We must be good stewards of the world God gave us. But climate warming is a hoax. The world temperature has been dropping steadily for a couple decades.
Interesting Dennis? I am curious as to why you say it is a hoax. I have heard buzz about warming of the climate being used as a platform for implementing all sorts of top down societal and cultural change...without input or any meaningful discussions from the plebiscites.
It is always immoral to pollute God's world. But, without even considering the physical and moral evils entailed in the agenda of many who claim to act against "climate change," my point is that the very premises on which they proceed are flawed.
If you do a bit of research, you will find that the actual world temperature has not proceeded upward as the alarmist's computer models predicted. Rather, overall temperatures have been falling in recent years. Moreover, I understand that it has never been empirically proven that CO2 emissions actually are an essential cause of global warming. In fact, the best research I have seen indicates that it is the Sun's own emission cycle (about which mankind can do nothing) that is principally responsible for Earth's temperature and that we are now entering a solar minimum, such as the one that caused the mini-ice age several centuries ago.
Hence, the very foundation of alarmist claims about global temperature change rest on illogical assumptions, which why I called climate change alarmism a hoax.
Thank you, I appreciate the time and effort that you have taken to respond. I am not that informed on the data available on climate warming and solar minimums, however I have made it a point to read extensively about agendas being pursued by the W.H.O., the WEF and other global organizations who are using climate change to implement agendas on populations which have neither requested them, nor had a chance to properly debate them in their countries parliaments and Congresses. Debate, dialogue, voting, these things all take time but are well worth it. Dr. Meryl Nass has a wealth of information on her Substack site for those who would like more data on this subject. https://merylnass.substack.com/p/webinar-on-one-health-from-51523?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Dennis, that's not true.Your sources are skewed. I know what the scientific literature says. We have ice caps melting, oceans warming, shifting jet streams. What we aren't sure of is how much is human-caused. Climate change has happened in the past, without human responsibility. My attitude is that our emissions are likely to be having an effect, and learning to deal with that can only help. It may in fact be essential.
Forests dying, the cloud forests of Central and South America disappearing, along with all the unique species dependent on them. But it's not just global warming. It is water pollution from the medical waste of our pills, and garbage accumulation. We need to change our way of life, myself included.
Ann, as is often the case with empirical claims, there is at least controversy rather than scientific consensus. In fact, science is not like politics, where one can properly speak of consensus as something definitive. Science has a long history where consensus was blatantly wrong, e.g., the biggest mistake of all with total acceptance of geocentrism. As for climate change, note the multiple contrary indicators that have been ignored by mainstream media: https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-global-warming-earth-cooling-media-bias/
Nonetheless, I could not agree with you more about the need to control evident pollution caused my industries seeking profit no matter the environmental damage they cause, e.g., in the dumping of plastics into our oceans.
Perhaps, a chart to notice is the average global temperatures over the last hundred thousand years, where glaciation has largely dominated, save for the anomalous Holocene period of the last ten thousand years in which human civilization has developed. And I still say we need be more concerned about the impact of the solar minimum we are entering than the overstated impact of CO2 emissions.
Ann, as is often the case with empirical claims, there is at least controversy rather than scientific consensus. In fact, science is not like politics, where one can properly speak of consensus as something definitive. Science has a long history where consensus was blatantly wrong, e.g., the biggest mistake of all with total acceptance of geocentrism.
Hope we learn soon!!!
We must be good stewards of the world God gave us. But climate warming is a hoax. The world temperature has been dropping steadily for a couple decades.
Interesting Dennis? I am curious as to why you say it is a hoax. I have heard buzz about warming of the climate being used as a platform for implementing all sorts of top down societal and cultural change...without input or any meaningful discussions from the plebiscites.
It is always immoral to pollute God's world. But, without even considering the physical and moral evils entailed in the agenda of many who claim to act against "climate change," my point is that the very premises on which they proceed are flawed.
If you do a bit of research, you will find that the actual world temperature has not proceeded upward as the alarmist's computer models predicted. Rather, overall temperatures have been falling in recent years. Moreover, I understand that it has never been empirically proven that CO2 emissions actually are an essential cause of global warming. In fact, the best research I have seen indicates that it is the Sun's own emission cycle (about which mankind can do nothing) that is principally responsible for Earth's temperature and that we are now entering a solar minimum, such as the one that caused the mini-ice age several centuries ago.
Hence, the very foundation of alarmist claims about global temperature change rest on illogical assumptions, which why I called climate change alarmism a hoax.
Thank you, I appreciate the time and effort that you have taken to respond. I am not that informed on the data available on climate warming and solar minimums, however I have made it a point to read extensively about agendas being pursued by the W.H.O., the WEF and other global organizations who are using climate change to implement agendas on populations which have neither requested them, nor had a chance to properly debate them in their countries parliaments and Congresses. Debate, dialogue, voting, these things all take time but are well worth it. Dr. Meryl Nass has a wealth of information on her Substack site for those who would like more data on this subject. https://merylnass.substack.com/p/webinar-on-one-health-from-51523?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Dennis, that's not true.Your sources are skewed. I know what the scientific literature says. We have ice caps melting, oceans warming, shifting jet streams. What we aren't sure of is how much is human-caused. Climate change has happened in the past, without human responsibility. My attitude is that our emissions are likely to be having an effect, and learning to deal with that can only help. It may in fact be essential.
Forests dying, the cloud forests of Central and South America disappearing, along with all the unique species dependent on them. But it's not just global warming. It is water pollution from the medical waste of our pills, and garbage accumulation. We need to change our way of life, myself included.
blest the poor, they can teach us
what matters most--shelter, food, family.
LOVE IT, made my heart happy the last three stanzas
Ann, as is often the case with empirical claims, there is at least controversy rather than scientific consensus. In fact, science is not like politics, where one can properly speak of consensus as something definitive. Science has a long history where consensus was blatantly wrong, e.g., the biggest mistake of all with total acceptance of geocentrism. As for climate change, note the multiple contrary indicators that have been ignored by mainstream media: https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-global-warming-earth-cooling-media-bias/
Nonetheless, I could not agree with you more about the need to control evident pollution caused my industries seeking profit no matter the environmental damage they cause, e.g., in the dumping of plastics into our oceans.
Perhaps, a chart to notice is the average global temperatures over the last hundred thousand years, where glaciation has largely dominated, save for the anomalous Holocene period of the last ten thousand years in which human civilization has developed. And I still say we need be more concerned about the impact of the solar minimum we are entering than the overstated impact of CO2 emissions.
Here is a good example of unnecessary, very damaging, and immoral environmental pollution:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/pfas-chemicals-societal-costs-cd/?utm_source=luminate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=defender&utm_id=20230518
Ann, as is often the case with empirical claims, there is at least controversy rather than scientific consensus. In fact, science is not like politics, where one can properly speak of consensus as something definitive. Science has a long history where consensus was blatantly wrong, e.g., the biggest mistake of all with total acceptance of geocentrism.
Dennis, preaching to the choir.