global warming will destroy the Earth

FYI: He was speaking with satire.

Let me explain what he meant:

The democrats want depopulation because they value all life other than humans, including plants, as more valuable than humans. They actively advocate for depopulation and believe there is such a thing as "overpopulation", which is actually nonexistent (there is definitely overcrowding, but this is a completely different things, people just need to spread out more).

In satire, he was saying what the democrats would be happy with, which would be to kill all humans (like by putting a plastic bag over everyone's head) to decrease CO2 emissions - from people breathing. Even though as single volcano erupting still puts out more C02 emissions than every human on Earth - so in other words, it won't have any real effect on global CO2 levels.

As satire, he further elaborated that "we need the democtrats to save the planet", which was a sarcastic remark which he was really just making fun of the democrats who don't care about humans but think they know everything when they really know nothing because global warming has already been proven to be a fraud.

Hope that helps.

p.s. ironically, the democrats would be happy with putting a plastic bag over the head of all humans, ignoring the fact that during the production of 5 billion plastic bags it would not only produce a tremendous amount of CO2 emissions [1] which may even exceed the reduction in CO2 by all the dead humans; and additionally, all the bags could create potentially catastrophic environmental conditions [2]. The death of all those humans without anyone left to clean up the mess would be a global crisis, as disease could spread and cause catastrophic damage to sensitive ecosystems [3]; and further, with nuclear power plants left unmanned it could spell the end of life on Earth as all nuclear power plants melted down and destroyed all life, rendering the Earth uninhabitable [4]. Not to mention that the pure decomposition of the dead humans would likely negate any decrease in emissions because CO2 is also released during decomposition [5].

[1] https://stanfordmag.org/contents/the-link-between-plastic-use-and-climate-change-nitty-gritty
[2] https://www.unenvironment.org/news-...tiny-plastic-particles-are-polluting-our-soil
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/jan/06/thisweekssciencequestions
[4] https://www.audubon.org/news/how-has-fukushimas-nuclear-disaster-affected-environment
[5] https://tiee.esa.org/vol/v6/experiment/soil_respiration/description.html

I could go on, but there is little point.

Global warming cannot destroy the earth

Global warming is a hoax. It's not what you need to worry about. It's all the increasing amount of electronic radio waves frying our brains that is the main agenda of the dark one wanting to just literally fry us all alive with it. Trust me I saw it in a vision.

Oh my, where’s my tin foil hat?

No. It will not happen. While the climate does change, the Earth is a self correcting system that maintains homeostasis.

Proof:
"During the 1970s the media promoted global cooling alarmism with dire threats of a new ice age. Extreme weather events were hyped as signs of the coming apocalypse and man-made pollution was blamed as the cause. Environmental extremists called for everything from outlawing the internal combustion engine to communist style population controls...."

Read all about it here:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

You saw it in a vision? I saw it on YouTube. I trust in Jesus.

yes, there was the " ice age " push in the 70's , then in the 80's " the ozone layer is being destroyed , we will eventually have to wear gas masks outside, then in the 90's " the African killer bees are heading up through south America, large parts of the south and southeast will be infested with them, they may make large areas uninhabitable " ( there have been some attacks, but nothing of the scope they pushed).

then it was on to global warming and all the 10, 15, 20 years predictions of the late 90's and early 20's ( basically none happened as the " experts " predicted..)

and now " climate change".

anyone over 40 with a memory should easily reject all the hyped - up nonsense .

Oh thanks just insult me why don't you how very Christian like of you..

I was only partially joking. But if you think that we're not bring fried by electronic transmissions and radio waves you know absolutely NOTHING about it so you probably shouldn't even been commenting here anyway.

Trust me that's what's going on. We're being fried. It's all about blinding people from the truth as much as possible. Or do you think I'm "crazy" for saying that too?

Thanks for your input.

You're crazy for using the phrase, "Trust me". It's a signal to everyone that we shouldn't. What followed merely confirmed the exact nature of your craziness.

All kidding aside, that phrase is usually used inadvertently for emphasis. It's a poor choice, because it alleges a degree of authority that is otherwise unwarranted. If people do trust you, telling them to do so will at best do nothing, and if they don't yet trust you, telling them to trust you because of 'X' reason won't give your statement any weight and will more likely detract from its believability, and your credibility. It's an unfortunate reality of modern culture. It's better to state your position without the catch phase.

To the specific reason why we should supposedly trust you, could you please tell us why we should accept your retelling of an alleged "vision" as objective truth instead of following the scriptural admonition to "test everything, and hold on to the good"?

I agree with your sentiment that's a good call out and I agree with it. That said, it's not something I would use willy nilly unless I had a reason for the other party to trust me. On the contrary, they can trust me because it's something I know about.

As for my vision, it was more of just a thought really. But one based on what's going on now. I just see a future where people are increasingly drenched in more and more electronic radio waves which is very dangerous for our minds and bodies. I can see how old hairy legs wants to use technology to blur the lines between right and wrong. All the while soaking us in electromagnetic radio transmissions which cause a whole manner of health complications.

Look I'm not the tin foil hat type. I only talk about things I know to be fact. Have you see how 5G works and the damage it can do? The lower frequency millimeter waves used in 5G can cause major skin, eye, and nervous system problems. In later years/decades, we'll have 6G, 7G etc (or maybe something else completely). Until then, like the damage we caused to the earth and our bodies through burning fossil fuels, we'll be zapping ourselves more and more until cities basically just become too dangerous to enter let alone live in. Kinda like Chernobyl.

I read a fascinating book last night about the formation of the planets. The various NASA probes that have been sent to Venus and Mars confirm that at one point, both had liquid water in abundance. In Mars' case its soil still contains around 3% ice, which was frozen when Mars' atmosphere was stripped away by solar winds (it is about half the diameter of Earth and thus its core, which generated an electromagnetic field, went cold and solidified, which thereby removed its electromagnetic field and hence its protection from the sun's harmful cosmic rays).

But more interesting is the case of Venus, a planet approximately the same size as the Earth. Venus also once had liquid water, but its atmosphere had considerably more CO2 than Earth's (which has mostly nitrogen and oxygen), causing it to warm exponentially due to the effect of CO2 trapping heat. The surface of Venus is now hotter than the surface of the sun, due to what's called a warming cascade. . It is essentially that the build-up of CO2 and the release of methane and other hydrocarbons causes the average global temperature to rise, which precipitates evaporation of water. The water vapour then holds even more heat, and so the cycle continues until the planet becomes so hot it is uninhabitable. This is the phenomenon that climatologists fear will happen to the Earth.

Largely, the reason why Earth, as opposed to Venus, has not undergone such a warming cascade so easily is because Earth's atmosphere is mostly nitrogen and oxygen (due to plants and various algae and bacteria which can convert CO2 into oxygen and which release other nitrogen compounds, which causes cooling. Venus did not have that luxury). With the dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 in the last 100 years on Earth, however, it is not hard to imagine that by cutting down trees, polluting oceans (thereby killing much life), and releasing copious more amounts of CO2 and hydrocarbon gasses, that this warming cascade could more easily take place on Earth. This is why cutting CO2 emissions, cleaning up oceans, and planting more trees, are positive steps to ensure the health and sustainability of our planet, otherwise there is a risk that the levels of warming gasses get too high and cause the Earth to exponentially warm up, rendering it uninhabitable long before it was due.

Slightly humorous. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the scientific data, though.

Scientific data has been corrupted by a number of factors.
Purposeful distortion of temperature monitoring sites.
Consistently incorrect computer modeling.
Data selectively chosen to support presuppositions rather than entirety speaking for itself.
Past catastrophic predictions coming NOWHERE near actual events.

Probably the worst issue is that the loudest scientific voices, that get 99% of the airtime on corrupt media, are funded almost totally by both governments, institutions, and individuals, that have a relentless pursuit of pushing the false narrative in an effort to overwhelmingly control people through burdensome taxation, and freedom restriction. If the "scientists" did not manipulate the data to show what their benefactors want their funding would be pulled and funneled to "scientists' who would.

NOTHING in the past 150 yrs has enabled humans to improve their quality, freedom, economic prosperity, and mobility of life more than fossil fuels. Those wanting power and control recognize this and hate it.

NONE of the really big questions of GLOBAL WARMING have been answered:

1. Is there warming at all.
2. If there IS warming how much is caused by humans, and how much by natural cycles.
3. If there IS warming why would that be a net bad thing, given longer growing seasons, less human death caused by warming than cooling, etc...
4. If there IS warming is it reversible and at what societal cost.

There are more, but you get the idea.

exactly.

scientists and research firms that get government funding have a strong " motivation :' for releasing agenda-pushing findings.

Hi PennEd,

1. The independent climate change review replicated the results of the CRU in 2009, as did many other individual researchers. This is well known, and has been for several years.

2. How so?

3. Examples?

4. Climatology doesn't predict everything. It only predicts trends, and it does so exceptionally accurately.

This is an entirely unsupported statement: the 99% figure is plucked from thin air; and the fact that climatology research is funded by governments and scientific bodies in now way precludes there being some conspiracy to restrict peoples' freedom and levy higher taxes. I don't see how planting more trees, switching to renewables, and looking after the Earth, could be considered a restriction of freedom.

You mean the wealth of people with PhDs, qualified to make the calculations that most people cannot?

Evidence?

This is irrelevant to whether anthropogenic climate change is real.

This is pure speculation. There is no evidence of this.

This is clearly settled. The average temperature of the Earth continues to rise.

This is a valid question but really a secondary issue. Earth warms as more CO2, methane, hydrocarbons and water vapour are released into the atmosphere. We know this. It is a fact. Humans currently are the largest unnecessary contributors of these gasses on Earth, whether through industry, petroleum use, or farming livestock.

Look at Venus. It once had liquid water and a high CO2 atmosphere. Those two factors caused it to warm exponentially. Now it is uninhabitable.

It is reversible to a point. If we quit fossil fuels and progress as a species into a new paradigm where our energy creation is carbon neutral, and replace many of the trees, and clean the oceans, then global temperatures will stabilize through the increased conversion of CO2 into oxygen by plants, algae and micro-organisms.

Dude, I’m not gonna play this game. Research the stuff yourself. You wanna believe this lie and be taxed out the wahzoo knock yourself out!

I KNOW it’s a hoax designed to deceive, and anyone who wants to listen I’ll tell them. But not guys like you that aren’t interested in anything but promulgating the hoax. Take care

Besides, you have a MUCH BIGGER problem by not believing and accepting Jesus as your Savior.

If you read the data (and there is a lot of it), it is very difficult to separate the science from the politics. If you can separate the science, you notice a wide margin of error in the conclusions. Now when one projects out into the future, the margins of error increase as the timeline gets longer. So if we do something today, 15-years from now we will not be able to ascertain the magnitude of the effect. So it seems the smart thing to do is to table it until we can at least put our thumbs on exactly where we are...Ecclesiastes 1:14 "I have seen all the works which have been done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and striving after the wind." Let us concentrate on doing something good in the world. Poverty stricken people don't care about global warming. What they could use is food and the word. And I know that works.

why does Venus shine like a star?