Global Warming? are humans to blame?

I think anyone who will believe the nonsense propagated by evangelism and the bible (Adam, the rib, creationism etc...) will also believe that the constitution is some inviolable document dictated by some beardy invisible imaginary floaty buddy in the sky - there's a definite correlation there. And we've already heard that Yobbo believes in his god and places little faith in science, which we finally found is the bottom line with him concerning the climate. I'm pretty sure he's already made it clear he believes the "end times" are a-coming soon too, so there's no point in doing anything about it even if we're headed for an extinction event.

Faith - the most dangerous thing in our time.

 

The Declaration is part of and included in 'THE UNITED STATES CODE'.
It most certainly IS a legal document.
Britain didn't agree, but they lost the war and the argument!

Reviewer: The author, Richard Howard Cox cranme@downeast.net

American Consitutionalism rests on four pillars: the Declaration of Independence; the Articles of Confederation; the Northwest Ordinance of 1787; and the Constitution. These fundamental documents, which have the collective title "The Organic Laws of the United States of America", are the first section of THE UNITED STATES CODE, the official text of the statute laws of the federal government. The 70-page introduction of this book traces the history of the official versions of our federal laws. It shows that the "organic laws" section has stood as a noble preamble to the official version of our federal laws virtually all of the time since 1878. It also makes a detailed argument for a renewed understanding of the Constitution as the ultimate "organic law". That mode of understanding is, in essence, the one articulated by Abraham Lincoln, and is in great contrast to the present-day tendency, within political science and law, to view the Constitution through the refracting, and often distorting, lens of "constitutional law". The latter half of the book contains the full, official text of the four "organic laws" and an extensive list of supplementary reading.

http://candst.tripod.com/doinotlaw.htm

 

The Judea-Christianic god is a construct of former mythologies, a jigsaw puzzle of mostly pagan beliefs. There was a MS Claus as well, but she got nixed sometime shortly before the original church charlatan invented Pauline Christianity.

The idea of a virgin birth comes from Zoroastrian beliefs. The concept of dying and staying three days in the underworld only to be rescued and break free, Sumerian. Ritual cannibalism is straight out of the African native faiths. The polytheistic god head from the Greco-Roman pantheon. The flood myth, comes from just about every previous mythos in the region and probably stems from the Mediterranean flood event. The "12" apostles is straight from numerology as the number of apostles seems to have not remained stable. The idea that Paul was one of them is sheer bunk, as Paul never met Jesus and most likely bought his Roman citizenship with money stolen from the church in damascus which he was supposed to deliver to the church in Jerusalem. The simple reality is, Pretty much the entire Judeo-Christian mythos is one stolen belief after another followed by outright lies.

So how about if we move on from the fantasy of christianity and focus on climate change.

 

Boston tilting at windmills again. er Strawmen.

 

I've got good news and bad news, Ray.
Good news is the LORD is coming!
Bad news is, HE's VERY pissed off!

 

No shortage of men playing the role of Don Quixote in this thread.

Your logic fails. The solutions being bad doesn't mean there isn't a problem. You want there not to be a problem because the solutions would hurt. Wanting doesn't make it so.

 

BPL
Didn't I say I ALWAYS plan on contingencies?
Didn't I offer to help and to agree to, and to help promulgate drought mitigation?
My boat is as 'green' as they get (but not in color).
Didn't I say I've ALREADY voluntarily reduced my carbon footprint to a minimum?
I admited I'm investing my time and money in an experiment to generate clean energy.
I want to use it myself, of course. But I promise to make it open source if I'm sucessfull.
(I need to ask an attorney, if open source documentation can prohibit CERTAIN specific individuals from using the technology.)
But NONE of that, it seems, is sufficient unless I ALSO embrace the AGW doctrine!
Sorry, but I already have a religion. Guess you'll have to burn me at the stake as a heretic!


Cap and trade isn't just bad and ineffective, it is intended to diminish the USA. Third world countries are exempt. So is China and India. By making energy more expensive in the US, more jobs will shift offshore to countries with cheaper energy. It's a blatant attack. And you want to agree to it. Wake up!

 

Yawnnnnnnn

Yobarncle,

Thank you for taking the time away from the worship of your Gods and your wonderful self, each day, to help enlighten the rest of us.

You are certainly brilliant and almighty in your own mind. What would the rest of us do each day if we were not able to read your unending pontifications? I shudder to think.

Maybe the World would spin off its axis?

Which of the current Gods are you worshiping these days?

 

Is this thread about global warming?

 

And become a pulpit for the lunacy of his religious inclinations. Obviously there is some instability evident in the wildly varied directions taken in an effort to avoid the subject.

When in doubt, obfuscate and change the subject. Unfortunately this delirium of his is interfering with a rational discussion that is extremely relevant to boating in general and my personal plans of retirement in particular. Unfortunately, he will apparently be allowed to continue this disturbance of the thread. I guess all we can do is attempt to remove a sufficient number of points that he is eventually unable to post on the forum. Since clearly he is completely disrespectful of our moderators continued requests that we not only keep it polite, but stick to the subject, and leave off things like religion and politics. Things which are obviously rife in Yabs posts.

 

If you want to fight amongst yourselves, I'm out of here.

 

Yea, I mean to 2012 not thru 2012, closer to the current day than the 2005/2006.
What's the deal with the blue spike at the end of the second graph going up a full degree in 2010? Suppose the spikes can be ignored as there are plenty.
Overall, the steady not increasing increase from 1900 shown by the second graph trend is less alarming than the increased recent slope of the first graph.

 

Don't run off John
I can't speak for the others, but I'D appreciate a fresh perspective here.

 

Nothing interesting is being discussed here, is my perspective.

 

So, help us get back on track.