Climate Change: A Convenient Truth. By Jim Hollingsworth
Will Planet Earth self-destruct unless we stop using fossil fuels and spend trillions trying to change the climate? There is no evidence to support these claims, yet they will motivate numerous policy changes during the Biden administration.
A lot has been written about global warming/climate change, especially in the last couple of years. We have been led to believe that if we do not take immediate, expensive and decisive action the world as we know it will come to a dramatic end.
But, is it true? Where is the evidence that man is the cause of this warming? Can we do anything about it, or do we just let nature have its way?
No-one can dispute the fact that the earth is warming. It has continued to warm since the end of the last ice age, about 10,000 years ago. At one time North Idaho was buried under a mile of ice.
Jim Hollingsworth says that mainstream media wants to convince us that we are headed for catastrophe unless we take drastic measures. However, Christians must be able to address the propaganda and errors behind today’s environmental alarms.
Climate Change: A Convenient Truth is authored by Jim Hollingsworth. Murrells Inlet, SC: Covenant Books, Inc., 2019.183 pp. Paper, $17.95. Available now at Amazon.com
With rational, scientific explanations, Hollingsworth provides the answers we need to discern what part humans play and what part nature plays in causing climate changes. With degrees in both social science and biblical studies, Hollingsworth has done extensive research in the areas of geology, climatology, and meteorology. His well-documented book gives convincing evidence, with proven statistics and common sense, to answer today’s politically motivated views about our environment.
He explains and often debunks such topics as global warming, plant and animal extinctions, electric vehicles, fossil fuels, renewable energy and alternative fuels, the Green New Deal, air and water pollution, weather extremes, carbon dioxide, and many other current issues distressing most Americans.
The book is aimed at today’s younger generations, who have been educated to believe that 97% of scientists agree that global warming is “man-caused and dangerous” (p 3). But Hollingsworth states that consensus proves nothing, and “man is not the main cause of global warming” (p. 5). His valid evidences reveal frauds that environmental extremists are perpetrating.
He says, “Some politicians know that they can gain more control over our lives through programs designed to remedy global warming. We need to be vigilant to see this does not happen” (p. 166). While he acknowledges that government-paid scientists will never admit their errors, people are in danger of hearing only that side of the issues unless they investigate the deceptions. Hollingsworth suggests that readers do their own research on the Internet for “climate skeptics” and “climate alarms answered.”
Every concerned American needs to read this book, and especially high school and college students. The 48 brief chapters are clear, with no tone of defensiveness. Seven relevant appendixes present more adequate answers, as well as resources for further study. The book can be read in about four hours and is also an excellent reference work.
Climate Change is a wake-up call for everyone, lest we accept without question the prevalent falsified views about our planet’s environment and natural resources. Hollingsworth wants his readers to know the truth and also be equipped to do something about it, in hopes of influencing our government to do what is right.
Reviewed by Marcia Hornok
Climate Change: A Convenient Truth is authored by Jim Hollingsworth. Murrells Inlet, SC: Covenant Books, Inc., 2019.183 pp. Paper, $17.95. Available now at Amazon.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Mervyn
| #
In the sixties, the religious nutcases were telling us to repent because the end of the world was near. Then it was the seventies, then the eighties. But it’s continued to this day, only it’s now the environmentalist nutcases saying it.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Mervyn,
While I am a BELIEVER in the Creator God and that the Holy Bible was inspired by Him, I certainly an not offended by your comment: “In the sixties, the religious nutcases were telling us to repent because the end of the world was near.” For I can read and comprehend what I read: “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, only the Father.” (Mark 13:32 NIV)
So you are correct to call those who claim to know when the END will come are truly nutcases who cannot read and comprehend.
However, now it seems that the nutcases are not only the environmental nutcases who cannot read and comprehend. For in this article I read: “No one can dispute the fact that the earth is warming. It has continued to warm since the end of the last ice age, about 10,000 years ago. At one time North Idaho was buried under a mile of ice.” We know: “At one time North Idaho was buried under a mile of ice.” HOW???
Galileo demonstrated for us how ACTUAL, REPRODUCIBLE, OBSERVATIONS can ABSOLUTELY REFUTE WRONG SCIENTIFIC IDEAS about our NATURAL WORLD. But when I repeatedly draw attention to the reproducible measurements that the air’s temperature has never been measured to be less than the air’s dewpoints temperature measured at the same place and time; no one here at PSI has written: THAT SETTLES IT, THE IDEA OF THE ATMOSPHERIC GREENHOUSE EFFECT OF ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
In the first paragraph of this article the word ‘science’ appears 4 times. Louis Elzevir, publisher of ‘Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences’, stated (as translated): “Intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.” So, what is your or this article’s author’s ‘accurate definition’ of the word SCIENCE? I cannot not find that this author ever gives any definition (accurate or otherwise) of ‘SCIENCE’. And this clearly is THE PROBLEM which exists relative to the idea of the Greenhouse Effect of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and the ideas of Global Warning and Climate Change which are fundamentally based on the absolutely wrong idea of the Greenhouse Effect and its conclusion (prediction) that the Earth’s Air Temperatures would about 33C (58F) degrees lower if there was no Carbon Dioxide gas in the Atmosphere.
While we cannot test the theory the prediction by taking the carbon dioxide out of the Natural Atmosphere we can prove that the measured Air Temperature cannot be lower than that being routinely measured for centuries. So I review what Louis Elzevir and Galileo wrote about the apparent need of Accurate Definition.
I have read that Louis Elzevir was not only the publisher of Galileo’s book, he was also its ‘editor’ who gave the book its title which as not the one which Galileo had written. Therefore, I assume that Louis also wrote the Table of Contents which was divided into Days.
The title of the first day was: “First new science, treating of the resistance which solid bodies offer to fracture.” The title of the second day was: “Concerning the cause of cohesion.” The title of the third day was: “Second new science, treating of motion [movimenti locali].” Further divided into: “Uniform motion” and “Naturally accelerated motion.” The title of the fourth day was: “Violent motions.” “Projectiles.”
I had trouble understanding what Louis meant by “ACCURATE DEFINITION”. Until I read: “In dealing with steady or uniform motion, we need a single definition which I give as follows: By steady or uniform motion, I mean one in which the distance traversed by the moving particle during any equal intervals of time, are themselves equal.”
“We must add to the old definition (which defined steady motion as one in which equal distances are traversed in equal times) the word “any,” meaning by this, all equal intervals of time; for it may happen that the moving body will traverse equal distances during some equal intervals of time and yet the distances traversed during some small portion of these time-intervals may not be equal, even though the time-intervals be equal.” Hence, an accurate definition of uniform motion by adding the word “any”.
This seems to be what Louis saw when he first read Galileo’s hand written Italian transcript and concluded that the book must be published and read by others. Which so few current SCIENTISTS seem to have ever read in the Italian language or in the English language as translated by Henry Crew and Alfonso de Salvio. (1914)
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Big mistake!!! While I cannot correct it here, I can submit this comment where it was intended.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply