blackbird

"The term anti-Semitism was first popularized by German journalist Wilhelm Marr in 1879 to describe hatred or hostility toward Jews. The history of anti-Semitism, however, goes back much further. Hostility against Jews may date back nearly as far as Jewish history. In the ancient empires of Babylonia, Greece, and Rome, Jews—who originated in the ancient kingdom of Judea—were often criticized and persecuted for their efforts to remain a separate cultural group rather than taking on the religious and social customs of their conquerors. With the rise of Christianity, anti-Semitism spread throughout much of Europe. Early Christians vilified Judaism in a bid to gain more converts. They accused Jews of outlandish acts such as “blood libel”—the kidnapping and murder of Christian children to use their blood to make Passover bread. These religious attitudes were reflected in anti-Jewish economic, social and political policies that pervaded into the European Middle Ages." Anti-Semitism - Definition, Meaning & Reasons For (history.com) The solution for anti-Semites is to turn to God and repent and seek forgiveness. They need to become children of God and love their neighbour, not hate a special group of people. The alternative is hell. If they continue with their anti-Semitism, they need to be weeded out and put in some kind of institution to protect society. Immigrants who bring their anti-Semitism to Canada should be sent back to where they came from. There is no room in Canada for that kind of thing.

You don't believe it? Is everything ten years ago worthless? I know science is often wrong, but is everything wrong from ten years ago?

It originated from a Facebook post which you can still see. (1) Facebook (archive.ph) It says climate alarmists do not like people to see that information. If you look at the picture in the post, water vapour is by far the major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

"1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. " Genesis 1:1, 2 "26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. " Genesis 1:26-28 "7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction." Proverbs 1:7 The theory that man evolved from some scum in a pond is nonsense in the extreme. The enormous complexity of the basic cell, with all the DNA data stored in it, so that it can do what is required, makes the theory of evolution nonsense. The complexity of the human eye and everything it must do also demonstrates the necessity of an intelligent designer. Such things could never have evolved by random chance processes.

CO2 is a natural part of the atmosphere but the amount is miniscule. The atmosphere is 0.04% carbon dioxide. Nobody is saying CO2 is a threat to health from breathing it. That is not what the debate is all about. The claim is that man-made CO2 causes global warming. Believe me, nobody will become unconscious or die from breathing 0.04% carbon dioxide. Man has been breathing that small amount since God created mankind. God made the atmosphere with CO2. It is natural. You are someone who believes man evolved from apes. Possibly you did. I can see you have some traits.

That is the biggest lie that is being told. Nobody can control the climate. First off, fossil emissions are only 0.1 to 0.2 % of the global atmospheric greenhouse gases. So it is extremely unlikely man is having any effect on the climate. Canada's emissions are about 1.5% of the world's fossil emissions. China's emissions are around 33% of the world's fossil emissions. How do you propose to make China cut it's emissions? Nothing Canada does will make any difference to climate change. It is all a big scam and power grab. Why punish Canadians for something that most of the rest of the world does nothing for? The carbon tax does affect Canadians. Carbon tax does nothing for the environment or climate change.

That is as far as I had to read to realize you are out of touch with what is gong on. Most Canadians oppose the carbon tax increase and a great number oppose the carbon tax, period. So those 206 MPs you mentioned who voted for the carbon tax increase are out of touch with most Canadians. They will find out in 18 months if not sooner how wrong they are. They do not represent Canadians.

We don't have high concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is very small, a rare gas but is essential for life. The amount in the atmosphere is not a concern for humans breathing it. Nobody ever said it was a concern.

The surrounding countries attacked Israel in 1967 and lost territories. The West Bank was once under the control of Jordan, but after they attacked Israel in 1967, they lost control of it. These territories include the West Bank, and some other areas. I believe Israel is in the process of annexing the West Bank. Our opinion doesn't matter. The U.N. is anti-Israel and can complain all it wants. Israel has to do what it needs to do to protect its own security.

Like adding a drop of hot water to a ten ounce glass of cold water? Try it. Put a thermometer in the glass and add one drop of hot water and see if the temperature changes. Not likely on a normal mercury thermometer. Seriously? There is a small amount in the atmosphere that we breath all the time. If I am correct, we breath in oxygen and breath out a small amount of carbon dioxide which plants live on.

So you are likening carbon dioxide, an essential gas for life on earth, to a deadly poison? Did some radical environmentalist tell you that?

You are confused about evidence and proof. There is nobody on earth that can prove that amount is too small to alter the climate or prove that it can alter the climate. It is impossible to prove. But I could point to a very simple example of why I believe it cannot alter the climate. The sun shines on a clear day. If there is 0.1% or 0.2% cloud cover, will the sun still be shining? Of course. You likely would not even notice 0.2% cloud cover. If you have a glass of cold water and you have a way to measure 0.2% of the glass in boiling hot water and pour it into the glass of cold water, will it change the temperature of the glass of cold water? Not likely. The whole thing is it is strictly a matter of opinion. Same as man-made climate change. There is no proof. Strictly a matter of opinion.

So for hundreds of thousands of years, atmospheric C02 was well below 300 ppm. Now it's well above 400 ppm. Yes, I posted evidence to support my belief. The evidence is the amount of CO2 caused by fossil fuels is 0.1 to 0.2 % of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That is evidence. Like it or not. One website says it was once in the distant past over 1,000 ppm. So what. CO2 is not the only thing that is a greenhouse gas. Water vapour is also a greenhouse gas. Most of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is not man-made. Why blame man? What proof do you have? You think a "paper" is proof of anything. Not a chance. Many scientists are simply repeating what they heard others say. Nobody has any real proof. Papers don't prove anything. Man-made climate change is impossible to prove. It cannot be replicated in a lab.

So childish. You are brainwashed. The government supports a so-called two state solution; in other words carve up the small state of Israel and give big parts of it to their sworn enemies who want to kill them and destroy Israel. That should tell you how anti-Semitic the government really is. Similar to much of the world.

I just posted what I read. "“SCIENTIFIC FACT: Man-made CO2 constitutes only 0.1 to 0.2% of atmospheric greenhouse gases. " - usa today Incidentally, what is claimed as "scientific fact" should always be taken with reservations. There are very few things that can be 100% absolute and trustworthy in science. History proves that. So the figure of 0.1 or 0.2 % could be only an estimate. It may be very difficult or impossible to actually measure something like that. There is no information either as to where this figure came from. I would not put too much credence in it. This figure is also very hard to find if you do a search. Most websites and climate activists do not want you to know about this figure. The reason is it casts doubt on the climate alarmist claims. The reason it is not widely published on climate alarmism websites is obvious. The figure of 0.1 to 0.2% is so miniscule that anyone with half a brain should know it is very unlikely that man is the cause of climate change. Global warming is normal and climate has always changed. I am not convinced man is the cause of excessive global warming. There are many things in nature that likely affect global warming. So whether one believes that man is the cause or doesn't believe it, is strictly a matter of personal opinion. Why is that? Because there is no proof man is the cause. It is something that is not possible to prove or know.

The world believe the Neanderthal man was a real human once. There were other fake ancestors that were found to be incorrect or false claims. Much of the world are anti-Semitic, again proving the world is corrupt and many people believe anything including yourself. If you have evidence that I am wrong in my beliefs, lets see it. Anything I post as my own opinion is just that. Never said opinion was fact. You are obviously trying to find something to accuse me of. Good luck with that. That is not meaningful discussion. How old are you?

You haven't given any evidence I am wrong.

Maybe you believe it is flat. I gave the evidence to demonstrate the likelihood of man-made climate change is nil. You can do a search and verify the numbers or go to wikipedia.

Everyone is entitled their beliefs. Grow up.

Of course it is not a scientific claim. Never said it was.

I simply reported what I read about miniscule emissions and my belief that man is not the cause of global warming. Take it or leave it.

No its not up to me to prove anything. I have already given my evidence. You must prove I am wrong.

You are lying. I never made any claims of a scientific nature. All I am doing is pointing out simple facts that are on wikipedia. It simply says fossil emissions from man are miniscule. It says 99.8 or 99.9 percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere is natural or coming from nature. That is what makes life possible. So I am making no scientific claims as you falsely say.

No, it is you that needs to provide proof. I am not the one imposing taxes or regulations on society. You don't understand the basic principles of justice. The climate has always changed. Do you know what you are talking about?

Whenever government or anyone wants to do something that has negative consequences on other people or society in general, the onus of proof is on those who want to do something. That means the onus of proof is on the government to prove what they claim before imposing taxes, regulations, or anything else on society. Since man-made climate change has not been proven, it is wrong of the government to be doing what they are doing.