Telegraph (UK): Biblical Plagues Really Happened, Say Scientists
Researchers believe they have found evidence of real natural disasters on which the ten plagues of Egypt, which led to Moses freeing the Israelites from slavery in the Book of Exodus in the Bible, were based.
But rather than explaining them as the wrathful act of a vengeful God, the scientists claim the plagues can be attributed to a chain of natural phenomena triggered by changes in the climate and environmental disasters that happened hundreds of miles away.
They have compiled compelling evidence that offers new explanations for the Biblical plagues, which will be outlined in a new series to be broadcast on the National Geographical Channel on Easter Sunday.
Archaeologists now widely believe the plagues occurred at an ancient city of Pi-Rameses on the Nile Delta, which was the capital of Egypt during the reign of Pharaoh Rameses the Second, who ruled between 1279BC and 1213BC.
The city appears to have been abandoned around 3,000 years ago and scientists claim the plagues could offer an explanation.
Climatologists studying the ancient climate at the time have discovered a dramatic shift in the climate in the area occurred towards the end of Rameses the Second’s reign.
Many thanks to a regular reader for sending me an e-mail and pointing out this article. I might not have seen it otherwise.
The way I look at it, if the plagues of the Old Testament were caused by climate change and not by God’s wrath, as these scientists suggest, then aren’t these global warming nuts arguing against their own now-broken hypothesis that man is the root of it all? Where was the industry at the time of Moses? Where were the big ole’ pickup trucks? Where were the evil, evil incandescent light bulbs?
It’s all a bunch of rubbish. I understand the inevitable argument that the plagues were caused by climate changes which was in turn caused by volcanic eruptions, as a single volcanic eruption has been known to release more carbon dioxide than the entire human race does during the course of a year, but if that’s the case, how have we all survived on an Earth that has seen countless such eruptions over its 4.5 billion year history?
That’s just the first of the questions about man-made global warming I asked in An Open Letter to the President following the House vote on cap-and-trade in June of last year. Perhaps, if I ask them again, someone can offer some insight. Here goes:
- Considering that a single volcanic eruption releases several times the amount of carbon dioxide than the entire human race releases in an entire year, how has the world survived countless such eruptions throughout the planet’s 4.5 billion year history?
- Termites release ten times more carbon dioxide than every single man, woman, child, factory and automobile in the entire world. How is it that mankind’s carbon emission is the determining factor on how quickly the planet is destroyed? Shouldn’t your farcical energy bill focus on termites? After all, they also eat wood, and environmentalists absolutely love wood . . .
- Scientists are absolutely incapable of predicting the weather a week out with any significant accuracy. Why should we believe them capable of putting together accurate models looking forward by a century, or even a decade? If Glenn “Hurricane” Schwartz here in Philadelphia says it’s going to be 86 degrees here tomorrow and it turns out to be 91 degrees, why trust a liberal idealogue masquerading as a scientist to predict global temperatures in 2050 to within six-tenths of a degree?
- In that same line of thinking — why do existing climate models completely fail to predict the known past? In other words, if the same models used by your so-called experts don’t work to predict known conditions, why should we bank our economy on those models and experts now?
- Staying in the past, why did the planet cool between 1940 and 1975, even though human carbon dioxide emissions were sky high? Could it be that human carbon emissions and global temperature have absolutely nothing to do with each other?
- Why don’t we see, in core samples, actual empirical evidence over a broad span of time–not 100 year segments here or there–that carbon dioxide levels drive temperature? Why don’t we see corresponding increases in such samples at the time of major volcanic activity?
- The planet’s climate has always changed — why are we so willing to destroy the economy (or even take the risk in doing so) in order to fight a natural cyclical process?
And then, of course, there’s my favorite question to ask global warming enthusiasts: What, pray tell, is the appropriate temperature for Planet Earth?
I’m still waiting for an answer to that one.