It never rains, in southern California. It only pours. Man it pours. That is, until it doesn’t.
The antediluvian world drenched, the earth never was to drown again. The colours of a rainbow say so. The heavenly vow was to never rain out our parade no more. The new world will instead be toast.
“Will Monsieur have French or Plain?”
Gold, warm, and crisp.
“Honey or marmalade?”
That keyboard warrior had been quick to type “Agenda 21“. “Conspiracy geek!”, you had thought. Also, recall Mr Caldwell who in his Sunday best had warned, “the wrath of the Almighty it is.” At least that’s what you thought he had said. You had read his lips as he moved his hat to wipe the sweat off his brow that revealed a squint of the eyes to match the one at his mouth.
“He may have been right”, you now think. They could both be right, what’s more. All of a sudden you have lost interest in toast, as you wave back at garson. He holds up a cup.
“Yes”, you nod: I will have the tea.
‘The water table is dropping all over the world’: NASA warns we’re on the path to global drought
Are we sinking?
Well, it’s hard to know.
Empirical evidence to my eye suggests more ferocious climactic events than I can recall from my childhood and early adult years.
That may not be proof, and each side of the global warming argument claim to have proof. So where does that leave you and me?
My inclination is to answer that question with a further question: is not global warming consistent with apocalyptic end-time prophecy of natural disasters?
There is (at the very least) some evidence for global warming. And we all have a sense that we are living a somewhat ‘artificial’ existence within a natural environ. Add to that some good old fashioned apocalyptic fear and it’s a ‘no-brainier’ that we should consider global warming a “Clear and Present Danger” – a danger requiring immediate and somewhat drastic action.
The primary aim should be to utilise less energy per person; and the secondary aim can be to source energy by alternative means.
Clearly, Christians and non-Christians alike, as custodians of this home, it behooves us to be ever so mindful of how we manipulate its ecosystem as we continue our headlong charge in dominion.
Brian Schmidt, the Australian National University astronomer, is joint winner of the 2011 Nobel Prize for a 1998 discovery of the expansion of the universe at an ever-accelerating rate from his observations of supernovae (exploding stars). Half of the more than $ 1.5 million (AUD) prize money went to Professor Schmidt and US scientist Professor Adam Riess.
During the 1990s, the two and a third scientist, Saul Perlmutter, found the light from more than 50 distant exploding stars was much weaker than conventional wisdom would suggest. They concluded that galaxies were racing away from each other at increasing speed, rather than the belief that the universe was expanding but by ever smaller amounts (due to the effects of gravity holding the expansion back); and that this expansion is accelerating suggests that the universe will end in ice.
So what’s driving this acceleration? ‘Dark Energy’ of course. [This term should tell you and I that they have no idea; except to say that it is “inverse gravity”].
But the way I see it, there is always a missing fundamental, particularly in astrophysics if not science as a whole. For if we have learned one thing from Einstein and his General Theory of Relativity it is that you can not truly know something. For at the instant it is known, it is changed.
I do not want to take away from the gentlemen’s prize nor their kudos. Well done to them. But to the suggestion, now, that the universe will ever increase at an increasing rate and freeze over… pffft!
I see it akin to the stock market proverb, where “the trend is your friend”. Yes, the trend is your friend — that is, until it’s not.
So too the universe is expanding, at an accelerating rate… until it’s not.
That’s my perverse logic.
And who’s to say I’m wrong – I mean apart from these scientists and the Nobel Prize judges?
Sources: ABC/AFP/Reuters and Yahoo News