I am a religious person. I believe in G-d and I adhere to many religious rules, including dietary restrictions and a bunch of other things that are not always fun.
However, when I read about, or interact with, climate activists/activism, I sort of understand why those who reject religion are the way they are. It's been said that religion was invented by ancient humans as a way to explain that which couldn't be explained and/or to control people who otherwise would have been raping, killing, pillaging, etc. without the prospect of a higher power punishing them.
So I see people saying things like "we have to change everything or the planet will die in 10 years" while providing really no scientific evidence that this position is rooted in anything other than fear and a desire to seize power. Much like when the ancient people had to face the question "why shouldn't I kill this guy who is annoying me", people today want to stop others from doing things that they don't like simply by saying "it's to save the planet."
When you can't explain something, it used to be that you'd credit or blame G-d. Now, when you can't explain something, the post-modern progressives want to either blame/credit climate change or, more generally, science, even though science never is static and certainly never is absolute.
Pretty much every prediction about climate change has been wrong, yet it is replacing religion for many people on the left, the very same people who dismiss religion as a fraud.
This isn't to say that I have no use for science, or I want to see the planet polluted, but if you're going to say that religion is a fraud because you can't prove that G-d exists, you have to also question science as a religion since science is almost always unable to explain things beyond a superficial slogan.*
* not all science, of course. Things like chemistry or engineering are pretty well established in fact and practice.
Didja know that the roots of the business side of clean-up the world/ climate change industry came out of the carting industry (northern New Jersey and NY metro area?
Remsen, I believe in neither religion nor human-caused climate change. They're both artificial constructs to try to explain something or achieve a political end. And they're both fallacies. But there are people who rabidly believe in one or the other - maybe even both.
Al Gore said the planet was over by 2005. Just saying.
Then he proceeded to make gobs of money off ownership in BS climate change companies that provided no impact other than enriching his portfolio.
99% is absolutely heretical BS.
đŠ«
PS
I like the idea of killing people who annoy me.
LOL
Left office with 1.7 Million, now worth 300 Million. And a bunch of retard hipsters are riding bikes around town, working at the farmer's market and thinking anything is going to change.
Well known fact that when the USSR broke up, the commies overwhelmingly flocked to the Environmental movement...their goal is to destroy capitalism and they saw the useful idiots just waiting amongst that particular movement.
I'm still freezing to death from the '70s ice age prediction....by scientists.
US News and World Report had a similar opinion in 1975. They said by the year 2000 that the climate would be so cool that wheat producing areas could not grow enough wheat.
I donât bother talking to the climate fruitcakes anymore. The last time I did, they threatened me, they said they would tell upper management that I was threatening them with a firearm.
They wonât listen to any science that takes apart their arguments anyway.
It's been said that religion was invented by ancient humans as a way to explain that which couldn't be explained and/or to control people who otherwise would have been raping, killing, pillaging, etc. without the prospect of a higher power punishing them.
I get just a little stuck right there.
So if someone claims that religion is just an artificial constraint against rape, murder, and mayhem, then why aren't they out there committing these acts and living it up? If there is no God, no Creator, then existence is totally meaningless in the first place and nothing matters. I am left to believe that those that make that claim must believe they are somehow more "moral" than the rabble, and that's why they don't live a totally nihilistic lifestyle. I'd say we have a problem right here with consistency and coherence in a belief system.
I am a religious person. I believe in G-d and I adhere to many religious rules, including dietary restrictions and a bunch of other things that are not always fun.
However, when I read about, or interact with, climate activists/activism, I sort of understand why those who reject religion are the way they are. It's been said that religion was invented by ancient humans as a way to explain that which couldn't be explained and/or to control people who otherwise would have been raping, killing, pillaging, etc. without the prospect of a higher power punishing them.
So I see people saying things like "we have to change everything or the planet will die in 10 years" while providing really no scientific evidence that this position is rooted in anything other than fear and a desire to seize power. Much like when the ancient people had to face the question "why shouldn't I kill this guy who is annoying me", people today want to stop others from doing things that they don't like simply by saying "it's to save the planet."
When you can't explain something, it used to be that you'd credit or blame G-d. Now, when you can't explain something, the post-modern progressives want to either blame/credit climate change or, more generally, science, even though science never is static and certainly never is absolute.
Pretty much every prediction about climate change has been wrong, yet it is replacing religion for many people on the left, the very same people who dismiss religion as a fraud.
This isn't to say that I have no use for science, or I want to see the planet polluted, but if you're going to say that religion is a fraud because you can't prove that G-d exists, you have to also question science as a religion since science is almost always unable to explain things beyond a superficial slogan.*
* not all science, of course. Things like chemistry or engineering are pretty well established in fact and practice.
I am also Christian and I like science. I don't think they are conflicting when you include Quantum Mechanics. This muddies the waters but explains how time and space is not necessarily linear. Mainstream Science more or less disregards Quantum mechanics, mostly out of fear. It explains alot to me
The earth is still trying to warm up after the last ice age, like the artifacts that are being found under the ice as it melts means they were there before the ice. And permafrost? It wasnât always permanent.
I am a religious person. I believe in G-d and I adhere to many religious rules, including dietary restrictions and a bunch of other things that are not always fun.
However, when I read about, or interact with, climate activists/activism, I sort of understand why those who reject religion are the way they are. It's been said that religion was invented by ancient humans as a way to explain that which couldn't be explained and/or to control people who otherwise would have been raping, killing, pillaging, etc. without the prospect of a higher power punishing them.
So I see people saying things like "we have to change everything or the planet will die in 10 years" while providing really no scientific evidence that this position is rooted in anything other than fear and a desire to seize power. Much like when the ancient people had to face the question "why shouldn't I kill this guy who is annoying me", people today want to stop others from doing things that they don't like simply by saying "it's to save the planet."
When you can't explain something, it used to be that you'd credit or blame G-d. Now, when you can't explain something, the post-modern progressives want to either blame/credit climate change or, more generally, science, even though science never is static and certainly never is absolute.
Pretty much every prediction about climate change has been wrong, yet it is replacing religion for many people on the left, the very same people who dismiss religion as a fraud.
This isn't to say that I have no use for science, or I want to see the planet polluted, but if you're going to say that religion is a fraud because you can't prove that G-d exists, you have to also question science as a religion since science is almost always unable to explain things beyond a superficial slogan.*
* not all science, of course. Things like chemistry or engineering are pretty well established in fact and practice.
I am also Christian and I like science. I don't think they are conflicting when you include Quantum Mechanics. This muddies the waters but explains how time and space is not necessarily linear. Mainstream Science more or less disregards Quantum mechanics, mostly out of fear. It explains alot to me
I am a religious person. I believe in G-d and I adhere to many religious rules, including dietary restrictions and a bunch of other things that are not always fun.
However, when I read about, or interact with, climate activists/activism, I sort of understand why those who reject religion are the way they are. It's been said that religion was invented by ancient humans as a way to explain that which couldn't be explained and/or to control people who otherwise would have been raping, killing, pillaging, etc. without the prospect of a higher power punishing them.
So I see people saying things like "we have to change everything or the planet will die in 10 years" while providing really no scientific evidence that this position is rooted in anything other than fear and a desire to seize power. Much like when the ancient people had to face the question "why shouldn't I kill this guy who is annoying me", people today want to stop others from doing things that they don't like simply by saying "it's to save the planet."
When you can't explain something, it used to be that you'd credit or blame G-d. Now, when you can't explain something, the post-modern progressives want to either blame/credit climate change or, more generally, science, even though science never is static and certainly never is absolute.
Pretty much every prediction about climate change has been wrong, yet it is replacing religion for many people on the left, the very same people who dismiss religion as a fraud.
This isn't to say that I have no use for science, or I want to see the planet polluted, but if you're going to say that religion is a fraud because you can't prove that G-d exists, you have to also question science as a religion since science is almost always unable to explain things beyond a superficial slogan.*
* not all science, of course. Things like chemistry or engineering are pretty well established in fact and practice.
So in answer to a few questions...I thought I'd offend those who are religious. I know in other circumstances, I've seen folks who perceive something to be a knock on their faith to not appreciate it.
Bottom line for me is that I am in awe of nature. Anyone who has ever been stuck in the woods, thrown out of a raft on a raging river or simply admires a view likely understands the reality of nature: when the planet is done with having human inhabitants, it will take care of the problem by wiping us out (not that a planet has a mind, but it certainly reacts to negative and positive stimuli). My big problem with the climate alarmists is that they are incredibly naive, and arrogant, to assume that the human mind can understand what makes a planet healthy. As someone else noted, we can't even accurately predict the weather. Who are we to say that the planet can't handle carbon from human activity?
I am a religious person. I believe in G-d and I adhere to many religious rules, including dietary restrictions and a bunch of other things that are not always fun.
However, when I read about, or interact with, climate activists/activism, I sort of understand why those who reject religion are the way they are. It's been said that religion was invented by ancient humans as a way to explain that which couldn't be explained and/or to control people who otherwise would have been raping, killing, pillaging, etc. without the prospect of a higher power punishing them.
So I see people saying things like "we have to change everything or the planet will die in 10 years" while providing really no scientific evidence that this position is rooted in anything other than fear and a desire to seize power. Much like when the ancient people had to face the question "why shouldn't I kill this guy who is annoying me", people today want to stop others from doing things that they don't like simply by saying "it's to save the planet."
When you can't explain something, it used to be that you'd credit or blame G-d. Now, when you can't explain something, the post-modern progressives want to either blame/credit climate change or, more generally, science, even though science never is static and certainly never is absolute.
Pretty much every prediction about climate change has been wrong, yet it is replacing religion for many people on the left, the very same people who dismiss religion as a fraud.
This isn't to say that I have no use for science, or I want to see the planet polluted, but if you're going to say that religion is a fraud because you can't prove that G-d exists, you have to also question science as a religion since science is almost always unable to explain things beyond a superficial slogan.*
* not all science, of course. Things like chemistry or engineering are pretty well established in fact and practice.
Climate change, the planet, environment... they're just a few of the many sacraments of naturalism. It's not science, it's idolatry -- the worship of the creation rather than the creator. It's the most popular religion today and has been for some time. Remember Carl Sagan in the introduction to his TV show "The Cosmos" in the 70's?
âThe Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be. Our feeblest contemplations of the Cosmos stir us -- there is a tingling in the spine, a catch in the voice, a faint sensation, as if a distant memory, of falling from a height. We know we are approaching the greatest of mysteries.â
"The Cosmos," more traditionally "nature," is his god, and not his only, but most people in the US and Europe that think they're "secular" or non-religious, but are in fact full of the same kind of mysticism about their idol. It's not just religion, it's idolatry.
It's not just the climate-change alarmists, the overpopulation neo-Malthusians, and organic-eating, boiled-wool beanie-wearing environmentalists that are in this idolatry. Those sentiments are not even particularly fervent in the religion. They are mostly driven by a lust for control, re-distributive economics, and the envy and spite of resentiment politics. It's simple lust for power that drives those ideas, and the arrogance of the thinking that the empowered are the only ones able to lead mankind out of the crisis. Make no mistake though, some false religion such as naturalism or humanism is lying beneath the surface. Only such a false religion can justify the power grab. That lust isn't the only effect of the idolatry either. The most severe effect of this idolatry might be it's moral relativism. It forakes a transcendental creator God for immanance, a god within nature or humanity itself.
For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.
Forasmuch as there is none like unto thee, O Lord; thou art great, and thy name is great in might. Who would not fear thee, O King of nations? for to thee doth it appertain: forasmuch as among all the wise men of the nations, and in all their kingdoms, there is none like unto thee. But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is a doctrine of vanities. Silver spread into plates is brought from Tarshish, and gold from Uphaz, the work of the workman, and of the hands of the founder: blue and purple is their clothing: they are all the work of cunning men. But the Lord is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation. Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens. He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.
And yep, you're pissing HIM off. âYe shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.â (Deut. ... âWhat thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.â (Deut. 12:32.)
I can eat anything i want.
Genesis 9:3, NIV: "Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything."
Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. What goes into a man's mouth does not make him `unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him `unclean. ... "Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them.
It's been said that religion was invented by ancient humans as a way to explain that which couldn't be explained and/or to control people who otherwise would have been raping, killing, pillaging, etc. without the prospect of a higher power punishing them.
I get just a little stuck right there.
So if someone claims that religion is just an artificial constraint against rape, murder, and mayhem, then why aren't they out there committing these acts and living it up? If there is no God, no Creator, then existence is totally meaningless in the first place and nothing matters. I am left to believe that those that make that claim must believe they are somehow more "moral" than the rabble, and that's why they don't live a totally nihilistic lifestyle. I'd say we have a problem right here with consistency and coherence in a belief system.
Dont start off with "So", it pisses Paul Barnyard off.
The earth is still trying to warm up after the last ice age, like the artifacts that are being found under the ice as it melts means they were there before the ice. And permafrost? It wasnât always permanent.
They are both designed to exract money from people... at least religion has many redeeming qualities
Is money your god?
I used to think idols were only something like Barbie dolls about which extreme superstitions were held. Of course, I'd also encountered super religious people for whom everything is an idol or a spirit. He's got a 'spirit of laziness.' She's got a 'spirit of poverty' or anger or lust. His 'pride' is his idol. Such metaphor renders the concept of idolatry too meaningless. But it isn't just for gilt Barbie dolls. "You cannot serve God and mammon." Mammon is obviously something that a person can serve, and it's clearly not just a figurine.
They are both designed to exract money from people... at least religion has many redeeming qualities
Is money your god?
I used to think idols were only something like Barbie dolls about which extreme superstitions were held. Of course, I'd also encountered super religious people for whom everything is an idol or a spirit. He's got a 'spirit of laziness.' She's got a 'spirit of poverty' or anger or lust. His 'pride' is his idol. Such metaphor renders the concept of idolatry too meaningless. But it isn't just for gilt Barbie dolls. "You cannot serve God and mammon." Mammon is obviously something that a person can serve, and it's clearly not just a figurine.
I have no idea what you said so I cannot respond.... sorry
Another good post Remsen. I appreciate the genuineness. I'm way short of a scholar on World religions. This is just the first link I found about foundation values of both Judaism and Christianity. Near as I can tell the Ten Commandments are common values. Thoughts?
Another good post Remsen. I appreciate the genuineness. I'm way short of a scholar on World religions. This is just the first link I found about foundation values of both Judaism and Christianity. Near as I can tell the Ten Commandments are common values. Thoughts?
Common values, yes. However, the Gentiles aren't under the law. It was given to the Jews and Jesus fulfilled it. God's grace was then passed on to the Gentiles without the burden of the law.
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. 15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!
Ga 2:21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"
I am a religious person. I believe in G-d and I adhere to many religious rules, including dietary restrictions and a bunch of other things that are not always fun.
However, when I read about, or interact with, climate activists/activism, I sort of understand why those who reject religion are the way they are. It's been said that religion was invented by ancient humans as a way to explain that which couldn't be explained and/or to control people who otherwise would have been raping, killing, pillaging, etc. without the prospect of a higher power punishing them.
So I see people saying things like "we have to change everything or the planet will die in 10 years" while providing really no scientific evidence that this position is rooted in anything other than fear and a desire to seize power. Much like when the ancient people had to face the question "why shouldn't I kill this guy who is annoying me", people today want to stop others from doing things that they don't like simply by saying "it's to save the planet."
When you can't explain something, it used to be that you'd credit or blame G-d. Now, when you can't explain something, the post-modern progressives want to either blame/credit climate change or, more generally, science, even though science never is static and certainly never is absolute.
Pretty much every prediction about climate change has been wrong, yet it is replacing religion for many people on the left, the very same people who dismiss religion as a fraud.
This isn't to say that I have no use for science, or I want to see the planet polluted, but if you're going to say that religion is a fraud because you can't prove that G-d exists, you have to also question science as a religion since science is almost always unable to explain things beyond a superficial slogan.*
* not all science, of course. Things like chemistry or engineering are pretty well established in fact and practice.
Excellent post....
I was in a community in SE Oregon, French Lick.... they had the only fuel pumps in this small town, for a 100 mile radius... you have to go 50 miles one way for the next place to purchase fuel.... One day the DEQ ( Dept of Environmental Quality) in Oregon, shows up and tells the owner of the store with the pumps, that they are officially closed as of right now....They found small traces of some fuel in the local water table.. so they blamed the gas tanks from the store had a small leak.... to correct the 'problem' was about a $90,000 expenditure.. of course this small store didn't have that kind of money....
Went out there to the town meeting they had over this, just to observe DemocRat ran government in action.
DEQ sent this poor lower level staffer down there, to answer questions for the public. Poor guy got slaughtered by the angry farmers and ranchers. You need fuel, you burn up half a tank of gas, going to get it and then returning home...it got to the point, that the crowd actually started feeling sorry for the DEQ flunky, for the verbal abuse he took in the name of their opinion for the DEQ, and their shenanigans...
Finally one guy took the podium at the request of many folks there...His resume was that he was a local boy, who went to college and got a law degree. He had had a very successful practice for 25 years up in Portland. When his father took ill due to age, he retired and came back home to run the ranch that had been in the family 4 or 5 generations... a large spread to say the least.
His speech was short but to the point.....condensed but covering the general points: " lets say that we people in this rural county are anti environmentalists, we go out of our way to pollute our county, in any way we can. We change the oil in our farm equipment and cars/trucks, and always dump it in a stream. We take animal manure and do the exact same thing. We openly burn all of our garbage, every day all day. We pollute the environment as much as we can. If this were all true, we'd still could not pollute this county in 10, 20 or even 50 years, as much as Multnomah County ( Portland) pollutes the environment in a single day. Yet they send DEQ down here and tell us they are going to close down the only source of fuel to run our farms and ranches, within a 100 mile radius. How would all of these leftists in Portland, like if we had the ability to go up there, and close down all of their full stations, to where everyone in Portland had to drive 100 miles round trip just to put fuel in their source of transportation?" that drew a huge applaud from the crowd....
however in the end, this is how it worked out. This retired attorney knew Gordon Smith ( Oregon's Last Republican Senator). He contacted him about the problem. So Senator Smith, got a 100K Federal Grant for the community, to put new underground fuel tanks, with all the environmental upgrades DEQ demanded. Typical case of where DemocRats create a problem that really doesn't exist in a conservative rural community. Then the community gets Federal funds to correct the problem, which all of we tax payers are paying for. Then DEQ just moves right along and does the exact same thing to another rural community elsewhere within the state.
Funny this stuff rarely happens it seems in metro Potland, it seems. If it does, it certainly doesn't cause a hard ship for the community up there...
this retired lawyer/rancher made one more point, that really stuck out to me.
The original 'environmentalists' are farmers and ranchers. If they pollute and don't take care of the environmental needs of their farm or ranch, they go out of business.
yet once again, the City of Portland and Multnomah County pollute their environment MORE in a DAY, than most rural counties in Oregon do in decades. yet it is those in metro Potland... ( DemocRats) that are dictating policy to the rest of the state, and yet it doesn't apply to them.
And typical example of DemocRats creating problems that don't exist, or where they don't exist, where they make themselves available to administer the so call solution to said problem, creating perpetual job security for themselves, and their party. As said before and will be said again, always.....DemocRats are real good at spending other people's money....or wasting other people's money.
Need a new set of camo hunting clothes. Old ones are fading, kinda worn, and it's getting cold out.
Why did God ever allow Mossy Oak to discontinue their forrest floor camo pattern??? That pattern was kick azz in oaks and hardwoods blending in with all the leaves on the ground.
Climate change, the planet, environment... they're just a few of the many sacraments of naturalism. It's not science, it's idolatry -- the worship of the creation rather than the creator. It's the most popular religion today and has been for some time. Remember Carl Sagan in the introduction to his TV show "The Cosmos" in the 70's?
âThe Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be. Our feeblest contemplations of the Cosmos stir us -- there is a tingling in the spine, a catch in the voice, a faint sensation, as if a distant memory, of falling from a height. We know we are approaching the greatest of mysteries.â
"The Cosmos," more traditionally "nature," is his god, and not his only, but most people in the US and Europe that think they're "secular" or non-religious, but are in fact full of the same kind of mysticism about their idol. It's not just religion, it's idolatry.
It's not just the climate-change alarmists, the overpopulation neo-Malthusians, and organic-eating, boiled-wool beanie-wearing environmentalists that are in this idolatry. Those sentiments are not even particularly fervent in the religion. They are mostly driven by a lust for control, re-distributive economics, and the envy and spite of resentiment politics. It's simple lust for power that drives those ideas, and the arrogance of the thinking that the empowered are the only ones able to lead mankind out of the crisis. Make no mistake though, some false religion such as naturalism or humanism is lying beneath the surface. Only such a false religion can justify the power grab. That lust isn't the only effect of the idolatry either. The most severe effect of this idolatry might be it's moral relativism. It forakes a transcendental creator God for immanance, a god within nature or humanity itself.
For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.
Forasmuch as there is none like unto thee, O Lord; thou art great, and thy name is great in might. Who would not fear thee, O King of nations? for to thee doth it appertain: forasmuch as among all the wise men of the nations, and in all their kingdoms, there is none like unto thee. But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is a doctrine of vanities. Silver spread into plates is brought from Tarshish, and gold from Uphaz, the work of the workman, and of the hands of the founder: blue and purple is their clothing: they are all the work of cunning men. But the Lord is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation. Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens. He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.
The sky has been falling in the eyes of the global warming type for years. It just takes on new names to try to gain traction. Rush Limbaugh hit the nail on the head years ago when he stated that liberalism and global warming are the leftist religion.
Another good post Remsen. I appreciate the genuineness. I'm way short of a scholar on World religions. This is just the first link I found about foundation values of both Judaism and Christianity. Near as I can tell the Ten Commandments are common values. Thoughts?
Common values, yes. However, the Gentiles aren't under the law. It was given to the Jews and Jesus fulfilled it. God's grace was then passed on to the Gentiles without the burden of the law.
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. 15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!
Ga 2:21 âI do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"
Thatâs a good post Rock Chuck. I agree with you. Wholeheartedly.
Climate change, the planet, environment... they're just a few of the many sacraments of naturalism. It's not science, it's idolatry -- the worship of the creation rather than the creator. It's the most popular religion today and has been for some time.
The whole post is insightful, but Iâd say that the most popular religion is the desire to acquire as much material wealth as possible. The acquisition of money, and the things that money can buy, is the driving force behind the lives of nearly all people. According to Jesus it contends with Him for our worship.
I don't know but here is what I think on climate change. First, is it real? Answer yes. Is it man made" Answer, HELL NO. Think about the various epochs in tin, the Cambrian, Jurassic and all the others.Some of those epochs were a hell of a lot hotter then what we are experiencing today. Some as much as 40 degrees hotter. One epoch was so tropical that due to the plant life the oxygen level was high enough that the air was poisonous to man. There were several ice ages as well.. Most of those differences man wasn't even around. Guess we'd have to blame dinosaur farts or whatever.
Again, these are just my thoughts, but it there were all those climate changes and man not even in the picture, what might be the common denominator? I think it may be the sun. maybe over time the sun waxes and wanes in its intensity with the hot times being global warming and the cool spots down enough to create an ice age.
Look at it this way. Most here I think have gone camping whether just to camp out as a get away or as part of a hunting trip so you should be familiar with a white gasoline powered lantern. You fill the tank and pump up the pressure and when lit get a nice bright source of light. As time wears on the fuel level gets a bit low and pressure in the tank drops. The light dims and continues to dim until someone pumps up the pressure and once again you have bright light until the pressure goes down again. Think on that for a while and it makes sense. It's a long slow process over millions of years but the only thing that escapes me is this. Who or what pumps up the pressure in the tank? Frankly on that aspect one can believe in whatever Supreme Being or Beings they chose to. 0
My thoughts say the cause of climate change, hot or cold is caused by the sun. Whether by some kind of natural force or by a Supreme Being is up to you. In either case it's the sun stupid. If I'm anywhere near right, man had best get his head out of its usual resting place and try to figure out long term on how to best handle whatever direction the planet is heading. Paul B.
They blame CO2 but water vapor is many times more responsible for the global temperatures. However, water vapor can't be controlled and taxed. CO2 possibly can be. There are many causes of fluctuation in the humidity of the air. None of them are controllable and they know it. They had to pick a gas that's caused by man, even though maybe 99% of CO2 is natural and not controllable. I did a search to get the percentages of the various gasses in the atmosphere and found that they have a neat trick. They leave water out and call it the 'dry air'. That covers up the water content that's something like 40 times more abundant than CO2. Many charts I looked at leave out water just like it doesn't exist.
There were several ice ages as well.. Most of those differences man wasn't even around. Guess we'd have to blame dinosaur farts or whatever.
Again, these are just my thoughts, but it there were all those climate changes and man not even in the picture, what might be the common denominator? I think it may be the sun. maybe over time the sun waxes and wanes in its intensity with the hot times being global warming and the cool spots down enough to create an ice age.
.
The change in the tilt of the Earth's axis also has an effect on climate:
Remsen, I believe in neither religion nor human-caused climate change. They're both artificial constructs to try to explain something or achieve a political end. And they're both fallacies. But there are people who rabidly believe in one or the other - maybe even both.
No matter how strong or imposing the house, if it is built upon sand, it will not long stand. Your opinion, while definitely stated, is based on a presupposition â presumably, that there is no God â that is in error.
I am a religious person. I believe in G-d and I adhere to many religious rules, including dietary restrictions and a bunch of other things that are not always fun.
However, when I read about, or interact with, climate activists/activism, I sort of understand why those who reject religion are the way they are. It's been said that religion was invented by ancient humans as a way to explain that which couldn't be explained and/or to control people who otherwise would have been raping, killing, pillaging, etc. without the prospect of a higher power punishing them.
So I see people saying things like "we have to change everything or the planet will die in 10 years" while providing really no scientific evidence that this position is rooted in anything other than fear and a desire to seize power. Much like when the ancient people had to face the question "why shouldn't I kill this guy who is annoying me", people today want to stop others from doing things that they don't like simply by saying "it's to save the planet."
When you can't explain something, it used to be that you'd credit or blame G-d. Now, when you can't explain something, the post-modern progressives want to either blame/credit climate change or, more generally, science, even though science never is static and certainly never is absolute.
Pretty much every prediction about climate change has been wrong, yet it is replacing religion for many people on the left, the very same people who dismiss religion as a fraud.
This isn't to say that I have no use for science, or I want to see the planet polluted, but if you're going to say that religion is a fraud because you can't prove that G-d exists, you have to also question science as a religion since science is almost always unable to explain things beyond a superficial slogan.*
* not all science, of course. Things like chemistry or engineering are pretty well established in fact and practice.
Climate change is the new revival of the old Pagan Gaia goddess worship IMHO. Ted Turner pushed it to children through Saturday morning programming.... Captain Planet. It is pushed by pagan teachers, some of which I went to school with. It has such an appeal to the masses that the gt forces businesses into "green" Uniform Commercial Code compliance. We hardly hear a peep from the corporations protesting the travesty.
I agree with your assessment Remsen. I've studied the issue and have held meetings exposing the green agenda. The green agenda that started in the 70s as the coming I've age, did a 360 more recently as Al Gore was one spokesman using his office to push it. Now it morphed into Climate Change to answer both sides of the argument. Of course it has nothing to do with meteorology and everything to do with global controls, economies and utilizes the"threat" with techniques of propaganda. This includes the Mother Earth goddess Gaia. As our Bible tells us that we are not to worship the creation, but rather the Creator, He reveals Himself and his salvation in the books of the Law. We are very fortunate to have so much detail and prophecies that we can trust in Him rather than the false pagan "dieties."
As much of hinduism has integrated into western religion through the New Age Movement, it uses a deceptive technique to deceive and proselytize the masses. I remember the story of the Indian yogi who came to america to sell his religion of summoning demons and their power. He failed and went back home, stayed ina cave and summoned them. He was told to teach the religious technique as a science, using scientific terminology. He returned and it worked. The westerners made him a very powerful religious leaders and much wealth. I spent a little time in that until I realized what it was.
The popular religion of west is "science so called." This faith based.so called science , has convinced many, coerced some and taken over the institutions of america. I'm reminded of the ancient warning,
"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:"
As for the spelling of G-d, it is just something religious Jews do out of respect. We don't say His name and even when referring to Him, it's with the dash.
Iâve noticed that Old_Toot would do the same thing.
Remsen; Good afternoon to you sir, I hope the day's been behaving well enough for you folks and you're all doing well too.
Thanks for the thread and for your thoughts on the subject, I appreciate your continued candor and the wit with which you deliver it.
While I do claim to be a follower of Christ, I don't believe that I truly fit into the "religious" category or better said that was never something I aspired to do.
All that to say, you didn't offend me at all and even if you had, I've found it's never a bad thing to think about what I believe and how I've come to believe it, you know?
If life ever takes you up across the medicine line on Highway 97 heading through southern BC, at very least I'd be honored to shake your hand and get a coffee or some food into you - along with a visit.
All the best to you folks and good luck on your hunts this fall.
It's been said that religion was invented by ancient humans as a way to explain that which couldn't be explained and/or to control people who otherwise would have been raping, killing, pillaging, etc. without the prospect of a higher power punishing them.
I get just a little stuck right there.
So if someone claims that religion is just an artificial constraint against rape, murder, and mayhem, then why aren't they out there committing these acts and living it up? If there is no God, no Creator, then existence is totally meaningless in the first place and nothing matters. I am left to believe that those that make that claim must believe they are somehow more "moral" than the rabble, and that's why they don't live a totally nihilistic lifestyle. I'd say we have a problem right here with consistency and coherence in a belief system.
If it were proven tomorrow that there is no heaven or hell, no great reward or punishment, then a lot of religious types would be killing their neighbors.
It's been said that religion was invented by ancient humans as a way to explain that which couldn't be explained and/or to control people who otherwise would have been raping, killing, pillaging, etc. without the prospect of a higher power punishing them.
I get just a little stuck right there. So if someone claims that religion is just an artificial constraint against rape, murder, and mayhem, then why aren't they out there committing these acts and living it up? If there is no God, no Creator, then existence is totally meaningless in the first place and nothing matters. I am left to believe that those that make that claim must believe they are somehow more "moral" than the rabble, and that's why they don't live a totally nihilistic lifestyle. I'd say we have a problem right here with consistency and coherence in a belief system.
If it were proven tomorrow that there is no heaven or hell, no great reward or punishment, then a lot of religious types would be killing their neighbors.
Maybe so. To me, if your only motivation for following Jesusâ is so *you* can win the big prize in the end, then your motivation is pretty self-centered. To me, following Jesus has as much or more to do with this life as it does the next.
They blame CO2 but water vapor is many times more responsible for the global temperatures. However, water vapor can't be controlled and taxed. CO2 possibly can be. There are many causes of fluctuation in the humidity of the air. None of them are controllable and they know it. They had to pick a gas that's caused by man, even though maybe 99% of CO2 is natural and not controllable. I did a search to get the percentages of the various gasses in the atmosphere and found that they have a neat trick. They leave water out and call it the 'dry air'. That covers up the water content that's something like 40 times more abundant than CO2. Many charts I looked at leave out water just like it doesn't exist.
Climate change, the planet, environment... they're just a few of the many sacraments of naturalism. It's not science, it's idolatry -- the worship of the creation rather than the creator. It's the most popular religion today and has been for some time.
The whole post is insightful, but Iâd say that the most popular religion is the desire to acquire as much material wealth as possible. The acquisition of money, and the things that money can buy, is the driving force behind the lives of nearly all people. According to Jesus it contends with Him for our worship.
You were right too, because the Council of Nicea in AD 325 had some input, as did the First Council of Constantinople in AD 381. Iâm glad you enjoy the discussions, and Iâm glad you participate when you do.
The end-of-the-world scenario climatologists have not one single clue or shred of evidence to genuinely support their BS claims.
MM
The measured rise of the Oceans by one foot over the last century, coinciding with a rise in CO2, is pretty good evidence to me.
Not to mention the increase in air temperatures year over year.
BS. They measured at different times in tides. NY and Miami were supposed to be under water 20 years ago as icebergs were melting.
Actually, that would make the water depth decrease.
And weather stations measuring temps are still in the same locations as 50 years ago, only now they are surrounded by asphalt and buildings and concrete inside cities instead of outside city limits decades ago.
I got lucky and harvested Ă buck with my bow . Turns out he had alot of fat on him for early September. Which is proof positive its going to be a cold tough winter. I know because I've been looking at deer fat for 50 years. Lol
Indy, you're so FOS its unreal. Youre wrong about global warming and Jesus.
Leif Erickson paddled a boat to Canada a thousand years ago from Iceland. There were no boat crushing ice cubes in the North Atlantic then which made it possible then, not now.
Greenland was really green back then. He named Labrador "Vineland" because the forests had vines and grapes. You know, Vinland, like as in Vinyard? In fact, back then, they grew grapes and made WINE in Great Britain. Not now. Why? Its too freaking cold. Keep swallowing your modern BS MSM and indoctrination education and keep being a stupid useful snowflake idiot.
Indy, you're so FOS its unreal. Youre wrong about global warming and Jesus.
Leif Erickson paddled a boat to Canada a thousand years ago from Iceland. There were no boat crushing ice cubes in the North Atlantic then which made it possible then, not now.
Greenland was really green back then. He named Labrador "Vineland" because the forests had vines and grapes. You know, Vinland, like as in Vinyard? In fact, back then, they grew grapes and made WINE in Great Britain. Not now. Why? Its too freaking cold. Keep swallowing your modern BS MSM and indoctrination education and keep being a stupid useful snowflake idiot.
Sheesh.
Does anyone still believe that Indy isnât a lock step, Biden loving, retard?
They blame CO2 but water vapor is many times more responsible for the global temperatures. However, water vapor can't be controlled and taxed. CO2 possibly can be. There are many causes of fluctuation in the humidity of the air. None of them are controllable and they know it. They had to pick a gas that's caused by man, even though maybe 99% of CO2 is natural and not controllable. I did a search to get the percentages of the various gasses in the atmosphere and found that they have a neat trick. They leave water out and call it the 'dry air'. That covers up the water content that's something like 40 times more abundant than CO2. Many charts I looked at leave out water just like it doesn't exist.
The dirty little secret.
Worth repeating....from the rooftop!
What you forgot, Tarbe, is that CO2 and water vapor behave differently in the atmosphere.
I am not well educated so in this discussion I'm a plowhorse running with racehorses. But didn't I study in my junior high and high school classes that carbon dioxide was absolutely necessary for the plant growth that is the basis for all animal and human life? That large oak tree that I am reducing to firewood is carbon that the tree pulled out of the air using the energy of the sun is it not? I visited Fossil Butte National Park in SW Wyoming and they contend there was a time when CO2 was 20X what it is presently and life was flourishing. The earth at times was apparently warmer than now, Has anyone considered that a little warming while possibly discommoding some folks might bring net benefits to this human race which requires to be fed? As far as sea level rise we have material and machinery to deal with that. Fly over the west and look at the rocks available to protect cities from water much like Galveston did over 100 years ago. In my state we had a federal boondoggle that lined Red River with rocks and basically made Shreveport (200+ mile inland) a seaport. What do I know, I barely got through high school.
I am not well educated so in this discussion I'm a plowhorse running with racehorses. But didn't I study in my junior high and high school classes that carbon dioxide was absolutely necessary for the plant growth that is the basis for all animal and human life? That large oak tree that I am reducing to firewood is carbon that the tree pulled out of the air using the energy of the sun is it not? I visited Fossil Butte National Park in SW Wyoming and they contend there was a time when CO2 was 20X what it is presently and life was flourishing. The earth at times was apparently warmer than now, Has anyone considered that a little warming while possibly discommoding some folks might bring net benefits to this human race which requires to be fed? As far as sea level rise we have material and machinery to deal with that. Fly over the west and look at the rocks available to protect cities from water much like Galveston did over 100 years ago. In my state we had a federal boondoggle that lined Red River with rocks and basically made Shreveport (200+ mile inland) a seaport. What do I know, I barely got through high school.
Youâre trying to debate with the people that think you can vaccinate a cold.
BS. They measured at different times in tides. NY and Miami were supposed to be under water 20 years ago as icebergs were melting.
Nope. No reputable scientist ever predicted that.
Global warming is real and is caused by humans. That is not in dispute by any intelligent person (excludes deFlave). What is in dispute are the proposed solutions, most of which won't work. For instance, if every nation subscribed to the Paris Accords, the global temperature would only be lowered by 0.06 degree by 2100. That's too small to measure.
You were right too, because the Council of Nicea in AD 325 had some input, as did the First Council of Constantinople in AD 381. Iâm glad you enjoy the discussions, and Iâm glad you participate when you do.
Why is it that people always look to the men who assembled the Bible but leave out the Holy Spirit? Don't they know that the Spirit guides the thoughts and actions of believers? He guided the authors of the 66 books and he later guided those who decided which books would be in the Bible we have now. Every book in it was put there by the guidance of the Spirit and all of those he rejected were thrown out by the believers who listened to him.
BS. They measured at different times in tides. NY and Miami were supposed to be under water 20 years ago as icebergs were melting.
Nope. No reputable scientist ever predicted that.
Global warming is real and is caused by humans. That is not in dispute by any intelligent person (excludes deFlave). What is in dispute are the proposed solutions, most of which won't work. For instance, if every nation subscribed to the Paris Accords, the global temperature would only be lowered by 0.06 degree by 2100. That's too small to measure.
Fill a glass with ice, as much as possible, then fill it to the rim with water. When the ice melts, will the glass run over?
Nope, the water level won't go down, as Jaguar proposed, either,
Greenland and Antarctica have a lot of ice that is NOT floating on water (unlike the ice cap in the Arctic ocean)
If/when that melts, expect some additional water to be added to the system.
Yeah sure thing.
You fugking idiot.
DumbFlave can't offer any rebuttal so he resorts to cussing. There ought to be an IQ test for the privilege of voting. This is one case where Sycamore is correct. DumbFlave forgot to take science in high school.
BS. They measured at different times in tides. NY and Miami were supposed to be under water 20 years ago as icebergs were melting.
Nope. No reputable scientist ever predicted that.
Global warming is real and is caused by humans. That is not in dispute by any intelligent person (excludes deFlave). What is in dispute are the proposed solutions, most of which won't work. For instance, if every nation subscribed to the Paris Accords, the global temperature would only be lowered by 0.06 degree by 2100. That's too small to measure.
Again, I suffer from lack of education. But do not growing plants take that CO2 in and use solar energy to remove the carbon and then release the oxygen? Kind of the opposite of what you and I do? We take in oxygen and emit CO2 I thought? I believe that is how plants find the material that is the bulk of their makeup. I barely got through school so help me out here.
Again, I suffer from lack of education. But do not growing plants take that CO2 in and use solar energy to remove the carbon and then release the oxygen? Kind of the opposite of what you and I do? We take in oxygen and emit CO2 I thought? I believe that is how plants find the material that is the bulk of their makeup. I barely got through school so help me out here.
Again, I suffer from lack of education. But do not growing plants take that CO2 in and use solar energy to remove the carbon and then release the oxygen? Kind of the opposite of what you and I do? We take in oxygen and emit CO2 I thought? I believe that is how plants find the material that is the bulk of their makeup. I barely got through school so help me out here.
Youre smarter than the indoctrinated Indy. And plants use it and produce O2 for us and deer and such.
HE had it figured out pretty well. The scarey part is HE said they'd go to Hell.
Again, I suffer from lack of education. But do not growing plants take that CO2 in and use solar energy to remove the carbon and then release the oxygen? Kind of the opposite of what you and I do? We take in oxygen and emit CO2 I thought? I believe that is how plants find the material that is the bulk of their makeup. I barely got through school so help me out here.
These fugcwads wanna get rid of co2.
They will kill all of us.
Seems like they should be castrated and their women bred.
Well, thats how the leftists muxziees do it. Whats good for the goose....
Fill a glass with ice, as much as possible, then fill it to the rim with water. When the ice melts, will the glass run over?
Nope, the water level won't go down, as Jaguar proposed, either,
Greenland and Antarctica have a lot of ice that is NOT floating on water (unlike the ice cap in the Arctic ocean)
If/when that melts, expect some additional water to be added to the system.
Yeah sure thing.
You fugking idiot.
DumbFlave can't offer any rebuttal so he resorts to cussing. There ought to be an IQ test for the privilege of voting. This is one case where Sycamore is correct. DumbFlave forgot to take science in high school.
You canât debate because your idiocy is your religion.
Again, I suffer from lack of education. But do not growing plants take that CO2 in and use solar energy to remove the carbon and then release the oxygen? Kind of the opposite of what you and I do? We take in oxygen and emit CO2 I thought? I believe that is how plants find the material that is the bulk of their makeup. I barely got through school so help me out here.
You were right too, because the Council of Nicea in AD 325 had some input, as did the First Council of Constantinople in AD 381. Iâm glad you enjoy the discussions, and Iâm glad you participate when you do.
Why is it that people always look to the men who assembled the Bible but leave out the Holy Spirit? Don't they know that the Spirit guides the thoughts and actions of believers? He guided the authors of the 66 books and he later guided those who decided which books would be in the Bible we have now. Every book in it was put there by the guidance of the Spirit and all of those he rejected were thrown out by the believers who listened to him.
I believe that He does if one yields to Him. Believers can still let their thoughts and actions be directed by their sinful nature instead of letting their thoughts and actions be directed by the Holy Spirit who lives inside of them. The typical beliefs of the faith certainly coincide with what youâve posted above. Iâm certainly not disagreeing with what youâve posted above. But unbelievers donât accept the authority of the Bible.
There are those who believe that ascribing some sort of authority to the Bible is really ascribing some sort of authority to a bunch of Fourth Century guys who were trying to cobble something together that would suit the Emperor who was establishing a State Religion to unify an Empire.
There are also those who believe that the foundation of the faith is not an inspired book, but rather the events that inspired the book; events that inspired writers, guided along by the Holy Spirit, to document conversations, insights and eventsâthe pivotal event being the resurrection. While itâs true we would not know these events occurred had they not been documented, two other things are equally true. First, they were documented many years before there ever was the Bible (i.e., New Testament bound together with the Jewish Scriptures). Second, it is the events, not the record of the events, that birthed the âchurch.â The Bible did not create Christianity. Christianity is the reason the Bible was created. Many people grew up on âThe Bible saysâ preaching...and thatâs fine as long as one first believes that the Bible is not only inspired, but also that everything in it should be literally interpreted, and that itâs also inerrant.
Excellent response I'm not Ă biblical scholar but I do question many things such as some organized religion with cover ups of devient behavior ectra.The way women would of been seen at the time. Whether the bible was written for people to understand at the time. Were books left out because of political reasons. I respect beliefs but these are questions that concern me. Seems about every church has their own believe and it is the only one. I know that many get peace from attending church and I'm happy for them.
Another good post Remsen. I appreciate the genuineness. I'm way short of a scholar on World religions. This is just the first link I found about foundation values of both Judaism and Christianity. Near as I can tell the Ten Commandments are common values. Thoughts?
Common values, yes. However, the Gentiles aren't under the law. It was given to the Jews and Jesus fulfilled it. God's grace was then passed on to the Gentiles without the burden of the law.
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. 15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!
Ga 2:21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"
Yeah I remember Regan being asked about his faith, I really liked his simple humble sounding reply, "I'm a sinner grateful to be saved by grace". My thinking is that there is a MUCH higher probability that I'd enjoy a friendship with a conservative Jew than I would with a person that says they are a Christian but is militant about a long list of woke progressive issues.
Trump made a statement at one of his recent rallies about stopping "The lunatics" that have taken over our Country. My hope is that the current insanity will bring about another revival of traditional values.
Marxists pitted proletariat against bourgeoise to crash civilization so that people would accept totalitarians' rule. Today they cast a broader net to stir up conflict. I'm interested in forging alliances with pretty much anyone who believes that the ten commandments are the proper touch stone for behavior.
The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:2-17 KJV)
1 âI am the LORD your God, which have brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me.
2 âYou shall not make unto you any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: You shall not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my Commandments.
3 âYou shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
4 âRemember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shall you labour, and do all your work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD your God: in it you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger that is within your gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
5 âHonour your father and your mother: that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God giveth you.
6 âYou shall not kill.
7 âYou shall not commit adultery.
8 âYou shall not steal.
9 âYou shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
10 âYou shall not covet your neighbour's house, you shall not covet your neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is your neighbour's.â
BS. They measured at different times in tides. NY and Miami were supposed to be under water 20 years ago as icebergs were melting.
Nope. No reputable scientist ever predicted that.
Global warming is real and is caused by humans. That is not in dispute by any intelligent person (excludes deFlave). What is in dispute are the proposed solutions, most of which won't work. For instance, if every nation subscribed to the Paris Accords, the global temperature would only be lowered by 0.06 degree by 2100. That's too small to measure.
Youâre a fugking idiot!!!
I said it was not in dispute by any" intelligent" person.
That excludes you.
Explain why the sea level has risen and the temperatures have risen in recent years, smarty pants.
Again, I suffer from lack of education. But do not growing plants take that CO2 in and use solar energy to remove the carbon and then release the oxygen? Kind of the opposite of what you and I do? We take in oxygen and emit CO2 I thought? I believe that is how plants find the material that is the bulk of their makeup. I barely got through school so help me out here.
Yes
Yes you suffer from a lack of education.
CO2 is necessary for photosynthesis (plant growth). But too much CO2 can be poison for plant growth.
Fill a glass with ice, as much as possible, then fill it to the rim with water. When the ice melts, will the glass run over?
Nope, the water level won't go down, as Jaguar proposed, either,
Greenland and Antarctica have a lot of ice that is NOT floating on water (unlike the ice cap in the Arctic ocean)
If/when that melts, expect some additional water to be added to the system.
Yeah sure thing.
You fugking idiot.
DumbFlave can't offer any rebuttal so he resorts to cussing. There ought to be an IQ test for the privilege of voting. This is one case where Sycamore is correct. DumbFlave forgot to take science in high school.
You canât debate because your idiocy is your religion.
Same for Sycamore.
Youâre fugking idiots.
I can't speak for Sycamore. I disagree with him about all things Biden.
Why are you too CHICKENSHIT to take my wager? Hmmm?
Since you can't think of any way to defend your beliefs, I hereby submit your next 10 posts:
Fill a glass with ice, as much as possible, then fill it to the rim with water. When the ice melts, will the glass run over?
Nope, the water level won't go down, as Jaguar proposed, either,
Greenland and Antarctica have a lot of ice that is NOT floating on water (unlike the ice cap in the Arctic ocean)
If/when that melts, expect some additional water to be added to the system.
Yeah sure thing.
You fugking idiot.
DumbFlave can't offer any rebuttal so he resorts to cussing. There ought to be an IQ test for the privilege of voting. This is one case where Sycamore is correct. DumbFlave forgot to take science in high school.
You canât debate because your idiocy is your religion.
Same for Sycamore.
Youâre fugking idiots.
I can't speak for Sycamore. I disagree with him about all things Biden.
Why are you too CHICKENSHIT to take my wager? Hmmm?
Since you can't think of any way to defend your beliefs, I hereby submit your next 10 posts:
Again, I suffer from lack of education. But do not growing plants take that CO2 in and use solar energy to remove the carbon and then release the oxygen? Kind of the opposite of what you and I do? We take in oxygen and emit CO2 I thought? I believe that is how plants find the material that is the bulk of their makeup. I barely got through school so help me out here.
Yes
Yes you suffer from a lack of education. CO2 is necessary for photosynthesis (plant growth). But too much CO2 can be poison for plant growth.
What is the percentage of CO2 now and what percentage would poison the plants? As I have said about my visit to Fossil Butte NP, they claim CO2 was 20 times what it is presently in the distant past and apparently gave rise to the abundant life that ended up being the sequestered carbon in our fossil fuels. Do you know what level would be poisonous and are we close to that level?
Again, I suffer from lack of education. But do not growing plants take that CO2 in and use solar energy to remove the carbon and then release the oxygen? Kind of the opposite of what you and I do? We take in oxygen and emit CO2 I thought? I believe that is how plants find the material that is the bulk of their makeup. I barely got through school so help me out here.
Yes
Yes you suffer from a lack of education. CO2 is necessary for photosynthesis (plant growth). But too much CO2 can be poison for plant growth.
What is the percentage of CO2 now and what percentage would poison the plants? As I have said about my visit to Fossil Butte NP, they claim CO2 was 20 times what it is presently in the distant past and apparently gave rise to the abundant life that ended up being the sequestered carbon in our fossil fuels. Do you know what level would be poisonous and are we close to that level?
Currently, CO2 is .04% of the atmosphere. I read that in closed experiments, it can get up to 1% with beneficial results. It can go as high as 2% with only minor decreases in plant growth. Yes, it can be toxic but the toxic levels are many, many times more than what's natural. Ironically, part of the decrease in plant growth at higher levels is cause by too much growth which shades out the lower leaves.
Again, I suffer from lack of education. But do not growing plants take that CO2 in and use solar energy to remove the carbon and then release the oxygen? Kind of the opposite of what you and I do? We take in oxygen and emit CO2 I thought? I believe that is how plants find the material that is the bulk of their makeup. I barely got through school so help me out here.
Yes
Yes you suffer from a lack of education. CO2 is necessary for photosynthesis (plant growth). But too much CO2 can be poison for plant growth.
What is the percentage of CO2 now and what percentage would poison the plants? As I have said about my visit to Fossil Butte NP, they claim CO2 was 20 times what it is presently in the distant past and apparently gave rise to the abundant life that ended up being the sequestered carbon in our fossil fuels. Do you know what level would be poisonous and are we close to that level?
Currently, CO2 is .04% of the atmosphere. I read that in closed experiments, it can get up to 1% with beneficial results. It can go as high as 2% with only minor decreases in plant growth. Yes, it can be toxic but the toxic levels are many, many times more than what's natural. Ironically, part of the decrease in plant growth at higher levels is cause by too much growth which shades out the lower leaves.
Sounds like we aren't even close to deleterious effects from CO2 for a very long time. What do you think IndyCA35?
Again, I suffer from lack of education. But do not growing plants take that CO2 in and use solar energy to remove the carbon and then release the oxygen? Kind of the opposite of what you and I do? We take in oxygen and emit CO2 I thought? I believe that is how plants find the material that is the bulk of their makeup. I barely got through school so help me out here.
Yes
Yes you suffer from a lack of education. CO2 is necessary for photosynthesis (plant growth). But too much CO2 can be poison for plant growth.
What is the percentage of CO2 now and what percentage would poison the plants? As I have said about my visit to Fossil Butte NP, they claim CO2 was 20 times what it is presently in the distant past and apparently gave rise to the abundant life that ended up being the sequestered carbon in our fossil fuels. Do you know what level would be poisonous and are we close to that level?
Currently, CO2 is .04% of the atmosphere. I read that in closed experiments, it can get up to 1% with beneficial results. It can go as high as 2% with only minor decreases in plant growth. Yes, it can be toxic but the toxic levels are many, many times more than what's natural. Ironically, part of the decrease in plant growth at higher levels is cause by too much growth which shades out the lower leaves.
We shouldn't be wasteful or needlessly consumptive.....but CO2 is the reason for life on this planet.
These twats want to get rid of carbon. What about the carbon, nitrogen and water cycles???
What about using the carbon more effectively to grow crops?
Indy doesnt think. He reports lies as "facts" from what Trump explained to him was FAKE NEWS.
Yes, he answered me rather disdainfully I thought. He repeated my admission that I suffered a lack of formal education. Then he said too much CO2 can be poison for plant growth without helping to educate me by telling me how much was ''too much''. I have noticed on other discussions that he is rather haughty.
Indy doesnt think. He reports lies as "facts" from what Trump explained to him was FAKE NEWS.
Yes, he answered me rather disdainfully I thought. He repeated my admission that I suffered a lack of formal education. Then he said too much CO2 can be poison for plant growth without helping to educate me by telling me how much was ''too much''. I have noticed on other discussions that he is rather haughty.
The more CO2 there is the more plants grow and the more O2 they produce. Kind of keeps things in balance.
They blame CO2 but water vapor is many times more responsible for the global temperatures. However, water vapor can't be controlled and taxed. CO2 possibly can be. There are many causes of fluctuation in the humidity of the air. None of them are controllable and they know it. They had to pick a gas that's caused by man, even though maybe 99% of CO2 is natural and not controllable. I did a search to get the percentages of the various gasses in the atmosphere and found that they have a neat trick. They leave water out and call it the 'dry air'. That covers up the water content that's something like 40 times more abundant than CO2. Many charts I looked at leave out water just like it doesn't exist.
The dirty little secret.
Worth repeating....from the rooftop!
What you forgot, Tarbe, is that CO2 and water vapor behave differently in the atmosphere.
Water vapor precipitates out very quickly.
It's called rain.
CO2 lasts for centuries.
The water vapor is constantly replenished and is in concentrations far, far higher.
Yes you suffer from a lack of education. CO2 is necessary for photosynthesis (plant growth). But too much CO2 can be poison for plant growth.
What is the percentage of CO2 now and what percentage would poison the plants? As I have said about my visit to Fossil Butte NP, they claim CO2 was 20 times what it is presently in the distant past and apparently gave rise to the abundant life that ended up being the sequestered carbon in our fossil fuels. Do you know what level would be poisonous and are we close to that level?
IndyCA35: I heard from Rock Chuck on this. According to him we aren't even close to harmful levels of CO2 if I understood correctly. What do you say?
Fill a glass with ice, as much as possible, then fill it to the rim with water. When the ice melts, will the glass run over?
Nope, the water level won't go down, as Jaguar proposed, either,
Greenland and Antarctica have a lot of ice that is NOT floating on water (unlike the ice cap in the Arctic ocean)
If/when that melts, expect some additional water to be added to the system.
Yeah sure thing.
You fugking idiot.
DumbFlave can't offer any rebuttal so he resorts to cussing. There ought to be an IQ test for the privilege of voting. This is one case where Sycamore is correct. DumbFlave forgot to take science in high school.
You canât debate because your idiocy is your religion.
Same for Sycamore.
Youâre fugking idiots.
I can't speak for Sycamore. I disagree with him about all things Biden.
Why are you too CHICKENSHIT to take my wager? Hmmm?
Since you can't think of any way to defend your beliefs, I hereby submit your next 10 posts:
Yes you suffer from a lack of education. CO2 is necessary for photosynthesis (plant growth). But too much CO2 can be poison for plant growth.
What is the percentage of CO2 now and what percentage would poison the plants? As I have said about my visit to Fossil Butte NP, they claim CO2 was 20 times what it is presently in the distant past and apparently gave rise to the abundant life that ended up being the sequestered carbon in our fossil fuels. Do you know what level would be poisonous and are we close to that level?
IndyCA35: I heard from Rock Chuck on this. According to him we aren't even close to harmful levels of CO2 if I understood correctly. What do you say?
To be honest with you, Hastings, I don't know. My guess is that we could raise CO2 levels a lot more and there would still be lots of plant life, maybe even more than now.
The real problem is the other things that higher CO2 levels could cause. Specifically, raising the level of the oceans. Now if you melt the Arctic ice cap, it will not raise the sea level because the ice there is already floating in the ocean, as some have posted. But if you melt the Greenland or Antarctic ice caps, which are not floating in the sea, the melt water will flow into the oceans and raise the levels. Eventually a lot of people, as in millions, would have to move. There would be other changes. For instance, we have had a very rainy summer here but they've had droughts in the west. Was that caused by climate change? I don't know.
Whatever the cause, I think the Green New Deal stuff is a mistake. Forget windmills and solar panels. What we should do is emphasize nuclear energy. It's a lot safer than in Japan or Russia and it works. Better yet, we should launch a crash program to make hydrogen fusion (like a controlled H-bomb) work. the people working on that are very close to making it practical. The fuel would be water and the waste would not be radioactive.
Unfortunately, with jerks like Obama, Biden, and Kerry in charge, it's hard to make rational decisions without cheap short-term politics.
You will always find what you're looking for. If you look for the good, you can find good. If you look for the bad, you'll find bad. If you wanna see what's wrong every single day, you can find what's wrong every single day. If you wanna see whatâs right every single day, you can find whatâs right every single day.
You will always find what you're looking for. If you look for the good, you can find good. If you look for the bad, you'll find bad. If you wanna see what's wrong every single day, you can find what's wrong every single day. If you wanna see whatâs right every single day, you can find whatâs right every single day.
Yes, until the water gets too hot and the frog croaks.
Put a bottle of water or pop in the freezer. When frozen the bottle will be full of ice unless it pops the bottle.
Put a pail of water nealy full outside in freezing weather and see where the ice level is when frozen and then where the water level is when it thaws.
I dont know why i bother. Youre both too dumb to understand. Many scientist have explained meltong sea ice will result in lower ocean levels. Sorry you were brainwashed by the global warming agenda.
When water freezes it expands. Whoa, get this, when it thaws (gets warmer) it CONTRACTS. Accept the SCIENCE.
Yes you suffer from a lack of education. CO2 is necessary for photosynthesis (plant growth). But too much CO2 can be poison for plant growth.
What is the percentage of CO2 now and what percentage would poison the plants? As I have said about my visit to Fossil Butte NP, they claim CO2 was 20 times what it is presently in the distant past and apparently gave rise to the abundant life that ended up being the sequestered carbon in our fossil fuels. Do you know what level would be poisonous and are we close to that level?
IndyCA35: I heard from Rock Chuck on this. According to him we aren't even close to harmful levels of CO2 if I understood correctly. What do you say?
To be honest with you, Hastings, I don't know. My guess is that we could raise CO2 levels a lot more and there would still be lots of plant life, maybe even more than now.
The real problem is the other things that higher CO2 levels could cause. Specifically, raising the level of the oceans. Now if you melt the Arctic ice cap, it will not raise the sea level because the ice there is already floating in the ocean, as some have posted. But if you melt the Greenland or Antarctic ice caps, which are not floating in the sea, the melt water will flow into the oceans and raise the levels. Eventually a lot of people, as in millions, would have to move. There would be other changes. For instance, we have had a very rainy summer here but they've had droughts in the west. Was that caused by climate change? I don't know.
Whatever the cause, I think the Green New Deal stuff is a mistake. Forget windmills and solar panels. What we should do is emphasize nuclear energy. It's a lot safer than in Japan or Russia and it works. Better yet, we should launch a crash program to make hydrogen fusion (like a controlled H-bomb) work. the people working on that are very close to making it practical. The fuel would be water and the waste would not be radioactive.
Unfortunately, with jerks like Obama, Biden, and Kerry in charge, it's hard to make rational decisions without cheap short-term politics.
but just as glaciers are huge repositories of water in colder times arid regions absorb copius amounts of water in warmer times transitioning them to more lush vegetation which in turn creates more carbon dioxide conversion capacity, and of course with less snow pack you also increase vegetation and carbon dioxide conversion to oxygen on the cold border of the growing zone..
BS. They measured at different times in tides. NY and Miami were supposed to be under water 20 years ago as icebergs were melting.
Nope. No reputable scientist ever predicted that.
Global warming is real and is caused by humans. That is not in dispute by any intelligent person (excludes deFlave). What is in dispute are the proposed solutions, most of which won't work. For instance, if every nation subscribed to the Paris Accords, the global temperature would only be lowered by 0.06 degree by 2100. That's too small to measure.
Odd how they measured warming on other planets as well.
Sea levels are more influenced by plate tectonics than ice. Sea levels are not even across the globe either as you might expect if it was simply a matter of water volume.
And... There are 73 books in The Bible, not 66. The Bible is a Catholic book. Everybody should read ALL of the books. They all deal with revelation and salvation history.
Yes you suffer from a lack of education. CO2 is necessary for photosynthesis (plant growth). But too much CO2 can be poison for plant growth.
What is the percentage of CO2 now and what percentage would poison the plants? As I have said about my visit to Fossil Butte NP, they claim CO2 was 20 times what it is presently in the distant past and apparently gave rise to the abundant life that ended up being the sequestered carbon in our fossil fuels. Do you know what level would be poisonous and are we close to that level?
IndyCA35: I heard from Rock Chuck on this. According to him we aren't even close to harmful levels of CO2 if I understood correctly. What do you say?
To be honest with you, Hastings, I don't know. My guess is that we could raise CO2 levels a lot more and there would still be lots of plant life, maybe even more than now.
The real problem is the other things that higher CO2 levels could cause. Specifically, raising the level of the oceans. Now if you melt the Arctic ice cap, it will not raise the sea level because the ice there is already floating in the ocean, as some have posted. But if you melt the Greenland or Antarctic ice caps, which are not floating in the sea, the melt water will flow into the oceans and raise the levels. Eventually a lot of people, as in millions, would have to move. There would be other changes. For instance, we have had a very rainy summer here but they've had droughts in the west. Was that caused by climate change? I don't know.
Whatever the cause, I think the Green New Deal stuff is a mistake. Forget windmills and solar panels. What we should do is emphasize nuclear energy. It's a lot safer than in Japan or Russia and it works. Better yet, we should launch a crash program to make hydrogen fusion (like a controlled H-bomb) work. the people working on that are very close to making it practical. The fuel would be water and the waste would not be radioactive.
Unfortunately, with jerks like Obama, Biden, and Kerry in charge, it's hard to make rational decisions without cheap short-term politics.
the evidence indicates that increased CO2 is RESULT of higher temps, not the cause of it. There's a lot of it absorbed in sea water. When the water heats, it's released, when the water cools it's absorbed. However, that happens over a very long time, like centuries. The water has been slowly warming since the last ice age so it's slowly releasing it's CO2.
Put a bottle of water or pop in the freezer. When frozen the bottle will be full of ice unless it pops the bottle.
Put a pail of water nealy full outside in freezing weather and see where the ice level is when frozen and then where the water level is when it thaws.
I dont know why i bother. Youre both too dumb to understand. Many scientist have explained meltong sea ice will result in lower ocean levels. Sorry you were brainwashed by the global warming agenda.
When water freezes it expands. Whoa, get this, when it thaws (gets warmer) it CONTRACTS. Accept the SCIENCE.
Next time don't sleep through high school chemistry.
Ice occupies more volume than water because ice becomes a crystaline structure. Water is a fluid with no interstices. Everyone knows that.
"Many scientists have explained melting sea ice will result in lower ocean levels."
Everyone knows that too. but the problem is that melting LAND ice flows into the sea and creates more water. Duh!
Land ice, not sea ice.
Try this. Fill a glass partially full of water. Drop some ice cubes in. After they melt, did the water level go up or down?
And don't confuse rapid changes over 100 years or so with long-term geological cycles of 100,000s of years.
You are partially correct, though. Everyone who didn't sleep through high school chemistry knows that if you heat a fluid it can hold less doissolved gas, less CO2, O2, Nitrogen, or whatever. That's not what's causing the problem.
BS. They measured at different times in tides. NY and Miami were supposed to be under water 20 years ago as icebergs were melting.
Nope. No reputable scientist ever predicted that.
Global warming is real and is caused by humans. That is not in dispute by any intelligent person (excludes deFlave). What is in dispute are the proposed solutions, most of which won't work. For instance, if every nation subscribed to the Paris Accords, the global temperature would only be lowered by 0.06 degree by 2100. That's too small to measure.
Odd how they measured warming on other planets as well.
Where and how much? I used to be president of the county astronomical association.
BS. They measured at different times in tides. NY and Miami were supposed to be under water 20 years ago as icebergs were melting.
Nope. No reputable scientist ever predicted that.
Global warming is real and is caused by humans. That is not in dispute by any intelligent person (excludes deFlave). What is in dispute are the proposed solutions, most of which won't work. For instance, if every nation subscribed to the Paris Accords, the global temperature would only be lowered by 0.06 degree by 2100. That's too small to measure.
Odd how they measured warming on other planets as well.
Where and how much? I used to be president of the county astronomical association.
Then you are willfully ignorant if you don't know.
Whats the wager anyway?? That Carbon and Covid gonna kill us all??
The wager was this, Jim. DeFlave kept claiming I voted for Biden. I wagered him $20,000 that I could prove I supported Trump. While votes are secret, campaign contributions are public knowledge if you know the giver's name. I told deFlave he would have to put up $20,000 too. A neutral party would keep the $40,000 until proof was presented. Winner take all.
DeFlave is a blow hard. His only responses (to date) are to call me some swear words. I'm not sure he is capable of reasoning, just responding. He never tries to refute arguments, just loses his temper and bites ankles. Like poking an alligator with a stick.
I work with a lot of people with hard science degrees who only graduated because of multiple choice testing. They mostly subscribe to whatever is popular regarding climate change. They don't understand it.
So you have people subscribe to ideologies as a matter of course. It's science to them because they are immersed in working with what to them is science. As an example, consider much of science comes down to making a measurement. These people don't know the technical names of the equipment they use, let alone how the technology functions.
And they become upset when their ignorance is questioned. I blame government subsidy encouraging universities to accept and retain students who would never have been accepted fifty years ago. This comes down to over taxation.
Climate Change is a HOAX !! There is nothing humans can do to change the Climate. you want to throw money away, spend it on Climate Change, cleaning up the oceans would be a good start on cleaning up our world, big job but it's something that would help the whole world, and worth spending our money on. Rio7
They blame CO2 but water vapor is many times more responsible for the global temperatures. However, water vapor can't be controlled and taxed. CO2 possibly can be. There are many causes of fluctuation in the humidity of the air. None of them are controllable and they know it. They had to pick a gas that's caused by man, even though maybe 99% of CO2 is natural and not controllable. I did a search to get the percentages of the various gasses in the atmosphere and found that they have a neat trick. They leave water out and call it the 'dry air'. That covers up the water content that's something like 40 times more abundant than CO2. Many charts I looked at leave out water just like it doesn't exist.
The dirty little secret.
Worth repeating....from the rooftop!
What you forgot, Tarbe, is that CO2 and water vapor behave differently in the atmosphere.
Water vapor precipitates out very quickly.
It's called rain.
CO2 lasts for centuries.
The water vapor is constantly replenished and is in concentrations far, far higher.
You are absolutely correct. The water vapor is replenished. But then it rains some more. And it makes more white clouds. Don't white clouds reflect sunlight? Modeling that is above my pay grade. But CO2 goes into the atmosphere and just stays there for hundreds of thousands of years.
Algae produces half the earths 02 by absorbing c02. Warmer h20 should produce more plant life within reason = more 02 produced and more c02 absorbed. Tyrone the other books of the bible are of interest to me. Thanks I like open dialogue.
Indy doesnt think. He reports lies as "facts" from what Trump explained to him was FAKE NEWS.
Yes, he answered me rather disdainfully I thought. He repeated my admission that I suffered a lack of formal education. Then he said too much CO2 can be poison for plant growth without helping to educate me by telling me how much was ''too much''. I have noticed on other discussions that he is rather haughty.
Yeah, I am rather haughty. I enjoy tweaking some members whom I believe are fools. Well, you are not one of them. I apologize for my remarks. I shouldn't have made them. From now on, furthermore, I will try not to show contempt for deFlave, Jaguartx, Bob Brown, and others whom I consider to be, well, I won't say it. It irritates them--strange people I have never met--and is a waste of my time as well. But I will try to refute things I know not to be true with facts, not insults. Only if I have the facts.
Next thing will be that we have to invest trillions into studying how to move the sun further away.
Given the nature of these climate retards....that is not outside the realm of possibility.
Or maybe just a nuclear winter. Get Elon to launch a gorrilion rockets to spread dust into the upper atmosphere to shade us. Oh, and harm plant life......
Yes, there is more organic matter in no till systems.
You would think that tillage would be associated with higher organic numbers...but its not. Some organic farming operations have even less than conventional till operations.
Organic matter and covered soil are the keys to farming anywhere. Even the deserts.
Most of US farming is basically done hydroponically. The soil is only a carrier for the roots. It provides no nutrition. Its sterile.
We wonder why we have to fertilize at rates unimaginable 50 years ago.....
It's been said that religion was invented by ancient humans as a way to explain that which couldn't be explained and/or to control people who otherwise would have been raping, killing, pillaging, etc. without the prospect of a higher power punishing them.
I get just a little stuck right there. So if someone claims that religion is just an artificial constraint against rape, murder, and mayhem, then why aren't they out there committing these acts and living it up? If there is no God, no Creator, then existence is totally meaningless in the first place and nothing matters. I am left to believe that those that make that claim must believe they are somehow more "moral" than the rabble, and that's why they don't live a totally nihilistic lifestyle. I'd say we have a problem right here with consistency and coherence in a belief system.
If it were proven tomorrow that there is no heaven or hell, no great reward or punishment, then a lot of religious types would be killing their neighbors.
Maybe so. To me, if your only motivation for following Jesusâ is so *you* can win the big prize in the end, then your motivation is pretty self-centered. To me, following Jesus has as much or more to do with this life as it does the next.
I don't disagree with that at all and it is the reason for my post. As most I have known would kill their neighbor if their was some reward at the end.
Climate Change is a HOAX !! There is nothing humans can do to change the Climate. you want to throw money away, spend it on Climate Change, cleaning up the oceans would be a good start on cleaning up our world, big job but it's something that would help the whole world, and worth spending our money on. Rio7
I haven't seen it but I hear there are huge rip tides of floating plastic out the in the ocean. I've wondered why we don't burn the stuff for fuel in our power plants. Couldn't it be fed into the fire with the coal never to be seen again? As to what is already out in the ocean, it seems a ship with a pick up reel like a combine could harvest the stuff squeeze the water out and burn the stuff to fuel the ship steam engine and just keep going back and forth and then move on to the next flotilla of plastic. The exhaust would be cleaned out of the air by nature and in any case we wouldn't have the crap trashing up the whole world. If we don't start burning stuff the whole world will become a landfill. There are 7 billion of us here creating trash.
Because burning plastic is terrible for the environment. Burning oil is not....but plastic is bad. Yep.
I have read about machinery that can burn plastic and clean up the emissions. If it is that poisonous, and I'm sure it is somewhat bad, maybe we ought to at least quit eating and drinking out of plastic not to mention the miles and miles of plastic pipe used in our rural water systems. I believe we could figure a way to burn it and filter the smoke. I wonder how much pollution is emitted in the manufacture.
Indy doesnt think. He reports lies as "facts" from what Trump explained to him was FAKE NEWS.
Yes, he answered me rather disdainfully I thought. He repeated my admission that I suffered a lack of formal education. Then he said too much CO2 can be poison for plant growth without helping to educate me by telling me how much was ''too much''. I have noticed on other discussions that he is rather haughty.
Yeah, I am rather haughty. I enjoy tweaking some members whom I believe are fools. Well, you are not one of them. I apologize for my remarks. I shouldn't have made them. From now on, furthermore, I will try not to show contempt for deFlave, Jaguartx, Bob Brown, and others whom I consider to be, well, I won't say it. It irritates them--strange people I have never met--and is a waste of my time as well. But I will try to refute things I know not to be true with facts, not insults. Only if I have the facts.
What facts, uh, like Trump and real conservatives are fughkups?
Biteme, the MSM, Faukki and the CDC love us?
The vax makes the COVID-19 kill you less dead?
The MSM and Social Media block Trump and many of Americas top Doctors and virology scientists to protect us?
Indy doesnt think. He reports lies as "facts" from what Trump explained to him was FAKE NEWS.
Yes, he answered me rather disdainfully I thought. He repeated my admission that I suffered a lack of formal education. Then he said too much CO2 can be poison for plant growth without helping to educate me by telling me how much was ''too much''. I have noticed on other discussions that he is rather haughty.
Yeah, I am rather haughty. I enjoy tweaking some members whom I believe are fools. Well, you are not one of them. I apologize for my remarks. I shouldn't have made them. From now on, furthermore, I will try not to show contempt for deFlave, Jaguartx, Bob Brown, and others whom I consider to be, well, I won't say it. It irritates them--strange people I have never met--and is a waste of my time as well. But I will try to refute things I know not to be true with facts, not insults. Only if I have the facts.
What facts, uh, like Trump and real conservatives are fughkups?
Biteme, the MSM, Faukki and the CDC love us?
The vax makes the COVID-19 kill you less dead?
The MSM and Social Media block Trump and many of Americas top Doctors and virology scientists to protect us?
Indyâs a bitch who lives in a subdivision and thinks there needs to be regulated ranges where people can go if they want to shoot. Her fear of freedom and liberty makes sense when you read her posts about President Trump.
There's a floating island of plastic and junk, off the west coast, the size of Texas, the Gulf coast looks like a junk yard, our border with Mexico looks like a open land fill, and they tell us we need to spend a couple of trillion on Climate Change???? BULL CHITT. Rio7
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/sDVbJnL1/Time.jpg)
![[Linked Image from media.giphy.com]](https://media.giphy.com/media/9CvWZTFXyNBio/giphy.gif)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/rwfZMK2y/Screenshot-20211016-141424-Brave.jpg)
![[Linked Image from media.giphy.com]](https://media.giphy.com/media/ZEa6M47SoM2FmtRhA5/giphy.gif)