Ranting About "Climate Hoax"

Paul:  Good stuff here. No facts, just 2 dudes blabbering. Though I tend to lean towards history of the worlds.

https://www.facebook.com/TheTrumpRepublicans/videos/469428940068768/

Gene: You want the truth !!!! This guy is the truth !!!!!!

Also check out Micheal savage on KNZZ ... his last 4 shows have been about the facts on the vorstex ice core samples that were taken 2miles into the Antarctic shelf.

Real Data concludes that global warming is a trillion dollar business for the elites.

Oh ... and global warming doesn't exist of course .

Mary: Okay, so you founded the weather channel decades ago. However, the important question should be: Has Mr. Coleman conducted any scientific research in the area of climate change? If so, then please provide your scientific findings. If not, then he's just using his position as founder of the weather channel to promote his "opinion", not based on scientific fact.

Scott: He is a puppet, an old puppet at that....one of the first of many to be put in place. His age does not make him more credible. So I guess we can continue destroying the climate and depleting our resources. Yeah there's nothing man can do to reverse anything....idiots.

Gene: i agree no global warming..just the weather pattern that the earth goes through year to year made by GOD not man...boy GOD is laughing at the liberals who think they have GODs power...man dont make weather

Makes sense to me! It's all about the money. This is why all the crying liberals are against Trump, because, as I have repeatedly said, their gravy train is going to derail. Obama care is making Democrats rich, global warming is making Democrats rich by forcing people to purchase solar and wind power as they watch their stock investments rise. You get the picture. Trump wants to drain the swamp and they are in panic mode.

George: Lol. There is no debate on climate change. It's been changing for millions of years. The debate comes in when it is used as a political platform and spending millions of federal tax dollars around the world. You can debate that all day. This video clip is what it is.

As you pointed out, the founder of the weather channel isn't providing any facts. I would say that he is just throwing out accusations.

Paul: For me the question is whether humans are causing the climate to change in a way that it otherwise wouldn't have.

Of course. Time will tell. Maybe this is the way it's suppose to be? Not like we have history of it happening before. Time will tell all. But we do have a responsibility to be responsible.

Tom: There are many reasons not to offer a rebuttal. It takes way too much time to go through all the lines of evidence. It takes way too much back and forth addressing all the objections that are typically raised. And after all that, people are still just going to believe what they want anyway.

But even so, here in a nutshell is just one line of evidence of how we know climate change is real.

1. carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We know this. It's physics. It can be demonstrated in the laboratory

2. We know what the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have been in the past. We know this because we've been collecting samples since the 1950s, and we have been analyzing air bubble trapped in various ice sheets going back to at least 650,000 years.

3. We know what ancient temperatures were. We know this through multiple lines of evidence - ice layers, studying the chemistry of ancient sea shells, fossilized tree ring size, and so on.

4. There has a been an increase in global warming every time that there is an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. This matches what we would expect given the basic physics that has been demonstrated in the laboratory (see above)

5. Nowhere in the past have CO2 levels spiked anywhere near as high or anywhere near as fast as they have since the start of the industrial revolution

6. We know that spike is the result of human activity. One way we know this is because carbon that is emitted from burning biomass such as fossil fuels has a unique isotope as compared to other carbons. We know it has a unique isotope because it is demonstrable in the lab. The chemistry is clear.

7. We are seeing a steady increase in average worldwide temperatures as we would expect from higher levels of CO2.

8. We are seeing increased acification of the oceans as predicted from higher CO2 levels

9. We are seeing shrinking glaciers

10. And the evidence goes on and on and on and on.

This is what the overwhelming majority of climate scientist are saying. It also matches my own personal observations. I've been to Glaciers in the Alps, Iceland, Africa, Andes, Himalayas, and around North America. At all of these they talk about how the glaciers have been shrinking for decades. There are photos for comparison.

Still not convinced? Doesn't surprise me. I wont argue.

Paul: And what is wrong with a little cleansing,? Sept 23 it all ends anyway, so go and live! YOLO!

Gene: Human activity on Earth = .00001% of Earth Time ! People who believe Climate Change is due to human activity are the same people I could convince that Dinosaurs died due too many Dino Farts! How did the Ice Age happen??!! Wasn't cruise ships dumping margarita ice overboard. Earth goes through Natural Cycles, just like all life forms and species.

Tom: Your response proves that you don't understand what the climate scientist are saying. Do you really believe that it never occurred to the thousands of scientists studying climate change, and the millions who accept the reality of it, that the climate has changed naturally in the past? It is in fact because of climate scientists that we know what climate was in past.

Gene: The Government only pays scientists who back Global Warming. Billions of dollars...as a "scientist" looking for pay I would do the same thing or defunded. Same thing happened to Ghostbusters

When you dig ice cores in the North and South Poles you are not looking at worldwide data, you are looking at Pole Data that is entirely different from the Equatorial Regions of human civilization. Gas, Microwaves,XRays, etc. have different acceptancies towards Electronic/Earth Grid points of orgin. "Science" needs money just like everyone else, but Dead Wrong on this issue

Tom: I hear this argument a lot. The government will only hire climate scientists that will produce reports claiming global warming is real. Where is the evidence of this? Saying that you would produce false reports to protect your funding is only evidence of what you would do. It says nothing about what scientists who are subject to intense peer review and whose reputations are so important to their careers would do. If government employed scientists were just trying to please their bosses, then you would expect that scientists who worked for the U.S. Government under administrations that were hostile to the idea of human caused climate change, such as George Bush, would have produced reports criticizing the idea of human caused climate change. They didn't do that. They did just the opposite.

And what about the thousands of scientists here in the U.S. and around the globe who are not being paid by the U.S. Government who have studied climate change and have concluded that it is primarily human caused.

And what about scientists who were hired by parties specifically to criticize the idea of climate change, but ended up confirming it. One famous case is that of Richard Muller. He is a physicist (not a climatologist) and was a well known and vocal climate change denier. He was hired by the Koch brothers to study climate change in hopes of poking holes in the science. After studying the data and the science for a couple of years he changed is mind and concluded that not only is global warming happening, it is almost entirely caused by human activity.

Attacking the motivation of experts is a lawyers trick. It's just an attempt to distract attention from the actual evidence.

Gene: Tom, good talk. I appreciate anyone who gives time, thought and true effort into any discussion. I am sure that since The Industrial Revolution mankind has emitted enough CO2 to tilt the scales of Earth's temperature, but this is just a blip. When I look into the future I invision a museum of "human past" and when they look at 1800 - 2100 people will be so confused at how stupid we were. Past civilizations thought they were invincible through technology, yet they were thier own worst enemy. You only learn from mistakes and unfortunately history repeats itself. I agree we need clean nrg, but we are globally economic dependent on fossil fuels. Sadly this is a problem for the future

Tom: likewise Chris. I appreciate your openness. I agree that we're dependent on fossil fuels and I know that there are problems with renewable energy sources. And I still drive my car and maybe that makes me a hypocrite.

I do think that in any question such as climate change you need good data to base your decisions on. It's ok and even desirable to question the methodology of collecting the data and the conclusions drawn from the data, but any discussion without data is just conjecture. I'm disturbed by current efforts to do away with our data collecting ability.

Anyway I appreciate your listening to me.

Muslim Heaven

https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/d6zlwl/assalamalaikum_sisters_and_brothers_so_i_was/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

OP	n Christian heaven, there is no gold, mansions, islands, women or treasury, people won't even keep their human body. In Islamic heaven, it is as physical as this life but it is perfect, there are women, gold, treasure, mansions, food and anything a person desires, it is eternal pleasure. Also, God isn't in paradise, He is above his creation, but paradise is located in seventh heaven, whereas Throne of God is above all creation. In Christian heaven, there is no gold, mansions, islands, women or treasury, people won't even keep their human body. In Islamic heaven, it is as physical as this life but it is perfect, there are women, gold, treasure, mansions, food and anything a person desires, it is eternal pleasure. Also, God isn't in paradise, He is above his creation, but paradise is located in seventh heaven, whereas Throne of God is above all creation
Tom	I’m interested in your statement “there are women... anything a person desires” Are these women who were on earth and went to heaven? What about what these women want?
Another Poster/td>	Do they have women in there? Why? Shouldn't one's wife be enough?
OP	It is called paradise for a reason and women will also get likewise, although there are different levels of paradise, so whoever was more pious on earth gets more in paradise. Here is how we know that ''enough'' is never in human nature, like even the wealthier person in the world will take a hundred dollar from the street, so everyone wants more. So, paradise is created to be a place of eternal happiness.
Tom	I’m still unclear as to what you’re saying. Are you saying that you’ll get more women than just your wife in Paradise? Does it matter how she feels about it? When you say that women will get likewise, are you saying that they will get multiple men? Will you have to let your wife have multiple men, or will you not care if she has multiple men once you’re in paradise. As the ratio of men to women on earth is roughly equal, does that mean in paradise that men and women will share each other’s husbands and wives so that they can have multiple partners? Or are there women in paradise who were there all along and were not born on earth so that each man can have multiple women? I suppose there would also have to be additional men provided so each woman who makes it to heaven can have multiple men? I’m just wondering how the numbers can balance out. Will you be ok with your wife being with these additional men? Should she be ok with you being with the additional women? When you said that there were different levels of paradise were you implying that women are on a lower level? Do they only get one man? Even so, I am still wondering how the numbers balance out so each man can have multiple women. Is there consent? What if you desire some women but the women don’t desire you? Are they given to you anyway? In that case, is it paradise for them? Would you be happy knowing that women don’t really want you? Or are their hearts changed so that they will desire you? In that case, is there free will in paradise?

Evidence for Noah (Muslim)

https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/d6zlwl/assalamalaikum_sisters_and_brothers_so_i_was/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

u/Edward_zigma	ssalamalaikum Sisters and brothers. So I was reading about Noah PBUH , and I really I found a ground breaking discovery in history.And I am sharing this first here on Reddit. I will talk about Islamic relations at last and what I am trying to tell here is, I think it is a very big breakthrough with scientific facts to make establishment of prophets more stronger, as Noah was also muslim. Please please please....read this till the end. At start I am just trying to make base so that you can understamd what I am talking about. P.S. This article does not talk about Hazrat Muhammad PBUH. Because here I am talking about more old facts. First lets talk what scientific facts and some history to make you use to about current knowledge and establishment of humans in the world and how they spread. We got human proofs from around the world. Some were as old as 36000 years old. But when it comes to first human settlements the line is little bit unclear. We discovered agriculture somewhat around 8000BC-7000BC. There were various human settlement around this world. But there is one migration which seems very interesting. This was the movements of Steppe pastoralists. For some pretext I want to tell you that steppe pastoralists were people who started lived above(north of) the black sea after 3500BC(most probably). Now there was a civilisation known as mesopotamia. This civilisation got destroyed mysteriously (afaik), and after that there were steppe pastoralists north of black sea. These pastoralists moved west and east in 3000BC. Those who moved west, travelled to europe and establish civilisations there like greece and others. These steppe pastoralists were known as Indo-european coz there migration and settlements were spread from India to europe. Thos who moved east first travelled to central asia and then some to Russia and some to India. And it is told that these pastoralists brought culture to India. Now there are two supports for this. First the languages such as latin, greece, sanskrit all shows similarity in words and consonants and grammer, which is a clear sign that these all languages evolved from same branch i.e. all are Indo european languages. Second support is that the presence of similar haplotype(common patterns in our genes to prove inheritance) to prove the common ancestry. When Steppe pastoralists started moving they had a common haplotype which is R1A. This R1A split into two haplotype when migration started. Thats how we came to knoe that Steppe pastoralists started moving in different directions. Because genetics tells that these two subhaplogroups split around 3000 BC. Z93 and Z282. Z282 is found in 91.6 %in Europeans and Z93 is found in 98% of Asians at present. This clearly tells 2 things now. First almost all the populatiom is present world is from those pastoralists above the black sea. And second, that this is a severe head blow to hindu culture of Indian subcontinent, who thought upto now that their culture was indeginous to India only. These facts now totally discard the genuinity of Non-Abrahamic religions as it came to this point that it seems that their own culture was a result of emmigration. From this we can came to conclusion that present modern day world is from those steppe pastoralists. I am very excited to share the facts I found. I really found some ground breaking relations between these Steppe pastoralists and this is the first site where I am sharing this. Now the serious matter. Do you know Noah was from Mesopotamia too. We do not know exact dates about Noah, but from dates of Mesopotamia we can make a guess that it should be around 5000BC-3500BC. Next, we also know that Noah made a ship, and thats how he survived the flood. The 44th verse of the chapter Hud: “When the word went forth: "O earth! swallow up thy water, and O sky! withhold (thy rain)!" and the water abated, and the matter was ended. The Ark rested on Mount Judi, and the word went forth: "Away with those who do wrong!" We can assume that everything was destroyed after the great flood. If we join the date of mesopotamia destruction i.e. 3500 BC and assume that its same year of great flood. After some days(in the same year i.e. somewhere around 3500BC), Noah landed onn Mount Judi(stated in Quran). And you know now that Steppe pastoralists started moving around 3000BC(age of Noah was 950 years). And now's time for strongest relation. Do you know where Mount Judi is.? It's just below Black sea. Everything fits now. They had 500 years(3500BC TO 3000 BC). They might have crossed/ travelled North of Black sea. And from there these people travelled all around the world. This came as a serious headblow to all other Non-Abrahamic religions specially in South Asia, India. The dates are fitting. The geography is fitting. We muslims are on our Imaan. But this world wants proofs. And I think this is one of the greatest revealations of this time. There is no doubt there is none worthy to worship but Allah. And Muhammad was his messeneger. May Allah forgive me if I am wrong somewhere. I call to all the muslim sisters and brothers, who know about history, genetics and other fields to share their facts regarding this. Assalamalaikum.
onetimehelper	Where are your sources? Sorry, but as a Medical Student, I just can't see numbers and claims without actual evidence or a study. It sounds interesting, but the manner it's presented seems suspect. I've heard discussions in the mosque with similar passion, but I promise you, without sources or real data it only makes the religion you associate with look easily swayed from the perspective of educated outsiders - who are already biased to think they way. And for our brothers and sisters, they might end up spreading misinformation, when one of the major points of our Deen is to stand upon the Truth (Haqq) - this is why Islam produced the scientific method, and the scales of evidence. There are some issues with some of your arguments but without any evidence to back your claims, I respectfully do not see the point of discussion. So please upload some sources, since you claim to have made this discovery alone somehow and you do not seem to be a scholar on either Archeo, Anthro or Sociology - so based on my Deen of truth, I honestly can't accept what you claim with my heart and brain, even if it looks and sounds good to my eyes and ears. Thank you brother/sister. Salaam.
Tom	I’m not a Muslim, and I say this with respect, but I have to agree with onetimehelper in that this theory does come across as confirmation bias. It seems like you think that you’ve come across some evidence that confirms a belief that you already have and that you’ve excitedly latched on to it while ignoring all kinds of evidence that refutes the Noah’s ark story. And the problems with the Noah’s ark story are many. How did 2 of every animal species get to the ark? Did kangaroos swim across oceans and hop thousands of miles to get to the ark and travel back again? Did animals that are only adapted to a specific climate such as penguins make the journey? Did slow moving animals like sloths that have a top speed of .24 kilometers an hour and sleep 15-18 hours a day swim across an ocean and travel thousands of miles to the ark and back? What about all the animals that feed on only one specific species of plant. How did the plants get to the ark so those animals could feed? During the flood was the water salty? If so, how did the fresh water fish survive? If not, how did the salt water fish survive. Were fish on the ark? How did the 8 people on the ark feed the all those animals? No modern zoo of that size could operate with only 8 staff members. Why don’t we see evidence of a global flood in the geological record at the time frame of the story? The DNA evidence that was cited as evidence of common ancestry between pastoralists and other groups is also is used to determine common ancestry between humans and other species which raises a lot of other questions. The list of problems go on and on. Of course you can always explain away these problems by just citing divine intervention, but if you’re going to ignore counter evidence in such a manner, why bother looking for confirming evidence?

February 28, 2019

Jackie Doe I do not understand quantum physics, but I don’t doubt that it exists. I do not understand all of God’s whys and wherefores, but I don’t doubt they exist.

Tom Gibson Jackie Blundell I also don’t understand quantum mechanics. There are many things in science that I don’t understand. But the way science goes about figuring things out seems more reliable than the way that religion does. In science a hypothesis is presented and people think up ways to test it. What would we expect to see if the hypothesis is correct? What observations would prove it incorrect? Then it is tested and retested. Then other people scrutinized the tests looking for flaws. Then others conduct their own tests. If the hypothesis doesn’t stand up to all this, then it isn’t accepted. 

I don’t understand quantum mechanics but I understand the reliability of the method that was used to discover it. I know that over a hundred years of increasingly sophisticated experiments have confirmed it over and over again. I know that test results have been the same regardless of where they were conducted in the world, and regardless of the political persuasion or religious beliefs of the person conducting the test. I know that it is even possible for me to test it at home using the double slit experiment. 

Even though I don’t understand quantum mechanics, it seems a very different thing for me accept it than to accept other things I don’t understand when I have to accept them based on faith.