Jump to content


Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by blackbird

  1. To start with, your first link is to an environmental organization, Environmental Defence Fund (EDF), which is biased anyway. Enviro organizations blame man for everything in general and worship Mother Earth. That is their purpose for being. I read their so-called evidence. It appears to make assumptions but there is still no proof that man is the cause. Their claims are simply assumptions, not scientific proof according to the scientific method. But here is something else to consider about what they said. Did you know the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04% of the atmosphere or 410 PPM. Yet the amount of water vapour is up to 4% or up to 100 times greater than the amount of CO2 and water vapour is known to be a greenhouse gas which causes warming of the atmosphere. Now, why did EDF not mention that water vapour is a greenhouse gas and the amount in the atmosphere is up to 100 times greater than CO2? Since they are so concerned about global warming, why did they not mention water vapour, (H2O)? Also, EDF does not mention the fact that the big GHG emitters such as China emit about 30% of the world's fossil emissions, while Canada emits only about 1.5%, a miniscule amount. So even if Canada makes major cuts while China cuts very little, it will have negligible effect, if you assume fossil emissions are the root cause of global warming problem. So if they really believe GHG are the cause of GW, why don't they go after the largest emitters like China and India? Why are they not out protesting in front of the Chinese embassies and talking about China? No, instead they are concentrating on the western developed countries because they want us to contribute 100 billion dollars to the third world. Your second link, nasa.gov, is actually just a list of organizations which support the consensus view. It makes much of the view that "climate is changing", but I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Of course climate is changing. It always has changed. We have had warm periods in the past. 2,000 years ago we had the Roman Warming period and in the Middle Ages we had the Middle Ages warming period which lasted for centuries. It was likely at warm in those two periods or warmer than it is now and there was no industry or fossil fuels involved. So what was the cause in those periods? Secondly, this link doesn't go into the causes other than to say it is very "likely" caused by man. They offer the claim that it is "scientific consensus" as the primary argument. But consensus is not proof. In the past, man had consensus beliefs in things that were later abandoned, such as the sun revolved around the earth and other things that nobody believes today. They don't mention the fact that there are many scientists who give good reasons for disagreeing with the consensus and don't believe there is any cause for climate change alarmism. I will read what I can of your other links as time permits and may comment further.
  2. You still have not given one scintilla of evidence that man is causing climate change in spite of all your professions to believe science.
  3. Since we have the internet and smart phones with video conferencing covering much of the world, I am sure we will instantly see plenty of Trudeau's political posturing and virtue signaling at the G20 and COP26 in Europe in the next two weeks. It will be no surprise to see plenty of promises as he promises everything under the sun to be paid for by the Canadian taxpayers in the phony war against climate change. God in heaven must be laughing at the fake and pompous asses as they think they can play god with climate.
  4. The question of climate change is beyond the scope of the normal scientific method of proof. That is the problem. So you can read all the "peer-reviewed" published articles you like and reject all the non peer-reviewed you like, but you won't find anything that fits into the historic scientific method. I'm sure scientists on both sides are sincere, but because of the nature of the subject, i.e. the earth is so large and the environment so complex, it is one of those things that cannot be boiled down to a provable experiment. All we can go by is our own opinions and supposition. Try not to let political predispositions influence your reasoning. What one believes is based on purely subjective opinion. Nothing has been proven about what exactly is causing climate change. Just remember that. So those who make dogmatic claims that man is the cause are really making assumptions because there is no proof. It is purely subjective and based on presumptions that are unproven. In law we live in a democratic society where a person is innocent unless proven guilty. It appears in the climate change subject, man is guilty without being proven guilty. This is partly the result of much secular humanist hatred for mankind and the belief that there is no God who created the universe and mankind. They demote mankind to just another animal and fail to recognize God as the supreme person over and above the created earth and universe and Lord of all. So as a consequence they elevate man to some kind of god who they think can control the climate and weather. This is a very bloated ego of self importance and false image of man. This is a self destructive and fatal mistake. That means the cure could end up being worse than the disease. Great harm could be done to mankind by destroying what we have in a futile attempt to control the climate or redistribute wealth around the world as they are planning to do. That is Trudeau's ideology.
  5. "A peer-reviewed article is published in a peer-reviewed journal only after it has been subjected to multiple critiques by scholars in that field. Peer-reviewed journals follow this procedure to make sure that published articles reflect solid scholarship and advance the state of knowledge in a discipline." In other words, a peer-reviewed article must be one that has been reviewed and approved by the majority in a particular discipline. Since the question of man-made climate change is disputed by a segment of professionals, I don't see how someone with an opinion at odds with the majority would fit into the peer-review process. Obviously, their opinion will not be accepted. So it is pointless to claim that as any kind of useful process where opinions are in opposition. You may be able to find debates on the subject where you would hear both points of view and you can make up your own mind which one you believe. But you obviously are trying to isolate professionals who disagree with the majority by saying their opinion does not count. In the case of climate change, since there are people for and people against the consensus opinion, there would be few peer-reviewed papers on the subject which disagree with the consensus.
  6. His name is reportedly on the 650 list, a list of 650 scientists who dispute the man-made claims of global warming. 650 List: The names on the 650 list
  7. Presentation of Evidence Suggesting Temperature Drives Atmospheric CO2 more than CO2 Drives Temperature – Watts Up With That?
  8. The conclusion of Allan M.R. MacRae's paper is: CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING: THE FUTURE CAN NOT CAUSE THE PAST He says in one place: " CO2 emissions due to human activity rose gradually from the onset of the Industrial Revolution, reaching ~1 billion tonnes per year (expressed as carbon) by 1945, and then accelerated to ~9 billion tonnes per year by 2007. Since ~1945 when CO2 emissions accelerated, Earth experienced ~22 years of warming, and ~40 years of either cooling or absence of warming. The IPCC’s position that increased CO2 is the primary cause of global warming is not supported by the temperature data."
  9. OK you want a published paper. Here is what this author refers to is a paper he published which shows CO2 increase lags temperature increases. Presentation of Evidence Suggesting Temperature Drives Atmospheric CO2 more than CO2 Drives Temperature – Watts Up With That? This paper says in part the following. I won't paste the whole thing. You could go to the website above. quote Presentation of Evidence Suggesting Temperature Drives Atmospheric CO2 more than CO2 Drives Temperature 6 years ago Guest Blogger Note: I present this for discussion, I have no opinion on its validity -Anthony Watts Guest essay by Allan MacRae Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt varies ~contemporaneously with temperature, which reflects the fact that the water cycle and the CO2 cycle are both driven primarily by changes in global temperatures (actually energy flux – Veizer et al). To my knowledge, I initiated in January 2008 the hypothesis that dCO2/dt varies with temperature (T) and therefore CO2 lags temperature by about 9 months in the modern data record, and so CO2 could not primarily drive temperature. Furthermore, atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales. http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/ In my Figure 1 and 2, global dCO2/dt is closely correlated with global Lower Tropospheric Temperature (LT) and Surface Temperature (ST). The temperature and CO2 datasets are collected completely independently, and yet this close correlation exists. I also demonstrated the same close correlation with different datasets, using Mauna Loa CO2 data and Hadcrut3 ST back to 1958. I subsequently examined the close correlation of LT measurements taken by satellite and those taken by radiosonde. Earlier papers by Kuo (1990) and Keeling (1995) discussed the delay of CO2 after temperature, although neither appeared to notice the even closer correlation of dCO2/dt with temperature. This correlation is noted in my Figures 3 and 4. My hypothesis received a hostile reaction from both sides of the fractious global warming debate. All the “global warming alarmists” and most “climate skeptics” rejected it. First I was just deemed wrong – the dCO2/dt vs T relationship was allegedly a “spurious correlation”. Later it was agreed that I was correct, but the resulting ~9 month CO2-after-T lag was dismissed as a “feedback effect”. This remains the counter-argument of the global warming alarmists – apparently a faith-based rationalization to be consistent with their axiom “WE KNOW that CO2 drives temperature”. This subject has generated spirited discussion among scientists. Few now doubt the close correlation dCO2/dt vs T. Some say that humankind is not the primary cause of the current increase in atmospheric CO2 – that it is largely natural. Others rely on the “mass balance argument” to refute this claim. Unquote For the rest, click on the link above.
  10. You are free to only accept "published papers" whatever that means. It sounds more like an escape hatch so you don't have to face reality. In this day and age, many scientists and experts simple publish their findings or views through established organizations which have websites. If you don't want to accept that, that's your problem. You are limiting yourself to one viewpoint. Stick with Bernie Sanders. I'll go with the many professionals and scientists who publicly express their opinion outside the controlled medium of the "consensus talking points". Quote The latest talking point of progressive politicians, pundits, and activists is that America cannot afford not to spend trillions of dollars to “solve the climate crisis” because global warming is an existential threat. As Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) put it, “You cannot go too far on the issue of climate change. The future of the planet is at stake, OK?” Abysmal Benefit-Cost Ratio That is sham wisdom even if climate change were the terror Sen. Sanders imagines it to be. The resources available to public and private decision makers are finite. Resources allocated to “climate action” are no longer available to make mortgage payments, pay college tuitions, grow food, fund medical innovation, or build battleships. Prudent policymakers therefore not only consider the costs of policy proposals but also compare the different benefit-cost ratios of competing expenditures. As it happens, the benefit-cost ratios of carbon suppression policies are abysmal. For example, just the direct expenditures for the electric sector portion of the Green New Deal would, conservatively estimated, cost $490.5 billion per year, or $3,845 per year per household, according to American Enterprise Institute economist Benjamin Zycher. Yet even complete elimination of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would avert only 0.083°C to 0.173°C of global warming 70 years from now—a policy impact too small to discernibly affect weather patterns, crop yields, polar bear populations, or any other environmental condition people care about. The climate “benefit” over the next 10 years would be even more miniscule. Yet during that period, Zycher estimates, the annual economic cost of the GND electric sector program would be about $9 trillion. It is unwise to spend so much to achieve so little. Quote No Planetary Emergency The doomsday interpretation of climate change is a political doctrine. It is not a scientific finding, as Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg shows in a recent series of tweets and University of Alabama in Huntsville atmospheric scientist John Christy explains in a new paper titled “Falsifying Climate Alarm.” In the aforementioned tweets, Lomborg rebuts an op-ed by Nobel economist Joseph Stigletz, who advocates spending trillions of dollars annually to combat climate change, which he calls “our World War III.” As evidence, Stigletz claims that in recent years weather-related damages cost the U.S. economy 2 percent of GDP—a figure for which he gives no reference. Lomborg deftly sets the record straight. Aon Benfield reinsurers estimate that during 2000-2017, weather-related damages cost the United States about $88 billion annually, or 0.48 percent of GDP per year, not 2 percent. More importantly, extreme weather is a natural feature of the Earth’s climate system. The vast majority of those damages would have occurred with or without climate change. “Does Stiglitz believe there is no bad weather without climate change?” Lomborg asks. Unquote Bjorn Lomborg and John Christy Shred Climate Alarmism - Competitive Enterprise Institute (cei.org)
  11. Well, I don't know if a published paper is printed on the internet. But there are letters and video messages from groups of scientists refuting the climate alarmism of the U.N. IPCC. You might find some "published papers" on the internet if you spend some time searching around. But I'm not sure what the difference is between "published papers" and posted letters from groups of scientists. You seem to be trying to find an escape from reality. We live in the days of the internet now where the internet is used more than anything else to communicate ideas. Universities often do not even allow scientists or professors to be hired unless they tow the U.N. IPCC line. So if you want to see only a published paper that has been approved by the U.N. IPCC, that contradicts the UN narrative, why would there be such a thing? In other words, large universities may only allow "consensus" papers to be approved for publication, that is, papers in agreement with the U.N. or the majority. The word "consensus" means majority opinion. So if all you are looking for is a consensus or majority opinion, you might as well drop the subject. You would then not be open to other points of view. "The video above is from Friends of Science, a Canada-based “non-profit organization run by dedicated volunteers comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals.” On the same day last week that Greta Thunberg made an impassioned speech to the United Nations about her fears of a climate emergency, a group of 500 prominent scientists and professionals, led by the CLINTEL co-founder Guus Berkhout, sent this registered letter to the United Nations Secretary-General stating that there is no climate emergency and climate policies should be designed to benefit the lives of people. Here’s the press release, here’ the list of 500 signees, and here’s the opening of the letter: A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have the honor to address to Your Excellencies the attached European Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors. The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose. Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions of dollars on the basis of results from such immature models. Current climate policies pointlessly and grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, reliable electrical energy. We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation Here are the specific points about climate change highlighted in the letter: 1 Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming. 2. Warming is far slower than predicted. 3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models. 4. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a plant food that is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide. 5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters. 6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities. 7. There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic. MP: What about that “consensus” and “settled science” about climate change we always hear about? How can there be a consensus when there’s a global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields who challenge the “settled science”? Actually, challenging the consensus among the scientific community is nothing new, but those the voices of those challenging the consensus are always drowned out by the tsunami of climate hysteria from the climate alarmists. For example, in 2012 a group of more than 125 scientists sent an open letter to the United Nations warning that scientific evidence refuted UN Secretary-General’s Ban Ki-Moon repeated assertions on weather and climate. Those warnings of climate hysteria unsupported by the scientific evidence were ignored in 2012, just like the letter from the 500 prominent scientists and professionals will be ignored in 2019. In other words, it’s “deja vu all over again.” 500 experts say there is no emergency as the U.N. claims. There is no climate emergency, say 500 experts in letter to the United Nations | American Enterprise Institute - AEI
  12. I gave gave you the link in my post above where Clintel is mentioned. All you have to do is put Clintel on a search line and you will find it. 900 scientists and professionals have signed onto Clintel. The Clintel website has different pages which describe who they are, etc. Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL) climate change and climate policy You asked for actual scientists behind organizations like Clintel. The following ambassadors of Clintel include many professors. World Climate Declaration AMBASSADORS NOBEL LAUREATE PROFESSOR IVAR GIAEVER NORWAY/USA PROFESSOR GUUS BERKHOUT / THE NETHERLANDS KEES LEPAIR / THE NETHERLANDS PROFESSOR REYNALD DU BERGER / FRENCH SPEAKING CANADA TERRY DUNLEAVY / NEW ZEALAND VIV FORBES / AUSTRALIA PROFESSOR JEFFREY FOSS / ENGLISH SPEAKING CANADA JENS MORTON HANSEN / DENMARK MORTEN JØDAL † / NORWAY SOTIRIS kAMENOPOULOS / GREECE FERDINAND MEEUS / DUTCH SPEAKING BELGIUM PROFESSOR RICHARD LINDZEN / USA HENRI A. MASSON / FRENCH SPEAKING BELGIUM PROFESSOR INGEMAR NORDIN / SWEDEN JIM O’BRIEN / REPUBLIC OF IRELAND PROFESSOR IAN PLIMER / AUSTRALIA DOUGLAS POLLOCK / CHILE DR. BLANCA PARGA LANDA / SPAIN PROFESSOR ALBERTO PRESTININZI / ITALY PROFESSOR BENOÎT RITTAUD / FRANCE DR. THIAGO MAIA / BRAZIL PROFESSOR FRITZ VAHRENHOLT / GERMANY THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY / UNITED KINGDOM DUŠAN BIŽIĆ / CROATIA, BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, SERBIA AND MONTE NEGRO The Clintel website has a link to a number of interviews with professionals who explain why they believe what they do. INTERVIEWS - Clintel Trudeau excels at gender balance and inclusivity supposedly, but how much does he really know about climate change and views other than the dogma from the U.N. IPCC?
  13. Hah! A single climate scientist? quote On the eve of the UN COP26 climate conference in Glasgow, CLINTEL, an organization of over 925 scientists and scholars has called out the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for false claims of a climate crisis in the policymakers summary (SPM). Friends of Science says this critique and the Allan Inquiry reports show the Tar Sands Campaign environmental groups are misleading the public on climate change and the Alberta oil sands. Unquote COP26 Eve - CLINTEL Calls out IPCC on False Claims of Climate Crisis says Friends of Science | Benzinga It is easy to find scientists who disagree with the man-made climate change alarmists. If you are counting the number of scientists who agree and the number who disagree, then you are not going by the scientific method or reason. It then becomes pure politics.
  14. This short 2 minutes video is a preview of a longer video on the subject which one can purchase on their website. But it mentions the fact the major cause of global warming is water vapour, not CO2. CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere and there is no proof that man-made CO2 (fossil fuels) is causing global warming and if it is, how much. Watch this: The Great Global Warming Debate, Featuring Mike Oard - YouTube
  15. No, not every scientist believes in the GW alarmism claims. The fact is very few scientists are even in the field of climate science. quote Scientists who disagree with the claimed consensus In 2016 alone, over 500 papers were published in peer-reviewed science journals that seriously questioned the supposed ‘consensus’ on climate change.33 Some high-profile scientists who dispute the alarmism include:34 Lennart O. Bengtsson, who was Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany. John R. Christy, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Roy Spencer, University of Alabama in Huntsville, and NASA. He and Dr John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites.35 Judith A. Curry, who due to the “craziness” of the politicization of climate science, in 2017 took early retirement from her position as Professor in the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, USA, a position she had held for 15 years. Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, contributed to the IPCC’s 1995 and 2001 reports, but became skeptical of the alarmist climate model projections. Nir J. Shaviv, Professor and Chair of the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. There are many others. In September 2019, a global network of 500 prominent climate scientists and professionals stated that there is no ‘climate emergency’. They invited the UN to organize with them a constructive high-level meeting between world-class scientists on both sides of the climate debate early in 2020.36 When we consider the persecution that dissenters have experienced (e.g. Dr Judith Curry mentioned above), we see another parallel to the creation/evolution debate. In both cases, dissenters from both the Darwinian and climate-alarmism paradigms have been demoted and even fired.37,38 Unquote Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) at creation.com website, This article is a scientific and biblical approach to climate change by Don Batten
  16. So you are unable to provide any proof that man-made climate change is real. No surprise. What I expected. CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere, but that doesn't prove man-made CO2 causes climate change because climate has always changed. In fact the climate was just as warm or warmer 2000 years ago in the Roman Warming Period and then in the Middle Ages in that warming period that lasted for several hundred years. The fact is water vapour (H2O) is a significant part of the atmosphere and also causes global warming but that is not mentioned because it doesn't fit the narrative of those who want to blame mankind for GW. Graphs demonstrate the rising temperature has not occurred evenly with the increase of CO2. The correlation is not really clear plus just because something happens at the same time as temperature increases does not prove that is what caused it. The stock market went up also at times but it doesn't prove the stock market caused GW. quote The now-infamous ‘hockey stick’ graph (Figure 5) produced by Michael Mann (Penn State University) and co-authors was the lynchpin of the AGW movement. The IPCC used the graph in the Summary for Policy Makers in their Third Assessment Report (2001). It was very influential. The graph was exposed as fraudulent; it ‘erased’ the Medieval Warm Period from the temperature record, and worse.52 Mann even sued a critic, lost, and then refused to pay the court-ordered costs. Underlining how corrupt climate science has become, instead of being disgraced, Mann was awarded the 2019 Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement! Unquote "Figure 5. The fraudulent ‘hockey stick’ graph where the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age have been erased, giving the false impression of a thousand years of stability prior to radical recent warming.53" A biblical and scientific approach to climate change - creation.com Trying to equate smoking causes cancer with man-made climate change is a huge stretch because cancer from smoking was easily proven by statistics and damage to the lungs where lung cancer occurs. There is no similarity with man-made climate change. There have been many fraudulent claims on the subject of climate change which have later turned out to be false. Examples would be disappearance of the artic ice caps, disappearance of polar bears, the UN warning in 1989 that life on earth would be catastrophic by the year 2000 with major flooding and loss of islands. Never happened. Yet the UN IPCC is believed as the last word on climate change. Politicians like Trudeau and many others got on the bandwagon, without having a clue of science to do with it, because it is a political cash cow for them. Much of the world has been deceived into believing all the lies and deception around the subject. Trudeau left this morning on his jet to fly around Europe for six days, wining and dining, and hob knobbing with the liberal elites of Europe as they discuss how they are going to save us all and save the planet from the boggy man of man-made climate change. I assume his right hand environmental climate change radical will be going to the climate conference too on the taxpayer dime. Note the Roman Warming Period, 2000 years ago, and the MIddle Ages Warming Period were strangely left out of the famous hockey stick graph. I wonder why.
  17. Thank you for your back-handed approval of the comment. I must be on the right track. "lies and anti-science"??? Science requires proof. Do you have anything that proves man-made climate change is true; i.e. something that is proven by the scientific method? No, because it is just political bafflegab and has not been proven. There never has been any proof because the size of the earth and the complexity of the environment prevents such a thing from being replicated or proven.
  18. This might be triggering to some; fasten your seat belt. But is must be said because it seems to be factual. "Racism In Reverse: Trudeau Government Endorse “Critical Race Theory” Racism In Reverse: Trudeau Government Endorse "Critical Race Theory" (capforcanada.com) Quote Should Anglophones be basking in glory of our unique status according to our government? Not quite, fellow patriots. What we have here is nothing short of systemic racism against Canadians with white skin. Trudeau & Team claim that non-white hating “systemic racism” lies at the heart of our society. This race-oriented “cancer” is intrinsic among Canadian “peoplekind.” Talk about the epitome of political hypocrisy. Media say nothing of the sort. In fact, the sole contribution of CBC, CTV, Globe & Mail and Toronto Star has been to bury the agenda. A quick glance at the government of Canada’s recent anti-racism materials reveal the following: “While assumptions and stereotypes about white people do exist, this is considered racial prejudice–not racism.” A genius distinction, no? Can you believe this pseudo-intellectual clap-trap makes the grade according to academia and government? What the Anglo-bashers are pushing here is simple in conception: Racism against white Canadians is an impossibility. Which so obviously makes racism an “exclusive” for every one else. Witness the fate of Anglophone Canada— shunned, excluded, maligned and racist-for-life. Irony of ironies! Your know what these academic geniuses call this? Try “multiculturalism,” diversity, and gasp– social equality. Unquote Now with the new Liberal cabinet appointing two environmental radicals to the ministries of Environment and Natural Resources, western Canada is in double trouble. First western Canada has the major part of the energy industry and this will now be under strong attack by the two newly-minted ministers who are radical environmentalists. Secondly, most people in western Canada, particularly Alberta and Saskatchewan, are white Anglophones. These are two strikes against them in the liberal mind. First they are part of the oil and gas resource economy and second they are white Anglophones. Trudeau has created the worst monster in the history of Canada to cause division and threaten the livelihood of western Canadians and the general prosperity of Canada. The new word to fight the great evil monster of climate change is "transition", meaning of course to kill the oil and gas (fossil fuel) industry. Never mind that there is no proof that greenhouse gas is driving climate change, no proof man is causing climate change, and no proof that man can do anything about it. It is a fact that water vapour (H2O) is a major driver of global warming and water vapour levels in the atmosphere varies widely. But the secular humanists hate mankind and believe man is the culprit by using oil and gas to live, work, and feed his family. Therefore the ideology of this Marxist liberal cabal is to kill the oil and gas industry and redistribute Canada's wealth to the third world countries to ostensibly fight climate change. Four billion dollars has now been committed to the third world under the claim of fighting climate change. How many houses could be built for Canadians or partially subsidized with four billions dollars to alleviate the housing shortage. How many water treatment plants could be build on native communities to get them off boil water advisories with a fraction of that money?
  19. There is an interesting book "Why Nazism was Socialism and Why Socialism is Totalitarian" by George Reisman available on Amazon. Fascism, Socialism, and Communism are all evil ideologies which destroy human rights and fundamental freedom. A heathen or pagan country is always in danger of drifting into one of those ideological systems because it has no solid foundation; it is building on sand. "24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it." Matthew 7:24-27 KJB People or a nations which have not built their belief system and life on the solid foundation of God and his word are open to the powers of darkness which are constantly at work to deceive mankind to follow them and their ideologies. How often in history have we seen this happen. We have all kinds of cults, some of clearly a religious nature and others of a secular humanist or worldly nature.
  20. You are correct to a degree, but I would add many dispute the existence of the Biblical God and his creation of the universe and mankind and his involvement with mankind in the way the Bible describes. So that issue should be the most important. But it is difficult to say absolutely what is the most important issue ever. If one does not believe in the Biblical God, then that is a stumbling block and major issue too. There is a video of a 1 hour 47 minute debate between the famous atheist, Richard Dawkins and John Lennox, which you may find interesting. Richard Dawkins vs John Lennox | The God Delusion Debate - Bing video
  21. Anyone who wants to know what God thinks of so-call progressive governments and radical activist's ideology needs to get the book "Progressive Evil: How Radicals Are Redefining America's Rights, Institutions, and Ideals, Making Her Globally Irrelevant for the End Times" Format Kindle Whether one wants to know or not what God thinks, God still holds us accountable for what we believe and do. Available on Amazon as a kindle book for $9.99 or soft cover for $24.07. Progressive Evil: How Radicals Are Redefining America's Rights, Institutions, and Ideals, Making Her Globally Irrelevant for the End Times eBook: Maginnis, LTC Robert L.: Amazon.ca: Kindle Store "20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!" Isaiah 5:20, 21 King James Bible "Interestingly, the Bible makes no argument for the existence of God. Instead, the Bible assumes God’s existence from the very first few words, “In the beginning, God…” The biblical writers did not feel a need, apparently, to offer arguments for the existence of God. To deny the existence of God is foolish (Psalm 14:1). Yet, sadly, many in our day do deny the existence of God. Some deny his existence because they do not want to be accountable to God, and others because they have a difficult time understanding how God can exist and the world be so broken. Even so, the Psalmist was right, theism is rational, and to deny God is not. In this post we will briefly visit many rational arguments for the existence of God." Is God Real? 17 Existence Of God Arguments (Proof Of God) (biblereasons.com) To the non-believer I would say there are many websites that go into this and refute the claims of atheists and show how terribly wrong they are. There are even debates on youtube between the famous atheist Richard Dawkins and professor John Lennox, which you may find interesting. Richard Dawkins vs John Lennox | The God Delusion Debate - Bing video
  22. Well I guess Creation versus the Theory of Evolution is not a periphery issue, but some people are just not open to anything. I wouldn't say it is the most important issue ever. The question of where one is heading is pretty important; heaven or hell. I'm not sure I said Satan was controlling science. He is a dominant force in the world system. I can't say he controls things like science. That doesn't sound like the correct way to look at it. He does seem to control much of the world's thinking though. But God is greater and God can convince anyone of anything if he so chooses to do so. You could download a book called "Satan" by Lewis Sperry Chafer on Amazon. The kindle version is not too expensive. That will tell you probably more than you want to know but you will learn an incredible amount if you take it in. I could tell you a little about Satan, his origin and goal. He was one of God's most beautiful angels in heaven in the distant past. There is a common belief he is an ugly being with horns or some other grotesque figure. But this is not correct. "15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. 16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. 17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. 18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. 19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more." Ezekiel 28:15-18 KJB There is information about him if you put "Satan origin" or similar wording in a search window. He is quite willing to do anything to achieve his goal to be like the most high, God. He has most of the world deceived into believing he doesn't even exist. That allows him to work on his agenda. I will let you dig into it. Let me know what you find out. I am not sure what you meant with the last line, "couldn't the same thing be said of people who believe the bible to be true?"
  23. Bible believers don't have much control over what the non-believing world does and evolution is taught in the public schools systems, probably practically everywhere. It is not the job of Bible believers or churches to change the world system which is basically under the control of Satan. The main thing for Bible believers and churches is to share the gospel. I don't think a lot of energy should be wasted on trying to change the world's belief system on those periphery issues. Not likely going to convince anyone who doesn't believe the Bible. I'm not sure what you believe. Do you have any beliefs? The only thing offhand I can think of that would not conform to the Bible is the old earth theories which claim the earth is millions or hundreds of millions of years old. A well-known Bible theologian has estimated the age of the earth at around six to ten thousand years I believe, although there is no precise age given or known. The apparent old age of earth is explained by viewing it as having been created with an apparent old age at the time of creation, a supernatural event. People who do not believe in a God of the Bible who has supernatural, infinite power would likely believe whatever the world tells them.
  24. Colossians 2:16 “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:” King James Version (KJV) Also see: BIBLE VERSES ABOUT LAW AND GRACE (kingjamesbibleonline.org)
  25. Good question. The answer for me is I have been blessed to have been exposed to dispensational theology beginning through a Minister at a church I attended. Then books and articles on the internet on the dispensations. This divides the Bible into different ages or dispensations. The Old Testament, which you quoted, only applies to the nation of Israel at that time or age in history. The church age began in the New Testament age or age of grace. The beginning of the Church age is described in the beginning of the book of Acts. Therefore the Church is not under the Old Testament laws and commandment given to Israel in the first five books of the Bible. Although the ten commandments for the most part are universally accepted as applicable today, perhaps because their principles are re-stated in the New Testament in some ways. In regard to the sabbath laws, that was strictly directed to the nation of Israel in Old Testament times and does not apply to the Church today. But the principle of a day of rest of one day in seven is a universal principle because God rested on the seventh day after he created everything. We recognize Sunday as the day of rest, but it is not a Biblical commandment. Perhaps one studying the Bible might realize the Church started in the New Testament era, but there are many different interpretations of the Bible. That is why there are so many different denominations, although most Protestant denominations still agree on some of the basic teachings. For more information on dispensational theology, you can Google it as well as read this article: Dispensational Theology - The Gospel Coalition
  • Create New...