|
A great place to argue about Global Warming
Created in the hope that the argument now happening on Steve's thread (on the revolution in our experience which computers and personal computers have created) might find a more welcoming climate here.
|
Good thinking, Matt.
It's really hopeless when the threads go off-topic. |
Quote:
John, I'd agree with you that nobody really knows. This was the point I originally made when when you first raised the polar bear issue. Equally the fact that they are coping now (if they are) is no reason to think they will continue to cope as conditions continue to change. You originally cited polar bears as a counter-argument to global warming. That line of argument has no logic. Finding an example of a species that is currently coping with changing conditions is not a good argument against the fact that conditions are changing. It's true, I think, that nobody knows for sure how global and habitat change will affect creatures adapted to certain environmental niches. It's difficult to predict such things. Ecosystems are complex dynamical systems after all, and are interlinked with other complex systems such as atmospheric and ocean systems. All are expected to be affected. It's also true that this an emotional issue on which people have taken sides, and worse-case and best-case scenarios will be touted by both sides. Maybe the truth will lie somewhere in the middle, but equally maybe it'll be more extreme than anyone anticipated. On the other hand, some processes seem much more predictable. As Lovelock pointed out back in the 60s there are positive feedback systems associated with warming and cooling. For example, ice reflects heat back into space. As the surface area of ice decreases, less sunlight is reflected back into space, and the planet heats up faster, more ice melts and so on. More than this, the fact that we can't exactly predict the consequences of global warning doesn't meant that they won't be catastrophic. There are many possible major consequences (the death of the deep ocean, ocean levels rising, the gulf stream redirecting etc.). Rather than it being a case of "Oh we don't know what's happening, so it'll probably be fine" I think it's far more a question of not being able to predict exactly how and when things will wrong. That's my opinion anyway. Matt |
Back in 1923, long before the wrangle about global warming or climate change or whatever the currently preferred term may be, Robert Frost published one of his most well-known poems. Many Sphere participants or visitors will recognize the verse:
Fire and IceWell, that pretty much sums up the issue. Richard |
|
Thanks for that Quincy. That cheered me up.
|
For shame, Richard. On the surface his "Fire and Ice" statement seems reasonable and balanced, but do you really think a guy named Frost was unbiased?
|
Of course Frost is reasonable and tenable in his poem! His last name is just a happy accident.
In addition to the various metaphorical interpretations possible in the poem, there is a valid scientific angle. I read long ago that Frost asked a notable astronomer how the world would end. The astronomer told Frost either the sun will explode and incinerate the Earth, or after the sun’s demise the planet will wander off into deep space and freeze. A year after that conversation, the astronomer was surprised to see “Fire and Ice” in print. Richard |
I remember living through the summer of 1273. You cannot believe how hot it was. It was so hot that when I took my armor off, the chain mail took some of my private's skin with it. Couldn't set a horse for a month. And then when winter came early, snow covered the castle, froze the moat solid. Those damned barbarians skated across it and nearly killed us all. If it hadn't been for Kate Upton, we might well have not lived to tell the tale.
A serious thought just crossed my mind. Stars are known to blow up. Planets are known to die. What makes any serious person believe we had anything to do with those occurrences? We polluted Love Canal and it cost gazillions to clean it up. But we cannot control weather events or earthquakes or volcanos. We can't control the tides or the amount of sun that shines upon us.We can't stop an asteroid from destroying us, Bruce Willis, or the numerous rats The Pied Piper led to glory. We can't even stop each other from killing us. And who in the world doesn't think the government won't tax us out of our homes based on a theory that only works for their advantage? I remember them trying it in the 1970's when global cooling was all the rage. If you want to stop global warming, several billion people will have to die first. Good luck with that. If you don't want to cool the world, you'll have to make more babies. I suggest reading and embracing that all time globalist guide to health and wealth: Goldilocks and the Three Bears. |
I dunno, Charlie, that sounds as if you've rewritten this...
God grant me the serenity To accept the things I cannot change; Courage to change the things I can; And wisdom to know the difference. ...as this... God grant me the serenity To accept depressing stuff as it is, So that I need not inconvenience myself and others by trying to change things Through courage and wisdom. |
Julie, Mighty Atlas still carries the world on his shoulders. I have no such aspirations. I wouldn't think depression or lack of courage to change things
that cannot be changed has anything to do with me. I believe that Earth has a lifespan that cannot be quantified by mere men (or women.) It is directed by something greater that us. Al Gore, and others have said that global warming caused the harsh winter past. I would think that if that's true, then the faster 'we' warm the planet, the faster it'll cool by The Great Scientist Gore's reckoning. Earth has always gone through cycles of heating and cooling. It will until it doesn't anymore. That is realism, not speculation. I gave up listening to Global Warming Alarmism when the State of Washington and the E.P.A. began trying to tax dairy farmers and the general populace for bovine flatulence, aka cow farts. I gave up listening to the pap when the government began taxing us for the water runoff from our roofs after rains. It rains a bit in Seattle. More rain, more taxes. We are being taxed for rainwater. Now they want to tax us for sunshine. How preposterous. Progressive government cannot survive without controlling the checkbook of its citizens. By the way, there are several progressive states that are flat broke. People are being made to swallow this drivel so that they will voluntarily agree with the mandated taxes that can't possibly be collected by any other cogent or legal means without a rebellion breaking out. Progressive government thrives on the ignorance of the people it governs. Deny that. |
Hmmm. Maybe I'd be more concerned about rainwater taxes if I didn't live here:
https://waterlessworld.files.wordpre...ought-2015.png That's the thing about global climate change--it's global. That means it's bigger than local phenomena. I don't think your calculations showing that things are actually getting colder, based on the harsh winter in the Northeastern U.S., is considering that this has been the hottest March on record here in San Diego. It's inaccurate to conclude that climate change isn't happening, just because in some areas it has been snowing more than usual. That precipitation would normally have fallen in California, but high pressure systems in weird places meant that our winter storms instead got directed along a more northerly Jet Stream to Boston and New York and environs. Similar high pressure systems in weird places were responsible for weird weather effects like the Polar Vortex and the derecho in recent years. Weird weather has happened before--that's why we have names for these things--and you're right that the planet goes through warming and cooling cycles. But whether or not these weather extremes are caused by human activity, dealing with them is expensive, and yes, taxes will go up as a result. Penny-pinching governments have neglected paying for infrastructure maintenance for decades--often out of a desire to keep kicking the unpopular tax can down the road to another political party's watch. So, yeah, unfortunately, even if "global warming is bogus," it's time to pay the piper for a lot of these deferred maintenance things, because wild weather won't let those long-deferred maintenance projects be deferred any longer. |
Of course climate change is happening. Nobody doubts that. It happens all the time. People are arguing about why. And nobody knows why. Which doesn't stop them having strong opinions about it..
It's bloody cold out there. |
I remember when there was a book written about the population bomb scare that said the world couldn't support three billion people. Now there are seven and a quarter billion people living in the world.
2.6 billion people come from 2 countries alone. Guess what, neither of those 2 countries have signed on to the global warming deal Obama is pitching— and if they do sign on to it, they are exempt for the next 15 to 30 years while Obama apologizes for America's part in the crime. There's more! China has a strict population control procedure in place through mandatory abortion when the quota of children for couples are surpassed. Good on China. Their population is still projected to grow at astronomical rates in the foreseeable future. India has no such policy. The bottom line is this, we are to be taxed so that we can carry the load of the entire world because we have thrived and become rich by enjoying freedom? We are such sinners! Let's give the world our wealth reparations for those sins, sending us into abject poverty. I'm on board that train! Not! Arizona's had some good rain this year but it's still a desert greened by a river. One other thing, Oklahoma suffered from a prolonged drought back in the 20's and 30's. Dust bowl days. Will Rogers and all of that. I believe the Great Depression was going on right about then. The government didn't even have any money. I'm still trying to figure out how Oklahoma isn't a desert. Does anyone know? Maybe some former Oklahomans might know. Progressives are all about fairness, right? Then let China, India and Africa pay their fair share now since they comprise about 40 to 50 percent of the world's population and are more culpable when it comes to greenhouse gases than we are. |
today
Quote:
Quote:
|
He contains multitudes.
|
I don't see your point, Max. I did not say warming. I said change. Temperatures went up. And then they went down. Change. Got it.
Charlie I gather that by 2080 the problem will be that world population will decrease. The West will be able to deal with it. The muslim world, backward as ever, will not. Far too many old people living to 120. Not enough children. Come on all you wrinklies. Smoke and drink a lot more. Do you want to live for ever? |
Never mind. it seems to be fixed now.
|
Charlie, that is not the way to argue. Without naming them, you say
Quote:
How does this compare with Kyoto Protocol support by the big countries? Who has signed (S), ratified (R), put into force (F). The 10 most populous countries have done (or not done) the following: China (S,R,F), India (R,F), the USA (S but not ratified, not in force), Indonesia (S,R,F), Brazil (S,R,F), Pakistan , Nigeria (not signed but R), Bangladesh (not signed but R,F), Russia (S,R,F), Japan (S,R,F). http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/sta...items/2613.php Then you say: Quote:
And as you know, Africa is a continent, not a state. It is composed of 58 nations, all with their own governments, and many are suffering from drought, flooding, wars and epidemics such as Ebola, cholera, meningitis, polio. Add to that malaria, famine, and widespread poverty. That said, we are all in dire straits. Even those living in a bubble will be affected. My personal prediction is that Malthusian checks will kick in, that wars will escalate to the point where mass death occurs from starvation, lack of water, and epidemics: mrsa infections, ebola, and the usual ones that follow in the wake of war such as cholera, dysentery. Add polio, measles, and smallpox which are kept reasonably under control only because of vaccines. Oh, yes, as the climate gets warmer, malaria will also become more common and the usual diseases such as cancer and vascular-cardiac ailments will kill quicker. Don't worry, be happy. |
Naw, Janice. It won't happen though a part of you hopes that it will. And I think you are cofusing an abstract justice with efficacy. Nothing your country or mine do will make the slightest difference, except to make us middle class liberals feel better about ourselves, and, God knows, we feel far too good already.
|
Wrong, John, I don't hope it happens. Surely you don't think me so petty as to hope for world catastrophe so that from my cremated ashes will rise a quavering "I told you so".
Plagues have historically followed war. Until recent medical progress, epidemics regularly and radically reduced population. Global air travel will speed it up, just as the advent of the sailing ship sped it up in its day. You've heard of the plague in its various forms, well-documented through the centuries. Three great world pandemics of plague are recorded, in 541, 1347, and 1894 , and countless smaller ones all causing devastating mortality of people and animals across nations and continents. Plague irrevocably changes the social and economic fabric of society. Check this out, John, we have them in Sweden too. http://www.medievalhistories.com/des...lages-england/ You do know that new diseases pop up all the time? There are plenty of fleas and rats and bats to spread them. You do know what ebola and mrsa are? And that polio, tuberculosis and smallpox aren't really eradicated. It is only in the past hundred fifty years or so that Pasteur proved the germ theory and vaccines were developed to give the Western world a false sense of hubris. Now some feel so safe they say, "Ha, ha. Why isn't everyone dead then? I don't want pasteurized milk or measles vaccine for MY kids." I'm not passing on a conspiracy theory or "my phone is bugged by aliens". It is Darwinian. What fits in best, survives. And that ain't humankind. Rats and bacteria reproduce faster and have the leading edge. While it is true that cyclic patterns of warming and cooling can be observed from the past, CO2 emission is speeding up the process and can irrevocably change the recovery pattern. I remember a scientific paper I translated thirty years ago that informed us that if all the emission were stopped "right now" (i.e. then) there would still be twenty years of continued damage as it continued to rise. Nothing has changed regarding that except that there is now more in transit. I remember in early 1960 a magazine from the UN (there used to be those) about the spreading of desert area of the earth. That seemed so unreal at the time. The Ra expedition in 1972, reported marine pollution and presented their report to the United Nations. I used to spend summers on a Baltic island and watch the sailboats come sailing in through waters covered with poison algae. The Baltic Sea is dying for lack of oxygen just like the Gulf of Mexico and other once pristine seas. Its dead marine zones are growing because of excess nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus used as fertilizers in the countries around the Baltic Sea. This are observable facts in OUR lifetime. http://planetsave.com/2008/06/24/bal...ack-of-oxygen/ A dead sea is a dead sea. It has no Easter, it does not rise on the third day. Check this out. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...y-destruction/ |
It is not true that the Muslim world is backward, Pakistan now has zero population growth and an active government funded campaign promoting birth control. There is nothing in Islam that forbids contraception. Roman Catholicism on the other hand still maintains birth control, except abstinence, is 'against nature', but they are quietly letting it slip off the agenda but have been responsible for the population explosion in South America and Mexico and Africa where Catholicism is a powerful force.
There's an interesting Ted talk, can't remember the name off the expert, but he says the world population will climb to 12 billion before it begins to decrease, 12 billion seems nightmarish to me, waiting at Hong Kong airport recently many people were wearing face masks, it was very futuristic in a not good way, and personally I feel the world is heading for a plague of some sort, sars, then ebola, it seems inevitable one will be bred in crowded conditions like in China and India. It seems climate change is creating all sorts of unpredictable events, mainly because the seas are being effected and major reliable currents are changing, but it's a vast subject and there are many unforeseen benefits also, barren cold areas are becoming available for farming. I think, though there are some solutions, cleaner energy, smarter technologies, that the sheer size of the world's population and the fact that it will take years to reverse its continued rise means we are in for a wild ride, and it will happen suddenly, a tipping point will be reached. |
2080 is the date, Ross and of course muslims are backward. Their ridiculous treatment of women shows it. Not ALL muslims, Ross. Just most.
|
Quote:
But then you're not the only one writing foolish things in these threads. Despite the clear evidence to the contrary, I and others insist on believing that you are open to facts. How long will we refuse to accept reality? |
Hi Janice, You are right. I should have referenced the countries and the African continent. I assumed most folks knew. My bad.
Most, if not all of the signees to the Kyoto Accords are poor, underdeveloped countries. Russia is also poor and underdeveloped too. The Oligarchs and the Russian government hold most of the finances there, not the people. My question is this: Why would countries without the ability to pay for the changes they have signed on to sign on to such an agreement? Answer: They expect the U.S. to pay for it, for them, like beggars with their hands out. Same thing with the UN— we pay much of the burden so that all of those poor countries can remain members, stay in nice hotels, eat like kings, and spit in our faces. I am paying for that. I digress. My next question is this: When the earthquake in Japan's Fukushima happened, whose fault was the earthquake? And, whose fault was it that the nuclear reactors failed to hold up contaminating much land and surely some sea life? Now all of that wreckage from the tidal wave is washing up on America's shore. To whom does one assign responsibility to? Who should pay for the cleanup of our shores? What if our children on the Pacific coast become contaminated and get sick or die from radiation poisoning? One could say that the Japanese didn't build the reactors strong enough. How can they or anyone outbuild something that has no limits to its natural destructive force? What irony. Choose, but choose wisely. You can't control or prevent the power of an earthquake or tidal wave any more than you can prevent a nuclear disaster unless you decommission nuclear power— and then more irony ensues. Where does one store the nuclear waste? Some say in the deepest part of the most corrosive part of the ocean. It is saltwater after all. Or let's burn the nuclear waste. Oh wait! That would create air pollution. OK. Then let's bury it in a country or state somewhere where it can never leak out. Someplace like Hanford. The point being, in spite of us, nature does what it wants, not what it is mandated or directed to do. |
Quote:
No serious person still argues about this. The only reason it's even still on the agenda is because american politicians take money from energy companies, and they don't want the flow to dry up. And a certain kind of american voter watches a certain network which keeps viewers by using it as a point of cultural identification. Rational people ask themselves, all the time, why people vote against their own self interests, in the face of all evidence. How could there be an electoral coalition between the guy who lives in a penthouse and the guy who fixes the rich guys' air conditioner? I wondered about it for a long time myself. Then I found the answer in Dostoyevsky: "Even if man were nothing but a piano key, even if this were proved to him by natural science and mathematics, even then he would not become reasonable, but would purposely do something perverse out of sheer ingratitude, simply to have his own way…then, after all, perhaps only by his curse will he attain his object, that is, really convince himself that he is a man and not a piano key!" In other words, John and Charlie and the others know they're wrong, they know it with deep certainty. But they believe in personal freedom. Under those conditions, no amount of natural science will persuade them. The defiance of their self-determination gives them identity. It doesn't matter how many maps Julie posts. Reality is beside the point, that's all external. They want their own way, to have their own say, and it's theirs, after all, and so they exist. It's why the guy who fixes air conditioners votes for people who hate him, it's why the deep south is so poor, it's why women still don't have their rights, even to equal representation. "I'm not defined by circumstances, I'm my own person, my beliefs are me, and I share them with others, and to hell with reality." When people told Cheney invading Iraq wasn't realistic, didn't match the facts on the ground, he said "We make our own reality." And that reality was his, he wasn't just some piano key, and to prove it to himself he still has to deny the results. And he does so. With heartfelt conviction. John and Charlie and the rest have those same convictions. Rationality never persuades anyone. Poets should know that better than anyone else. "Only emotion endures." Best, Bill |
Bill, you have wandered off into the land of goofy again.
At no time in this thread have I said that global warming doesn't exist. I am not a global cooling denier or propagator either. There are clearly both, simultaneously happening all the time. What I am denying is the depiction of the phenomena and the attempts to co-opt and blackmail unsuspecting souls with the theory that either is man-caused. Nonsense. Conversely, Bill, just because you believe what you do, doesn't make it true. It is unprovable. Lots of serious scientists continue to argue with the man-caused meme you spout. By the way, I vote against my own self-interests all the time. That is another discussion though. Rational people normally vote their pocketbooks, unlike the past two presidential elections which hinged upon the promise of a savior who would change the world. Well, he surely did that. As to the piano key reference; I am surely a man, not a piano key. I play piano, it doesn't play me. Your idea that the south is poor because of ignorance or redneckedness borders on insanity. What is South LA's, Chicago's Detroit's, Seattle's, Cleveland's, and numerous other northern and western city's excuse for dire poverty? What ails you, Bill? I fear that upon reading your pointy-headed silliness, some southern-repressed women are gonna' come up there and whup your ass. Foolish things indeed! I have few convictions, Bill. The ones I do have are Christian-based. If that makes me irrational, I can live with that. Emotion isn't such a bad thing. They're trying to install emotions into robots so that robots can be more humanlike. Unlike dodo's who watch certain other networks which keeps viewers by using them as propaganda tools for their progressive agenda. Down deep in your heart,Bill, you know I'm right, but no one likes to be embarrassed by a stump jumper with mud between his toes. Ya'll. |
The biggest energy users are the USA and Western Europe, not only in terms of overall use but use compared to land area. Also Japan. So if pollution and over use of resources is one of the world's biggest problems then the culprits are there to see. But I still think over-population is by far the biggest danger, we have over-bred and over-crowded the planet and are victims of our own success as a species. It's no one's fault. It's like Lenin said , 'two steps forward,one step back' we will have huge problems and it's hard to see it not being disastrous in some ways. A drought in California is just one of dozens of ways the world is feeling the pinch. Sydney was almost out of water a few years back, we built a huge desalination plant in expectation of there beng no water for a city of 3 million then the rains came and it's never been used.
And John a quarter of all Muslims live in Indonesia, a moderate democracy where females form half of the public service and participate fully in all aspects of life, including getting a good education. Islam is not by definition an extreme religion as anyone who has read the Koran knows. It is extreme in some countries because those countries are in a different stage of their development from the West, it is easy to forget what Western countries were like in the 17th or 18th centuries, you can't expect all countries to progress at the same rate. |
Quote:
The only problem comes when people insist that their irrational convictions play a role in our collective decision-making. The bible says the sun goes around the Earth. Should NASA take that into account? If 50% of U.S. citizens take the bible literally, should half of NASA's budget be devoted to projects based on a biblical understanding of astronomy and only the other half to projects based on science? We need to work together based on fact, not conviction. |
Max, you do go on and on about facts. A bit of a Gradgrind. Scientific facts tend to fade away like the morning dew. But perhaps you have noticed. I might mention many facts, but the solid state universe will do for now. And I gather the big bang is not quite the fact it was.
Then there was the cause of ulcers. Know about that?. |
I habitually do lots of things that are probably futile.
I pray to a deity that probably does not exist. I actively participate in a church whose misogyny I will probably not be able to change. I write letters to the Supreme Leader of Iran, who probably doesn't give the slightest rip what I think of his regime's mistreatment of various prisoners. I get involved in long arguments here, which probably don't make the slightest (positive) difference in what what people already think. I keep pushing for a pediatric heart transplant center to get established in my hometown, despite being told that it's impossible, for various reasons. Oh, wait! Two months ago, that one actually worked out! Maybe there's hope for some of the other stuff, too. Ever the optimist, Julie |
Hi Max, You might have a better understanding of the Bible than I do. Recently, a theory (an old theory) scientists have revisited, has developed that the universe revolves around Earth. Since I cannot refute that theory by experience, I would say it's as plausible as some of the theories I've heard of. I mean, if it were true, imagine time and space and the ramifications of that discovery. Pretty deep stuff, huh? I don't claim to embrace geocentrism, but I can't say that it isn't true either. There are some mysteries that remain mysteries, except to science fiction writers. God does what He does according to His pleasure. John 3:8 says— that you can hear the sound of the wind, but no one knows where it comes from. Has that mystery been solved yet?
|
Quote:
τὸ πνεῦμα ὅπου θέλει πνεῖ, The wind/spirit/breath where it wishes blows/breathes καὶ τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ ἀκούεις, and the sound of it you [second person singular, i.e. Nicodemus] hear, ἀλλ’ οὐκ οἶδας πόθεν ἔρχεται but you [second person singular, i.e. Nicodemus] do not know whence it comes, καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγει· and where it goes; οὕτως ἐστὶν πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος. thus [i.e., not knowing] is everyone who is [in the state of] having been born of the wind/spirit/breath. Note that the use of capital letters for names is a new-fangled thing--different forms of letters for majuscule and minuscule uses did not even exist at the time. Also note that the English words "wind" and "spirit" are exactly the same in Greek. So Jesus may not even have been talking about "wind" at all, even metaphorically--he have been talking about the workings of the Holy Spirit the whole time. Regardless, I don't think that Jesus's telling Nicodemus "you do not know" something meant that it must be past all human understanding, forever. The Bible is not a science book. That doesn't mean it's not true, it just means that its truths are often metaphorical rather than factual. Those who insist on seeing literal, scientific accuracy in the Bible can, like Nicodemus, completely miss far more important truths in it. As for wind, I grew up in a little town in the Mojave Desert, which happens to be where quite a bit of it comes from. :) In hot areas--i.e., areas that absorb a lot of the sun's thermal energy--the air expands, resulting in higher pressure and lower density. As that air gradually loses energy (i.e., cools), its molecules contract, resulting in lower pressure and greater density. Wind is the movement of air from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure. This is why a falling barometer needle (measuring a decrease in air pressure) usually means it's going to get stormy, if the air attracted to that low pressure area is humid. I hope this is helpful. |
San Diego, in my lifetime, was a gardener's paradise. Now there's this:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...ry.html#page=1 You simply must look for the pictures that show what's become of Squaw Valley... Thanks, Bill |
Ah Bill, the nymphs are all gone from the Regent Canal. Hazlitt said that in 1820. When I was young the Thames was a stinking industrial sink with no fish in it. Now you can catch them off Chelsea Bridge. Fish I mean, not sinks.
|
Julie, that's interesting. Must be what Milne had in mind when he wrote one of my favorite poems:
Wind on the Hill BY A. A. MILNE No one can tell me, ... Nobody knows, Where the wind comes from, ... Where the wind goes. It’s flying from somewhere ... As fast as it can, I couldn’t keep up with it, ... Not if I ran. But if I stopped holding ... The string of my kite, It would blow with the wind ... For a day and a night. And then when I found it, ... Wherever it blew, I should know that the wind ... Had been going there too. So then I could tell them ... Where the wind goes . . . But where the wind comes from ... Nobody knows. |
Hi Julie. In fact, the wind in that verse is metaphorical, but it is also declarative in the Greek, which still means that {no man knows} {where the Holy Spirit} comes from. The metaphor attached denotes the wind, which is only what men could make of it, not what it was or where it came from. Hence, the unseen nature of it, and the manifestation of it. Peter, in Acts says; the Holy Spirit came as a sound of a mighty rushing wind and filled the house. In science, it is assumed that wind comes from the Sun which pushes air molecules around like bumper cars. That theory is not a given.
I suppose that would be akin to saying that since the Bible, in general is not literal, but metaphorical, that by extension, Jesus, the belief in Him may be metaphorical too, therefore, one cannot really be saved by anything so concrete as a metaphor. Let's go with that. And Jesus explains the difference between earthly things and heavenly things. If the previous passage were merely a metaphor, He wouldn't have said what He did beginning in verse nine. Context, Julie, context. The proper reading of it would be— Since God sent the Holy Spirit, He also sends the wind. {and the whirlwind} Job. Jesus was mildly chastising and poking fun at Nicodemus , who was a learned man and knew the scriptures. —You must be born of the water{flesh} and {Spirit}{Holy} to receive eternal life. Some will translate water as baptism there but it ain't so. Nicodemus knew this.There was no baptism (strictly speaking) before John's baptism. I wonder who coined 'the winds of change'? Being born again profoundly means: Spirit born. The only manifestations of the wind are sound, touch, and whatever the wind picks up and blows to create a picture of it. Otherwise, you can't see it. Just like faith. People accuse Christians of blind faith. It is no such thing. (No, I'm not talking about Stevie Winwood) Faith comes by hearing, not seeing. It is not random, neither is the wind. It is directed. Divinely so. Until Darwin, science and the scripture went hand in hand. You don't hear about it these days because it was over a hundred years ago. The 'science' of global warming is still in its infancy. Progressives feed it, burp it, and promulgate its growth, counting on their authority and the populace's ignorance to make it come to fruition. Else, why would East Anglia lie? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Member States' Assessed Share of the UN Budget https://www.globalpolicy.org/un-fina...un-budget.html There are 193 member states in the United Nations. The scale of assessments reflects a country's capacity to pay (measured by factors such as a country's national income and size of population. The peacekeeping budget assessments are based on the regular budget rates, but with discounts for poor countries. The five permanent members of the Security Council, who approve all peacekeeping operations, pay extra fees to compensate for those discounts. A "ceiling" rate sets the maximum amount of any member state's assessed share of the regular and peacekeeping budgets. The US is the only member that is affected by those ceilings. Consequently the US pays less than its share of the world economy. As of December 31, 2010 the US was in arrears to the tune of $736 million or 80% of all member states debt. ***** That was four years ago. How are things now? US funding to the UN. http://www.betterworldcampaign.org/i...ds-the-un.html In recent years, after a lengthy period of accumulating arrears in its UN dues, the U.S. returned to good financial standing at the world body by fully funding its regular and peacekeeping budget assessments and paying off past debts. Unfortunately, the U.S. took a significant step back in Fiscal Year 2014: the omnibus FY'14 appropriations legislation approved this January underfunded our UN peacekeeping dues by more than $350 million and had no funding for the UN mission in Mali (MINUSMA). This could have serious implications for MINUSMA—which is currently working to stabilize territory once held by several radical Islamist groups—as well as numerous other peacekeeping missions that promote critical U.S. interests. On March 4, 2014, the Obama Administration released its International Affairs budget request for FY'15. We are pleased that the Administration’s request for peacekeeping represents a significant increase over the FY'14 omnibus and helps reduce the amount the U.S. is in arrears to the UN. ************** So far this year only two security council members have paid their 2015 dues. http://untribune.com/two-15-security...aid-2015-dues/ Feb. 25, 2015 – New Zealand and France are the only two members of the Security Council to have paid their 2015 United Nations dues so far this year. Permanent members Britain, China, Russia and the United States have still to pay along with nine of the ten non-permanent countries on the Council. Here you can see what countries have paid their due so far. http://www.un.org/en/ga/contributions/honourroll.shtml All business people know that it is better to have a customer who buys and pays cash for 1000 dollars a month than to have one who runs up a bill for 10,000 and pays when he feels like it. Respectfully Janice |
Janice - Roger - Julie - Bill - Max - etc. - give it up. This isn't a discussion on global warming. It's religion and anecdotes and the Koch brothers versus science, and you're not going to change any minds on this board.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.