Getting hot?

Polar bears drowning. Glaciers melting. Penguins sunburning. Depending on who you listen to, you may...

1) be convinced global warming is not occurring.
2) be trying to find what's fact, what's hype, and what's blatant falsehood.
3) not care.
4) be convinced that global warming is occurring, humans are predominantly responsible, and nations or the UN should step in with extreme measures to curb global warming.
5) be somewhere else in your ideas.

Clear and Present Dangers talks about social engineers who use seeming crises to manipulate citizens. With every assurance that "all" scientists support the idea of global warming, I grow less sure of it. It's going to take more than Mr. Gore's melodrama to convince me!

The place I'm looking today is a series on "The Deniers" of global warming. The series was written by Lawrence Solomon for the National Post. Even the first few paragraphs show some of the names and credentials of qualified people questioning the establishment. You can take a look.

(Image source is here. No animals were harmed in the course of writing this blog.)

Mind drones?

Are Christians mind-numbed robots? One BBC news article seems to support that theory.

The article tells how evangelical Christians cannot agree on global warming. Jerry Falwell is saying that the issue is still inconclusive while other evangelicals are signing onto global warming initiatives.

According to the article, the students at his brainchild, Liberty University, submissively follow his lead. Or, as the BBC puts it, "His word is taken as gospel by the university's students."

I'm not going to say that the BBC reporter who penned this piece of news went into the story with the intention of showing Christians as mind-numbed drones. By the end of the article, that's definitely the implication.

I don't know if there are student discussions being held on Liberty University's campus regarding global warming. If there are, that certainly was not mentioned in the news article.

This isn't the first time I've seen this perception of believers. The first time I met it face-to-face was when I talked to a professor last semester. We were discussing Christians and creationists. His take on creationists specifically was that they become creationists by accepting the word from on high: the opinion of some well-respected, science-ignorant leader. It's never by personally searching out the issue and coming to their own conclusions.

What do you think? How far should Christians take the word "sheep"? Are Christians more likely to take someone's word blindly than the average citizen? How does this jive with the example the Bereans gave? And what is the lowdown on global warming?

Word Solution

...the words evaporated, leaving only their meaning behind...

Some conversations or lectures are more more dense than others. There's no denying it. That's why some classes involve hurried pen scratching and others involve doodling and jotting.

Some conversations are filled with words that dilute their meaning. Others are full of concentrated thoughts. To get the same meaning across, the first type of conversation must be muuuuuuuuuuuuucccccchhhhhhh longer than the other.

When you're confronting someone, you sometimes have to dilute your meaning to make it less caustic. But make it too dilute, and you risk not getting your point across at all...

But regardless of the stylish words you choose, after they evaporate, only the meaning remains...

When science and art touch

I was looking for papers, honest! But at the Materials Research Society website, I stumbled across the following image...



It was submitted by Ee Jin Teo from the National University of Singapore. It is entitled “Ancient of Days” -- from classical art to quantum art. As you can see in the lower left hand corner of the second image, this is on a 100 micrometer scale!

Amazing what people can do; amazing what God can do!