Another rumor from more unnamed sources, but hopefully this one is true.
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump is expected to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, two senior US officials familiar with his plans told CNN Wednesday.
The decision would be a significant foreign policy break with nearly every other nation on earth and a major reversal of the Obama administration’s efforts on climate change.Trump met Tuesday with a key voice advocating for withdrawal, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt. He meets Wednesday with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who supported remaining in the deal.The precise mechanism for withdrawal hasn’t yet been determined, but Trump has made clear he plans to fulfill his campaign promises to withdraw.
A formal announcement is expected at some point this week. The officials cautioned the plans could change until Trump makes his decision public.
The state should never have been involved with the favored liberal religion in the first place!!
This alone makes Trump worth being president.
I think it is the wrong move. I think that banding together with the rest of the world in a pact to help reduce greenhouse gasses is a positive measure.
I am also very sure that people who don’t believe that we have an effect on the global climate are going to be proven to be on the wrong side of history much like we look back on people who were against gay marriage, abolishing slavery, and flat earthers.
The positive thing is that this president is temporary. Our next president will probably sign right back on. And it hurts me to say this because I want our country to succeed, but I truly hope that every country that signs on to the agreement will carbon tax any and all of our exported goods until we do sign on.
The US should be a leader in the effort to improve our planet. Whether you think that we have very little impact or a HUGE impact on our planet.
Jonnyv,
There is a difference between those that do not buy into the umteenth million liberal doomsday saying about the planet and abolishing slavery or saying earth is flat.
The latest liberal, big government, doomsday religion should be funded no more than any other religion. In other words, global warming religion should be treated just like Christianity is treated in public square by liberals.
In the interest of fairness.
Practice your warming religion doomsday saying all you want, just don’t make me fund it.
Johnnyv:
Great comments. Perhaps the deniers of CC/GW if they don’t want to help fund saving our planet (typical right wing; wanting others to pay for their success) should be required to live in areas most adversely affected by rising sea levels, or in temperate areas now or soon to be overrun by invasive species from more southern climes….
Nord,
We don’t want to fund the latest liberal doomsday religion. In late 60s, the ice age was going to over-run us, then there was the population bomb scare where we were all suppose to be starving….turned out to be opposite, obesit became to new liberal boogeyman.
Yawn. Warming is just yet another liberal power grab. Keep your doomsday soothsaying to yourselves. You should be treated like any other religion.
k:
I’m glad I am not hidebound to 1960’s knowledge and technology. Advancements in knowledge don’t seem to affect you a bit. Maybe you are part of the CC/GW mutations of fact resistant humans.
PS: I was around in the 60’s. I think you exaggerate.
If it is a religion, it is the world’s largest religion. Backed by all but currently 2 countries in the world (Syria & Nicaragua).
And like it or not, climate change has actual science to back up many of it’s claims. Unlike most religions that are just made up from 2nd hand accounts to make people feel better about dying.
Kevin, you must be anti-American if you want to concede power to other nations such as China or the EU. Again, I prefer to be a leader and an example of the greatest country in the world.
Were you also the guy who screamed that smoking didn’t cause you cancer because there were a few scientists who disagreed in the 60s, 70s, and 80s?
Jonnyv,
So it is OK to fund religion?
Good to know. I’ll remember that the next time a liberal gets in my face about school vouchers.
Oh Kevin. We already fund religion. They are tax exempt for no good reason. I would love to see that go away personally.
And as much as you like to claim that Climate Change is a religion… it isn’t true. Maybe if you pray hard enough, it will happen.
I remember learning about an America where we set HUGE goals (like going to the moon) and accomplished them, because we could. Now when someone says, “Hey lets reduce the amount of garbage we put into the air. Cause it is possibly causing irreparable damage to the environment. And lets do it slowly over the next 50 years.” people like you bury your head in the sand and scream that it might cost us some money. Or because you had such a distaste for Al Gore that you are blinded to anything else.
Renewable energy is the future. The quicker we get there, the better position our country will be to lead the way.
I think it is a given that 7.5 billion people and all the accoutrements that go along with them have or will have some effect on our planet. That said, when there were zero people on our planet, there was still climate change. The what and if are not a matter of “settled science.”.
More than just a hypocrite like Al Gore flying his pollution spewing private jet to global warming summits, expecting some to embrace the global warming hypothesis while others merely pay lip service is absurd.
From businesses moving out of our Country to escape EPA regulations to drug factories in India and China polluting their waters with antibiotic waste, we are told we, as a country, must sign on to things like this Paris Climate Accord. That is not a good decision.
I am told that it is wrong to heat my home with wood because then I am a polluter. So what I should do? Put a catalytic converter on my chimney. Maybe use wind mills that don’t work if there is not enough or too much wind or some other expensive, inefficient fads?
The United States has made great strides to lower pollution over the last 50 years and we will continue to get better in the future but please, if you want your wind mill or whatever, subsidize it with your own money, not mine.
Johny,
Define renewable.
Nuclear, all for that, but your leftist friends block it wherever it is proposed. Hypocrites.
Windmills. Leftists are mobilizing against bird shredders now. Hypocrites.
Solar panels. Large areas of panels are frying birds and causing issues. I sense lefties are not thrilled as they once were.
Just what renewable will satisfy the anti-humanity leftists.
I say it is easier to defund their radical religion than listen to their constant gripes.
Johnnyv:
Again, great post and talking points. Keep up the good work.
bill: Good wood stoves have catalytic converters. Mine does. Burns cleaner, more efficient, and you don’t have to clean the chimney as often. Science is a wonderful thing.
Luddite Le Roi du Nord still uses wood for his cross burnings to chase minorities out of his village.
Some apparently lack the ability to understand the written word so I will do my best to make this simple.
The planet warmed when there were no people on the planet.
There is the possibility mankind is part of the cause of perceived global warming or global cooling.
Entering into an agreement that penalizes some countries while other seriously pollute the air and waterways will not solve the perceived problems.
I feel pity for those that have to resort to parsing words or taking sentences out of context rather than deal with the discussion topic. For their benefit, I repeat:
“The United States has made great strides to lower pollution over the last 50 years and we will continue to get better in the future but please, if you want your wind mill or whatever, subsidize it with your own money, not mine.”
Bill… how do you know the planet warmed before people? Science! The same science that is telling us that it is warming faster than ever before, and more than likely due to humans being here.
The argument that “they are not doing it, so why should I” is childish.
And yes, we are making improvements, and will continue. Why? Not because industry has done it by choice. Technology, EPA, & public pressure are forcing /helping companies make those choices.
Bill, do you recommend unsubsidizing ALL energy like coal and oil? Or just clean/renewable energy? Cause from my quick research renewables get about 40% & fossil fuels get about 20% of all energy subsidies.
And to keep it simple. Here is a wonderful comic showing you the history of the temps on Earth.
https://xkcd.com/1732/
Jonnyv,
You punted on just what “renewable” energy means?
Liberals even hate most “renewable” energy now.
The hateful anti-energy, anti-humanity liberal cult is behind the global warming alarmism.
Don’t be part of the hate.
I hope you all listened to the factually challenged statement by trump after he weaseled out of the Paris Accord. Love the comments from Pittsburg..
Johnny: Keep up the good work.
Nord,
If Trump irritated you by his comments, sounds like I will like what Trump has to say when I listen to it.
I like a president that puts America first.
Long run, this will cost us in more ways than one. And it is something to be proud of that you base your decisions on that criteria. Pretty poor quality to brag about.
Another brain dead take from the White Nationalist troll.
And Jonny – if you’re a Klansman, Le Roi du Nord will blow you.
Nord,
How will it cost us more long run?
Don’t you like a longer growing season for farmers, less heating bill in winter (which means less consumption of narural gas, heating oil, or wood to heat homes and workplaces), greener planet because plants have more CO2 to thrive?
So you hate farmers, lower heating bills, and plants?
I’m confused. Am I supposed to be hot or cold?
In January 2006, Gore declared that unless we took “drastic measures” to reduce greenhouse gasses, the world would reach a “point of no return” in a mere ten years. He called it a “true planetary emergency.”
“If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder by the year 2000,” claimed ecology professor Kenneth E.F. Watt at the University of California in 1970. “This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.”
Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich made similarly forecasts for the end of the millennium in a speech at the British Institute for Biology in 1968. “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people,” he claimed. “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 and give ten to one that the life of the average Briton would be of distinctly lower quality than it is today.”
On June 30, 1989, the director of the UNEP’s New York office was quoted as claiming that “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.”
The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be frantically fleeing from those regions of the globe.
k:
You truly are taking your silly pills. Open that science book, it wasn’t made to be a door stop.
b:
You confuse weather with climate.
Careful Bill and Kevin – prove the blog troll wrong too often and he’ll go complaining to the proprietor about you, too.
Sorry, petite paul, but I never done that.. Maybe the proprietor doesn’t care for your potty mouth..
Who said I was talking about you?
Looks like you just admitted to being a troll, though. In light of you lying about public office and other things, at least you’re honest here.
Nord,
So you do hate all those things. Just want to be clear what your religion means: Less growing for farmers, bigger heating bills in winter, less CO2 for plants to thrive.
ABC reported in 2005 that a global warming “scientist” was so serious NYC would be underwater in 2015. Why are we not swimming down Broadway ?
“Scientist” or crazy disciple in your religion?
Like my other questions my bet is you have no answer for my simple inquiries.
k;
Your whole farmer/ag/plants argument is bogus. CC/GW is already adversely affecting agriculture and the forestry industry. You can look that up. Your inability, or more likely a willful decision not, to grasp scientific concepts limits your ability to make a cogent statement.
Kevin, feel free to give us that scientists name.
ABC created a docudrama, a worst case scenario, it wasn’t a “report”. Like I stated earlier, you can get some scientists to say whatever you want with enough money. Things like “smoking doesn’t cause cancer” but when I looked into that little docudrama, there wasn’t one reputable scientist that put there name on it. Just something that ABC created to capitalize on a legitimate concern.
All those “positives” that you mention are short term at best. If we do nothing and the trends continue, we are in for a things that are a lot worse.
And Paul… as the kids say these days, “Delete your account”.
Delete yourself, Jonny. If you feel humans are causing climate change, man up, take the lead and stop breathing.
OMG. This has reached the level of hysterical.
Couple of quotes from Secretary Wilbur Ross I found interesting. Of note is he never once tries to debunk global warming or cooling, just the Paris Accord. In summary, Barry gave the store away.
“I think the economic case is quite clear. This was a terrible business deal that was engineered, not on behalf of the U.S.’s best interests.”
“It also doesn’t make sense that we were scheduled to put out a lot of money up front, but meanwhile, China would be able to increase its emissions every year for the next 13 years. That’s not a balanced arrangement. India made their participation contingent on receiving billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries. That’s not a balanced thing, either.”
“It makes no sense as an economic deal. This is sloganeering in its worst fashion,”
“It doesn’t surprise me that they’re angry that we pulled out because they were getting a relatively free ride out of the U.S. If someone was getting a free ride and now he no longer is, naturally, he’s going to be angry about that. So that doesn’t surprise me at all.”
Johnnyv,
Take your pick at scientist in this promo,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_WHQkPrhjg
So you denounce these doomsday warming cult disciples? Gas at $9/gallon, Milk at $13 a gallon…what a farce.
If you don’t believe these doomsday scientists, which ones are the doomsday scientists too believe.
This is like a typical cult trying to predict the end of the world, they are always wrong.
Nord,
My argument is not bogus, it is brilliant! Warmer temps in North America makes longer growing season….more food! Warmer temps in winter reduces my heating bill and consumption of natural resources used to heat. Plant take in CO2, more CO2 allows possibility of more plant life.
All you can say is “bogus” to these brilliant benefits of alleged warming?
feel free to give us that scientists name.
That would be the king of the climate scammers and leftist love monkey, Dr. James “Hockey Stick” Hansen:
“The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change….There will be more police cars…. you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.” – Dr. James Hansen, 1988, responding to a question on how the greenhouse effect would affect his NY office neighborhood in 40 years.
29 years later, the Hudson has risen all of 2.5 inches. Hansen needs roughly 11 inches of rise in each of the next 11 years to make his prediction of the Hudson overrunning WSH come true.
Not bloody likely.
feel free to give us that scientists name.
That would be king of the climate scammers and leftist’s love monkey Dr. James “Hockey Stick” Hansen.
“The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change….There will be more police cars….[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.” – Dr. James Hansen, 1988, responding to a question about how the greenhouse effect would affect the neighborhood near his office in NYC in the next 40 years.
29 years on, the Hudson is up 2.5″. HS Hansen needs 11″ of rise in each of the next 11 years to make his prediction of the Hudson overrunning the WSH come true.
Not blo0dy likely.
>China would be able to increase its emissions every year for the next 13 years.
I dare anyone here who thinks China is still a developing country and needs more ‘time’ to spend 6 months in Tainjin or Shanghai and not wear a mask over their mouth and nose. If you think the smog in California cities was bad, these two cities are just two of many in China that are far, far worse.
k:
Your idea is far from brilliant. But it does meet the criteria of a fact resistant denier.
I was wondering if under your longer growing season scenario that the hours of daylight were also going to increase?? For your longer growing season to be of much benefit you also need more sunlight. I realize you slept through sophomore biology, but there are remedial classes you could attend to make up for the technical shortcomings you exhibit … Take advantage of the Tech College system.
More personal attacks and lies from the white nationalist lying troll.
Nord,
Did you sleep through March 2015? It was really warm entire month. Trees greened out like it was mid May. I had to spray weeds in parking lot at DQ and church like it was mid May. Farmers reported cutting hay extra early that year and getting as many as 5 cuttings that year. (3-4 cuttings is normal).
What was that about sunlight theory?
As a passionate disciple of your false religion seems like you will say anything to defend it….far from objective scientific method you claim.
k:
Again, you confuse weather with climate. No surprise there. To get meaningful increases in crop production as you claim there will also have to be an increase in sunlight. And as temperatures rise, crops will change as, such as in WI many forage crops grown for dairy production don’t do as well in warmer climes. Hence WI is the dairy state and not Georgia. So your pitch for the warmer climate shows you really don’t like dairy farmers. Odd spot to be for a DQ owner. And the forestry industry is already suffering as some northern species used in paper production are starting to fail, or are being pushed out by species from farther south.
And I’ll ask again; why do you always hide behind religion?? Your religion is good, that imaginary religion you accuse me of is bad. You really need a bigger vocabulary.
Looking at the big picture, I think Mr. Scheunemann is a lot closer to the real reason for panic over America withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord. Consider one could bring up the fact that about eight billion tons of coal is burned per year in the world but the United States of America burns less than one billion tons of coal a year commences the tired old ‘but’ response. The back and forth goes on until facts and opinions are replaced with ‘but’ your confused, you’re stupid or worse, a denier.
The real argument here is not if renewables—solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal energy—can be expanded rapidly enough to to replace fossil fuels, nuclear, hydropower, it is about the emotional need to belong.
Belonging is a strong and inevitable feeling that exists in human nature. To belong or not to belong can occur due to choices of one’s self, or the choices of others. The greater the acceptance of others differences translates into a wider circle of group affiliations, hence the liberal mantra. Without belonging, one cannot identify themselves as clearly, thus having difficulties communicating with and relating to their surroundings. Mr. Scheunemann’s comments about religion are not far off. Belonging to liberalism gives meaning to one’s life knowing one is superior and accepted by almost all. Depriving these people of this self-esteem by challenging their beliefs causes them undue stress. Responding aggressively at any who would dare challenge them is a natural response to protect their own beliefs. Internet trolls, emboldened by the anonymity of the web, who try to start arguments or post inflammatory off-topic messages are, in reality, just trying to mentally justify their own belief system.
The floor is clean – Bill mopped the floor with Le Roi du Bore and JonnyV.
Nord,
Since when did global warming zealots start to draw a distinction between weather and climate?
Middle of last decade, warming nuts ran around talking about how all the hurricanes were caused by global warming…and it was only going to get worse. When hurricane activity, dropped off big time last few years, we heard little about this weather.
Al Gore, your high priest, constantly points to weather to back up warming religion.
When do you religious zealots decide “weather” is unimportant? …just when it proves damaging to your zealotry?
I missed that memo.
k:
Always. They are different and a smart guy like you should know that. Or are you truly that uninformed??
And there you go again, blaming religion for things you don’t care to understand..
Nord,
So then Al Gore is wrong to use “weather” to justify global warming religion?
(Since you declare any incredibly helpful weather and results from alleged global warming is to be dismissed.)
k:
“Climate is the statistics of weather, usually over a 30-year or longer interval. It is measured by assessing the patterns of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods of time. Climate differs from weather, in that weather only describes the short-term conditions of these variables in a given region”. Source: Shepard, Shindell, and O’Carroll, “What is the Difference Between Weather and Climate”, 2005.
I don’t know what Gore said, so I can’t comment on your unsupported claim. But you can take the above quote to the bank.
Nord,
So when Al Gore talks about the “frequency and intensity” of hurricances increasing since 1900, he is not talking about weather? (a claim tht has been debunked by the way)
Your cult high priest talks weather all the time.
When I talk about the blessing of the early spring heat for one year, and IF it is globbal warming, extoling the benefits of the extrat heat, that is verboten?
You will have to draw a line between using “weather” for and against the warming cult that looks less like a twisted pretzel after it has been in a blender.
k:
I should have realized that this topic was way over your head, and would only lead to confusion and deflection on your part.
If Gore was talking about the long-term changes in frequency and intensity, he was talking climate. If it was only a single year, or two, then he was talking weather. See above.
“When I talk about the blessing of the early spring heat for one year, and IF it is globbal warming, extoling the benefits of the extrat heat, that is verboten?”
That comment makes no sense, so I won’t try to unravel your thought processes.
Nord,
Gore then focused on the 1 year of really bad hurricanes to prove his point. (to forward his cultish doomsday alarmism). He even talked about a possible “Category 6” hurricane at one point after his original talk before he had to walk back his cult foolishness on the weather.
So, I say AGAIN, if your high royal priest can do it unchallenged, why is it a problem when I explain the 1 year of BENEFITS of extra warming?
k:
If you think Gore is my “high royal priest” you are once again sadly in error. I don’t believe in any of the priest bunk.
And again, you are confusing weather with climate. You sure are a slow learner.
Nord,
You failed to denounce Gore for same exact thing.
This is the problem with you warming zealots. Your inconsistency. You can use climate, or weather, to justify your cult, but no one outside the royal preisthood cult can use weather, or climate to talk about the great things warming can bring us….if it even exists.
That is seen as great heresy….even though even more valid of an observation as your high priest.
It is a state established religion that needs to be defended. Trump has made first step to put you zealots in check.
“Defunded”, dang spell checker
k:
I have asked several times to provide the context and complete and accurate of what you claim Gore said. You have failed to do this. I don’t denounce anyone on hearsay from questionable sources.
And yet again you hide behind your religious shield, deflecting facts and common sense at every opportunity.
The only step(s) trump has taken is to make the US and the office of POTUS look like fools on the world stage.
White nationalist trolls are not in the position to demand anything from anyone.
Nord,
Of course you do not want to give your high priest the same scrutiny.
You should be respectful of those of us that want warmer weather and are pro-humanity.
Al Gore’s Doomsday clock expired January 27, 2016. In his speech, dubbed, “Earth Has A Fever,” Gore referred to a prediction by U.S. climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski that the Arctic’s summer ice could “completely disappear” by 2013 due to global warming caused by carbon emissions.
k:
Again, you cloak your nonsense in religion. You really should try something new.
Ask those living in low lying coastal areas around the globe how they like rising sea levels due to a warmer climate. There was a great article on AP this week about Native Americans being force their historical island home in AK due to rising sea levels. Another about subsistence hunters that no longer have their primary food source available due to melting polar ice. Then tell me how you are pro-humanity.
Sea levels rise because of geological shifts. Like the huge slide that covered CA Hwy 1 in 65 feet of rock and added 13 acres of land to California. That is huge water displacement.
Volcanos are displacing water all the time as well. Slide displacement is main reason for small sea level rise. Not much we can do about that.
Don’t you read the Bible about he who builds his house on sand?
k:
According to the 6 news reports I checked regarding the Hwy 1 landslide:
Extent of the in-water portion: 250′ waterward, 1360′ along the shore.
Doing the math (I realize this is the hard part for you, so follow closely):
250′ x 1360′ = 340000 sq ft, divide by 43560 (sq ft per acre) = 7.8 acres of fill into the water. That doesn’t equal 13 acres.
One article said the maximum depth of water at the site was 15′, so the worst case scenario is that 15′ (depth) x 340000 sq ft (area) = 5,100,000 cu ft. But since this happened in a littoral area a more like volume would be half that 5,100,000/2 = 2,550,000 cu ft.
2,550,000 cu ft x 7.5 gallons/cu ft = 19,125,000 gallons. That is about 10 days discharge from a POTW in a city of 10,000.
So do you really and truly believe that slide raised sea levels??
Or could it be caused by melting ice caps, more precipitation and expanding water due to increased temperatures??
“Slide displacement is main reason for small sea level rise”. Absolute nonsense.
And there you go again, hiding behind religion when the facts become troublesome.
More lies and personal attacks from the white nationalist troll.
Nord,
That is one of many geological events that can cause sea level rise.
I didn’t point to them all.
Didn’t even talk about underground earthquakes and sea floor plate upheaval.
You at least admit geology is causing some of sea level rise which has nothing to do with global warming.
I know in liberal cult arrogance you think you can control climate like gods, but do you have an arrogant cult plan to control geology and plate tectonics as well?
Sea level rise can easily be explained by these events…if you are willing to look at data objectively and not with liberal cult power bias.
How far does your religion go in your cultish belief system? Control plate techronics as well?
…and you also admitted sewer discharge raises sea level. We should have all the granola eating nuts in CA stop dumping their sewage into the sea. Of course you will never get China to comply.
“…and you also admitted sewer discharge raises sea level”.
“You at least admit geology is causing some of sea level rise”
I did not. That is an outright lie. I made a comparison regarding the POTW. Odd how such an alleged christian reverts to lies when confronted by a contrary and provable argument. You should be ashamed to be such a bible banging hypocrite.
Nord,
So you are saying the additional 13 acres added to California by rock slide into the ocean DID NOT raise sea level?
That would mean you are rejecting science.
k:
There are 332,519,000 CUBIC MILES of water in the earths oceans (Source: NOAA). If you can truthfully say that this slide (2,550,000 CUBIC FEET) will have an effect on sea levels you are beyond silly.
And an acre is a measurement of area, not volume, so yes, I can safely say that the slide (your erroneous 13 acres) had no effect on sea levels.
And more lies and personal attacks from the white nationalist troll.
Nord,
So easily dismissive of the science here… it did have an effect. It was minor, but you combine this with hundreds of similar events around the world and plate techtonic movement of sea floor, it accumulates to real sea level change, which has nothing to do with warming cult.
It is amazing how passionately you embrace one belief because it requires big government and reject another because there is no argument big government can stop geological movement of sea floor plates.
k:
Can you find one credible source that agrees with you?? Just one?? I checked, and there is nobody out there willing to agree with you. You are just making stuff up again as you always do when confronted by facts that prove you wrong. It must be a difficult life for someone so unable to learn and grow from that knowledge..
Nord,
Let’s start here, how many different faults can displace huge amounts of volume, wherever they are, upon techtonic movement, and we will work our way up to the sea floor Earthquake that led to 2004 Tsunami.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1989/0315/report.pdf
That is if your blind warming faith wants to look at the geological science.
I know that is a huge risk when you are a pasionate disciple in today’s liberal religion.
k:
That report is on earthquakes. And a tsunami is a temporary displacement of water. Poor try.
“Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition”.
Adam Smith, “The Wealth of Nations”.
Nord,
I was trying to connect the dots for you…slowly. It seems you ae so blinded by the liberal global warming religion you are not willing to look at geological science.
The sea floor placte not only temporarily displaced water, it permanantly displaced water because the plate level rose from violence on the earthquake.
I could not walk you there because you not only put blinders on, you tied yourself down.
That’s what you get when you are passionate about a false religion like climate change.
Like I said, there is no reference in any materials you provided or that I found that link your claim to reality.
We will re-start slow again.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7465-tsunami-seabed-shows-massive-disruption/
Can we acknowledge there was massive sea floor plate upheaval from the huge 2004 Dec. 26th Earthquake?
….but I have a feeling you will be a plate techtonics denier….because plate techtonic science and geological events don’t fit into global warming religion very well.
Sure, but did it have any effect in sea levels?? No. Nothing in any credible literature says that is the cause of rising sea levels, yet there are 1000’s of easily accessible documents that refer to ice melt and thermal expansion as the cause. I’ll go with the experts on this one.
Nope, I’m not a denier. I always like the way S. America fits into Africa. Pretty neat. But is a different subject all together from CC/GW. And there you go dragging religion in as your shield from truth.
And I find it odd that you are pushing that subject, as many on the far right, especially the creationists, deny that there was ever any movement of the earths crust or continental drift.
Nord,
You are a denier because all scientist acknowledge massive plate upheaval along the 1200 mile fault line just from that one earthquake! Scientists even acknowledged the earth’s rotation was even affected from that earthquake.
You are not even willing to look at the permanent displacement of sea floor as reason for sea level rise?
That would make you a plate techtonic denier.
Is you global warming faith that important to you?
At least in my “climate change denier” position I’m not willing to sell out my soul, my country, my very life to socialist devils who claim they can control climate and weather.
You are willing to overlook science and sell your soul to socialist devils. That is the double whammy.
No denier, I’m just able to focus on the subject at hand rather than deflect and diverge. No devils in my life, sorry there are in yours.
k:
“The principal tectonic processes (ridge building, subduction, etc.) responsible for changing the ocean basins are measured in millions of years and are so slow that short-term global satellite records do not consider them. Glacial isostatic adjustment is comparatively a much shorter-term process (although still measured in thousands of years), and it does have a minor effect on ocean basin size. The current effect has been estimated to be -0.3 mm/yr of equivalent sea level rise due to increasing ocean basin size”.
Source Univ. of Colorado, Sea Level Research Lab
Hint: Tectonic activity accounts for a drop in sea level of 0.3 mm per year.
Nord,
You are giving a lecture about focusing on the subject? That’s hilarious.
I like that you pointed out competing science that techtonic stress is LOWERING ocean levels. Could it be that techtonic stress maybe LOWERING the land masses near sea level as well?
You see. I am open and objective, to competing plate techtonic scence.
Why does the global warming religion think God-like control of climate controls plate techtonics in any manner? and that controling the climate will stop plate raising and lowering, which some areas are more vulnerable to than others?
It is an arrogant religion, not science. In fact, it rejects a lot of science. Plate techtonic issues. the ever changing fusion factory of the sun. Solar flares. Solar winds. Increased potential for more plant life on planet. etc.
“Could it be that techtonic (sic) stress maybe LOWERING the land masses near sea level as well?” No, unless you want to dispute those fine folks U of C with some verifiable facts. And using the example you provided (Hwy 1 landslide) the near shore area was raised, contrary to your most recent erroneous claim. Make up your mind. Like I said, if you can find it, I’m more than happy to read it, and if plausible, believe it. So far you failed to provide anything factual. How on earth did you get through high school let alone college without having to prove an assertion on a term paper???
The rest of your comment is also without a factual basis, only your baseless opinion..
>So far you failed to provide anything factual.
And what have you provided? I failed to see a single link to a single source of FACT in your dozen + posts in this Discussion.
Jason,
Nord knows he does not need proof…he has his warming religion.
I simply want him to be honest and admit his religion.
He likes to deny his faith.
I think he is ashamed of what his faith really means to the poor and middle class. “Carbon offsets” are only a game for the wealthy….evryone else has to suffer under his faith.
And white nationalist troll La Reine du Nord is busted again.
Right, I didn’t provide a link to anything, whereas I did provide quote ” “, and the source so anyone, even you, could look it up. Guess you never did a term paper, eh?
k: Hiding behind religion again. Just a one trick pony is you.
Le Rio du Nord,
Don’t be discouraged by the attacks. Rumor has it Owen used to troll and sockpuppet his own blog in an effort to chase off those with differing opinions. Its not coincidence the only ones ever banned from B&S had a more liberal views. Imagine this blog without differing views… Just a few yes men constantly browning their noses on Owens hind end.
Mr. Scheunemann,
You always talk a good line of crap but please take time to look at any or all of the groups, organizations or associations i list and explain to me how they can all be wrong. Many represent the positions which you say would benefit from climate change and the rise of sea levels or are are alternative reasons for, like geology, longer growing seasons, smaller heating bills, more plant life etc. Lets be real, the reason you and other deniers support the fossil fuel industry is because it holds up your financial portfol. Now the list…
American Society of Plant Biologists, Ecological Society of America, NASA, NOAA, Crop Science Society of America, Center for International Forestry Research,American Geophysical Union,American Meteorological Society, American Society for Microbiology, American Chemical Society, National Association of State Foresters and the Society of American Foresters. I only named a few. The list is close to 200 organizations that hold the position climate change is caused by human activity. For the full list go to Opr.ca.gov or you could actually do some of your own research and stop spewing unfounded nonsense. Lets not forget that CO2 isn’t the only toxic by product harming Gods creation in our insatiable thirst for fossil fuels. As far as Trump pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, well he is a complete fool and I don’t think anyone is suprised. Why people like you and Owen who never supported Trump jump on these band wagons is beyond logic… But as the old saying goes, money talks bullshit walks! Shameful that men with such claimed religious conviction are willing to sacrifice Gods creation and the future of mankind to line their pockets. VP Cheney, when talking about terrorism, said we should act to protect ourselves even if there is a 1% chance or risk someone is plotting against us. I think that’s a prudent philosophy when it comes to climate change.
Nholland,
All those “organizations” have a vested interest in more money and power. They need an alarmist crisis to do that through government force on others.
1st Commandment of liberal warming religion. “Thou shalt love big government.”
Socialism is a failed ideology everywhere it is fully implemented. Warming religion is a way to gloss over the socialist failures to implement socialist failure in future.
Giant con to get people to surrender power to leftist evil.
Nholland,
Why is the ice age alarmism by these scientists, and in this report, worshipped in the same way by liberals?
https://www.facebook.com/kevin.scheunemann.31/posts/1908249936113892
You will note scientists were “alarmed” by 3 decades of global cooling. Now we are expected to believe those same 3 decades were decades of rapid “warming” by today’s liberal religious alarmists?
One has to be really stupid to be fooled by today’s warming alarmism, when past science claimed cooling, and a looming ice age was the problem originally.
Mr.Scheunemann,
A vested interest in more money and power? The money and power is being had by the fossil fuel industry. Nice try but your double talk and psychobabble won’t work here.
The one who has to be really stupid is the one who ignores the gift from God of intelligent men and women dedicated to providing us with years of research that if listened to may help prevent the destruction of all of the lords wonderful creation.
As usual you have completely ignored the matter at hand, tried to distract from the topic, changed the subject and implied stupidity.
The only failure is your greed has blinded any common sense you might have possessed. You should have went to the website i provided and actually looked at the list of “organizations” and their mission statements before going off a tangent. This didn’t help your argument.
The one who claims that one can wield God-like control over climate in any fashion, while subjecting billions of people to painful, draconian central state socialist controls, is the one being stupid.
The greed is liberal, taking it from the productive, poor, and middle class. Cheap, abundant energy by capitalism is to the benefit of all….and is the ultimate power disruptor of liberal tyrants.
Didn’t see much on why your current warming religion no longer builds on the prior science alarmism on the coming ice age. Sounds like we need to keep warming the planet to prevent the coming ice age scientists were predicting.
Mr. Scheunemann,
It takes way more energy to be so willfully ignorant then to actually take a minute to read the proof. As I have mentioned in the past I will not fall for your baited trap. Stupid is as stupid does… And you have proven to be at the top of your game.
NHolland the proof you stated a California government web site! At least I know it won’t be biased or any other of the organizations like say NOAA. How about they say climate change is naturally occurring and possibly there may be some human influence, but at this juncture we cannot conclude that it a solely a product of societal input. I am sure the government will say by all means here is more money thanks for not contributing to the collective narrative. I know we can ask Neil Degrasse Tyson a physicist or even better Bill Nye engineer science entertainment guy.
West Bend Beobachter, 6/7/1904
(translated from the German)
LOCAL MERCHANT HOLDS FORTH
Aloyisius Scheunemann, armchair philosopher, amateur economist, dabbler in the physical sciences, aspiring theologian, and occasional purveyor of frozen custards and phosphates, recently entertained patrons at his soda fountain with a discourse on the folly of man’s attempts at air travel.
“The one who claims to usurp the God-ordained means of locomotion from the birds of the air,” quoth our borough’s bejoweled Socrates, “while in the same breath denying the liberty of a man of twelve to work at the factory or mine of his choice, why, such buffoonery is without precedent!” Scheunemann’s remarks were received to the general acclaim of his patrons, although the appearance of a Harper’s Weekly Magazine touting the recent claims of the brothers Wright of Ohio elicited some measure of alarm. “False and yellow journalism most foul,” proclaimed our emperor of the ice creams, fanning himself with his straw boater, “with the stink of New York all about it.” He then excused himself to consult with his pastor, leaving the counter in the capable hands of the little missus, making official the capacity in which she had been serving for several hours previously.
Booris,
You flatter me.
You guys have changed the subject and taken to the personal attack rather than address why one can think they can have God-like control over the climate…without it being a cult religion.
k:
“All those “organizations” have a vested interest in more money and power. They need an alarmist crisis to do that through government force on others”.
Nonsense. Many are representing business groups with a goal to keep their constituency productive and working, i.e., Crop Science, Forestry Research, State and American Foresters (add WCFA), etc, etc….. So now the truth comes out, Kevin is a denier because he is actually anti-business. No surprise.
I’m surprised you would resort to the victim defense, “taken to the personal attack”, as you have been calling folks, me included, names for years on this site. Now when the facts stack up against your position, you pull out the victim card. Sad.
Major:
Great satire. Keep ’em coming..
Nord,
There are warming zealots in private industry as well. Some have a vested business interest in global warming alarmism….like Tesla, wind, solar, the propane lobby, the natural gas lobby, etc.
Let people deide for themselves, in the marketplace, to be part of the warming cult. Don’t force it on them.
The Paris accord was forcing it on everyone.
Wow, excuses by the bushel, but not a fact among them.
PS: The Paris Accord conditions were (in the case of the US) voluntary. You can look it up.
Nord,
If it is “voluntary” why all liberal rage for volunteering not to do it?
The reaction by liberals was equivalent to a puppy getting kicked.
In liberal religion, nothing is voluntary except unborn baby murder.
Because trump and the trumpettes are making all the false claims. If you weren’t so intellectually incurious you would know that.
Your religion good, anyone else is wrong.
More personal attacks by the white nationalist troll.
Off the AP, as shown in the WSJ:
“Rep. Jesse Kremer said in a May 11 legislative hearing that it was a fact that the earth was 6,000 years old. He made the comment during testimony on a bill he’s sponsoring that would punish anyone who tries to disrupt free speech on college campuses.
Kremer said Wednesday the earth’s age is “my biblical belief. Other people believe the same thing. That’s all I’m going to say.”
Scientists say evidence shows the earth is about 4.5 billion years old”.
Now, who should we believe?? Note, Kremer doesn’t provide any evidence of his claim.
Anti-religious bigotry from the white nationalist troll.
Kremer is my Assembyman. I stand behind his solid Christian stand anytime.
Especially if liberal warming disciples attack him for being Christian. Liberal warming disciples should learn tolerance.
No “liberal warming disciples” mentioned by Kremer, nor by me. But a lot of crazy talk regarding the history of the earth by your elected representative. Are you going to defend his 6,000 year claim??
Nord,
If I rejected Creationism, I wouldn’t be much of a Christian.
Of course, I will defend his Christianity.
You will riducule our Christianity.
No surprises here.
Mr. Scheunemann,
Way off topic again… What else is new.
If it was worth my time I would point you in the right direction. However, people like you don’t want to see the truth. You find comfort in the confines of your all white community, all white church and all white schools. You take the same bible that guides me and distort it to fit your needs. You post nonsense, on a daily basis, in an attempt to fit in with Republicans that can’t stand you. You are a joke. For once in your life admit you’re wrong. Admit humans play a role in climate change. Maybe you should talk to the youth in your church or your own children. Oh wait they have already been brain washed. Try going to the high school and talking with some of the upper classmen. Maybe you should talk to… Oh hell, who cares. In ten years you will fall over with a heart attack from eating to much DQ and your opinion will no longer matter. Not that it matters now you only have an audience of five.
k:
Isn’t creation described in the OT ?? And haven’t you lectured all of us how you WELS folks have discounted much of the OT, and rely on the teachings of the NT ?? If you want be to believe all your nonsense you at least have to be consistent. You know, keep telling the lie and folks will think it is the truth..
Nope, I only point out the willful ignorance.
NH: Keep up the good work.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/2133981-bird-caught-in-amber-100-million-years-ago-is-best-ever-found/?ref=yfp
Nord,
That would be the Old Testament Law that has been fullfilled by Christ’s grace. The Garden of Eden, and Man’s Fall into Sin at the Garden, and the need for Christ as Redeemer from the sin that corrupted the world in Genesis 3 has not changed.
We do not “discount” OT, we just follow the NT covenant that civil and ceremonial laws of Israel no longer apply because we live under Christ’s grace. Unbelievers are subject to the law and judgement.
At least try to understand the basics when you comment about OT, then we would not have to review the simple stuff, we could have a deeper biblical conversation about grace.
Nholland,
You lecture about being off topic, then you go on what seems like a bipolar bender about some wild allegation I am racist? 15% of my employees are African American currently. (Not that I care, I judge by character, work ethic, and kindness to others…I only keep track for racist liberals that only care about skin color). So it is far from the “all white” accusation about myself and the community.
I’ll bite. What have I not got right when it comes to the bible. Always willing to listen to gentle corretion under Matthew chapter 18. Although, that previous response, you might want to work on the “gentle” part.
Because I am a kind soul… Here are some conservatives that believe in this new “religion”. Do some research. These are your people, libertarians and conservatives.
Niskanen Center-Jerry Taylor
Climate Leadership Council-Ted Halstead
R Street Institute-Eli Lehrer
Reason Foundation-Lynn Scarlett(also directs global public policy TNC)
Young Conservatives for Energy Reform
RepublicEN-Bob Inglis
Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions
ConservAmerica
Republicans for Environmental Protection
James Baker
George Schultz
Hank Paulson
I am sure you will find a way to discredit all of these groups and people as well. However, in the end you will be on the wrong side of history… Again!
Nholland,
I don’t agree with any of them on the warming religion.
Many of these people are still conservatives in my opinion, but are very liberal on this issue. They can practice the warming religion, just don;t force me into it.
Even I am liberal on a few issues, like big bank reform and consumer rights issues.
Mr.Scheunemann,
Funny, I never mentioned an all white work place, feeling guilty? Try giving me the percentages of your community, church and schools(the ones your children attended) if you really want to try and defend that position. And its not off topic. Your confines contribute to your inability to see the truth. You read the same newspaper everyday,same talk radio everyday, same blog everyday. Same limited undiversified perspective on all topics.
Mr.Scheunemann,
In the three minutes from my post at 4:41pm until you posted at 4:44pm you had time to research all of these organizations and their mission statements. Hardly… And that’s my point. You have a closed mind and that makes you a damn fool.
Rep. Kremer, “Yes, the Earth is 6,000 years old, that’s a fact”. And he gets a free ride with no proof whatsoever.
“Even I am liberal on a few issues, like big bank reform and consumer rights issues.”
What a coincidence, two issues that directly affected you during the fallout from your chapter 128 proceedings. The old invisible hand play a little too rough for you, sport?
Interesting take on the Paris Accord and the global warming leaders by Tucker Carlson. View it here https://www.facebook.com/turningpointusa/videos/1324247897623923/ and decide for yourself.
NHolland,
My workplace comes from the community.
Didn’t need time to research, I know your list is pro-global warming religion if you say so. You are a passionate disciple for that religion no matter how false it is. I trust you were “outing” your fellow disciples.
Nord,
He is not getting a “free ride”.
The issue is: godless liberals expect Christian public officials, myself included, to shed our Christianity while in office. that is an unrealistic expectation. I don’t expect an atheist to relinguish his religion while in office when it comes to his godless unbelief that he/she is their own god. I also don’t expect evolution/Big Bang disciples to shed their viewpoint that everything came from nothing while in office. That absurdity requires even more faith than the christian point of view.
Try a little tolerance. It is OK for a Christian in office to indicate his Christian point of view on issues like this.
Major,
If you must know, I used a Chapter 128 to catch up on 3 months of sales tax at one point with the greedy State of WI under Jim Doyle. It was a tough year that year because Jim Doyle doubled our dumpster bill from the “tipping fee tax increase”, the doubling of my FUTA taxes from his boneheaded FUTA lone to bridge his pathetic and destructive state finances.
Its a 3 year, 100% payment program, where DOR got all it’s money. The legal advantage of a 128 is that it halts all interests, penalties, and other fees. And if you have dealt with any taxing agencies, you now those penalties can pile up in a hurry. Probably saved myself $1000 in Doyle slavery doing it that way.
What are you saying? I should take the liberal route and just not pay my taxes when I can not afford them, like liberals do on government guaranteed student loans?
Where was liberal call for forgiveness of the extra taxes I didn’t expect to get hit with under Doyle budget?
So you libs hammer and pummel business owners with surprise taxes and then bitch because I use the law to full extent to catch up on your slavery?
I don’t consider that very compassionate at all. I consider it greed that knows no bounds.
k:
No, that isn’t the issue. The issue is that the electorate expects their elected officials, be they christian, taoist or Martian, to be truthful. Kremer told a bald-faced lie. Same for those now running our state and country. Yet you want tolerance because Kremer is a christian. Wow, what a double standard !! If you and Kremer want to make those factless statements in church, at home or when talking to the dog, that’s fine. But you can’t expect a no response when making such a ridiculous statement in a public hearing while acting in a public capacity. And I would expect you to hold me to the same standard.
And then you play the victim card as well, blaming Doyle for your woes.
Nord,
The Big Bang and Evolution are bold faced lies as well. I was debating a prominent atheist the other day and I finally pinned him down that all the material before big bang was a point of “singularity” at some point before explosion.
I asked him where the “singularity” came from? After he responded “I don’t know, no evidence exists on that”. I theorized “nothing” because that is standard response. So I told him you have faith “Everything came from nothing.” The atheist was not happy I choose that theory, so he choose the idea the “singularity” came from “something”. He then went on to admit “something” could be divine intervention….
So who are the liars? Godless claim science proves your theory of creation, but what you really have is a godless faith.
I would stipulate those who purport Big Bang/Evolution are the liars about their faith because they are not truthful to everyone else that it requires faith to beleive.
That should read, “The Big Bang and Evolution are bold faced lies, and as well placed lies, should not be in public sphere.”
Hmmmm…. Was Darwin an elected official?? Big Bang advocates like Tyson?? But we all know Kremer is, and lied at a hearing. Hypocrisy at it finest.
http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/6/2/15727984/deceptions-trump-paris-speech
“If you must know…”
Oh, I know, Kevin. We all know. Anyone who’s followed this blog for more than a month or so knows your DOR sob story. It’s your second favorite topic of conversation after your tales of ideological martyrdom at UW-Milwaukee.
For those of you who haven’t been here a month yet, let me catch you up real quick.
1. Kevin screwed up his taxes awhile back.
2. Kevin was just as much of a sanctimonious prick at age 20 as he is today, and this made him unpopular with his peers and instructors.
Nord,
You expect Kremer to ignore the preamble to WI constitution:
“We the people, grateful to Almighty God,….”
You expect a legislator like Kremer to ignore the WI Constituition?
You can’t be grateful to Almighty God by denying his existence.
You may think it is fine to destroy WI Constitution as a godless heathen, but Christians like to adhere to State Constitution.
Is gratitude a bad thing in liberal sphere these days?
Major,
Wow, sounds like you are president of my fan club with all that research.
Didn’t know I had “groupies”. I’m humbled.
k:
Hilarious !! Where in the WI Constitution does it say whose god?? Yours, Kremers, the pope’s?? Methodist, jewish, hindu, deist, druid, animist???? What makes your god any more right, or wrong, than anyone elses? I don’t think you know the meaning of the word humble, as you never exhibit any of those qualities.
I wish Kremer was under oath when he made that ridiculous statement. Someone could press charges for lying under oath. Kremer disrespects the office with a purposeful lie, and you defend him . You folks are a den of vipers .
Nord,
When a Christian is speaking, it is clear the Almighty Triune God in Christianity.
What is so hard to understand?
You want Kremer to be prosecuted for proper gratitude under the WI Constitution?
This is why liberals, like yourself, appear intolerant, goosestepping through life without any pinch of compassion for someone properly honoring the WI constitution at a public hearing.
Mr. Scheunemann,
Major Booris has pointed out you are a sanctimonious prick. Sanctimonious foolish prick better suits your “myside bias”. “Presented with someone else’s argument you are quite adept at spotting the weakness. Almost invariably the positions you are blind about are your own.” When you rely on secondhand baseless arguments lacking both truth and fact then your opinion is also baseless.
I am still curious about the percentages of diversity within your community, church and school your children attended. I still think your inability to even fathom the positions presented by others can be contributed to your confines. Please entertain my request. I am in no way implying racism. Just a lack of diversity strangling freedom of thought.
“When a Christian is speaking, it is clear the Almighty Triune God in Christianity”. Which of the many 100’s of branches of christianity are you referring to?? Or is only yours the truth ?
The rest of your gibberish is just another dodge from reality.
Nord,
Nearly all Chrsitian branches adhere to the Trinity. Does it matter?
This is about you promoting censorship when an elected representative chooses to show gratitude under the Preamble of constitution.
Have you gotten so hateful that you would deny a show of gratitude, as instructed under the WI Constitution, by an elected representative?
NHolland,
You can call me whatever name you would like. I will let Christ’s grace guide me in gratitude for that grace as an elected official under the WI Constitution as called for in the Preamble.
Although I am up to your challenge, again, point specifically where I have done the following?, “When you rely on secondhand baseless arguments lacking both truth and fact then your opinion is also baseless.”
Just one accurate quote is all I ask.
Yes, because only a few believe in the 6000 year old earth nonsense. As usual you are avoiding the issue.
Nope, I am all for promoting the truth from our elected officials, you, me, and kremer included.
And as usual, you hide behind a bogus religious shield to avoid dealing with reality. You misinterpret everything rather than admit you are lying. Sad.
Nord,
Christians who reject Creation reject their Christianity.
If Fall of mankind into sin did not happen, why do you need Christ as your redeemer from sin? (Christ as your redeemer is thee central point of Christianity).
If one rejects The Fall into sin in Genesis 3, why do you need Christ as your redeemer?
What you are asking is Christians, like Kremer, to reject their Christianity by force of law. I encourage you to reject your goslessness, but would never mandate you be a Christian. Your comments indicate you want to mandate him to reject his Christianity.
I find that lacks compasion, especially when he speaks absolute truth.
So you are the arbiter of who is and who isn’t a true christian?? Lots of responsibility on those narrow shoulders.
More personal attacks and bigotry from the white nationalist troll.
Nord,
No. Just stating the basic thing that makes you Christian—-Christ as your redeemer from sin—if you reject that you reject Christ.
Genesis Chapter 3 is an historical account of Man’s Fall into sin, if you reject problem of sin and sin coming into being, by touting evolution, or some other non-creation religion, why do you need Christ as redeemer?
It’s a simple question. You are demanding Kremer forego his Christianity. That is very intolerant and insensitive. Kremer demonstrates Christ’s grace by extolling the absolute truth of Creation.
Thought this was Owens blog… Not Kevin’s pulpit.
“They can practice the warming religion, just don’t force me into it.”
Yet its okay for you to force “your” religion onto,into,and around everyone all the time. All topics end up turning into a religious lecture with you. Hey, thats ok with me, except for the the double standard I quoted.
k:
I’m not asking kremer to do anything but tell the truth, simple as that. It would be nice if you did as well, (“Genesis Chapter 3 is an historical account”, “absolute truth of Creation”), but I am always optimistic. You can believe in whatever you want, but as soon as kremer said, “that’s a fact”, he lied.
NHolland,
I don’t advocate laws forcing you to take up Christianity. You advocate laws to force me to take up your false warning religion. That is that difference.
Nord.
Humor me. Is the Big Bang “fact”?
k:
Scientific evidence would indicate it is. Creation, not so much.
Nord,
2 points then:
1.) “would indicate”. Where did all the material, atoms, molecules and other gases come from leading up to Big Bang? I posed this to a prominent atheist taking same intolerant position as you on Kremer. He said it all came from a “singularity” before Big Bang. I asked where the “singularity” came from? He said “no one knows/no evidence exists.” I indicated it must have come from nothing, so I asked how much faith he has that “everything comes from nothing without divine intervention”? He did not like that and said the “singularity” came from “something”, then went on to say (after I asked what “science” says the “something” could be), “something” could be divine, that science does not know.
So Nord, can you help the godless debaters out? They are clueless on the science on Big Bang. It’s a wild theory that takes more faith than Creation. Far from arrogant “fact” you stipulate it is!
2.) The Cambrian layer life explosion proves the idea of sudden Creation. Darwin wrote an entire chapter on this problem with his theory. Scientists still have not solved this problem to Darwin’s crazy theory. I suggest you read Dr. Stephen Meyer, “Darwin’s Doubt” to get a full education on this scientific problem even Darwin acknowledged with a whole chapter in Orgin of Species.
I enjoy how you Evolution/ Big Bang zealots are so arrogant in you “facts” but can’t answer either of these 2 simple problems I pose without a lot of FAITH, because no science exists to solve these 2 problems I pose on Big Bang THEORY and Evolution THEORY, other than using super arrogant, passionate faith of disciples like yourself. I don’t question your ferocious faith in these two theories, your godless religion is super evident, ( an evangelistic attitude that puts Christians to shame) I question the “science”.
Mr. Scheunemann,
“I don’t advocate laws forcing you to take up Christianity”… Would you like to reconsider this statement before I point out the obvious?
Please don’t assign ownership of the so called “false warming religion” to me. My concerns about the use of fossil fuels falls more with the pollution and health angle, which are proven. However, if there is the slightest chance fossil fuels contribute to the warming of Gods Earth then WE (all humans, all of Gods children) as Gods caretakers have an obligation to find alternative sources of energy. These sources exist and can be highly profitable. Nobody is saying eliminate fossil fuels, that just isn’t realistic, just cut back. Also, I think it would be wise to get ahead of the game for when the day comes that the wells run low and can’t handle demand.
NHolland,
No, I do not want to reconsider my statement.
What alternative fuels do you endorse?
Nuclear? I’m all for it. Liberals have a hissy fit everywhere it is proposed.
Wind? I’m all for it. Liberals are now largely against the “bird shredders”.
Geo thermal? All for it, but it is expensive. Can’t be just a solution for the rich.
Solar? I’m all for it. Still expensive for return. Also liberals starting to rail against them because it frys birds and small woodland creatures from time to time.
Until fossil fuels become more expensive (we use up the abundant supplies, not by liberal regulatory Nazism.) will only these other alternatives look better. Technology will improve alternatives, but technology also improves fossil fuel supply by better efficiency as well, not through regulatory force, but by the profit motive.
Mr. Scheunemann,
I have read numerous posts where you advocate against the separation of church and state. Not only would that require a change to law(s) but to our Constitution.
Nuclear is not clean. Long term storage of spent fuel rods requires continued long term attention and is expensive. Accidents happen and with nuclear it can be catastrophic. Not completely against it but think solar, tidal, wind, biomass, hydro or marine offer much cleaner and safer options.
I do think its sad that you compare fellow Americans (liberals) with Nazis. You constantly, on a daily basis, degrade and demoralize approximately half of the citizens of this country. Because of this I find it hard to believe you are truly a disciple of Christ.
Nholland,
Given the history of destruction godless liberalism has left on this planet….Soviet Russia, Cambodia, Chairman Mao, Zimbabwe under Mugabe, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Eatern Bloc….one cannot underestimate the destruction of the all powerful liberal state in action.
If you have any humanity in you, you earn against the destruction of liberalism in practice with every fiber of your being.
I take it you see some redeeming grace in liberalism apart from the hundreds of millions of people liberal/socialist/communist philosophy has killed last century?
Grrrr…darn word fill app,
Should say “….you rail against…”
Nuclear? I’m all for it. Liberals have a hissy fit everywhere it is proposed.
“Wind? I’m all for it. Liberals are now largely against the “bird shredders”. Largely?? Not so, my feathered friend.
“Geo thermal? All for it, but it is expensive.” It can’t be just a solution for the rich. Surely you jest? It can’t be too expensive as that is all we have been heating/cooling with since 1994.
“Solar? I’m all for it. Still expensive for return. Also liberals starting to rail against them because it frys birds and small woodland creatures from time to time.” A good solar PV system has just a slightly longer payback period than geothermal. And the anecdotal stories regarding frying birds is hard to prove. I never heard the small woodland creature nonsense, as no one would but a solar array in the woods.
You really should do your homework on subjects where you have little background knowledge. Foolish statements and claims don’t help your credibility.
k:
You have me a liberal on many occasions and I have always told you that at heart I am a pretty conservative guy. But when you call me a liberal, then compare liberals to “Soviet Russia, Cambodia, Chairman Mao, Zimbabwe under Mugabe, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Eatern (sic) Bloc…”, that makes me think you really need to seek help for some serious mental issues. And it is also an indication of your intense hatred for historical fact. Or perhaps those claims are just proof that you really don’t know what you are syaing and just type random words. regardless, get help.
Nord,
When you support ridiculous regulation, you are a liberal.
When you support higher taxes, fees, and costs for things like phosphorus mandate, global warming, and other costly rules, you are a liberal.
A conservative, at heart, does not support regulations that make things like water unaffordable for poor and middle class.
There is issue history, where you are very liberal gleefully being an integral part of the insensitive bureaucratic regulatory structure.
Nord,
If Geo thermal and solar were cost effective for poor and middle class, it would be more embraced by market. ROI is still a stretch and those doing it, do it mostly for non-economic reasons. Non-economic reasons and choices are only available to upper middle class and higher. Since you are probably over paid for what you do in your public sector job, you have that choice. Rest of us live in real marketplace.
I’m all for you doing it, and glad you can afford it. The issue of making fossil fuels unaffordable, through regulation and liberal elitist statism, for poor and middle class so they embrace Geo-thermal, or solar is disgusting from my perspective.
I suppport poor and middle class by having chesp, abundant energy in whatever form it takes….by the marketplace.
Nord,
We certainly got off Creation and Big Bang comments about Kremer in a hurry after my last eloquent response that beleivers in evolution and “Big Bang” do not have science or fact, but a misguided faith. Pretty good obliteration of the 2 theories I did in 2 paragraphs, don’t you think?
I find your quick focus shift on that fascinating.
“…my last eloquent response…”
“… pretty good obliteration…”
As much as I hate to repeat myself, it’s as true as the day I wrote it. Debating Kevin is like practicing tennis against the side of your garage, except the garage thinks it’s Pete Sampras after you call it a day.
k:
I really don’t care if this comment gets me banned, but your nonsense below proves; you know little about which you pontificate on and, you are truly an unapologetic idiot.
“If Geo thermal and solar were cost effective for poor and middle class, it would be more embraced by market. ROI is still a stretch and those doing it, do it mostly for non-economic reasons. Non-economic reasons and choices are only available to upper middle class and higher. Since you are probably over paid for what you do in your public sector job, you have that choice. Rest of us live in real marketplace.”
Nord,
I take it you claim Geo thermal and solar is affordable for poor and middle class? No need to insult me, why don’t you show me all the trailer parks, and lower to lower middle class neighborhoods using solar and Geo thermal?
Nholland,
It was enough of an obliteration that Nord does not want to touch it. The absolute fact is: to believe in Evolution and Big Bang you need faith to piece it together to make even make it a plausible theory.
I see neither of you can ecplain the “singularity” or explain the Cambrian layer life explosion….neither can scientists. It is by FAITH you believe in evolution and Big Bang religion. Without faith, both of them fall apart.
Mr. Scheunemann,
I’m not surprised you don’t know the difference between “liberal/socialist/communist philosophy”. To rail against something with every fiber of your being sounds fanatical.
It also sounds as if you are trying to accuse me of being a liberal. As with you i have some liberal leaning views but I don’t limit myself. I try to be open to suggestion, willing to contemplate ideas and able to compromise.
Next, I love when you get cornered you always fall back to the old bait and switch routine.
I asked if you wanted to reconsider and you said no. So I did as I said I would and pointed out the obvious. I gave you my opinion about nuclear energy and gave many examples of clean renewable energy. I also pointed out how its hard to believe you are a disciple of Christ. You responded with a rant about liberalism and are now trying to drag me into a discussion,big bang vs.creationism, that I never commented on and have no intention of being baited into. Fact remains, your reason for being a warming denier is “the profit motive”. Greed!
“Earth provides enough to satisfy every mans needs but not every mans greed” – Mahatma Gandi
Nholland,
You are right, I should have addressed my obliteration comment to booris.
It is not “greed” when profit is generated by voluntary marketplace. It is serving your fellow man by providing goods and services in demand. It is “greed” when liberals tax by force and take the value generated by capital.
When people have their labor and capital taxed away by greedy liberals in DC, they have less economic power to throw off the greedy. Soviet Russia, Venezuela are being examples of liberal greed running amock and hurting everyone.
“The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation was the relatively short evolutionary event, beginning around 541 million years ago in the Cambrian period, during which most major animal phyla appeared, as indicated by the fossil record. Lasting for about the next 20–25 million years, it resulted in the divergence of most modern metazoan phyla.”
Source:
Zhuravlev and Riding, Columbia University Press; and Malool, Porter, Moore, Dudas, et al, Geological Society of America.
Guess that shoots the 6000 year claim all to pieces. Or are you willing to claim these folks are all wrong??
“The initial singularity was the gravitational singularity of infinite density thought to have contained all of the mass and space-time of the Universe before quantum fluctuations caused it to rapidly expand in the Big Bang and subsequent inflation, creating the present-day Universe. The initial singularity is part of the Planck epoch, the earliest period of time in the history of the universe”.
Hawking, et al.
Mr. Scheunemann,
That is not the definition of greed and I have no idea what booris has to do with anything.
I proved my point and your games have become repetitive, monotonous and boring.
Nord,
1.) That does not explain where the singularity came from. It is also a GUESS by Hawking as to the nature of the singularity.
2.) You explain the Cambrian layer and what it is, ignoring our time dispute for a minute, still does not explain the sudden life explosion of that layer and the abscense of life in pre-Cambrian layer. Christians can explain the time issue easily. A.) God can create anything, even things that can appear immensely old. B.) We cannot predict what the corruption of perfection of creation does to creation when the perfect becomes the imperfect. That is not something science can even begin to get a handle on.
I give you a point for trying, but it stil appears your faith in your secular religion is still strong.
“secular religion” You really don’t think through what you type, do you. It’s just a word salad of talking points spewing forth without thought .
Both points have more evidence in favor of them than does anything you have ever said on the subject.
Nord,
“Secular Religion”= a pompous religion, very sure of itself. Known for it’s godlessness, adherence to pleasure principle, despite consequences. Frequently prides itself on ridiculing Christians over believing in creation but then uses a “Coexist” bumper sticker as PR to cover it’s intolerance. Also known for stomping out any speech i the public square it deems religious. Many disciples of this religion are in denial about their faith and religion for fear they may suffer the same 2nd class speech ostricism they inflict on Christians.
“More evidence in favor”….is that like “sorta pregnant”?, or “roll the dice in hopes of favorable random outcome”? That is FAITH, not science, you are relying on.
k:Once again you prove lacking in knowledge and unwilling to learn. You just making stuff up on the fly.Secular:adjective
1.
of or relating to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal:
secular interests.
2.
not pertaining to or connected with religion.
Nord,
Secular Humanism is its own religion. It’s clear you are an active practitioner and grimace at idea that the word “religion” is slapped on your thoughts, faith, and evangelism for the godless.
This would be no big deal if liberal political correctness would not classifying all “religious” speech as 2nd class speech to be sorted and oppressed.
“Secular Humanism is its own religion” How can this be in light of the contradictory definition?? You truly have no concept of the meaning of words, and just use what you think sounds impressive to make your point. And by hiding behind you shield of religion, (in this case you even call religion a bad thing), you are allowed to make any and all ridiculous claims without having to engage a cogent thought process or have any responsibility for your actions. Once again you make the claim that your religion, and only yours, is good, and all others are bad, even if in this instance you are 100% wrong..
Secular Humanism:
The philosophy or life stance of secular humanism embraces human reason, ethics, social justice, and philosophical naturalism while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and superstition as the bases of morality and decision making. Secular humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god.
Nord,
Great, most secular huminists brag about their faith in Big Bang theory ( even though they mislabel it “science”). Where did the singularity come from? ( The singularity these godless religious folk have faith everything sprang from? Still have not heard a rational explanation beyond wild guessing….)
Cambrian layer sudden life explosion. It refutes all faith in evolution theory, you still have not solved this problem in secular humanist faith. If you believe in evolution the Cambrian life explosion later should not exist. Explain how that is “rational”?
Saying irrational theories are “facts” and “science” is the only consistent thing about this religion…other than denial in the rational problems with both theories, thus secular humanists always deny their huge amount of faith in irrational.
Christians can be honest about their faith.
” It refutes all faith in evolution theory”. It does no such thing and you know it. Rational folks with a moral compass and good intentions would call you a liar. And you keep confusing faith and belief with fact. That is willful ignorance and intentional distortion of reality.
If you are a “christian”, at least in your own mind, you haven’t been honest or truthful about much. You god must be disappointed in you for twisting her intentions to meet your self serving needs.
Nord,
You are mad because you are “caught” on the obliterating logic flaws of Big Bang and Evolution. Both theories are destroyed by these 2 simple problems. That is death for those who claim “rationality” “science”, “logic” are their hallmark religious convictions. It takes faith to believe in both religious theories.
I’m fine with you having faith, I just want to insure your ideas are treated in public square exactly how Christian ideas are treated in public square…..like liberals treat Kremer. These secular religions deserve even more ridicule and 2nd class speech treatment since they are so obviously flawed….don’t you think?
I appreciate you attempting to explain the flaws in both. Scientists have failed on both problems for many years, but their darn faith persists that there will be an answer, other than God, ….someday.
k:
You are being silly and disingenuous today, so I’ll let this one drop. We all have bad days, and this is one of yours. Hope it gets better.
Nord,
I graciously accept your surrender on the topics above.
k:
No surrender from this quarter, just thought I’d give you the chance to regroup and have a better day sometime in the future.
I doubt if you have ever been gracious in your life. Sanctimonious, ignorant, intolerant, petty, … yes to those. But gracious, never.
Nord,
No regroup needed….I was waiting for you to fix the fundamental science problems with Big Bang and evolution.
I take your silence as acceptance you want to keep your faith in both theories even there is no solution to the fundamental problems with both theories.
Like I said, your surrender graciously accepted.
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2017/06/zikas-link-to-climate-change/
Nord,
Oh-oh…how are you going to dismiss this science….
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/31/mars-also-undergoing-climate-change-ice-age-retrea/
k:
Did you read the article you linked? Did you note that the time frame in question on Mars is 370,000 years, not the ~150 years here on earth? I don’t have to dismiss any science , but will point out you were trying to compare apples and oranges. Real science doesn’t work like that. Try again.
And if you are trying to make your CC/GW denier point point with that article, how do you reconcile the 6,000 year old creation with the 370,000 years time line on Mars? Don’t you ever think before typing?
Nord,
So your faith will deny the science here.
Did you read the part where scientists guessed it was “coincidence”?
There is a lot to consider that any alleged warming here is a result of solar cycles…out of our control.
You are shut out of that science possibility becuase your cult demands you can control the weather and climate.
That is the problem with your religious warming cult…it’s belief in the impossible.
k:
OK, now we all know a couple things; you don’t have enough background in earth science to make any valid comparison between the findings on Mars and your attempt to make a connection with what is occurring now on earth; you didn’t read the article for content; you hide behind religion, belief, and faith when facts contradict your world view; failing all that you misconstrue the input of others to CYA; and you didn’t even attempt to reconcile the time line disparity.