Author Archives: Jon Garvey
It’s very instructive, for understanding the times, to realise how before climate change became the stuff of our mass-media sandwich-boards, we were subjected to a whole sequence of apocalyptic predictions of the imminent end of the world. This ought to lead us to focus on who wants to keep prophesying doom, and why, without being too distracted by the actual claims, let alone succumbing to fear.
A Daily Telegraph YouTube clip is entitled “Boris Johnson: Brexit is the biggest thing I’ve done professionally.” In fact, it is the interviewer who asks if it is the biggest thing he’s done professionally, and Boris hesitates a little bashfully before replying: “I wouldn’t deny that – I think it’s a very big thing for our country.”
Last week saw the launch of my new blockbuster book, Through Fiery Trials.
I enjoyed the years I spent researching creation doctrine, because it’s all good. The more I look into human affairs, though, the more depressingly corrupt they are, which shouldn’t really surprise me in the light of Jeremiah 17:9.
One of the earliest of the continuous stream of apocalyptic “scientific” prophecies that has culminated in 2030 and All That was Paul Ehrlich’s Population Bomb of 1968.
From Sir Robert Ball, A Primer of Astronomy, Cambridge University Press, 1912:
I’m quite proud of my new chicken house:
The question of the eternal soul came up at Peaceful Science in the context of what it means to be human (and specifically, to be a human living outside the Garden of Eden under the Genealogical Adam and Eve paradigm.
I found ID palaeontologist Günter Bechly’s article on the newly announced fossil hominid Australopithecus anamensis extremely thought provoking.
An important new article, by chemist Patrick Frank, was published on Friday in Frontiers in Earth Science. In essence, it demonstrates that none of the climate prediction models currently in use is capable of making any predictions whatsoever about anthropogenic CO2 warming, because their cumulative error-bars outweigh what they seek to predict by an order of magnitude. They are therefore used illegitimately to predict climate change. This would seem to be serious problem.