Remember me
▼ Content

Greenhouse Gases



Page 2 of 3<123>
19-09-2017 02:38
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: And yet they say the mesosphere is warming.


James - here is a link to a paper on absorption and emissivity. They cover quite a lot of ground including angular momentum on a quantum level.

Therefore you needn't take my word for it but take it from somewhere else.

If you study this paper to the point where you understand most of it I don't believe that we would have any points of disagreement.

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/03_abs_emiss_ref.pdf


The first paragraph explains why I disagree with you. The experiment that GreenMan posted in here suggests that the earth itself is absorbing heat. This would then suggest that what is not absorbed is refracted. And with the graph I posted in another thread it showed that CO2 stopped the emission of a specific wavelength. That would be the point that CO2 supporters would say that CO2 is "trapping" heat in our atmosphere. And an ice core researcher that I like states that CO2 is an energizer while it cannot account for warming observed in ice core samples.
And with you Wake you have stated many times that no climate change is happening. I believe it is. And this is why we will continue to disagree.


Earth is not absorbing heat. Heat is not absorbed.

The absorption of light by a substance IS heat. The effect of that absorption may be an increase in thermal energy, a chemical reaction, or direct ionization.

This graph only shows the absorption bands of some common materials as a composite. It does not show anything else. It does not show the Earth is absorbing more of anything.

Why do you keep misrepresenting what this graph actually is?


What happens to a pot of water placed on a stove?


It eventually evaporates away. You might get some scum on it first.

Why do you ask?


Again you demonstrate an utter lack of not only scientific training but a pretty low IQ as well.
19-09-2017 02:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: And yet they say the mesosphere is warming.


James - here is a link to a paper on absorption and emissivity. They cover quite a lot of ground including angular momentum on a quantum level.

Therefore you needn't take my word for it but take it from somewhere else.

If you study this paper to the point where you understand most of it I don't believe that we would have any points of disagreement.

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/03_abs_emiss_ref.pdf


The first paragraph explains why I disagree with you. The experiment that GreenMan posted in here suggests that the earth itself is absorbing heat. This would then suggest that what is not absorbed is refracted. And with the graph I posted in another thread it showed that CO2 stopped the emission of a specific wavelength. That would be the point that CO2 supporters would say that CO2 is "trapping" heat in our atmosphere. And an ice core researcher that I like states that CO2 is an energizer while it cannot account for warming observed in ice core samples.
And with you Wake you have stated many times that no climate change is happening. I believe it is. And this is why we will continue to disagree.


Earth is not absorbing heat. Heat is not absorbed.

The absorption of light by a substance IS heat. The effect of that absorption may be an increase in thermal energy, a chemical reaction, or direct ionization.

This graph only shows the absorption bands of some common materials as a composite. It does not show anything else. It does not show the Earth is absorbing more of anything.

Why do you keep misrepresenting what this graph actually is?


What happens to a pot of water placed on a stove?


It eventually evaporates away. You might get some scum on it first.

Why do you ask?


Again you demonstrate an utter lack of not only scientific training but a pretty low IQ as well.

HAHAHAHAHA!
Guess you only wanted to ask so you could throw insults, then!

What do YOU think happens to a pot of water placed on a stove? Maybe it would be better to make your point that way (whatever that point is).


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 19-09-2017 02:51
19-09-2017 02:59
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" barfed: That violates....
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" violates being a human being.
Edited on 19-09-2017 03:35
21-09-2017 05:20
L8112
★☆☆☆☆
(106)
this is a reply to wake's comment several days ago:

Firstly only a moron uses that 97% of scientists BS. That was a lie from the first and every day that goes by shows it to be more of a lie. Who are NOAA using as part of that 97%? The American Medical Association - you know, those surgeons that are so knowledgeable about climate.

Secondly let's talk about nitrous oxide - only 0.00003% of the atmosphere is that molecule.

To make it plainer - out of 2.5 x 10^25 molecules in one cubic meter of atmosphere at sea level only 7.5 x 10^18 molecules are nitrous oxide.

So then you have to know that NOx also absorbs in the same bands as H2O. Since H2O composes some 2% or so of normal air that means that the ratio is 67,000 to 1.

But as we have covered elsewhere, virtually the entire heat transfer in the troposphere is through conduction and not radiation. In this case the specific heat index of the gas is more important than the radiation absorption bands.

And NOx has virtually identical characteristics of any other atmospheric gas.

So what difference does NOx make? None whatsoever.


the EPA is using a 'fudged' number based on how fast each gas clears to reduce the Apparent Greenhouse Gas Index (APPI) such that CO2 takes the spotlight
again. However, this is non-sequitur, as methane production is due to double by 2050, as well as nitrous oxide. The APPI only holds true if, and only if, no additional methane or nitrous oxide were added as of today, zero emissions of nitrous oxide and methane. It is yet another way they are fudging the data to get the numbers they want.


if you visit the white house page it says they are 'updating the page' https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/strategy_to_reduce_methane_emissions_2014-03-28_final.pdf


Trump was at the G20 Summit in Germany, trying to convince Europe to buy American oil, gas, and coal. The main byproducts of burning these are methane, and nitrous oxide. Although CO2 is a major component of combustion, as we will see later, the contribution of CO2 is only 4.5% of the Greenhouse Factor, with methane and nitrous oxide contributing about 82% and 14%, respectively. This is because the Greenhouse Effect of nitrous oxide is between 25X and 100X (depending on its altitude)* greater than CO2, and methane 300X that of CO2. Thus, by altering the data to, and I am not making this up, show nitrous oxide and methane in the part per billion rather than part per million, as originally reported, a thousand fold decrease in the original numbers whose EPA.gov websites have
4 been pulled down, the Trump administration is trying to make it appear as though the Greenhouse Factor is 20X less than last year's data, by deliberately reducing the appearance of the abundance of nitrous oxide and methane.

*The altitude plays a significant role in methane contribution. Nitrogen, oxygen, and methane are not miscible gasses (like oil and vinegar are not miscible, they separate into layers). Nitrogen and oxygen are fully miscible, but methane
is not miscible with either of the two. The 25 fold factor is at sea level. As methane rises it cools, and rather than disperse, it forms a slim, denser layer, and that greenhouse factor increases to a factor of as much as 100X. The original
factor of 86X I reported in the last revision of this text is the nominal factor at the altitude where methane is found in the greatest abundance, and therefore, 86X is the correct factor. Since the EPA.gov web site that provided the peer
reviewed scientific literature to this effect has been 'taken down,' to accommodate the current administrations data altering agenda.
21-09-2017 08:37
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
L8112 wrote:
.....Nitrogen, oxygen, and methane are not miscible gasses (like oil and vinegar are not miscible, they separate into layers). Nitrogen and oxygen are fully miscible, but methane is not miscible with either of the two.....


I recommend repeating whatever beginning chemistry course you've taken.

Some other disagreement with what you've posted, but this immiscibile gas mistake is really basic.
21-09-2017 16:52
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
L8112 wrote:
this is a reply to wake's comment several days ago:

Firstly only a moron uses that 97% of scientists BS. That was a lie from the first and every day that goes by shows it to be more of a lie. Who are NOAA using as part of that 97%? The American Medical Association - you know, those surgeons that are so knowledgeable about climate.

Secondly let's talk about nitrous oxide - only 0.00003% of the atmosphere is that molecule.

To make it plainer - out of 2.5 x 10^25 molecules in one cubic meter of atmosphere at sea level only 7.5 x 10^18 molecules are nitrous oxide.

So then you have to know that NOx also absorbs in the same bands as H2O. Since H2O composes some 2% or so of normal air that means that the ratio is 67,000 to 1.

But as we have covered elsewhere, virtually the entire heat transfer in the troposphere is through conduction and not radiation. In this case the specific heat index of the gas is more important than the radiation absorption bands.

And NOx has virtually identical characteristics of any other atmospheric gas.

So what difference does NOx make? None whatsoever.


the EPA is using a 'fudged' number based on how fast each gas clears to reduce the Apparent Greenhouse Gas Index (APPI) such that CO2 takes the spotlight
again. However, this is non-sequitur, as methane production is due to double by 2050, as well as nitrous oxide. The APPI only holds true if, and only if, no additional methane or nitrous oxide were added as of today, zero emissions of nitrous oxide and methane. It is yet another way they are fudging the data to get the numbers they want.


if you visit the white house page it says they are 'updating the page' https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/strategy_to_reduce_methane_emissions_2014-03-28_final.pdf


Trump was at the G20 Summit in Germany, trying to convince Europe to buy American oil, gas, and coal. The main byproducts of burning these are methane, and nitrous oxide. Although CO2 is a major component of combustion, as we will see later, the contribution of CO2 is only 4.5% of the Greenhouse Factor, with methane and nitrous oxide contributing about 82% and 14%, respectively. This is because the Greenhouse Effect of nitrous oxide is between 25X and 100X (depending on its altitude)* greater than CO2, and methane 300X that of CO2. Thus, by altering the data to, and I am not making this up, show nitrous oxide and methane in the part per billion rather than part per million, as originally reported, a thousand fold decrease in the original numbers whose EPA.gov websites have
4 been pulled down, the Trump administration is trying to make it appear as though the Greenhouse Factor is 20X less than last year's data, by deliberately reducing the appearance of the abundance of nitrous oxide and methane.

*The altitude plays a significant role in methane contribution. Nitrogen, oxygen, and methane are not miscible gasses (like oil and vinegar are not miscible, they separate into layers). Nitrogen and oxygen are fully miscible, but methane
is not miscible with either of the two. The 25 fold factor is at sea level. As methane rises it cools, and rather than disperse, it forms a slim, denser layer, and that greenhouse factor increases to a factor of as much as 100X. The original
factor of 86X I reported in the last revision of this text is the nominal factor at the altitude where methane is found in the greatest abundance, and therefore, 86X is the correct factor. Since the EPA.gov web site that provided the peer
reviewed scientific literature to this effect has been 'taken down,' to accommodate the current administrations data altering agenda.


Scientists are smart enough to look at your childish posting and laugh. One of the largest areas in the world to be destroyed is wetlands and they produce most of the world's methane.

The largest source of methane production by humans is livestock farming and not fossil fuel production. So as most asses what you are saying is to hell with food let's let people starve.

So you're nothing more than another one of the eugenicists.
22-09-2017 08:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
L8112 wrote:
this is a reply to wake's comment several days ago:

Firstly only a moron uses that 97% of scientists BS. That was a lie from the first and every day that goes by shows it to be more of a lie. Who are NOAA using as part of that 97%? The American Medical Association - you know, those surgeons that are so knowledgeable about climate.

Secondly let's talk about nitrous oxide - only 0.00003% of the atmosphere is that molecule.

To make it plainer - out of 2.5 x 10^25 molecules in one cubic meter of atmosphere at sea level only 7.5 x 10^18 molecules are nitrous oxide.

So then you have to know that NOx also absorbs in the same bands as H2O. Since H2O composes some 2% or so of normal air that means that the ratio is 67,000 to 1.

But as we have covered elsewhere, virtually the entire heat transfer in the troposphere is through conduction and not radiation. In this case the specific heat index of the gas is more important than the radiation absorption bands.

And NOx has virtually identical characteristics of any other atmospheric gas.

So what difference does NOx make? None whatsoever.


the EPA is using a 'fudged' number based on how fast each gas clears to reduce the Apparent Greenhouse Gas Index (APPI) such that CO2 takes the spotlight
again. However, this is non-sequitur, as methane production is due to double by 2050, as well as nitrous oxide. The APPI only holds true if, and only if, no additional methane or nitrous oxide were added as of today, zero emissions of nitrous oxide and methane. It is yet another way they are fudging the data to get the numbers they want.

No gas is capable of warming the planet...not CO2, not methane, not nitrous oxide, and not water vapor.

NONE of these gases are energy sources. NONE of these gases can violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


The Parrot Killer
27-09-2017 18:46
L8112
★☆☆☆☆
(106)
no one is saying these gases are energy sources, these gases can trap heat however. do you even try to make an effort to not be a dimwit? or is it just a knee-jerk reaction?
27-09-2017 19:54
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
L8112 wrote:
no one is saying these gases are energy sources, these gases can trap heat however. do you even try to make an effort to not be a dimwit? or is it just a knee-jerk reaction?


It's easy to say that but it isn't what occurs. Firstly in order to absorb energy it MUST be in the proper absorption bands. CO2 has four. Three are totally blanketed by H2O which absorbs everything.

That only leaves one single band that CO2 COULD absorb at. However there is very little energy in that particular band.

Also: I have estimated that because of that lack of energy all of it would be absorbed within a meter of the surface. Another study estimated 10 meters. The point is that total saturation has occurred within scant feet of the surface. And in this density of atmosphere the heat is far more easily transferred through the processes of conduction and convection rather than radiation which requires far more energy than will develop with the effectiveness of the conduction.

So even though CO2 COULD absorb radiation if there were any to absorb, there isn't and the actions of the atmospheric gases in the troposphere are almost identical. So CO2 acts just like all of the other gases. In fact, slightly less since it has a lower specific heat meaning that it is more likely to transfer it's energy via conduction. So CO2 though not by much is a coolant and not a warmer.
Edited on 27-09-2017 19:56
27-09-2017 20:55
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
L8112 wrote:
no one is saying these gases are energy sources, these gases can trap heat however. do you even try to make an effort to not be a dimwit? or is it just a knee-jerk reaction?


It's easy to say that but it isn't what occurs. Firstly in order to absorb energy it MUST be in the proper absorption bands. CO2 has four. Three are totally blanketed by H2O which absorbs everything.

That only leaves one single band that CO2 COULD absorb at. However there is very little energy in that particular band.

Also: I have estimated that because of that lack of energy all of it would be absorbed within a meter of the surface. Another study estimated 10 meters. The point is that total saturation has occurred within scant feet of the surface. And in this density of atmosphere the heat is far more easily transferred through the processes of conduction and convection rather than radiation which requires far more energy than will develop with the effectiveness of the conduction.

So even though CO2 COULD absorb radiation if there were any to absorb, there isn't and the actions of the atmospheric gases in the troposphere are almost identical. So CO2 acts just like all of the other gases. In fact, slightly less since it has a lower specific heat meaning that it is more likely to transfer it's energy via conduction. So CO2 though not by much is a coolant and not a warmer.


Why is more h2o in the atmosphere ? Because there is more CO2. Decrease co2 levels and the amount of h2o in our atmosphere will decrease.
27-09-2017 21:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
L8112 wrote:
no one is saying these gases are energy sources,

Then where is the additional energy besides the Sun coming from? The Sun's output is assumed to be constant. That means constant global temperature.
L8112 wrote:
these gases can trap heat however.

You can't trap heat. You can't even trap thermal energy. Heat is always flowing.


The Parrot Killer
27-09-2017 21:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
L8112 wrote:
no one is saying these gases are energy sources, these gases can trap heat however. do you even try to make an effort to not be a dimwit? or is it just a knee-jerk reaction?


It's easy to say that but it isn't what occurs. Firstly in order to absorb energy it MUST be in the proper absorption bands. CO2 has four. Three are totally blanketed by H2O which absorbs everything.

That only leaves one single band that CO2 COULD absorb at. However there is very little energy in that particular band.

Also: I have estimated that because of that lack of energy all of it would be absorbed within a meter of the surface. Another study estimated 10 meters. The point is that total saturation has occurred within scant feet of the surface. And in this density of atmosphere the heat is far more easily transferred through the processes of conduction and convection rather than radiation which requires far more energy than will develop with the effectiveness of the conduction.

So even though CO2 COULD absorb radiation if there were any to absorb, there isn't and the actions of the atmospheric gases in the troposphere are almost identical. So CO2 acts just like all of the other gases. In fact, slightly less since it has a lower specific heat meaning that it is more likely to transfer it's energy via conduction. So CO2 though not by much is a coolant and not a warmer.


Why is more h2o in the atmosphere ?

How do you know there is or not?
James_ wrote:
Because there is more CO2.

?? CO2 is not H2O.
James_ wrote:
Decrease co2 levels and the amount of h2o in our atmosphere will decrease.

Why???


The Parrot Killer
29-09-2017 08:57
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
L8112 wrote:
Part of the Confusion when it comes to global warming is due to the fact that there are major misconceptions when it comes to the source of the global greenhouse effect.


If you go to the EPA web site (http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/n2o.html) you will see that nitrous oxide makes up 5% of the Total Global Greenhouse Gases. At 298 times the Greenhouse Effect of CO2, this makes the contribution of carbon dioxide toward Global Warming approximately 1%, as a conservative figure. That is, 99% of the Global Warming due to greenhouse gases is the result of that 5% nitrous oxide, and only 1% (actually 0.7%) of the Global Warming Effect is the result of CO2.

This means, with Animal Agriculture, all of the CO2 contribution to Global Warming of all of the fossil fuel usage on Earth combined contributes about 1% of the Global Warming effect. If we turned off the world fossil fuel machine today we would observe no effect. Furthermore, the damage already done by nitrous oxide will require 150 years to recover. Carbon dioxide is turned over back into oxygen by plants and plankton, nitrous oxide has no such mechanism built into nature for repair, but takes 1,000 years for this cycle to occur. That is, CO2 requires 1,000 years to clear. That is one of the reasons 'turning off the global machine' will have no effect.

- Industrial CO2 is projected to increase by 20% by the year 2040. (Energy Global Hydrocarbon Engineering; IEA, World Energy Outlook 2014)

-Animal Agriculture emissions are expected to increase by 80% by the year 2050. (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v515/n7528/full/nature13959.html)

At this rate, the nitrous oxide contribution of AA will exceed the current 100% total global output and increase the total global output by about 15% of its current total value, both industrial and AA combined. The industrial contribution will be negligible, perhaps as low as 5% to 10% at best, taking into account the 20% increase in industrial contribution in that time frame. Thus, the CO2 contribution to total Global Warming becomes a non-issue in the wake of mega production of nitrous oxide by Animal Agriculture, assuming there is any fresh water left for AA. Therefore, empowering you by changing your light bulbs is a bizarre misdirection in focus.

Nevertheless, according to the "Food Disparagement Law" under the current "Patriot Act" it is illegal to say so. As for Earth, we cannot save the world at this point, it is too late for that, but we can salvage as much as we can. Thousands of species have gone extinct, the fresh water supply and viable land are nearly gone, the rainforest is nearly gone, the oceans have dead zones the size of Michigan, and a billion people are starving to death; that is already done.

The figure from documentaries such as 'cowspiracy' is that 51% of Global Greenhouse Emissions are Animal Agriculture.

However, this number is only based on primarily CO2 production and does not include methane or nitrous oxide on a global basis but uses unreferenced local data, and therefore the value is grossly incorrect. Since nitrous oxide accounts for almost all of the Total Greenhouse Effect, nitrous oxide becomes the only relevant number worth reporting, methane and CO2 just making up, together, just a few percent of the problem. Although the film reports methane has 100 times the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide, the actual methane load is a smaller number than carbon dioxide or nitrous oxide. The nitrous oxide emissions on a global basis. This 65% value is based on one source, which upon careful examination does not report the means by which the 35% 'human activities' has been determined. In addition, the paper in itself is not well referenced, so the sources of all of the information presented in the paper come into question. (See http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm)

I am therefore dismissing this value of 51% and although finding the actual human contribution of methane and nitrous oxide is exhaustive, I am confident the Animal Agriculture contribution to the Total Global Warming Greenhouse Effect is significantly higher than 65% of the FAO's reported, albeit unreferenced number. In general, when scientists can't get an exact figure, we use the most conservative values available and make an educated guess. That appears to be the case in the listed FAO report.

Animal Agriculture occupies 45% of the Earth's total land. In addition, another reported value in the film 'cowspiracy' is that AA occupies 1/3 of the Earth's ice free land. *Think, most of that corn you see growing when you drive in the country is feed for Animal Agriculture. Go onto google earth and zoom in on any given region and the majority of the land you observe will be covered in agriculture, the majority of it being used as feed for AA.


Since Homo Sapiens appeared the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been 275 ppm. At 350 ppm the carbon dioxide begins shielding the long wavelengths of light, heat transfer, from escaping back into space as rapidly as heat is being transferred into the atmosphere by sunlight. Thus, more heat is being transferred via sunlight into the atmosphere than is escaping back out into space. Typically, the wide range of light frequencies from sunlight interact with all of the solid stuff, causing the solid stuff to 'jiggle,' which is the definition for heat, and that solid stuff re-emits longer wavelengths of light that ordinarily would radiate back into space, but these longer wavelengths of light cannot pass through carbon dioxide gas, and thus the long wavelength light, which is heat, is trapped. That is the global Warming mechanism. Other gases also block this long wavelength light that is trying to bleed back off into space, the primary culprits are methane and nitrous oxide. CO2 turns out to be less than 1% of the greenhouse problem.


-2 0C is the maximum sustainable increase in temperature change the ecosystem can support. Currently that value is about 1.90C. This maximum temperature tolerance has taken two decades for scientists from many disciplines to collect data and agree upon. The number is solid, and so far, the predictions of these various disciplines have been correct, and the changes are presently being observed.

- According to the United Nations News Center, livestock produces more greenhouse gas than all transportation (cars, planes, trains, ships, etc.) combined. ("Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gas than driving cars, UN report warns." 29 Nov 2006)
-Animal Agriculture is the number one source of greenhouse gases on a global scale (See "Global Greenhouse Emissions" UN Food and Agricultural Organization 2006 FAO 2013)
-Methane's effect as a greenhouse gas is 86 times that of carbon dioxide. (See EPA "Overview of Greenhouse Gases – methane")
-Livestock is the number one cause of fresh water depletion and pollution on a global scale. (See FAO document "Livestock's Role in Water Depletion and Pollution")
- The FAO and other sources have determined that Animal Agriculture (AA) is the number one environmental degradant on a global scale, including species extinction, ocean dead zones, water pollution, and habitat destruction. (Ocean 'dead zones' are areas where fish and plankton life cannot live due to degraded environmental factors.)

If you disagree with these figures, you have to present compelling evidence that is significant enough to persuade the 97% of scientists who unanimously agree on the reality of climate change.

L8112, welcome to the forum, if you can call it that. I was busy as hell at work, when you came in, and missed your entrance. And I am relatively new to the group also. I was interested in what you were saying, so I went back and got caught up on all you have said so far. I also noticed that you met our local bozos. I'm not sure if you are even checking back in here, but if you are, don't let them bother you. You figured out where they are coming from. Two of them act like they are trying to sound "informed," and one of them even has his original idea about why Global Warming is a hoax, based on science even. And we also have one who thinks that because it isn't any hotter where he lives than it was when he was a kid that it means something. Three Stooges comes to mind. We have Parrot Killer [he thinks he is good at ridiculing those who come in here repeating other sources], and we have Wake [not sure what he thinks his name is supposed to indicate], and we have Gas Guzzler [who thinks he is poking fun of Alarmists with his name, which indicates he doesn't care about what they think of CO2 pollution].

The "Outsiders" as they like to consider themselves all have the same MO, that they use on everyone that comes through, though each has his own.

Professor Parrot Face[I call him that, because he tries to sound authoritative and uses bigggggggggg words, but sounds like any other parrot other than that] used the same attacks against you that he used and still tries to use against me. Don't let him get under your skin, because he is just misinterpreting Laws of Physics, hoping that everyone else it as stupid as he really is and doesn't realize it. Remember, if you can't amaze them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bull shit.

Wake [suffers from constant confusion, which he tried to hide, by using a name that indicates he is more aware than he really is to what's going on around him] is a parrot with an attitude. His angle is a repeat of a lot of Deniers out there in the world. Some German guy realized that surface radiation is absorbed within 30 meters by CO2 [which they refer to as saturation], so additional CO2 won't add any more heat. What he does not consider is that the air above that saturation point just starts converting radiation emitted by the layers of air below. So the process climbs the stairs so to speak, until the air gets so thin that all the radiation being emitted makes it out. Wake suffers from a few other things, that you will soon become aware of. If you piss him off [and you never know when that's going to happen] he threatens you with physical harm, or with getting you fired from work [which is what he threatened me with, as well as physical harm]. But he is just a 73 year old hoodlum, that never grew up.

Gas Guzzler [I call him Jizzy, which is short for Jizz Guzzler, because he likes to take full loads in one gulp] is a corn fed plow boy, who likes to ride around in his big wore out Dodge 4X4. He isn't too smart, but doesn't claim to be. He just doesn't want to stop driving his 4X4 everywhere, so he searches the web for data that indicates things that he wants to use, to convince himself that Global Warming is a hoax. His only argument is that it's not real because he is still alive and doing fine in Green Acres.

But back to your post. I checked out what you are saying, and even though I agree with most of it, I thought I would show you something, regarding what you were saying about N2O being the real problem. It's not. It only makes up for about 0.001% of the warming the earth gets. Here are the numbers, if you are interested:
Insolation [heat from the Sun] 80%
CO2 8.1%
CH4 11.83%
N2O 0.001%

So it looks to me like it is Methane that is the worst culprit right now. But it comes from raising cattle, and many other places. You can see a sharp rise in CH4 just ahead of and following the previous interglacial peaks the planet has been through. I think that is caused by two things. One is flooding that occurs, and the other is the thawing of tundra, which locks methane away while it is frozen. Flooding causes it because the number 1 cause of methane in nature are these little bitty things that eat rotting vegetation, like you might expect to have in abundance if the water level rises significantly in a short period of time.

Fortunately for us, Methane has a short duration in the atmosphere. It goes away soon after we stop adding to it. CO2 on the other hand stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years after the source has been eliminated. And I think that is why the major emphasis is put on it, even though CH4 is causing more of the rise in average global temperatures.

I agree with you totally that we are heading for destruction though. To me, it is clear as a bell, because I did the research on my own. I use what the prophets told us about this time, and also built my own Climate Model with ice core data from EPICA Dome C [I love Professor's Parrot Faces responses to my model] to see if those scientists knew what they were talking about. I found the mixing ratios of the gases with it, which is where I got the numbers I presented above. After I did that, I had no doubt that Climate Change is real, and that we are in big trouble, just like you said we were. To me, the only real question is what to do about it.

I don't agree with the UN's assessment of the situation. They think we can mandate a limit on how hot it can get. Not possible. Nature doesn't care about the laws of men, lol. Even if we could completely stop producing Greenhouse Gases, it will still get hotter for several hundred more years, unless there is something that happens to either remove CO2 from the air, or block some of the radiation from the Sun. I think the latter is what happens, even though we are supposedly working on technology to scrub CO2 from the air. I don't think that technology will be ready in time to do much, before the air is filled with dust from a Supervolcano [Caldera] eruption.

This is a graph that I made with my Climate Model.

Or you can see it better if you click: http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/attachments/climatemodel_800kyr.jpg
If you are interested in knowing more about it, I can explain more. Or even send it to you, if you want to do your own research. It's built in an Excel Spreadsheet, so anyone can see what's going on, if they know how to use Excel and understand math.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
29-09-2017 17:10
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote: Rot


The person incapable of reading English is telling us who said what and when. It's always a riot to see people with the training of a peanut vender telling us about the price of jet engines.
29-09-2017 21:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
GreenMan wrote:
The "Outsiders" as they like to consider themselves all have the same MO, that they use on everyone that comes through, though each has his own.

Thank you for using the term I coined. I am, of course, referring to Outsiders of the Church of Global Warming. I want no part of your religion.
GreenMan wrote:
Professor Parrot Face[I call him that, because he tries to sound authoritative and uses bigggggggggg words,

Awww. Poor little boy can't handle an adult conversation. He doesn't understand big words like 'heat', 'light', 'energy', 'religion', 'science'.
GreenMan wrote:
but sounds like any other parrot other than that] used the same attacks against you that he used and still tries to use against me.

You keep making the same mistakes. I will use the same attacks.
GreenMan wrote:
Don't let him get under your skin, because he is just misinterpreting Laws of Physics,

This from a guy that gets his 'physics' from prophecy! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
GreenMan wrote:
hoping that everyone else it as stupid as he really is and doesn't realize it.

YOU are the one confusing science and religion! Inversion fallacy.
GreenMan wrote:
Remember, if you can't amaze them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bull shit.

Your are baffled all right, but it's due to YOUR bullshit.
GreenMan wrote:
But back to your post. I checked out what you are saying, and even though I agree with most of it, I thought I would show you something, regarding what you were saying about N2O being the real problem. It's not. It only makes up for about 0.001% of the warming the earth gets. Here are the numbers, if you are interested:
Insolation [heat from the Sun] 80%
CO2 8.1%
CH4 11.83%
N2O 0.001%

Argument from randU. Any more random numbers you want to throw out there?
GreenMan wrote:
So it looks to me like it is Methane that is the worst culprit right now. But it comes from raising cattle, and many other places.

Most methane comes from the Earth itself. Much of it comes from swamps, bogs, or rotting vegetation. Cattle are a miniscule part of the methane produced.
GreenMan wrote:
You can see a sharp rise in CH4 just ahead of and following the previous interglacial peaks the planet has been through.

Hey...maybe because it's vegetation just ahead of and following ice ages, eh? Plants grow better when it's warm!
GreenMan wrote:
Fortunately for us, Methane has a short duration in the atmosphere. It goes away soon after we stop adding to it.

Methane is a natural part of the atmosphere. It does not go away. It does not 'decompose', unless you burn it.
GreenMan wrote:
CO2 on the other hand stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years after the source has been eliminated.

CO2 is also a natural gas in the atmosphere. It doesn't have a 'half life' either.
GreenMan wrote:
And I think that is why the major emphasis is put on it, even though CH4 is causing more of the rise in average global temperatures.

Neither gas can cause the Earth to warm. It is not possible to determine the temperature of Earth.
GreenMan wrote:
I agree with you totally that we are heading for destruction though. To me, it is clear as a bell, because I did the research on my own. I use what the prophets told us about this time, and also built my own Climate Model with ice core data from EPICA Dome C [I love Professor's Parrot Faces responses to my model] to see if those scientists knew what they were talking about. I found the mixing ratios of the gases with it, which is where I got the numbers I presented above. After I did that, I had no doubt that Climate Change is real, and that we are in big trouble, just like you said we were. To me, the only real question is what to do about it.

In other words, you baffle people with YOUR bullshit.
GreenMan wrote:
I don't agree with the UN's assessment of the situation. They think we can mandate a limit on how hot it can get. Not possible. Nature doesn't care about the laws of men, lol. Even if we could completely stop producing Greenhouse Gases, it will still get hotter for several hundred more years, unless there is something that happens to either remove CO2 from the air, or block some of the radiation from the Sun. I think the latter is what happens, even though we are supposedly working on technology to scrub CO2 from the air. I don't think that technology will be ready in time to do much, before the air is filled with dust from a Supervolcano [Caldera] eruption.

Hey...there's your paradox again!

1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to
some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable, according to scripture.

Which is it, dude?

GreenMan wrote:
This is a graph that I made with my Climate Model.
...deleted graph of random numbers...
If you are interested in knowing more about it, I can explain more. Or even send it to you, if you want to do your own research. It's built in an Excel Spreadsheet, so anyone can see what's going on, if they know how to use Excel and understand math.

No math here, other than the mathematics of random numbers.


The Parrot Killer
30-09-2017 05:28
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:

Hey...there's your paradox again!

1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to
some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable, according to scripture.

Which is it, dude?



Scripture doesn't say the planet will become "uninhabitable." Well, there are descriptions of everything turning to desert, before recovering. And it says people make it through the destruction, well some people make it through, so I wouldn't really say it is totally uninhabitable. But it does sound like it comes pretty close.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
30-09-2017 17:24
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
The "Outsiders" as they like to consider themselves all have the same MO, that they use on everyone that comes through, though each has his own.

Thank you for using the term I coined. I am, of course, referring to Outsiders of the Church of Global Warming. I want no part of your religion.
GreenMan wrote:
Professor Parrot Face[I call him that, because he tries to sound authoritative and uses bigggggggggg words,

Awww. Poor little boy can't handle an adult conversation. He doesn't understand big words like 'heat', 'light', 'energy', 'religion', 'science'.
GreenMan wrote:
but sounds like any other parrot other than that] used the same attacks against you that he used and still tries to use against me.

You keep making the same mistakes. I will use the same attacks.
GreenMan wrote:
Don't let him get under your skin, because he is just misinterpreting Laws of Physics,

This from a guy that gets his 'physics' from prophecy! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
GreenMan wrote:
hoping that everyone else it as stupid as he really is and doesn't realize it.

YOU are the one confusing science and religion! Inversion fallacy.
GreenMan wrote:
Remember, if you can't amaze them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bull shit.

Your are baffled all right, but it's due to YOUR bullshit.
GreenMan wrote:
But back to your post. I checked out what you are saying, and even though I agree with most of it, I thought I would show you something, regarding what you were saying about N2O being the real problem. It's not. It only makes up for about 0.001% of the warming the earth gets. Here are the numbers, if you are interested:
Insolation [heat from the Sun] 80%
CO2 8.1%
CH4 11.83%
N2O 0.001%

Argument from randU. Any more random numbers you want to throw out there?
GreenMan wrote:
So it looks to me like it is Methane that is the worst culprit right now. But it comes from raising cattle, and many other places.

Most methane comes from the Earth itself. Much of it comes from swamps, bogs, or rotting vegetation. Cattle are a miniscule part of the methane produced.
GreenMan wrote:
You can see a sharp rise in CH4 just ahead of and following the previous interglacial peaks the planet has been through.

Hey...maybe because it's vegetation just ahead of and following ice ages, eh? Plants grow better when it's warm!
GreenMan wrote:
Fortunately for us, Methane has a short duration in the atmosphere. It goes away soon after we stop adding to it.

Methane is a natural part of the atmosphere. It does not go away. It does not 'decompose', unless you burn it.
GreenMan wrote:
CO2 on the other hand stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years after the source has been eliminated.

CO2 is also a natural gas in the atmosphere. It doesn't have a 'half life' either.
GreenMan wrote:
And I think that is why the major emphasis is put on it, even though CH4 is causing more of the rise in average global temperatures.

Neither gas can cause the Earth to warm. It is not possible to determine the temperature of Earth.
GreenMan wrote:
I agree with you totally that we are heading for destruction though. To me, it is clear as a bell, because I did the research on my own. I use what the prophets told us about this time, and also built my own Climate Model with ice core data from EPICA Dome C [I love Professor's Parrot Faces responses to my model] to see if those scientists knew what they were talking about. I found the mixing ratios of the gases with it, which is where I got the numbers I presented above. After I did that, I had no doubt that Climate Change is real, and that we are in big trouble, just like you said we were. To me, the only real question is what to do about it.

In other words, you baffle people with YOUR bullshit.
GreenMan wrote:
I don't agree with the UN's assessment of the situation. They think we can mandate a limit on how hot it can get. Not possible. Nature doesn't care about the laws of men, lol. Even if we could completely stop producing Greenhouse Gases, it will still get hotter for several hundred more years, unless there is something that happens to either remove CO2 from the air, or block some of the radiation from the Sun. I think the latter is what happens, even though we are supposedly working on technology to scrub CO2 from the air. I don't think that technology will be ready in time to do much, before the air is filled with dust from a Supervolcano [Caldera] eruption.

Hey...there's your paradox again!

1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to
some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable, according to scripture.

Which is it, dude?

GreenMan wrote:
This is a graph that I made with my Climate Model.
...deleted graph of random numbers...
If you are interested in knowing more about it, I can explain more. Or even send it to you, if you want to do your own research. It's built in an Excel Spreadsheet, so anyone can see what's going on, if they know how to use Excel and understand math.

No math here, other than the mathematics of random numbers.


I see that you posted at the same moment that the counterfeit posting in my name was posted so I expect you weren't the culprit.
30-09-2017 21:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Hey...there's your paradox again!

1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to
some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable, according to scripture.

Which is it, dude?



Scripture doesn't say the planet will become "uninhabitable." Well, there are descriptions of everything turning to desert, before recovering. And it says people make it through the destruction, well some people make it through, so I wouldn't really say it is totally uninhabitable. But it does sound like it comes pretty close.


Everything turning to desert is uninhabitable. Don't try to couch what you said in lies.


The Parrot Killer
30-09-2017 21:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
The "Outsiders" as they like to consider themselves all have the same MO, that they use on everyone that comes through, though each has his own.

Thank you for using the term I coined. I am, of course, referring to Outsiders of the Church of Global Warming. I want no part of your religion.
GreenMan wrote:
Professor Parrot Face[I call him that, because he tries to sound authoritative and uses bigggggggggg words,

Awww. Poor little boy can't handle an adult conversation. He doesn't understand big words like 'heat', 'light', 'energy', 'religion', 'science'.
GreenMan wrote:
but sounds like any other parrot other than that] used the same attacks against you that he used and still tries to use against me.

You keep making the same mistakes. I will use the same attacks.
GreenMan wrote:
Don't let him get under your skin, because he is just misinterpreting Laws of Physics,

This from a guy that gets his 'physics' from prophecy! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
GreenMan wrote:
hoping that everyone else it as stupid as he really is and doesn't realize it.

YOU are the one confusing science and religion! Inversion fallacy.
GreenMan wrote:
Remember, if you can't amaze them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bull shit.

Your are baffled all right, but it's due to YOUR bullshit.
GreenMan wrote:
But back to your post. I checked out what you are saying, and even though I agree with most of it, I thought I would show you something, regarding what you were saying about N2O being the real problem. It's not. It only makes up for about 0.001% of the warming the earth gets. Here are the numbers, if you are interested:
Insolation [heat from the Sun] 80%
CO2 8.1%
CH4 11.83%
N2O 0.001%

Argument from randU. Any more random numbers you want to throw out there?
GreenMan wrote:
So it looks to me like it is Methane that is the worst culprit right now. But it comes from raising cattle, and many other places.

Most methane comes from the Earth itself. Much of it comes from swamps, bogs, or rotting vegetation. Cattle are a miniscule part of the methane produced.
GreenMan wrote:
You can see a sharp rise in CH4 just ahead of and following the previous interglacial peaks the planet has been through.

Hey...maybe because it's vegetation just ahead of and following ice ages, eh? Plants grow better when it's warm!
GreenMan wrote:
Fortunately for us, Methane has a short duration in the atmosphere. It goes away soon after we stop adding to it.

Methane is a natural part of the atmosphere. It does not go away. It does not 'decompose', unless you burn it.
GreenMan wrote:
CO2 on the other hand stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years after the source has been eliminated.

CO2 is also a natural gas in the atmosphere. It doesn't have a 'half life' either.
GreenMan wrote:
And I think that is why the major emphasis is put on it, even though CH4 is causing more of the rise in average global temperatures.

Neither gas can cause the Earth to warm. It is not possible to determine the temperature of Earth.
GreenMan wrote:
I agree with you totally that we are heading for destruction though. To me, it is clear as a bell, because I did the research on my own. I use what the prophets told us about this time, and also built my own Climate Model with ice core data from EPICA Dome C [I love Professor's Parrot Faces responses to my model] to see if those scientists knew what they were talking about. I found the mixing ratios of the gases with it, which is where I got the numbers I presented above. After I did that, I had no doubt that Climate Change is real, and that we are in big trouble, just like you said we were. To me, the only real question is what to do about it.

In other words, you baffle people with YOUR bullshit.
GreenMan wrote:
I don't agree with the UN's assessment of the situation. They think we can mandate a limit on how hot it can get. Not possible. Nature doesn't care about the laws of men, lol. Even if we could completely stop producing Greenhouse Gases, it will still get hotter for several hundred more years, unless there is something that happens to either remove CO2 from the air, or block some of the radiation from the Sun. I think the latter is what happens, even though we are supposedly working on technology to scrub CO2 from the air. I don't think that technology will be ready in time to do much, before the air is filled with dust from a Supervolcano [Caldera] eruption.

Hey...there's your paradox again!

1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to
some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable, according to scripture.

Which is it, dude?

GreenMan wrote:
This is a graph that I made with my Climate Model.
...deleted graph of random numbers...
If you are interested in knowing more about it, I can explain more. Or even send it to you, if you want to do your own research. It's built in an Excel Spreadsheet, so anyone can see what's going on, if they know how to use Excel and understand math.

No math here, other than the mathematics of random numbers.


I see that you posted at the same moment that the counterfeit posting in my name was posted so I expect you weren't the culprit.


I don't use socks. I don't need them.


The Parrot Killer
02-10-2017 10:26
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Hey...there's your paradox again!

1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to
some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable, according to scripture.

Which is it, dude?



Scripture doesn't say the planet will become "uninhabitable." Well, there are descriptions of everything turning to desert, before recovering. And it says people make it through the destruction, well some people make it through, so I wouldn't really say it is totally uninhabitable. But it does sound like it comes pretty close.


Everything turning to desert is uninhabitable. Don't try to couch what you said in lies.


I'm not couching anything. It's amazing to me how something so simple can go in you and come out looking like some kind of puked up, unintelligible gibberish.
The prophecies say that the earth will become like a desert for a while. People live in the desert even now, dufus.

Science predicts that the planet will continue to get warmer, as long as there is an abundance of Greenhouse Gases in the air. There are currently enough Greenhouse Gases in the air to drive the temperature of the planet up to well beyond our ability to survive. But science does not have the benefit of prophetic vision. The prophets said there would be an event that occurs that will cool the planet, and kill most people at the same time. That is the "if" you are so concerned about me not having.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
02-10-2017 11:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Hey...there's your paradox again!

1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to
some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable, according to scripture.

Which is it, dude?



Scripture doesn't say the planet will become "uninhabitable." Well, there are descriptions of everything turning to desert, before recovering. And it says people make it through the destruction, well some people make it through, so I wouldn't really say it is totally uninhabitable. But it does sound like it comes pretty close.


Everything turning to desert is uninhabitable. Don't try to couch what you said in lies.


I'm not couching anything. It's amazing to me how something so simple can go in you and come out looking like some kind of puked up, unintelligible gibberish.
The prophecies say that the earth will become like a desert for a while. People live in the desert even now, dufus.

Indeed they do. I'm originally an old desert rat myself.
GreenMan wrote:
Science predicts that the planet will continue to get warmer, as long as there is an abundance of Greenhouse Gases in the air.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas can warm the Earth.
GreenMan wrote:[/
There are currently enough Greenhouse Gases in the air to drive the temperature of the planet up to well beyond our ability to survive.

You paradox is back again... *snicker*
[b]GreenMan wrote:
But science does not have the benefit of prophetic vision.

A formalized theory DOES have the power of prediction.
GreenMan wrote:
The prophets said there would be an event that occurs that will cool the planet, and kill most people at the same time. That is the "if" you are so concerned about me not having.

That's not an 'if'. That's a paradox.


The Parrot Killer
02-10-2017 12:26
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Hey...there's your paradox again!

1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to
some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable, according to scripture.

Which is it, dude?



Scripture doesn't say the planet will become "uninhabitable." Well, there are descriptions of everything turning to desert, before recovering. And it says people make it through the destruction, well some people make it through, so I wouldn't really say it is totally uninhabitable. But it does sound like it comes pretty close.


Everything turning to desert is uninhabitable. Don't try to couch what you said in lies.


I'm not couching anything. It's amazing to me how something so simple can go in you and come out looking like some kind of puked up, unintelligible gibberish.
The prophecies say that the earth will become like a desert for a while. People live in the desert even now, dufus.

Indeed they do. I'm originally an old desert rat myself.
GreenMan wrote:
Science predicts that the planet will continue to get warmer, as long as there is an abundance of Greenhouse Gases in the air.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas can warm the Earth.
GreenMan wrote:[/
There are currently enough Greenhouse Gases in the air to drive the temperature of the planet up to well beyond our ability to survive.

You paradox is back again... *snicker*
[b]GreenMan wrote:
But science does not have the benefit of prophetic vision.

A formalized theory DOES have the power of prediction.
GreenMan wrote:
The prophets said there would be an event that occurs that will cool the planet, and kill most people at the same time. That is the "if" you are so concerned about me not having.

That's not an 'if'. That's a paradox.


It's not a paradox to understand that science is telling us one thing, and prophecy is saying the same thing, but providing more information. Science is telling us that the planet is headed for an over-temp situation in the future. Prophecy says the same thing, but adds a twist to the story, that prevents the over-temp from wiping out humanity. Here is a quote from the most famous of all prophets, Jesus, where he is trying to explain the same thing.

Matthew 24:21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened.

Those days Jesus is talking about are the days of over-temp. Jesus is explaining the prophecy of Daniel. Jesus was right about that. He was just wrong about the time he was living in. It wasn't time for the fulfillment. Instead, it was time for the birthing of Christianity. [Someone had to do it, because the early prophets predicted it]


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
02-10-2017 17:14
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Hey...there's your paradox again!

1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to
some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable, according to scripture.

Which is it, dude?



Scripture doesn't say the planet will become "uninhabitable." Well, there are descriptions of everything turning to desert, before recovering. And it says people make it through the destruction, well some people make it through, so I wouldn't really say it is totally uninhabitable. But it does sound like it comes pretty close.


Everything turning to desert is uninhabitable. Don't try to couch what you said in lies.


I'm not couching anything. It's amazing to me how something so simple can go in you and come out looking like some kind of puked up, unintelligible gibberish.
The prophecies say that the earth will become like a desert for a while. People live in the desert even now, dufus.

Indeed they do. I'm originally an old desert rat myself.
GreenMan wrote:
Science predicts that the planet will continue to get warmer, as long as there is an abundance of Greenhouse Gases in the air.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas can warm the Earth.
GreenMan wrote:[/
There are currently enough Greenhouse Gases in the air to drive the temperature of the planet up to well beyond our ability to survive.

You paradox is back again... *snicker*
[b]GreenMan wrote:
But science does not have the benefit of prophetic vision.

A formalized theory DOES have the power of prediction.
GreenMan wrote:
The prophets said there would be an event that occurs that will cool the planet, and kill most people at the same time. That is the "if" you are so concerned about me not having.

That's not an 'if'. That's a paradox.


It's not a paradox to understand that science is telling us one thing, and prophecy is saying the same thing, but providing more information. Science is telling us that the planet is headed for an over-temp situation in the future. Prophecy says the same thing, but adds a twist to the story, that prevents the over-temp from wiping out humanity. Here is a quote from the most famous of all prophets, Jesus, where he is trying to explain the same thing.

Matthew 24:21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened.

Those days Jesus is talking about are the days of over-temp. Jesus is explaining the prophecy of Daniel. Jesus was right about that. He was just wrong about the time he was living in. It wasn't time for the fulfillment. Instead, it was time for the birthing of Christianity. [Someone had to do it, because the early prophets predicted it]


So now we know who posted my name and those quotes. The question is: WHY did you counterfeit a posting in my name? Did you believe that you would remain undiscovered?

What is is Greenman? Cancer? AIDS? It's pretty obvious you're dying so why not let the rest of us in on it?
02-10-2017 22:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
GreenMan wrote:
It's not a paradox to understand that science is telling us one thing, and prophecy is saying the same thing, but providing more information. ...deleted reiteration of paradox...and scripture quoting...


1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to
some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable, according to scripture.

Which is it, dude?


The Parrot Killer
02-10-2017 23:19
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Greenman,

Deuteronomy 11:
16 Be careful, or you will be enticed to turn away and worship other gods and bow down to them. 17 Then the Lord's anger will burn against you, and he will shut up the heavens so that it will not rain and the ground will yield no produce, and you will soon perish from the good land the Lord is giving you. 18 Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 19 Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 20 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates, 21 so that your days and the days of your children may be many in the land the Lord swore to give your ancestors, as many as the days that the heavens are above the earth.

Not really seeing any doomsday prophecy. maybe I read it wrong ?
Edited on 02-10-2017 23:20
02-10-2017 23:19
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: 1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to
some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable, according to scripture.
Which is it, dude?

Oh! Oh! Its scripture proof that there is life on other planets. Yeah, da Earth will be uninhabitable, so's people will have ta be reincarnated on other planets.
Its either that or people will have ta be satisfied being reincarnated on Earth as flies.
Oh, well. Guess its not scripture proof of life on other planets.... just proof that Jeff Goldblum is "The Fly".
02-10-2017 23:21
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: 1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to
some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable, according to scripture.
Which is it, dude?

Oh! Oh! Its scripture proof that there is life on other planets. Yeah, da Earth will be uninhabitable, so's people will have ta be reincarnated on other planets.
Its either that or people will have ta be satisfied being reincarnated on Earth as flies.
Oh, well. Guess its not scripture proof of life on other planets.... just proof that Jeff Goldblum is "The Fly".


"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight".
03-10-2017 00:53
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
James_ wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: 1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to
some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable, according to scripture.
Which is it, dude?

Oh! Oh! Its scripture proof that there is life on other planets. Yeah, da Earth will be uninhabitable, so's people will have ta be reincarnated on other planets.
Its either that or people will have ta be satisfied being reincarnated on Earth as flies.
Oh, well. Guess its not scripture proof of life on other planets.... just proof that Jeff Goldblum is "The Fly".


"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight".

Now that is funny! "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" is "The Fly".
The problem with that is all the other old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners will have "first dibbs" on reincarnation as flies. That's desirable for racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners.... not for human beings.
So that is how evolution ends up with flies being old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners.
03-10-2017 02:39
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
litesong wrote:
James_ wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: 1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to
some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable, according to scripture.
Which is it, dude?

Oh! Oh! Its scripture proof that there is life on other planets. Yeah, da Earth will be uninhabitable, so's people will have ta be reincarnated on other planets.
Its either that or people will have ta be satisfied being reincarnated on Earth as flies.
Oh, well. Guess its not scripture proof of life on other planets.... just proof that Jeff Goldblum is "The Fly".


"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight".

Now that is funny! "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" is "The Fly".
The problem with that is all the other old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners will have "first dibbs" on reincarnation as flies. That's desirable for racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners.... not for human beings.
So that is how evolution ends up with flies being old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners.


Butt doesn't feces need to be recycled ?
03-10-2017 05:22
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Hey...there's your paradox again!

1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to
some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable, according to scripture.

Which is it, dude?



Scripture doesn't say the planet will become "uninhabitable." Well, there are descriptions of everything turning to desert, before recovering. And it says people make it through the destruction, well some people make it through, so I wouldn't really say it is totally uninhabitable. But it does sound like it comes pretty close.


Everything turning to desert is uninhabitable. Don't try to couch what you said in lies.


I'm not couching anything. It's amazing to me how something so simple can go in you and come out looking like some kind of puked up, unintelligible gibberish.
The prophecies say that the earth will become like a desert for a while. People live in the desert even now, dufus.

Indeed they do. I'm originally an old desert rat myself.
GreenMan wrote:
Science predicts that the planet will continue to get warmer, as long as there is an abundance of Greenhouse Gases in the air.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas can warm the Earth.
GreenMan wrote:[/
There are currently enough Greenhouse Gases in the air to drive the temperature of the planet up to well beyond our ability to survive.

You paradox is back again... *snicker*
[b]GreenMan wrote:
But science does not have the benefit of prophetic vision.

A formalized theory DOES have the power of prediction.
GreenMan wrote:
The prophets said there would be an event that occurs that will cool the planet, and kill most people at the same time. That is the "if" you are so concerned about me not having.

That's not an 'if'. That's a paradox.


It's not a paradox to understand that science is telling us one thing, and prophecy is saying the same thing, but providing more information. Science is telling us that the planet is headed for an over-temp situation in the future. Prophecy says the same thing, but adds a twist to the story, that prevents the over-temp from wiping out humanity. Here is a quote from the most famous of all prophets, Jesus, where he is trying to explain the same thing.

Matthew 24:21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened.

Those days Jesus is talking about are the days of over-temp. Jesus is explaining the prophecy of Daniel. Jesus was right about that. He was just wrong about the time he was living in. It wasn't time for the fulfillment. Instead, it was time for the birthing of Christianity. [Someone had to do it, because the early prophets predicted it]


So now we know who posted my name and those quotes. The question is: WHY did you counterfeit a posting in my name? Did you believe that you would remain undiscovered?

What is is Greenman? Cancer? AIDS? It's pretty obvious you're dying so why not let the rest of us in on it?


You are totally insane, you old buffoon. You gonna pop a vein getting all upset like that. So why don't you just calm down a bit, and tell us what's on your mind. How was dinner tonight? Did you wife feed you more poison?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
03-10-2017 05:30
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
It's not a paradox to understand that science is telling us one thing, and prophecy is saying the same thing, but providing more information. ...deleted reiteration of paradox...and scripture quoting...


1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to
some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable, according to scripture.

Which is it, dude?


You probably need to point me to whichever thread you are quoting me from. Since you obviously can't understand the written word. Perhaps I can do an audio recording for you.

For all intents and purposes the earth will become uninhabitable, but everyone doesn't die. Some make it through the uninhabitable period of time by figuring out how to grow food indoors is what I figure. The details of how they make it through the desert aren't really disclosed. I'm thinking that's what the Master helps people with, when he shows up.

And you need to listen to litesong, or you might be buzzing alone on something other than good herb in your next life, if you are even allowed that. Imagine for a moment wanting a physical life bad enough to be born as a shit eating fly. Something made that choice. I'm thinking that "something" is more fortunate than you will be, when this life ends.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
03-10-2017 05:58
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
James_ wrote:
Greenman,

Deuteronomy 11:
16 Be careful, or you will be enticed to turn away and worship other gods and bow down to them. 17 Then the Lord's anger will burn against you, and he will shut up the heavens so that it will not rain and the ground will yield no produce, and you will soon perish from the good land the Lord is giving you. 18 Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 19 Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 20 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates, 21 so that your days and the days of your children may be many in the land the Lord swore to give your ancestors, as many as the days that the heavens are above the earth.

Not really seeing any doomsday prophecy. maybe I read it wrong ?


That's an interesting paragraph to find, James. And no, there's nothing there regarding doomsday, except the part about running out of food. Too bad Moses wasn't a little bit more clear about specifically what the problem with worshiping other Gods was about. People seemed to have missed something there.

If you keep on reading in Deuteronomy, you will eventually come to the part where Moses predicts the rise of humanity with the use oil, from a rock. He even describes sweet crude, and says that we will even figure out how to get oil from shale [fracking].


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
03-10-2017 16:57
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
GreenMan wrote:
James_ wrote:
Greenman,

Deuteronomy 11:
16 Be careful, or you will be enticed to turn away and worship other gods and bow down to them. 17 Then the Lord's anger will burn against you, and he will shut up the heavens so that it will not rain and the ground will yield no produce, and you will soon perish from the good land the Lord is giving you. 18 Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 19 Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 20 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates, 21 so that your days and the days of your children may be many in the land the Lord swore to give your ancestors, as many as the days that the heavens are above the earth.

Not really seeing any doomsday prophecy. maybe I read it wrong ?


That's an interesting paragraph to find, James. And no, there's nothing there regarding doomsday, except the part about running out of food. Too bad Moses wasn't a little bit more clear about specifically what the problem with worshiping other Gods was about. People seemed to have missed something there.

If you keep on reading in Deuteronomy, you will eventually come to the part where Moses predicts the rise of humanity with the use oil, from a rock. He even describes sweet crude, and says that we will even figure out how to get oil from shale [fracking].


Unfortunately in many ways Christianity is a doomsday cult. Most Christians I know want destruction. Even when prophecy has been made such as Deuteronomy 11:21 has been made.
I guess that's me though. I'd have to wonder why a god would create a world only to destroy it. That doesn't make sense to me. It's like god would be hating his own creation. I think that's why I avoid doomsday discussions. If people pursue their own demise then they will find it.
03-10-2017 17:31
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Hey...there's your paradox again!

1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to
some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable, according to scripture.

Which is it, dude?



Scripture doesn't say the planet will become "uninhabitable." Well, there are descriptions of everything turning to desert, before recovering. And it says people make it through the destruction, well some people make it through, so I wouldn't really say it is totally uninhabitable. But it does sound like it comes pretty close.


Everything turning to desert is uninhabitable. Don't try to couch what you said in lies.


I'm not couching anything. It's amazing to me how something so simple can go in you and come out looking like some kind of puked up, unintelligible gibberish.
The prophecies say that the earth will become like a desert for a while. People live in the desert even now, dufus.

Indeed they do. I'm originally an old desert rat myself.
GreenMan wrote:
Science predicts that the planet will continue to get warmer, as long as there is an abundance of Greenhouse Gases in the air.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas can warm the Earth.
GreenMan wrote:[/
There are currently enough Greenhouse Gases in the air to drive the temperature of the planet up to well beyond our ability to survive.

You paradox is back again... *snicker*
[b]GreenMan wrote:
But science does not have the benefit of prophetic vision.

A formalized theory DOES have the power of prediction.
GreenMan wrote:
The prophets said there would be an event that occurs that will cool the planet, and kill most people at the same time. That is the "if" you are so concerned about me not having.

That's not an 'if'. That's a paradox.


It's not a paradox to understand that science is telling us one thing, and prophecy is saying the same thing, but providing more information. Science is telling us that the planet is headed for an over-temp situation in the future. Prophecy says the same thing, but adds a twist to the story, that prevents the over-temp from wiping out humanity. Here is a quote from the most famous of all prophets, Jesus, where he is trying to explain the same thing.

Matthew 24:21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened.

Those days Jesus is talking about are the days of over-temp. Jesus is explaining the prophecy of Daniel. Jesus was right about that. He was just wrong about the time he was living in. It wasn't time for the fulfillment. Instead, it was time for the birthing of Christianity. [Someone had to do it, because the early prophets predicted it]


So now we know who posted my name and those quotes. The question is: WHY did you counterfeit a posting in my name? Did you believe that you would remain undiscovered?

What is is Greenman? Cancer? AIDS? It's pretty obvious you're dying so why not let the rest of us in on it?


You are totally insane, you old buffoon. You gonna pop a vein getting all upset like that. So why don't you just calm down a bit, and tell us what's on your mind. How was dinner tonight? Did you wife feed you more poison?


Greenman you are obviously dying and wishing to take the entire human race with you. But you are failing in both jobs.

So I guess that AIDS it is. That sort of illness I've seen before. The mental disability it brings in which you hate everyone and everything around you. Rather than wait it out I suggest suicide. The loss of a queer is no loss at all.
Edited on 03-10-2017 17:33
03-10-2017 20:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
It's not a paradox to understand that science is telling us one thing, and prophecy is saying the same thing, but providing more information. ...deleted reiteration of paradox...and scripture quoting...


1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to
some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable, according to scripture.

Which is it, dude?


You probably need to point me to whichever thread you are quoting me from.

This one, dumbass.
GreenMan wrote:
Since you obviously can't understand the written word. Perhaps I can do an audio recording for you.
You just did it again in this post, dumbass.
GreenMan wrote:
For all intents and purposes the earth will become uninhabitable, but everyone doesn't die.
...deleted remaining repetition of paradox...

You're being irrational.


The Parrot Killer
04-10-2017 07:24
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
James_ wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
James_ wrote:
Greenman,

Deuteronomy 11:
16 Be careful, or you will be enticed to turn away and worship other gods and bow down to them. 17 Then the Lord's anger will burn against you, and he will shut up the heavens so that it will not rain and the ground will yield no produce, and you will soon perish from the good land the Lord is giving you. 18 Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 19 Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 20 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates, 21 so that your days and the days of your children may be many in the land the Lord swore to give your ancestors, as many as the days that the heavens are above the earth.

Not really seeing any doomsday prophecy. maybe I read it wrong ?


That's an interesting paragraph to find, James. And no, there's nothing there regarding doomsday, except the part about running out of food. Too bad Moses wasn't a little bit more clear about specifically what the problem with worshiping other Gods was about. People seemed to have missed something there.

If you keep on reading in Deuteronomy, you will eventually come to the part where Moses predicts the rise of humanity with the use oil, from a rock. He even describes sweet crude, and says that we will even figure out how to get oil from shale [fracking].


Unfortunately in many ways Christianity is a doomsday cult. Most Christians I know want destruction. Even when prophecy has been made such as Deuteronomy 11:21 has been made.
I guess that's me though. I'd have to wonder why a god would create a world only to destroy it. That doesn't make sense to me. It's like god would be hating his own creation. I think that's why I avoid doomsday discussions. If people pursue their own demise then they will find it.


Yes, I think Christianity is a doomsday cult. It was predicted by the earliest of prophets, who described their God that lived in the clouds and helped people. His description shows up in many places, with names like Lucifer, Satan, Ba'al, and many others that slip my mind at the moment. They made their own god up, who they really do believe will protect them when the world comes to an end. So if Global Warming is real, and it will bring about the destruction of the planet, then they are all for it. Why try to avoid it, when they have their god Jesus covering their back?

It turns out that if you understand what the prophecies are really saying, then you know that God didn't create the world, just to destroy it. And God didn't create people just to punish some of them forever, either. The Christian view does suck, doesn't it? God created life on the planet, step by step over time, as presented in the book of Genesis, and confirmed by Darwin's Theory of Evolution. First came the plants, then came the animals, then came man. I think people get too hung up on what a day was, as used in the book of Genesis.

What we are looking at now, is the destruction of something it took billions of years for God to create. It's unfortunate that a lot of people truly believe that it can be replaced in the wink of an eye. Or that our responsibility to the future of humanity is not worth their effort, because they don't think they will be alive in the future. But that is what the Cult of Doom has created for their own selves.

Remember, ignorance of the Law is no excuse. Especially when the Law is right there for you to read, but you just wouldn't bother to read it for yourself. The Judge doesn't care if you thought it was easier to just listen to someone else tell you that it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you believe their bull shit about their false god.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
04-10-2017 07:27
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Hey...there's your paradox again!

1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to
some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable, according to scripture.

Which is it, dude?



Scripture doesn't say the planet will become "uninhabitable." Well, there are descriptions of everything turning to desert, before recovering. And it says people make it through the destruction, well some people make it through, so I wouldn't really say it is totally uninhabitable. But it does sound like it comes pretty close.


Everything turning to desert is uninhabitable. Don't try to couch what you said in lies.


I'm not couching anything. It's amazing to me how something so simple can go in you and come out looking like some kind of puked up, unintelligible gibberish.
The prophecies say that the earth will become like a desert for a while. People live in the desert even now, dufus.

Indeed they do. I'm originally an old desert rat myself.
GreenMan wrote:
Science predicts that the planet will continue to get warmer, as long as there is an abundance of Greenhouse Gases in the air.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas can warm the Earth.
GreenMan wrote:[/
There are currently enough Greenhouse Gases in the air to drive the temperature of the planet up to well beyond our ability to survive.

You paradox is back again... *snicker*
[b]GreenMan wrote:
But science does not have the benefit of prophetic vision.

A formalized theory DOES have the power of prediction.
GreenMan wrote:
The prophets said there would be an event that occurs that will cool the planet, and kill most people at the same time. That is the "if" you are so concerned about me not having.

That's not an 'if'. That's a paradox.


It's not a paradox to understand that science is telling us one thing, and prophecy is saying the same thing, but providing more information. Science is telling us that the planet is headed for an over-temp situation in the future. Prophecy says the same thing, but adds a twist to the story, that prevents the over-temp from wiping out humanity. Here is a quote from the most famous of all prophets, Jesus, where he is trying to explain the same thing.

Matthew 24:21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened.

Those days Jesus is talking about are the days of over-temp. Jesus is explaining the prophecy of Daniel. Jesus was right about that. He was just wrong about the time he was living in. It wasn't time for the fulfillment. Instead, it was time for the birthing of Christianity. [Someone had to do it, because the early prophets predicted it]


So now we know who posted my name and those quotes. The question is: WHY did you counterfeit a posting in my name? Did you believe that you would remain undiscovered?

What is is Greenman? Cancer? AIDS? It's pretty obvious you're dying so why not let the rest of us in on it?


You are totally insane, you old buffoon. You gonna pop a vein getting all upset like that. So why don't you just calm down a bit, and tell us what's on your mind. How was dinner tonight? Did you wife feed you more poison?


Greenman you are obviously dying and wishing to take the entire human race with you. But you are failing in both jobs.

So I guess that AIDS it is. That sort of illness I've seen before. The mental disability it brings in which you hate everyone and everything around you. Rather than wait it out I suggest suicide. The loss of a queer is no loss at all.


You are such a returd, Wake.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
04-10-2017 07:41
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
It's not a paradox to understand that science is telling us one thing, and prophecy is saying the same thing, but providing more information. ...deleted reiteration of paradox...and scripture quoting...


1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to
some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable, according to scripture.

Which is it, dude?


You probably need to point me to whichever thread you are quoting me from.

This one, dumbass.
GreenMan wrote:
Since you obviously can't understand the written word. Perhaps I can do an audio recording for you.
You just did it again in this post, dumbass.
GreenMan wrote:
For all intents and purposes the earth will become uninhabitable, but everyone doesn't die.
...deleted remaining repetition of paradox...

You're being irrational.


Oh, so you think that people living on a planet that is uninhabitable is a paradox. I can see your point.

What do you want, a solution for that?

I could make one up for you, but it is best to wait for the Master to come along with his plan. He will when he is ready.

I can just get a glimpse of what people will do, to survive after their crops begin to fail. The prophecy says that people will live in the clefts of rocks in the mountains, to avoid the heat. So I expect that people will do that. Living in subterranean homes is probably what people will consider doing, to take advantage of the natural cooling, and also the insulation from the outside world. You don't have to worry about an underground house burning down, for example.

I'm also thinking that modern technology will help to grow food indoors. Thanks to the herb business, there is a good supply of indoor growing methods to choose from, and lots of supplies. You just have to be careful when purchasing those supplies, as it can bring attention to you by the local law enforcement officers, who sometimes watch who goes to such establishments.

Of course, you will need a power source, and I am thinking that falling water will be what people will use. They will probably harness the power of water as it flows from the tops of the mountains where they live. They won't be able to count on sunlight, so that rules that source out. And windmills aren't that reliable. So falling water makes the most sense, since they will be in the mountains anyway.

They will just have to hunker down for a few years, and wait out the time until the earth begins to cool back down, and recover. Of course, they will have seeds of every kind, and will have taken care of as much wildlife as they could. So the earth will get a jump start on its recovery. When they come back down from the mountains, they will come back down, with another plan on how to build their next society. And they will do it without relying on burning things for energy.

Does that answer your question, or are you still confused?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
04-10-2017 17:11
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
James_ wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
James_ wrote:
Greenman,

Deuteronomy 11:
16 Be careful, or you will be enticed to turn away and worship other gods and bow down to them. 17 Then the Lord's anger will burn against you, and he will shut up the heavens so that it will not rain and the ground will yield no produce, and you will soon perish from the good land the Lord is giving you. 18 Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 19 Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 20 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates, 21 so that your days and the days of your children may be many in the land the Lord swore to give your ancestors, as many as the days that the heavens are above the earth.

Not really seeing any doomsday prophecy. maybe I read it wrong ?


That's an interesting paragraph to find, James. And no, there's nothing there regarding doomsday, except the part about running out of food. Too bad Moses wasn't a little bit more clear about specifically what the problem with worshiping other Gods was about. People seemed to have missed something there.

If you keep on reading in Deuteronomy, you will eventually come to the part where Moses predicts the rise of humanity with the use oil, from a rock. He even describes sweet crude, and says that we will even figure out how to get oil from shale [fracking].


Unfortunately in many ways Christianity is a doomsday cult. Most Christians I know want destruction. Even when prophecy has been made such as Deuteronomy 11:21 has been made.
I guess that's me though. I'd have to wonder why a god would create a world only to destroy it. That doesn't make sense to me. It's like god would be hating his own creation. I think that's why I avoid doomsday discussions. If people pursue their own demise then they will find it.


Yes, I think Christianity is a doomsday cult. It was predicted by the earliest of prophets, who described their God that lived in the clouds and helped people. His description shows up in many places, with names like Lucifer, Satan, Ba'al, and many others that slip my mind at the moment. They made their own god up, who they really do believe will protect them when the world comes to an end. So if Global Warming is real, and it will bring about the destruction of the planet, then they are all for it. Why try to avoid it, when they have their god Jesus covering their back?

It turns out that if you understand what the prophecies are really saying, then you know that God didn't create the world, just to destroy it. And God didn't create people just to punish some of them forever, either. The Christian view does suck, doesn't it? God created life on the planet, step by step over time, as presented in the book of Genesis, and confirmed by Darwin's Theory of Evolution. First came the plants, then came the animals, then came man. I think people get too hung up on what a day was, as used in the book of Genesis.

What we are looking at now, is the destruction of something it took billions of years for God to create. It's unfortunate that a lot of people truly believe that it can be replaced in the wink of an eye. Or that our responsibility to the future of humanity is not worth their effort, because they don't think they will be alive in the future. But that is what the Cult of Doom has created for their own selves.

Remember, ignorance of the Law is no excuse. Especially when the Law is right there for you to read, but you just wouldn't bother to read it for yourself. The Judge doesn't care if you thought it was easier to just listen to someone else tell you that it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you believe their bull shit about their false god.


As in climate change where only the people that don't know anything about it talk the most about it - people that have never actually read the bible tell us all about it.
04-10-2017 19:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
It's not a paradox to understand that science is telling us one thing, and prophecy is saying the same thing, but providing more information. ...deleted reiteration of paradox...and scripture quoting...


1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to
some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable, according to scripture.

Which is it, dude?


You probably need to point me to whichever thread you are quoting me from.

This one, dumbass.
GreenMan wrote:
Since you obviously can't understand the written word. Perhaps I can do an audio recording for you.
You just did it again in this post, dumbass.
GreenMan wrote:
For all intents and purposes the earth will become uninhabitable, but everyone doesn't die.
...deleted remaining repetition of paradox...

You're being irrational.


Oh, so you think that people living on a planet that is uninhabitable is a paradox. I can see your point.

What do you want, a solution for that?
...deleted defense of paradox...


Yes. It is a paradox. The only solution for a paradox is to select one argument and reject the other. Claiming both arguments is irrationality.


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate Greenhouse Gases:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law74322-11-2019 04:54
So what if the Chinese fossil fuel industry pays me to spread lies about greenhouse gas?7515-11-2019 04:47
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy2422-09-2019 22:20
Bill Nye greenhouse gas experiment fail.1616-09-2019 15:51
Is CO2 much of a Greenhouse gas at all?10813-09-2019 05:54
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact