If the same logical process for your gospel of Jesus Christ has such iron clad verifiable evidence, and irrefutable arguments then why would there by any problem with using the same decision -making process for all aspects of life?
Dont hide behind mealy mouthed platitudes... its fine to just say "I believe this is true but I don't have any proof" otherwise show us the proof big boy.  - I personally respect your decision to hold whatever faith you have dear, and will fight for your right to believe in whatever you want, just don't expect to get away with saying there is irrefutable proof when clearly there is a shit tonne of reffutin' going on....   

The gospel of Jesus Christ is based on verifiable evidence, and irrefutable arguments.

This is not say that 100% of people will follow Jesus, just because the argument is irrefutable.

Anyone who claims that the gospel of Jesus Christ involves accepting it by "blind faith" -- is operating on the urban myth version of that gospel.

My concern is, if you see the logic that people use on these forums for life-and-death issues, the problem is they use the same decision-making process for the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Look at the way people decided about the MRNA Pfizer Covid vaccines. They basically followed the people they trust. The biggest challenge that most people fail, is the ability to step out of the majority-culture that you fully trust, and to make decisions 100% based on evidence - even if that evidence goes against your majority-culture.

Truer words have never been spoken, thats why there are so many crazy religious nutjobs out there eh?
"But most people in society form their opinions based on emotions, and not based on data and numerical evidence"

An interview by Tucker Carlson with Harvard-scientist Dr. Willie Soon.

https://rumble.com/v462w0x-this-is-what-they-dont-want-you-to-know-about-the-climate-agenda.html

I hope the true-bigots out there will not instantly dismiss this entirely because the interview is by Tucker Carlson. That would be mindless-bigotry. I TELL YOU UP FRONT, the vast majority of the above interview is Dr. Willie Soon doing all the talking. Tucker is just listening and nodding most of the time. Tucker doesn't even set the points for discussion. The entire interview is just Dr. Willie Soon going from point to point that he wants to talk about. This means, those of you who slam this interview because it's by Tucker Carlson, this is a watershed moment for you to look in the mirror and see your own closed-mindedness. So you close-minded people who will slam this and not even both seeing it, because the interview is Tucker Carlson .... also I can say is, that is why the majority of people in society follow the crowd, because there is no need think. (Why do I come across as so negative? Because of the pattern of your responses on other threads in this forum).

Some points made by Dr. Willie Soon:

1. - right now, there are ruins of ancient cities that are under the sea because of massive sea-level rises. For instance, I have visited Turkey where the ruins of massive cities are a few hundreds metres out to sea because the sea level has risen over the last 2,000 years.
   
   
2. - the so-called Hockey Stick rise of temperature started happening well before the industrial age where the effect of man-made CO2 was negligible - indicating that fluctuations in temperature are due to variation in the sun.

But most people in society form their opinions based on emotions, and not based on data and numerical evidence. For instance, the University of Melbourne came out with a review of peer-reviewed data on the dangers of the MRNA vaccines, but I'm guessing that hardly any of you shifted your stance. The "people who just believe what they want to believe" are you.

https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287

Real or not the bit from 2:30 to 3:45 is quality.

Sigh....

climate change is a smug first world explanation to any warm day in their part of the world. 

Watch for them to run the story on next hot day

Game of Thrones season seven delayed because winter didn't come

A blow to many millions of fans may seem frivolous to some, but the impact of climate change on the many thousands of jobs created by the production is absolutely not from the fantasy genre.

Thought Murdoch would be on to this one:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/14/first-case-emerges-of-mammal-species-wiped-out-by-human-induced-climate-change

Full study here:

https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/threatened-species/documents/bramble-cay-melomys-survey-report.pdf

It is difficult to know what to make of this, as sometimes these highly localised and specialised species can be great barometers for bigger issues, and other times they can be outliers. It would be interesting to know if other small mammal populations in low lying coastal areas of Australia (particularly Qld) have been affected.

The Guardian

Read the comments! Theyre blaming an east coast low and a 24 degree day in june in coollangata on climate change

He's heating up

Remember changes are not universal across the world.

"Key findings from these experiments include: fewer tropical cyclones globally in a warmer late-twenty-first-century climate, but also an increase in average cyclone intensity, the number and occurrence days of very intense category 4 and 5 storms and in tropical cyclone precipitation rates ... These changes do not necessarily occur in all basins. For example, there is a projected increase in tropical storm frequency in the Northeast Pacific and near Hawaii, and a projected decreases in category 4-5 storm days over much of the southern hemisphere basins and parts of the northwest Pacific basin."

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes#section1

Read the information under section B. if you want to understand more about the link between hurricanes (tropical storms) sea surface temperatures and global warming.

There is only speculation that another terrorist attack will occur ... so should we therefore not put in measures to deter and/or lower the risks?

The unproven theory is predicting something there is no evidence to the occurrence of.

This is predicted by the theory. The theory predicts increased average intensity

This all seems like speculation about something that has yet to occur.

How do you explain the decrease in frequency of hurricanes in the USA?

The main risks of climate change are that we will have more extreme weather events, i.e. longer and hotter heat waves, droughts, floods, more severe cold fronts, more severe cold weather, more intense tornadoes / cylcones (and/or greater frequency of higher grade storms) etc. etc.

Furthermore these won't just be "storm of the centuries", they will become more the "norm" than the extremes each year. Hence a change in climate (long term weather patterns), and therefore "climate change".

Generally deaths directly related to anthropogenic global warming are hard to ascertain because of being able to distinguish isolated events to a long-term change is difficult. Instead you'd have to look at patterns and long-term changes to determine the impact of AGW. Then you run into the issue of other changes over time that may also affect deaths ... e.g. population density, technology, communication, infrastructure etc.

That is where the major risks from climate change are also going to be felt, more so than deaths per se. Policy makers will need to ensure that their infrastructure, technology, communication, services etc. are all "future proofed" for climate changes (e.g. in Perth there already are concerns with blackouts during heat waves, so is the electricity company set up to, or have plans to, deal with even longer and hotter heat waves in the future? Lots of Perth relies on groundwater aquifers for water, what happens when sea levels rise and salt water encroaches further into aquifers ... there is also reduced rainfall and higher temperatures, so dams are less sustainable, are they future proofing Perth's water supplies?)

So in other words, you can attribute any number you make up of deaths related to weather events and blame that on "anthropogenic global warming".

Edited by Conservative: 1/6/2016 12:50:03 PM

He's an incurable cancer.

You really have to admire the dedication to all this shitposting.

-PB

Really depends on how you look at it. In Europe 2003 there were over 70,000 deaths due to a heat wave ... did anthropogenic global warming exacerbate the heat wave??

103 died in the 2015 Myanmar floods ... did anthropogenic global warming exacerbate the rainfall / flooding?

The Black Saturday fires in Victoria 2009 killed 173 ... did anthropogenic global warming exacerbate the conditions for the fire? (Considering bushfire management, control, operations, housing regulations, public awareness, communication, transport etc. have all increased since the early 1980s and before when the last major fires occurred suggests that perhaps climatic conditions were a significant factor).

Here is link to health risks associated with climate change http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/

This DARA International study links approximately 400,000 deaths worldwide to climate change each year http://daraint.org/climate-vulnerability-monitor/climate-vulnerability-monitor-2012/report/

I'd argue that the problem with such a study is determining how many can be directly attributed to climate change and how many would have occurred without anthropogenic global warming. The projected risks (and increased fatalities) is probably a more concerning issue for policy makers (imagine if policy makers said an extra 200,000 deaths each year by 2030 would occur from terrorism ... we wouldn't leave our homes, but because it is linked to climate change and largely to affect developing nations we are "dismissive" of it).

Nobody can provide an answer only cryptic responses I see.

back for more ricey?

How many people have died due to anthropogenic climate change?

They are called submarine volcanos and there doesn't seem to be any clear answer to your question (as measuring them is difficult).

http://www.minsocam.org/msa/rim/RiMG075/RiMG075_Ch11.pdf

It also isn't so much the "contribution" but an imbalance in the carbon cycle that is the issue in regards to global warming. "While atmospheric CO2 concentrations have varied between 190-280 ppm for the last 400,000 years (Zeebe and Caldeira 2008), human activity has produced a remarkable increase in CO2 abundance, particularly in the last 100 years, with concentrations reaching ~390 ppmv at the time of writing" (from the above study)

Therein lies the concern. The CO2 concentrations have increased dramatically recently (geologically) and as yet no natural variable is known to have caused such a dramatic increase in these concentrations. Could submarine volcanos be the answer considering how little we know about their emissions?? Not sure how well they can look at the history of submarine emissions either ...

Edited by sokorny: 31/5/2016 06:13:21 PM

How much do underwater volcanos contribute ?

Since Conservative joined he has shown his interest in Nazis. Also he gets backed up a bit by mvfc11.

These are solid points that make me think he knows what he is talking about.

So I can't wait for him to make a post that has something to do with climate science.

watch out.......

Where did I say it was a scientific theory?

Thanks for playing.