ocean conditions are changing due to Rapid Global Climate Shift

I agree with you Troy except the denier part. I don't know of anyone "denying" climate change is ocurring. We just don't believe it's co2 driving climate, don't believe mankinds contribution to co2 emmission is significant, and don't believe we should destroy or surrender our USA and traditional values because of socialist propaganda. And we WON'T!

 

"And while we're at it: it's Christians, not atheists, who believe man is born in one state or another of original sin -- up to and including Total Depravity, depending on which bunch you listen to. Atheists don't believe man is born tainted with evil and has to be saved from himself, Muslims don't believe it, neither do Jews... but most Christians do."
from Troy
__________________

That's an odd perception of christians. Catholics baptize infants, but no one else I know of. Children are born innocent and don't need "saving" untill they mature. But we are all God's children and our spirits created in his image and we share his attributes. Creators, capable of love and great sacrifice, and masters of our planet.
Enough on religion though.

 

That isn't an "odd perception of Christians." It's a theological viewpoint shared by all Christian denominations, to one degree or another.

Martin Luther preached it, as explained in the Lutheran Augsburg Confessions: "It is also taught among us that since the fall of Adam all men who are born according to the course of nature are conceived and born in sin. That is, all men are full of evil lust and inclinations from their mothers’ wombs and are unable by nature to have true fear of God and true faith in God. Moreover, this inborn sickness and hereditary sin is truly sin and condemns to the eternal wrath of God all those who are not born again through Baptism and the Holy Spirit."

John Calvin said in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, "Original sin, therefore, seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God's wrath, then also brings forth in us those works which Scripture calls 'works of the flesh' (Gal 5:19)."

John Wesley held that, as explained in the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church, "Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually."

I could keep going, but I think I've made my point...

 

well...I'm not lutheran, or methodist either.

I'm a fundamental christian. In other words, I'm also a strict constructionist regarding the bible. It says what it means and means what it says. I need no man made creed.

 

Rather than bloat the boat design database with too much non-boating material, here is a long list of other forums where religious topics and debate would be most welcome:
https://www.google.com/search?q=religion forum

And here is a list of many other forums where politicking and political topics would be welcome, and the purpose of those sites to host:
https://www.google.com/search?q=politics forum

 

Originally Posted by troy2000
You mean we should get back to our off-topic discussion, and stop going off-off-topic?

 

When empirical-based evidence is abandoned, this is what rushes in to fill the vacuum. “Heaven” help us

 

empirical evidence? that climate change has always ocurred even before man existed?
but ignore that and preach man is causing damage because his technology produces co2 and co2 MUST be bad for the enviroment since we produce so much of it,
"Present global average atmospheric CO2 concentrations, however, are 393.9 ppm. If current trends continue, it should take roughly four years for global levels to reach 400 ppm, according to NOAA. Part of the variation in regional CO2 levels is a result of the vegetation in mid-latitudes, which absorb CO2 during the spring and summer, causing somewhat lower concentrations in these areas. Levels then rise again during the fall, when CO2 is emitted from decaying plant matter. Despite these seasonal ups and downs, growth of global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide has accelerated over the past half century, increasing roughly 2 ppm annually." http://insights.wri.org/news/2012/06/400-ppm-carbon-dioxide-levels-cross-sobering-new-threshold

Insignificant!
There is NO empirical data that co2 drives climate. It's a theory. With more political philosophy support than scientific evidence to support the theory. Instead, support is by "consensus".

Hooey!

 

I'm sorry, but you're saying something that simply isn't true.

We had a word for that, when I was growing up.

 

So...do we argue "Is too!", "Is not!" ect, ect, ad nauseum?

Never in previous history has co2 caused climate warming, in fact increased co2 levels lagged temperature rise.
And the present co2 level being responsible for temperature rise is pure speculation, and spin, how a tiny bit of co2 acts as a causal factor but water vapor has no effect? pure spin worthy of politicians best obfuscations.

 

Look all so called evidence aside.....Have the people who believe that man alone caused this stopped to think that maybe the last few centuries of documented weather is not normal in the scope of the existence of this planet.
And if there is a natural climate shift, there has to be a change in the ocean conditions or the other way. The planet is a living organism. And yes the sun and the moon are also responsible, also man has made a very small contribution. And please don't bring religion into this discussion it has zero significance.

So all in all you are all right, enough of this crap.

 

The worlds environment has 7 billion people to support. Even the slightest man made or natural disruption to the system will have dire consequences.

People who close their ears to the challenge and view the whole topic as some kind of socialist conspiracy to take thier freedoms away are fools .

 

Champ....have you seen the documentary "Atomic Bomb Movie" also know as "Trinity and beyond". It is a bout nuclear bomb test. If letting off some several hundred nukes (unknown and classified yields) did minimal damage to the global environment as a whole, then some flatulent cows sure as heel won't do diddly squat. As before cattle farms there were herds of billions of animals running free. No different.

I can't get over the BS that apparently in the last 80 years people believe we have done so much damage to the environment....How old is the planet??? And it has had to deal with much worse then us humans...80 years....one generation pretty much...then there is the cumulative argument....external influences such as solar flares and the moon, have a greater effect on our environment .....if the moon can move such a great mass of water around our planet effortlessly then it is ignorant to believe that it cant have other influences, especially as we are approaching a new age....yes that age of Aquarius...who knows what influence this new shift in the celestial realm will have on our planet....
It is all just speculation...OK...with all our know how, we can't accurately predict the weather tomorrow, so what so called empirical evidence are these arguments based on I ask...
When you say I believe, it means you have no idea...
Talk to some real scientists and see what they think, they have no idea.....and the ones that think they do, are speculating.....all other evidence is politically driven....

Enough of this, lets talk boats..............

 

Free will.....
Dominion over the earth.....
It would be a mistake to think we have no effect on the earth and the climate at all?
If it is a natural occurrence, why accelerate it?

 

I'm no fool.
That's why I'm not fooled by the hype.