Thoughts on Global Warming

If increased release of green house gasses into the atmosphere is the cause of the planet warming up then why have we not seen a constant temperature increase over the last 400,000 years since man started to introduce additional CO2 into the atmosphere? I agree at first the increase would be small. But since fire was first used by man,we have been adding more and more CO2 into the atmosphere than would of been introduced otherwise and since increased levels of CO2 raise the temp then we should be seeing a steady rise in temperature from that point forward. But that is not the case.

From 1910 to 1940 the global emissions of CO2 increased from 500,000 tons per year to 1 billion tons per year and global temps went up about 0.9F Yet from 1940 to 1980 global CO2 emissions went from 1b tons to 5b tons, and global temperatures went down about 0.9F. If CO2 emissions are to blame, why the drop in temperature when emissions were increasing faster? Of course from 1977 to 2000 we again experienced another warming. But since 2000 temperatures seem to be dropping again. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution we have had periods of warming and cooling. If increasing CO2 was the cause of warming and with the increase of CO2 pumped out since the beginning then there should not be any cooling periods since there were no periods of decreasing CO2 output.

Isn't it more plausible that the sun with a mass a million times that of the earth that is responsible for almost all of the thermal energy on this planet could through uneven emissions of radiation cause the global temperature to fluctuate? Isn't that a more plausible option? That along with the "wobble" in the earth's orbit seems to be a much more plausible explanation of the climate change that went on long before we started adding CO2 to the atmosphere?

The history of climate change over the last 1000 or even 500 years does not indicate that humans have that much control over climate. We have had cool periods and warm periods and all the time we have been polluting the atmosphere. I think that the wobble in the earth's orbit and the changes in the thermal output of the sun are more likely the cause of global temperature changes. We have massive evidence of climate change on this planet on scales that dwarf what has happened over the last 100 years. Yet humans were not even here for most of these changes.

Taking Christ out of Christmas?? How did he get in there to begin with?

Christmas is a holiday that many Christians celebrate as the birthday of Jesus. However all of the origins and symbols of Christmas are pagan. Early Christians merely hijacked the pagan celebrations for their own use and to ease the “conversion shock” of the pagans. Most all of the customs we associate with Christmas pre date the birth of Christ and are taken from any different early religions.

Dec 25 before the calendar adjustment on the 18^th Century was also the day that the Winter Solstice took place. Ancient Romans celebrated the god Saturn and the rebirth of the sun god. Associating 25 Dec (Winter Solstice) with the birth of gods is very popular from Ireland to India.

When the Romans paraded to celebrate Saturn they carried wreaths made from the branches of evergreen trees as a symbol of Saturn. Holly with its red berries was used to represent female fertility where mistletoe with its white berries represent male fertility and hanging it above doorways invoked the powers of fertility of those who kissed beneath it. The evergreen tree is a Germanic pagan symbol of fertility also. Also the Babylonian god Tammuz was said to be reborn every year from an evergreen tree. This happened of course on December the 25^th the Winter Solstice.

All basis for celebrating Christ’s birthday on the 25^th of December is of pagan origin. NOTHING in the bible indicates a date and the evidence in the scriptures seems to indicate that it was most definitely NOT the 25^th of December and not even in the month of December. After all what would the shepherds be doing out in the fields with their sheep IN THE MIDDLE OF WINTER??

Can we figure out with scripture approximately when Jesus was born? I have done some studying on this and I think I can get close. Closer anyway than everyone that insists it is 25 Dec.

Our first clue is looking at John the Baptist and his father Zacharias.

Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

Luke 1:8 And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course, ...

Luke 1:23 And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house.
Luke 1:24 And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived,

The clue given to us here is that Zacharias was of the "course" of Abia.

Luke 1:23 And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house.
Luke 1:24 And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived,

Beginning with the first month, Nisan, in the spring (March-April), the schedule of the priest's courses would result with Zacharias serving during the 10th week of the year. This is because he was a member of the course of Abia (Abijah), the 8th course, and both the Feast of Unleavened Bread (15-21 Nisan) and Pentecost (6 Sivan) would have occurred before his scheduled duty. This places Zacharias' administration in the Temple as beginning on the second Sabbath of the third month, Sivan (May-June).

So he completed his Temple service on the third Sabbath of Sivan. Zacharias went back home and soon conceived his son John. The date of John’s conception is important because it gives us a benchmark to calculate when Jesus was conceived.

Time for bible quotes….

Luke 1:24 And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying,
Luke 1:25 Thus hath the Lord dealt with me in the days wherein he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men.
Luke 1:26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
Luke 1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

Verse 26 refers to the sixth month of Elisabeth’s (John’s mother) pregnancy, not Elul, the sixth month of the Hebrew calendar and this is obvious by reading the context of verse 24 and again in verse 36.

Luke 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

Since Jesus was conceived six months after John the Baptist, and we have established a likely date for John's birth, we need only move six months farther down the Jewish calendar to arrive at a likely date for the birth of Jesus. From the 15th day of the 1st month, Nisan, we go to the 15th day of the 7th month, Tishri. And what do we find on that date? The 15th day of Tishri begins the third and last festival of the year to which all the men of Israel were to gather in Jerusalem for Temple services. (Lev 23:34) This explains why the inns were full. There was no census in Judea in the time period in question. That bit of info was probably added to Luke 500 years after the fact.

The 15^th day of Tishri usually falls in Sep or Oct . So there you have it. Using the bible and a little knowledge of the Hebrew calendar I have calculated the approximate date of Jesus’s birth. I could be wrong but at least it was an educated guess and not established by hijacking a pagan holiday and turning it into a Christian one. So next time someone says, “Don’t take Christ out of Christmas!!” Just tell them, “Well he never should have been in there in the first place.”

Raiders of the Lost Ark.....Hey wait... what was that?

I was watching Raiders of the Lost Ark for the umpteenth time the other day. It is a great movie. In my book it is one of the top 5 films in the action adventure genre. The action is great. Harrison Ford is, of course, awesome as Indiana Jones. He has a great supporting cast and a good lineup of villains. It has all the makings of a great film with excellent direction, cinematography, and special effects. This movie has it all including some glaring plot holes and historical errors that we overlook because the film is so damned good.

I am not so much talking about historical inaccuracies although a few do play directly into the plot holes. As the map follows Indy around the world as he travels some of the countries have the wrong names. Thailand should be Siam. Iran should be Persia. Jordan should be Trans-Jordan. This was of course changed for the "great unwashed" and those of use worth a sense for historical geography.

A huge point of discussion is the pistol that Indy uses in the Nepal shoot out. It is a Browning Hi-Power. The movie is set in 1936 and the Hi-Power was introduced for military service in 1935. It is unclear and debatable whether or not Indy could have put his hands on one. And if he could, why did he only use this in this scene when it would of been very helpful in some of the shoot outs to come? Instead he goes back to his old reliable wheel gun. Also in the Nepal shoot out the Nazis are using the Walther P-38 and the MP 38/40. Neither weapon would of been in service in 1936.

Airplane nit picking....The Pan American plane Indiana Jones boards in San Francisco looks similar to (but has noticeable differences from) the Boeing 314 Pan Am used for transpacific flights. This plane did however not fly until 1938 and at the time of the story the company only flew transpacific with Sikorsky S-42s, an plane with a completely different body than the one used in the scene. And don't get me started on that flying wing thingy. Why not use a Ju-52? Now that's a cool looking bird for sure.

Now for the plot holes. First of all that giant stone ball. If you look just as the ball starts to roll, if Indy would run TOWARDS the ball instead of running away from it would of rolled right over him with no damage what so ever. Then he could just follow the path it has made and he is home free. Well until he meet the natives with their fun but deadly stone age weapons.

Now the biggest most obvious plot hole of them all. In 1936 Egypt was an independent country, in name only. Effectively it was part of the British Empire. For the Nazis to be involved in a dig with uniformed and armed soldiers of the Third Reich would be like seeing a Russian dig in the Philippines in 1979 complete with KGB and Soviet troops in uniform and armed with AK-74s etc...

Transporting The Ark... Ok, once Indy has it, he just cannot ship it back to the University of Whatever. This item is stolen and properly belongs to the Kingdom of Egypt. This means he has to get it out of the country by the age old art of smuggling. That means loading it on a less then reputable ship captained by an unsavory individual. After this the only problem should of been to get it to the US or a US territory. Odd to me that the US government would sanctioned this operation and not offer any logistical help getting The Ark out of Egypt once Indy had it in his possession. In the 30's there were lots of US flagged cargo vessels arriving and leaving Egyptian ports all the time not to mention the US Navy. While it might of been rare at the time for a US Navy ship to be in the Mediterranean (I have no sources at this time) the sailing time from Norfolk to the Easter Mediterranean is less than the time Indy spent getting to Egypt by his route and adventures. A heavy cruiser could leave Norfolk and be off the coast of Egypt in 6-12 days depending on its ability to refuel. Also chances are the Navy may already have a ship or 6 in the Med.

This brings us to the German U-Boat. You can see that it is U-26 a Type I-A U-Boat. These were commissioned in 1936 and do have the range to get off the coast of Egypt. However this was not a normal patrol area for the German Navy let alone for a U-Boat. If there was going to be a German ship off the coast to provide logistical support for this sort of operation, a U-Boat would be the last choice. First of all, submarines are slow. Secondly, how do you plan on shipping that big crate on a sub? On the Type I-A boats shown in the movie as well as the type VII-B which is similar, the largest hatch only measures about 22 inches in diameter. A better idea would be one of the many armed merchant cruisers that the Kreigsmarine had at its disposal. Not only would you have cargo space but you would have stealth and the ability to intercept any other ship that might make off with The Ark should a foreign power recover it first. The crews of these ships were trained for this exact type of clandestine warfare.

Raiders of the Lost Ark is a damned good movie. I continue to enjoy it every time I see it. However, I am not sure why movies are made with such factual errors and plot holes. One would think that Lucas and Spielberg would have noticed most of the issues I have described. At the same time they modify the a truck to look like a pre war Mercedes truck. Sometimes there is no rhyme or reason to what they try to insure is period and what is not. It has nothing to do with how obvious it might be or how prominent the prop might be. Take the example of Indy’s satchel is a Mk VII gas mask bag. These were not manufactured until 1942. It should be a Mk V. It seems that they would rather just make the movie with the guns, props, and planes they have on hand and not worry about making sure what they are using are correct.

I need to start posting more.....

So is this the start of a novel? a short story? a screen play? Probably will just end up being a file on the bottom of my documents folder but check it out.

It is hard to pick a starting point for this story. Do you start with a quick bio of how you got to be where you were when the action actually started? Or do you just jump in at the moment that you sort got pulled into what will be the major theme of this story? Maybe I should start with some background on where it happened and tell you a little about the other people in the story. Maybe I should go for a cliché beginning like “It was the best of times it was the worst of times.” or “On a dark and stormy night”?

I am going to start with me. I have no idea what the hell I am actually. You see I am 3000 years old. Well not really. I have lived many lives and I am born and I die like anyone else but in every new body at about age 13 when so many other changes are happening I suddenly know who I really am and I can remember everything about my past lives..

Yeah I guess we will see what happens.