Saturday
12Jan2008
Iraq Enjoys First Snowfall in 100 Years
Saturday, January 12, 2008 at 01:25AM For the first time in memory, snow fell across Iraq today. Most weather experts say its been 100 years since Iraq has seen snow, while a few Iraqis swear there was a flurry in the 1940's. In any event, Iraqis were mesmerized and took the snow as a sign of peace from God.
Time Magazine calls it A Cold Day in Hell . I'd call Kenya hellish.
Global Warming, anyone?
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1479962
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (28)
Amy said: Global Warming, anyone?
Why is this considered evidence against global warming while the many scientific studies published by mainstream scientists are ignored? Besides, snow is seldom seen in Baghdad not because of the temperatures but because of the lack of precipitation (it is located in a dessert region).
Silke, Al Gore just won a Nobel Peace Prize for his "work" on educating about global warming, yet his so called science is highly questionable. His assertion that NYC will be underwater because the polar ice caps are melting at an alarming rate, and other assinine faulty science, are what set up with dichotomy between science and junk science, which is worth being addressed. The comical juxtapostion between Al Gore's theories and the green people who follow it and something like snow in the desert should be discussed. Why not?
Precipitation isn't a huge issue in Iraq. Iraq is settled over a bed of water so water is plentiful and irrigation rich wherever it grows. It doesn't rain often yet vegetation flourishes.
The irony here is that it snowed in the desert and global warming proponents (not the reasonable ones who note historical warming and cooling trends but those who are religious about global warming and promote scientific error to support their religion and ascribe evil mankind as the root of the problem) insist that warming is occuring at such an alarming rate that the earth will shortly die by drowning from melting polar ice caps.
Myth of the dwindling ice caps:
What if all the ice melts?
I wrote this piece about a CNN meteorologist who slammed Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth.
It's clear global warming held by many is faulty science, much like so called science proving evolution.
So I'm not saying snow in Baghdad is a sign there is no global warming, but rather the hysterical environmentalists shouldn't be taken so seriously.
The real message of snow in Baghdad could be a divine one having nothing to do with global warming whatsoever. Iraqis enjoyed the day and there was not one act of violence reported in Baghdad. I think that miracle deserves the emphasis.
Miracles from Heaven
Got my vote, Amy...
AubreyJ.........
awwwwwwwwww come on, Amy. you should know by now that Bush is the cause of the snow in Iraq not God or nature. His lies has brought on the wrath of the gods since they couldn't do it by defeat in the war. this is Allah's revenge.
Griper, if it were Bush's fault, fire would have fallen from the sky, not snowflakes. :)
AubreyJ, miracles from heaven indeed...
Amy said: Silke, Al Gore just won a Nobel Peace Prize for his "work" on educating about global warming, yet his so called science is highly questionable.
I don’t listen to Al Gore when it comes to the science of climate change but the IPCC also won the Nobel Peace Prize and their findings are based on sound science.
It's clear global warming held by many is faulty science, much like so called science proving evolution.
That’s not what mainstream scientists are saying – especially about evolution.
Amy, you are right to criticize those who exaggerate the threat of climate change and you make a good point that the real story is the joy these people felt.
Great timing... what a coincidence, eh?
Evolution is the doctrine of the devil.
And all the fruit of its antichristian foment has been mass murder and dehumanization.
Those who hold this doctrine erode the faith of the one true God and destroy their own souls.
Jesus proclaims the creative logic from above (the "logos" in John Ch 1) which is based on the attributes of God and not the humanly limited 'rationality' of mere men. Those who oppose Christ will one day bow the knee, whether in heaven or in hell.
Phil 2:10, 11
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
Since it's Sunday and all... :)
Johny said: Evolution is the doctrine of the devil.
Not according to most people of faith.
Johny said: And all the fruit of its antichristian foment has been mass murder and dehumanization.
The Theory of Evolution says nothing about how humans should act. A scientific theory is not invalidated by the evil actions of someone any more than a particular religion is invalidated when someone commits evil in its name.
Johny said: Those who hold this doctrine erode the faith of the one true God and destroy their own souls.
That is a false choice. Religion and science are perfectly compatible.
the difference between science and theology is that science presupposes determinism and theology presupposes free will, especially within the judeo-christian religions. this is so even though the idea of free will may differ among the religions.
Silke said:
That’s not what mainstream scientists are saying – especially about evolution.
That's why I trust them on neither.
I also agree that religion and science are perfectly compatible. Often, though, religion and scientists are not compatible. I know which I believe.
Amy said: Often, though, religion and scientists are not compatible.
Since science can say nothing about religion I don’t see how that’s possible.
That’s not what mainstream scientists are saying – especially about evolution.
Hold on a second, Silke! Just what is a "mainstream scientist"?
Silke, you previously said:
Religion and science are perfectly compatible.
How can you then say science cannot say anything aboug religion if the two are "perfectly compatible?
My point was not that science and religion are at odds, but rather that religion and scientISTS are.
I'd have to second Mwalimu's question about "mainstream scientists".
Amy said: How can you then say science cannot say anything aboug religion if the two are "perfectly compatible?
Science and religion answer different questions using very different methods. They are compatible because by definition they cannot conflict.
Amy said: My point was not that science and religion are at odds, but rather that religion and scientISTS are.
Not if they are practicing sound science. Could you provide an example?
Mwalimu said: Just what is a "mainstream scientist"?
Scientists who undergo an extensive process of training and credentialing in their field using established scientific principles. They conduct experiments and add to a well-established body of knowledge about the natural world, built up empirically over past centuries.
silke,
that description would apply to every scientist thus the only conclusion one can come to based on that description is that a "mainstream" scientist is a scientist that you agree with. no one else would fit in that catagory.
Science and and religion should both be based in truth. Scientists aren't being exactly truthful about some of their methods and agendas.
It’s not a question of truth. Science is based on empirical evidence.
Amy, I don’t understand what you mean when you say “scientists aren’t exactly being truthful”. Can you please provide a specific example?
I'll give a couple examples tomorrow.
Science is supposed to be based on empirical evidence. I have a History Channel or Discovery Channel episode called How the Earth was Made that shows its bias against creationism for unprovable theories. I may post it in parts.
Amy, that’s not an example of just a few scientists being untruthful about their methods and agendas. That’s questioning most of modern science.
It’s not that scientists are biased against Creationism (in fact just a few centuries ago most were Creationists). It’s just that over time the evidence contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis.
In fact most well-established theories in modern science (particularly in biology, paleontology, astronomy, geology) contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis. For instance, radiometric dating indicates the Earth is over 4 billion years old. There is no evidence humans and dinosaurs lived together. The fossil record clearly shows a progression over a long period of time of simpler life forms evolving into more complex and not the act of special creation at one moment in time.
This does not mean that God didn’t do it and there are many people of faith who have no problem with the findings of modern science.
Amy said: I’ll give a couple examples tomorrow.
Amy, did you come up with any examples?
Silke, I'm sorry I haven't been able to engage like in the good old days. I'm busy with work, family, et al...
Quick examples:
-myth that evolution is more than a theory
-myth of greenhouse gases being dangerous for the environment
-myth that man is causing global warming
-myth of big bang theory
to name a few...
That’s OK, Amy. I understand. I do disagree with you that the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory are “myths.” They are sound scientific theories based on many lines of evidence from many different scientific disciplines. This is not just a few scientists with a particular agenda who have intentionally falsified information.
And the evidence for evolution is not just based on simple observations; indeed, the most powerful evidence is conformity to predictions that the hypothesis makes about what we should see if the hypothesis is true or false.
Do you believe the age of the earth is a myth too? There is abundant evidence in geology that the well-defined geological ages of the earth extend over hundreds of millions of years.
Silke, I don't know how old the earth is...it could be old, although I doubt as old as you said. I have a personal belief based on the oldest written records and what I believe is common sense...I think the earth is less than 10,000 years old.
The scientific definintion of a planet changed, rejecting Pluto from the list of 9 planets we all learned in school. The missing link between humans and their predecessors has never been found. Scientists can determine, usually, what a thing is, but they venture into conjecture to suppose they know how that thing came to be.
There have been many scientific embarrassments over the centuries. Like anything else, there is always a possibility of error. Science does seem to support that there was a world wide flood, but they conjecture interesting theories about meteors crashing into the earth... meteors that came from where? How? How does matter evolve from nothing? The biggest question scientists have not been able to answer is that and until they can, I have a right to be suspicious of science as 100% reliable.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against science. Far from it. Scientists have done a tremendous service to the world, but when they start with a conclusion and work backward to recreate the facts, that's a problem.
I have a video I'm going to edit and post that goes into the theory of a meteor hitting off the coast of Mexico and covering the world with dust/darkness, which led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are under a layer of sediment. I'll post a link to it when I have it up.
Amy, I don’t say the earth is old. All of modern science says it is old, approximately 4.5 billion years old. That is based on physics (i.e. radioactive decay). What do you think is more likely that your personal interpretation of the written record is incorrect or millions of scientists are incorrect?
Pluto? Just because we now classify Pluto as a dwarf planet doesn’t change the fact that Pluto exists. Since scientists have discovered several other objects in our Solar System of similar size we would either have to have eight planets or twelve (and possibly more if they are discovered). That’s science. It is constantly improving with more empirical evidence. Contrary to your opinion that this means science is unreliable I believe this is its greatest strength. It doesn’t mean the old theory goes away. It is built and improved on. A new theory always has to explain the old observations (and the new ones).
How does matter evolve from nothing? I don’t know. But something tells me even if scientists do possibly discover it one day – you won’t believe it. Science will never answer all your questions and it will never be 100% reliable. There will never be enough transitional fossils because once a new one is found, two more gaps are created. That is an unreasonable standard to judge it by.
The truth is modern evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for how life on earth evolved over time through the passing on of traits from one generation to the next. It is one of the most studied, tested, and accepted theories in science.
Amy said: Science does seem to support that there was a world wide flood,..
There have been many regional floods but there is no evidence for a global flood.
Amy said: …but they conjecture interesting theories about meteors crashing into the earth... meteors that came from where? How?
They came from outerspace, just like the many meteors that enter earth’s atmosphere all the time. Most are so small that they burn up in the atmosphere but some have been large enough to leave craters.
Amy said: Scientists have done a tremendous service to the world, but when they start with a conclusion and work backward to recreate the facts, that's a problem.
That would be a problem, but that’s not what scientists do. Isn’t that what you are doing, though?