blackbird

Political parties hire political lobbying firms to work on their behalf. That is normal. So attending a caucus meeting for the people they are working for would be normal. Every major party would do that. That would not include Loblaws. Loblaws is a grocery chain. They would not be in caucus meetings. Special interest groups do not go to caucus meetings.

Technically you are correct from a historical view that Jews and Arabs are semites. But the common use of the term in society is that antisemitism refers to being anti Jew. That use developed over the past 2,000 years and is held by most of the world. Most of the world is anti-Jew. Nobody takes it to mean anti Arab.

I don't think you understand politics. Politicians talk to all kinds of people to gain political support. There is nothing wrong with that. The NDP meets with union leaders as well. That is just how politics works. It doesn't mean these lobbyists you refer have any particular influence more than anyone else with politicians.

One has to be certified with certain qualification and credentials that few people probably have and hold a certain position to submit anything to the IPCC. Also, since the IPCC is a body of the U.N., a submission would probably have to go through certain channels to be approved and by the Canadians ambassador to the U.N. Thought you would know that.

Came across a rather odd article that admits science makes mistakes. quote Oh, science, how low hast thou fallen! Not really. Actually, we’re living in a golden age of science that hopefully will only keep progressing indefinitely into the future. But that doesn’t mean that, in order to get to such heights, science hasn’t made plenty mistakes of mistakes in the past—or in the present. In fact, the self-correcting, self-regulating scientific method relies on making mistakes, not because it is fundamentally a bad method, but because we, as humans, are fundamentally flawed beings. We learn by trial and error, and the truth always hides deep beneath a host of naive assumptions and biased opinions which always threaten to corrupt facts and evidence. unquote 10 Times When Science Got It All Horribly Wrong - Cultura Colectiva Then the article goes on to make this absurd statement: It claims evolution and climate-change (I assume they mean man-made) are proven facts, when anyone with half a brain knows these things are completely unproven. "That’s because those are well-proven facts that present the best possible explanations for all the variables at hand, as no alternative theory can reliably explain the phenomena in question. If science doesn’t have the answer, you can bet religion or alternative medicine doesn’t either. So the first part of the article is correct in saying science makes lots of mistakes, but then shows there ignorance by claiming certain things (that they agree with like the theory of evolution and climate change by man) are "proven" facts. Sad really. There are atheists or secular humanists who have no understanding of how the universe required an intelligent designer and no understanding that there is a reason why God created mankind. It was not all just a cosmic accident and we are not just accidents of the chemicals. The article gives a little bit of truth but destroys its credibility with all the false claims.

Are you talking about political lobbying firms or what kind of lobbying? Lobbying for what? All major political parties use political lobbying firms to communicate their messages. Also, politicians communicate with firms of all kinds to gain support. That is how politics and campaigning works. Nothing untoward about that unless you can prove some kind of corruption.

What he posted was false. He pulled the 4% out of the air. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 0.04% of all gases. Google it. You support trash.

Where did you get that figure? Out of a hat. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04% of all gases. Big difference between 4% and 0.04%. Carbon dioxide makes up 0.04% of the world’s atmosphere. Not 0.4% or 4%, but 0.04%! scitechdaily.com I assume there is a credible way to determine that percentage. The problem is you assuming it has a certain effect without any proof. Guesses or presumptions are not proof of anything. How many times do I have to tell you?

Climate conferences are a great chance for all the elite liberals to suck back drinks, cocktails, and enjoy the finest foods imaginable and luxurious accommodations in the best hotels while hob knobbing and boasting about all their great fake accomplishments with their fellow elites.

You have a problem with that claim. One website reports the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere is 720 billion tons or 720 GT. Out of that man contributes 6 GT. That means man's contribution is only about 0.8 % of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. Yet you claimed humans increased the amount of CO2 by nearly 50%. Something is wrong with your figures. It is total BS. You suck big time with your "facts". But if you look at different websites you will sometimes find wildly different figures. That is a problem because who do you believe? One figure that seems fairly constant is 0.04%. The total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04% of all the gases. That is a consistent figure. But that is not the amount the man emits. The figure I found for man's emission is about 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. That means 97% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is natural. So before you accuse me of sucking at science, you need to double check your own figures and facts.

1. Good luck with that. Nobody can affect climate change no matter what they do. It is a waste of money to be trying. Use the money to adapt and mitigate the effects. 2. Climate change is natural. Of course it will not go away because I want it to. Learn to adapt to newer weather patterns.

What is really tragic is if you do a search on youtube, you will find youtube has moved to block all anti-vaccine videos. I watched one or two documentaries about six months ago of actual people who lost loved ones after they received Covid vaccinations. It had to do with the vaccine apparently causing myocarditis and heart failure. I don't think it is reasonable for youtube to censor all anti-vaccine videos. That is not how democratic countries are supposed to operate. It sounds more like Communist China.

1. You know what it means to adapt. That is what authorities are advising people in B.C. where some might be affected by forest fires. Do what you need to do to protect your home and property. Have a proper escape plan and be prepared. 2. There is nothing anyone can do to prevent forest fires altogether. Forestry is supposed to be reducing the threat by doing certain things where possible. But really forestry can only do limited things in small areas. They cannot prevent forest fires over thousands of square kilometers. Same with flooding. It costs billions of dollars to build high banks and reroute streams and only a small amount can be done because of the huge costs involved. People need to stop building in hazardous flood areas. 3. If you mean change the climate or slow climate change, nobody can do that. It is childish to think anybody can.

I clicked on your link but it does not prove climate change is caused by man. It is your own bloq with a few points you claim. Funny the 3 comments on the bottom all disagree with you too.

Climate always changes and always has. Nothing to do with man. Better for man to adapt and prepare for more forest fires, floods, and storms, and forget thinking he can control the climate. Those things are going to happen anyway.

This topic is a bit difficult to sum up in a few sentences because of its nature. It does require some time reading and studying the reasons why the theory of evolution is false. But just to summarize very briefly: 1. The principle of irreducible complexity is a principle which says something extremely complex could not come about by purely random chance processes, which is what part of the theory of evolution claims. The eye for instance is so complex and has amazing abilities. It could not have come about without an intelligent designer. Many scientists have accepted this fact and have rejected the theory of evolution on that basis. 2. The evidence that all species of life evolved is not in the fossil record. Many people thought when they found some bits and pieces that they had found proof of prehistoric man or some ape man, but many of those findings have later been proven to be false. One case was a tooth was found and from that paleontologists surmised what the skull must have been and from that what the rest of the body was. Then they surmised how he lived and on and on. It was later discovered that it was not a human or prehistoric man's tooth at all. It was a pig's tooth. This kind of thing has happened repeatedly in history. 3. A mathematician-professor, Philip Stott, who is a very knowledgeable speaker on the subject has written a lot of material refuting the theory of evolution and the old earth claims. As a mathematician, he concludes there is not enough time in the claimed age of the universe for atoms, molecules, and the basic building blocks of life to come together by random chance to create life and evolve. The law of probability is against it happening. But for extensive details and explanations on this there are two websites that have countless articles and videos: Scripture & Science HOME | Reformation International College (refcm.org) Home - creation.com

No. You can't give any proof of anything you said. What I said is just as valid as anyone else's opinion who gives no proof regardless of their titles and credentials. That's just logic and common sense.

You gave no proof at all about anything. Man cannot control the climate. Climate has always changed. That is normal. Sure it may be very hot and dry in the late spring or summer, but that is natural. Fossil fuels only contribute 0.1 to 0.2 % CO2 to the earth's greenhouse gases, not enough to make any difference. 99.8% of greenhouse gases are from nature, not from mankind. Nobody can control that. Man will continue to use fossil fuels for the foreseeable future because that is what supports life on earth. We cannot stop using fossil fuels, travelling, eating agriculture, heating our homes, flying, shipping necessities of life. So man cannot change the minute amount of greenhouse gases he emits. It is not enough to affect climate change. Man would have to disappear to stop releasing CO2. Do you have any proof at all that man is causing excessive global warming? Or did you hear Trudeau, Liberals, or the liberal-controlled media or the NDP say so? We are being scammed by climate alarmist politicians. They are helped by alarmists like you. You owe me a lot of money.

How do you know this? Any proof?

Speculation is not proof. No government should impose taxation that makes people poorer or force people to change their lives based on speculation. That is totalitarianism. Many people speculate that UFOs with aliens often visit earth. Many scientists speculate that the universe was created by a big bang or that man evolved from an accidental mixing of some chemical in a pond. Many speculate that Marxism or Socialism are better systems even though such systems are evil and have proven very destructive and harmful. Many believe all fossil fuels should be banned based on pure speculation. That would end life on earth. Life depends on fossil fuels which are used for everything. Millions of people are being harmed based on pure speculation. There are endless speculations made in the world.

That is your own personal claim, but it is bogus. I don't think I said all greenhouse gasses are the same. I understand there are different greenhouse gases. CO2, methane, water vapour, etc. That is pure speculation. The human generated gases are miniscule. The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is massive as a large portion of the earth is water. There is no proof human generated fossil gases are having an significant effect on global warming. You don't have any idea what I understand. What makes your claims in your post superior to mine? You have given no indication you have any more knowledge than me on the subject. So you just lost any credibility right there.

Professor Philip Stott is a very knowledgeable defender of Creation versus the theory of evolution and related topics. I here quote a portion one article he wrote called "A Foundational statement on Science and Christianity". It may help to shed some light on what science is and why it is important to understand what a proper relationship is between the two. "The consequence for science itself is that science has become entangled in inconsistencies. The humanist world view has proved itself untenable. Examples are legion. Fred Hoyle, after a distinguished career in cosmology, came to the conclusion "the creation of the Universe, like the solution of the Rubic cube, requires an intelligence." George Gaylord Simpson, during a distinguished career in evolutionary biology, had to admit that matter and energy alone were insufficient, and that for the explanation of life "the work required is particular work, it must follow specifications, it requires information on how to proceed." Leif Robinson, holding a prominent position in astronomy, has had to admit that the whole of astronomy is confronted with "ever growing tidal waves of disparate information", evidence which shows that astronomy, like many other branches of science, is on the wrong track. These scientists came to their conclusions not as a result of abandoning the humanist world view, but simply by admitting that the evidence is overwhelming. The inconsistencies in present day science have become so severe that there is a growing realization that materialism is inadequate as a world view. Scientists in great numbers are abandoning pure materialism. Most are taking one of two directions. The first is to return to the Christian position, the acknowledgment of a Creator. The second is to turn to the metaphysical concepts of the religions of the east, particularly India; ideas centred on a "universal consciousness", a "cosmic force", an "all pervading intelligence." Although very ancient ideas, they are generally being grouped under the title "New Age." Science and civilization made great advances under the Christian world view predominating in Europe and North America throughout the last few centuries. India, the home of the "New Age" religions, has been remarkably lacking in comparable advance. A new brand of science following "New Age" philosophies is likely to end up with insuperable inconsistencies. The possibility of a universe progressing because of a driving force within itself, because of information developed by and within itself, is contrary to all known experimental evidence, and appears to be as feasible as lifting oneself up by one's own boot straps. The odds seem to be heavily stacked in favour of a world view centred on the Creator. This is not surprising since modern science is essentially a product of this outlook in the first place. Since science is essentially a product of the Christian world view, and since many scientists are returning to this position, it would be advisable to consider carefully the outlook that should be brought back into this discipline after so many years of absence." Scientific Enterprise / Thaxton | Scripture & Science | Reformation International College (refcm.org)

"With all the attention given to humans’ climate-warming carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, you might be surprised to learn that CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas affecting the Earth’s temperature. That distinction belongs to water. We can thank water vapor for about half of the “greenhouse effect” keeping heat from the sun inside our atmosphere.1 “It’s the most important greenhouse gas in our climate system, because of its relatively high concentrations,” says Kerry Emanuel, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at MIT. “It can vary from almost nothing to as much as 3% of a volume of air.” Compare that to CO2, which today makes up about 420 parts per million of our atmosphere—0.04%—and you can see immediately why water vapor is such a linchpin of our climate system." Why do we blame climate change on carbon dioxide, when water vapor is a much more common greenhouse gas? | MIT Climate Portal It is obvious that if the amount of CO2 released by fossil use by mankind is 0.1 to 0.2 % of the total greenhouse gases, why is man being blamed for causing global warming. It just doesn't make sense. A big question is why do not all the countless websites warning about man-made global warming and blaming man almost never mention that water vapour is a very big greenhouse gas?????

Another completely false claim. And you claim I am not educated? What about yourself? "Aramaic has been in some ways a forgotten language in biblical studies, except at a very high academic level. The New Testament is written in Greek; nearly all the Old Testament is written in Hebrew, while the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the LXX) is significant to biblical studies. Yet 268 verses of the Bible were written in a language called Aramaic. The portions of Scripture that were written in Aramaic include Ezra 4:8–6:18 and 7:12-26 (67 verses), Daniel 2:4b–7:28 (200 verses), Jeremiah 10:11, and various proper names and isolated words and phrases scattered throughout the Old and New Testaments. Despite the fact that only a small percentage of Scripture is written in this language, the Aramaic portion of the Bible is disproportionately significant because of the importance of the book of Daniel to biblical prophecy. Aramaic is also important for New Testament studies, as several direct quotes from Jesus and others are preserved in the original Aramaic that was spoken by Palestinian Jews of the Second Temple period. New Testament verses which include Aramaic words transliterated by Greek letters are: Matt 5:22; 27:46; Mark 5:41; 7:34; 10:51; 14:36; John 1:42; 20:16; Acts 9:36, 40; Rom 8:15; 1 Cor 16:22; Gal 4:6." The original manuscripts were mainly written in Hebrew (Old Testament), Greek (New Testament) and small parts in Aramaic. Also the forty authors are known who wrote the 66 books of the Bible. The Bible was written over a period of about 1,500 years and completely about 1,900 years ago. So now you know. Trying to cast aspersions on God's word is a losing proposition. You will be exposed.

That is a bold-faced lie. The King James Version is composed of the Old Testament which is based on the Hebrew Scriptures called the Masoretic Text and the New Testament is based on the Received Text. It is supported by over 5,000 Greek manuscripts and parts of manuscripts. It has not been revised by committees with predetermined agendas. That is completely false. If it was, it would be obvious by examining the many Greek manuscripts which still exist. But nobody makes such a wild claim. If you are willing to lie about that, how much credibility do you have on anything else you said there? None. End of story. Yet Michael gave you a thumbs up. Shows where he is coming from as well.