Monday, November 29, 2010

The Tyranny of Islamic Blasphemy Laws

Asia Bibi with her two children

Pakistan like other Islamic States have blasphemy laws which serve as a means to suppress and tyrannise Christians and Jews by the Islamic majority. Pakistan is one of the prime movers for the introduction of a blasphemy resolution  at the U.N.

Under Pakistan's blasphemy laws Asia Bibi an innocent Christian mother of two children, was sentenced to death and held in a Pakistani prison, since November 8 this year. So goes the fate of Christian minorities in Islamic States like Pakistan.

According to Reuters today a court barred President Asif Ali Zardari from pardoning Asia Bibi:
Last week, a government minister said an initial inquiry into the case of the Christian mother said she had not committed blasphemy but was falsely accused after a quarrel.
Blasphemy convictions are common although the death sentence has never been carried out. Most convictions are thrown out on appeal, but angry mobs have killed many people accused of blasphemy.
If you survive being killed by an Islamic mob, then the courts will try you and sentence you to death. That's how they intimidate and terrorise the Christian minority even if you are eventually given a "pardon" ( to receive a pardon you first have to be guilty; similarly for clemency).  

Here's the background of Asia Bibi's story from the Pakistan Christian Post
Lahore: November 9, 2010. (PCP) A Christian woman named Asia Bibi was sentenced to death by District and Session Courts after year long trial on accusation of blasphemy filed by Muslim villagers of Ittanwali, where she was residing from generations.
While working in farms with other Muslim women, Asia Bibi was dragged in religious dialogues on June 19, 2009, when Muslim women termed her an “Infidel” and Christianity a “Religion of infidels” and pressed her to embrace Islam. 
Asia Bibi who is married and have two children, defended Christianity with her little knowledge and told Muslim women that Christianity is only True religion on which Muslim women made a roar and accused her defiling Prophet Mohammad.
The Muslim men working in nearby fields also gathered and attacked Asia Bibi on which she fled to village in her home. The angry Muslims followed her and took her out of home and started beating her. They tortured her children also but meanwhile some one informed police.
The police took Asia Bibi to police Station and filed FIR against her under section 295-B and C of Pakistan Penal Code but showed it a protective custody to other Christians of Ittanwali village.
Section 295 B and C PPC are subject to life in prison or death sentence but it is first judgment in history of Pakistan when a woman is sentenced to death.
Release International an advocacy group for persecuted Christians around globe is pleading Asia Bibi case and have launched an online petition to ensure justice for her.
Meanwhile, Pakistan Christian Congress PCC have expressed concern on death sentence to Asia Bibi and have appealed to President of Pakistan to withdraw false case against Asia Bibi immediately.
PCC is pressing upon government of Pakistan to repeal blasphemy law and have organized multiple conferences in Pakistan and USA.
Will Pakistan repeal blasphemy laws? It was a promise of the President during the elections. Pray for Justice for Asia Bibi, her speedy release and the repeal of cruel and repressive blasphemy laws in Pakistan and throughout the Islamic world.

Pakistan is the country which is a prime movers for the introduction of a blasphemy resolution  at the U.N.This headline from the Canadian news service CANWEST from November 2008:

 "anti-blasphemy measures have sinister goals, observers say"
Islamic countries Monday won United Nations backing for an anti-blasphemy measure Canada and other Western critics say risks being used to limit freedom of speech.
It's a 10-year plan to spread Islam: 
Passage of the resolution is part of a 10-year action plan the 57-state Organization of Islamic Conference launched in 2005 to ensure “renaissance” of the “Muslim Ummah” or community.
But some good news (really!); support is actually diminishing: in 2008 it was defeated 85-42, a margin of 43.
Combating Defamation of Religions passed 85–50 with 42 abstentions in a key UN General Assembly committee, and will enter into the international record after an expected rubber stamp by the plenary later in the year.
According to a report from CNS News (November 23, 2010):
The text has passed every year since 2005, but the last three years have seen declining support, with the margin of votes dropping from 57 in 2007 to just 19 last year (2009).
Could sanity be breaking out?

Gurth Whitaker

Calgary, Alberta

Sunday, November 28, 2010

SHAPING A SILENCE

It is Advent Sunday today!

The first Sunday in Advent, and my Daily Devotional today entitled "Shaping a Silence" fits well with the theme of preparing ourselves for Jesus.

My daily devotional is called "Encounter with God" and is published by Scripture Union [2]. I think it is kosher (regarding copywrite) to publish the whole thing as it is only one page out of three months (about 130 pages), so it is certainly less than 10%; besides my motive is to promote their materials.
SHAPING A SILENCE

"The apprentice who learns to hear the whisper of God in the silence of prayer will soon learn to hear that same whisper in the clamour of a broken world' [1]
The reading is Psalm 131 taken from the New King James Version (NKJV)

A Song of Ascents. Of David.

(1) LORD, my heart is not haughty,
Nor my eyes lofty. 
Neither do I concern myself with great matters, 
Nor with things too profound for me. 

(2a) Surely I have calmed and quieted my soul,
(2b) Like a weaned child with his mother; 
Like a weaned child is my soul within me. 

(3) O Israel, hope in the LORD
From this time forth and forever.

Back to the text from the devotional ...
One of the questiops that runs like a thread through the Bible and hovers just below the surface of the Psalms is that of God's acceptance. Whose prayer does God hear? Whose offering is received? What kind of worship does God accept? This is a profoundly human question.
If God is the all-powerful Maker of the world, how do I reach him? David's answer in Psalm 131 is threefold. Knowing that these words are written by a successful king, surrounded by the pomp and ceremony of political power and religious ritual, the three attitudes he mentions seem counter-intuitive.
The first is humility (verse 1). To know my place. To accept the limitations of my perspective. To know that there are things I don't know. I come to God not on the basis of power and pride, but of humble self-awareness. To enter his presence, I leave my awards and achievements at the door. The second is stillness (verse 2a). There is movement and activity to be stopped, and there are noises to be silenced. Unless I create a space in which to meet God, I will not meet him. This is the meaning of Sabbath - sacred space carved out from our stressful and self-focused activities. 
The third is trust (verse 2b). David, the warrior-politician, chooses the unexpected image of a baby in the arms of its mother. Fed, satisfied, replete, the child leans with total trust into the mother's embrace. Without such trust, how can I come into God's presence? 
In the place of pride, I come humbly. In the hunger of my soul, I trust. Such is the spirituality of the poet-king. Such is his desire for the nation (verse 3), and such is the promise of Jesus: 'Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.' [Matthew 11:28-29 NRKJV]
'In the frenzy of a frantic day, 
I shape a space called silence. 
Only moments long 
but wider than the world, and deeper. 
Meet me here, my God.' 


NOTES
[1] [1] Gerard and Chrissie Kelly, "Intimate With the Ultimate," Authentic, 2009


[2] [1 About Scripture Union
Scripture Union is an international mission movement that was founded over 140 years ago. We work in over 120 countries making God's good news known to children, young people and families and encouraging people of all ages to meet God daily through the Bible and prayer. Our goal: that all may come to a personal faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, grow in Christian maturity and become both committed church members and servants of a world in need.
They have websites for all over the world; here's  Scripture Union Canada

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, Alberta

Monday, November 22, 2010

Christ the King Sunday - "Hallelujah!"

Yesterday was the day of Christ the King the last Sunday in the Anglican Church Calendar; next week is Advent which is the first Sunday of the calendar.

Advent has found its way into the English language to mean: an arrival or coming, especially one which is awaited, and in the Church Calendar it is four Sundays before Christmas and is the season when we look towards the arrival of the birth of Jesus.

As Christians we are thinking about the birth of Jesus, and reflecting on the change that Jesus has had in our lives and in the lives of countless millions throughout history.

As part of our celebrations of  Christ the King, how appropriate that our Pastor played this wonderful video after his sermon:
Opera Company of Philadelphia
 "Hallelujah!" Random Act of Culture


Isaiah foretold the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus, and Handel put it all to music. The Hallelujah Chorus celebrates the Kingship of Jesus Christ

For the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth.
The kingdom of this world
Is become the kingdom of our Lord,
And of His Christ, and of His Christ;
And He shall reign for ever and ever,
For ever and ever, forever and ever,

King of kings, and Lord of lords,

And Lord of lords,
And He shall reign,
And He shall reign forever and ever,
King of kings, forever and ever,
And Lord of lords,
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

Opera Company of Philadelphia "Hallelujah!" Random Act of Culture

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary Alberta

Monday, October 11, 2010

Anglican Church begins to Embrace the Abomination

I wrote about the abomination some weeks ago in Lux et Veritas: Understanding God's WORD:
some generations after receiving the bronze serpent to protect them and heal them, the Israelites were worshipping the bronze serpent, but Hezekiah broke it (2 Kings 18:4). But as my meditations continued I around those passages I was brought to the "abomination" that God gives many stern warnings which tragically were not heeded by God's chosen people. In the previous chapter 2 Kings 17:17) we see that the Israelites were offering up their children as sacrifices to to one of the gods of the region known as "Molech".
And they burned their sons and their daughters as offerings. Child sacrifice: the ultimate nadir in degrading idolatry; the people were warned but they wouldn't heed God's continued warnings. The practices of the other peoples that bordered their nation seemed more attractive than worshiping the living God.
And that is where we are today! We sacrifice our children to an idolatrous ideology called "modernism", its named: "right to chose." But it is a construct of the age.
Back then, I then wrote that the "Anglican Church of Canada (ACoC) officially condemns abortion," and that was the way it was when I became a Christian 15 years ago. But last week I tried to confirm this before a church meeting, and I was shocked to find that ACoC does not state their position on their website. Several searches using Google revealed references but no statement.

But the references were alarming, very alarming indeed.

Marriage of Homosexuals was the big goal of the liberal-progressives in the Anglican Church of Canada, but there are other targets “opposition to abortion” is firmly in the sights of these “free-thinkers”. This truly is the slippery slope.

First I found an address by Michael Ingham (so called Bishop of New Westminster): Sex and Christianity: Re-thinking the Relationship March 7th, 2007 
"If we ask the question: is the purpose of human sexuality related exclusively to procreation? – and if we answer ‘no’ – then a number of traditional Christian teachings and doctrines come under serious question. If sex is not just for having children, then we must challenge the condemnation by the Church throughout the centuries of such things as masturbation, birth control, abortion, and homosexuality. Because it is on the basis of the doctrine of procreation that these practices have been ruled out. They do not further the goal of pregnancy. The Church has reasoned that they are against the will of God, but if they are not then the Church has no moral ground to insist on their prohibition." 
This is typical of the shallow arguments of Ingham; he is saying that the Church "ruled out" abortion because of what he calls "the doctrine of procreation"

This is a lie. The Church hates abortion because it is a taking of an innocent life; not because it is against a doctrine of procreation. The creation of children is a blessing by God.  

Next reference is of a dubious piece: Human Sexuality Focus Group Facilitator Gathering

Looked at this lie:
"Abortion has not always been frowned upon by the church and church teachings on the subject have varied widely. Not even the Roman Catholic Church has always condemned abortion."
From the very first the early Christians were differentiated from other Romans by their hatred of abortion.

My third reference form the ACoC website is a book review: An Anglican Exploration of Marriage in Church and Society
"That many readers will probably need little convincing at this point is less notable than the fact that the myths cling so fiercely among so many of our fellow Americans." 
The reviewer wants to explode the myths in our society; one being that abortion is a bad thing. Here's the words the reviewer uses about the author (Coontz):
“Coontz already took us a long way down this road with her earlier books, yet in the public arena one continues to hear the same tired and largely pointless wailing over extramarital pregnancies, divorce rates, abortion, and single parenthood, and opposition to innovations such as gay marriage.” 
“the same tired and largely pointless wailing over abortion” 

I don’t call 100,000 deaths in Canada a trivial matter to be pooh-poohed. 

I can hear the stupid tone of these kind of liberals with over-inflated view of their intellects: “Oh these tiresome conservatives with their squeamish sense of morality, who wont keep up with the times.” 

Three examples on the ACoC website of the kind of thinking that does not condemn abortion, but on the contrary they are comfortable with it. 
  • Three examples on the ACoC website condoning abortion
  • Zero examples of ACoC condemning abortion on their website
  • 14 years ago the ACoC website had a clear statement condemning abortion
That is the slippery slope.

ACoC is far worse than I realised; I didn't realise they could sink to such evil.


Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, Alberta

Monday, September 6, 2010

Understanding God's WORD

It's over two weeks since I posted my staggering experiences: Set nothing before ME that is not MINE! on Lux et Veritas.

The background to that night is my Church is holding a meeting to vote on whether we will discuss leaving the Anglican Church of Canada (ACoC) and joining the Anglican Church in North America (ANiC)

The core message seems clear: God's grave warning of humanity's tendency to gravitate towards idolatry.

I was somewhat cautious in my wording, not because I had any doubts that God had clearly and loudly spoken to me,  but I did not want to jump in and claim things that were not part of God's message. Two people from our congregation had experiences which seemed to concur with this Word (I will return to this theme in a future post). Agnostics and atheists believe in coincidences but Christians know that where God is concerned there are no coincidences.

I was cautious because I was reminded of the passage in Joshua 5, where a man appears to Joshua:
"take off your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy." And Joshua did so. 
Joshua then went to him and said to him, "Are you for us, or for our adversaries?"  And the man said:
"No; but I am the commander of the army of the LORD. Now I have come."
And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped and said to him, "What does my lord say to his servant?" 
I understand this man to be Jesus because He did not stop Joshua from worshiping Him – if it had been an angel from God he would have said no don’t worship me, and He also says it is Holy ground. Joshua 5:13-15 (ESV)

Joshua was clearly told: there is only one purpose and that is God's purpose. I think it is wise to be circumspect. Joshua could not presume to ask: "Are you for us, or against us" - God is sovereign.

As I wrote; some generations after receiving the bronze serpent to protect them and heal them, the Israelites were worshipping the bronze serpent, but Hezekiah broke it (2 Kings 18:4). But as my meditations continued I around those passages I was brought to the "abomination" that God gives many stern warnings which tragically were not heeded by God's chosen people. In the previous chapter 2 Kings 17:17) we see that the Israelites were offering up their children as sacrifices to to one of the gods of the region known as "Molech".
And they burned their sons and their daughters as offerings 
Child sacrifice: the ultimate nadir in degrading idolatry; the people were warned but they wouldn't heed God's continued warnings. The practices of the other peoples that bordered their nation seemed more attractive than worshiping the living God.

And that is where we are today! We sacrifice our children to an idolatrous ideology called "modernism", its named: "right to chose." But it is a construct of the age.

Here's why my heart is heavy this morning as I said in my earlier post about Suzanne Collins, how she is deceived by the priests of this age.
But the heartache is magnified when I hear people tell me that our civilization has progressed so much; and we have come to the point when we kill 100,000 innocents lives in Canada every year and a million in the USA.
We have not progressed so much in several thousand years, We are still making idols - usually ideologies rather than little sculptures - but idols none-the-less; and we are still sacrificing our children to those ideologies.

The Anglican Church of Canada (ACoC) officially condemns abortion but in reality the apostate church does not speak out against it because they love the ideologies of this age. I intend to show clear evidence to support that in future  posts.
A Heart Heavy from the Evil of this World

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, Alberta

A Heart Heavy from the Evil of this World

This morning I am confronted with the heartbreaking news of a young woman from the Sate of New Jersey who went to Maryland for an abortion. From other facts in the case it appears that it was a late-term abortion.

The police investigated the abortionist's clinic (if you can call it a 'clinic') because she suffered nasty injuries: she was taken to hospital in severe condition.

This comes from the local TV station WJZ Baltimore; I can hardly write about it:

The trouble began when Dr. Nicola Riley performed a failed abortion on an 18-year-old woman on Aug. 13, perforating her uterus and cutting her bowel.

The young woman was taken to a hospital by the doctor and the clinic owner:
Union Hospital called police when the semi-conscious teen arrived at emergency with two doctors in a rental car, not in an ambulance.

"The report that came to us was so egregious and the information in the complaint so serious, the state had to respond quickly," said David Paulsen, Md. Health Department. 
 The police promptly raided the clinic taking medical records and seizing a freezer.
"It contained fetuses, approximately 35. They appeared to be close to full-term," said Lt. Matthew Donnelly, Elkton Police.
 Matthew Archbold of the National Catholic Register wrote:
I have increasingly come to agree with C.S. Lewis who said we are in “enemy occupied territory.” Hate has become so commonplace that it has lost its power to surprise meArchbold recalls a similar abortion nightmare in Philadelphia. We are indeed in "enemy occupied territory.”
But the heartache is magnified when I hear people tell me that our civilization has progressed so much; and we have come to the point when we kill 100,000 innocents lives in Canada every year and a million in the USA.

The real horror is that there are those who are preaching the ideology to young women such as Suzanne Collins, who are preaching that the life inside of them is not a person; just an inconvenience; just some tissue, not a life, not a little person.

I hope Suzanne Collins recovers with no long-lasting physical damage. It is true that the vast majority of woman who have abortions will not have to endure what she has endured but they will bear lasting psychological scars.

Suzanne Collins was escorted from New Jersey to Maryland by friends; no doubt those friends were willing to counsel her that the procedure "is nothing" or perhaps "everybody does it." Or perhaps "don't ruin your career (insert the appropriate word "life", "schooling" or whatever).

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, Alberta.

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Set nothing before ME that is not MINE!

This last week we had our monthly council meeting at our Anglican Church; we call it a Vestry meeting – the committee of people that forms the council is known as the Vestry in the Anglican Church.

We had some important business to attend to; we were discussing and finalising a letter which is to be issued the congregation on a matter which affects the future of our Church. Naturally there was discussion and different ideas concerning the letter and we worked through those different ideas. We worked late to do it. As one of our members was rewording the letter in the office our Pastor started us in prayer, which developed into a time of silent prayer.

I was lifting each person in turn up to the Lord, thinking about how each person is unique and has a slightly different viewpoint and by discussion we can come to a consensus, and so achieve unity that way.

That was Wednesday and I returned home late. The next night (Thursday) I woke up at 3:00 am and was turning the meeting over in my mind and returned to the theme of my previous prayer and lifting it again to the Lord. Then I got a thought that I should get up out of bed and kneel in prayer before God, and I thought “no not now Lord” and it seemed that a voice said “Yes you must”.

I was wide awake now so I got up to kneel in prayer; continuing my prayers for our Church.

Then I heard inside a voice inside speaking to me; clearly and with emphasis:
“Set nothing before ME that is not MINE!” 
I was surprised because this did not seem to be my thoughts, but rather I thought it must be God talking to me.

I prayed: 
“How can that be Lord; because when we come before you on Sunday we bring our sins with us and we declare them first silently and then corporately though The Confession”. 
God doesn’t create sin so how could this be from God; our sins are not Godly yet we set them before him day-by-day and particularly during our Sunday worship.

What is it that we cannot set before the Lord?

Then I heard very quickly, and once again with emphasis:
“Your sins are MINE because I bore them!” 
And then again – clearly and with emphasis:
“Set nothing before ME that is not MINE!” 
And I thought yes, Jesus bore our sins on the cross [1]. But what then is it that we cannot set before God if even our sins we can bring before Him.

What is it that we cannot set before the Lord?

Then my mind turned to passages in the Old Testament. First God gave the Israelites a bronze serpent though Moses; the people were healed from snake bites [2].

Then some generations after receiving the bronze serpent to protect them and heal them, the Israelites were worshipping the bronze serpent. The king at that time, Hezekiah, was commanded by God to break the bronze serpent. God’s people were showing too much regard for that bronze serpent because it came from God; they were in effect worshipping it, and that is idolatry and breaks the first commandment [3]. 

I knew that idolatry is one thing that we cannot set before God. It seemed that the answer t my questions was in the scriptures.

I had the clear understanding that this was not a word for me only but applied to all His Church, and in particular the little branch of His Church that I attend for worship weekly.

I felt that I had to write it down, but I heard a clear:
"No not now but later!"
One word of caution. When someone tells you that God told them this or that, treat it like the Bereans in Acts 17:11 [5], and search the Word of God to see if it contravenes scripture. If it does contravene scripture, then it is clearly not a word given by God.

If it is in harmony with scripture then there is no harm in paying attention to it, provided you don’t consider the person more highly because of it. God will speak to all sorts of people: remember Jesus appeared to Paul who was persecuting Christians even to death. He called himself the worst of sinners [6].

Was it God speaking to me? Or was it just my imagination that conjured up this message? I am sure it was God but I ask you neither to believe it, nor to disbelieve it, but rather to consider this word with circumspection like the Bereans.

Bible references:

[1] 1 Peter 2:24 

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

[2] Numbers 21:6-9

So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, he lived.

[3] 2 Kings 18:4

He removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it. (It was called Nehushtan).

[4] Exodus 20:

"You shall have no other gods before me.

"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

[5] Acts 17:11 

Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

[6] 1 Timothy 1:16

But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life.

All texts are taken from the New International Version (NIV) Bible

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, Alberta

Friday, August 13, 2010

The Devils Dictionary of "Climate Science"

I found this post from February which was still in draft form and not posted.

I lifted it from the comments section of a blog posted by a Mr. David Lancaster, PA,

DEVIL'S DICTIONARY of "Climate Science"

PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.

SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.

DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.

CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce "panic for profit".

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to "Peace" in any meaningful way.

DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see "DENIER" above.

CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for "DATA" by "DENIERS." Also skilled at affecting an aura of "Smartest Person in the Room" to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.

David, Lancaster, PA, 15/2/2010 17:00

Freedom to Chose

In my two recent posts (Ban the Burqa & Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book "Nomad" & the burka) I touched on the issue of the burka and tried to show that it has no place in Canadian society. I believe that it is part of a belief system that is repressive to women, and in opposition to our Canadian values of freedom of thought and expression, as embodied in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

My reasoning is that our Canadian system comes from a Judeo-Christian heritage: both the Old Testament and the New Testament affirm the right to chose God or reject him. Here's one of many examples from the OT from Joshua 24:15 (English Standard Version)
And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." 
"Choose this day whom you will serve," there is no compulsion attached to this invitation, no threat of beheading as dictated by Mohamed if a conquered foe would not adopt Islam. If not face execution by beheading there was the alternative of becoming a second class citizen called a dhimmi; a grinding life of submission, a second class citizen who's testimony bears no weight at all against that of a Muslim. That is basically the condition of non-Muslims in most countries under Islamic authority.

If we read through the New Testament we will see the gentle invitation to accept Jesus.

The Charter should protects that right to chose, and therefore it would be a perversion of the intent of the Charter to use it to promote traditional Islam, which is committed to taking away a woman's rights to chose and a man or a woman's right to chose to leave Islam. A Muslim person in Islamic lands is not free to chose to become a Christian, or a Buddhist, or become an atheist. The sentence is death. 

Islamic lands prohibit the preaching of Christianity - how could we use our Charter of Rights  and Freedoms in a way that promotes a religion that does that?

If we argue that the Charter should protect a woman's right to wear the burka, then we use the Charter to further cause of Islamification, which is a step towards taking away a woman's right to chose.

I make a difficult argument because our freedoms are so deeply ingrained in us; but those freedoms cannot be used for the purpose of allowing tyranny, and that is what the burka represents: a tyrannical religion which seeks to take away the freedoms that we hold precious and subjugate the conquered people to the will of Mullahs.

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, AB 


The Bible's Approach to Relationship's and the Body

A great comment by a friend and Christian brother reinforced the great gulf between what the Bible teaches and those beliefs that insist that a women must be hidden, and if she is not then she is a legitimate target for rape. Here's this wonderful comment from a reader on this post: Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book "Nomad" & the burka
In reading your comments Gurth I am reminded that in Ephesians Chapter 5, verse 21 there is a very different model given by the Apostle Paul on how men are to treat their wives. They are called to love their wives as they love their own bodies. Even more importantly, they are called to love their wives as Jesus loves the church. This is something that speaks to the very essence of the incarnational nature of Christianity. The God of the Christian Scriptures loves matter. Although infected by the Fall, all of matter is being redeemed in and through Jesus Christ. The way we treat our bodies, and the way we treat our wife's body is a sign of the redemptive and restorative work of Christ.
There the body is to be treated with respect. I Peter 3 speaks about modest dress but nowhere in the New Testament is there the dictate that women are to hide their bodies.
There is always a respect for the beauty of the body and the call to treat it as the Temple of the Holy Spirit.
Biblical Christianity instructs us to relate to our bodies in this way and for men to love their wives as Jesus loves the Church because Jesus loves us totally; our mind, soul, body and spirit. 
I do not know enough about the burka issue to comment on it directly. What I will says is that Ephesians 5 gives a very different way to relate to women from the one governing the burka practise.
Read Paul's Letter to the Ephesians, Chapter 5 at Bible Gateway

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, AB

Monday, August 2, 2010

Ban the Burqa

Following my piece yesterday about Canada banning the Burka, which was prompted by reading an excerpt from Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book "Nomad", in the National Post, I find today a compelling piece by Claire Berlinski titled “Ban the Burqa” from the August 2 issue of National Review. [1]

What I find compelling about Berlinski’s essay is that her viewpoint, which developed while living in Istanbul was formerly very sympathetic to a woman’s right to choose to wear the veil. She supported it strongly, however now she makes a very strong case for banning the veil.

She proceeds for several paragraphs as to why she supported women’s right to wear the veil in Turkey’s secular society. The former secular society is giving way to Islamic stridency and extremism. 

However, her viewpoint has come a full 180. Her logic and evidence for this change is impeccable; she presents argument and evidence that the wearing of the niqab is a Trojan horse for militant Islamism.

The ideology behind Kemal Ataturk’s banning the headscarf and the veil (niqab) was to ensure for the protection of woman who will be attacked, vilified with the slur of “prostitute,” and ultimately raped as fair game by Islamic men. That scenario is being played out in EU countries in no-go areas that Islamic men claim as Islamic territory. 
There are already many neighborhoods in Europe where scantily dressed women are not safe. In the benighted Islamic suburbs of Paris, as Samira Bellil writes in her autobiography: Dans l’enfer des tournantes (“In Gang-Rape Hell”),
there are only two kinds of girls. Good girls stay home,clean the house, take care of their brothers and sisters, and only go out to go to school. . . . Those who . . . dare to wear make-up, to go out, to smoke, quickly earn the reputation as “easy” or as “little whores.”
Parents in these neighborhoods ask gynecologists to testify to their daughters’ virginity. Polygamy and forced marriages are commonplace. Many girls are banned from leaving the house at all. According to French-government statistics, rapes in the housing projects have risen between 15 and 20 percent every year since 1999. In these neighborhoods, women have indeed begun veiling only to escape harassment and violence. In the suburb of La Courneuve, 77 percent of veiled women report that they wear the veil to avoid the wrath of Islamic morality patrols. We are talking about France, not Iran.
Establishing Islamic territory is a fundamental ideology of Islam. That territory is known as Dar a-Salam, which means house of peace and it is the land conquered by Islam. Those woman who are infidels and do not conform to the dress and code dictated by the Islamic men in control are fair game for rape by Islamic men. 
At its core, the veil is the expression of the belief that female sexuality is so destructive a force that men must at all costs be protected from it; the natural correlate of this belief is that men cannot be held responsible for the desires prompted in them by an unveiled woman, including the impulse to rape her. In 2006, Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali, Australia’s most senior Muslim cleric, delivered a sermon referring to a recent rape victim thus:
"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside . . . without cover, and the cats come to eat it . . . whose fault is it, the cats’ or the uncovered meat’s? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."
This is Islamic thought, my argument yesterday that the Charter is opposed to this kind of religious thought, and therefore should not be used to protect Islamic proponents to force the use of the niqab.

Once veiling takes a hold, unveiled woman are not safe - this is the Trojan horse of allowing the niqab which promotes Islamic objectives:
The cancerous spread of veiling has been seen throughout the Islamic world since the Iranian Revolution. I have watched it in Turkey. Through migration and demographic shift, neighborhoods that once were mixed have become predominantly veiled. The government has sought to lift prohibitions on the wearing of headscarves, legitimizing and emboldening advocates of the practice.
Understanding the underlying reasons why the spread of the burka is of concern and it is much more dangerous than a simple religious choice, we need to understand the aim of Islam itself. For this I turn to the "Islamic Dictionary for Infidels" [2]:
"Converting the entire world to Islam is an immutable fixture of the Muslim worldview. Only if this task is accomplished, if the world has become a "Dar al-Islam," will it also be a "Dar a-Salam," or a house of peace." 
The burqa and niqab are emblematic and one of many key steps in this process, as  Berlinski's essay clearly shows, and that is why it is important to preserve our Canadian values as expressed in our Charter that we should ban them.
Claire Berlinski:

[1] Claire Berlinski: “Ban the Burqa” from the August 16 issue of National Review, is a must read.

Claire Berlinski is a freelance journalist who lives in Istanbul. She is the author of 'Menace in Europe: Why the Continent’s Crisis Is America’s, Too,' and 'There Is No Alternative: Why Margaret Thatcher Matters.'

[2] "Islamic Dictionary for Infidels" an essay by Wolfgang Bruno.

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, AB

Sunday, August 1, 2010

Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book "Nomad" & the burka

Reading the excerpt from Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book "Nomad", published in the National Post, it reinforces my belief that to NOT ban the burka is a travesty:
The Muslim veil, the different sorts of masks and beaks and burkas, are all gradations of mental slavery. You must ask permission to leave the house, and when you do go out you must always hide yourself behind thick drapery. Ashamed of your body, suppressing your desires -- what small space in your life can you call your own? The veil deliberately marks women as private and restricted property, nonpersons. The veil sets women apart from men and apart from the world; it restrains them, confines them, grooms them for docility. A mind can be cramped just as a body may be, and a Muslim veil blinkers both your vision and your destiny. It is the mark of a kind of apartheid, not the domination of a race but of a sex.

That is a compelling indictment of the burka and the traditions that surround it.

The argument that it breaches the religious freedoms of Canadians is surely misapplied.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ensures equality and justice for peoples of all races, origins and genders, is based within the framework of the Judeo-Christian tradition from which Canadian culture and laws have been developed.

Religious freedom is not absolute. For example there were many religions which included child-sacrifice in lands surrounding ancient Israel. Obviously, the murder of a child for relgious reasons would not be protected under the Charter. Therefore it is clear there are limits to what the Charter can protect, and what it can not protect.

The Charter is not absolute in that sense; on the contrary it preserves Canadian values of justice - not to protect traditions that are in opposition to our values. The walking coffin that is the burka and the surrounding traditions of the cultures which demand it be worn, are values that are opposite to the very values that the Charter protects. The burka is a custom that is from a tradition that is totally foreign to our values, and therefore to the Charter.

When I read passages from the New Testament which illustrate Jesus' relationship with woman, I see a respect and evidence brotherly-sisterly love which is foreign from this absolute mastery over woman that comes from Islamic traditions.

Read the excerpt from Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book "Nomad: 'Allah brings the rains and Allah makes the sun shine'

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, AB

Saturday, July 31, 2010

Against bigotry in all its forms

The liberal-leftist tactic is to cry "racism" when faced with valid criticism. I saw this yesterday From Tarek Fatah on his Facebook page, and it prompted my post: The despicable tactic of the left: Playing the Race Card

We saw it from Hedy Fry, Liberal Party MP from BC who accused the Conservative Party of racism, when in fact it fielded a higher proportion of candidates from ethnic minorities. I call that bigotry and slander.

I find it disgusting to accuse people of racism as a political tactic, and it comes from the left. The problem is this tactic works - sling filth and it sticks - people remember the slander not the true facts.

Here's some evidence [1] from 2001; four instances of trying to paint political opponents as racist:
  • Liberal MP Lynn Myers, Parliamentary Secretary Solicitor General called a Canadian Alliance MP “racist” in the House of Commons, March 16. Then he lied, saying he’d said “rubbish”. He finally retracted his original remark.
  • “Their supporters are Holocaust deniers, prominent bigots and racists,” – Elinor Caplan, Liberal Immigration Minister (The Toronto Star, Nov. 15) 
  • “In an apparent reference to the right-wing policies of the Canadian Alliance, he [Jean Chrétien] told the Liberal International conference that ‘we have to keep working’ to combat the forces that ‘appeal to the dark side that exists in human beings.’ “ (Toronto Star, Oct. 29, 2000) 
  • “The policies of Preston Manning, which appeal to peoples’ latent fears…are the same kinds of policies that permit a David Duke of Canada.” – Sheila Copps (Vancouver Sun, November 20, 1991)

That was the tactic of the left then: vilify your opponent, and that is the tactic of the left in the US today under Obama. Scream racist!

I updated my profile today to express my concern:
My aim in this blog is to shed light on leftist ideology & demagoguery by looking at the facts of a matter, rather than the misinformation presented by the media, which is dominated by leftist worldview

A Canadian writer travelling in Siberia during the Soviet era, asked his hosts about their reaction to the state-run propaganda. Their answer was “the difference between us in the USSR and you in the West, is that we know it is propaganda – you don’t realise it”
Do we realise what we are reading and watching is propoganda?

In my opinion, we should challenge every assumption that underlies the ideologies which are presented by our leftist media. Challenge the presuppositions of the CBC and CTV; likewise the Globe & Mail, the Toronto Star, and the rest.

Look back at those four bullets claiming racism and the only reason is that the recipients are conservatives.

A unfounded claim of "racism" or a slur like "red-neck" is bigotry and it is divisive, and it should be challenged and opposed. It is the enemy of true integration and harmony.
 [1] My source for bigoted remarks comes from Dr. James Lunney, Member of Parliament for
Nanaimo-Alberni in 2001. You can also read some other repulsive misinformation (lies, falsehoods) from Hedy Fry regarding cross-burnings and KKK activity supposedly in Prince George, BC. It was a slur nine years ago and it is the sort of slur that wont go away.


Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, AB

Friday, July 30, 2010

The despicable tactic of the left: Playing the Race Card

I am disgusted with the cries of racism leveled against critics of Obama; I just read the same vile opinions from Tarek Fatah on his Facebook page. Here's what he wrote:
Tarek Fatah: ... the attacks on Obama from the Republican Right are little more than hatred based on their contempt for his race. Racism is not chemistry or physics that I need to prove via a scientific experiment. People of colour know when racism ...is at play; immigrants and their children know when they are the target and we are also aware when denial sets in. When I see the faces of Republicans sitting in the Senate and the House scowling in sullen silence, there is hate and contempt written on their faces. For these men, a black president MUST fail, no matter what, and my fear is they will succeed.

Apparently Mr. Fatah has the ability to see into people's hearts and know their motives. Their hatred for Obama's disastrous policies, which are dividing the country, is not their real motive - according to Mr. Fatah, their real; motive is hatred because of the colour of Obama's skin.

What drivel comes from the workings of the left-wing mind. According to Mr. Fatah "people of colour know." They don't have to prove it or show it or offer any evidence to level one of the worst labels you can throw at someone; he just  "knows" because he is a person of colour. Well Mr. Fatah that IS racist.

Mr. Fatah I was very pleased when a man of African ancestry was voted to be President, but I hate his policies and his utter ineptitude. Am I racist?  The facts don't count I suppose, I am a person of colour too - white with a tanned face.

It was Democrats in the South who opposed integration and were the founders and members of the KKK, not Republicans who were for integration. But facts don't count to a leftist-liberal.

Here's Anita MonCrief, an African American lady, who blew the whistle on the corruption within ACORN, and who has launched a website EmergingCorruption.com.
Emerging Corruption is a political news website that provides to the public information and investigations into ACORN and other center-left enterprises. The news website will investigate and expose historically corrupt special interest organizations and will feature information and investigations into organizational tactics, programs, campaigns, staff & initiatives including fund raising and finances.  
I am Filing FEC Charges Against the Obama Administration



Some Obama supporters have leveled the very nasty phrase at African Americans who criticise Obama: they've been called "Uncle Toms" - what can I say about this type of racist left-wing tactic? Vile! Despicable! Contemptible!

How will Mr. Fatah respond to an African American lady who criticise Obama and the corrupt organization ACORN, which actively campaigned to put him in power while funded with Federal money to assist in elections?

Gurth Whitaker, Calgary AB

Sunday, June 6, 2010

Duceppe - Blatant Discrimination in the House

Gilles Duceppe, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, slanders three completely innocent practicing Roman Catholics in the Canadian House of Parliament;  he names them as being complicit in some sort of conspiracy in what Barbara Kay calls a "political drive-by shooting."

That's a good phrase for it; a "political drive-by shooting." Here's his statement during question period on May 27, 2010: 
“Mr. Speaker, Ottawa’s bishop stated yesterday that a sizeable pro-life caucus is working behind the scenes within the government. The Prime Minister, who controls everything, must know about this caucus.”
Barbara Kay reports in her piece: Gilles Duceppe owes an apology to Catholics
With McCarthyite melodrama, M. Duceppe then intoned the names and positions in the Conservative Party of three practicing Catholics, as if that were proof of the ominous “caucus.”
Duceppe has probably been reading Dan Brown, because these three poeple's crime (beyond being Christians) is that they are members of a society called "Opus Dei." How sinister! Kay goes on to say:
These Catholics are all members of Opus Dei, a prelature of the Catholic Church, a group I am very familiar with, and amongst whom I count some of my closest friends. Opus Dei means in Latin “God’s Work.” Members of “the Work” believe that holiness is something to be strived for in one’s daily life: in one’s job, however important or however humble, in one’s friendships, one’s family life and civic obligations.
Opus Dei does good works all over the planet (I have seen documentaries on their projects in the hellholes of the world, bringing aid, comfort and social assistance to the poorest and most forgotten, without fanfare or publicity-seeking or missionary profit), punching far above their demographic weight. Few in number – about 85,000 world-wide and only a few thousand in all of Canada – they are immersed in public life in the most positive and benign ways. And of the more than 100,000 members of the Conservative Party, why yes, there are probably two or three members of Opus Dei.
But Christians are fair game it seems; Christian opposition to abortion is somehow seen as  undemocratic to the minds of totalitarian liberals; it is painted as a conspiracy. When it comes to any discussion about abortion, then not only do the gloves come off, but the knives and baseball bats come out.

And where is the press in this?


Quebec's liberal media seems on-board:
Look at the reaction to Cardinal Marc Ouellet’s call for public debate on the morality of abortion. Note: he did not call for legislative change. He called abortion a “moral crime.” In response the francophone media went ballistic. Would Patrick Lagacé of La Presse have dared to curse any non-Catholic religious leaders? It is unthinkable that any Canadian pundit would say of an imam, as Lagacé did of Cardinal Ouellet: 

We must all die. We are all going to die. Cardinal Ouellet is going to die one day. I hope he will die of a long and painful sickness…Yes, the paragraph I have just written is vicious. But [Cardinal] Marc Ouellet is an extremist. And in this debate, all blows are permitted against religious extremists…the Cardinal is a fundamentalist. This is a known fact. From there on, whoever agrees to share a political podium with him should be treated like an accomplice to the fanaticism of Kazem Ouellet… “ 
It's clear that Christians are fair-game in the liberal-leftist ideology of Canada. I hold to the Canadian Charter of Freedoms and Rights; a Christian has the same right to express their views on abortion or other moral issues, as does a member of the liberal-left. But what we see is that liberal-leftist ideologies claim they know what is best for public, and therefore they have the moral right to take away the voice of Christians, and to attack them as conspirators. Seems like the media may even support them; that is until it is one of their own.

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, Alberta

Saturday, May 22, 2010

A Muslim Jew-hater and supporter of genocide


"A Muslim Jew-hater and supporter of genocide is flushed out by David Horowitz at a speech during "Israel Apartheid Week at the University of California San Diego. Horowitz was hosted by Young Americans for Freedom."
On May 10, 2010, Jumanah Albahri, an ex-officer of the Muslim Student Association (MSA) at the University of California-San Diego (UCSD), admitted during an event put on by Young Americans for Freedom and featuring David Horowitz as a speaker, that she supported a second Holocaust. During the exchange, Albahri also refused to condemn Hamas as a genocidal organization.
I let this video of David Horowitz answering a Muslim student speak for itself.



Is it time for clear thinking yet? How long before the liberal-leftists wake up? Could Islamic Terrorism be any clearer? Yet the current administration in the US refuses to name it.

Visit the Horowitz Freedom Center Website.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Incisive Letter to Obama from World Jewish Congress

President of the WJC (World Jewish Congress) Ronald S. Lauder, urges President Obama to change his stance on Israel in an open letter to US President Barack Obama, which will be published in the WSJ (Wall Street Journal) and the Washington Post tomorrow (Thursday April 15, 2101)

WJC President Ronald S. Lauder writes that Jews around the world are concerned about “the dramatic deterioration of diplomatic relations between the United States and Israel” in recent months.

It is clear that the policy of the current administration has resulted in a drastic worsening of the situation in the Middle-East and the chances of peace between Israel and Palestinians are far worse than before Obama came to office.

Iran seeks to develop nuclear weapons with the stated intention of destroying Israel, yet Obama's greatest concern is the building of homes for Jews in a Jewish area of Jerusalem; a city inhabited by Jews continuously for thousands of years.

The WJC letter will be published as a paid advertisement so I post it here in its entirety.


15 April 2010
Dear President Obama:

I write today as a proud American and a proud Jew.

Jews around the world are concerned today. We are concerned about the nuclear ambitions of an Iranian regime that brags about its genocidal intentions against Israel. We are concerned that the Jewish state is being isolated and delegitimized.

Mr. President, we are concerned about the dramatic deterioration of diplomatic relations between the United States and Israel.

The Israeli housing bureaucracy made a poorly timed announcement and your Administration branded it an “insult.” This diplomatic faux pas was over the fourth stage of a seven stage planning permission process – a plan to build homes years from now in a Jewish area of Jerusalem that under any peace agreement would remain an integral part of Israel.

Our concern grows to alarm as we consider some disturbing questions. Why does the thrust of this Administration’s Middle East rhetoric seem to blame Israel for the lack of movement on peace talks? After all, it is the Palestinians, not Israel, who refuse to negotiate.

Israel has made unprecedented concessions. It has enacted the most far reaching West Bank settlement moratorium in Israeli history.

Israel has publicly declared support for a two-state solution. Conversely, many Palestinians continue their refusal to even acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.

The conflict’s root cause has always been the Palestinian refusal to accept Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. Every American President who has tried to broker a peace agreement has collided with that Palestinian intransigence, sooner or later. Recall President Clinton’s anguish when his peace proposals were bluntly rejected by the Palestinians in 2000. Settlements were not the key issue then.

They are not the key issue now.

Another important question is this: what is the Administration’s position on Israel’s borders in any final status agreement? Ambiguity on this matter has provoked a wave of rumors and anxiety. Can it be true that America is no longer committed to a final status agreement that provides defensible borders for Israel? Is a new course being charted that would leave Israel with the indefensible borders that invited invasion prior to 1967?

There are significant moves from the Palestinian side to use those indefensible borders as the basis for a future unilateral declaration of independence. How would the United States respond to such a reckless course of action?

And what are America’s strategic ambitions in the broader Middle East? The Administration’s desire to improve relations with the Muslim world is well known. But is friction with Israel part of this new strategy? Is it assumed worsening relations with Israel can improve relations with Muslims? History is clear on the matter: appeasement does not work. It can achieve the opposite of what is intended.

And what about the most dangerous player in the region? Shouldn’t the United States remain focused on the single biggest threat that confronts the world today? That threat is a nuclear armed Iran. Israel is not only America’s closest ally in the Middle East, it is the one most committed to this Administration’s declared aim of ensuring Iran does not get nuclear weapons.

Mr. President, we embrace your sincerity in your quest to seek a lasting peace. But we urge you to take into consideration the concerns expressed above. Our great country and the tiny State of Israel have long shared the core values of freedom and democracy. It is a bond much treasured by the Jewish people. In that spirit I submit, most respectfully, that it is time to end our public feud with Israel and to confront the real challenges that we face together.

Yours sincerely,
Ronald S. Lauder
President
World Jewish Congress

Visit the World Jewish Congress.

Consider to sign the Sign the WJC Pledge of Support for Israel.

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, Alberta

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Alberta's royalties and tax policies discourage investment

According to  U of C's head of School of Public Policy...
Jack Mintz ... told a Calgary audience that Alberta ranks last among provinces such as B.C., Saskatchewan and the Maritimes -- and lower than states such as Texas -- after factoring in combined royalty and tax payments to government
BC & Saskatchewan have a more attractive royalties and tax policies than Alberta.

... as reported today in the Calgary Herald - "Alberta tax, royalty regime ranks last..."

Alberta's Premier Ed Stelmach

It was proven that governments receive higher revenues when taxes are cut. This may be contrary to intuition, but Presidents Regan, Clinton, and Bush all used this principle and cutting taxes resulted in increased revenues not a decrease. Clinton followed the advice of the conservative economist Arthur Laffer, with very positive results for the US economy.

When governments cuts taxes, businesses grow and consequently hire more people, who in turn buy more good and services and pay more income tax. Increased purchases of goods and services further boosts the economy and creates a multiplier effect.

Liberal and leftist ideology favours government spending, but it tends to have little or no multiplier effect, for the simple reason that governments do not create wealth - they only appropriate it on the peoples' behalf. First for every dollar taken in taxes for use in a government program, a hefty percentage is taken to administer that money by the government itself, or by a government agency. (Take a $ in tax money and put 45 cents into the economy after government waste and expense).

Second, government is inherently inefficient compared to the free market.With lib-left policies we see an increase in government employees, which then typically vote for lib-left parties with policies which increase government spending and therefore taxes to support that spending.

I believe we could apply the same principle to Alberta's royalties and tax policies.

Reducing profits and revenues, discourages investment in drilling, or new projects, this results in decreased royalties. Gas companies such as EnCana prefer to invest in shale plays in the US or BC than in Alberta. Why? They can make a better return on investment in BC or Pennsylvania than they can in Alberta.
The new royalty regime is hurting, especially with respect to conventional oil and gas investments," Mintz told reporters. "I think we have been worse off in the sense that it's not entirely clear the government is going to collect as much new revenue as they hoped because of the investment impacts. I think we need a better fiscal framework to attract investments for Alberta when you have a very competitive global environment for oil and gas investments."

Monday, February 15, 2010

The Devil's Dictionary of "Climate Science"


Sometimes, reader’s comments on a story posted on-line are superb.

One such a comment I saw on the UK Daily Mail’s online posting of the story which I partially reviewed earlier today (Climategate Prof admits Vital Data has gone missing).

Here’s the gem from a gentleman from Lancaster, Pennsylvania...


Devil's Dictionary

Peer Review: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.

Settled Science: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.

Denier: Anyone who suspects the truth.

Climate Change: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce 'panic for profit.'

Nobel Peace Prize: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to "Peace" in any meaningful way.

Data, Evidence: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see "Denier," above.

Climate Scientist: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for "Data" by "Deniers." Also skilled at affecting an aura of "Smartest Person in the Room" to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.

Posted by David, Lancaster, PA, 15 February, 2010

Climategate Prof admits Vital Data has gone missing

While in N. America there's been scant reporting on the MMGW (Man-Made Global Warming) scandal, which is ostentatiously called AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming); over in the UK the press is having a field-day, and it's not just the conservative papers like the Telegraph and Daily Mail, but also the lib-left Guardian and Times.

It's across the political spectrum, yesterday it was the Daily Mail who had a big story with their coverage of the BBC interview with Professor Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia (UEA) Climate Research Unit (CRU) Hadley, which was at the centre of the Climategate affair surrounding the leaked emails documenting cover-ups and dirty tricks.

Look at the Mail's stunning headline:
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
Gone missing, indeed!
Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Let's focus on the science (or lack of it) surrounding the 'hockey-stick graph.' Professor Jones statements are fascinating because when considered carefully they reveal further deep cracks in the rotten foundation of global-warming theories.

Background to the infamous hockey-stick graph.

The poor science surrounding the so-called 'hockey-stick graph' was discussed on Lux et Veritas in Climategate - It Had to Happen. The graph was constructed to show that the earth's temperatures have been relatively stable for about a thousand years and then show a very rapid upward trend coinciding with the growth of the industrial revolution from about the mid 1800s. This graph is supposed to show that global temperatures are rising with recently rising levels of carbon-dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. The graph is bogus.

In fact it was well accepted that temperatures in the northern hemisphere were not flat at shown in the hockey-stick graph. First there was a very pronounced warm period known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), followed by the Little Ice Age (LIA).

Graph from the the IPCC’s 1990 report 
Note; the graph was omitted from subsequent reports clearly showing the MWP and LIA in the northern hemisphere 

The UN body the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) published a graph in their 1990 report clearly showing the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA) for the Northern Hemisphere.

Now look again at the hockey-stick graph which was boldly displayed multiple times in full colour in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report published in 2001, and we see that this is alsofor the Northern Hemisphere.

 The hockey stick graph [3] as shown in the 2001 IPCC report. 
The colored lines are the reconstructed temperatures, and the gray shaded region represents estimated error bars.

Note the error bars on the hockey-stick graph shown in light-grey; these bars can be thought of as a measure of the uncertainty of the data. The magnitude of these error bars for the entire MWP and at least half of the LIA, are greater than the total increase in temperature from about 1869 to the present day. From the error bars displayed graph itself, how much confidence can we have in it to show global warming, never mind prove it?

the UK Mail states continues...
Skeptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.
But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.
Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.
Fatal flaws in MMGW theories

In this debate, and remember this is a debate, because the science is most certainly not settled, we have to keep it clearly in focus that it is the responsibility of the proponents of a new theory to prove their case. Man-made global-warming (MMGW) is a new theory and must be proven. In contrast the skeptics do not have to prove anything; they only have to show the flaws and errors in the MMGW science.

This is a key part of the argument: it's not necessary to disprove MMGW, only to show the flaws in the science. In this case Professor Jones statements show the lack of coherence of the MMGW theories:
‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions. (my emphasis)
and then...
‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’
Definition of Paleoclimatologyfrom Wikipedia:
Paleoclimatology (also Palaeoclimatology) is the study of climate change taken on the scale of the entire history of Earth. It uses records from ice sheets, tree rings, sediment, corals, shells and rocks to determine the past state of the climate system on Earth.
Note Wiki (which is severely biased in favour of MMGW) refers to it as the "study of climate change" however it is supposed to be about estimating temperatures through palaeoclimatic data. We need the data to show that climate change is actually occurring. We know already that the world's climate is always changing.

To convert palaeoclimatic data into a temperature series requires the data to be calibrated, or simply converted to a temperature scale (such as Celsius). This process is not easy because it is the temperatures themselves that we are seeking, and therefore the process depends on underlying assumptions and therefore can be speculative. Conflicting papers on the conclusions exist in the literature.

Summarise what we know

Let's summarise a few things we know about the history of this debate between proponents of MMGW (Man-Made Global Warming), in the light of Professor Jones recent statements:
  1. MMGW scientists (Mann, CRU professors and others) used the hockey-stick graph to try and show that global warming occured only when CO2 concentrations from the industrial period started to rapidly increase  
  2. The MWP and LIA are not shown on the hockey-stick graph as presented by the IPCC, which is for the Northern Hemisphere
  3. A Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and a Little Ice Age did occur in the Northern Hemisphere
  4. Climate skeptics cannot use doubts about the hockey-stick graph against global-warming proponents because the hockey-stick graph is only valid for the Northern Hemisphere and not for the whole globe
  5. Very few palaeoclimatic records for the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere exist
  6. The MWP and LIA may have occurred over the whole globe but is is hard to prove or disprove (because of the lack of data)
These six points show the contradictory nature of the global-warming argument.

MMGW advocates say the hockey-stick shows global-warming, then they say the skeptics can't use flaws in the hockey stick against MMGW because it only applies to the northern hemisphere, then they claim that science shows that MMGW is a scientific fact, then they say the data doesn't exist for the whole globe.

Conclusions we can apply to the MMGW debate:
  1. The hockey-stick as shown by the IPCC numerous times cannot be used by proponents of global-warming theories to support their arguments because the hockey-stick graph only applies to the northern hemisphere and does not apply to the whole globe.
  2. The lack of palaeoclimatic records for the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere casts doubts on the viability global-warming theories. If the data does not exist for the whole globe then proponents of global-warming theories cannot assert that the science is proven.

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, AB