Aussie imam says global warming is Allah's revenge

Sheik Mohammed Omran told followers at his Melbourne mosque that “out-of-control secular scientific values” have caused environmental disaster.

“The fear of Allah is not there,” he told a recent meeting. “So we now have a polluted earth, a polluted water, a wasteland. The prophet told you hundreds of years ago, 'Look after the water'.”

Omran didn't say whether, in addition to the western infidels he lives among, his remarks were also directed at the billionaire Middle Eastern oil producers who share his faith.


So I guess both the IPCC and the deniers are wrong. It was really Allah all this time.

Goofy stuff - pretty similar to the “we are all guilty” theology being peddled by Gore, Suzuki and other prophets of the apocalypse. The really funny side of this is that the minor priests who hang around this site don’t even make the connection. No sense of irony at all. People who live in greenhouses shouldn’t throw stones at other fanatics.

you’re safe because you don’t believe in anything, right ZOG?

Only things that can be proven or, at least, predicated by rational analysis. (And I did say, “rational” analysis, not feeding dubious or highly selective data into super computers to yield desired results.)

Why don’t you provide us with a rational analysis of why the computer models don’t work. Better yet, prove it.

After all, you wouldn’t want me to take your assertion on faith, would you?

Faith is not required. Just consult the works of Dr. Hansen (the father of global warming). From Climate simulations for 1880-2003 with GISS modelE Model shortcomings include ~25% regional deficiency of summer stratus cloud cover off the west coast of the continents with resulting excessive absorption of solar radiation by as much as 50 W/m2, deficiency in absorbed solar radiation and net radiation over other tropical regions by typically 20 W/m2, sea level pressure too high by 4-8 hPa in the winter in the Arctic and 2-4 hPa too low in all seasons in the tropics, ~20% deficiency of rainfall over the Amazon basin, ~25% deficiency in summer cloud cover in the western United States and central Asia with a corresponding ~5°C excessive summer warmth in these regions. In addition to the inaccuracies in the simulated climatology, another shortcoming of the atmospheric model for climate change studies is the absence of a gravity wave representation, as noted above, which may affect the nature of interactions between the troposphere and stratosphere. Note particularly that the errors in climate forcings that he identifies (50 W/m2, 20 W/m2) are many times the 2.5 W/m2 that is attributed to CO2 forcing.

The point was to call ZOG out as someone who only picks at other people’s positions with the same tired old “religion” and “chicken little” epithets while never once having the courage to articulate a rational, coherent and complete position of his own. Sadly he seems more reluctant to do that than to leer and jeer at people.

Your cut ‘n’ pasted response is a start, I suppose, but it would be much more interesting if you put it into a usable context, or at least plain english. i honestly have no idea what it’s saying. But presumably Hansen can rationalize a coherent position on AGW, despite or because of the information presented above. So should ZOG, so should you. Otherwise, we’re just slinging contextless, cherrypicked “facts” at one another, and that does no good. Neither does base namecalling, which is all I’ve ever seen from ZOG.

I did provide you with a link to the full paper so you do have a usable context i.e. everything Dr. Hansen wrote. The fact that you admit to not understanding the science as presented by Dr. Hansen is, frankly, not my problem. Similarly, your personal little war with ZOG holds limited interest. You wanted “… a rational analysis of why the computer models don’t work …” and you got it from one of the main proponents of AGW. In fairness to Dr. Hansen he does state in the same paper (you really should read it) Although there are notable discrepancies between model and observations, the fidelity is sufficient to encourage use of the model for simulations of future climate change. Now there’s a real act of faith.

“Why don’t you provide us with a rational analysis of why the computer models don’t work. Better yet, prove it.”

You can’t disprove a negative assertion, anymore than you can’t prove giant talking rabbits exist. The burden of proof is on you – not him.

“After all, you wouldn’t want me to take your assertion on faith, would you?”

Odd you should say that, since that’s exactly what you are demanding of everyone else, regarding your own assertions. Get back to us once you’ve “proved” human-caused global warming is true.

Just like the fanatics who run this website, the Muslim Quran has a lot to say about deniers:

Quran Surah92:
“Those who deny Allah’s revelations must endure the flaming fire.”

Hoggan couldn’t have said it better himself!