Christian influence in society? Yes. A theocracy? No

You running around in a circle crying "Lost Lost" does not change the fact that you likening "Climate Change" to a cult .. was both personification and abject nonsense .. the only one lost here is you mate.. now go find a valid argument young whipper snapper ..

 

you are imagining things.

sounds like butt hurt that I insulted your religion.

If I've lost as you claimed why do you keep responding to me?

Mental onanism?

 

It is you who was "butt-hurt" because the "Imaginary" human characteristics of Climate Science that you were promoting turned out to be nonsense. I am sorry my young Friend - Climate Science is not a cult.

I am trying to help you to see the error of your ways silly .. Now quit taking correction as an insult - go wipe the butt-hurt tears from your eyes and go learn what an argument is

 

I said it was a cult not a person. You're digging this whole particularly deep aren't you.

yeah I don't think heaven's gate members believe their cult was a cult either.

You can't trust cult members to tell you their cult isn't it a cult they don't know
[QUOTE[
I am trying to help you to see the error of your ways silly[/QUOTE] by insisting your cult isn't a cult?

I don't think you know how to do this.

I think your ego is getting in your way.

Glad I could strike a nerve.

 

You the one digging the hole .. projecting your failure onto others. A cult is a characteristic that people can have .. not "Climate Change" Running around crying "Cultist Cultist" every time your perspective is challenged will not help either.

Now my young Friend .. go find yourself a valid argument...

 

the irony is palpable.

no it's not it's a group of people that share a belief or devotion to something.

It's not a characteristic.

it's not meant to help it's meant to mock and ridicule. That's what we do with stupid beliefs so that they don't become mainstream

I don't need one look at what I'm up against. A cultist desperately denying the meaning of the word cult.

I'm so glad I could touch a nerve.

 

I don't accept your approach here.

The approach should involve a search for truth, not by an attempt to force acceptance of you own view by blocking progress with purposeful mocking and ridicule.

 

Your approval means so much to me. Lol

There isn't any truth in your religion.

I'm blocking regress not progress. I'm promoting progress.

Remaining in your religious view is anti truth.

You shouldn't need a religion and a set of codes in order to pursue the truth. So all your doing here is exactly what Christians did in pre Renaissance.

You're calling the science you disagree with heresy just like what the church did to Galileo.

They thought they were pursuing truth too.

 

Cherry picking phrases to misrepresent .. in desperate attempt to deflect from the fact that your failure was complete. Being a member of a Cult indeed is a characteristic of a person .. not of "Climate Change" .. Climate Change is not a person .. so Climate Change can not be part of a Cult..

Sorry my young friend .. your claim is preposterous nonsense .. and demonizing anyone who disagrees with your perspective as a "Cultist" is logical fallacy.

Now run along and go find a valid argument ..

 

well I'm glad to see you moving goal posts there's some hope for you yet.

You says a cult was a characteristic. Glad you abandoned that idiocy.

 

Well, you yourself said you were using tactics to block search for truth.

I'm not asking you to adopt my ideas.

I just think that you should base your argument more in terms of search for truth rather that blocking discussion.

 

Sounds like typical billionaire/corporate propaganda & right-wing talking points (speaking of cults), and an example of what is known as the "single cause fallacy". Did you intentionally ignore the last 150 years?

Your mentioning of the gradual global warming trend since the last ice age actually proves anthropogenic global warming (AGW). It's natural for temperatures to rise steadily over thousands of years during interglacial periods as changes are allowed time to remain in energy balance. However, in a 2021 study by UArizona scientists that looked at the 24,000-year interglacial period, an abrupt modern rise in temperature was shown that cannot be accounted for other than by excess release of greenhouse gases like CO2 by humans.

The authors of the study state:

In contrast with previous proxy-based reconstructions, our results show that global mean temperature has slightly but steadily warmed, by ~0.5 °C, since the early Holocene (around 9 thousand years ago). When compared with recent temperature changes, our reanalysis indicates that both the rate and magnitude of modern warming are unusual relative to the changes of the past 24 thousand years.

From Arizona.edu:

Global Temperatures Over Last 24,000 Years Show Today's Warming 'Unprecedented'
A UArizona team created maps of global temperatures for each 200-year interval since the last ice age.

The study, published Wednesday in Nature, has three main findings:

(1) It verifies that the main drivers of climate change since the last ice age are rising greenhouse gas concentrations and the retreat of the ice sheets.
(2) It suggests a general warming trend over the last 10,000 years, settling a decade-long debate the paleoclimatology community about whether this period trended warmer or cooler.
(3) The magnitude and rate warming over the last 150 years far surpasses the magnitude and rate of changes over the last 24,000 years.

"This reconstruction suggests that current temperatures are unprecedented in 24,000 years, and also suggests that the speed of human-caused global warming is faster than anything we've seen in that same time," said Jessica Tierney, a UArizona geosciences associate professor and co-author of the study.

The team created maps of global temperature changes for every 200-year interval going back 24,000 years.

"These maps are really powerful," Osman said. "With them, it's possible for anyone to explore how temperatures have changed across Earth, on a very personal level. For me, being able to visualize the 24,000-year evolution of temperatures at the exact location I'm sitting today, or where I grew up, really helped ingrain a sense of just how severe climate change is today."


Global average surface temperature since the last ice age 24,000 years ago. Time is stretched for the past 1000 years to visualize recent changes. Matthew Osman
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following graph by Scripps Institution of Oceanography corroborates the UArizona temperature study. The graph illustrates atmospheric CO2 concentration taken from ice-core data over the past 10,000 years.



Hence, both the modern rapid rise of CO2 and average temperature over the last 150 years can be explained only by human activity.

An added & important note on energy balance:

The process of achieving energy balance of the coupled ocean-atmosphere system takes roughly a few thousand years. So how was the Pliocene warmer than today if it had a similar CO2 level? When we look at temperature records reflecting thousands or millions of years, we are looking at values which represent an Earth in energy balance. Right now, the CO2 in our atmosphere has increased more than 40% in just over 100 years. We are still out of balance and will need many hundreds or thousands of years to get back to balance via an increase in global temperature. This means that even if CO2 stopped rising right now, we have already locked in gradual warming for hundreds of years as the oceans slowly warm.

If it were not for the products of the industrial age and its ensuing rapid development worldwide, and this coupled with the over-population problem fostered by run-away capitalism, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Irrelevant deflection. Religion & cults have nothing to do with the science. Address the science.

 

You cherry picked the other part out ... is that the idiocy you are referring to har har har.. said being in cult was a characteristic of a person.

You were the one that claimed being in a cult was a characteristic of climate science .. now desperately trying to tar others with your big fail ..

 

I don't believe your religion is truth

no you're not you're demanding that I accept them as fact.

I'm not interested in your religion stop it.

 

maybe you should cry about it some more.

 

sounds like you are pointless.

 

BS too. Just about every part of what you just said is objectively false. The one thing Christ would never be is a modern evangelical Christian

 

Read the Bible.

 

Why? I'm not Jewish. Nor am I a Pastor or religious scholar. The Bible is a wonderful book but it is far from simple and I am a simple man, not used to esoterica or artful metaphor. It might easily mislead me if I'm not careful

The Christ I follow is the simple one. The one in the Beatitudes, and the one who says I should feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and comfort the sick. I've never yet seen any Bible part which says I should take away a refugees children or be extra cautious that a refugee is not "gaming" me as to whether he is really fleeing his homeland because vicious thugs supported by drug money from the US will abduct his daughters for bordello slavery if he stays, but I have little doubt that you might provide one that is interpretable to mean such; so I will stick to reading the Lives of the Saints and the Encyclicals of the Holy Fathers (though I maintain they CAN be wrong) as a mainstay for now.

 

So you are not a Christian and you do not follow Jesus Christ. What you do is pick some part of Jesus teaching that suits your personal interest, follow that part as you assume it should be followed, and ignore all the rest of Jesus teaching.

And since you have not read the Bible - which defines Jesus teaching - how can you critique anything I have written?

Jesus does not teach what you have written, and I did not make those statements either. But since you pick and choose what you like, and interpret it how you like, its not a surprise that you misrepresent what I wrote.

 

One chart shows the temp rising dramatically between 10 and 17 thousand years ago without human input. Then it rises gradually and levels out till about two hundred years ago when it begins another rapid increase. If the first rapid increase is natural. Why then say the current increase is not also affected in great part by natural causes? Not to mention the magnitude or avalanche effect of heat making it hotter faster. And aren't these the same types of experts who preached that dinosaurs had lizard skin and were reptiles, and now tell us they had feathers and were actually birds?

 

Who is the one crying Friend ?.. need to stop projecting your failings onto others .. take some responsibility for your own actions.

 

Can't speak for Alek whom you were responding to but you are the one guilty of all that you accuse Alek. You neither understand nor follow the teachings of Jesus. You are the one who runs from the teachings of Jesus . picking and choosing what you like and what you do not .. then usurping the position of the Logos - substituting man made dogma for the teachings of Jesus.

You tell Alek to read the Bible .. yet it is he that seems to have a much better understanding of the teachings of Jesus than you do . where-as it is you the one who runs from scripture.

Jesus did not favor political activism - law on the basis of religious belief - you have no clue what you are talking about .. and should stop before you offend the Godhead.

.

 

You don’t even read the posts you respond to, you don’t read the Bible, and what parts you do read you take out of context and misinterpret. That’s pretty much a unanimous opinion of you in the forum.

For example, I wrote Jesus would not be a democrat and would not be socialist - the opposite of political activism.

The rest of your post is gibberish.

And we can’t forgot you reneged on your promise to answer the question. Is that the example your god wants you to give?

 

No .. what you say is the gibberish .. claiming Jesus would not be a socialist .. What a meaningless bowl of nothing .. What does that even mean .. and of course he would not be a "Dem" as he was not into political activism . but who he would really call out .. the demons in the room .. are the Religious Right Fundamentalists .. Religious Political Activism.

Then laughably .. you cry out that other Fundamentalists .. who run from scripture just like you .. have a bad opinion of me .. and then falsely state that these represent some kind of "pretty much Uninimous opinion" .. and pretend that appeal to popularity fallacy is not moronic to begin with.

And all this big dance of avoidance because you can ot address the substance .. Jesus was in favor of generalized reciprocity .. which is socialism .. he would have not necessarily been against abortion .. and certainly not been in favor of legislation banning abortion .. least not in the early term .. The defacto claim that you know for sure is a falsehood .. and that he may have been in favor is not backed up by scripture. .. same with a buch of other things you want to attribute to Jesus .. none of which you back up with scripture .. and then when scripture is presented . you run and hide .. like Brother MItt and Brother Todd.. Seems Alek thinks you are dead wrong as well .. or did you forget that was where this convo came out of ?