blackbird

We still have a lot of sharks with human faces today. They are called liberals and leftists.

Scientists Debunk UN "Climate" Hysteria "PARIS — Amid United Nations efforts to shackle humanity to a UN “climate regime” at the COP21 global-warming summit, an international team of scientists and experts from various fields debunked the hysteria at a separate conference in Paris for realists. Essentially, the prestigious scientists said, there is no man-made global-warming crisis. The UN’s “climate” efforts, meanwhile, have a much more sinister agenda: Destroying industrial civilization, propping up kleptocrats with Western tax funds, and seizing control of the global economy under the guise of regulating the immensely beneficial “gas of life,” also known as carbon dioxide. The top U.S. senator on the Environment Committee also offered a message of hope to climate realists, saying the “climate charade” by the UN and the Obama administration was dead on arrival. " In Paris, Scientists Debunk UN “Climate” Hysteria - The New American

Al Gore is another liar who spread false information widely with his movie or film but has since been exposed as a fraud. He deceived millions of people, including people like Trudeau and Greta and yourself.

"Other cultures" means false religions and Socialist, liberal ideology. NO thanks. There is no such things as "white privilege". That comes from critical race theory (CRT), which is a blatant lie, another thing to cause division. There is such a being as Satan. That is who is behind this. CTV and CBC are giving a steady feed of woke identity garbage today. Will have to shut it off.

Evolution has been debunked and is rejected by many scientists. The simple truth is Evolution is not science. It never was. Evolution is a theory and a religion with many. The fact is there never has been any proof of evidence. The most important evidence which is the fossil record does not support evolution. If evolution were true, there would be a vast fossil record in the earth's layers showing the transition between the different species. Guess what? It does not exist. The transitional fossils do not exist because there was no evolution. All that exists are fossils of the different species which shows no evolution or transition between them. God says in his word how he created everything in six days and rested on the seventh day. There was no millions of years of evolution. I know there are many people who believe in it, but they are rejecting the literal account. God would not have said how he literally created everything in six days if it were not a fact. It was a supernatural miracle. God does not lie. The correct interpretation is literal. One must interpret the Bible literally unless there is clear reason something is not meant to be taken literally. Genesis is not one of those sections. Have you ever read Genesis. You said it is described precisely word for word in Genesis. "31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." Genesis 1:31 KJV There it is word for word, six days. What does this have to do with climate change? The answer is plenty. It proves many atheist scientists who believe the lie of evolution also believe in the lie of man-made climate change. They have not studied it and for most of them, it is not even their field of study. But they still claim it as fact, when there is no proof. Man-made climate change, like the theory of evolution, has not been proven. It is just another theory which many have embraced and claim as fact.

CO2 is a trace gas in atmosphere to begin with and man's contribution is only 3% of that miniscule amount. The total CO2 in the atmosphere is about 400 PPM. Of that Canada's fossil fuel contribution is about 0.18 PPM, next to nothing. The chances of man being the cause of climate change is negligible enough to say non-existent.

Just more evidence that many scientists must be wacked out on some drug. quote Scientists have revealed that an ancient shark with paired spines and bony armor may be humans’ earliest ancestor. The Paleozoic fossil was retrieved from a site in Shiqian County in Guizhou Province, South China. With the finding, scientists have come to understand the existence of human sharks. unquote Humans Are Descended From Sharks, Scientists Reveal (msn.com) Darwinism or Evolutionism has been strongly debunked in various books. The transitional fossils just are not there; they don't exist to show evolution from one species to another. But occasionally some scientist or paleontologist finds some bones of something and uses it to fabricate a fantastic story. These are useful to make a name for one's self and get funding. But they don't add anything to the subject. They do however confuse a lot more people who are borderline confused already. Just goes to show you can't believe everything you hear or read.

Was it an effort to extinguish native culture or was it an effort to assimilate them into white man's society so they could function? How does one make that distinction?

75 to 150 years ago I think the government thought that native youth needed to be assimilated into Canadian society in order to function as a normal human being. I doubt they thought assimilation was a form of genocide. Leaving them uneducated on reserves was considered a non-starter and churches with staff to run residential schools had no intention of setting up schools on reserves. It is doubtful anyone would want to go and live in a reserve to begin with. I don't think anyone today would either. Sadly there were some bad actors in the residential school system who did abuse a lot of them. But in light to today's thinking, the residential school system was a bad idea. Hindsight is always better than foresight.

"Justin Trudeau is the kingpin of “political begging”–you name an opportunity to prostrate himself in front of a community of social justice warriors and multicult-mongers, and King Trudeau is the “belle of the ball.”" "White Privilege, Systemic Racism" BUILT INTO Society: Canadian Human Rights Commission (capforcanada.com)

Multiculturalism has led to: “Now is the time for all Canadians, but especially non-racialized Canadians, to listen, learn and reflect on how white privilege and systemic racism contribute to injustice and inequality in this country.” - the woke liberal left. This proves how evil multicultural ideology is. Non-racialized Canadians are being put on the defensive even though they did nothing wrong. The problem originates with a band of NDP-Liberal warped thinkers who were not willing to respect and defend western Judeo-Christian civilization. They found there is more votes to be had from the third world.

Just more proof of the insanity of the liberal-NDP government. Should we be concerned? Yes. Should we panic? No. But this kind of radical government ideology will have negative effects on everything they do or touch. The Canadian Forces is a good example. Morale must be at an all time low in the Canadian Forces as they have the woke ideology forced on them. That is the last thing a country needs. It will be the same in the civil services.

We are wasting time on this topic. There is no credibility in the climate change alarmism or fake blaming of man.

The U.S. Pentagon and the U.S. Department of Energy report were among those who made wild predictions that turned out to be false. Do you not think they get their information from scientists?

Ok Chicken Little, the sky is falling too!

I hate to burst your bubble, but these were not considered "doomsayers". These were scientists who made these false predictions. If it "matters what scientists say" as you say, why don't you consider what many sicentists have said in the past that turned out to be false? quote 1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” 2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment. 3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” 4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” 5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” 6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.” 7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness. 8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” 9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” 10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” 11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate. 12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles. 13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years). 14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'” 15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990. 16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” 17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.” 18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” 18 Spectacularly Wrong Predictions Made Around the Time of First Earth Day in 1970, Expect More This Year | American Enterprise Institute - AEI quote The Competitive Enterprise Institute has published a new paper, “Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions.” Keep in mind that many of the grossly wrong environmentalist predictions were made by respected scientists and government officials. My question for you is: If you were around at the time, how many government restrictions and taxes would you have urged to avoid the predicted calamity? As reported in The New York Times [August 1969] Stanford University biologist Dr. Paul Erhlich warned: “The trouble with almost all environmental problems is that by the time we have enough evidence to convince people, you’re dead. We must realize that unless we’re extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years.” In 2000, Dr. David Viner, a senior research scientist at University of East Anglia’s climate research unit, predicted that in a few years winter snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” In 2004, the U.S. Pentagon warned President George W. Bush that major European cities would be beneath rising seas. Britain will be plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020. In 2008, Al Gore predicted that the polar ice cap would be gone in a mere 10 years. A U.S. Department of Energy study led by the U.S. Navy predicted the Arctic Ocean would experience an ice-free summer by 2016. In May 2014, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius declared during a joint appearance with Secretary of State John Kerry that “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.” Peter Gunter, professor at North Texas State University, predicted in the spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness: “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, and Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions. … By the year 2000, 30 years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” Ecologist Kenneth Watt’s 1970 prediction was, “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder in the year 2000.” He added, “This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” Mark J. Perry, scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan’s Flint campus, cites 18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970. This time it’s not about weather. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated that humanity would run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold and silver would be gone before 1990. Kenneth Watt said, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate … that there won’t be any more crude oil.” There were grossly wild predictions well before the first Earth Day, too. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior predicted that American oil supplies would last for only another 13 years. In 1949, the secretary of the interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous energy claims, in 1974, the U.S. Geological Survey said that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. However, the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimated that as of Jan. 1, 2017, there were about 2,459 trillion cubic feet of dry natural gas in the United States. That’s enough to last us for nearly a century. The United States is the largest producer of natural gas worldwide. Today’s wild predictions about climate doom are likely to be just as true as yesteryear’s. The major difference is today’s Americans are far more gullible and more likely to spend trillions fighting global warming. And the only result is that we’ll be much poorer and less free. unquote Walter E. Williams: False environmental predictions | Opinion | westnewsmagazine.com

quote The False Prophets of Climate Change JANE CLARK SCHARL The unjustified moral panic over the Amazon fires is not unique. The last five decades are full of climate doomsday predictions that have been proven false. Some—like the 1970 proclamation that, by 2000, the world would be gripped in a new Ice Age—are exactly the opposite of current climate panics. Of course, this information should not be used to say that we have no responsibility for the environment. Modern industry has introduced new environmental challenges that, as stewards of Creation, we have a responsibility to address, such as the horrifying levels of pollution in the Ganges River in India and the mountains of garbage in cities like Manila. But the last fifty years have shown with certainty that simply because climate change activists say that the end of the world is coming does not mean they are right. The facts show that the environment is much more resilient than we give it credit for being, and that worldwide climate systems tend to fluctuate around an average sustainable temperature. For climate change activists, these facts simply don’t matter. What matters is that they see an impending climate disaster—a disaster which they believe justifies distorting the truth. This is exactly the same kind of prevarication Catholics must watch out for. Because many leaders in the Church—including the Holy Father—have come to believe that there is an impending climate disaster, we shouldn’t be surprised if we see doctrinal distortions as a result. ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW Consider, for example, the looming moral disaster of the Amazon synod. In the wake of Laudato Si and other doomsday declarations by Pope Francis, the synod appears poised to adopt such a laudatory tone towards the environment that it threatens to veer into neo-paganism, denigrate the special role of humanity in creation, and subvert the Church’s primary function of bringing souls to salvation. The working document of the Amazon Synod implies that moral superiority is equivalent with living in harmony with the environment. For example, the document elevates the indigenous people of Guaviare as moral arbiters because of their closeness to the environment. Unfortunately, these peoples include tribes that participate in shamanism, which is often a form of demon worship. The document says nothing about entering into an evangelical conversation with these tribes. It may have (for instance) simultaneously encouraged them to worship Jesus Christ while inviting the rest of us to learn from their love of nature. Instead, it merely scolds Western Christian cultures while unequivocally lauding neo-pagan cultures. A Catholic exorcist once related to me a conversation he had with a demon during an exorcism, in which the demon told him that the Satanic forces will use anything—even inherently good things like work, human love, and family—to distract a soul from God. “Anything but God,” the demon said. That has sobering implications for the contemporary conversation about the environment within the Catholic Church. Today, that conversation is so dominated by fear that it is indeed distracting us from God. By insisting on an impending environmental collapse without acknowledging that the climate regularly fluctuates, Catholic environmentalists have cut themselves off from reasonable conversations about what proper stewardship of the environment looks like. unquote For rest of article: The False Prophets of Climate Change (crisismagazine.com) quote Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true. What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and science. More than merely spotlighting the failed predictions, this collection shows that the makers of failed apocalyptic predictions often are individuals holding respected positions in government and science. While such predictions have been and continue to be enthusiastically reported by a media eager for sensational headlines, the failures are typically not revisited. 1967: ‘Dire famine by 1975.’ unquote Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions - Competitive Enterprise Institute (cei.org)

The policy of "multiculturalism" adopted about 50 years ago really laid the groundwork for what is happening now. "How about a betrayal of democracy itself? The lie that Justin Trudeau is working for “all” Canadians when only 3rd World Canada really counts to our government. The attack upon Canadian of European heritage is the biggest betrayal of all. This began in 1968 with Pierre Trudeau, and has been brought to its apotheosis in the year 2020 by Justin Trudeau. When haters rule. For CAP, this is the essence of our downfall– as well as the “core identity” which has transferred Euro-Canadians into a social trash bin." "White Privilege, Systemic Racism" BUILT INTO Society: Canadian Human Rights Commission (capforcanada.com)

Many activists such as the federal liberal-NDP government, antifa, BLM, groups in universities, and various organizations and individuals have already decided that if you are Caucasian you are guilty of white supremacy and systemic racism. Actual proof or evidence is not required. The fact you are a colonial or descendant of a colonizer makes you guilty and you are expected to support affirmative action programs that will give special consideration to minorities in every facet of life. New systems or affirmative action programs must be put in place to give preferential treatment to minorities to combat the colonial state's systemic racism. "In a settler colonial state like Canada, systemic racism is deeply rooted in every system of this country. This means the systems put in place were designed to benefit white colonists while disadvantaging the Indigenous populations who had lived here prior to colonialism. This power dynamic continues to be upheld and reinforced in our society, extending its impact on new racialized citizens." Systemic racism: What it looks like in Canada and how to fight it? | VPFO | UBC Part I – Systemic racism and discrimination in the Defence Team: Origins and current reality - Canada.ca "CAP Translation: When it comes to debate or dialogue within Canadian society regarding racism, there is to be no questioning of Liberal government positioning: Canada is a racist nation stepped in perpetual white privilege. The descendants of the colonial founders of our country have racism and bigotry “built into their brains.” Canadian society is intrinsically anti-black, not to mention anti-Muslim, anti-Sikh, anti Jewish, as well as haters of homosexuals. PM Justin Trudeau has informed society that white Canadians are genocidal toward First Nations peoples. Let the punishment begin. What CBC has buried away is the fact that the punitive measures toward our people has been in place for some forty years. The catalysts was Liberal PM Pierre Trudeau and two pieces of governance which exist to transfer power away from Canadians of Anglophone and European heritage." "White Privilege, Systemic Racism" BUILT INTO Society: Canadian Human Rights Commission (capforcanada.com)

Black civil servants file discrimination complaint against federal government with United Nations (msn.com)

We do have freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Get off your high horse and quit trying to silence others. You know nothing about what a fake Christian is or a false religion or what it means. You have already proven you don't read or pay attention to the Bible.

You misinterpreted what I said. I said third world immigrants in general have a different ideology. It could be because of their false religious systems or it could be because they are willing to accept Socialism or Communism. They have no Christian belief system to defend themselves with. Socialism and liberalism lead to evil laws and government and the denial of fundamental freedom as in Cuba, N. Korea and other places. People who oppose western Judeo-Christian civilization or morality should not be admitted. It is as simple as that. Jews should be welcome because they support Judeo-Christian beliefs and morality. Howevers liberals did not welcome them in the case of the Komagata Maru. That is an example of liberal's anti-Semitism at that time.

The matter of separation of church and state has a different interpretation depending on who you ask. Those who oppose Christianity or the Bible and who may be atheists or agnostics, will give you one extreme interpretation. Others who believe the U.S. was or is a Judeo-Christian culture will give you a different understanding. My opinion at this point is all the separation of church and state means is the government shall not make any laws establishing a state religion or state denomination as exists in some countries. Freedom of religion for everyone shall be the law or no religion if that is what someone chooses. That exists now. There is no law establishing a religion and no law establishing a state church. Separation of church and state does not mean elected members of government cannot have religious beliefs and it does not mean they cannot pass laws that reflect their religious beliefs. There always have been many laws that are based on Christian religious beliefs. The modern progressives and anti-Christians are saying nobody can bring in a law based on Christian beliefs. That is total nonsense. The separation of church and state does not mean the country cannot have laws based on Christian teachings because that is what morality is all about. An example is the Mormon religion in earlier times believe in polygamy. That was considered immoral by orthodox Christianity and was outlawed. That has nothing to do with separation of church and state. quote Until well into my life-time, the overwhelming majority of Americans believed that the United States was a Christian nation. In believing that, they did not desire the persecution of other religions, nor did they want to see people forced to become Christians, nor did they believe that one Christian denomination should be favored at the expense of others. They rejected the concept of one Christian denomination functioning as an established national Church, as the Churches of England and Scotland still do today in Great Britain. But Americans overwhelmingly believed that Christian ideas and principles should receive favorable treatment and that its understanding of Moral Law should undergird the laws of the United States and the individual states. When other people’s religious practices came into conflict with Moral Law, Moral Law, not the practices of other religions, was always supreme. People were free to believe as they saw fit, but they could not practice their beliefs when those practices ran contrary to morality; they had to live by the Christian based laws of the United States. This can readily be seen through the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. As one example of how this has been worked out, one may note Davis v. Beason cited below, where Mormons were forbidden to practice polygamy, an early tenet of their faith, because it was contrary to Moral Law as understood by historic Christianity. unquote ChristianObserver.org » The United States Constitution and Christianity

You are a typical liberal/ NDP calling those who disagree with you "racist". That is the calling card of liberal-left. Better look up the definition of racist. To be a racist one must be biased against a race. I oppose false religion and evil ideology and do not want more of that brought into this country. That is not racist. Third world people have many problems. But that should not determine Canada's immigration policy. A country has the right to only take in people who will be a benefit to their country and not cause harm. The proof that Socialism and liberalism is harmful would fill many books. Right now the Socialist ideology is causing a crisis in the public health care system. The liberal NDP promise everything but they are unable to deliver by putting sufficient money into it. They do not put enough money into the health care system and yet won't allow people to pay for some private care themselves. That is evil Socialism. A vast number of people in BC need image scanning for cancer but the system does not have enough resources to take care of these people. Many might receive screening too late. Cancer can spread fast. The liberal NDP care nothing about anything except votes in the immigration policy.

I don't know what you know about Christianity, but it sounds like you know nothing. I don't exhibit any hate for people. That is your third world anti-Christian bias coming out. Yes, I hate evil political ideologies such as Communism, Socialism, Marxism, and progressivism, liberalism, and what have you. Why should anyone who believes in God and his word, be expected to embrace and like evil? Your logic is faulty. But that is because of your unbelieving background. You still believe all religions and cultures are equally valid and should be recognized as equals. Total nonsense. God rejects all false gods in the Bible and forbids the worship or even the recognition of them. So multiculturalism must be rejected on that basis alone. Christ does not love evil and he does not expect any of his followers to embrace those who love evil. It's quite simple. Christianity is a broad word embraced by anyone today even if they don't believe in the Bible, which is God's revelation to man. Your idea that church and state are separate is nonsense. That claim is a liberal left, Commie invention. First there is no such thing as the State of North America. There is the U.S.A. and there is Canada. The U.S. recognizes the supremacy of God in it's Constitution. God and the Constitution (christianpost.com) Canada's Charter of Rights does the same. There is a serious shortcoming to this though. Canada's Charter does not specifically recognize the Christian God, but recognizes all gods, which means the heathen gods, which are false. The important point is Canada and America were founded by Judeo-Christian civilization and culture. That is a historical fact. Multiculturalism is an attempt to embrace heathen cultures and in doing so, creates problems. One problem is Christianity brought with it the recognition of basic freedoms such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion, etc. These are unknown in the third world. So people coming from the third world have no understanding of the importance of basic freedoms. You can dance around that all you want, but it is still a fact. Socialism is a rejection of those basic freedoms. Socialism is intent on establishing a totalitarian society with no individual rights as it is in China or Russia.