The politicians get crazier and the scientists get deviant and even more high tech.
(Self-edited for tone)
As I see it the sceptics have picked on some semantics they don’t like when they don’t have a clue what’s actually going on, simply because they are reading the email out of context and without a background in the perfectly valid scientific discussion.
The 4 words in question are “Trick” and “hide the decline”.
“Trick” in the scientific community is no more ominous than saying “technique”, just a shorthand and informal way of communicating. EG: Yesterday I tried the ‘trick’ of wearing studded boots to aerate my lawn. EG: I tried the “trick” of washing the car on my lawn, but it just turned everything to mud and left ruts in my lawn.
(paraphrase) EG: I tried the “trick” of combining tree ring data with instrument data after a certain date when the tree-ring data is genuinely less-informative and suspect for a variety of scientific reasons.
“Hide the decline”
The “hide the decline” thing is all about how tree ring / growth data doesn’t really help show global temperatures above a certain temperature, and as the climate really started to pick up pace after the 1960’s, and we have instrumental records anyway, and so the email in question was all about how the graphs moved from the tree-ring data before the instrumental record to the instrumental data at a certain point.
Divergence results either because of some unique environmental factor in recent decades, because trees reach an asymptotic maximum growth rate at some temperature, or because higher temperatures reduce tree growth. If trees show a nonlinear growth response, the result is to potentially truncate any historical temperatures higher than those in the calibration period, as well as to reduce the mean and range of reconstructed values compared to actual. This produces the divergence effect.
<...>
The nonlinear response of trees to temperature explains the divergence problem,
In other words, within certain temperature ranges on the historical record trees work as a great record of temperatures, but above a certain crazy recent anthropogenic rate of increase, all sorts of things change and trees are no longer much good at reflecting the real data as some tree growth is STUNTED by higher temperatures etc. So we “hide the decline in temperature increases” from tree ring data by doing something radical like, looking at actual instrumentation records?
So “hide the decline” is just a short hand way of saying “Correct the faulty impression of decreased rates of increasing climate shift by inaccurately looking at tree-growth to measure temperatures when we already have scientific instrumentation data sets on worldwide temperatures”.
Claim 1: Anthropogenic CO2 can’t be changing climate, because CO2 is only a trace gas in the atmosphere and the amount produced by humans is dwarfed by the amount from volcanoes and other natural sources. Water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas, so changes in CO2 are irrelevant.
Claim 2: The alleged “hockey stick” graph of temperatures over the past 1,600 years has been disproved. It doesn’t even acknowledge the existence of a “medieval warm period” around 1000 A.D. that was hotter than today is. Therefore, global warming is a myth.
Claim 3: Global warming stopped a decade ago; the earth has been cooling since then.
Claim 4: The sun or cosmic rays are much more likely to be the real causes of global warming. After all, Mars is warming up, too.
Claim 5: Climatologists conspire to hide the truth about global warming by locking away their data. Their so-called “consensus” on global warming is scientifically irrelevant because science isn’t settled by popularity.
Claim 6: Climatologists have a vested interest in raising the alarm because it brings them money and prestige.
Claim 7: Technological fixes, such as inventing energy sources that don’t produce CO2 or geoengineering the climate, would be more affordable, prudent ways to address climate change than reducing our carbon footprint.
Of course, the BBC has obviously been ordered by the Queen to be a front for the far-left conspiracy to de-industrialize the Western world, but don’t tell anyone!
Yes, the Queen wants to start sending people back to “the Tower” and longs for the good old days. ;-)
Meanwhile, I was disgusted to see Monkton on ABC lunchtime news going on about the conspiracy to create a communist world government that would give all our money away to the poor, while breakfast ABC Radio just this morning interviewed another sceptic going on about how it was a conspiracy to prevent Africa developing. When are these guys going to make up their mind? I mean, I just blogged about this last week — and then both mutually contradictory madnesses were promoted not 5 hours apart.
That’s how bad the Denialists are cherry-picking from these so called “Climategate” emails. As “Climate crock” says, “I suggest the Denialists try a little-known and rarely used analytical technique called .... Actually Reading the Documents in Context”.
The Denialists have out-done themselves in paranoid foolishness. The thing that made me really angry in this piece was the snippets from Fox news. The idiots there added some material to the emails.
The phrase “hide the decline” refers to hiding the decline in tree-ring data accuracy, a well known and interesting phenomena where after tracking identically with the instrument record for 100 years the tree-rings suddenly go haywire after the 1960’s and DON’T reveal what our INSTRUMENTS are telling us the global temperature is.
So what did Fox news add? The email shows they used a ‘trick’ to ‘hide the decline in temperatures’ and then whined about a fraud on the American people, when what they are doing is not just fraudulent but slanderous.
how many Christians will go around quoting this Fox news slander and madness?
The limousine radicals arrive at the Copenhagen talks to reach a deal to make the rest of us cut the gases they’ve just blown driving in. Amid all their limos, note the free but empty bus they refused to take instead :
As world leaders and their hangers-on gather for the “climate summit,” in Copenhagen, Denmark, London’s Daily Telegraph reveals what the assembled worthies are themselves doing about global warming. The woman who heads one limo company says her rentals have gone from the normal 12 per day to more than 200.
The owner “reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42.” Limos are coming from Sweden and Germany to meet demand.
As well, the airport will handle “up to 140 extra private jets ... so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports — or to Sweden — to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.”
Along with “15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders, the Danish capital will be blessed by the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, Helena Christensen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles, among others, all chowing down on “scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges.”
But it’s all for the good of the Earth, you understand.
[ Edited: 10 December 2009 10:28 AM by Kevin Goddard]
Yep, one has to burn some gas to move world leaders around. I’d be willing to burn a lot more if it resulted in an actually binding legal target that, unlike the ETS legislation before the Senate now, actually proposed to do something! (Like ban any new coal fired power plant worldwide, ramp up renewables and electric transport systems that can run in a post-oil world, etc).
But, maybe we’ll see some real action after peak oil when people finally realise this stuff is finite anyway. God-willing, the feedback loops won’t have kicked in and switched us over to a whole new climate system. (With what, 2 billion starving to death across Asia and Africa in the meantime?)
So there’s a prediction. El Nino seems to be shaping up to do its thing, and so maybe now La Nina’s going we’ll see the real climate story. Remember the Denialist myth that it has been since 1998? (Ha! The hottest decade on record is cooling?) What are those poor denialists going to make of 2010?
I wonder how all those Denialista’s will cope if 2010 really is warmer than 1998? Are they going to jump up and down and yell, “Look, bright shiny thing over there…” for about 5 years, and then start a similar myth… “But it’s been cooling since 2010…”
UN Security Stops Journalist’s Questions About ClimateGate by Mike Flynn
A Stanford Professor has used United Nation security officers to silence a journalist asking him “inconvenient questions” during a press briefing at the climate change conference in Copenhagen.
Professor Stephen Schneider’s assistant requested armed UN security officers who held film maker Phelim McAleer, ordered him to stop filming and prevented further questioning after the press conference where the Stanford academic was launching a book.
McAleer, a veteran journalist and film maker, has recently made a documentary “Not Evil Just Wrong’ which takes a sceptical look at the science and politics behind Global Warming concerns.
He asked Professor Schneider about his opinions on Climategate – where leaked emails have revealed that a senior British professor deleted data and encouraged colleagues to do likewise if it contradicted their belief in Global Warming.
Professor Phil Jones, the head of Britain’s Climate Research Unit, has temporarily stood down pending an investigation into the scandal.
Professor Schneider, who is a senior member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said he would not comment on emails that may have been incomplete or edited.
During some testy exchanges with McAleer, UN officials and Professor Schneider’s assistants twice tried to cut short McAleer’s question.
However as the press conference drew to a close Professor Schneider’s assistant called armed UN security guards to the room. They held McAleer and aggressively ordered cameraman Ian Foster to stop filming. The guard threatened to take away the camera and expel the film crew from the conference if they did not obey his instructions to stop filming Professor Schneider.
The guard demanded to look at the film crews press credentials and refused to allow them to film until Professor Schneider left the room.
McAleer said he was disappointed by Professor Schneider’s behaviour. “It was a press conference. Climategate is a major story – it goes to the heart of the Global Warming debate by calling into question the scientific data and the integrity of many scientists involved.”
“These questions should be answered. The attempts by UN officials and Professor Schneider’s assistant to remove my microphone were hamfisted but events took a more sinister turn when they called an armed UN security officer to silence a journalist.”
Two officers corralled the film crew and one officer can be seen on tape threatening the cameraman. The Guard can also be heard warning that if the crew did not stop filming their would seize the equipment and the journalists expelled from the conference.
McAleer says he has made an official complaint tabout the incident.
“I have met Mr Christopher Ankerson the UN’s head of security for the conference and he has confirmed it was Professor Schneider’s staff who asked the security guards to come corral us at the press conference. Mr Ankerson could not say what grounds the security guard had for ordering us to stop filming.”
“This is a blatant attempt to stop journalists doing journalism and asking hard questions. It is not the job of armed UN security officers to stop legitimate journalists asking legitimate questions of senior members of the UN’s IPCC.”
Professor Schneider was interviewed for McAleer’s “Not Evil Just Wrong” documentary but lawyers later wrote to McAleer saying he was withdrawing permission for the interview to be used.
McAleer, who is from Ireland, has gained quite a reputation for asking difficult questions of those who have been promoting the idea of man-made Global Warming.
His microphone was cut off after he asked former vice-president Al Gore about the British court case which found that An Inconvenient Truth had a nine significant errors and exaggerations. Almost 500,000 people have watched the incident on youtube.
You have all been warned - “do NOT ask any “inconvenient” questions - Ve have vays to make you NOT talk, comrade - unless you agree to agree with us, of course.”
From correspondents in Copenhagen, Denmark From:AAP December 12, 2009 8:12AM
AT last there’s a draft climate deal on the table at Copenhagen - but Australia is not happy with it.
The official UN deal, issued at the landmark summit on global warming, says rich countries must slash greenhouse gas emissionsbut poorer countries like China don’t have to.
It appears to indicate that developing countries have won the upper hand at the Copenhagen summit.
Australia’s Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, criticised the deal for being too soft.
She’s worried that without more action from countries like China and India, the world’s greenhouse gas emissions would be too high to stop global warming.
“We do have some concerns; we think that primarily the problem is that this is not a document which is capable of delivering the environmental outcome the world needs,’’ Senator Wong said of the draft.
“It is a document that doesn’t provide a credible option for binding commitments from developing countries.’‘
Various countries have released draft deals at the summit but this one carries more weight because it’s been officially proposed by the summit itself.
The draft deal sets out relatively tough conditions for rich countries like Australia.
They would have to cut emissions by at least 25 per cent by 2020, and by at least 75 per cent by 2050.
But developing countries including China, which is the world’s largest emitter, would only have to cut emissions if they were directly paid to do so.
Their emissions could still go up, but by 15 to 20 per cent less than business-as-usual over the next decade.
Developing countries would not have to let international observers verify their emissions data. Developed countries would have to let the observers in.
The deal doesn’t make it clear if developing countries would have to take on binding promises on emissions. Rich countries would, under a continuation of the Kyoto protocol.
Senator Wong wants more.
“It needs to be an agreement that has force. We want countries to stand behind their actions,’’ the minister told reporters at the Copenhagen summit.
She said developing countries had to “internationalise’’ their promises, which means allow international observers to verify their emissions data.
The draft deal also contains a potential bomb for Australia - it says countries must achieve their greenhouse targets through action at home.
Australia is planning to meet its target partly by paying poor countries to reduce their emissions, and counting the savings against its own target.
Erwin Jackson, who is in Copenhagen with Australia’s Climate Institute, said the main problem was that the draft deal did not give a mandate to forge a legally binding climate deal, which would force everyone to make good on their emissions targets.
In other climate news, the European Union has pledged to pay more than $US3 billion ($3.27 billion) a year into a fast-track fund to help developing countries tackle climate change.
Australia has committed to help out, but has not said what it would pay.
McAleer, a veteran journalist and film maker, has recently made a documentary “Not Evil Just Wrong’ which takes a sceptical look at the science and politics behind Global Warming concerns.
You see, McAleer isn’t ‘sceptical’. That’s an outright lie. David Karoly and James Hansen are ‘sceptical’. Tim Flannery is ‘sceptical’. They don’t accept something until there is no other way to explain it. They study it, check the data, check the physics, calculate the amount of extra energy / square meter in the atmosphere trapped by Co2, ask other questions about what other feedbacks might be affecting the climate, and basically do science.
McAleer is simply recycling the top 26 same tired old excuses and lies that New Scientist documented years ago. When something has been debunked repeatedly and repeatedly by the climate community for 10 or 20 years, and yet someone keeps vomiting up the same lies again and again and again, despite official responses in official literature comprehensively answering those concerns in prior decades, then they are anything but sceptical! They are agenda driven activists out to DENY the official science.
In other words, mere data will not work on them. Maybe extreme amounts of money shoved in their direction might shut them up? Oh, I forgot, they like the attention as well as the money they’re already earning from their denialist books and media.
Yes, it’s all about the money that AGW scammers have been getting for their “science” and “research” and “modelling”. However, their gravy train might be getting derailed very soon ;)
HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:
UK NEWS : CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY
Same old myths being recycled denying the fundamental physics of Co2 repeatable in a lab.
Seriously, anything that quotes the Leipzig and Oregon Petitions has just shot itself in the foot. They’ve hung a big sign around their collective arguments and said, “Hi, we’re gullible fools pushing conspiracy theories, and we don’t read peer-reviewed science because…. we don’t like it. Do you want to buy shares in my coal company?”
Hi Kevin,
if any one argument from that denialist piece convinces you, I’d be glad to reply. But I’ll not try and answer all 100 as we’ve been over most of them already, both here and back on Sydney Anglicans. Bunch of deceitful lies, and even the ‘true’ bits are just data points picked out of the context of the larger scientific discussion.
Wow, one really has to buy the biggest crisis confronting civilisation or the biggest conspiracy confronting civilisation, even though it’s not a very good conspiracy because they can’t seem to get anything done or AGREE on their ‘conspiracy’. Just look at the debates at Copenhagen. One would have thought a conspiracy would be more organised and at least agree on what they wanted to do!
Anything that quotes the Oregon Petition is in the world of pseudo-science and denialism.
Scientific American said:
In 2001, Scientific American reported:
“ Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[23] ”
One of the main criticis against this list of allegded scientists, is that they’re not affiliated to any organization.
In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:
“ Several environmental groups questioned some of the names in the petition. For instance: “Perry S. Mason”, who was a legitimate scientist who shared the name of a TV character. Similarly, “Michael J. Fox”, “Robert C. Byrd”, and “John C. Grisham” were signatories with names shared with famous people. Geraldine Halliwell was added as: “Dr. Geri Halliwell” and “Dr. Halliwell.” This name may have been contributed by a proxy trying to discredit the petition since Ms. Halliwell has never admitted to signing the petition.
Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. “When we’re getting thousands of signatures there’s no way of filtering out a fake,” he said.[22]
”
....
In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
“ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[24]
Oh, and who funded this “petition”?
Another regular piece of evidence in the denial lobby’s PR campaign is the “Oregon Petition”. This urges the US Government to reject the Kyoto Protocol and claims there is “no convincing scientific evidence” for global warming. It is said to be signed by 31,000 graduates, most of whom appear to have nothing to do with climate science.
The petition originated in 1998 with a scientist, Dr Frederick Seitz, who had been president of the US National Academy of Science in the 1960s (and a tobacco consultant in the 1970s). The petition was accompanied by a purported review of the science that was co-published by the George C. Marshall Institute. This institute received at least $715,000 from Exxon Mobil since 1998.
Yes, Plimer’s even starting to look shifty and apologetic. You can see it in his eyes. But hey, with his being on the board of a mining company and making so much money producing the book, there’s nothing in this for him is there?
Putting our economy in the hands of Chavez fans
Andrew Bolt – Thursday, December 17, 09 (10:34 am)
These maniacs in Copenhagen are voting on your future:
President Chavez brought the house down.
When he said the process in Copenhagen was “not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn’t that the reality of our world, the world is really and imperial dictatorship…down with imperial dictatorships” he got a rousing round of applause.
When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening.
But then he wound up to his grand conclusion – 20 minutes after his 5 minute speaking time was supposed to have ended and after quoting everyone from Karl Marx to Jesus Christ - “our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell….let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation.
Chavez rouses the rabble with more anti-Americanism, too:
I don’t think Obama is here yet. He got the Nobel Peace Prize almost the same day as he sent 30,000 soldiers to kill innocent people in Afghanistan.
And a mass-murderer at Copenhagen lectures us about our crimes:
The anti-capitalist theme was picked up on by Mr Mugabe, Zimbabwe’s veteran President, who is the target of Western sanctions over alleged human rights abuses.
“When these capitalist gods of carbon burp and belch their dangerous emissions, it’s we, the lesser mortals of the developing sphere who gasp and sink and eventually die.”
( *** click on blog link to find video clips - if you can stomach it to watch these idiots spew forth to all their new found greenie friends )
Well, Chavez is not the most consistent speaker on the rights of the poor.
< start sarcasm >
Yet we can’t have our hard earned capitalist dollars helping the poor now can we? After all, as good Christians we ALL know that Capitalism is God’s way to reward the just, and the poor deserve it because they won’t get off their backsides and do a day’s work.
< end sarcasm >
You know, I sometimes wonder if it is sheer self interest that motivates me to see the world’s poor living a more just, “bright green” modern lifestyle that has leapfrogged the fossil fuel stage. Sure it’s nice for my Christian conscience to think I’m working towards this goal, but that’s just self-flattery. I think the reality is I know that it is in MY best interests and MY KIDS best interests if the poor are leapfrogged into a sustainable version of the modern world, as this will bring about a *demographic transition*... which basically stops population growth. Unless the Lord returns soon, population growth is the real ultimate threat to sustainability.
But hey, I think I’ve drifted off the topic. Kevin, you were saying how terrible it is to help the poor? Please continue….
Leaked document says world will warm three degrees
BEN CUBBY, December 18, 2009 - 12:44PM
A document leaked from the UN secretariat says the world will warm by about 3 degrees Celsius this century if the greenhouse gas cuts being proposed at Copenhagen are followed through, exposing the huge gap between the rhetoric of world leaders at the conference and climate science.
Scientists say the 3-degree rise would most likely have severe consequences on human development for centuries, and might well trigger “tipping points” that cause uncontrollable climate change.
The document, marked “confidential very initial draft - do not distribute”, shows the pledges made to date would fall well short of the stated aim of world leaders, including that of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, to hold world temperature rises to the safer level of 2 degrees.
“Unless the remaining gap of around 1.9 to 4.2 Gt [billion tonnes of greenhouse gases] is closed and Parties commit themselves to strong action ... global emissions will peak later than 2020 and remain on an unsustainable pathway that could lead to concentrations equal 550 ppm [parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere] with the related temperature raise 3 [degrees Celsius] or above 550 ppm,” the document reads.
Couched in the bureaucratic language of the UN, this is a stark warning that carbon emissions cuts are on the wrong track.
However, the analysis is in keeping with the trajectories developed by the UN’s peak global warming body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Mr McKibben told the Herald he had no part in the leak, and guessed a UN staff member might have released the material.
“What this shows, to me, is that the world leaders think political reality is more important than scientific reality,” Mr McKibben said from Copenhagen. “Somehow they think they are going to be able to outmanoeuvre physics.”
Australia proposes minimum emissions cuts of 5 per cent on its 2000 level by 2020, rising to 25 per cent if there is a binding global deal.
To keep the world within the 2-degree temperature rise, cuts of between 25 and 40 per cent on a baseline year of 1990 would be required, according to UN estimates.
The estimated impacts of a 3-degree temperature rise include half of the world’s animal species facing extinction and half a billion people threatened with starvation.
The average global temperature has not consistently been 3 degrees above pre-industrial levels since about 3 million years ago, well before modern humans existed.
But British economist Nicholas Stern told London’s Daily Telegraph the world could still keep temperatures below 3.6 degrees because a political agreement at Copenhagen would cause a ‘‘green stimulus’’ that would trigger further emissions cuts. Further, he said that cuts in greenhouse gases this year were only just short of the range needed to meet the 2-degree goal.
Greenpeace told that paper the document represented a ‘‘smoking gun’’.
The Sydney-based Climate Institute broadly agrees with the views in the leaked UN document.
‘‘Current pledges from developed countries as a group are insufficient and don’t represent a fair contribution to avoiding dangerous climate change,” the climate group’s assessment says.
‘‘There is broad political and scientific consensus that increases in global temperature of 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels would constitute unacceptably dangerous levels of climate change.
‘‘Some, in particularthe most vulnerable countries, argue that even these levels would constitute dangerous levels of warming and argue for limitations to 1.5-degree targets. However, current pledges from developed and developing countries risk putting these goals permanently out of reach.’’
Even if 3 degrees is an exaggeration, this is shocking stuff.
It’s basic physics, but because the right wing Exxon funded denialists can’t handle the idea of the government ever telling the market what to do (shock, horror!) we are simply going to rob our kids of 50% of their biodiversity.
The science says we only have a trillion tons of Co2 equivalent left to pump into the atmosphere, EVER! (for the next 100 thousand years or so. I understand the next ice age is due in about 30 thousand years due to Milankovitch cycles, but kind of expect the Lord to return before that unimaginable amount of time has passed).
If we burn all the remaining OIL, just the oil, that will push us over. Same with the gas. And there’s enough coal to push us over the edge 5 times.
So go on a holiday to the Great Barrier Reef, and tell your kids sorry but these are all going to die, because the one thing we are NOT allowed to do is tell the marketplace how not to generate energy.
The time is fast coming for a forceful grass-roots revolution - with all of the greedy right-wing money wankers, big-business moguls, etc. being lined up against walls, blindfolded, and given a last cigarette… Otherwise the human race is f**ked. And we would deserve it.
[ Edited: 19 December 2009 07:28 PM by Ian Shanahan]
I think I’m becoming a doomer again. I think the human population’s got a fair culling come. How does 2 billion sound? OK, I’m putting my money on 2 billion starving and the population getting back to at least 4 billion by, say, 2050 to 2060? If I eat my veggies I might live to see it. If I have any veggies to eat!
Hey, it’s OK for me to bet like this. Both Kevin Goddard’s heroes in big business AND the world leaders are betting the farm on allowing the atmosphere to climb to 450 ppm, or another trillion tons, or 2 degrees… (however you want to refer to the IPCC / Copenhagen deal).... and betting on the lives of billions. It seems thoroughly acceptable. I’m just taking my turn. Last bets gentlemen….
At that stage he had been working for 16 years for Anglican charity Anglicare, as a residential youth worker helping teenage wards of the state get their ...
Indeed, the bill prohibits doctors from performing an abortion to avoid a serious risk that the woman may commit suicide. The obvious goal here is to ...
Thank heaven for the Anglican Communion, in which all churches are autonomous and not every PC fad can be imposed worldwide. Another thing which impressed ...
The Archbishop of Canterbury has condemned evangelist "bulies" who attempt to convert people of other faiths to Christianity. Dr Rowan Williams said it was ...
For her honours thesis, Blaber studied the entire range of proteins in a stem cell sequence, establishing that microgravity influences human cell function. ...
The Christian coalition includes Anglican, Catholic, indigenous and Muslim community leaders, including the professor who formerly headed up the Cancer ...
Anglicare Victoria says it is paying the fees of at least three state-care leavers, for VCE and other courses. Last year it paid for books, train tickets ...
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama's health care bill would change federal policy on abortion, but not open the spigot of taxpayer dollars that some ...
Praise God for bringing three Moslems from Saudi Arbaia to the Bible study we run for internationals! Please pray they will continue to come! — Dannii Willis
A community Prayer meeting will be held tonight at 7.30pm at Ingleburn Anglican for Melissa Parker - 9 yrs girl killed by a bus yesterday. — Kevin Goddard
My mother in-law died last week as a result of 12 years of dementia. Pray that the funeral will go well and that the weather would fine up. — Sheldon Ryan
Praise God for saving two international students, through the ministries of Bible Cub and the Fellowship of Overseas Uni Students (FOCUS)! — Dannii Willis
Baptism service at my church, Grace Church Kogarah. 9 people baptised today ... pray for them to continue growing in their Christian faith. — Arthur Lee
Back to St Andrew's Sunday - Roseville on 15 Feb. Over 100 families with whom we've had some contact with being invited + baptism contacts. — Mark Calder
Welcome to the prayer micro blog! Feel free to post a quick prayer request, & prayers for this site & community would be appreciated too :) — Luke Stevens
RSS Feed