One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: Parky60
Page: <<prev 1 ... 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 ... 1118 next>>
Aug 21, 2019 16:16:34   #
nwtk2007 wrote:
Actually the 2nd ammendment is the one that says we can carry guns in order to defend ourselves from crazies who try to harm us.

Sorry about that, I meant the first but got confused. Doesn't take much with me...LOL!
Go to
Aug 21, 2019 16:11:22   #
HEY PETERS Mystery Solved: Why Evangelicals (and I) Support Trump
Bryan Preston ~ August 21, 2019
Why do some evangelical Christians support President Trump? What's the appeal, to people who profess family values, of a man whose life includes multiple marriages and affairs and who tends to be crude?

Let's dive into this alleged mystery.

Turn with me if you will to the book of Isaiah, chapter 45. We come to the story of Cyrus the Great. He was not a king of Israel or Judah. He was emperor of Persia from 539-530 BC. Persia tended to be an enemy of the children of Israel. It's now called Iran, and continues to be an enemy of Israel.

But Cyrus himself was not; God called Cyrus "my servant" and Cyrus followed through. Cyrus decreed that the Jewish exiles in Babylon could return to their homes and re-establish their country. He also allowed them to rebuild the temple. This was a big deal; Judah had been subjugated and exiled for 70 years, their ability to worship disrupted by the destruction of their temple in Jerusalem. Yet here was Cyrus, who was not one of them, playing a major role in fostering the Jews' return home.

I do have a point.

NeverTrumper Ben Howe has a book out called The Immoral Majority: Why Evangelicals Chose Political Power over Christian Values. Howe has been doing a lot of TV, MSNBC included, defending that incendiary title.

I have not read the book. I've seen him defend, it including the title, which suggests it reflects what he really thinks.

The thesis smears evangelicals.

It's fair to say Donald J. Trump is not an evangelical. He's never been called one and has not called himself one. Technically, he's Presbyterian. As a New York liberal for most of his life, he had no conservative credibility prior to 2016. This conservative evangelical was very skeptical of him, and did not support him in the 2016 primary. I initially thought his candidacy was Seinfeldian — about nothing.

But by the time he won the Republican primary in 2016, and he wasn't my first or second or third choice then, a few things were clear.

One: Donald Trump could win the presidency (though it looked unlikely).

Two: He seemed to have grasped a fact that eluded Jeb Bush and John Kasich; namely, that if you run as a Republican you shouldn't spend most of your time insulting Republicans. Not, at least, if you want them to v**e for you (or applaud your speeches). You should probably spend the bulk of your time articulating a positive conservative vision and lambasting the left's rage and socialism. Trump did that. His passion suggested he might actually put up a fight against the left. The worse they treated him, the more he seemed to be readying for a fight.

Three: However flawed Trump might be, and he is, he was obviously better for the country and for evangelicals than any Democrat would be.

Recall that Trump was running after eight years of President Obama. Those eight years saw the federal government attempt to force nuns, literally the Little Sisters of the Poor, to violate their consciences and fund birth control. Obama took 'em to court over that. The eight years of Obama saw activist l*****ts haul Christian cake bakers to court and destroy their livelihood. The eight years of Obama saw a very emboldened left vent its hatred for everyone to their right, and evangelicals knew we were in their crosshairs. They went after Christian-owned Hobby Lobby. They used our tax dollars to fund a******n. And they made their disdain for our faith abundantly clear. The Democrats' 2016 appeal to us amounted to "V**e for us, you stupid, r****t, bucktoothed h**ers!"

That's terrible marketing anywhere outside the New York Times newsroom.

Their 2020 message is worse. They're pushing failed 19th-century socialism paired with anti-Semitism (while calling us "r****t"), along with the policy plan that just finished k*****g Venezuela. They want to erase our borders and take away our guns. They'll betray Israel at the first opportunity. Remember — Rep. Eric Swalwell (D) threatened to nuke gun owners, fellow Americans! Plus: they still h**e evangelicals and want us to pay for a******n on demand.

Hillary Clinton did not offer a break from any of that. She called us "deplorable" and relished cranking Obama's hostility up a notch. The third-party guy, Evan wh**ever, also spent too much time attacking to his right, not his left. That's not a good look. Ditto for the NeverTrumpers.

Facepalm. Stupid.

So Trump emerged as a kind of Cyrus figure: Not necessarily "one of us," but not someone who would not go out of his way to smear or hurt us either.

Somebody is going to misread that previous line, so as Obama would say, let me be clear: Trump would be benign toward evangelicals, and might even be helpful, as Cyrus was helpful toward Israel. The previous is not meant to suggest Trump would literally become an emperor. We're not interested in that.

Speaking for myself and the evangelicals I know, Trump earned our v**es by articulating many of our ideals fearlessly. This suggested he might actually follow through, unlike many who have called themselves "conservative" for their entire lives but "grow" left once they get to Washington. If we got some policy wins out of him, all the better.

Trump has been strongly pro-life, strongly pro-American, strongly pro-Israel, strongly pro-capitalism, and he has pushed back against the freedom-robbing regulatory state. He cut taxes and he left evangelicals alone. He didn't sue the nuns. He doesn't want our guns.

V****g for Trump is not "trading Christian values for political power." It's v****g in self-defense against the radical, evangelical-hating left and hoping for the best - and getting more than expected.
Go to
Aug 21, 2019 14:17:02   #
nwtk2007 wrote:
He is free to say anything he wishes, but if it promotes violence, it is against the rules of this forum. I promise, he won't be arrested!

Actually that's also against the second amendment if I'm not mistaken vis-à-vis yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
Go to
Aug 21, 2019 14:14:59   #
woodguru wrote:
You do realize that this has everything to do with tax cuts...right? 2019 is looking to bump a Trillion at $960 Billion, which by the way is close to half a billion more than the Obama deficit. Tax cuts were just a ridiculous idea that did nothing for the economy except allow corporations to use the money to buy back stock, which is a cute way for major shareholders to sell out and take the money out of the stock market and their companies.

https://dmlnewsapp.com/breaking-budget-office-makes-stunning-prediction-federal-deficit/
You do realize that this has everything to do with... (show quote)

And yet not a peep when your god Obama AVERAGED that in his eight years in office.
Go to
Aug 21, 2019 14:12:51   #
crazylibertarian wrote:
The following is a posting from Kevyn on a thread I established. I submit that simply based on this, he should be banned from this venue. I ask everyone to join me in sending admin a statement recommending
that he be banned.

Kevyn:
As a nation N**is are our defeated enemies. If patriotic Americans take it upon themselves to stomp any N**i fool enough to show their face in public, more power to them.

As much as I abhor Kevyn and his h**e-filled speech, ALL of us DO still have first amendment rights.
Go to
Aug 21, 2019 14:06:13   #
Zemirah wrote:
Salvation

In desperation, the Philippian jailor cried, “What must I do to be saved?” Paul’s reply was simple: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved”
(Acts:16:31).

The great apostle said nothing about baptism or sacraments, candles, incense, church attendance, reforming one’s life, or anything else being necessary or even helpful for salvation.

From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible makes it clear that there is nothing a sinner can do, much less must do, to pay the infinite penalty required by God’s justice. One can and need only believe in Christ, who paid the penalty in full: “It is finished” (John:19:30)!

Scripture could not be clearer: “To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans:4:5); “For by grace are ye saved, through faith...not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians:2:8-9).

To attempt to do anything for one’s salvation beyond believing “on the Lord Jesus Christ” is to deny that Christ paid the full penalty for sin on the cross and to reject God’s offer on that basis of forgiveness and eternal life as a free gift of His grace. Clearly, we can be saved only by faith in Christ — but exactly what does that mean? What must one believe?

Paul declares that “the gospel of Christ...is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes” (Romans:1:16).

So believing “the gospel of Christ” gives salvation. But is believing the gospel the only way to be saved — and if so, what is the gospel? Peter declared, “There is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts:4:12).

No answer is given to the question, “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation...” (Hebrews:2:3)?

There is no escape except in Christ: “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John:14:6).

Christ warned a group of Jews, “ye shall...die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come....if ye believe not that I am he... [he is in italics, added by the translators] (John:8:2; John:8:24).

“I AM” is the name of God that He revealed to Moses at the burning bush (Exodus:3:14) and that Christ clearly claims for Himself: “I and my Father are one” (John:10:30).

Isaiah declared prophetically that the Messiah who would be born of a virgin (Isaiah:7:14) would be “The mighty God, The everlasting Father” (Isaiah:9:6). Christ’s language is precise. He doesn’t tell the Jews, “Before Abraham was, I was.”

He says, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John:8:5). He is the self-existent One without beginning or end, “the Alpha and the Omega” (Rev:1:8
, Rev:1:11
; Rev:21:6
; Rev:22:13).

So we have it from the lips of Christ himself that in order to be saved, one must believe that He is God come as a man through the promised virgin birth.

Of course, that makes sense. No one but God could be our Savior. Repeatedly, Yahweh, the “God of Israel” (203 times from Exodus:5:1 to Luke:1:68) declares that He is the only Savior (Isaiah:43:11; Hosea:13:4, etc.). Thus, to be saved, one must believe that Christ is God. To deny this essential is to reject the gospel that saves.

Believing that Christ resurrected is also essential for salvation: “If thou shalt...believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved” (Romans:10:9).

And here we face another essential of the gospel that must be believed for one to be saved: “that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures” (1 Cor:15:3). His being scourged, abused, beaten, or mistreated by men—or even crucified, though in fulfillment of prophecy—could not pay the penalty for sin and would not save us. Christ died for our sins. “The soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Ezekiel:18:4; Ezekiel:18:20); “the wages of sin is death” (Rom:6:23).

Salvation comes through Christ’s death. Death is the penalty for sin, and Christ had to pay that penalty for all mankind in full. In full? Isn’t death just death? Could it be worse than we imagine? Indeed, it is!

That Christ’s suffering for sin was not just physical but spiritual is clear: “when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin...he shall see of the travail of his soul...he hath poured out his soul unto death” (Isa:53:10-12); “Christ...through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God” (Heb:9:14).

Christ’s offering of Himself to the Father for sin took place on the cross: “who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree” (1 Pet:2:24). So, again, it was not in being scourged that Christ bore our sins. He endured something far worse than physical suffering. In the garden, in dread anticipation of that horror, “his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground” (Luke:22:44).

And here again we see the vital importance of distinguishing between the physical suffering our Savior endured at the hands of men, and the punishment He endured from God: “...the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all...it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief...” (Isaiah:53:6; Isaiah:53:10).

Christ said, “I lay down my life...no man taketh it from me” (John:10:17-18). Thus the soldiers could not and did not kill Him. But Christ died for our sins—so again, what the soldiers did could not have paid for our sins.

No person (except Christ) has yet experienced the utter horror of death in its fullness. That will only occur after the final judgment: “death and hell...and whosoever was not found written in the book of life...were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death” (Rev:20:14-15). Christ became a man so that He “by the grace of God should taste death for every man” (Heb:2:9).

Therefore, His death on the cross had to include the “second death.” Thus Christ endured on the cross the eternal suffering that all mankind face in the lake of fire! This could only have been at the hands of God, not at the hands of man.

“The wages of sin is death” (Romans:6:23) — not merely temporary physical separation of soul and spirit from the body, but eternal separation from God. Therefore, in suffering for sin, Christ must have experienced the horror of the eternal separation from God that was due to all mankind. No wonder He cried out in agony, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me” (Psalm:22:1; Matthew:27:45; Mark:15:34)?!

No physical suffering, especially at the hands of sinful men, could mete out that awful penalty. Sin is a moral, spiritual problem involving God’s law and man’s rebellion against God. Both the punishment and the solution can only be spiritual.

Key Scripture verses related to "Salvation"(in addition to those above)

Old Testament:

Isa:45:22; Isa:51:5

New Testament:

Luke:7:50; Luke:1:76-79
John:3:14-17; John:10:9
Romans:5:8-10; Rom:10:9-13 ; Rom:10:17
2 Corinthians:6:2; 2 Cor:7:9-10
1 Timothy:2:3-4
Titus:3:4-7
1 Thessalonians:5:9
Hebrews:2:14; Heb:9:27-28
Revelation:12:9-11


All that a believer needs to be fruitful in his or her life in Christ is to be willing to be used of the Lord. God supplies the rest through the Holy Spirit, who leads, guides, directs, corrects, gifts, and enables.

"For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence" (1 Corinthians 1:26-29).

Inevitably, there are those who see a difference between Paul (salvation is by faith alone) and James (salvation is by faith plus works), which through close examination proves to be no difference at all.

Paul dogmatically says that justification is by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), while James appears to be saying that justification is by faith plus works. This apparent problem is answered by examining what exactly James is talking about. James is refuting the belief that a person can have faith without producing any good works (James 2:17-18). James is emphasizing the point that genuine faith in Christ will produce a changed life and good works (James 2:20-26).

James is not saying that justification is by faith plus works, but rather that a person who is truly justified by faith will have good works in his/her life. If a person claims to be a believer, but has no good works in his/her life, then he/she likely does not have genuine faith in Christ (James 2:14, 17, 20, 26).

Paul says the same thing in his writings. The good fruit believers should have in their lives is listed in Galatians 5:22-23. Immediately after telling us that we are saved by faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8-9), Paul informs us that we were created to do good works (Ephesians 2:10). Paul expects just as much of a changed life as James does: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come” (2 Corinthians 5:17).

James and Paul do not disagree in their teaching regarding salvation. They approach the same subject from different perspectives. Paul simply emphasized that justification is by faith alone while James put emphasis on the fact that genuine faith in Christ subsequently and inevitably, produces good works, which witnesses to their faith.


Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible
The Berean Call
Got Questions?
Salvation br br In desperation, the Philippian ja... (show quote)

You certainly used a considerable amount of words to convey a concept that is simple. In fact, it’s as simple as ABC:

A: Admit you’re a sinner (Romans 3:10; Romans 3:23)
B: Believe that Jesus is Lord, died for your sins and rose from the dead (Romans 5:8; Romans 6:23)
C: Call upon His name (Romans 10:9; Romans 10:13)

Your salvation does not depend on your good works, or how good of a person you are. You are saved by grace alone.

God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can’t take credit for this; it is a gift from God. Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it. Ephesians 2:8-9 (NLT)

No one is guaranteed another day. Please don’t wait. Call upon the name of Jesus today and be saved.
Go to
Aug 20, 2019 21:43:16   #
okie don wrote:
I read the pension funds are depleted like those in Illinois for government retirees.

They said that the recent (July 1) doubling of the Illinois gasoline tax is supposed to pay for repairing of roads and infrastructure but word on the street is that it's actually going to pay for the grossly underfunded state pension fund (Just like the Illinois lottery was supposed to pay for schools -- wink wink).
Go to
Aug 20, 2019 19:51:31   #
Reminds me of the guy who went for his vasectomy wearing a suit.

The doctor asked him, "Why are you wearing a suit?"

The man replied, "Well I figure if I'm going to be impotent I might as well look impotent."

Broom pish!
Go to
Aug 20, 2019 15:24:13   #
Rose42 wrote:
We don’t know if they all will or not.

It doesn't matter! They've sealed their fate by taking the mark!

Revelation 14:9-11
Then a third angel followed them, shouting, “Anyone (not someone, not a few but ANYONE) who worships the beast and his statue or who accepts his mark on the forehead or on the hand must (not maybe, not could be but MUST) drink the wine of God’s anger. It has been poured full strength into God’s cup of wrath. And they will be tormented with fire and burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and the Lamb. The smoke of their torment will rise forever and ever, and they will have no relief day or night, for they have worshiped (or pledged allegiance to) the beast and his statue and have accepted the mark of his name.”

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in that passage about repentance.
Go to
Aug 20, 2019 13:51:56   #
Rose42 wrote:
It might be. One needn’t worship the beast to get the mark. I am not saying one can think they can ask for forgiveness later. A Christian can’t do it. For one who has never been told the gospel that is different. Some will be redeemed out of the Great Tribulation. The gospel will continue to be preached and a great multitude will be redeemed during the Great Tribulation after the mark is in use. Rev 7:9-14.

Ones who refused to take the mark. I repeat, once you take the mark it is finito. No turning back.
Go to
Aug 19, 2019 22:18:20   #
Rose42 wrote:
Yes I have. I don’t play games with Scripture and I don’t cherry pick verses without looking for other verses to back it up or explain it.

And you are forgetting that in verse 9 it specifies worshipping the beast and his image AND taking the mark. One can wrongly take the mark without worshipping the beast and then repent of it.

Its no accident that the two are tied together. If God had meant simply taking the mark he would have said so.

May I respectfully ask how someone may “wrongly” take the mark? You seem to conveniently forget that Revelation 13:17a says “that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark.” Some people will be under extreme pressure and others will think it is no big deal to take the mark. Either way, it will be a conscious choice to take it or not take it. And there will be no excuse. The ones who take the mark are “of this world” and do not KNOW God.

John 15:18-21 (NASB)
[Jesus said:] “If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me.”

Revelation 14:9 (NASB)
9 Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships <G4352> the beast and his image, and <G2532> receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand.”

Considering the words, “worship” and “and,” why don’t you look up the meanings in a good concordance.

Greek NASB Number: 4352
Greek Word: προσκυνέω
Transliterated Word: proskuneô
Root: from 4314 and pôros kuneô (to kiss);
Definition: to do reverence to (or pledge allegiance to)

Greek NASB Number: 2532
Greek Word: καί
Transliterated Word: kai
Root: a prim. conjunc.;
Definition: and, even (at the very time)

In other words, one will pledge allegiance to the beast, and at the very time will receive the mark. Once that happens, their fate is sealed.

Revelation 14:10-11 (NASB)
10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.
11 "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."
Go to
Aug 19, 2019 16:46:15   #
PeterS wrote:
What else needs be said...

Let's see...Hitler was a g*******t who wanted to take over the world. Trump is a nationalist...USA first. I don't see Trump trying to take over the world.
Go to
Aug 19, 2019 13:50:51   #
I have a better idea. Let's take a poll of who the five stupidest people are on this site. Their names, in no particular order, begin with the letters K, L, A, P, F. And that's just a start.
Go to
Aug 19, 2019 13:47:42   #
AOC-Aligned Climate Group Demands Media Silence 'Climate Deniers'
Tyler O'Neil ~ August 18, 2019
The Climate Mobilization, a group pushing for a World War II-scale national mobilization to fight g****l w*****g, condemned the media for pursuing "objectivity" by giving air time to "climate deniers." Aligned with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), the organization wants the media to silence all voices opposing their climate alarmism.

"Some media outlets are sacrificing the future of our planet for the sake of appearing objective," Margaret Klein Salamon, founder and executive director of The Climate Mobilization, said in a news release Saturday.

"This idea of equating climate deniers with scientific experts is a dangerous practice which frames the threat to our planet, our existence as an ongoing debate," Klein Salamon added. "I don’t think sacrificing the future of our planet in exchange for a look of 'objectivity' is an even exchange. It’s one the coming generation will judge us on, if we don’t move with the urgency necessary to fight back against g****l w*****g and win."

In other words, climate alarmists aren't just calling for radical changes to America to stave off some hypothetical climate disaster — they're also calling for opposing voices to be silenced. "Science" can only have one voice, and that voice must be Chicken Little.

The Climate Mobilization seized on a Newsweek article about a study from Nature Communications. The study's authors claimed that the U.S. news media gives "c*****e c****e deniers too much prominence by placing people with little understanding of the complexities involved in the same league as top scientists."

"It's time to stop giving these people visibility, which can be easily spun into false authority," University of California Merced Professor Alex Petersen said in a statement. Petersen and his team traced the digital footprints of voices for and against climate alarmism across 100,000 media articles. They found that about half of mainstream outlets seek out "climate denying" experts.

Many outlets will present both sides of the issue, including one scientist echoing the climate alarmist mantra and another expert who disagrees — and who therefore must not be a real scientist, the article suggested.

"It's not just false balance; the numbers show that the media are 'balancing' experts—who represent the overwhelming majority of reputable scientists—with the views of a relative handful of non-experts," Professor LeRoy Westerling, the study's author, said in a statement. "Most of the contrarians are not scientists, and the ones who are have very thin credentials. They are not in the same league with top scientists. They aren't even in the league of the average career climate scientist."

Yet the Nature Communications study notes that 224 of the 386 "c*****e c****e contrarians" quoted by the media have at least one publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The study did not mention how many of the "c*****e c****e scientists" quoted by the media had published articles, but the authors selected 224 of their papers and showed how their papers were more heavily cited.

If the professional world of climate science is dominated by the ideology of climate alarmism, it would make sense that climate alarmists are more heavily cited than climate skeptics. In January 2017, Judith Curry, former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, resigned, calling out the alarmist ideology that increasingly dominates her field.

"I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science," Curry wrote. "Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc."

"How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists)," Curry wondered.

In other words, climate science is becoming an ideological echo chamber that rewards alarmism and silences dissenting voices, even when the dissenters are good scientists like Curry.

The fact that the 224 "climate deniers" — whom the Nature Communications paper and the Newsweek article suggest are not scientists — still have papers published in peer-reviewed journals should awaken readers to the bias in the study and the article reporting it.

The study also parroted the blatantly false claim that there is a scientific consensus on the issue — citing the Cook study from 2013. The Cook study notoriously misrepresented the scientific literature to claim a 97 percent consensus, and activists continue to cite it as if it were gospel t***h.

The study analyzed all published peer-reviewed academic research papers from 1991 to 2011 that use the terms "g****l w*****g" or "global c*****e c****e." Of the nearly 12,000 papers analyzed, the study discounted 7,930 — 66.4 percent — because they allegedly did not state a position. Then the study added up the papers it claimed endorsed man-made c*****e c****e and the papers it claimed opposed man-made c*****e c****e, and found that 97 percent of the papers that stated a position favored g****l w*****g.

But here's the kicker: many scientists whose papers were included in the study complained that the papers were misinterpreted as supporting man-made g****l w*****g when they did not.

Of the papers examined in the study, only 32.6 percent were interpreted as endorsing man-made g****l w*****g — and the authors of many of these papers objected to that characterization.

So, in Nature Communications there is a study claiming that "climate deniers" get too much media attention. But that study found that 78 percent of the "climate deniers" whom the study paints as unscientific actually have articles published in peer-reviewed journals. That study also based its assumptions off of the Cook study, which blatantly misrepresented data.

Now, The Climate Mobilization is calling for the media to stop quoting "climate deniers" — most of whom have peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals — because they are somehow unscientific. The Climate Mobilization's petition calling on Congress to declare a climate emergency was introduced in the Senate by Bernie Sanders and in the House of Representatives by AOC.

Yes, the same AOC whose chief of staff admitted that the climate alarmist Green New Deal "wasn't originally a climate thing at all." He added, "We really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing."

Yes, the same AOC who spouted unscientific anti-colonialist nonsense about growing yucca in New York City.

As for a climate emergency, if g****l w*****g is about to destroy the planet, why have the alarmist's predictions failed so spectacularly? Last year, the Maldives islands were supposed to sink beneath the waves. Instead, they resolutely remain above the surface. How inconvenient of them!

Perhaps the media should wait until a climate alarmist prediction actually comes true before silencing debate on this important issue. After all, the Green New Deal would cost between $49 trillion and $93 trillion in the first ten years — even taxing high earners at 100 percent for 10 years and confiscating all corporate profits wouldn't come close to footing that bill.

If there is serious debate and scientific disagreement on climate alarmism — and the study showed that published scientists disagree — the media should cover both sides of the story. That's just good journalism.
Go to
Aug 19, 2019 13:39:00   #
karpenter wrote:
This Sounds Like A Absolutely Brilliant Way
To Learn About Unintended Consequences

Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 ... 1118 next>>
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.