blackbird

I just read a sentence on Wikipedia where it said CO2 has increased in the atmosphere by 50% since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Can you believe this? This is like saying the amount of oxygen or any other gas in the atmosphere changed by 50% in a couple hundred years. Or that the amount of water in the ocean increased by 50%. Total nonsense. CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere and 97% of the CO2 is there by nature or naturally. " This is an increase of 50% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, up from 280 ppm during the 10,000 years prior to the mid-18th century.[4][3][5] The increase is due to human activity.[6]" Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia If anyone wants to believe this, that's up to them. I don't. The truth is they should have said the amount of CO2 emitted by human causes increased since the Industrial Revolution perhaps by 50% but the total CO2 certainly did not. 97% of the atmosphere is natural CO2 and man contributes only 3% to begin with. But they conveniently did not mention that.

And you still think putting more and more carbon taxes on everyone and killing our vital energy industry will stop climate change and these forest fires. Sad. Climate change is natural and man cannot stop it any more than stop the hurricanes every year.

It is a Biblical fact that Satan exists and is a very powerful being in this world. Non-believers are unknowingly serving him constantly. But there is deliverance possible. Spending your life as a servant of Satan is a real waste of life and may have a very bitter, unhappy ending as well as disastrous consequences in this life as countless people have found. If you want to be delivered, the King James Bible is a good place to start. Satan is no match for the triune God and His Son Jesus Christ. There is no other way to be delivered. Serious questions welcome, but only serious. "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:12 King James Version

You are dreaming in technicolour. You have a totally false conception of climate change and what it is caused by. Atmospheric CO2 is 97% caused by nature and it is an essential gas for life on earth. Man's contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is miniscule. There is no proof man's small contribution is even causing climate change. There are many factors that contribute to climate change. There is no science that ever proved man is causing global warming or climate change. Canada's fossil fuel CO2 contribution to the atmosphere is a very small part of the whole of what man contributes . Man contributes about 3% of the total CO2. Out of that China contributes 28% and Canada contributes a tiny fraction of that. Climate has changed throughout history many times. The earth has had many hot periods throughout history long before the industrial age, that is before motor vehicles existed. Nothing to do with man. Quit smoking all that pot.

Good work!!! I was purely speculating but looks like I hit the nail on the head. Too bad Trudeau, minister Guilbeault and the rest of the war-on-climate-change clowns will never recognize it and admit they are wasting their time and our money. If that was it for 2021 imagine how much worse it will be for 2023 as the fires are much worse.

Just wondered how much CO2 all these hundreds of forest fires across Canada are emitting into the atmosphere. The forest fires probably emit more CO2 than humans emit in ten years with fossil fuels. But the climate change alarmists and fanatics and Trudeau will never admit that.

This news item gives a fairly good idea of the political beliefs of the present Pope. It reveals he is a progressive, Socialist, and his beliefs have nothing to do with Biblical Christianity. He is a kind of populist and believes and advocates what appeals to the heathen world. It is all about winning popularity with unbelievers or non-Christian heathen. That is what matters to him. Bible truth is of no consequence. He must actually believe that Jesus was some kind of Socialist or progressive, which of course is a blasphemy. Pope Francis: all you need to know about the Progressive Pontiff (msn.com) First of all Socialism or wealth re-distribution is contrary to the commandment 'thou shalt not steal". Secondly, his embracing all religions is exactly contrary to what Jesus would do. Jesus taught there is no salvation apart from faith in Him. See gospel of John for proof. Embracing people with unbiblical beliefs on sexuality and in effect, condoning it all is also completely contrary to what Jesus and the Bible teaches. The Bible says to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness. He obviously rejects the Bible and believes acknowledging anything and everything as acceptable. This is secular humanism, which God rejects in the Bible. This is much like what Trudeau, Biden, and other Liberal Papists do. Trudeau said today to people who wanted pride flags at schools who rejected them, not to worry; the government will fly a pride flag on Parliament Hill. The Pope is the complete opposite of Jesus Christ and advocates and promotes everything that is in direct opposition to God and the Bible. He may win popularity contests in this world. Jesus took the opposite position as did his believers. That is why he was crucified and his followers were persecuted and martyred over the centuries. The same situation exists today in the world. If you want to be loved by the world, follow the Pope's example. "13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: {strait: or, narrow} 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Matthew 7:13 KJV

OK maybe I did. I might have made a mistake. I do admit I sometimes use the wrong word or words. Now, are you a Romanist or what is your religious background?

Yes, you are correct. I did use the word refugee because I was replying to you question. You said "Would you be in favour of allowing a ship of Muslim refugees to land in Canada from Iran who are trying to escape the Ayatollah?" You also referred to one ship of Muslim refugees. I answered accordingly. Not sure what you are driving at. I have clarified. A ship of Muslim refugees is not the same as mass immigration. This has drifted away from the topic quite far now. I think I have said enough on refugees.

Yes, I still am concerned. The white European founding people are a declining people in Canada. Refugees are not the same thing as immigrants. I was talking about immigrants from the third world who are growing at a faster rate and the European founding people are declining in Canada.

There is no change. You asked if am opposed to a boatload of Muslim refugees coming in. I told you I am not opposed if they are legitimate refugees such as Afghans in danger by the Taliban. That is different from mass immigration from the third world. You asked about refugees on an emergency basis and I said I support that depending on the circumstances. That is different than the Liberals plan to bring in half a million immigrants a year from the third world. I oppose that. The problem is not a small number of refugees who are trying to escape death by the Taliban; the problem is mass immigration of hundreds of thousands or half a million people a year from the third world which the Liberals are bringing in. Romanists beliefs in just getting rid of the border and allowing everyone in the world to come in. What do you think? Should we have borders and immigration restrictions or not?

Of course. Canada already allowed thousands of refugees to come to Canada, but it's record of helping them is not perfect. It seems to get tangled up in bureaucracy sometimes.

Then there is the question of why Romanist-controlled Canada refused to allow a ship of German- Jewish refugees to enter Canada and save them from the Holocaust. Just prior to the outbreak of WW2 in 1939, Ireland also refused to let German Jewish refugees and other refugees to settle there.

Here is another important fact of history that many are not aware of. The Republic of Ireland, a Romanist country, was neutral in World War II. While the allies and many Canadians gave their lives in the defence of freedom and to oppose the Nazis, Ireland was able to stand on the sidelines and do nothing. One of the leaders of Ireland said this: quote Largely forgotten outside of the British Isles, De Valera towered over Ireland like a colossus – not only did he found the Fianna Fail party and help to establish the Constitution, but he also served as prime minister and president on multiple occasions. Indeed, De Valera founded the modern Irish state, as much as Mustafa Kemal Ataturk created the modern nation of Turkey around the same time. Perhaps the most controversial episode of De Valera's epic career took place in 1945 when – in light of Ireland's neutrality and independent foreign policy during the just-completed Second World War – he, as prime minister, extended his condolences to the vanquished German people over the death of Nazi dictator and architect of the Holocaust Adolf Hitler. unquote The Irish Nationalist And The Nazi: When Eamon De Valera Paid His Respects To Adolf Hitler (ibtimes.com) Why is it heavily Romanist countries such as Italy, Spain, and Ireland seemed to be sympathetic to Hitler and the Nazis?

Romanism always was a threat to freedom and democracy. This has been the case for the past 500 years and continues to be true. Look how the Liberals cozied up to Communist China for the past 50 years. Notice how they are trying to maneuver themselves out of the spotlight about Chinese interference in Canada's elections. The Trudeaus have always had special affection for Fidel Castro and Communist dictators. Trudeau and Liberals thought they could make China become like Liberals. China laughed Trudeau off eight years ago. They must be still laughing at the naivety of Liberals.

Devout Romanists bow down to the Fascist dictator at his death. General Franco: “Hitler fought for Christianity in Europe” – Banjara Origin News (ivarfjeld.com)

There are mountains of evidence to show Romanism is not Christianity by any stretch. quote General Franco of Spain said: “Adolf Hitler, son of the Catholic Church, died while defending Christianity. It is therefore understandable that words cannot be found to lament over his death, when so many were found to exalt his life. Over his mortal remains stands his victorious moral figure. With the palm of the martyr, God gives Hitler the laurels of Victory.” Before World War II, there was an openly fascist political organization in Spain named Falange. The entire Catholic Youth Organization joined the Falange. General Franco’s brother in law, Serrano Suner, was the Catholic Youth secretary, and most of Robles followers also joined. The Falange employed the successful tactics of the Italian fascists and Nazis: physical violence. When the people of Spain resisted the fascist takeover, Pius XI spoke out strongly, calling everyone who was not a fascist a Bolshevik, and blessing “all those who have taken the difficult and dangerous task to defend and reinstate the honor of God and Religion.” Cardinal Pacelli became pope as Pius XII. He congratulated Franco: “With great joy we address you, dearest sons of Catholic Spain, to express our paternal congratulations for the gift of peace and victory, with which God has chosen to crown the Christian heroism of your faith and charity …. unquote General Franco: “Hitler fought for Christianity in Europe” – Banjara Origin News (ivarfjeld.com) But the main reason it is not Christianity is the Bible doesn't support it and if properly understood shows it is a false system.

You are very clever. You made a statement that you are on the right track about Christianity and I am on the wrong track. I asked you to give some proof and you said nothing. No response. You say you put me on ignore. Very clever. So you can say whatever you feel like without any proof or evidence. You don't have to answer any questions because you are ignoring a user you don't want to give an answer to. Very convenient. Good one Michael.

Romanism and liberalism are very closely associated. Anyone who disagrees should explain where I am wrong. It just happens that 95% of Quebec are Romanists and Quebec largely votes Liberals. So it would be hard to argue Liberalism is not Romanism. Trudeau often speaks against social conservatives claiming social conservatives want to take away a woman's "right to choose", that is, to choose to kill her unborn baby. In Romanism there are no consequences for being an immoral politician and supporting such unbiblical beliefs such as abortion, MAID, same-sex marriage, etc. The dictator of Spain, General Franco, had a lot kind words for Hitler. "“Adolf Hitler, son of the Catholic Church, died while defending Christianity. It is therefore understandable that words cannot be found to lament over his death, when so many were found to exalt his life. Over his mortal remains stands his victorious moral figure. With the palm of the martyr, God gives Hitler the laurels of Victory.” General Franco: “Hitler fought for Christianity in Europe” – Banjara Origin News (ivarfjeld.com) Do you seriously want to continue to be associated with Romanism? In Mexico I think you will find organized criminals will always receive a last rites mass and the RC church will not discriminate. Romanism seems to accept any and every behavior, no questions asked.

You are grossly uninformed. Therefore I will give you this link where you can read why the Reformation took place. Your take on why the UK split and why the Reformation took place is so infantile, but I know many Catholics are told this. Their dishonesty and inability to tell the truth is just further proof of the corruption that comes out of the Romanist system. "The Reformation in Europe was caused by several factors1234. These include demands for reform by scholars like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Huldrych Zwingli, the invention of the printing press, the desire of many people to read the Bible in their own language, and the belief that forgiveness comes only from God. The emergence of Protestantism and the establishment of many Protestant churches, groups, and movements were some of the effects of the Reformation1. Reformers like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Henry VIII challenged papal authority and questioned the Catholic Church's ability to define Christian practice5. The Reformation was also a moral revolt against the papal grossness and corruption3." Reformation | Causes & Effects | Britannica You are free to believe whatever you wish.

LOL That is hilarious I have to admit. If you really believe that, you must be a seriously deluded Romanist. Are you a priest or retired one? I've heard that line before but it ignores the reality about the Reformation. While Henry VIII did split with Rome over the disagreement about not being given a divorce, that really had little to do with the Reformation. The split with Rome was happening in various countries in Europe regardless of Henry VIII. The Reformation started in Germany with Martin Luther, who was a Catholic priest, when he nailed his 95 theses on the door of the church in Wittenberg in 1517. Nothing to do with Henry VIII and his divorce. Then there was John Knox in Scotland and John Calvin in Geneva who led the Reformation in those places. Henry VIII also was convinced Rome as a bad influence in Britain. So I believe he confiscated all Romanist monasteries. Is that true? Stop reading and believing all the Romanist propaganda of why the Reformation took place. It also led to 100 years of wars in Europe and many lost their lives. Rome did not give up its power over millions of people without a long, drawn out struggle. It brought freedom which you enjoy today. Without the Reformation, there would be no freedom now in Canada and many western countries. There would probably be no parliaments or democracy. The Jesuits tried to stop the Reformation but failed. They even tried to blow up the British parliament. "Observed in the United Kingdom every year on November 5, Guy Fawkes Day—also called Bonfire Night or Fireworks Night—commemorates a failed assassination attempt from over 400 years ago. On November 5, 1605, Guy Fawkes and a group of radical English Catholics tried to assassinate King James I by blowing up Parliament's House of Lords. The plot went awry and all of the conspirators were executed. Soon after, Britons began to celebrate Fawkes' demise and the survival of their king by burning effigies, lighting bonfires and setting off fireworks—a tradition which has continued to this day." Guy Fawkes Day: A Brief History | HISTORY

You are being ridiculous as usual. There is no hope for a reasonable discussion with you. Christians do not support or advocate punishing people for blasphemous speaking. You know that as well but you are just being contrary as usual.

Oh yes we can prove who is correct or on the right road. Jesus spoke about two roads if I recall correctly. The prophet Isaiah said " 20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20 KJV If you think you have the correct version of Christianity, please give some evidence or proof. Let's examine it honestly and see who is correct. You insist I am wrong and you are correct, but give no proof. Give us the proof that you are correct. What is your basis?

It would be so easy for these deluded Catholics to get a real Bible like the King James Bible and study the New Testament and learn why Romanism is not Christianity. But they blindly follow their religion like many people do and just won't be bothered to are too scared to find out the truth. There are also many website that will give the details about it and explain it. Instead of being a cultist and blindly following a false system to the end, maybe think for yourself for once and learn the truth. It is not that difficult to do.

That comes as no surprise. Just more evidence of how liberalism is often tied to Romanists or lapsed Catholics. You see what I mean then. Many strong liberals are Romanists and that's likely where a lot of their ideology comes from. According to their thinking, Jesus was some kind liberal or Socialist or progressive which are all wrong. The Bible does not support that liberal ideology.