The Folly of Ignoring Climate Change

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Ancient wisdom that you reject. Just like you reject the wisdom of the US Constitution. 

Why am I not surprised. 

You are "not surprised" because you FAIL to understand.

I never said ANYTHING about rejecting the Constitution. 

I ONLY reject the parts which GIVE MORE political power to certain individuals.

AKA, violate the PRINCIPLE of one man, one vote. That was certainly NOT wise.

In fact it was a compromise of principle and a BRIBE to get signatories.

It is LONG PAST TIME to correct that BRIBE.

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

My soul...my consciousness...Will endure. Yours? Not so much.

OF COURSE you have NO WAY of knowing that.

Whatever MAGIC helps you sleep at night.....

[Nationalist]

45 minutes ago, robosmith said:

I never said ANYTHING about rejecting the Constitution. 

I ONLY reject the parts which GIVE MORE political power to certain individuals.

AKA, violate the PRINCIPLE of one man, one vote. That was certainly NOT wise.

In fact it was a compromise of principle and a BRIBE to get signatories.

It is LONG PAST TIME to correct that BRIBE.

Lol...

[Nationalist]

45 minutes ago, robosmith said:

OF COURSE you have NO WAY of knowing that.

Whatever MAGIC helps you sleep at night.....

I have no good sound evidence of "the afterlife". That's true. I just know. Call it what you will...I live in hope. You? Not so much.

[WestCanMan]

15 hours ago, robosmith said:

Carbon offsets are REAL. 

Carbon offsets are bullshit. They fly in jets and cruise in yachts and then lie about why it's ok for them to put more CO2 into the atmosphere in one month than you do in a lifetime. 

If carbon offsets were a real thing then why wouldn't they just buy a bunch of carbon offsets but still live sustainably?  

I'll tell you why, it's for the exact same reason that your liberal elites could attend the Met Gala without masks but all of the vaccinated peons still had to wear masks. It's for the exact same reason that your liberal elites could have big meals in indoor restaurants during covid or get their hair done at a salon but all of the peons had to eat at Wendy's and cut their own hair. Gimme a break. 

You're sucked into every bullshit thing that comes out of Biden's/Trudeau's mouth. It's as pathetic as it is hilarious.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

OF COURSE you have NO WAY of knowing that.

Whatever MAGIC helps you sleep at night.....

You talk about carbon offsets and Santa Claus like they're real but then crap on religion lol. Thanks mr lojjic.

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

Which God?

God? Or Allah? Or Jesus? Or Episcopalian Jesus? Or Mormon God? Or Vishnu? 
 

You think you know. You think you have it all figured out. But you don’t know.  You don’t.  If God himself came to Earth and performed miracles, odds are, you wouldn’t listen to Him. 
 

What do you call an atheist or agnostic who does good deeds? Who feeds the poor and helps others? 
 

The Bible tells you nothing about climate change. It also says very little about oil.  The only answer the Bible has about climate change is that you are commanded to do good, and burning more petroleum in the face of disaster is not doing good. That is why I believe you would turn your back on God if He came to earth and performed miracles. You think you know, but you don’t know. 

If I may...

1. All of the above.

2. Gawd is here and always has been. In fact, if Gawd didn't exist...nor would the universe as we understand it. 

3. A nice guy or gal. What do you call them?

4. In the face of what disaster? Gawd can't make Hilary-Billary POTUS...

[Legato]

On 10/1/2022 at 1:05 PM, robosmith said:

Why do YOU need to post DISHONESTLY, LIAR!

I rest my case.

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Carbon offsets are bullshit. They fly in jets and cruise in yachts and then lie about why it's ok for them to put more CO2 into the atmosphere in one month than you do in a lifetime. 

If carbon offsets were a real thing then why wouldn't they just buy a bunch of carbon offsets but still live sustainably?  

I'll tell you why, it's for the exact same reason that your liberal elites could attend the Met Gala without masks but all of the vaccinated peons still had to wear masks. It's for the exact same reason that your liberal elites could have big meals in indoor restaurants during covid or get their hair done at a salon but all of the peons had to eat at Wendy's and cut their own hair. Gimme a break. 

You're sucked into every bullshit thing that comes out of Biden's/Trudeau's mouth. It's as pathetic as it is hilarious.

You have nothing but your big mouth to claim ^this.

Carbon offset CONTRACTS are real no matter how much you IMAGINE they are not.

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

You talk about carbon offsets and Santa Claus like they're real but then crap on religion lol. Thanks mr lojjic.

No evidence for religion. Plenty of evidence for carbon offset CONTRACTS.

Understanding the carbon offset market

Edited October 2, 2022 by robosmith

[robosmith]

21 minutes ago, Legato said:

I rest my case.

Wise move when you have NO CASE.

[Michael Hardner]

35 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You have nothing but your big mouth to claim ^this.

Carbon offset CONTRACTS are real no matter how much you IMAGINE they are not.

Wasn't that the Climate Plan under Scheer?

[robosmith]

40 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Wasn't that the Climate Plan under Scheer?

Unlike Canadians here who pretend to know what's happening in the US, I won't do that for Canada.

It does not mention offsets in his plan here:

Andrew Scheer unveils climate plan promising 'green technology, not taxes'

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

You have nothing but your big mouth to claim ^this.

Carbon offset CONTRACTS are real no matter how much you IMAGINE they are not.

So read about it if you want to, I don't care. It's bullshit.

Planting trees? Do you know what happens if you don't plant trees? Trees grow anyways. 

Show me where they planted a bunch of trees where none would have grown...

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Show me where they planted a bunch of trees where none would have grown...

Planting trees isn't real.... 

[WestCanMan]

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Planting trees isn't real.... 

It's real enough, I know people who did it in the summer as students.

As far as "planting trees in order to justify flying reporters around in a jumbo jet" is concerned, it's bullshit. 

[WestCanMan]

On 9/29/2022 at 9:39 AM, robosmith said:

Sure. It doesn't matter if millions starve as long as you're fat dumb and happy, right?

Just out of curiosity, what do you think of Anthony Huber, generally? Do you think that he was a pretty solid guy, and someone you have a lot in common with? I just can't help but think you're probably as close to an Anthony Huber clone as one would find. 

[Rebound]

14 hours ago, Nationalist said:

If I may...

1. All of the above.

2. Gawd is here and always has been. In fact, if Gawd didn't exist...nor would the universe as we understand it. 

3. A nice guy or gal. What do you call them?

4. In the face of what disaster? Gawd can't make Hilary-Billary POTUS...

“Gawd”? 
Doesn’t seem very respectful use of His name.

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

“Gawd”? 
Doesn’t seem very respectful use of His name.

What difference does it make? I follow no formal religion. So I say "Gawd". It's my way of separating myself from said religions.

And what makes you think Gawd is a male? Or that "God" is its name?

You exhibit a very basic thought process. 

[Rebound]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

What difference does it make? I follow no formal religion. So I say "Gawd". It's my way of separating myself from said religions.

And what makes you think Gawd is a male? Or that "God" is its name?

You exhibit a very basic thought process. 

Well excuuuuuse me!  You proclaim absolute faith in the Almighty and certainty that He created the Universe, but then get offended when any of society’s descriptions of Him are used. 
 

You seem to be fairly honest about the whole charade. I mean, you aren’t telling me how there’s a 2,000 year-old book which is 100% word-for-word holy, and we must obey every word of the book except for certain inconvenient ones because the words of a guy named Paul are more important than God’s own words. So I give you props there. You just honestly say that you made it all up and you don’t care what anyone else thinks, which is cool, but maybe using it as a guideline to decide what we should do to avoid environmental destruction is a bad idea.  

[Nationalist]

55 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Well excuuuuuse me!  You proclaim absolute faith in the Almighty and certainty that He created the Universe, but then get offended when any of society’s descriptions of Him are used. 
 

You seem to be fairly honest about the whole charade. I mean, you aren’t telling me how there’s a 2,000 year-old book which is 100% word-for-word holy, and we must obey every word of the book except for certain inconvenient ones because the words of a guy named Paul are more important than God’s own words. So I give you props there. You just honestly say that you made it all up and you don’t care what anyone else thinks, which is cool, but maybe using it as a guideline to decide what we should do to avoid environmental destruction is a bad idea.  

As a baby, I was baptized into the Catholic religion. The local church had a long relationship with my family. However, as I grew and understood more, I began to identify the hypocrisy of Catholicism. I also began to wonder what sort of sect would worship the image of some poor bugger nailed to a crucifix. That imagery seemed to inspire...fear. Not sure you've noticed yet but...I have a serious problem with fear. I find its use as a social coral...abhorrent. So I went exploring. Satanism was nonsense and as hypocritical as Christianity. The teachings of The Golden Dawn were interesting, but Crowley was insane and sort of soured the milk on that one. Islam was a non-starter for me. But then I found Buddhism. The Buddhist teachings were rational...reasonable...realistic. So...because I could not shake the belief I'd developed in a "God", I sort of formed my own style of beliefs. And because these are MY OWN beliefs...I came up with..."Gawd".

I don't let my "religious" beliefs guide me on anything but how to keep my "soul" clean. And in all honesty, I don't completely deny that Man has somewhat contributed to this climate upheaval. I just don't think, after much review and study, that Man is THE cause. Nor do I think it wise to toss out my old shoes, before I have a new pair.

Thus, if people want a different source of energy, I'm ok with that. What I cannot go along with, is this insane idea that we should panic and create all sorts of obstructions to the source of energy we have in place now, for the various "green" methods being tried. They are NOT reliable. I also object to the blatant hypocrisy of "The Greenies". But I do have faith in Mankind. I believe with more research, we will find a way to power our societies without burning carbon. But make no mistake...no matter what is found and put into use...it too will make an adverse side-effect.

[Hodad]

On 9/30/2022 at 3:49 PM, blackbird said:

No, evolution is definitely not "scientific fact".  Even scientists would laugh at that statement.

Empirical science is science that is proven by the scientific method.  Evolution has never been proven and is impossible to prove.  It simply cannot be repeated in a lab and never has been.

Lol. I'm not sure where you get this stuff, but yes, you can watch evolution happen in a laboratory setting. You just need subjects with short enough reproductive cycles. It's documented with bacteria, plants, etc. Even in simplest terms, humans have selectively bred plants and animals to the point of mechanical reproductive incompatibility within the same species, effectively forking two evolutionary tracks. Just add time. 

And yes, there are also "transitional" fossils. Setting aside the fact that all fossils are transitional in the long arc of evolution, there are many that satisfy even the layperson's definition of transitional, bearing features of antecedent and descendant.

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

Lol. I'm not sure where you get this stuff, but yes, you can watch evolution happen in a laboratory setting. You just need subjects with short enough reproductive cycles. It's documented with bacteria, plants, etc. Even in simplest terms, humans have selectively bred plants and animals to the point of mechanical reproductive incompatibility within the same species, effectively forking two evolutionary tracks. Just add time. 

And yes, there are also "transitional" fossils. Setting aside the fact that all fossils are transitional in the long arc of evolution, there are many that satisfy even the layperson's definition of transitional, bearing features of antecedent and descendant.

False claims or phrases without any substantial support will not win any debate in this field.  Evolution according to the Darwinism or Evolution theory has never been observed or proven.  There have been variations or mutations of viruses, and biological changes but not to the extent that they could prove evolution from one species to another.   All the species have always remained within their species groups.   There is no evidence a glob of matter in a pond became an animal or an animal such as an ape became a man.  Many claims of finding fossils of "ape" man have been debunked or found false.  That is a fact.

If it were a fact, there would be millions of transitional fossils to show how something evolved from one creature to another species, but they simply don't exist.  There is nothing to show man actually evolved from another species or from a monkey or ape to man.  Nothing.   Finding a fossil or skeleton of something is not proof of anything.  To prove such a thing would require a vast line of fossils proving gradual transition but they don't exist in the strata.  Only separate species have ever existed.  Dogs or canines for instance changed only in the type or breed of dog to a different kind of dog.  But they are all still dogs.  There is no in between.  It is hilarious how people so easily bought into Darwinism.   They will do anything rather than admit God into the equation.

You need to read some books on the subject.  You obviously have no idea what many scientists are saying.

Here is one book explaining why Darwinism is untenable.  Of course it is easier to read if you buy a copy and have it in your hands.  But in the meantime, you can read introductions or brief outlines of chapters online here:    There are also thousands of articles by scientists and scholars of all kinds on various aspects of it.

Refuting Evolution: Foreword & Introduction - creation.com

It is called Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M. 

Foreword & Introduction

Chapter 1

Facts & Bias
See Study Guide, Lesson 1

Chapter 2

Variation and Natural Selection Versus Evolution
See Study Guide, Lesson 2

Chapter 3

The Links Are Missing
See Study Guide, Lesson 3

Chapter 4

Bird Evolution?
See Study Guide, Lesson 4

Chapter 5

Whale Evolution?
See Study Guide, Lesson 5

Chapter 6

Humans: Images of God or Advanced Apes?
See Study Guide, Lesson 6

Chapter 7

Astronomy
See Study Guide, Lesson 7

Chapter 8

How Old Is the Earth?
See Study Guide, Lesson 8

Chapter 9

Is the Design Explanation Legitimate?
See Study Guide, Lesson 9

Chapter 10

Conclusion

From lesson 2:

quote

 For true evolution to occur, new information has to be added to the genome. Resistance to antibiotics has nothing to do with adding new genetic information. There are several ways that bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics. One way is that some bacteria already had the genes for resistance to the antibiotics. In fact, some bacteria, obtained by thawing sources that had been frozen before man developed antibiotics, have been shown to be antibiotic-resistant. When antibiotics are applied to a population of bacteria, those lacking resistance are killed, and any genetic information they carry is eliminated. The survivors carry less information, but they are all resistant. The same principle applies to insects 'evolving' resistance to insecticides. The resistance was already there, and the insects without resistance are eliminated.

Evolution in the molecules-to-man sense requires a net increase in genetic information. An overall loss of information is generally involved in the formation of a new species. See Q&A: Speciation for additional information.  unquote

Scientists have discovered in the last part of the 20th century how important information stored in cells is.  Information cannot be added to any degree without it being implanted at the time the cell was created.  Evolution basically does not add the vast amounts of information a cell needs for it's various systems and machinery to operate.  

 

 

 

Edited October 3, 2022 by blackbird

[Rebound]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Carefully consider this: In the 1970’s, scientists realized that Earth’s ozone layer was being destroyed by CFC’s… the refrigerant used in air conditioners and the propellant used in make aerosols. 
 

We didn’t have a bunch of jerks claiming that scientists were getting rich off of this or making up “fake science.” We just solved the problem. You can no longer buy aerosols with CFC’s and refrigerators use different chemicals and AC systems need to have recovery systems. And it’s worked.  
 

So why the opposition to reducing carbon emissions? One thing only: Petroleum Companies. And they funded GOP-related groups so much that the GOP decided their “team” would fight science. 
 

The science itself is overwhelming.  The petroleum industry offered cash bounties to scientists to publish papers questioning MMGW.  That is NOT science, it is politics. You fund research, not conclusions.  
 

The conclusions are very easy to see: We’ve been accurately tracking temperature for well over 100 years. We can measure the age of glacier and polar ice. We have measured the ebb and flow of arctic and Antarctic ice for a long time. The evidence is very consistent. 
 

However, you are ignoring the point of this thread: The folly is in letting foreign nations take the lead in developing the energy technologies of the future. We will not rely on petroleum forever. Iowa already generates half its electricity from wind. The national average is 9% wind power already. The technology works. 

[Hodad]

37 minutes ago, blackbird said:

False claims or phrases without any substantial support will not win any debate in this field.  Evolution according to the Darwinism or Evolution theory has never been observed or proven.  There have been variations or mutations of viruses, and biological changes but not to the extent that they could prove evolution from one species to another.   All the species have always remained within their species groups.   There is no evidence a glob of matter in a pond became an animal or an animal such as an ape became a man.  Many claims of finding fossils of "ape" man have been debunked for found false.  That is a fact.

You need to read some books on the subject.  You obviously have no idea what many scientists are saying.

Here is one book you can even read online without costing you anything.  Of course it is easier to read if you buy a copy and have it in your hands.  But in the meantime, you can read parts or the whole thing online here:

Refuting Evolution: Foreword & Introduction - creation.com

It is called Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M. 

Foreword & Introduction

Chapter 1

Facts & Bias
See Study Guide, Lesson 1

Chapter 2

Variation and Natural Selection Versus Evolution
See Study Guide, Lesson 2

Chapter 3

The Links Are Missing
See Study Guide, Lesson 3

Chapter 4

Bird Evolution?
See Study Guide, Lesson 4

Chapter 5

Whale Evolution?
See Study Guide, Lesson 5

Chapter 6

Humans: Images of God or Advanced Apes?
See Study Guide, Lesson 6

Chapter 7

Astronomy
See Study Guide, Lesson 7

Chapter 8

How Old Is the Earth?
See Study Guide, Lesson 8

Chapter 9

Is the Design Explanation Legitimate?
See Study Guide, Lesson 9

Chapter 10

Conclusion

 

You know, I continued to read the thread after I posted, and I now know exactly where you get this nonsense. 

You are clearly possessed by demons who have clouded your judgment and obscured from you the fact of your own possession. 

Case closed.