Total fossil emissions in the world is only 0.1% to 0.2% of total greenhouse gases

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Two to three thousand-year-old Aramaic text of unclear authorship,

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.

Edited March 23 by blackbird

[blackbird]

"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?????

[blackbird]

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)
 

[Aristides]

21 minutes ago, blackbird said:

"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?????

Your facebook post it bogus.

A: It maintains all greenhouse gasses are the same when they are anything but. The three main human generated green house gases are CO2 methane and nitrous oxide. Methane is 80 times more potent than CO2 and nitrous oxide is 300 times more potent

B: It ignores the impact of warming due to human generated gases have on the amount of water vapour in the air. Water vapour is limited by air temperature and when the air cools it condenses and returns to the surface. The other green house gases accumulate over years and remain in the atmosphere for years or decades. I posted the MIT link on water vapour as a greenhouse gas, maybe should read all of it instead of just cherry picking.

Quote

And of course, temperatures today are rising, thanks to humans’ emissions of longer-lasting greenhouse gases like CO₂. Water vapor amplifies that effect. “If the temperature rises, the amount of water vapor rises with it,” says Emanuel. “But since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, rising water vapor causes yet higher temperatures. We refer to this process as a positive feedback, and it is thought to be the most important positive feedback in the climate system.”

😄 It is a simplistic post trying to justify something he doesn't understand and you glom onto it because it tells you what you want to  believe.

Edited March 23 by Aristides

[blackbird]

2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Your facebook post it bogus.

That is your own personal claim, but it is bogus.

3 minutes ago, Aristides said:

A: It maintains all greenhouse gasses are the same when they are anything but.

I don't think I said all greenhouse gasses are the same.  I understand there are different greenhouse gases.  CO2, methane, water vapour, etc.

4 minutes ago, Aristides said:

B: It ignores the impact of warming due to human generated gases have on the amount of water vapour in the air.

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.

6 minutes ago, Aristides said:

😄 It is a simplistic post trying to justify something he doesn't understand and you glom onto it because it tells you what you want to  believe.

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.  

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

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.  

You are saying MIT speculates but you know better.

[Gaétan]

With the conservatives there will be so many greenhouse gases in the air that the trees in the forests will all burn. Poilievre is an arsonist.

Edited March 24 by Gaétan

[blackbird]

6 hours ago, Aristides said:

You are saying MIT speculates but you know better.

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.

Edited March 24 by blackbird

[blackbird]

6 hours ago, Gaétan said:

With the conservatives there will be so many greenhouse gases in the air that the trees in the forests will all burn. Poilievre is an arsonist.

How do you know this?  Any proof?

[Venandi]

8 hours ago, Gaétan said:

 Poilievre is an arsonist.

He better pick a category and get to work then, the record for churches and forests is already taken.

Edited March 24 by Venandi

[Gaétan]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

How do you know this?  Any proof?

What companies want is to make profits until the sky is full of smoke and there are no more resources, it is up to our representatives to tell them this is not possible or Poilievre has no desire to do anything to allow us to have a viable future at least not in appearance, where is the conservatives' plan, if they don't talk about it it's because they don't have no plan, these 4 wasted years with Poilievre and it's getting hotter and hotter and you won't be able to breathe fresh air this summer because of the forest fires. Climat change is a big threat and Poilievre never said he'll do anything against it, he is a dangerous guy, he is heartless, it doesn't matter to him that people suffer of pollution or anything else, he never asked for a cease fire in Gaza, he is a criminal worse than Trudeau.He said that he wants to build houses for people but it is just to be elected by ambition ,I gave you the proof that he is heartless, do you think he cares about us?

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, Gaétan said:

What companies want is to make profits until the sky is full of smoke and there are no more resources, it is up to our representatives to tell them this is not possible or Poilievre has no desire to do anything to allow us to have a viable future at least not in appearance, where is the conservatives' plan, if they don't talk about it it's because they don't have no plan, these 4 wasted years with Poilievre and it's getting hotter and hotter and you won't be able to breathe fresh air this summer because of the forest fires. Climat change is a big threat and Poilievre never said he'll do anything against it, he is a dangerous guy, he is heartless, it doesn't matter to him that people suffer of pollution or anything else, he never asked for a cease fire in Gaza, he is a criminal worse than Trudeau.He said that he wants to build houses for people but it is just to be elected by ambition ,I gave you the proof that he is heartless, do you think he cares about us?

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.

Edited March 24 by blackbird

[Gaétan]

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

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.

This what you say but it is not what the scientists says. The guy who has no proof of what he says is you. You shouldn't pay attention to the science of polluers.

[blackbird]

20 hours ago, Gaétan said:

This what you say but it is not what the scientists says. The guy who has no proof of what he says is you. You shouldn't pay attention to the science of polluers.

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.

Edited March 25 by blackbird

[taxme]

On 3/21/2024 at 7:23 PM, blackbird said:

Wow!  The whole point of my post is to show that man does not emit enough CO2 to have any affect on climate change.  You obviously didn't even bother reading it or never absorbed it.

Are you sure you know what the word "anthropogenic" means?

What can one expect from someone like MH who thinks that Trudeau and Singh are wonderful mor0ns, i mean people kind. LOL.. 

[Aristides]

11 hours ago, blackbird said:

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.

MIT is not speculating, they are explaining simple physics. Warm air holds more water than cold air. 

[Gaétan]

38 minutes ago, blackbird said:

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

There are always water in the air and it didn't change since thousands of years but since we have a lot of CO2 it have been warmer more than ever then there is a link proven right there, i don't have to put any links.

[Legato]

9 minutes ago, Gaétan said:

There are always water in the air and it didn't change since thousands of years but since we have a lot of CO2 it have been warmer more than ever then there is a link proven right there, i don't have to put any links.

The more CO2 the bigger my carrots grow.

[Aristides]

5 minutes ago, Legato said:

The more CO2 the bigger my carrots grow.

Drought is going to really affect agriculture, and not in a good way.

[Gaétan]

27 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Drought is going to really affect agriculture, and not in a good way.

Smoke from forest fire  will take place of good air

[Legato]

30 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Drought is going to really affect agriculture, and not in a good way.

You don't know that and that's giving you credit for something you know nothing about.

[Aristides]

40 minutes ago, Legato said:

You don't know that and that's giving you credit for something you know nothing about.

Really? Try not watering your carrots and see what happens. 

[taxme]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Drought is going to really affect agriculture, and not in a good way.

Maybe you should ask the WEF great reset globalist elite as to why they keep spraying those chemtrails around the world almost every day? Maybe climate change could be due to those chemicals that they are spraying in the atmosphere. And all those chemicals cannot be all that good for we the people. When those chemicals fall to the ground, we all end up breathing in those chemicals. Hmmm, nothing like a little dose of asbestos every day for your lungs to breathe in. 😇

[Legato]

8 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Really? Try not watering your carrots and see what happens. 

You said droughts. What droughts?

[Aristides]

https://apnews.com/article/business-science-environment-and-nature-arizona-climate-change-7cf4c472fa64fe57be4b8823c5423fc0

https://www.farmwater.org/farm-water-news/map-2021-farm-water-supply-cuts/

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2022.909415/full

 

Canada had its worst wild fire season in history because of drought and high temperatures. This year looks to be even worse, the Rocky Mountain snow pack is only 66% of normal.

Much of the the refugee problem in Europe is due to drought in North Africa and failing crops.

Better not take your head out of that hole, you might have to deal with reality.

Edited March 24 by Aristides