Skip to content

Today's Creation Moment

Creation Truth in a Comic Strip
Psalm 146:1-2
"Praise ye the LORD. Praise the LORD, O my soul. While I live will I praise the LORD: I will sing praises unto my God while I have any being."
I admit it. I enjoy reading comic strips from time to time. I especially love the single-panel "Far Side" cartoons by Gary Larson. He's one of the only cartoonists who has repeatedly focused on the...

Global Warming or Mind Control?

Mark Twain was absolutely correct when he said that "statistics" can be just another way for someone to tell a lie. A recent USA Today Daily Briefing e-mail called attention to a study – published several months ago in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – showing that "97 percent of scientific experts agree that climate change is 'very likely' caused mainly by human activity."

The study was conducted – according to the study itself – because global-warming proponents are upset that so many of us Americans do not accept what the science establishment is telling us. Since this is unacceptable to them, USA Today must have felt it only right to remind its readers that man-made global warming is settled science. And yet, it was only last year that the whole fraud of "Climategate" was breaking, in which it became evident through released e-mails that certain scientists and science institutions were cooking the global warming data and silencing dissent. No wonder that global-warming alarmists continue to lose credibility!

USA Today noted, "The report is based on questions posed to 1,372 scientists. Nearly all the experts agreed that it is very likely that anthropogenic [man-made] greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth's average global temperature in the second half of the twentieth century." [Emphasis added.]

Notice the word "unequivocal"? How often have we heard that global warming – or evolution, for that matter – is indisputable, beyond question or unequivocal? This is simply untrue, and yet there are many in the science establishment who continue to use such words to silence anyone with evidence that contradicts their position.

Another way that global-warming proponents attempt to shut down opposing views is by demeaning their opponents. According to the USA Today story, "As for the 3 percent of scientists who remain unconvinced [of man-made global warming], the study found their average expertise is far below that of their colleagues, as measured by publication and citation rates."

Is it possible that these dissenters have a smaller publication rate precisely because the publications refuse to publish their papers? This happens to creation scientists and Intelligent Design scientists all the time.

We also feel it's important to point out that the goal of this study is not the unbiased pursuit of science but a biased attempt to change people's minds and control public policy. According to the study: "This extensive analysis of the mainstream versus skeptical/contrarian researchers suggests a strong role for considering expert credibility in the relative weight of and attention to these groups of researchers in future discussions in media, policy, and public forums regarding anthropogenic climate change."

In other words, scientists who take the official position on global warming are the only ones who should be allowed to participate in media, policy and public forums on the issue. Dissenters are not to be taken seriously. Need we mention that this is precisely what is going on in the area of evolution? Scientists who don't agree with Darwin are ridiculed, marginalized and silenced. What Creation Moments would like to know is: Since when is scientific truth determined by a majority vote rather than by the evidence?

One final word … and a closing comment. When we took a closer look at the study's supporting information, we discovered that, due to duplication of names, only 472 scientists were actually included in the study – not 1,372 as reported. And of this number, nearly all were affiliated with organizations that strongly believe in man-made global warming.

While Creation Moments fully supports legitimate scientific research, we will forever oppose those who use global-warming junk science and biased surveys to confuse and misinform people.



Thanks for digging a little deeper! Your article about the grape harvest was fascinatingly enlightening as well.

Global Warming; is nothing more than; Global Marxism. In 1989, after the fall of the Berlin Wall; we threw them out the window "red"; three years later; at the Earth Summit, In Rio; they walked back in the front door, "green."

Bob Fletcher

The climate change hype is all about influencing the way people think and controlling public funding allocations. It's about as biased as it gets. And as for scientists who buy into global warming having more expertise than those who don't, that's bunk. The scientist who has the most expertise is the one who's right, not the one who can get the most number of fools to agree with him and admire him.

I agree, alarmism is big business!

You know what's really "unequivocal"? It's not that scientists are always right. It's that God is always right. There's nothing unequivocal about man's science. Man's science is about as faulty as an old sump pump that's leaking. You can't rely on man's science to be accurate. Just look at how Pasteur had to fight the scientists of his day. Do you think the fight is over? Of course not. We have just as many fools today who consider themselves experts in science as we did then ... maybe more.

If you can't rely on it to be accurate, I sure hope you don't depend on it! Because praying to sky daddy will DEFINITELY cure you of cancer better than platinum.

Stacking the cards and then reporting false results ... Now that's junk science! It just goes to prove that statistics are about as malleable as clay in the hands of the dishonest.

In case you were wondering, after an investigation, an independent board decided the science was valid.

After reading several of your comments, it has become clear where you stand on the accuracy of the Bible. That being said, it is also patently obvious that you are ignorant on meteorology. Are you aware that more glaciers are advancing than retreating? Just who is this fair and unbiased "independent" board? Do you have even the slightest idea of what the function of greenhouses is? If there were no greenhouse gasses, our planet would be uninhabitable. Temperature swings from day to night would be as much as 200 degrees. Greenhouse gasses serve to moderate these differences. For that matter, do you have the slightest idea of which gas makes up the largest component of these gasses? Water vapor makes up fully 97% of greenhouses with CO2 at only 1%.

Evolutionists have the same idea. They think that the more people they can deceive into believing them, the more valid their theory is. But voting doesn't make something more scientifically valid. If so, then we could all vote that the earth was a blue gumball with green sprinkles and make that the accepted rule of the day. Just because you can get a large number of people to panic at the thought of climate change (whether warming or cooling, it doesn't matter) is not a validation of anything except that people are gullible.

Agree with global warming or you're not an expert. That's like a gag rule. Speak out against something and you'll be silenced. It's money and power that are behind the global warming theory, not science. Proponents gain lucrative positions and government funding.

It reminds me of the emperor's new clothes. If you "see" global warming, then you're an accepted expert. If you don't see it, then you're a fool and a reprobate

How quickly the proponents of global warming expect us to forget Climategate. They pretty much expect that the public will go along with what they want to say about anthropogenic dangers to the globe and forget all about the scam that was recently uncovered. The unfortunate thing is that many people will do it. That's because they're more interested in "believing" what's popular than what's true. Things haven't changed much since Socrates' day.

The process was investigated three times, and the methods were cleared three times.

<a href="" title=""></a>

This is typical behavior from the scientific community ... using peer pressure instead of looking at the facts. Then proponents of global warming turn around and treat the results of peer pressure as if they validate scientific truth. It's falsehood justifying falsehood.

Science isn't what concerns these kinds of people. It's manipulating people's opinions. Obviously the survey results were rigged and blown out of proportion. But even if the statistics were accurate, the entire premise that popularity should drive science is completely wrong.

Why were the survey results "obviously" rigged? Because it's not what you want to hear?

It continue to amaze me how opinion (which is the heart of any poll) is manipulated both by how they pose the question(s) and/or by who they ask the questions to. Like in the statistics gathered above, they chose their pool of respondents from a group that they already knew how they would respond, allowing them to know the outcome before the first person is approached.

Additionally, the biggest issue that they have with human-caused global climate change is the issue that the climate on Mars has been changing to keep pace with the earth's. (<a href="" title=""></a>) Granted, we have sent a solar-powered rover to explore the planet, but I sincerely doubt that the human-created rover that is sitting broken down on the surface of Mars could create human-caused global climate change. (Hold for dramatic pause while people laugh at the establishment's expense.) Yet if the cause of the climate change on earth is allegedly humanity, then it is only reasonable to come to the conclusion that humans are the cause of the climate change on Mars too, and I would suspect if Pluto wasn't downgraded to sub-planet status, someone might have checked and found it has also suffered from human-caused climate change as well.

I have found that there are three stages in every great work of God: first, it is impossible, then it is difficult, then it is done.

What about the shenanigans in the medical research industry and their collusion with the greed of the pharmaceutical companies?

Your article addresses a very serious issue. I have been concerned for those who will be here long after I am gone. I have been opposed to much of the "so called factual" evidence supporting global warming; however, I heard a "so called" fact last week that concerned me. It was that the global temperatures for the last several years have increased. This very statement should be easy to verify. If this is true, the question simply seems to be, is this manmade "global warming" or are there other influences that we do not understand or possibly a combination. One thing is certain and that is that "junk science" can certailnly get in the way of factual science.

I get annoyed when junk science gets in the way of factual science as well. And yet, you would probably claim that this site is factual science, when there is absolutely no evidence of any of its claims.

No, a "global temperature" would be very difficult to verify, as it is only a theoretical construct. Get 5 climatologists in a room and ask them to measure "global temperature", and you will get 5 different answers!

Before any good engineer will use a measurement tool, it must be checked against something that is a Standard, and must be able to predict all known data points. A model for global climate change must be able to demonstrate how the earth warmed and cooled to create 4 ice ages (without people and SUVs), and also predict when the next ice age will come.

So far I have never been able to find anyone that will even start to explain how ice ages came and went.

Well, the model for global warming is about how human interactions have contributed to increased temperatures through carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect. Since we weren't polluting on a massive scale during the ice ages, that's not really relevant.

Temperature cycles are natural, but data says that it is far warmer than the cycles would predict.

I disagree with your statement. First, by stating that it is irrelevant you suggest that there is no research necessary but then cite unspecified research on how the climate "should be" currently. Since the climate has been warmer in the past than it is today, I don't think any of us could say that this CAN'T possibly be natural. Second, I have not seen a single climate model able to take the past data and accurately forecast today's climate. Until that happens, I give little credence to climate models forecasting runaway, man-caused warming.

Whose predictions are the temperature cycles not conforming to? Are these people who believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old and came about through purely random undirected processes? If you believe the earth is very old, then you would expect the temperature of the planet to be very stable by now, so even a change of a couple degrees is cause for alarm.

Thanks for your articles.I have run into a stone wall when discussing science with evolutionists. Whenever a fact is presented that denies evolution, it's because creationist scientists are liars (according to them). Again, thank you for the articles.

Out of curiosity, what facts are given that deny evolution? And what evidence do you have that a magical being was created, then created the universe and humans?

Tim, there are many, many facts that disprove evolution - like the information found in the DNA molecule, the Cambrian explosion, etc. I suggest you subscribe to the "Today's Creation Moment" e-mail to learn about them so you have no excuse for being ignorant of the evidence.

Tim, God was not created, He always existed. Everything within this universe had a beginning and will have an end, but God is not bound by this limitation. God created this universe. The creation is not greater than the creator.

When I was teaching middle school children about science, I taught how experiments were conducted. If I deduced a hypothesis, then I developed an experiment to collect data to prove or disprove that hypothesis. I then taught how they could develop conclusions on the data they collected. Then someone else would come and try to reproduce their science experiment; and on and on, until its repeatability was validated. Then a theory was born from this science. This is called basic scientific method.

Global warming has not been scrutinized using the basic scientific method, nor has evolution, nor have other preposterous claims in the realm of science. We are expected to take as "truth" any claim a self-proclaimed scientist reports. The reality, as many here have stated so well, is most of the scientific community (university driven) use the bogus claims to seek further funding grants so they can stay employed. They squander tax dollars, provide zero evidence for their claims in science, and manipulate politicians into believing if we don't follow their results we will not survive the next few years.

It is a scam of unimaginable magnitude and invalidates the legitimate scientist from doing things that could provide benefit for all humanity. Lord God, please help us, we are being forced to live lies equal to the evil in the days of Noah.

As a retired graduate engineer & statistician, I know that conclusions can be no better than the data sources used to form them; garbage in - garbage out. Statisticians' questions & choice of questions can strongly predict/form the outcome; there are liars, damned liars, & statisticians. Conclusions can never be any better than your means to measure them & you can't improve what you can't measure. Concerning global warming proponents, Al Gore allegedly was worth about $2,000,000 when he left the White House beginning in 2001; he is now worth about 50 times that amount; follow the money trail & Gore bought a beach-front home less than 20 feet above sea level in CA about two years ago. Considering the noted track record of USA Today, it is apparently more oriented towards "forming" opinion than rightly informing. The Holy Bible is the only 100% correct source; Jesus never solicited human advice; in fact, when the Apostle Peter volunteered an opinion, Jesus said, "Get thee behind me, Satan". Our best current event data sources, including Creation Moments, are Christian internet, TV, & radio, to the extent that they are in consonance with the Bible.

It is indeed sad that as many trusted beliefs become corrupted, that science joins the ranks. I have watched this trend since my university days as more and more "experts" yield to political correctness instead of fact. Fortunately, we have an incorruptible truth in God's Word, but we must be very careful that we are not led astray by reading false interpretations. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Matthew 7:15

How do you know whose interpretation is correct? There are thousands of Christian sects alone.

Also, books written by bigoted sheep herders aren't really incorruptible.

Tim, your first comment deserves no answer in light of your second comment. Perhaps someday you'll grow up and see that you're being completely illogical ... and a bigot in the very worst way.

I have been interested in natural science since I can remember. After becoming a Christian I realize that science cannot be rightly interpreted without the Bible. I am glad for organizations like yours that sets the record straight. Keep up the good work.

Right! Scientist are unequivocally right all the time, sure. They were right when they decided bleeding people was the best thing to cure everything. They were right when they gave the Nobel prize for the invention of the lobotomy. They were right when they said certain kinds (or species) were extinct only to "discover" them again later. Oh yeah! They were right when scientists claimed that certain humans were sub-human (as per evolution). Clearly scientists have never been wrong!!! Okay, sorry about the sarcasm but I think you all get the point. Science is not infallible, God, however, is.

By the way, there is a certain program hosted by a former professional wrestler/governor that shows that the "global warming" issue is more about money and power than it is about anything else. Yes, I know that the program likely has some sensational aspects to it (i.e, clever editing). Nonetheless, some of the information provided on this program is quite disturbing. Either way, Jesus will return before we or anything else destroy the planet. But it's ours to look after, so let's take care of it without going nuts like some people.

If you have not yet viewed the DVD- The Privileged Planet -then you may not have a concept about what I am about to teach you that is already commonly expressed in the media: TV, radio, movies, internet, etc. You just do not see these things yet and when you do they are reported by OLD AGE Evolutionary CYCLES the media reports that we do not have to worry about it for MILLIONS of years...really, well there is no way that anyone can say that the following events are not causing irreparable damage to our Solar system.

There are other factors that old age scientists do not consider when they speak of Climate Change. And they mention Climate Change in the same breath as Global Warming. They may even allude to Global Warming causing Climate Change. After all, Global Warming is good to fight because WE might be able to still slow it down with man-made changes and practices.

I know for a fact that THINGS will only get worse. You would have to STOP CONCRETE PRODUCTION to even begin to slow down global warming,

FACT: The Earth is slowing in ROTATION...adding LEAP SECONDS to the clock, sometimes even TWO SECONDS in some years since 1972 when they started adding seconds to the clock as the Earth Slows in Rotation...Spin and the weight of the air column on the spinning Earth causes the wind cells to form, easterlys, westerlys, trade winds, corioles effect, tornadoes, hurricanes...WIND= >2000 tornadoes/yr in USA, plus 1 to 5 Hurricanes on the planet per week with frequent dual & triple hurricanes. We had 100 tornadoes at one time, 65, 45 and we frequently see triple and dual tornadoes or huge tornadoes with double and triple vortices. Dual tornadoes downtown Houston and Atlanta. Places globally are experiencing tornadoes for the first time ever known in history.
CAUSING: USA averages 2000 Tornadoes per year since late 90's.
CAUSING: 1 to 5 Hurricanes per week on the planet.

FACT: the Earth spun faster in the past and in zero gravity the poles compress as the spinning ball bulges at the equator...MASS is being COMPRESSED more and more as the Earth spun faster back to the perfect rate of spin during the Garden of Eden. As the Poles compress there is MORE MASS PER UNIT VOLUME...compressing Matter with increased speed=
the MOON is receding away from the Earth.

FACT: the MOON IS RECEDING AWAY FROM THE EARTH 1.6" inches per year and accelerating as the Earth Slows in Rotation the planets poles decompress (less Mass/unit Vol).
FACT: Mass equated in Newton's Laws of GRAVITY.

In only 7yrs the Moon will recede 12 inches.

FACT: the MOON has an intimate connection with Earth and High & Low Tides...ON OCEANS OF WATER!!! And on all other bodies of water floating on top of floating PLATES OF EARTH.
As the Moon recedes, the moon's intimate connection is decreasing. The Moon's PULL ON THE EARTH IS DECREASING and going through changes that are affecting the Plates of the Earth.
The PLATES, plate tectonics, are adjusting to the changing cosmic forces because the Earth and the Moon are receding away from our SUN, as our Solar System expands (Entropy = unwinding, slowing down, cooling off...).

As the Moon Recedes (etc) we are experiencing increased Global shifting of the plates causing an increase of VOLCANIC ACTIVITY & Earthquakes...Equador has >12 active Volcanoes & they are increasingly active all around the planet...all this as the forces on the Earth decrease from the Moon, Sun, Solar system expansion events.

Amen. Thanks for being a sensible source of information. Science is a method of learning about our world. But people in scientific fields often misbehave and do not follow their own guidelines.

Keep up the good work.

Having lived long enough to have witnessed what some are calling "change", I recognize as cycle. Every now and again I'd like to see folks turn off their electronics and seek some personal experience. I noted the other day a person complaining "and now North has moved - when are we going to stop this madness and do something about global warming?" If you have ever used a magnetic compass, you likely know about north deviation charts. If you have looked up from time to time, you might understand that there are sun "storm" cycles. If you have fished long enough, you realize that lakes and oceans experience what is called "turn over". Well, the more you look, the more you realize that God created a world that stays the same except when it changes. Yes, man initiates changes, but if it is against God's design, guess what man's changes revert to? Thanks for being a voice in the wilderness. (2 Timothy 2:15)

Scientists are more concerned with being politically correct than in what the facts are. Instead of going by the evidence, they often seek to manipulate public opinion. After all, it's a lucrative business to claim global cooling, or global warming, or the even more unspecific climate change is a huge threat to the earth.

I personally hope we do have climate change. If we cease to have summer, winter, spring, and fall, that's when we really should worry.

"While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease." (Gen. 8:22)

I remember in the 1970s we had to change from one refrigerant to another to stop another ice age. There were holes in the ozone which were cooling the earth. Why listen to " chicken little" again? When we trust and obey God, He will take care of us.

I am a meteorologist with a master's degree and 12 years experience in the field. I have worked on weather models, especially those dealing with cloud dynamics. I am one of those dissenters who believes that global warming is solely caused by man. I am currently writing a paper on finding common ground between skeptics and hysterics in order to promote sound, good-stewardship practices and policies regarding the environment.

However, I am disappointed with the sloppiness of your article. If you take a close look at the supporting information, the 472 number given only refers to the number of dissenters. Earlier in the document it references ~900 supporters of man-made global warming, for a combined total of 1372. When critiquing issues such as global warming and evolution, it is critical that our analysis be above reproach, or their supporters will pick us apart and blame our error on either a lack of knowledge/expertise relevant to the issue (much as the report does) or broadcast it as a blatant lie to mislead the public.

That said, I agree with your overall analysis for a few reasons. 1) 900/1372 is not 97%... if those are the numbers they used, the correct percentage is ~65%. I would want to look closer to see which of the 472 dissenters were suddenly converted to the mainstream. 2) Like you, I laughed at the criteria for expertise: if there was a consistent effort to limit skeptical research from being published (which was evident during the climategate scandal) then the criteria is biased and has been artificially manipulated by those who support man-made global warming. 3) "Scientific research" conducted for the sole purpose of propaganda is junk science and overtly biased. There is research that show strong efforts to manipulate the data to support one's own stance and to adjust the research so results become more in line with that stance. 4) Finally, there is an online petition of scientists with 97,000+ signatories with advanced degrees in meteorology, biology, geology, and a host of other fields relevant to climate science research. Why not use those names? Maybe because that would overwhelm their 900-strong group of accepted experts.

"We also feel it's important to point out that the goal of this study is not the unbiased pursuit of science but a biased attempt to change people's minds and control public policy."
If I'm not wrong, you pretty much just stated exactly what the Bible and Christian religion is. You refuse to take anyone's point of view into consideration other than your own. There have been SEVERAL studies on global warming (and evolution for that matter) which have been very conclusive.

What about the first half of the twentieth century?
<a href="" title=""></a>

The same open-water characteristic in the arctic that is causing people to claim global warming today happened in 1922. That means the ice cap melted down in the years preceding 1922, then regrew, then melted down again in the mid-90's.

Wood's Hole has admitted a major contributor to that cycle is deep water circulation.
<a href=";tid=282&amp;cid=54347" title=";tid=282&amp;cid=54347">;tid=282&amp;cid=54347</a>

Since man-made pollution increased drastically in the second half of the twentieth century, which was when the ice cap was first regrowing then melting again, it is painfully clear said pollution cannot be the cause.