Paladin77 Paladin77

i am back on this kick again

▼

i am back on this kick again

global climate change hoax

from JoeUser Forums

I have published this many times and just in case you have ignored it in the past I will do it again. All pollutants that man puts out into the air in a single year is about 1.4 billion tons. A single volcano erupting puts out 14.6 billion tons of pollution into the air A DAY. On average there are between 25 and 56 volcanoes erupting world wide every day. Do the math and you will see what man does in one year is does not even register on the planet. Global climate change is real!

 

It has been proven 40 years ago by NASA, every hundred years the sun gets 10% hotter and larger. We are talking about a star over a million miles across pumping out radiated heat that surrounds our planet to the tune of 250f degrees.  Because of our atmosphere and our rotation we have a cool and habitable earth to live upon for now but that will change as time goes on and no matter what we do we can’t stop it from happening. We will all die, it does not matter if we save the whales or the trees or the spotted mud dauber the earth is cooked.

During the last ice age it took thirty thousand volcanoes erupting for two million years in order to warm the earth enough to melt the ice and start us on this new trend of global warming. For mankind to do the same amount of damage it would take 200 million years of not just current levels of pollution but increasing it five to ten percent every year. Mankind has only been the dominant species for six thousand years yet we pretend to know what is happening on our planet. It takes the sun 250 million years to circle the Galaxy so mankind has not witnessed even one year of the sun. Have we seen the sun when the earth is in an elliptical orbit? No! The last time it was in an elliptical orbit we had the entire earth covered in two miles of ice and snow.

Now I ask you what is the normal temperature of planet Earth? We don’t know because it is constantly changing, if it is constantly changing then how can we as a species harm or help the planet? We can’t!

at one time was an atmosphere with little or no free oxygen so we could not breathe. Single celled plant life filtered the air allowing us to breathe, keep in mind there were no trees at that time. Shall we go back to when the earth was pristine? That would mean we go back to a time when there was no breathable air on the planet and we all die.

Global warming, global cooling, and global climate change are all the same thing a hoax that people use to make a living.

19,552 views 47 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
The thing is, the scientists saw a fact : the Earth is warming up. And not only it is warming up, but the speed at which it is warming up is increasing. They have to theorise WHY, and the man-made global warming is the theory that fits the most the facts. Either trough man-made emmission, or made-made deforestation. Just because peoples discovers more facts, or theorise specific parts of the whole theory doesn't make it invalid as a whole.
End of quote

There is exactly one accepted fact in there, the first one: the earth is currently in a warming trend. Everything else is the purest of speculation at best, wishful thinking at worst. How can you argue that contravening evidence doesn't make a theory invalid when the validity of the theory has never been established in the first place? In fact, it's not even a theory; at this point it's nothing more than a hypothesis, which is the scientific term for "wild ass guess."
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
The chicken littles get a lot of adulation by being chicken littles (until some sane person points out that the sky is not falling).
End of quote


This is partly true- however I would state that while the sky is not falling, there are definite, serious problems with it that if not addressed will cause a whole lot of trouble for future generations of mankind down the road. Unless we get hit with a giant asteroid in a cosmic game of billiards, smashing our little ball of rock into lots of smaller bits of rock, earth will still be here for a long time.

History is full of examples of concerned folks who warned of impending disasters and calamities far ahead of time, only to be shooed down. Then of course when it hapenned, their voices were essentially drowned out amidst all the furor of the moment.



Star Control: Origins
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
there are definite, serious problems with it that if not addressed will cause a whole lot of trouble for future generations of mankind down the road.
End of quote

What if, based on emotionalism and inevitably imperfect science, we screw up, miscalculate and doom future generations of mankind to extinction instead?
History is full of examples of concerned folks who warned of impending disasters and calamities far ahead of time, only to be shooed down. Then of course when it hapenned, their voices were essentially drowned out amidst all the furor of the moment.
End of quote

I'd like to hear about some of those examples, and exactly how they relate to this particular issue.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
I mean, except Al Gore's reputed-carbon credit making companies, and some lefty group who earn money to FIGHT to enforce regulation of greener industries, I don't see what is the advantages of the scientists or the environnemental groups. If they win their fight, they'll end up with no more money, since they would not be any reason to fight anymore.
End of quote


Check and see how many hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money is available and you will understand. Scientists are whores when it comes to grant money. If the rent is due they will do a study on the benifets of Adolf Hitler to the Jewish race. They don't have to believe in the study they just have to get the grant money to study it. That grant money pays the bills as well as produce a result. why do you think that congress awards grants to study cow farts and their impact on global warming? How about because it brings money into the congressmans state. We call these grants earmarks. Does anyone profit from scientific studies? SURE! The scientist, the community the scientist lives in because he can now pay his bills. Did you really think that the grant money paid only for the actual study?

The thing is, the scientists saw a fact : the Earth is warming up. And not only it is warming up, but the speed at which it is warming up is increasing. They have to theorise WHY, and the man-made global warming is the theory that fits the most the facts. Either trough man-made emmission, or made-made deforestation. Just because peoples discovers more facts, or theorise specific parts of the whole theory doesn't make it invalid as a whole.
End of quote


I must vigorously disagree with you here. First a scientific study is just that a study. The study produces a theory, the theory is then tested by peer review and duplication. No one has tried to duplicate any of the studies to test the validity of global warming caused by man. The climate models are way off according to the peer review, that alone should cause everyone to stop and take a closer look but instead they accept the study as fact skipping the duplication and peer review. Everything I have posted on global warming is at least ten years old and has been through the peer review process at least twice.

NASA, after careful review has said that the earth is getting hotter and will continue to do so until the earth is cooked and all life is brought to an end. Find a scientist that disagrees with this. You can’t because it has been peer reviewed to death during the time when the kooks were screaming that the next ice age is only 10 year away. For some reason unknown to smart people the earth did not turn into a ball of ice in 1985 as predicted so with the new evidence in hand they scream that we are only 10 years away from being killed by global warming and man is the cause. Well the ice caps on Mars are melting just as they are on the Earth and we don’t have any man made pollutants causing it. That would strongly suggest that man is not the cause of global warming on Earth because everything we have sent up to Mars was either solar powered or nuclear powered. So the planets Venus, Earth and Mars are all warming up at the same rate what part of the warming on the Earth is man’s fault? NONE.

So man made global warming does not fit the facts, the environmentalist have changed the facts to fit the theory. Every climatologist knows that CO2 is a lagging indicator of warming and a predictor of coming cooling. The nut jobs want to reverse that so CO2 is now a predictor of global warming. Scientists have spoken out saying it is wrong but it does to fit the agenda so it gets little or no press. Once you point out that 37 of every million molecules of gas on the earth is CO2 and that we would have to continue our pollution at current levels for five years to change that to 38 molecules out of a million. The nut jobs change direction and start talking about SO2. The atmosphere is currently at 80% nitrogen, 19 or 18% oxygen and the rest are trace elements including methane, Co2, S, So2 and so on. Our atmosphere is 21 miles thick covering 24, 900 miles of the earth. For man to reduce the oxygen levels enough to make any difference at all we would have to bring it down to 10% in less than 5000 years in order to pollute faster than the oceans, and trees can clean it up then we would have a run away greenhouse effect. Do you see man being capable of doing this intentionally? Hell, we can’t!

Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
If the rent is due they will do a study on the benifets of Adolf Hitler to the Jewish race.
End of quote

As much as I still like to think of science in the same way I did in high school & college, as a pure academic pursuit, that's an excellent point, and the reason none of conclusions from these studies should be simply accepted at face value.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Really, KFC? Good stuff?
End of quote


hahaha...yes TW but NOT ALL of it is from my POV as you know. I liked the last sentence especially well.

With or without God in your life if you are going to have a scientific discussion then you use the rules of that standard, God created the world and everything in it in six days, how long ago it does not say. The first five books of the bible were written by Moses who was informed by God what happened but God did not say how long ago. Jewish history only goes back 6500 years there is nothing around showing that this date is wrong but again no where in the bible does God tell us how long the earth has been here just how long modern man has been here, and more to the point how long God’s chosen people have been here as opposed to modern mankind.
End of quote


Well there are lots of geneologies in scripture and unless there are gaps (and there may be a few but would be insignificant) I would be dating the earth from Adam on and we know that Adam was created on the 6th day. Each day was one 24 hour period (according to the language experts)and the Jews use these timelines to come up with the earth being about 6,000 years old.

I'm not sure what you mean by God's chosen people and modern mankind? All we know is God created the earth in six days and that was the beginning of history. Out of these people he chose Abraham as the beginning of his chosen people. We can see clearly that Abraham comes right along from the line of Shem, one of Noah's sons by looking at the geneology.

I'm still trying to figure out what "pre-historic" really means.

Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
I would state that while the sky is not falling, there are definite, serious problems with it that if not addressed will cause a whole lot of trouble for future generations of mankind down the road.
End of quote


Like what? What problems do you see that man can fix and has not chosen to fix that will lead to probles for future generations?
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well there are lots of geneologies in scripture and unless there are gaps (and there may be a few but would be insignificant) I would be dating the earth from Adam on and we know that Adam was created on the 6th day. Each day was one 24 hour period (according to the language experts)and the Jews use these timelines to come up with the earth being about 6,000 years old.
End of quote


Here is where I disagree with you. Mankind may have been here longer that that. Cain was banished for killing Able and he took a wife. That alone would mean that there were others besides Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were God’s first fruits and chosen to tend his garden. At the same time or a few years after that other humans were created and lived outside the garden.

All we know is God created the earth in six days and that was the beginning of history.
End of quote


How long were those days?
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
Cain was banished for killing Able and he took a wife. That alone would mean that there were others besides Adam and Eve.
End of quote


Why? Couldn't Cain have married his sister? There was no law against that until after the flood. It says in scripture that Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters and given the length of their lives I'd say they had quite a crop for Cain to choose from.

At the same time or a few years after that other humans were created and lived outside the garden.
End of quote


Where in the world is your source for this? Inquiring minds wanna know.... :p 

How long were those days?
End of quote


Well like I said, the language experts say it's a 24 hour period because of the word Yom followed by a number. Even some liberal scholars have to admit that at least the writer had to have this 24 hour in mind when he penned these words. Besides all that Moses used the last day of creation (rest day) in the giving of the law as an example of keeping the Sabbath. On the 7th day, they were to keep the Sabbath holy.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why? Couldn't Cain have married his sister? There was no law against that until after the flood. It says in scripture that Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters and given the length of their lives I'd say they had quite a crop for Cain to choose from.


At the same time or a few years after that other humans were created and lived outside the garden.


Where in the world is your source for this? Inquiring minds wanna know....
End of quote


I am not of the belief that Cain married his sister. If God is the same yesterday as he is today, and will be in the future then I believe that even without the law he would not approve of incest, think of it like this there was no law against murder yet the murder of Able offended God. All Cain would have to say is, but God, you did not say I can’t kill my brother so why are you mad at me?

Well like I said, the language experts say it's a 24 hour period because of the word Yom followed by a number. Even some liberal scholars have to admit that at least the writer had to have this 24 hour in mind when he penned these words. Besides all that Moses used the last day of creation (rest day) in the giving of the law as an example of keeping the Sabbath. On the 7th day, they were to keep the Sabbath holy.
End of quote


Sorry I still don't see it.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am not of the belief that Cain married his sister.
End of quote


So you believe there were other races on earth outside of Adam and Eve? This is a very old objection and one that was even included in the Scopes Trial way back when.

Well this belief poses a whole bunch of trouble with scripture. First of all, we see that sin entered the world thru one man, so says Paul in Romans 5. He also see in 1 Cor 15 that Adam was the first man and our redemption comes from one man and is offered to Adam's descendants only. There is none else.

We sin because Adam sinned and it was passed on thru his descendants. Since Adam was the head of the human race and he fell first, we all, because of him, are fallen in nature as well. If there were others they would not have been included in the curse and would have remained perfect. That is not scriptural and goes outside the realm of scripture.

Actually Luke said this in Acts 17:26 which you might find interesting. He said:

"And he made from [B]one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth..."[/B]

So again, I just want to ask, where are you getting this from? It's not coming from scripture. So it has to be an outside source.

Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh crap, did global warming switch into religion?

How does that happen?

*sigh*

~Zoo
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
ha Zoo, this time it wasn't me...... ;) 

I didn't start until #32 in response to #12 in which the author of this blog started the ball bouncing.....I just couldn't resist keeping it in the air by answering him back.  ;) 

but hey I think the two are connected anyhow.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh crap, did global warming switch into religion?
End of quote

Nope. Started out that way. ;)
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'd have no problem believing that Adam was the first man.

If he was an Homo habilis. Which means God is also one.. hhmm... that's handy to think about...
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh crap, did global warming switch into religion?

How does that happen?
End of quote


It started out that way, anytime you have the belief in things unseen you have the definition of a religion. If you believe in the power of a dollar bill then your religion is money, you believe that a dollar will buy things. If you believe in global warming with out any facts to back it up you have a religion. Does a dollar have power? Only to the people that also believe in it. If I go to Sweden my money does not have the power it does in the United States so the religion of money is a local one.

The religion of global warming or global climate change is one that has little basis in fact only conjecture and hypothesis. It rains did God make it rain or did man, or did the accumulation of water vapor above a certain area? It all depends on what religion you believe in. This is what people are really fighting over, the temperature is going up, science says it is the Sun and this has happened in the past and is happening now, and will happen in the future. EnvironMENTAList believe it is man’s disregard for the Earth, and in order to save the planet and mankind we have to impose draconian laws that will wreck any nation that tries it. While people of my religion believe that the earth is getting hotter because it says it will happen in the bible and you can’t change what God is going to do. You chose which you wish to believe in, I can discuss it from both the religious and the scientific points of view. Which one is correct we will not know in our lifetime.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh crap, did global warming switch into religion?Nope. Started out that way.
End of quote


Where is that insightful button! ;)
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well this belief poses a whole bunch of trouble with scripture.
End of quote


Not at all my friend! The trouble is the interpretation. Adam and Eve were the first, the model that all other humans were based on that also had a similarity to God. If you recall God says let us make man in our image. The only place on Earth where the tree of knowledge of good and evil lay was in the Garden of Eden. The only people that had access to it were Adam and Eve. No where have I read that God did not make other humans, just like you don’t see the bible explain how many animals were created, just that God created them and Adam named them. The only thing that was forbidden was to eat of the knowledge of good an evil and once that was done the entire world was polluted. God cursed and punished mankind for the act of two people. Did you think that Adam and Eve would keep the secret that they were naked from the rest of the world? Would the deaths of Adam and Eve have cleansed the earth of this knowledge? It all started with one simple law. Don’t eat that! From that came all the other laws because mankind learned about evil.

If Adam was the father of mankind as you suggest then how is it that all other races are not directly related to Adam? Only one other race can make that claim the people we call the Arabs. The Old Testament only chronicles the lineage of Adam and people of note that were added to the family line like Ruth. The whole purpose of the book of Ruth was to keep the line straight as she married into the family and was not a Hebrew but her children are in a direct line to Jesus. And as you well know if Jesus is to be the son of God and a Jew he has to be able to trace his family down to Adam. Both Joseph and Mary were of the linage of David and back down to Adam. Your view is one that I have to disagree with as it goes against the word of God in so many directions in order to make it true. Either way we will know for sure soon enough.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
If Adam was the father of mankind as you suggest then how is it that all other races are not directly related to Adam?
End of quote


But I already showed you that he is the father of ALL mankind.

All come from Adam. All the lineages in scripture come from Adam. Jew and Arab. There's a direct link from Adam to Abraham. Abraham was the father of both the Jews and the Arabs. This is not even debateable. Jews came from Isaac and Arabs came from Ishmael.

Ruth married a Hebrew. So? She was not but she was adopted into the Jewish faith and her children were brought up as Hebrews.

Saying there is no proof that he "didn't create others and using that as proof that he did is not very logical. What you're doing is making conclusions from "no" evidence.



Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
But I already showed you that he is the father of ALL mankind.
End of quote


George Washington is the Father of our nation does that mean that all the people in America are related to him?

Ruth married a Hebrew. So? She was not but she was adopted into the Jewish faith and her children were brought up as Hebrews.
End of quote


So if Ruth was not of the liniage of Adam as you wrote... I am not saying that there was no proof that he did not creat others I am saying there is no proof that Cain married his sister. This is getting far of field and so far off topic. Start a post on this topic and i will be happy to debate it with you but not in this forum.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
George Washington is the Father of our nation does that mean that all the people in America are related to him?
End of quote


George Washington represented us all as Americans. He was our first President.

Adam represented as all as well. He was the first Human.

So if Ruth was not of the liniage of Adam as you wrote...
End of quote


I didn't say that. I said Ruth was NOT a Hebrew. Big difference.

Three sons came from Noah. Each went into a different direction. All came from Noah, but only Shem represented the Hebrews as Abraham came from his line.

Ok, I could say more, but I'll refrain. Maybe I will take you up on this subject. It is a good one.





Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
k, I could say more, but I'll refrain. Maybe I will take you up on this subject. It is a good one.
End of quote


yes it is