- Dec 17, 2010
- 9,669
- 2,418
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
Why you liberal Amil you!
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
In the place you speak of, it explicitly says the cause would be an increase in the heat coming from the sun, not something caused by mankind.
But I am satisfied that this, being part of a vision, is symbolic, rather than literal.
Many Christians who bother to read about the actual science of climate change (and don't just get their science from politically distorted opinions on Fox News) sometimes wonder how it all fits into the 'End times' or Last Days?
I've known about climate change since I was a boy: summer, fall, winter and spring. And hey it even changes on a daily basis and then cyclically.
Fact: the earth has cooled in the last 20 years. This global warming was a hoax, disguised as global governance. The Kyoto agreement contained their hidden agenda. Take from the rich and give to the poor or in other words, distribution of wealth. This fraud was already exposed years ago. So now they don't use the phrase "global warming" as much and have replaced with "climate change". Who could argue with that ... it changes. But we aren't changing it. I heard a scientist calculate just about how much heat it would take to heat Antarctica only one degree = over 237,000 of the most powerful nuclear bombs exploding at once. But then, the next day temperature goes back to normal or a cold blizzard arrives with a -70 degree frontal assault.
I should care because God, my Father in Heaven, made this world. He fashioned it out of billions of years of evolution, and then had the early Hebrews write a poem about how orderly it all is.
Well, you've been duped numerous times. Billions of years of evolution? God made everything finished. A peacock was always a peacock and a rose, a rose. We were made finished. Micro-evolution exists within a specie but not macro-evolution --We have all the species that He started with minus those that are extinct, no transitional forms. And the dating methods are all flawed --they guess at the initial amounts of elements and atmosphere. That's not science, all information needs to be present.
It does say that in the end times man will be scorched by the sun and at least 1/3 of the earth will be on fire. These are God's judgments ... unless Al Gore tells us that we are affecting the sun as well? The earth on fire may be due to nuclear war but it is not carbon emissions. It's all junk computer science --don't buy it.
Another typically fact-filled, peer-reviewed science linking post from a Denialist without a clue. Sorry mate, but the world has warmed significantly. You're just plain wrong: and now Antarctica is melting.I've known about climate change since I was a boy: summer, fall, winter and spring. And hey it even changes on a daily basis and then cyclically.
Fact: the earth has cooled in the last 20 years.
This global warming was a hoax, disguised as global governance. The Kyoto agreement contained their hidden agenda. Take from the rich and give to the poor or in other words, distribution of wealth. This fraud was already exposed years ago.
Thanks mate: personally, I campaign for a world government and as a Christian love it when governments give money to the poor. It's compassionate social policy. But unfortunately, you've bought another paranoid conspiracy theory meme against the actual science. This is an oldie, but a goodie. I love that you quoted it. You've just shot yourself in the foot for credibility. This is a post on my blog from about 8 years ago: do try to keep up!
Greenie conspiracy that hurts the poor?
Posted on 17 September, 2008by Eclipse Now
“The Great Global Warming Swindle” perpetuates the lie that Global Warming campaigners have been conned by a eugenics group that ultimately want to keep Africa poor!
This nasty attack was used by Durkin to not only call all the world’s climatologist liars, but have the gall to spin an even larger conspiracy theory — that the “Greenie movement” is all about control and geopolitical power, and above all, keeping the poor poor!
An educated response might be, “Pull the other one!” or even “Der!”
For starters, clean energy is becoming economically viable.
Wind is almost as cheap as dirty old coal, and causes far less lung cancer. (Rates of lung cancer in the NSW Hunter Valley are 30% higher than anywhere else in Australia due to the coal mining and burning there — Tim Flannery).
Global Warming is already killing the poor!
200 thousand people a year are killed by extreme climate events spreading malnutrition, malaria, flooding, and diarrhoeal diseases. (November 2007 Science Talk podcast of Scientific America). In other words there is already a terrible legacy compelling Co2 mitigation on humanitarian grounds. Us “Greenies” are working to help African villages get out of desperate poverty, disease, and disaster by asking the rich first world to clean up its act. Our cars and coal dry up Ethiopian soils and peasant farmers starve. And Durkin suggests that we are trying to keep Africa in the Stone Age? Nice one mate! You and yourdenial are the real threat to Africa!
Peak oil could devastate the poor
If it gets down to a bidding war with the rich nations, do you really think the poor nations have a chance to buy enough oil to run their agriculture? The nations that wean off fossil fuels first and establish a clean, green economy will have a competitive advantage. Do we really want Africa getting hooked on coal when it will raise rates of lung cancer and other respiratory illness, dry out their continent through Global Warming climate changes, andwill ultimately run out? (But not before cooking the planet 3 times over). Peak coal is not as far away as you might think.
Green groups have financial plans to help the poor leapfrog past the fossil fuel age.
The Lighting the Way report toward a sustainable energy future, by the InterAcademy Council Secretariat * starts with an executive summary. The first paragraph reads…
Making the transition to a sustainable energy future is one of the central challenges humankind faces in this century. The concept of energy sustainability encompasses not only the imperative of securing adequate energy to meet future needs, but doing so in a way that (a) is compatible with preserving the underlying integrity of essential natural systems, including averting dangerous climate change; (b) extends basic energy services to the more than 2 billion people worldwide who currently lack access to modern forms of energy; and (c) reduces the security risks and potential for geopolitical conflict that could otherwise arise from an escalating competition for unevenly distributed energy resources.So there you have it. The very second goal after addressing Global Warming is bringing energy security to all those without any energy in the first place, and the third goal is that eternal quest of the beauty pageant, “World Peace”! Sounds like an awful eugenics conspiracy to me. ;-)
But is there any evidence of this spreading through the whole Greenie movement? Surely this is just one idealistic report from a bunch of scientists with no influence on the real world of Greenie campaigners? Well check this out. Greenie activists want carbon trading to fund 3rd development! Far from bankrupting the poorer nations, our first world moneywould end up building their renewable energy security for them! Check this recent Richard Heinberg article on what happens when Global Warming and Peak Oil get together: Big Melt Meets Big Empty
A growing number of organizations (including the Global Commons Institute, EcoEquity, the Climate Equity Project, Feasta, Just Transition Alliance, The Sky Trust, and Third World Network) contend that the fairest solution would be to allocate annually capped emissions rights globally on an equal per-capita basis; then, if wealthy nations wished to continue using proportionally more fossil fuels, they would have to purchase emissions rights from more parsimonious consumers in poor nations. This would result over time in both a diminishing amount of total emissions (based on the declining trajectory of the annual caps) and an enormous transfer of wealth from the more-industrialized to the less-industrialized nations.Indeed, a vast new Hydro-electricity dam on the Congo may be funded in this way, generating as much power as 40 nukes! (The United Nations Environment Program states that it might generate 40Gw! so based on an “average nuclear power plant” of about 1GW, that’s 40 nukes. See AFROL news, and this Eskom news which states that the Congo would supply twice the electricity of the Chinese 3 Gorges Dam!)
Right now we are trashing the global climate and affecting Africa’s farming. Back in the “olden days” we were the colonial powers that prospered off their slave labour and natural resources. It seems only right that we help them leapfrog past the fossil fuel stage into a sustainable and attractive “Bright Green” era.
The real shame is that as peak oil hits, first world nations will be so bankrupted that many of these carbon trading schemes will be abandoned as utopian dreams. I expect the Global Warming “Denial Machine” to kick in with vigour as airlines bankrupt, food prices rise, and the Great Depression begins in earnest. Who will care about carbon trading when they’re living in a new Hooverville and can’t feed the kids? That’s when the demand for coal liquefaction will hit in a big way, and we’ll turn a blind eye to Africa starving, as we always have. It’s a crime.
*About the IAC
In May 2000 all of the world’s science academies created the IAC to mobilize the best scientists and engineers worldwide to provide high quality advice to international bodies – such as the United Nations and the World Bank – as well as to other institutions.
In a world where science and technology are fundamental to many critical issues – ranging from climate change and genetically modified organisms to the crucial challenge of achieving sustainability – making wise policy decisions has become increasingly dependent on good scientific advice.
The IAC is client-driven and works on a project-by-project basis. It has developed mechanisms and procedures to guarantee the scientific quality of its reports, the policy-relevance of its recommendations and the absence of regional or national bias. The IAC collaborates closely with the InterAcademy Panel, the InterAcademy Medical Panel, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, and the International Council for Science. The IAC Secretariat is hosted by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
It was always 'climate science', but they used the layman's term 'global warming' to popularise what it was all about. Denialists in the Bush regime intentionally changed it back to 'climate change' to try and soften the language so that the citizens would not get spooked. (See "Denial Machine" by CBC).So now they don't use the phrase "global warming" as much and have replaced with "climate change".
Climatologists would agree with you! There are dozens of natural forcings that they track. Can you name the top 10 off the top of your head? Go on. Don't google around, just rattle them off. You obviously know SO much about climate science that you're willing to criticise it: so why not tell us what the top 10 forcings are over long periods of time?Who could argue with that ... it changes.
Dude, CO2 redirects heat: this is a basic fact of physics that can be proved in any decent physics lab. When the experts do the math, the total extra heat since the industrial revolution being redirected back into our atmosphere, instead of leaking out into space, is actually around 4 Hiroshima bombs per second. It's just not in the one area as a nuclear bomb is. It's spread out, mostly soaking up in our oceans, which is what is causing a lot of the problems we are beginning to see today.But we aren't changing it. I heard a scientist calculate just about how much heat it would take to heat Antarctica only one degree = over 2000 of the most powerful nuclear bombs exploding at once. But then, the next day temperature goes back to normal or a cold blizzard arrives with a -70 degree frontal assault.
The climate has accumulated 2,098,503,366 Hiroshima atomic bombs of heat since 1998, at the rate of 4 every second.
[URL="http://4hiroshimas.com"]http://4hiroshimas.com[/URL]
CO2 is ONE of the forcings. If we had a full scale nuclear war it would kick up enough dust to cancel climate change. That's it. Done. We'd probably land in a nuclear winter / Ice Age, even though the Milankovitch cycles haven't got us due for an Ice Age for 30,000 years. But do you want to solve global warming through nuclear war?
Say no more: you're a creationist and so can't read Genesis correctly, let alone what that does to your accepting any of the dozens of sciences that deal with an old earth, especially climate change.Well, you've been duped numerous times. Billions of years of evolution? God made everything finished.
Why you liberal Amil you!I thought only Amils recognised symbolism when it smacks them in the face with its sheer obviousness. Funny how premils of various flavours are so selective in what they read as symbolic and what is literal.
Prophetic visions are symbolic.
Explicit statements that such-and-such is going to happen are literal, even when they occur within a vision.
So within a prophetic vision that's symbolic which bits are to be taken literally?You've created wide enough semantic gaps here to drive a literal truck though within the scope of this metaphor, if you see what I mean.
Any statement that a specific event is going to happen.
A typical example is "Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea." (Revelation 20:7-8)
Except that the entire book of Revelation is written in symbolic apocalyptic literature. The number 1000 is used symbolically over half the time in Scripture, and Gog and Magog are symbolic as well. Number of the sand of the sea? Symbolic. The sea itself in Revelation? Symbolic, just as it was in Genesis 1 really. Four corners of the earth? Symbolic.
Symbolism everywhere here really, unless you want to read it as saying the world is literally a cube and the Gog Magog battle will contain 700,500,000,000,000,000,000 people.
Grains of Sand on the World's Beaches
(BTW, that's 0.7 Trillion TIMES the number of people on earth today, and we're struggling to feed today's population! So unless you know about 700 BILLION new worlds we can inhabit to beef up the population a little (te he he), pffft: so much for reading this literally.
The scriptural meaning of this figure of speech, which is something radically different from symbolic language, is clearly stated in Genesis 32:12, where we read, "For You said, 'I will surely treat you well, and make your descendants as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude.' "
Where Did '97 Percent' Global Warming Consensus Come From? | The Daily Caller
This is typical of the false claims of the AGW crowd.
The whole point is you said it was literal, and it's anything but. It seems you just tell us one thing is 'literal' and then another thing is a 'figure of speech' when you want it to be literal and a figure of speech: ignoring all the normal rules of literary criticism and thought. The reality is the ENTIRE BOOK is symbolic language, and any attempt to isolate out a 'literal' 1000 years is silly pandering to theological prejudices. It disrespects the book.
The false Denialism of those who love fossil-fuel deaths at 7 million-a-year, love oil wars and energy insecurity, are not patriotic enough to think about weaning the nation off dirty old technologies to clean new technologies with energy security, don't care about the development of their children and grandchildren, don't care about geopolitical issues that energy insecurity causes, all add up to:
1. You believing ridiculous anti-science memes like "Climatologists don't even KNOW that temperatures lead carbon cycles in the ice-ages"
2. "Climatologists don't even KNOW there are extensive ice shelves in Antarctica"
I've shown both of these to be ridiculous, and actually feel a little sorry for you. I'm not even a scientist, and you've shown yourself to be utterly incompetent when critiquing the science you're not even acquainted with!
I did not know that climate scientists knew that changes in temperature lead changes in atmospheric carbon because I do not read their lies. And Istick to my gins in saying that if they actually knew this, they were blatantly lying when they continued to claim that the cause-and-effect order was actually the opposite of what they still claim it is.
That's because there's more than ONE ice shelf in Antarctica, isn't there?....I only pointed out that, the ice shelves are at record highs even while they are claiming that melting is at record highs.
AI mate, check this out mate!
Why Antarctic Sea Ice is Growing | Weather Underground
AND this
http://www.climatecooling.org/
AI mate, check this out mate!
Why Antarctic Sea Ice is Growing | Weather Underground
AND this
Climate Cooling, the Other Side of Climate Change Science: Global Cooling
My awe of such intellect, such prescience, is without limit.
Certainly naysayers must die, and all who question, suffer an IRS audit.
Thankfully Big Government agrees, and if you like your weather, you can keep your weather, if you pay 50% more for your energy and don't mind the economy won't produce the 3 figure jobs unbounded energy production would create.
Pay no mind to Big Energy and Politicians getting rich, keep playing your game or watching the Kardashians. Nothing to see here.
Never speak of this to your children, that would be child abuse. The first amendment doesn't allow you to speak against Big Government, to them.
By the way, who do you work for, or what is the name of your business?
Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb and spoke like a dragon. (Rev 13:11 NKJ)
Aren't things so much better now that global warming believers, run the show? Does anyone dare disagree? Only extremists would disagree.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?