Desire Consumes Like Death

Hab 2:5 “Moreover, wine [or wealth] is a traitor, an arrogant man who is never at rest. His greed is as wide as Sheol; like death he has never enough. He gathers for himself all nations and collects as his own all peoples.”

Although the text may indicate wine (Masoretic text) or wealth (Dead Sea Scrolls) is the traitor, either works equally well as a metaphor. Both represent the fruit of labor. By conquest the king of Babylon was vastly wealthy, arrogant, and thought himself invincible. Like anyone addicted to acquisition, enough was never enough. His greed was insatiable. He sought to unite and rule the whole world. The description of the king of Babylon was accurate, but as a metaphor it describes perfectly Satan and all who follow after the prince of darkness in the pursuit of worldly conquest. Death itself seeks to gather all humanity. Satan tempted man to sin and therefore to death. Were it not for the grace of our Lord all humanity would suffer the fullness of God’s just wrath. In the greed of Babylon we learn a lesson God wants us to learn. Greed blinds us to righteousness and makes us deaf to God’s call to repentance and the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ.


About Lance Ponder

Christian author of "Ask James one"; public speaker; husband and father. Available to speak on Creation and the Gospel.
This entry was posted in Habukkuk Commentary and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Desire Consumes Like Death

  1. Todd Beal says:

    I have studied much on the scriptural Babylon and something really struck me while reading the book of Daniel; the passage where King Nebuchadnezzar went insane because of his pride but glorified God when God restored his mind (Daniel 4:4-37). Immediately following the restoration (of both his mind and kingdom), he sent a letter abroad to his occupied world proclaiming that God is the one true God, essentially giving his testimony. I wrote in my Bible margin that I will someday see him in heaven. Is that your understanding as well?

    • Lance Ponder says:

      I think he was either a very weak man easily manipulated by his pagan counselors or his moment of clarity after the years in the wilderness was only that. Even the demons know who Christ is – and they are scared. Maybe old Nebby was just humbled to the point of acknowledgment, but maybe not genuine willing (transformative) submission. I don’t know and I don’t get to judge. I seem to recall him still being a scoundrel in the years following that event. I guess I’m saying I don’t know.

      • Todd Beal says:

        Okay thanks, that speaks to me personally; admission is one thing, submission is quite another. I have been trying for a long time to tackle the difference between those two; now I understand. I can see now that I am headed for a new “inner struggle/growth” cycle. I understand many things Lance, but understanding truth and submitting to the truth I understand are two separate issues.

        To be perfectly honest, your direct approach to stating truth (as is your talent) naturally antagonizes me, but my burning desire to accept truth gives me an authentic gratitude for receiving what I need to hear. Thank you.

        • Lance Ponder says:

          //understanding truth and submitting to the truth I understand are two separate issues.//


          //your direct approach to stating truth (as is your talent) naturally antagonizes me//

          LOL – thanks. I prefer to think of it as a gift (that way I can blame God when I’m a little too honest – hehehe).

  2. eclipsenow says:

    Before I ask my questions below, I completely agree with the insidious idolatry, indeed, the EASY and seductive idolatry that is greed. With Sydney real estate some of the most expensive in the world I find myself often wondering why I live here? It’s my home, where I was raised, but the mortgage is killing us. Yet I’ve never heard a Christian friend confess, “Pray for me brother, I think I am too greedy!” We live in a culture of greed that celebrates it!

    Now, different subject.

    //The description of the king of Babylon was accurate, but as a metaphor it describes perfectly Satan and all who follow after the prince of darkness in the pursuit of worldly conquest//

    Does this mean activism for a World Government is wrong? If, as Covenant Theologians and Amils, we don’t fear an actual anti-Christ, we can see anyone who denies the Lord as the God man in the flesh as an anti-Christ. There’s millions of them! And the ‘beast’ in Revelation is any State that rises up to fight Christ’s people. Sudan? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Cambodia? Communist China? I think we’re within our Scriptural warrant to call them ‘beasts’.

    I am grateful for modern democracy. But I can’t vote at the World level. I wonder if we could arrange something like a Worldwide Federal union, where Nations became ‘states’ in a Worldwide Federation? Then we would be able to VOTE on world politics and political systems! I can’t stand international politics being dominated by dirty deals done by diplomats behind closed doors. Let’s bring it out in the open. Let’s see negotiations in the clear light of day, and the bright spotlights of the modern media recording and broadcasting a World Parliament day and night!

    Have I just spoken heresy? 😉

    Check it out.

    • Lance Ponder says:

      What happens is what happens. However, why would you want one world government. Babel didn’t turn out so well.

      Is one world gov’t activism wrong? Hm. More than one ruler has tried to conquer the world. The only people who suffered more than the enemies who fought them back were the one’s conquered. There’s a pretty long track record of this from Nimrod to Assyria to Hitler – and every two-bit would-be despot in between.

      Democracy, like any other form of human government, is only as good as its people. We don’t need a nanny state, we need to take responsibility for ourselves and trust in God for the rest. I think you’ll find our Lord comes down on the side of liberty every time.

  3. eclipsenow says:

    //I think you’ll find our Lord comes down on the side of liberty every time.//

    Them’s fighting words! 😉 I thought out ‘political wing’ discussion was on the other thread? This question was about world democracy, which I see as an INCREASE in liberty. Or do you like nameless people making decisions about the world hiding out in someone’s secret lab? I don’t get how that is ‘liberty’, not at all. In fact, I’d love to see ‘liberty’ as a political position defended in the bible? Maybe we should continue this on the other thread that discusses more national politics… whatever you wish. Cheers.

  4. Lance Ponder says:

    //This question was about world democracy, which I see as an INCREASE in liberty.//

    As much as I would like to agree with you, I find myself quoting Jefferson. He was very concerned with the notion of a democracy. That’s largely why the US is a republic, not a real democracy. Jefferson was concerned with mob rule. The majority may have the most votes, but might doesn’t make right. This is why the US gov’t has a coequal judicial branch. Its also why I believe the 17th amendment to the US constitution is a huge mistake (it takes the senate from the state legislatures and gives it to the people). There’s a reason why the states had representation in addition to the people (House of Reps). But you’re right. Politics is somewhat beyond the scope of this post. I don’t mind tho. These are healthy discussions. I learn much and I enjoy respectful conversation, even in disagreement.

  5. eclipsenow says:

    //I learn much and I enjoy respectful conversation, even in disagreement.//

    Cool! But right now I’m off to bed, and the kids are home for our summer break! Not sure how much time I’ll have to discuss this, as political reform is a bit of a hobby of mine. (Subject to theology at all times, but hey? I’ve already said my theology is pretty much open to almost anything political, especially given Caesar was “God’s agent for justice!” Caesar? Are you kidding me? But no, it’s there in Scripture.)

  6. eclipsenow says:

    In Australia we are having a debate that heats up now and again about abolishing our States! Seriously, we’re a nation of 21 million and have 9 parliaments? You have California with 36 million. Do we really need 14 times the Parliaments you guys do? 😉

    Dr Mark Drummond has estimated that Australia loses about $50 billion dollars every year supporting these parliaments and the extra red tape costing business to adjust to. That’s the kind of money that could, in just 5 to 10 years, get us off fossil fuels and into Gen3 nukes, and off private vehicles and heading towards trains, trams, and trolley buses and effectively electrifying our transport systems so that we’re immune to the effects of peak oil! Poor America is going to hit the ‘Greater Depression’ when Peak Oil finally hits. Sorry mate.

    (Aside on Gen3 nukes: these would create some valuable nuclear waste that we can then burn in Gen4 nukes when they finally arrive. GE have a thing called the S-PRISM that they are nearly ready to build a prototype of! Once we have Gen4 nukes, all the old problems about waste and accidents are gone… we could run the world carbon free for 500 years on the nuclear waste we already have sitting around).

    But the reality is that this is a globalised world with increasingly large scale questions of legislation. EG: Multinationals. They move people into countries with the lowest tax bracket. Those countries start to develop and eventually start to demand more income, so the multinational moves on again. Rather than national governments becoming beholden to mega-multinationals, so that we end up in some kind of Feudal system with a few super Corporations running everything (as in the novel Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson), shouldn’t we be looking to create some real international law to prevent multinationals becoming larger than many governments?

  7. eclipsenow says:

    typo//Do we really need 14 times the Parliaments you guys do? ;-)//
    I meant a ratio of Parliament to citizen 14 times what you have.

    Anyway, I was also going to mention that I think the USA could merge a few states and save billions in a more efficient and integrated legal systems and marketplace. Having all those different laws in different states has got to limit the free movement of trade, the free movement of lawyers, teachers and curriculum’s, etc. Australia could easily become a 2 tier legal system with the National government and Local county governments all recognised in the Constitution. Right now our local governments are not even recognised in our Constitution! They are the play things of the States AND the Federal government. If we had a unified legal system and thoroughly integrated marketplace with the same laws and tax conditions across our country, we’d have more concentration on electing good Local government service delivery. Local school boards, Local Hospitals (and amalgamations of Local hospital boards for more regional centres), and Local welfare provision would encourage people to have more ownership at the Local level, and have simpler access to their Federal member.

    The key? Government responsibilities would be spelt out. We currently suffer under the Federal government blaming the States and the States blaming the Feds for our health system, etc etc etc.

  8. Lance Ponder says:

    Eclipse, I’m not sure where to begin. First, I’ll admit that even though I had a wonderful two-week visit to Australia back in 1998, I’m still quite ignorant of how the government operates there. Since I don’t have a frame of reference all I can really do is try to talk in American terms and hope it makes some sense to you.

    Of course there is friction between the states and federal governments. There is waste due to duplication. Still, there is a division of power for a reason. Our founders understood the inherent danger of too much power in the hands of a centralized seat of power. They understood that certain powers had to exist at the federal level for the sake of all and to make it all workable, but beyond that all other powers are supposed to belong to the states. I think that’s spelled out in our 10th amendment. Most people (Americans at least) know our government is “tri-cameral” meaning it has three branches (executive, legislative, judicial). The founders also brilliantly understood that this wasn’t good enough. The states are to have some say in the operation of the federal government. Most people think that’s what the house and senate are for, but that’s not how the founders set it up. The house represents the population by individual districts. The state legislatures get to draw those maps, but the power still resides with the people. The senate, however, is entirely another matter. Original the US Senate was populated by appointees sent by the legislatures of the states. The house is supposed to represent the people and the Senate is there to represent the states. Our 17th amendment, driven by Woodrow Wilson, took that power from the states and gave it directly to the populace of the states. This may sound more democratic, but it actually strips power from the states and increases centralized federal power.

    There is great danger in the nature of democracy. Like communism or socialism, it looks better on paper than in real life. Thomas Jefferson was concerned about mob rule. Mobs in turn are run by people with agenda. In reality any form of government is directed by a few people with agenda. Unlike other forms, though, democracy demands consent of the governed. If you can supply sufficient propaganda and suppress enough knowledge, you can get a crowd to go along with almost anything. This is how Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, and Hitler rose to power. They all enjoyed popular support because they controlled the press, education, and popular opinion. Our republic was intended to limit centralized power to what was necessary and to automatically throttle back excess. With the advent of the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments, the espionage act, and the federal reserve system (to name a few) the people and the states have both ceded power to the federal government. Note that all of those I mentioned except the 14th amendment happened during the time of Woodrow Wilson. I’m not a big fan of that guy, in case you haven’t noticed. Very little good came out of the second decade of the 20th century.

    Most Americans have no idea who Wilson was so I don’t expect you to know him. Suffice it to say he was America’s first major “progressive” socialist president. Most of the Democrat presidents since have followed in his footsteps, most notably FDR, Carter, and now Obama. To a less substantial degree Clinton and LBJ. JFK wasn’t in office to do as much damage as he surely would have. Republican presidents have been less progressive, but only to varying degrees. Nixon pretended to be conservative but turned out to be one of the most progressive ever of the party.

    I guess my point to this is that I would rather spend the money and have some degree of protection from the Feds. Even that, though, is a huge red herring. The problem with the cost of government isn’t division of power, its with the growth of government from the central authority. But perhaps this is enough for now.

    Enjoy your summer break. We’re having winter here.

  9. Eclipse Now says:

    I’m not sure where this goes as far as our discussion right now, but anyone ever noticed how population growth attacks your democratic power? I was thinking about Australia only having 21 million people, where California has 36 million. We have 8 State governments and 1 Federal government to California’s 1.

    Do we have ‘more democracy’ because we basically have greater access to our State and Federal governments than you do?

  10. Eclipse Now says:

    That is to get access to ‘my voice’ being heard in NSW State I am one of 7 million people. At a Federal level, I’m one of 21 million. In California they are one of 36 million people, and at a Federal level one of about 300 million people.

    Does that mean American’s have less democratic power?

    • Todd Beal says:

      Death initially requires only one cancer cell to begin killing the body. And freedom initially requires just one person to whole-heartedly believe that oppression is wrong. We Americans believe this with all our heart. Group effort begins within the heart of a single individual.

    • Lance Ponder says:

      In response to your questions…

      On the surface I would agree with you. The Aussie:Gov ratio is better than the Yank:Gov ratio. If that’s all that mattered I would be inclined to agree with your theory without reservation. Here’s a couple of thoughts to wrestle with: first, a majority is half plus one regardless of how big the whole. Second, at least as far as the house is concerned, the citizen to representative ratio is roughly equal no matter where you live or total population. The senate is another matter since that depends on your state. The electoral college (how we vote for president) is a hybrid system that combines state power with citizen power in a funky sort of way. State and local elections should be the most important, however the national elections get the most attention because that’s where the biggest money gets spent and because of the accumulation of power at the federal level. So, I kind of agree with you, but with an asterisk. LOL.

      There is a saying we have: all politics are local. Core philosophies do affect local as well as state and national politics, but the point of this saying is that individuals vote based on what matters to them personally.

  11. Eclipse Now says:

    Hi Lance,
    I was thinking out loud. My thoughts are drifting at the moment. I’m torn between having a stable, sustainable population, and so I’m always asking what population growth does. Did you know that just 1% population growth each year means a country will double in size in one human lifetime of 70 years? 2% is 4 times as large, 3% is 8, 4% is 16, etc. So population growth of 2% per year means that over one lifetime your vote will have a quarter of it’s power.

    So does that mean we need to keep creating new States to represent us locally? Does that even mean anything when you’re in a society that is over 7 million people? “Locally”? I don’t really think so. Local, in anthropologic terms, is about 500 people. That’s the ideal society for us socially. So much so that the following guy has designed a “Village Town” concept where we live in democratically controlled villages of 500 people, and these villages are little enclosed cities. The town is a cluster of 20 villages surrounded by their own agricultural space. Sounds hippie, but in an era past peak oil I think we’re going to need it.

    Back to politics.

    I’m dubious about ‘representation’ in a State Federal system that only has 2 main parties. I’d prefer to see Proportional Representation which allows more parties, more democratic choice, and a fairer election outcome than half+1. What you are guaranteed to have then is a system that has 49% of the people unhappy that their representative did not get in. In PR, if 25% of the people vote for a minor party, that minor party tends to have 25% of the House. It’s a different counting method.

    What it all means is that I think that if the Constitution is rigourous enough then “Centralised Power” is not necessarily a bad thing. In emergencies like war, climate change, or peak oil, our governments need certain powers. They need to co-operate. Our States have divided Australia over water. We cannot solve the Murray Darling Basin crisis. The whole right half of Australia is currently flooded due to freakish coincidence of 2 oceanic Oscillation Indexes both converging on us at once, but normally we’re in drought, and normally the Murray Darling shows exactly what happens when we have States that cannot co-operate.

    England has no States, yet seems to work. They have the same legislation across the country. It’s OK, and if it is good enough for people in one part of the country, it’s good enough for people in the other. Everyone gets to vote on the MP’s that will write the legislation that everyone will be bound by. Isn’t that democracy / Republicanism as we define it? Why complicate it with States?

    This is my favourite alternative model of Constitution that I’d vote for in a heartbeat for AUstralia, and probably America as well! Imagine the MONEY you’d save. You could probably roll out Medicare for everyone AND back an aggressive GenIV nuclear power plan for America to wean off oil and reclaim some of the $600 billion a year you lose buying overseas oil! You could legislate that ALL new cars in America had to be electric, and fund Detroit to build 100% all Electric Vehicles and kick start an energy revolution in America that might just save your country from the Great Depression I fear you’re heading for!

    But back to the alternative constitution:

    The Draft Specifications for a Citizens Constitution presented here are intended not only, to make our dysfunctional federal system of government effective and efficient, but also, more responsive and accountable. They would obviate some of the disabilities of our political system, such as the disruptive electoral cycle, counter-productive adversarial politics, blame-shifting between governments and policy auctions at election time.
    The most obvious element is the reduction of the number of levels of elected government from three to two by abolishing state parliaments and territory assemblies. Their responsibilities would be divided between a reformed national parliament, attending to issues of national significance, and enhanced local governments, acting collaboratively to attend to all others. Decision-making would be shifted toward the operational level, allowing opportunities for increased efficiency.
    Without significant disruption, the regionalised functions of the states and territories would become the responsibility of boards of management nominated by the local governments in the regions appropriate for each function. Local government would be enhanced by the wealth of talent released by the abolition of state parliaments.
    The national parliament would consist of 400 members, elected for single terms of five years from 40 electorates. Elections , in which each voter may select one man and one women, would be held successively, one electorate at a time, (by a postal ballot every six or seven weeks). The “electoral cycle” would become an historical item.
    An executive council of ten would be elected from the national parliament to run the country, together with four executive committees with specific duties. One committee would appoint and manage the staff of all government services, another would set and enforce standards of financial management for governments, a third would investigate and disclose improprieties in government and its agencies, while a fourth would provide an interface with local government. Elections to these bodies would be by a proportional method and members would hold office for not more than eight years.
    The proposals also include several basic guarantees including the separation of church and state, citizens’ rights, real values for money amounts in legislation and freedom of information.

  12. Eclipse Now says:

    Ha ha ha! No mate, but I’m very keen on the idea of actually seeing a GenIV reactor out there in the field, turning nuclear waste into electricity. The whole reason I started blogging was out of concern over peak oil, and so energy security seems to be the other BIG question people are not asking. Everyone knows the term ‘global warming’ but how many know the term ‘peak oil’?

    Check the trailer.

    • Lance Ponder says:

      Nothing like the end of the world to really drag down your day. **sigh**

      Well, political correctness and environmental extremists have prevented new nuclear construction in the US for decades. I was a reactor operator on a submarine so I’m familiar with the basics. Civilian power plant design is a bit different, but the basic premise is the same. Cold water in, fission happens, hot water out. Hot water is used to make steam which makes the turbine go around. After the heat gets pulled out to make steam the (relatively) cool water goes back to the reactor and the whole cycle starts all over again. I’m going to have to read up on these new reactors and see what the story is. I’m something of a fan of nuclear power, though as your video shows nuclear is only part of the answer. I’m not so sure we’re all that close to the end of petroleum and I don’t believe in human-caused global warming. There’s a big difference between stewardship of our earth (a biblical principle to be taken seriously) and opportunistic exploitation of nature in the name of environmentalism (CCX and global warming propagandists).

  13. Eclipse Now says:

    I find it entirely consistent that you don’t accept global warming. You don’t accept evolution, and that betrays a world-view that cannot accept the long time-scales in climate science, such as the Milankovitch cycles that result from a measurable ‘wobble’ in the earth’s orbit and spin. Every 100 thousand years these wobbles coincide in such a way as to cause an ice age. The next one is 30 thousand years away.

    But other than long time scales, global warming is physics. You’re ruling out spectrometry which is the same scientific discipline that gave us microwaves and the internet. Spectrometry tells us what Co2 does. The Radiative Forcing Equation tells us by how much. Add and subtract a bunch of other natural forcings, and it IS us that is changing the climate this time! Why is that so hard for Creationists to get? There’s this anti-science gullibility that would rather believe in the most outrageous, outlandish, exaggerated conspiracy theory than the simple truth: we are changing the climate on this planet.

    But that doesn’t matter. The economics of fossil fuels will change long before then.

    Basically in terms of fossil fuels we have used all the easy stuff, all the ‘low hanging fruit’. We’ve used about half of the conventional oil, and that was the cheap half. The rest is much harder to get, much more expensive to get, much slower to get, and so fuel production will start to decline after about 2012. The American Joint Forces Command estimates we could possibly be down 1/8th of world production in just 5 years!

    When that happens, oil will never again meet demand. The price will sky-rocket. This is not as easy to ‘not believe’ as climate science. I’ve seen some extremely sceptical people take on peak oil and become ‘peakniks’… those who are concerned that we are running out of the cheap stuff and will never again be able to maintain the flow rates.

    Here’s a copy and paste of my Top 10 questions for newcomers to peak oil, if you have the time. Finding the data for this and answering the questions for yourself is usually the most realistic way to figure out just how messed up the world authorities are. if you want answers, here is a guest post I wrote on Brave New Climate, a blog run by Professor Barry Brook who has a pro-nuclear energy blog. I used to be into that touchy-feely save the planet renewable energy malarky, but Barry brought me around! I’m now a pro-nuclear greenie. It’s the only thing that can provide reliable clean baseload power for the majority of nations.

    Peak oil Top 10

    1. In which decade did we discover the most oil?

    2. How has the discovery of conventional oil been going since then? Keep in mind that oil is probably only 2nd to the military in terms of the money and technology available to their enterprise. Big oil have BILLIONS at their disposal for the latest discovery and drilling technologies.

    3. What is the ratio of discovery to consumption? Are we discovering more than we use, or less? How good or ‘bad’ is the ratio?

    4. How long has the trend been in this direction?

    5. How many oil producing countries have already peaked and are in irreversible decline? What are their decline rates?

    6. Which countries are still able to increase production and have not reached their all time historical peak?

    7. Is there an ‘international oil cop’ agency that audits the fields and confirms the books of various oil blocks? Who reports to who? What is the chain of command down which the oil data has to travel in the non-OPEC western world?

    8. How do we know whether OPEC reports are legitimate? Who do they report to? Who can audit their books? Does the western world get access to their fields? How do we confirm what they know?

    9. If domestic consumption of oil exporting nations rises too fast (because of a booming domestic economy), how quickly can domestic consumption outpace their ability to export oil once they themselves peak? (Hint: there are historical precedents — google “Export Land Model”).

    10. If those few exporting nations that are left suddenly DO decide to keep the oil for their own economies, how relevant is a global depletion rate of 5% per annum if the OIL MARKET has collapsed because ‘sellers’ are becoming ‘buyers’?

    Lastly: here’s the real issue once someone finally does the math and realises the world is about to hit 4% less oil each and every year from here on in…

    Is there any liquid fuel that can replace oil in the scales we need, the time-frames we need, and the infrastructure in which we burn it?
    Answer: No. The only way to adapt to peak oil is to use less oil by driving Electric Cars, building trains, trams, and trolley buses, and transitioning our transport systems to nuclear electricity. Then there’s also the role city planning can have in reducing the amount of energy it takes to get round anyway, which is why I am a New Urbanist.

    • Lance Ponder says:

      I love these discussions, but golly gee that’s a lot to read, let alone respond to. I think global warming deserves its own post some other time. Suffice it to say it isn’t a conspiracy theory – its principle drivers have been pretty straight forward about their agenda. Can man be contributing to climate change? Sure. Is man’s contribution going to end life? Only in the sense that our sin begs God’s wrath – I simply don’t believe we’re going to destroy our planet by ourselves. Do we need to turn the world economy upside down going green? Chase the science if you want information, but chase the money and you’ll find truth. The CCX would be a 10 Trillion Dollar business if the US congress could pass cap and tax. Oh, and I do reject some (and I mean some, not all) of what you present as facts. Remember, you’re quoting people just like I am. I’ll consider the qualifications of your sources as read into the record. In case you forgot, those doom and gloom predictions have been circulating since at least the 80s (when the scare was cooling) – before that our big world ending threat was Moscow’s fat commie thumb on the bomb trigger. I don’t know how old you are, but I grew up with “duck and cover” movies in the classroom. Other kids were afraid of the dark. I was afraid of a flash of light. But I digress… There always has to be some threat to hold over the heads of the population to keep them looking away. That’s not conspiracy theory, its world history. Do you want examples?

      There’s a limited amount of everything on the planet. Why should oil be different? Is it a real concern? Sure. Is it a reason to cry the sky is falling? Not unless you’re following Chicken Little around. People in the 1890s were convinced the US agriculture would never support the growing US population by 1920. Oil and grain are real issues, but the real danger is Godlessness. You don’t have to be a creationist who thinks the world is young to see that evil forces have murdered and oppressed many millions and still is. And if the s*** does hit the fan with regard to temperature, fuel or food, then it will be our faith in God or lack of it that will make the difference between collapse and construction.

      Your list is interesting. Some questions definitely need to be addressed. Others strike me as begging the question. But really, this is too much to deal with. I don’t mind side discussions, but this train has long since left the station.

      You’ve done a very good job of laying out what you believe and the framework of why. I don’t need to agree and you don’t need my agreement. I’d much rather be clear in disagreement than wandering blind in some foggy sort of agreement. Wouldn’t you?

  14. Eclipse Now says:

    Hi Lance,
    I’ll try and keep it short, to the guts of it.

    Could a nuclear war still happen? Yes. Has the threat diminished? Somewhat.

    Do all climatologists say it WILL end life as we know it? No. It’s not about that. It’s about risk management. It’s about the end of the stable climate we’ve enjoyed, not the end of the whole planet. It’s about poverty and misery and quite a lot of death, but not as much as an all out nuclear war!

    As for the 1970’s ‘consensus’ that the world was about to cool? That’s a nasty little strawman the Denialist’s use, and it’s demonstrably wrong.

    The survey identified only 7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming. Those seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the citations.

    Indeed, the Bell Telephone science show had an alarming global warming episode from 1958, over 52 years ago! As for the 70’s, the scientists were actually talking about the Greenhouse effect so much that it became part of popular culture. The 1973 movie Soylent Green was set in a Greenhouse catastrophe.

    I’m sorry, where is this climate consensus that the earth was about to go into an ice age?

    As for following the money, are you telling me the fossil fuel companies aren’t funding the outright lies of the Denialists? That’s a little naive. It’s all well documented.

    Peak Oil is another real concern. Did you know it takes 10 calories of oil and gas energy to grow 1 calorie of food energy? I’m not a doomer, there are answers, but we have not built those answers yet. It will take time. This is going to be a close thing.

    Or just look at this graph. Note how the last time we found as much oil as we burn was back in 1983, and we now burn about 4 times what we find each year. We’re burning oil our grandparents discovered.

    Prays: “Lord, please return soon.”

    • Lance Ponder says:

      I’m growing weary of being called a denialist. You deny different things, but I don’t call you a denialist. I also don’t call you a non-believer, though you don’t believe the same things I do. So please, quit. I’m really getting bored.

      Has the climate warmed and cooled in the past? Yes. Might it be warming now? Sure. Is it caused by human activity? I think “caused” is the wrong word, though we may be contributing. Personally I think we’ve got bigger concerns.

      Is big oil angelic and Al Gore demonic? No. And if you think that’s what I think you’re being too simplistic. I never said big oil doesn’t have its own agenda. But I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) and the scheme to generate trillions of dollars. You don’t have to believe it. I’m not going to spend the time digging up all the links. If you care you can google.

      • eclipsenow says:

        Hi Lance,
        sorry mate — when I use ‘Denialist’ with a capital D I’m referring to paid up members of “The Denial Machine” as documented by the CBC.

        Here’s a link to the 40 minute doco of who I’m discussing.

        Carbon trading could be another huge con to generate money. The love of money really corrupts! And what does moving all this money around actually achieve for the climate? Not much. That’s why I’d like to see blanket laws against any new coal plants, and all coal plants being closed as they reach retirement age and not replaced.

        Anyway, we’ll leave it there for now. I think I may have been irritating enough. 😉

        Cheers, and I hope the Lord returns before peak oil kicks in to affect you and I in our respective, oil dependent nations.

  15. Eclipse Now says:

    (Forget this post…just subscribing to site updates)

  16. eclipsenow says:

    Check this out rather than trying to read my paper.

    2 minutes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s