Global Warming?

  • Thread starter Thread starter StephenL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael_Mayo said:
I asked, “Is there a river near you that you would care to bathe in or drink from?”

and it was actually you who said, "How did I miss this ridiculous question? Do you even have any clue how many people in the USA bathe and drink in water taken directly from rivers?

“Directly” means untreated.

Please name a few such unbefouled rivers.
Click to expand...
So now you know what I meant by my words better than I. Very telling.

No it does not mean untreated. That was easy.👍
 
Lapey said:
So now you know what I meant by my words better than I. Very telling.

No it does not mean untreated. That was easy.👍
Click to expand...
You call my question “rediculous” and then use the word “directly” in your own proprietary definition. Is there, or is there not, a river near you that you would care to bathe in or drink from directly? Or what do you mean by “directly”?
 
Oreoracle said:
No, I don’t subscribe to such a movement. I think our main goal should be to seek alternative energy sources and encourage vegetarianism as much as possible, or at least weaken the meat industry.
Click to expand...
Seriously, what was God thinking when He created cows, bison, buffalos, and all those other ruminants. It is a good thing He made us men to fix what He created. We need to eat more veggies, and be sure we have a mule to pull the plow, we don’t want any of those nasty smelling, fossil fuel burning tractors plowing our fields.

I used to think the white man who came and killed thousands and thousands of bison in North America just for the hides were wasting our resources. Now I know they were just trying to save our planet.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
You call my question “ridiculous” and then use the word “directly” in your own proprietary definition. Is there, or is there not, a river near you that you would care to bathe in or drink from directly? Or what do you mean by “directly”?
Click to expand...
What you cannot do is change my intent and my thoughts. Which is what you are trying to do to put me on the defensive. All you need to know is this, we use water from many, many rivers in the US and across the world. Things are not a bleak as the picture you try to paint, humans are not as evil as the leftists try to make us sound.

Now I have stated what I meant so to continue your attempts to change what I meant is an insult and will be reported to moderators.
 
Lapey said:
What you cannot do is change my intent and my thoughts. Which is what you are trying to do to put me on the defensive. All you need to know is this, we use water from many, many rivers in the US and across the world. Things are not a bleak as the picture you try to paint, humans are not as evil as the leftists try to make us sound.

Now I have stated what I meant so to continue your attempts to change what I meant is an insult and will be reported to moderators.
Click to expand...
How can you possibly be insulted when I ask you to define what You mean by “direct” when your meaning differs from the common definition? How else can I guess your intent and thoughts when you use words with your own definitions. So I ask again. What do you mean by “Directly”?

Yes, we use water from many rivers** after **it has been treated, processed, filtered. Otherwise we get fertilizers, soaps, pesticides and who knows what else.

You called my question rediculous. It is you who are insulting. But I let it slide.
 
Lapey said:
God has given all of the resources for our use, from crude oil to cattle, who are you to think you know better? .
Click to expand...
God has also given us the resources to perform IVF and perform abortions. That doesn’t mean it is OK to use those resources that way. God intends that we use all resources responsibly. You are deliberately avoiding the argument of whether this of that use of a particular resource is responsible, hoping to cover it all by saying “God is in charge, so everything is OK”. That argument, in its most general form, is not consistent with our Catholic beliefs. If you want to argue that it is OK to use petroleum and beef in certain ways (which I agree with, by the way), you should do it with specifics about the resource in question. Stop trying to take the short cut, because it doesn’t work, and it demeans our faith.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
How can you possibly be insulted when I ask you to define what You mean by “direct” when your meaning differs from the common definition? How else can I guess your intent and thoughts when you use words with your own definitions. So I ask again. What do you mean by “Directly”?

Yes, we use water from many rivers** after **it has been treated, processed, filtered. Otherwise we get fertilizers, soaps, pesticides and who knows what else.

You called my question ridiculous. It is you who are insulting. But I let it slide.
Click to expand...
You said we don’t use water from rivers, I said we do. Your statement/question was ridiculous and your attempt to change my meaning and thought was insulting as usual. This is how you do things; it is your attempt to put me on the defensive and appear to be the superior intellect. It is how the elitist leftist works.

But I must admit that it is my fault completely, I should have remained out of this thread because of past experience with you and others like you I can expect no less. So I’ll take the blame for this one.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
God has also given us the resources to perform IVF and perform abortions. That doesn’t mean it is OK to use those resources that way. God intends that we use all resources responsibly. You are deliberately avoiding the argument of whether this of that use of a particular resource is responsible, hoping to cover it all by saying “God is in charge, so everything is OK”. That argument, in its most general form, is not consistent with our Catholic beliefs. If you want to argue that it is OK to use petroleum and beef in certain ways (which I agree with, by the way), you should do it with specifics about the resource in question. Stop trying to take the short cut, because it doesn’t work, and it demeans our faith.
Click to expand...
A little presumptuous of my meaning and beliefs don’t you think? That’s like saying because I agree with the second amendment that I believe gun violence is okay. Come on, give me some credit can’t you folks?
 
I am much more “stupider” than I thought…:o

Have a nice day folks, me and my family are heading to Baton Rouge for the walk against abortion. Hope all of you have a God day!🙂
 
Lapey said:
You said we don’t use water from rivers, I said we do. Your statement/question was ridiculous and your attempt to change my meaning and thought was insulting as usual. This is how you do things; it is your attempt to put me on the defensive and appear to be the superior intellect. It is how the elitist leftist works.

But I must admit that it is my fault completely, I should have remained out of this thread because of past experience with you and others like you I can expect no less. So I’ll take the blame for this one.
Click to expand...
I did not say, “We do not use water from rivers.” Go back and look.

I did not attempt to change your meaning, Lapey. You employed your own meaning that was different from the standard meaning.

I did not attempt to put you on the defensive. You got defensive when I asked for clarification of your own meaning.

I in no way think I am or want to appear to be the superior intellect. I am well aware of my intellectual limitations which is why I ask questions.

Think about it.

I am glad you are going to the walk against abortion. That is a cause we can agree on.
May God bless you, your family and all you meet there.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
Is there a river near you that you would care to bathe in or drink from?
Click to expand...
Actually, pretty much wherever I’ve lived I’ve swum in the rivers. I would never bathe in one simply because I wouldn’t put the soap in the water, but they’re plenty clean enough to bathe in.

(And people wonder how threads can ever get to 1000 posts. This is a slow morning.)

Ender
 
10gr8kids said:
As a side note, Oreo, thanks to the people you would like to hurt, our beef supply is double the amount it was in 1958 with the same number of cows. Farmers, ranchers, and hunters are THE BEST conservationist.
Click to expand...
Not to put down farmers, ranchers, and hunters, who I agree are pretty good at conservation, but how is making bigger and fatter cows a sign of conservation?
 
Ender said:
Actually, pretty much wherever I’ve lived I’ve swum in the rivers. I would never bathe in one simply because I wouldn’t put the soap in the water, but they’re plenty clean enough to bathe in.

(And people wonder how threads can ever get to 1000 posts. This is a slow morning.)

Ender
Click to expand...
cfpub.epa.gov/surf/locate/index.cfm

Check it out and see what youv’e been swimming in.
 
Lapey said:
A. a new ice age
Click to expand...
There was never a mainstream consensus on that.
Lapey said:
B. a hole in the ozone layer
Click to expand...
Ozone depletion over Antarctic has been proven by taking air samples from U-2 planes. Pilots actually risked their life to get this data.
Lapey said:
C. Ronald Reagan with his finger on the button for nuclear war is just unbearable!!!
Click to expand...
Reagan’s brinkmanship has almost caused a nuclear war in 1983 – it was only averted because a Russian officer named Petrov declined to follow his procedures. To make matters more interesting, Petrov actually wasn’t supposed to be on duty, but traded shifts with someone else. In the grand trandition that all good deeds must be punished, Petrov was fired from the army and Reagan got a second term.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83
 
StephenL said:
What is your opinion on this article by the New York Times?
nytimes.com/2013/10/10/science/earth/by-2047-coldest-years-will-be-warmer-than-hottest-in-past.html?src=recg
God Bless!
Click to expand...
All AGW computer models predicted a steady increase in global temperatures. However, for the past 11+ years, the global temperatures have not increased, and in fact, decreased, despite a continuing rise in CO2, countering the theory of a causal connection between increasing carbon dioxide and rising temperatures.
God bless
 
weller2 said:
There was never a mainstream consensus on that.

Ozone depletion over Antarctic has been proven by taking air samples from U-2 planes. Pilots actually risked their life to get this data.

Reagan’s brinkmanship has almost caused a nuclear war in 1983 – it was only averted because a Russian officer named Petrov declined to follow his procedures. To make matters more interesting, Petrov actually wasn’t supposed to be on duty, but traded shifts with someone else. In the grand trandition that all good deeds must be punished, Petrov was fired from the army and Reagan got a second term.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83
Click to expand...
the world changes many time creation pre-flood after-flood ancient history early history “modern” history etc… even if the ozone data is accurate how do account the strong antarctic winds that actually cause the “hole” and history about climate “change” ?
God bless
 
Ender said:
The best guide to the quality of a body of water is the number of people who swim in it without experiencing health problems. By that standard, most rivers and lakes in the US are quite safe. And by any objective standard generally getting safer all the time. (If not warmer.)

Ender
Click to expand...
By that standard I wonder how many rivers and lakes there are that no one would want to swim in due to mere appearance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top