 13 billion light years away that the universe must of
> necessity be at least as old as that.
>
> the expressions used were 'utter crap' and 'delusion'
>
>
Yep, sure did!
The universe is NOT 13 billion years old -- the IS utter crap!
Astronomers look at the evidence -- and believe DELUSION!
God created the mature universe in just 6 days, and his act of creation
was everywhere, all across the universe -- instantly!
When God created Light, it did NOT take light 13 billion years to spread
across the universe -- because God created light ALL ACROSS THE UNIVERSE
AT THE SAME TIME!
The big bang expanding 14 billion year old universe, and evolution, are
lies of Satan.
glenn
> You scoffed and scorned the idea that if astronomers as scientists could
> see images 13 billion light years away that the universe must of
> necessity be at least as old as that.
>
> the expressions used were 'utter crap' and 'delusion'
>
I certainly did!
The universe is NOT 13 billion years old -- the IS utter crap!
Astronomers look at the evidence -- and believe DELUSION!
God created the mature universe in just 6 days, and his act of creation
was everywhere, all across the universe -- instantly!
When God created Light, it did NOT take light 13 billion years to spread
across the universe -- because God created light ALL ACROSS THE UNIVERSE
AT THE SAME TIME!
The big bang expanding 14 billion year old universe, and evolution, are
lies of Satan.
--
glenn
>>>> � A section of the A66 in Cumbria was was shut in both directions
It doesn't matter what the physical cause is.
/THATS/ the intellectual trap of those who reject God. They believe that
if they can explain something by a scientific theory, or medical or what
ever, then they can deny that GOD is behind it!
What they deny, is that God almost always works within and through His
Creation to do His will and fulfill His purpose. So the Influenza
Pandemic of 1917-1918 was allowed or caused by God -- no matter that
Medical science can use a microscope and see the germ. The same with
Polio and AIDS. The same with Earthquake and Tsunami. The same with WW1
and WW2. These things, including "Global Warming," are the fulfillment
of the first three seals.
Just as the unification of the nations which once were Rome into Modern
Rome.
AND the merging of the world's economies into a 'One World" monetary
system.
AND the World Council of Churches into a "One World" religion.
Prophecy fulfilled before your eyes.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> There has been unusual ("atypical, unseasonable) cold weather and snow
>>>> fall in the US, in China and in Europe and the UK.
>>>> I repeat, "Where's the Global Warming?"
>>>> The truth is, like many things "named" by Scientists, the term "Global
>>>> Warming" is an over simplification whigh is in gross error.
>>>> Yes, the Earth may indeed be getting a degree or two warmer on the
>>>> average -- but THAT is not the problem. The problem in Atypical Weather,
>>>> unpredictable Weather. Weather which is abnormal. And THAT is a sign
>>>> that the Third Seal has been opened.
>>>> Examine the evidence:
>>>> http://www.google.com/search?q=atypical+weather&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
>>>> http://www.google.com/search?q=unusual+weather&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
>>>> http://www.google.com/search?q=global+warming&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
>>>> Here the nations of the world debate what to do about what is
>>>> distressing them.
>>>> http://www.google.com/search?q=global+warming+conference+copenhagen&i...
>> --
>> Glenn
>>
>> .
>> "Don't let your mind be cluttered with prevailing doctrine."
>> Alexander Fleming
>> .
>
--
Glenn
.
Many receive advice, only the wise profit by it. Syrus
.
ruth
Ruth
glenn
Yes, it sleeps in a cave in the winter.
But that's up north.
I wonder what it'd doing in the South?