Biden tests positive for COVID

  • Thread starter Thread starter psychodave
  • Start date Start date
VonBonfire said:
Because pride is the original sin of Lucifer. Pride caused men to reject the ecumenical councils. Pride caused them to make their own self interpreted versions and declare themselves the true beacon of truth. So the seed of pride is planted there and blossoms into the sodom and gomorrah stuff we see today, even right there in the pulpit of those same self made denominations. Ripening on the vine for the same level of destruction.
Click to expand...
Well as you know I identify as Luciferian in the Christian paradigm, but I don’t see it as pride but rather independence or even rebelliousness. That said, I agree that Protestantism has had a marked and varied impact on our culture. America is hyper moral, at least superficially. I believe the woke movement and climate alarmism are essentially Protestant in their quest for salvation and obsession with morality and purity. Your Orthodoxy has been refreshing in this regard, not that you don’t strive to lead a moral life, but threatening hell, damnation and virtue signaling don’t seem to be your focus.
 
"I think there is room for both science and religion. IMO you can’t disprove God any more so than you can prove him. Even if someone cracked the code on the Big Bang… then what. There is nothing to say God didn’t create that too.
And if God created us to be smart enough to figure this kind of stuff out, then there is some validity to it. Personally I think trying to disprove God with science is lame, so I can see some finding evil implications behind it."

I have said this exact same thing for over 30 years now. I'm not even Christian.
 
Floyd Eye said:
No clue.
Click to expand...
according to Acceptance it blows the fucking lid off the “climate change scam”. I mean it doesn’t, but he seems to think so and also seems to agree it’s just about keeping the investors happy, so I’m very curious what organization could benefit from that
 
Justin Bailey said:
according to Acceptance it blows the fucking lid off the “climate change scam”.
Click to expand...
I don't think it blows the lid off anything. I think that climate blowhards, like yourself, will look at it and say the exact same things you've said. You guys are committed as any believer and will not give up your beliefs regardless any reason or evidence.
 
Justin Bailey said:
what organization could benefit from that
Click to expand...
It carefully frames bad data (That the earth temp increased when emissions decreased), gives an excuse and hope that 'climate' can still be managed and people controlled.
 
acceptance said:
I don't think it blows the lid off anything. I think that climate blowhards, like yourself, will look at it and say the exact same things you've said. You guys are committed as any believer and will not give up your beliefs regardless any reason or evidence.
Click to expand...

are you schizophrenic by any chance?
 
acceptance said:
Okay, then describe how instead of lobbing insults numbnutz
Click to expand...
It wasn’t an insult. It’s no one’s fault if they are schizophrenic.

Earlier you called the study “empirical evidence”. You have been touting its significance all day.

Then starting liking someone else’s posts that said it was just to follow the narrative and keep the money flowing.

Then you said that climate blowhards would see it and think it furthers their agenda, which earlier you thought that it went against.

Then you said that it frames bad data and implies that humans can affect the climate.

You went from saying it was empirical evidence to saying it was bad data in one day.

Which one do you think it is now?
 
Justin Bailey said:
It wasn’t an insult. It’s no one’s fault if they are schizophrenic.

Earlier you called the study “empirical evidence”. You have been touting its significance all day.

Then starting liking someone else’s posts that said it was just to follow the narrative and keep the money flowing.

Then you said that climate blowhards would see it and think it furthers their agenda, which earlier you thought that it went against.

Then you said that it frames bad data and implies that humans can affect the climate.

You went from saying it was empirical evidence to saying it was bad data in one day.

Which one do you think it is now?
Click to expand...
That's so dumb. It's obviously an insult. And you haven't really highlighted any contradiction that I can see. It doesn't blow the lid off of anything because there is no secret to uncover. All the data is out in the open. The empirical evidence is that (at least by one measure) earth temps increased while emissions decreased. That should be the takeaway. But the study, as you note, parsed the constituents of aggregate emission composition in such a way so that you can continue your greenhouse gas campaign, even though greenhouse gasses are not practically separable from the particulate/aerosol component.
 
acceptance said:
That's so dumb. It's obviously an insult. And you haven't really highlighted any contradiction that I can see. It doesn't blow the lid off of anything because there is no secret to uncover. All the data is out in the open. The empirical evidence is that (at least by one measure) earth temps increased while emissions decreased. That should be the takeaway. But the study, as you note, parsed the constituents of aggregate emission composition in such a way so that you can continue your greenhouse gas campaign, even though greenhouse gasses are not practically separable from the particulate/aerosol component.
Click to expand...

so not schizo, just a moron. Still think it might be both

So which is the empirical evidence and which is the bad data? What kind of study would not separate green house gas and aerosols? They are two completely different things. That’s why I tell you that you don’t respect or understand the scientific method.
Not because of my ego, not because I’m pretending to be a scientist, it’s because you say crap like that.
 
Last edited:
Justin Bailey said:
So which is the empirical evidence and which is the bad data? What kind of study would not separate green house gas and aerosols?
Click to expand...
I meant “bad data” in the colloquial sense, as it is unhelpful to the climate narrative. They are welcome to look at how each emission consistent affects climate, but when cars (for example) emit, there is no separation, making it a moot point, other than giving climate worshippers something to cling to.
 
acceptance said:
I meant “bad data” in the colloquial sense, as it is unhelpful to the climate narrative. They are welcome to look at how each emission consistent affects climate, but when cars (for example) emit, there is no separation, making it a moot point, other than giving climate worshippers something to cling to.
Click to expand...

but that completely ignores my point. My point has always been to follow the data not the story. That is the science.
You only care about the story. That isn’t science.
I accuse you of strawmans, and you respond by again focusing on the story and not the data.
You were all about the data until I brought it to your attention that it did not disprove the effect of greenhouse gases. Now the data doesn’t matter, only the story.

That’s why I laugh when people accuse me of being biased, when being biased is literally the only tactic you guys use to try and prove the stuff wrong that I post. It’s hilarious.

Not to mention you being a self proclaimed environmentalist and then say it’s a moot point to study pollution and somehow downplay the effect continued warming would have on the planet. Getting high in the woods doesn’t make you an environmentalist bro.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
 
Back
Top