greed versus common sense

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
TEH BIBLE SAY GO FORTH AND MULTIPLY

Yes. The children of Israel were experts at arithmatic.😛

Originally posted by generalissimo
yeah but that was a long time ago, when the population of the world was very small compared to today's.

plus, religious texts should never be a basis for legislation.

Disregard what I said on the other thread about a thought of your own. This was pretty good.

Originally posted by whodey
But all you are doing is describing events that do not follow a "normal" weather pattern and then pinning the cause on fossil fuels. However, abnormal weather patterns have a rich history as has been pointed out before fossil fuels even entered the picture. Therefore, to prove causality I think is problematic to say the least.

Official government measurements show the world's temperature has cooled since reaching its most recent peak in 1998. The global high temperature in 1998 was 0.76 degrees Celsius above previous 20-year average. So far this year, the high was measured 0.42 degrees Celsius above the same average - clearly cooler.

Global temperature reached its peak in 1998. To large extent, this peak can be attributed to the very strong El Nino event of 1997-98. Temperatures for the globe as a whole tend to be higher during El Nino, as the Pacific waters affect temperatures worldwide.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to this 11-year cooling trend some alarmists argue:

The Earth System Science Centre, said: "Our ignorance of the climate system is still enormous, and our policy makers need to know that . . . We really don't know much about what causes multi-year changes like this."

A decade of level or lower temperatures is only a temporary dip to be expected as result of natural, short-term variations in the enormously complex climate system.

It's entirely possible to have a period as long as a decade or two of cooling superimposed on the long-term warming trend. It's easy to “cherry pick” a period to reinforce a point of view.
(Alarmists' are past masters at “cherry picking” data)

Claims that global warming is not now occurring ignores this recent change as natural variability and it’s misleading.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First let us agree upon one thing, we do not know how to accurately take, measure, or even define earths “normal” temperature. Therefore, it is impossible to use it as a calibration factor to validate ridiculous "models" that model only the preconceptions of their authors. There is no natural phenomenon of anthropogenic global warming. There is only a preconception of it, and yes you can model preconceptions, but only for willing alarmist followers.

NASA's silly data set, which they offer up as “earths average temperature”, is nothing of the sort. It is only a meaningless collection of numbers that is used to support their preconceptions. (alas, temperatures of the last 11 years no longer offer them support)

Anyone who believes this is science has never come close to science. This includes the people who generate this propaganda for their pay. I can’t believe any of them with any real skills in science believe what they are spouting, but their pay does depend upon it.
(there is no decent work for unemployed climate hysteria workers)

Western Washington University in Bellingham said at the American Geophysical Union's December meeting they think the world is now in a 30-year cooling phase. The most recent global warming that began in 1977 is over, and the Earth has entered a new phase of global cooling.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Beware the Orwellian doublespeak of the Climate Change priesthood.

Some examples:
1. "...Short term fluctuations are statistically insignificant..."
(That short term cooling period is now at 11 years and counting. The previous warming period, which was enough to warrant a massive overhaul of civilization itself, lasted about 20 years.)

2. Hadley Centre explains away this unexpected cooling as "natural variability."
(If this makes sense; why wouldn't it also explain the previous 20-year warming trend?)

And - The winner, from meteorologist Nicholas Bond:
3. "The preponderance of evidence is that global warming will resume..."
(How can you obtain evidence from events in the future?)

Originally posted by whodey
But all you are doing is describing events that do not follow a "normal" weather pattern and then pinning the cause on fossil fuels. However, abnormal weather patterns have a rich history as has been pointed out before fossil fuels even entered the picture. Therefore, to prove causality I think is problematic to say the least.

The point is that this current climate change looks like it's happening very quickly in comparison. What normally happens in centuries or millenia is happening in decades.

Causality is difficult to show , but the models and maths stand up. We know about co2 and the greenhouse effect - so if we pump billions and billions of tonnes of co2 into the atmosphere what exactly do we expect is going to happen?

Originally posted by daniel58
It still applies to today, it always has and always will apply, God didn't say "Hey Adam and Eve, I want humans to be fruitful and multiply for a thousand years only" or something like that, if we don't be fruitful then humans will be gone in a century. That's the problem it should because if it isn't then what is it based on? The Fifth Commandment is; "Thou shalt not kill", does that mean we shouldn't use it because God said we should?

its common sense.

society changes with time, and religion should adapt to these changes.
If we were to follow the bible blindly (taking it literally instead of focusing on the message) we'd still have slaves, and we'd still be killing gays, etc, etc.

Originally posted by joe beyser
Disregard what I said on the other thread about a thought of your own. This was pretty good.

are you serious?

I was just stating the obvious, I don't see how this is "a thought of my own" while my other posts weren't (according to you).

Originally posted by generalissimo
its common sense.

society changes with time, and religion should adapt to these changes.
If we were to follow the bible blindly (taking it literally instead of focusing on the message) we'd still have slaves, and we'd still be killing gays, etc, etc.

1. You must believe in evolution

2. God never approved of slaves

3. Show me in the Bible where they killed gays

Originally posted by daniel58
1. You must believe in evolution

2. God never approved of slaves

3. Show me in the Bible where they killed gays

1. everyone does (except the retards)

2. I never said he did, what I said was that people had slaves at the time.

3. are you kidding me? haven't you read the bible?

Originally posted by generalissimo
1. everyone does (except the retards)

2. I never said he did, what I said was that people had slaves at the time.

3. are you kidding me? haven't you read the bible?

1. [The fool saith in his heart "There is no God"]

2. So is that His Fault, there has always been sin, since the time of Adam.

3. yes, what passage are you referring to?

Originally posted by whodey
Liberals have a solution to these problems:

1. Support abortions no matter the circumstance or cost

2. Support the gay lifestyle. After all, they don't reproduce do they?

3. Continue to stand against capital punishmet. After all, murders kill people and as such are valuable to the cause.

4. Support euthenasia and sneak provisions for it in the future via
health care legislation.

In short, continue to promote the culture of death.

It's actually

1: Keep the government's big, fat snout out of a woman's decision between her and her doctor

2: Support straight OR gay people's right to live their life as they choose. After all, who consenting adults have sex with or marry is none of my fricking business.

3: Continue to stand against capital punishment. After all, inevitably murdering innocent people who were wrongly convicted isn't worth some politician being able to say they're "tough on crime"

4: Euthenasia IS NOT IN HR 3200. But the fact that the right keeps repeating this, and other LIES must mean it's a pretty good bill. Otherwise why would they rely so heavily on strawman arguments?

Republican Slogan: "LAND OF THE FREE! as long as you don't offend ME!"

Originally posted by daniel58
1. [The fool saith in his heart "There is no God"]

2. So is that His Fault, there has always been sin, since the time of Adam.

3. yes, what passage are you referring to?

1. non-sequitur

2. what?

3. Im not referring to any passage.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What do you want to know?

How do you support your suggestions that global warming is supported by chaos theory?

Originally posted by eljefejesus
How do you support your suggestions that global warming is supported by chaos theory?

I did not suggest such a thing.

Rather, I claimed that chaos theory shows that the climate is hard to predict and surely not "balanced" or "in harmony" or more hippie lingo.