blackbird

Lack of faith in the God of the Bible has serious consequences. It means young people are taught and imbibe a different world view. The world view they are taught is secular or humanist. When God is absent, the individual becomes focused entirely on what humanism teaches them, which is completely contrary to what God teaches about how we came to be here and what the meaning of life is. It becomes strictly a materialistic world view and their minds then become open to humanist political ideologies like Socialism, progressivism, LGBT rights, Marxism, etc. For some they worship Mother Earth, another false religion that relegates man to being just another animal. Such thinking is very prevalent now as we see on social media. According to mother earth worshipers, man was not a special creation and so has no special value in God's eyes, which is totally contrary to Biblical revelation. God created everything for a purpose and has a special place for man in his plan. According to humanism, the creation was just some kind of cosmic accident and there is no purpose to it all.

As Michael Crichton said, “Consensus is the business of politics. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” A biblical and scientific approach to climate change - creation.com "In the USA, the Global Warming Petition Project has garnered the signatures of some 31,500 scientists resident in the USA alone, including over 9,000 with PhDs, who dispute the claim that CO2 will cause serious problems.29 This alone casts serious doubt on the 97% figure. The justification for ‘97%’ has been a 2013 paper that, based on the abstracts of nearly 12,000 climate science papers published from 1991 to 2011, concluded that 97% of those who expressed an opinion endorsed the consensus view that “humans are causing global warming”.30 Based on this, former President Obama’s twitter account declared, “Ninety seven percent of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Note how the paper’s claim morphed from humans are causing some global warming into all climate change is man-made and dangerous. This is deceitful (an activist group called Organising for Action posted the Tweet). Moreover, the study was conducted by members of another activist group, Skeptical Science, which exists to promote public acceptance of AGW. When the raw data are examined, according to the authors’ own ratings, only 64 of the nearly 12,000 papers actually claimed that most of the warming is caused by human activity. In a follow-up analysis of the same papers, other researchers found that only 41 of those 64 papers endorsed the position that most of global warming was man-made.31 Taking into consideration that ⅔ of the papers expressed no view, that amounts to less than 1% of the papers that expressed a view. How did the authors get their 97%? They amalgamated all views that human-generated greenhouse gases are causing some warming. However, even most skeptics of the alarmism, including many who signed the Global Warming Petition (above) agree that human-generated CO2 causes some warming. This is a trivial finding. The survey did not address the question of climate change being ‘dangerous’ or a ‘crisis’ or anything like that. Such claims are made by politicians and actors-cum-activists. So, the 97% figure is a dishonest twisting of statistics, and the activists’ own raw data show that very few scientists agree even that most of the warming is due to human activity, let alone that it is dangerous.32" A biblical and scientific approach to climate change - creation.com Yet the Greta Thunberg crew and millions of young people have been panicked into believing mankind is in some kind of climate crisis and if drastic action is not taken we are all doomed. They have obviously been fed a false narrative by fear mongers such as Greta and politicians such as Obama, Trudeau, Elizabeth May's Green Party, environmental organizations, and many others and activists who are milking the issue for all it's worth.

quote Nearly all of this GHG effect is due to water vapour, and only about 3.3°C is due to CO2. unquote If 3.3C of global warming is due to CO2, and man contributes 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, is it reasonable to believe man changed that temperature by 3% of 3.3 C? That seems insignificant. So even if man could cut his GHG emissions in half, it would make practically no difference to the atmospheric temperature, correct? That is, if we were able (which is unlikely) to reduce our man-made emissions from 3% of the atmospheric CO2 to 1.5%, that would equate to such a small change of temperature. It would equate to 1.5% of 3.3 degrees C. That looks like 0.05 degrees C change. Does that make sense? So what would be the use of mankind destroying the economies of the world when it would make absolutely no difference to climate change. A change in the order of 0.05 degrees C is nothing. The article on this link says nearly all of the global warming is caused by water vapour, not CO2 as everyone has been led to believe by our political leaders and so-called experts. A biblical and scientific approach to climate change - creation.com

Has it been proven that man is the cause of global warming or excessive climate change? What is the proof?

In the minds of many climate change leaders, climate change is not about saving the planet at all. quote Statements by the leaders of the climate change lobby show that the core issue is political/philosophical, rather than about saving the planet. For example: The German economist and IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) official Ottmar Edenhofer (that is, this is a mainstream view): “But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.” (said in 201011) For a non-mainstream view, we have Extinction Rebellion (XR) co-founder, Stuart Basden (2019): “And I’m here to say that XR isn’t about the climate. You see, the climate’s breakdown is a symptom of a toxic system that has infected the ways we relate to each other as humans and to all life.” He goes on to use neo-Marxist rhetoric criticising “heteronormativity”, “patriarchy”, “white supremacy”, and “class hierarchy”. He says XR is about fixing the system; that is, destroying Western society.12 Furthermore, there is an inconsistency between the ‘walk’ and the ‘talk’ about a ‘global’ concern. If the concern was truly about saving the planet from global warming due to human-generated CO2, surely the greatest sources of the CO2 should be the main target for the action? Then why, when China is the world’s largest CO2 producer, is no one protesting outside Chinese embassies? Australia (for example) contributes just 1.2% of the world’s emissions, and yet is a target for activism. Yet if its emissions disappeared completely (with Australia reduced to a pre-industrial age), it would not make a detectable difference in world CO2 levels. unquote A biblical and scientific approach to climate change - creation.com

Man contributes a total of about 12 PPM of the earth's CO2 in the atmosphere or 3%. The other roughly 338 PPM of CO2 or 97% is natural. Canada contributes about 0.18 PPM or 1.5% of man's contribution. That is 1.5% of 12 PPM. Negligible or next to nothing. So tell me how is man the cause of climate change? It has been likened to Canada throwing a cup of water into an Olympic-sized swimming pool. It will make no difference. Since scientists admit it is impossible to prove that man is causing excessive global warming because it cannot be repeated in a lab, why do you accept man is the cause? Because somebody else says so or because a poll of people who have no proof and everyone thinks so because somebody else says so. That's not science. Popularity contests and polls are not science. Neither is speculation science. Ask Winston. He says he is a scientist. Winston, tell us if man-made climate change is speculation. or science. If it is science, what is the proof?

Still don't know the difference between western democracies and Communist dictatorships I see.

Mandatory vaccination for everyone may be coming to Canada or to the provinces as a last ditch effort to head off a continuing and spreading pandemic. It could be imposed by the provinces under Emergency measures Act because seven million Canadians are holding out and refusing to be vaccinated and the health care system could be heading for disaster. Like many other Canadians, I do not accept that thousands of Canadians in need of heart and cancer surgeries must die waiting while hospitals are overloaded with unvaccinated Covid patients.

She could easily have had an 8-1/2 month pregnancy. There is nothing to prove she got pregnant in March. That argument has no merit. I don't think it is that far from the topic because it just demonstrates the Liberal PMs close ties and affection for Communist countries.

Possible new flag:

4 Snopes made a mistake regarding Trudeau's April 1971 movements Close 4 Posted by u/LoicyT 4 years ago Snopes made a mistake regarding Trudeau's April 1971 movements https://www.snopes.com/justin-trudeau-is-fidel-castros-love-child/ Snopes made a mistake regarding Trudeau's April 1971 movements : Snopes (reddit.com) The first couple made a big impression at a local sugaring event, for example, on March 27, and the press (in a testament to the level of scrutiny the prime minister’s new wife received) noted that Margaret did not travel with Pierre on an April trip to the Niagara region: Included is an image of a 2 April 1971 article from The Brandon Sun. For the remainder of April, Pierre was busy with governing, as attested to by logs of the Canadian House of Commons, making unlikely that his work would take the couple anywhere near Havana. This "remainder of April" (which would be April 3-30) statement is incorrect. I think Snopes should publish a retraction here. Two articles in The Ottawa Journal from that month document that Pierre and Margaret vacationed in the Carribean from April 8th to April 18th. 13 April 1971 https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/41523862/ Trudeau and his wife left here Monday by chartered plane on a quick sidetrip to an unidentified nearby island. They arrived here Thursday on a brief "second honeymoon," 16 April 1971 https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/41524010/ Trudeau lunched privately Thursday with Trinidad and Tobago's prime minister, Dr. Eric Williams. Trudeau flew in from Tobago, the sister island of Trinidad, where he has been holidaying with his wife since Tuesday. Shortly after his luncheon engagement, Trudeau took a return plane to Tobago to rejoin his wife, Margaret. The Canadian high commission said it was in not in a position to say when the prime minister and his wife would leave Tobago. "We know he has to be back in Ottawa on April 18," a commission spokesman said. The Trudeaus already have visited Barbados and spent a day swimming off Bequia, a tiny island in the Grenadines, and nearby islets when they visited St. Vincent Monday. April 13 was a Tuesday. This means the chartered plane trip was on April 12, and they arrived in Bridgetown on April 8. April 16 was a Friday, so it was April 15 when Justin Pierre left Margaret alone in Tobago when he visited Trinidad, and they had arrived in Tobago on April 13. The snopes article also lists: Fidel Castro, for his part, was in Cuba during this conception window. In terms of public appearances, Castro gave a address to attendees of the “first education and culture congress” on 1 April 1971. On 19 April, he gave a defiantly anti-American speech that commemorated the 10th anniversary of the defeat of the United States‐sponsored Bay of Pigs invasion. Snopes has not account for Castro's location from April 2-18. Will it? This is the very period during which Margaret was in various Carribean islands east of Cuba. So tell me again how they were thousands of kilometers away?

So why would they not disclose the island they visited in the Caribbean during their trip there around the time she became pregnant? Why would they keep it secret?

quote In April 1971, the Trudeaus took a long “second honeymoon” all around the Caribbean. According to Wikipedia, they visited one island they declined to disclose. It is the only island they did not disclose. From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Trudeau Footnote 19 of the same Wikipedia article cites to a April 13, 1971 article from The Ottawa Journal. The article states that the Trudeaus were visiting an unidentified island in the Caribbean and wanted the press to give them privacy: To be clear: they disclosed all the other locations they visited but asked the press for privacy when they went to the “unidentified” island. Come on. Justin Trudeau was born 8 1/2 months later. In 1976, Pierre eagerly became the first NATO leader to travel to Cuba. He brought his wife. Before even leaving the tarmac, both Trudeaus were showing an unusual amount of familiarity with Fidel considering he was a national leader they just allegedly met. Within hours of their first official meeting, Margaret was photographed intimately touching and holding Fidel Castro with both arms. The Trudeaus announced they had become besties with the dictator and sang his praises during the height of his human rights violations. unquote Of Course Fidel Castro is Justin Trudeau’s Dad. Nobody Has ‘Debunked’ Anything | by Karen Leibowitcz | Medium

Of Course Fidel Castro is Justin Trudeau’s Dad. Nobody Has ‘Debunked’ Anything | by Karen Leibowitcz | Medium

No she wasn't thousands of kilometers away. That is a fake claim by some. Here is the point. PM Trudeau and the Mrs. went on a secret vacation down in the Caribbean at the time she was said to become pregnant. So she wasn't thousands of km away. Check that out and find the article. It is speculated that Pierre loved the idea of having a son by a strong virulent macho man who he greatly admired. I will try to find the article.

The fact the Liberals never made a decision on Huawei 5G years ago led to Canadian telecom companies spending millions of dollars installing Huawei equipment in their network. They now have apparently 700 million dollars worth of Huawei equipment installed. They are in a conundrum now on what to do with the equipment. Who is going to pay for removing and replacing it? They want the government to chip in, but that is still undecided and the whole thing is a mess because the Liberals have not made a decision yet. Because of the delay, if the Liberals ban Huawei now, they might legally be on the hook for a billion dollars worth of equipment meaning the taxpayers may have to pay. Another boondoggle like many in the past.

Of course there is room for sentiment in foreign relations. There is especially a need for common sense, which the government lacks in foreign affairs. Liberal governments in Canada have traditionally been very poor partners of our traditional allies such as a the U.S. They have at times cut military spending. They don't seem to have much use for the Canadian Armed Forces. PM Pierre Trudeau was strangely a good friend of Communist countries but shunned our allies. He would travel to Communist countries, and was a good friend of Fidel Castro. He seemed to love brutal dictators in Communist countries. How the Canadian people could elect someone like that is a mystery. It shows the ignorance of most of the voting population. Even PM Justin Trudeau was the only one to grieve when Fidel Castro passed away. Shocking. Some say he is the son of Fidel. I read an article on that and it does sound quite possible. The mainstream media have not sincerely addressed that issue and have used diversion tactics on it and denial of facts.

I can understand that. Be careful, they could be using some of those things to spy on you. The Liberals said months ago they would be making a decision on Huawei 5G in a few weeks. More than a few weeks has passed and they still have not made a decision. They cannot be trusted.

You and I have an opposite view. I did not suddenly change my opinion. I have opposed Communism as long as I can remember. I don't believe Canada should ever have established diplomatic relations with China in 1970 led by PM PIerre Trudeau. This is where we totally disagree. I see the Communist system is evil and you apparently don't. God warns about having a relationship with evil and the CCP definitely fits into that category. Canada is paying a heavy price for 50 years of this. Much of our goods are manufactured there and China is our second largest trading partner. We are in so deep now that I doubt Canada will ever come out of it. That's the kind of leadership Canada has had. Sad.

You are obviously a Chinese plant or dupe of some kind. Maybe you believe in Communism, which is a diabolical ideology that enslaves those under it. I never said every Chinese person in Canada is a Chinese Communist sympathizer, but there a lot. A large Chinese organization held a dinner gala in Vancouver on the 70th anniversary of the Chinese Communist revolution in 2019. What does that tell you? It was even attended by a federal government Liberal Minister of Defence. What does that tell you about the Liberal party and it's priorities and view of Communist China and those who support it? There have even been groups in Vancouver who demonstrated in Vancouver against the Hong Kong democracy movement. Yes there are different opinions about China and the CCP in Canada. What the numbers are is impossible to know. There are 300,000 Chinese in Hong Kong who hold Canadian citizenship. Why are they living there and why do so many hold Canadian citizenship?

My, my, you are really naive to say the least about Communist China and Canada. Read a few books on the subject, like Claws of the Panda, Hidden Hand, Wake Up America: Unrestricted Warfare, and China Virus to name a few. Canada has 1.8 million people of Chinese descent and China considers much of it's diaspora as required to be faithful to China (and the CCP). The have been known to exercise influence through relatives in China as well. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. There reach in Canada (and other western countries) extends into politics, academia, business, culture and other things. To say they are not a Communist country any more is ridiculous. They certainly are. They allow private capitalism but only within the tight control of the Communist party. They are still a totalitarian state which does not recognize human rights. Reportedly China has about one million Uighurs in concentration camps (for re-education). Countless people have been sent to prison for their beliefs or religion. People can be arbitrarily arrested and imprisoned. There is no justice system as we know it in the west.

I am fully vaccinated with a booster. It's you that made the selfish comment that it's not about trying to prevent people in their 70s or 80s from dying. What make you so special that your life is worth more than people in their 70s or 80s?

I'm in my 70s and resent that. Thanks for your concern. The more you people talk, the deeper you dig yourselves in the bull.

According to news, thousands of heart and cancer patients have died waiting across the country.

The answer is a resounding yes. This website gives a quite good account of the evidence. Did Jesus really exist? Is there any historical evidence of Jesus Christ? | GotQuestions.org This website has the full movie "The Life of Jesus":