Global Warming Junk Science

How Global Warming Became the Biggest #FakeNews Scare of All Time (Part 2)

James Delingpole
Breitbart News

Here is this week’s latest eructations in “Climate Stupid” Groupthink:

Let’s “solve” climate change by halting economic growth, argues a paper from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Vienna, published in Nature Climate Change.

Texas Tech professor Katharine Hayhoe tells a summit in Edmonton, Canada that climate change is “the greatest humanitarian crisis of our times”; confides how shocked she was on discovering, six months into her marriage, that her husband did not believe in global warming. “You have somebody you respect and you also love and you also want to stay married. I said well, ‘Let’s talk about it.’” Apparently it took two years to convince him.

Activists at Cambridge University warn of “large scale disruption” if the university’s £6.3 billion endowment fund ignores their demands that it should divest itself of its fossil fuel investment holdings.

An ex-White-House staffer from the Obama era tells Washingtonian  about the time her date with a man came to a sudden end when he said he didn’t believe in global warming: “I started laughing, because I’m from Colorado and didn’t realize people actually didn’t believe in global warming. But he was serious.”

Climate industrial complex in UK has wasted £100 billion and shut down debate to no useful purpose, warns Peter Lilley – one of Margaret Thatcher’s former ministers.

‘Stop blaming both sides for America’s climate failures’, argues Guardian columnist. ‘The fault lies entirely with the GOP.’

‘Blame consumers not China for climate change‘, warns Clinton-Climate-Initiative-backed pressure group.

I could go on but I wouldn’t want to bore you. Or myself. When you’ve been covering the climate/environment/energy beat for as long as I have, every day is Groundhog Day. Every day it’s the same bunch of troughers, spivs, second-raters, crooks, liars, half-wits, chancers, bottom-feeders and eco-fascists churning out the same old propaganda.

But these scare stories and demands for action are so relentless and ubiquitous that they do invite an obvious question: how can all these different people – from politics, from academe, from the media, from business – possibly be all wrong?  Isn’t it maybe time we listened more carefully to what they have to say?

Short answer: No.

Longer answer: No, no, no, no, no, no, NO!

Last week, I introduced you to the paper by Christopher Booker that explains why so many people – some of them highly ‘educated’ – can all be simultaneously wrong about so big an issue. They are all, Booker shows, the victims – or, if you prefer, the useful idiots – of a phenomenon known as ‘Groupthink.’

Groupthink was a phenomenon anatomized in the early Seventies by a U.S. sociologist called Irving Janis. As I explained in my piece, it has three rules:

Rule One. A group of people come to share a common view or belief that in some way is not properly based on reality.

Rule Two. Because their common view/belief cannot be subjected to external proof they have to reinforce its authority by claiming ‘consensus.’ The idea is to emphasize that all right-thinking people hold this view and that it is no longer open to challenge.

Rule Three: Anyone who disputes this ‘consensus’ must be excluded from the discussion: at best marginalized; at worst openly attacked or discredited.

I titled my piece The Shocking True Story of How Global Warming Became the Biggest #FakeNews Scare of All Time (Pt 1) a) because I wanted to grab your attention and b) because it’s true.  Even now, I find the chutzpah, the arrogance, the brazen dishonesty of those pushing this #FakeNews non crisis so utterly breathtaking I want to pinch myself in disbelief.

How do they get away with it?  Because they can. Because they always have got away with it.

In this second part of my coverage of Booker’s illuminating paper, I want to give you some examples that show you how and why every day in the world of climate change scaremongering is Groundhog Day. Essentially, what you’ll come to realize is that the people who’ve been pushing this scam have been operating from the same playbook for well over three decades.

Inventing the ‘Consensus’

1992 was a long time ago. To give you an idea how long, the movies you may have watched in that year including Reservoir Dogs; The Crying Game; and The Bodyguard; the albums you bought – well I did – were the Orb’s UFOrb; Dr Dre’s The Chronic; Sugar’s Copper Blue. George HW Bush was U.S. president. We’re talking ancient history here. But one thing that remains fresh as a daisy is the paper written in that year by Dr. Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It was titled “Global warming: the origin and nature of the alleged scientific consensus.”

No wonder Lindzen sounds so weary when he talks about this subject. He’s probably the world’s greatest professor of atmospheric physics. He’s been saying for over a quarter of a century that the whole global warming thing is a scam, but hardly anyone has been listening for reasons we’ll come to in a moment.

The flaws in the alarmist position Lindzen exposed in 1992 remain the same today: the global warming scare story depends on hopelessly inadequate computer models which place too much emphasis on man-made CO2 and which therefore produce a “disturbingly arbitrary” picture of the state of climate.

What Lindzen also noted in this paper was another thing that remains true today: the remarkable proclivity of all manner of diverse groups to leap on the climate bandwagon.

These include activist NGOs, such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF and the Union of Concerned Scientists; media organizations, such as the BBC, the New York Times and, as they then were, NBC, CBS and ABC; and Hollywood stars such as Barbra Streisand, Meryl Streep, and Robert Redford who called for people to stop “researching” the warming threat and to “begin acting.”

This was the Groupthink pressure that prompted that previously skeptical George H W Bush White House to cave and, in 1989, authorize a staggering increase in the federal budget for climate change research. Over the next four years, this increased from just $134 million to a total of $2.8 billion.

Burning the Heretics

A key element in the survival of any Groupthink “consensus”, Janis noted, is that any disagreement must be ruthlessly suppressed.

Anyone who has dares to take on climate change Groupthink has to pay a terrible price. I don’t know a single scientist, journalist, or politician who has criticized the “consensus” and not been made to suffer personally.

The ruthlessness and zeal with which the alarmists pursue heretics borders on the psychotic. There is perhaps no more poignant, shocking, and dismal an example of this than the way Al Gore sought to destroy the reputation of the very man he had once claimed as his inspiration: Roger Revelle, the distinguished oceanographer at the University of California in San Diego. Revelle’s research into increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, Gore claimed in his movie An Inconvenient Truth, was what first alerted him to the “worst threat we have ever faced.”

What Gore hadn’t quite appreciated when he made his powerpoint propaganda movie was that, in the interim, his old teacher’s views on climate had changed.  In 1988, Revelle had written to (notoriously alarmist) Senator Tim Wirth: “We should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer.”

Revelle went still further in a 1991 article he wrote with fellow distinguished skeptic Dr. Fred Singer, then professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.  Their article concluded: “the scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time.”

Gore’s response to the inconvenient truth of his supposed mentor’s change of heart?  He pressured one of his associates to put out the story that Revelle was a sick old man with failing mental capacities who had been pressured by Singer into signing the article. This was later the basis of a libel suit, which Singer won.

Gore – by then Vice President of the USA – also rang ABC News’ Ted Koppel urging him to expose Singer as being in the pay of sinister fossil-fuel interests which were funding an “anti-environment” movement. To his credit, Koppel called Gore’s bluff by reporting the Vice President’s attempted dirty tricks on air.

If you’ve read books like my own Watermelons, much of this will be familiar territory.

But in some ways that’s the most amazing thing of all about this extraordinary affair, which must surely represent the biggest peacetime waste of taxpayers money in history, the biggest scientific scandal in history, and the most extravagant and widely promulgated lie in history: the sheer brazenness of these tricksters’ enterprise.

Time and again, their junk science has been shredded, their lies exposed, their dirty tricks revealed.  Yet still they continue to get away with murder thanks to the power of Groupthink.  Too many people are still inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.  Too many people are distracted by the fallacious Appeal to Authority: “Who do you trust? 97 percent of the world’s scientists or Breitbart‘s James Delingpole?”

Well I know the answer to that last one. But then, like you, I’m not stupid.
Go to Source to Comment


Daily Meditation

A Five-Point Summary of the Gospel

Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God. (1 Peter 3:18)

John Piper

Here’s a summary of the gospel to help you understand it and enjoy it!

1) God created us for his glory.

“Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth, everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory” (Isaiah 43:6–7). God made all of us in his own image so that we would image-forth, or reflect, his character and moral beauty.

2) Every human should live for God’s glory.

“Whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31). The way to live for the glory of God is to love him (Matthew 22:37), trust him (Romans 4:20), be thankful to him (Psalm 50:3) and obey him (Matthew 5:16). When we do these things we image-forth God’s glory.

3) We have all sinned and fallen short of God’s glory.

“All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). “Although they knew God they did not glorify him as God or give thanks to him . . . . but exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images” (Romans 1:21–23). None of us has loved or trusted or thanked or obeyed God as we ought.

4) We all deserve eternal punishment.

“The wages of sin is (eternal) death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:23). Those who did not obey the Lord Jesus “shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might” (1 Thessalonians 1:9). “They shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matthew 25:46).

5) In his great mercy, God sent forth his only Son Jesus Christ to provide for sinners the way of eternal life.

“God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13). “Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God” (1 Peter 3:18).
Go to Source to Comment


Education Far Too Important For the State to be Involved

State Incompetence Is Endemic

Charter schools are going to close in New Zealand because of an antediluvian ideology gripping the hearts and minds of the Government.  That ideology can be summarized by the following maxim: “the Government does it best.”

New Zealand has been pretty much a socialist country ever since European settlement.  Historian Michael Bassett characterised our dominant national ideology as “Socialism Without Doctrines”.  He meant by this that New Zealand has always been a pragmatic nation.  “If it works, it’s good” has been the idea.  A corollary sits right alongside this naive pragmatism–“when the Government does ‘it’ it’s the best”, whatever “it” may be.  It is held generally true by many that the Government is without interests.  It works for the good of all.  It does not seek its own interests.  Its contribution is objectively for the best.  It is not driven by selfish motives of profit.  It puts the nation and the community first–and so forth, and so on.

Of course, this is all silly nonsense.
  It turns out the Government is one of the most self-interested entities around.  Let any politician contemplate facing the voting public and self-interest will put pragmatics and populist crowd pleasing above principle in a nano-second.  Moreover, the State is the biggest employer in the land.  The State sector is also the most unionised.  The state bureaucracy and its employees is orientated to serving the interests of the State sector unions above all else.

The education sector is one of the most socialist of all.  We are told repeatedly that young peoples’ education is far too important to entrust it to parents or to the community in general.  In fact this is a half truth.  Yes, children’s education is vitally important.  It is far too important to entrust it to the State. The State ultimately serves itself and its employee unions, not the interests of parents.

Here is a classic example:

Millie Tapusoa’s son punched a girl in the face soon after he started at the South Auckland Middle School. But he wasn’t punished.  The charter school recognised that the boy, Jaydon Solouota, had Asperger’s Syndrome. Before he started in Year 7 in 2015, the school worked with his case manager at Idea Services to train staff “to get to know Jaydon from Jaydon’s world view”.

It gave Jaydon coloured cards so that if he got angry or anxious he could give his teacher the appropriate card and leave, no questions asked.  That didn’t stop incidents at first.  “Jaydon punched a girl in the face because she had come into his space and he had said to her ‘Go away’ three times,” Tapusoa said.

“I picked him up from school, and over the next two days the school did a session with his class on what sorts of things made Jaydon happy and what made Jaydon sad. The school didn’t punish him, but what they did was they educated his class.”  The school’s approach was unlike anything Tapusoa had experienced before. A former nurse, she pulled Jaydon and his older brother Tama, who has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, out of a Porirua school where she felt their needs were not being met.

“In the state system the word ‘inclusive’ is just lip service,” she said.  “For example, at one school, my children wanted to play indoor soccer, but they didn’t get into the team. I rang the school and they said, ‘We’ve got two teams and there were a lot of kids who didn’t get in.’  So I got all the kids that didn’t get into the team, the parents came along and helped, and they had an extra team for children like ours. We just want them to participate and have a normal experience.”

Tapusoa believes that what made the difference at South Auckland Middle School was its policy of only 15 students in a class.  “Because of that, there is a lot more personal contact with the parents,” she said.  “In partnership schools it is a partnership. It’s me, the teachers, the kids and the community. The children at partnership schools get to enjoy everything. You are not excluded if you are not good enough.”

The partnership schools are bulk-funded, enabling Poole and his wife Karen, the Villa Education Trust’s chief executive, to hire more teachers by spending less on property and administration.  Karen Poole administers both charter schools with only one office manager in each school.  Alwyn Poole said the trust paid teachers “at least 5 per cent above state rates”, but also required them to work “up to the last day of every term” and to write detailed reports to parents on each student in their mid-year and Christmas holidays. The school principals also teach classes for 12 hours each week. 
 [NZ Herald]

The Education Minister, Chris Hipkins is a stoolie for the teacher unions.  When the unions say, “Jump!” Hipkins asks, “How high?” as he sails into the air.

Educating our children is far too important to entrust it to a teacher union stoolie.
Go to Source to Comment


faith to destroy

marmsky March 2018 (21)

faith to destroy

devotions from Jefferson Vann # 2327

Numbers 21:1-3

Num 21:1 When the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who lived in the Negev, heard that Israel was coming by the way of Atharim, he fought against Israel, and took some of them captive.
Num 21:2 And Israel pledged a solemn pledge to Yahveh and said, “If you will really give this people into my hand, then I will devote their cities to destruction.”
Num 21:3 And Yahveh heeded the voice of Israel and gave over the Canaanites, and they devoted them and their cities to destruction. So the name of the place was called Hormah.

faith to destroy

I’m thinking about the solemn pledge that the Israelites made. They promised to destroy the cities occupied by the king of Arad and its people. The vow could be taken as simply the rage of vengeance. But I think there’s more to it.

Completely destroying the cities may actually have been an act of faith. Rather than looting them, they sought to wipe out their influence completely. They trusted God for the strength and time to build new cities.

LORD, give us the faith to change the landscape around us, wiping out all that does not conform to your will… trusting you to give us strength to build upon your foundation.


Global Warming Junk Science

How Global Warming Became the Biggest #FakeNews Scare of All Time (Part 1)

James Delingpole
Breitbart News

Why do so many apparently informed, intelligent, educated people still believe in ManBearPig?
For the same reason that the U.S. underestimated the Japanese threat before Pearl Harbor; that General MacArthur stupidly advanced north of the 38th parallel in Korea; that JFK got embroiled in the Bay of Pigs disaster; that LBJ dragged the U.S. deeper and deeper into the Vietnam War.

The reason is a phenomenon known as ‘groupthink’.

Though the name dates back to a 1952 article in Fortune magazine by William H Whyte, it wasn’t popularized for another twenty years when a Yale research psychologist called Irving Janis used it in the title of his influential 1972 Victims of Groupthink.

Little did he know it – Janis was looking to past events like the ones mentioned above, not the future – but his book would anatomize with unerring accuracy the perverse mindset which would lead to the creation of the biggest, most expensive junk science scam the world has ever witnessed: the great global warming scare.

This is the subject of a must-read paper for the Global Warming Policy Foundation by Christopher Booker: Global Warming – A Case Study in Groupthink.

Though it’s quite a long read, I do recommend you have at least a dip because it contains so many pertinent answers to that question you so often hear from global warming true believers: “What kind of crazy conspiracy theorist would you have to be to think that so many experts from science, politics, business, the media, even the oil industry would lie to us about the scale of the problem?”

But as Booker – via Janis – shows, there’s a much more simple explanation than conspiracy theory. It has to do with the bizarre, but very well documented tendency many humans have towards embracing fashionable nonsense.  According to Janis there are three rules of groupthink.

They are:

Rule One. A group of people come to share a common view or belief that in some way is not properly based on reality.

Rule Two. Because their common view/belief cannot be subjected to external proof they have to reinforce its authority by claiming ‘consensus.’ The idea is to emphasize that all right-thinking people hold this view and that it is no longer open to challenge.

Rule Three: Anyone who disputes this ‘consensus’ must be excluded from the discussion: at best marginalized; at worst openly attacked or discredited.

These, Janis showed, were the rules which led to the Pearl Harbor/Korean War/Bay of Pigs/Vietnam War disasters above.

They are also, as Booker shows, the rules which explain the current global warming hysteria.

The scare originated in the imaginations of a tiny handful of people. Just three in fact.

First of these was a Swedish meteorologist called Bert Bolin who had been obsessed, since the late 50s, with the idea that carbon dioxide, being a greenhouse gas, must inevitably precipitate potentially disastrous global warming.

Next came Dr John Houghton, an evangelical Christian and former professor of atmospheric physics at Oxford, who became seized with the spirit of Bolin’s notion – and proceeded to proselytize on its behalf via his influential position as head of the UK Met Office.

And the third of this unholy trinity was the hugely rich Canadian businessman and Marxist, Maurice Strong who knew little about the environment but who quickly grasped that it was the perfect cause he could exploit to advance his left-wing global agenda.

Without this trio’s passion, energy and influence, the entire global warming scare might never have happened. But between them they had the necessary skillset to push their pet issue onto the world stage and embed it in global political consciousness. This they did under the auspices of the United Nations, via a series of conferences – Geneva in 1979; Villach, Austria in 1985; and ultimately the Rio Earth summit in 1992 – which caused interest in global warming to snowball.

In 1988, thanks to their efforts, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) held its inaugural meeting. It was sold to the world as an impartial body of scientists but it was never any such thing. Right from the start it had a political purpose which trumped any scientific one: to assert the existence of man-made climate change and to urge dramatic, concerted action to stop it.

Does all this so far sound like a denialist’s paranoid conspiracy theory? Of course it does. But that’s OK – thanks to Christopher Booker’s expert marshalling of the facts, we can fully back up these scandalous allegations. If you haven’t got the time to read Booker’s GWPF report then I’ll give you a choice selection in part 2 of this article.
Go to Source to Comment


Daily Meditation

Contempt For Self Can Elide Into Contempt for Others

Screwtape examines the virtue of Humility

C. S. Lewis

Your patient has become humble; have you drawn his attention to the fact?

All virtues are less formidable to us once the man is aware that he has them, but this is specially true of humility. Catch him at the moment when he is really poor in spirit and smuggle into his mind the gratifying reflection, ‘By Jove! I’m being humble’, and almost immediately pride—pride at his own humility—will appear. If he awakes to the danger and tries to smother this new form of pride, make him proud of his attempt—and so on, through as many stages as you please. But don’t try this too long, for fear you awake his sense of humour and proportion, in which case he will merely laugh at you and go to bed.

But there are other profitable ways of fixing his attention on the virtue of Humility. By this virtue, as by all the others, our Enemy wants to turn the man’s attention away from self to Him, and to the man’s neighbours. All the abjection and self-hatred are designed, in the long run, solely for this end; unless they attain this end they do us little harm; and they may even do us good if they keep the man concerned with himself, and, above all, if self-contempt can be made the starting point for contempt of other selves, and thus for gloom, cynicism, and cruelty.

From The Screwtape Letters
Compiled in A Year with C.S. LewisThe Screwtape Letters. Copyright © 1942, C. S. Lewis Pte. Ltd. Copyright restored © 1996 C. S. Lewis Pte. Ltd. All rights reserved. Used with permission of HarperCollins Publishers. A Year With C.S. Lewis: Daily Readings from His Classic Works. Copyright © 2003 by C. S. Lewis Pte. Ltd. All rights reserved. Used with permission of HarperCollins Publishers.
Go to Source to Comment


I didn’t write that series on women.

I’ve had this post sitting in draft for a few days as I pondered whether or not to post it. Obviously I decided to press that button. A long time ago I announced that I was going to write a series of articles on the various New Testament passages tied up in the issue of […]
Go to Source to Comment


Unbelief Betrays Its LIcentiousness

The Immorality Implicit in “Robing Up”

You knew from the get-go that Hindu and Moslem women are profoundly chaste and faithful, right?  You knew that because they robe up.  Of course we knew that.

OK, so now we can dispense with the jokes and the kidding.  Below is a telling excerpt from Dr Vishal Mangalwadi, in, The Book That Made Your World,  in answer to the question, “What did the biblical idea of marriage and family do for the status of women and for civilization?”  He chose to answer the question by telling a story from his personal experience.

As I mentioned . . . we began our service to the poor in village Gatheora in 1976 by training Village Health Workers (VHS’s).  Dr. Mategaonker and his staff would come to our farm twice a week to teach village folk how to stay healthy, prevent diseases, and cure simple ailments.  The village families wouldn’t allow women to attend these classes, so we had to begin by training young men.  After a few months, after we had bonded and become free with each others, the VHW’s conveyed to us their considered opinion: “You Christians are very immoral.”

“What do you mean?” I was taken aback, since the jury had reached this verdict after due deliberation.  “How are we immoral?”

“You walk with your wives holding their hands,” they explained.  “Our wives walk at least ten feet behind us.  You take your sister-in-law to market on your scooter.  Our wives are too modest to sit behind our bicycles, and they cover their faces in front of our fathers, uncles, and older brothers.”

I had no clue how to answer my accusers.  But Vinay, my older brother, had lived there longer than I.  He responded with brutal frankness: “Come on, you guys!  You know perfectly well that the truth is the exact opposite.  You do not allow your wives to uncover their faces in front of your fathers and brothers because you trust neither your father nor your brothers nor your wives.  I allow my wife to go to the market with my brother because I trust her and I trust my brother.  Our wives can walk in the fields with us and visit you in your homes because of higher moral standards.  You chain your wives to your kitchens and imprison them behind their veils because you are immoral.”

To my utter amazement, every one of the VHWs agreed with Vinay without a whisper of protest.  They may have remained sceptical about our morality, but they knew first hand their own moral standards.  [Vishal Mangalwadi, The Book That Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2011),  p. 276]

He adds:

I was grateful for Vinay’s insight, for I had never seen the connections of morality to liberty, liberty to the status of women, and the status of women to the strength of a society.  I should have known better because our village was less than twenty miles from Khajuraho, where every imaginable sexual act had been carved in stone to adorn Hindu temples.  My ancestors’ religion of “sacred sex” had enslaved our women just as it did in the pre-Christian Greco-Roman civilization.  [Ibid., p. 277.]

This rampant immorality of heart (and, not infrequently, action) crosses just about all races and cultural lines in the East.  In most Eastern nations and cultures the females walk behind the males and they are always accompanied.  It is therefore reasonable to expect their menfolk are enslaved to sexual impurity, in heart if not in deed.  On the other hand, the secular West’s enslavement to pornography represents the same licentiousness.  It is the same cultural sin, albeit with a different mode of expression. 
Go to Source to Comment


last climb

marmsky March 2018 (20)

last climb

devotions from Jefferson Vann # 2326

Numbers 20:22-29

Num 20:22 And they journeyed from Kadesh, and the people of Israel, the whole congregation, came to Mount Hor.
Num 20:23 And Yahveh said to Moses and Aaron at Mount Hor, on the border of the land of Edom,
Num 20:24 “Let Aaron be gathered to his people, because he will not enter the land that I have given to the people of Israel, because you rebelled against my command at the water of Meribah.
Num 20:25 Take Aaron and Eleazar his son and bring them up to Mount Hor.
Num 20:26 And strip Aaron of his garments and put them on Eleazar his son. And Aaron will be gathered to his people and will die there.”
Num 20:27 Moses did as Yahveh commanded. And they went up Mount Hor in the sight of all the congregation.
Num 20:28 And Moses stripped Aaron of his garments and put them on Eleazar his son. And Aaron died there on the top of the mountain. Then Moses and Eleazar came down from the mountain.
Num 20:29 And when all the congregation saw that Aaron had perished, all the house of Israel wept for Aaron thirty days.

last climb

Aaron is one of the few people in the world who knew exactly when and where he would die. The LORD told Moses to bring Aaron and Eleazar with him for one last climb up Mount Hor. There, Aaron removed his high priestly garments, and watched his son dress in them. There Aaron died, and as soon as Moses and Eleazar came down the mountain alone, the Israelites knew he had died. Moses also knew that his time was coming as well, because both of them had rebelled against God’s command at Meribah.

LORD, we are all mortal and will eventually die. Give us the wisdom to obey you, so that we live and die with honor.



More Concern Over The Prothanasia Bill Before Parliament

NZ End of Life Choice Bill

Another submission against Unlawful Killing

We oppose the End of Life Choice Bill.

Reasons why.

We are opposed to the End of Life Choice Bill for the following reasons:

1. What we have read and heard from medical people about the way in which such bills have opened-up a Pandora’s box in countries where such legislation has been passed leads us to expect that the same will happen here. A bill which starts off allowing those who wish to end their life to do so, will end up taking the lives of many who do not wish to die. It seems strange that having abolished the death penalty for every crime, we should re-introduce it for the crime of being a burden on society or not being able to contribute anything useful.

2. Such legislation, if it were passed would forever change our relationship with our doctor and with the medical community.
We would see medical people as having the power of life and death over us. We would think twice before visiting a doctor or getting the prescribed tests done. If a doctor put the option of euthanasia to us, then we would change our doctor and suggest to anyone else that we knew who went to him/her to do the same. We would be reluctant to go into a hospital suspecting that someone on the staff might not have our best interests at heart. We would also not be willing to let a member of the family go to mental health if they were referred there, for fear that they might be coerced to end their life.
                                                                                                                                                             While being against the bill, it seems to us that if the government is determined to pass such a law for humanitarian reasons then they would need to have medical people who function completely outside of the medical system in separate buildings. Only those who ask for the service should be allowed to see them and they would have to go through a special counsellor first to make sure that no pressure had been put on them by others and that they had really thought it through. Such doctors and nurses who provide this service should not be allowed to also function within the normal health system.   But we suspect that such safeguards would defeat the real purpose for which some people want the bill.

We do not think that governments should be trying to set up a modern version of Plato’s “Republic” where people are bred and trained to fulfil certain functions in society and where those who do not serve any useful purpose have no value and so are expendable. This is especially alarming if those in charge think (like Plato) that populations should be limited to a certain number of people.

We live in an age where the tendency is for the State to become all knowing, all seeing and all powerful. There are those who would like to predestinate everyone’s life from test-tube to euthanasia so that they become productive and compliant members of society contributing to the common good until they can no longer do so. Then they would become expendable and could be disposed of. There are those who want to control what we say, what we do and how we think. Virtue has become conformity (or as C.S. Lewis put it ‘virtue has become integration’) and Vice is resistance to the status-quo. But Os Guinness tells us:

“Without freedom of thought, conscience and religion, all drives toward conformity – whether from totalitarian governments, liberal universities or the gatekeepers of our public squares – end in some degree of coercion that stifles not only freedom but many secular considerations that are more crucial to the powers-that-be than religion itself . . . When the religious insistence on monopoly, the communist demand for uniformity and the laudable liberal desire for equality slide into a remorseless drive for conformity, the coercive conformity that results will always prove stifling and self-defeating.”

Today it is the State, or at least those who control it, that wants to define good and evil and therefore right and wrong and enshrine it in law and enforce it upon our consciences. People now confess to the Psychiatrist or the Judge. It is also the State that now seeks to provide for all our needs and be our final Judge and to be the final authority in everything. The State even wants to decide who will live and who will die (which they already do through abortion and now want to do through euthanasia). In a word: The State has taken the place of God and seeks to fulfil all His functions. Modern Society is becoming a secular version of the Kingdom of God. It is for this reason that there is rivalry and competition between the Christianity and the State. (The same may true for the conflict between Islam and the State.)

Jomo Kenyatta, the first President of an independent Kenya, said that the Church is the “conscience of the State”. But modern states seek to suppress that conscience.  Peter Hitchens wrote “The Rage Against God” partly in response to his brother’s book “God is not Great.” In it he says:

“But in recent times it has grown clear that in my own country the Christian religion is threatened with a dangerous defeat, by secular forces that have never been so confident. In the United States, where Christianity appears stronger, it is by no means as powerful and secure as it imagines. Why is there such a fury against religion now? Why is it more advanced in Britain than in the USA? I have had good reason to seek the answer to this question, and I have found it where I might have expected to have done if only I had grasped from the start how large are the issues at stake. Only one reliable force stands in the way of the power of the strong over the weak. Only one reliable force forms the foundation of the concept of the rule of law. Only one reliable force restrains the hand of the man of power. And, in an age of power-worship, the Christian religion has become the principal obstacle to the desire of earthly utopians for absolute power.”

John Lennox (Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University) has also written a book (called “Gunning for God”) about this competition between Christianity and the New Atheists and their desire to abolish religion and put science “In place of God.”  But it is not the scientists or even the politicians that are in the driving seat. We think that Christopher Lasch pointed out the real culprits when he wrote:

“Once it was the ‘revolt of the masses’ that was held to threaten social order and the civilizing traditions of Western Culture. In our time, however, the chief threat seems to come from those at the top of the social hierarchy, not the masses…Today it is the elites… those who control the international flow of money and information, preside over philanthropic foundations and institutions of higher learning, manage the instruments of cultural production and thus set the terms of public debate – that have lost faith in the values, or what remains of them, of the West.” (Quoted in “The Great Experiment”).

Can those rulers who seek absolute power and complete autonomy to remake society with no moderating influence really be trusted to act in the best interests of their subjects? This tendency comes largely from the enlightenment and the Atheist, John Gray has warned us of the dark side of that influence:

“The role of the Enlightenment in twentieth-century terror remains a blind spot in western perception… Communist regimes were established in pursuit of a utopian ideal whose origins lie in the heart of the Enlightenment… a by-product of (an) attempt to remake life. Pre-modern theocracies did not attempt to do this… Terror of the kind practised by Lenin did not come from the Tsars.”

In “The Twilight of Atheism”, Professor Alister McGrath traces the history of Atheism through the Enlightenment and the French Revolution on into the 19th and 20th centuries and shows how that dark side developed and the kind of world that the ideas of the Enlightenment produced in some cases. If euthanasia is introduced, we fear that we might go down that road again.

Select Bibliography:
Saunders, Dr. Peter. CMF blogs on End of Life
Richmond, David. Emeritus Professor. Ethical Objections to Euthanasia.  Touchstone, June 2009.
Forum on the Family, 2014. Euthanasia. U-Tube Video.
Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. The Control of Human Life: Eugenic Utopianism and the Christian Perspective.
Packard, Vance. The People Shapers.
Lewis, C.S.  The Abolition of Man.
Rushdoony, R. J.  Christianity and the State.
McGrath, Alister. The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World.
Guinness, Os, Lee-Thorp, Karen. The Great Experiment: Faith and Freedom in America.
Guinness, Os. A Free People’s Suicide: Sustainable Freedom and the American Future.
Guinness, Os. The Global Public Square.
Lennox, John. Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target.
Hitchens, Peter. The Rage against God.
Joad, CEM.    The Recovery of Belief.
Kuyper, Abraham. Lectures on Calvinism.
Sookhdeo, Patrick. The New Civic Religion.
Sookhdeo, Patrick.  The Death of Western Christianity: Drinking from the Poisoned Wells of the  Cultural Revolution.
Wishart, Ian.  Eve’s Bite.
Wishart, Ian. Totalitaria.

Go to Source to Comment