Major scandal; Now proven that the entire global warming threat is based on fabricated data

[qui_est_ce]

You’re welcome. Science doesn’t change its mind; scientists can **revise their theories **to explain the evidence more cogently.

Or their data when it doesn’t agree with their theories.
Back to the OP

 

[StAnastasia]

You painted those who disagreed with you as Creationists who believe Adam and Eve rode on dinosaurs. You quoted people people who said their great-grandchildren never did anything for them. NO one on this thread has said this. The link you posted is not a CAF Forum. I don’t see how that is relevant to the OP. Personally, I think you are pushing an agenda linking Creationists and people who disagree with you in order to make them look like uneducated fools.

Christine, I’m sorry you feel that way.

(1) Where did I equate you with a creationist?

(2) There are lots of comments on this threat that do not relate to the OP. Mine does relate: I raised the issue of whether there can be a moral obligation to a non-existent person. That’s a valid question in the field environmental ethics. It’s also relevant to Catholics, because we believe that a conceptus has a right to life. Does a conceptus only have the bare right to life, or does it also have a right to a particular kind of life? Does it have a right to a liveable world? Does it have a right to inherit a globe of a particular climate?

(3) I have no more of an agenda than you do. We’re both participating in an online forum; we hold contrasting positions opn the matter of AGW. I could as validly claim that you are pushing your agenda on me for denying AGW, as you claim that I’m pushing an agenda for supporting AGW.

StAnastasia

 

[paully]

paully;6060173:

Paully, the claim that

God created the world is a theological claim (createdness = ontological dependence). But how God did it is not a theological but a scientific matter.

Yes, but his group is very critical of Catholics and especially the pope because he accepts evolution as “more than a theory” . When I used to be interested I used to listen to focus on the family. Quite a while ago. They abhorred the pope teaching that evolution is possible. They said that would exclude the need for Adam and Eve.

It doesn’t matter if you believe that, the fact is that they are using the bible as science.

And by the way, why couldn’t the earth be 6000 years old? God could have created the world when in His mind it was 13.72324412343 billion years old. Maybe that’s when he firgured it would be interesting for us to study.

 

[StAnastasia]

And by the way, why couldn’t the earth be 6000 years old? God could have created the world when in His mind it was 13.72324412343 billion years old. Maybe that’s when he firgured it would be interesting for us to study.

Paully, that’s what the omphalists believe. God could have created the world last Thursday with all the appearances of age. We believe God didn’t.

 

[paully]

Paully, that’s what the omphalists believe. God could have created the world last Thursday with all the appearances of age. We believe God didn’t.

But you’re using Ken Hamm as an apologist and scientist by virtue of that post. I guess I don’t have more I can say.

God Bless you

 

[buffalo]

StAnastasia;6060209:

Yes, but his group is very critical of Catholics and especially the pope because he accepts evolution as “more than a theory” . When I used to be interested I used to listen to focus on the family. Quite a while ago. They abhorred the pope teaching that evolution is possible. They said that would exclude the need for Adam and Eve.

It doesn’t matter if you believe that, the fact is that they are using the bible as science.

And by the way, why couldn’t the earth be 6000 years old? God could have created the world when in His mind it was 13.72324412343 billion years old. Maybe that’s when he firgured it would be interesting for us to study.

I like this analogy. If we imagine ourselves in a rolled up measuring tape, from our perspective we see age markers going way back. If God looks at it He sees a rolled up tape containing it all.

Genesis 1 seems to be written from God’s perspective.

 

[paully]

Paully, that’s what the omphalists believe. God could have created the world last Thursday with all the appearances of age. We believe God didn’t.

WOW, now I’m really confused. I checked online and this is what I came up with for a definition of omphalitis.

Omphalitis is the medical term for infection of the umbilical cord stump in the neonatal newborn period. While currently an uncommon anatomical location for infection in the newborn in the United States, it has caused significant morbidity and mortality both historically and in areas where health care is less readily available.

Can you help me here?

thanks

 

[paully]

WOW, now I’m really confused. I checked online and this is what I came up with for a definition of omphalitis.

Omphalitis is the medical term for infection of the umbilical cord stump in the neonatal newborn period. While currently an uncommon anatomical location for infection in the newborn in the United States, it has caused significant morbidity and mortality both historically and in areas where health care is less readily available.

Can you help me here?

thanks

Oh oh. Google picked the wrong thing.

The Omphalos hypothesis was named after the title of an 1857 book, Omphalos by Philip Henry Gosse, in which Gosse argued that in order for the world to be “functional”, God must have created the Earth with mountains and canyons, trees with growth rings, Adam and Eve with hair, fingernails, and navels (omphalos is Greek for “navel”), and that therefore no evidence that we can see of the presumed age of the earth and universe can be taken as reliable. The idea has seen some revival in the twentieth century by some modern creationists, who have extended the argument to light that appears to originate in far-off stars and galaxies (although other creationists reject this explanation[1]). Many creationists believe that Adam and Eve had no navels, and that the trees in the Garden of Eden had no growth rings.[2]

 

[paully]

Many creationists believe that Adam and Eve had no navels, and that the trees in the Garden of Eden had no growth rings.[2]

Wow! I thought my old Barbi doll was the only one without a belly button.

 

[StAnastasia]

But you’re using Ken Hamm as an apologist and scientist by virtue of that post. I guess I don’t have more I can say.God Bless you

No, I’m not. I’m merely describing Ken Ham’s belief.

 

[paully]

No, I’m not. I’m merely describing Ken Ham’s belief.

I’m sorry. I thought you were trying to make a point in AGCC by using him. Since that is what the thread is about.

 

[StAnastasia]

Many creationists believe that Adam and Eve had no navels, and that the trees in the Garden of Eden had no growth rings.[2]

Of course, God could have created trees with varying apparent ages. But Flood Geology would have a problem with the Bristlecone Pines, which date back 9,000 years, thousands of years before Noah’s Flood.

Now, back to AGW!

 

[paully]

Of course, God could have created trees with varying apparent ages. But Flood Geology would have a problem with the Bristlecone Pines, which date back 9,000 years, thousands of years before Noah’s Flood.

Now, back to AGW!

But God could have manupulated the flood geology. He is all powerful. He could have also put the geological strata to make it look like the earth is more than 9000 years old.

 

[paully]

Of course, God could have created trees with varying apparent ages. But Flood Geology would have a problem with the Bristlecone Pines, which date back 9,000 years, thousands of years before Noah’s Flood.

Now, back to AGW!

Gee, I was just trying to post the definition of Omphalos. I wasn’t trying to use it in any other way.

 

[Callin]

Catholics have a serious obligation to follow His Holiness the Pope on this.

The pope is infallible on matters of morality - whether a certain action is right or wrong. Not whether humans are responsible for global climate change.

 

[John21652]

While all the would be scientists of the world debate the merits of tree ring growth and ice levels, here’s the REAL face of the global warming debate - Anti-Christian and anti capitalism ideology.

Even that mass murderer Robert Mugabe puts the blame for Global Warming firmly at the feet of capitalism.

 

[Ender]

It’s good that the Catholic bishops are taking the lead on this one:

“In facing climate change, what we already know requires a response; it cannot be easily dismissed. Significant levels of scientific consensus—even in a situation with less than full certainty, where the consequences of not acting are serious—justifies, indeed can obligate, our taking action intended to avert potential dangers. In other words, if enough evidence indicates that the present course of action could jeopardize humankind’s well-being, prudence dictates taking mitigating or preventative action.”

There is no Church teaching on the validity of the scientific theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. The opinion of a bishop on this topic is of no more significance - moral or otherwise - than that of your local butcher. The theory is either scientifically valid or it isn’t and no one’s personal opinion has any affect on which it turns out to be.

Ender

 

[paully]

While all the would be scientists of the world debate the merits of tree ring growth and ice levels, here’s the REAL face of the global warming debate - Anti-Christian and anti capitalism ideology.

Even that mass murderer Robert Mugabe puts the blame for Global Warming firmly at the feet of capitalism.

Thanks for the article. I didn’t realize that communist dictators and leftists of the AGW cabal were so anti-American. It also seems like they’re anti freedom and anti-Christian.

Who wants a dictator like Hugo Chavez being you’re cheerleader?

I’m trying to learn.

 

[4elise]

ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=99445

The Message of Pope Benedict XVI for the celebration of the forty-third World Day of Peace

In 1990 John Paul II had spoken of an “ecological crisis” and … pointed to the “urgent moral need for a new solidarity”. His appeal is all the more pressing today, in the face of signs of a growing crisis which it would be irresponsible not to take seriously. Can we remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change, desertification, the deterioration and loss of productivity in vast agricultural areas, the pollution of rivers and aquifers, the loss of biodiversity, the increase of natural catastrophes and the deforestation of equatorial and tropical regions? Can we disregard the growing phenomenon of “environmental refugees”, people who are forced by the degradation of their natural habitat to forsake it - and often their possessions as well - in order to face the dangers and uncertainties of forced displacement? Can we remain impassive in the face of actual and potential conflicts involving access to natural resources? All these are issues with a profound impact on the exercise of human rights, such as the right to life, food, health and development.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Thanks for the article. I didn’t realize that communist dictators and leftists of the AGW cabal were so anti-American. It also seems like they’re anti freedom and anti-Christian.

Who wants a dictator like Hugo Chavez being you’re cheerleader?

My 19 year old daughter’s Catholic Liberation Theologian says Hugo “has a plan.”:hypno:

I’m trying to learn.

Me too.

Luv ya paully - I know it’s cold and dark up there. Wish I were there. Instead we have cold sunny days here. brrrr:winter: