GLOBAL WARMING: Should we panic???
Why are our politicians and media so keen that we should believe in “greenhouse gases”, “carbon footprints”, “climate change” etc?
Is somebody making lots of money out of our state of panic?
Emissions trading? Carbon credits? Are they not just ways of steering money away from the battlers into the hands of the rich?
How is it that climate-change fundamentalists want the high moral ground, mocking the un-convinced majority, and labelling us “skeptics” as if it was a form of leprosy?
Yes, we are now permitted to stop panicking about the “millennium bug”. But we’re still expected to believe that “swine flu” is different from all previous flu’s. Must we still worry about the “financial downturn“, or is it over now?
It’s all a bit hard to keep up with.
Sometime soon, there will be another worldwide panic about something or other, and we’ll all feel the pressure again to stay worried.
* * *
Mary MacKillop’s mother was a great worrier.
In her day there were no pensions. She had seven children. Her husband seemed unable to keep a regular job. Her only income was daughter Mary’s work – at times as a shop assistant, other times as a governess.
But Mary had ideas of going off and becoming a nun – which made Mrs MacKillop worry more.
Mary encouraged her mother to have faith. In one letter she wrote, “We must and will pray, we will resign ourselves to do God’s will . . . Don’t dread the future. I feel you won’t have cause. If my God calls me, unworthy as I am, to serve him in a special manner, he will look over and save from too much care, the mother I have so much cause to love.”
* * *
Jesus Christ taught his disciples, “Take no anxious thought for tomorrow, what you shall eat and what you shall drink . . .”
The thing we SHOULD worry about is whether the way we live is pleasing to God.
1 Comment
This entry is filed under Environment, Lifestyle, Recent Developments, Science.
You can also follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Or perhaps you're just looking for the trackback and/or the permalink.
At stake in Copenhagen is a 2% commission on all carbon transactions globally, to be paid to the UN. If estimates are correct that carbon commodity market will reach $2 trillion annually by 2020 then the UN stands to make about $200 billion a year. Not bad for a start.
But what’s really at stake at Copenhagen is control of carbon. Are we willing to give control of carbon to the UN? If you control carbon, you control everything.
I beleive the federal government must retain control of the price of carbon in the USA, because he who controls carbon controls everything. The price of carbon will eventually be like interest rates; if the price goes up the economy will slow, if the price goes down the economy will grow. Giving control of carbon over to the UN at Copenhagen will launch the UN as the World’s Government. Why would any President want to give up this control over our economy? Once control of carbon is relinquished, Obama goes from being the driver of the bus to merely schlepping the bags.