"Truth or Consequences"

There is no safety in truth that is not genuine!  However, falsehood in its very degrees leads to destruction.  Beware of that which is not genuine truth.

We do well to remember that "genuine truth" does not change! No matter how ones spins it, rejects it, seeks to destroy it, and/or compromise it, genuine truth will in the end be there when the false has failed.  Genuine truth is not at the mercy of polls, opinions, the media, nor is it at the mercy of academia.

Not so with man's unproven opinions.  Take for example the matter Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth and the whole notion of "global warming."  It was not too long ago that the climatologist were proposing "global cooling" and a coming ice age.  Then came "global warming."  Now we have "climate change."  The only inconvenient truth here is that the whole notion of man caused climate change is "junk science" to be sure.  How can I say that?  Consider the following.

Science--true science is built upon the idea that a discovery is characterized by at least two basic qualities.

First, it is stable, that is the scientific discovery does not change.  It can be a gateway to deeper understandings and truths but the basic theorem is stable and thus does not change.  

Second, the outcome can be validated by any scientist or laymen who cares to replicate the conditions of the original experiment.  

 "Climate change" meets neither criterion as when you remove "interpretation and opinion" from the discussion, there is little factual data.  Oh, I know, drilling through the strata of Antarctic ice, looking at tree rings etc. gives data, however such data is open to interpretation and thus is not purely factual.  Therefore it is not "genuine science" and in fact qualifies as "junk science."

Well, you might ask, "How is it that you are qualified to render this conclusion?"  The answer is quite simple.  When you look at the scientists that signed on to "climate change," you will notice that not many of them are any more qualified that I am since this is not their area of expertise.  Said another way, I am as qualified as they to discuss the veracity of this theory and I with as much expertise as they say that this is an illegitimate theory!

There is an underlying issue as well.  Consider the first part of the term, "man made."  Does it not speak to an arrogant view of man and his influence upon God's creation?  Does it not tacitly say that man's actions are greater in power than God's capacity to keep and maintain creation?

Well, you respond, I am an evolutionary atheist.  Then consider this.  The basic notions of evolutionary science (again "junk science") should encourage "climate change" since it creates an environment in which only the fit survive and thus progress further up the theorized evolutionary ladder.  Makes no sense to me why the evolutionist would not want this supposed "climate change."

"Climate change does make a difference.  There is an economic effect upon the individual and upon the economy in general.  Sure we should all be for clean air and clean water but this has gone way too far.  That brings us to this final point!

There is safety in genuine truth! Maybe that is the Genuine Inconvenient Truth!  When man individually and as a nation turns from God, there is a price to be paid and that price is that the view of God becomes distorted or all together absent.  Without the "God view" all truth becomes subjective and subject to the influences of prejudice, societal mores, bias, and results in chaos.