What if climate change is real and human caused--what should Christians do about it?

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian explains to Stipe that the Paris accords aren't about population.

Oh, you'd forgotten this was about population?

Then it was probably a bad idea for you to bring the Paris accords into it.

Have you figured out how big 1.5 acres is yet?

As I showed you, a square about 250 feet on a side.

(Barbarian pulls up calculator)
Actually... 255.61690084968951442183151638564 feet on a side. The stuff after the little dot amounts to less than one, so even though it looks a lot bigger than 250, it isn't really much bigger at all, Stipe. Sorry for the confusion.

[Stripe]

(Stipe asks how we might keep human population at a reasonable level without letting nature do it to us)

Blablabarian makes stuff up.

Barbarian suggests one way known to be effective:You don't know how to reduce population growth? No idea? Easiest way is to increase prosperity. As affluence rises, fertility rates decline.I thought you said you knew about this stuff, Stipe. Is this like your attempt to pretend you had learned about Earth science?Stipe is the human non-sequitur.

Get back to us when you're willing to be sensible.

Barbarian explains to Stipe that the Paris accords aren't about population. Then it was probably a bad idea for you to bring the Paris accords into it.

As I showed you, a square about 250 feet on a side.

Memory going as well as your math ability?

[The Barbarian]

(Stipe asks how big 1.5 acres would be)

(Barbarian says roughly 250 feet on a side)

Memory going as well as your math ability?

I think I know what's confusing you, Stipe.

1.5 Acres = 65340 Square Feet
https://www.asknumbers.com/AcresToSq...onversion.aspx

That probably seems like a lot to you. But a square that contains 65340 square feet will be less than 256 feet on a side. You see, to find the length of the side, you take the square root of the area. And the square root of 265340 is 255.6169, rounded to four decimal places. As you learned, the length of the decimal place really doesn't add much to the total size. But I can see how that confused you.

[Stripe]

(Stipe asks how big 1.5 acres would be)

(Barbarian says roughly 250 feet on a side)



I think I know what's confusing you, Stipe.

1.5 Acres = 65340 Square Feet
https://www.asknumbers.com/AcresToSq...onversion.aspx

That probably seems like a lot to you. But a square that contains 65340 square feet will be less than 256 feet on a side. You see, to find the length of the side, you take the square root of the area. And the square root of 265340 is 255.6169, rounded to four decimal places. As you learned, the length of the decimal place really doesn't add much to the total size. But I can see how that confused you.

You're such a doofus.

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian tries to explain again...
I think I know what's confusing you, Stipe.

1.5 Acres = 65340 Square Feet
https://www.asknumbers.com/AcresToSq...onversion.aspx

That probably seems like a lot to you. But a square that contains 65340 square feet will be less than 256 feet on a side. You see, to find the length of the side, you take the square root of the area. And the square root of 265340 is 255.6169, rounded to four decimal places. As you learned, the length of the decimal place really doesn't add much to the total size. But I can see how that confused you.

You're such a doofus.

Maybe one of these would help you:

[Stripe]

Not interested in the discussion, are you?

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

[Derf]

There is a good reason why law courts treat all testimony unsupported by physical evidence as suspect. You can keep testing reallity, but people have all sorts of reasons for writing what they write.

You can also test what people have written. It gets more difficult the longer you wait after the event. In other words, the writing IS reality, whether the subject of the writing is reality or not. SOMEBODY wrote that stuff. That doesn't make the writing true, but it is true that somebody wrote it--so it is one "witness" to an event. Whether it is a true witness or not must be decided.

Scientists are also witnesses--and they write down their observations. But they are not witnesses to the events, they are only witnesses to the experiments or analyses that are being done during their lifetimes. Thus, scientists today can only give an opinion about an interpretation of something that may or may not bear any weight on the matter in question.

And then we have to choose to believe or not believe them, just as we do the bible accounts or other historical accounts.

[gcthomas]

I agree.

A scientist that has written a report for the court can expect to be called to testify and be interrogated about their findings. Without the scientist present the report will be considered hersay unless both sides agree with the findings.

The Bible would have the legal status of heresay in a court, bacause the authors are not available for cross-examination. Scientific results. OTOH, can be replicated by other scientists who can validate what was done. If prosecution and defence scientists agree, then the science is provisionally accepted. The Bible cannot be verified by experiment, or even cross referenced to other independent documents in any significant way, since many contemporary documents draw on the Bible for information.

The choice to believe science that has been verified by independents is categorically a different sort of judgement from that of deciding whether to believe the Bible for what must be personal reasons.

[genuineoriginal]

There hasn't been one since. There was a cold spell in the Northern latitudes often called the Little Ice Age, but it wasn't actually an ice age of course. Which ice age were you thinking of?

I see you are a global cooling denier.

[Stripe]

I see you are a global cooling denier.

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

[The Barbarian]

(Stipe expresses skepticism that 1.5 acres would occupy a square about 255 feet on a side)

(Barbarian demonstrates why it does)

Not interested in the discussion, are you?

I'm just trying to help you, Stipe.

[The Barbarian]

I see you are a global cooling denier.

Barbarian checks...

NASA surface temperature anomaly data:
2000 57
2001 67
2002 80
2003 77
2004 69
2005 88
2006 77
2007 86
2008 65
2009 80
2010 93
2011 79
2012 77
2013 82
2014 88
2015 98
2016 125

Mother nature certainly seems to be a cooling denier.

[john w]

Wear a wind breaker, and eat more "Mr.Cookie Bars."

[genuineoriginal]

Barbarian lists a number of years that have nothing to do with the little ice age ....

Mother nature certainly seems to be a cooling denier.

[ffreeloader]

I have something to offer on this, but it comes from a completely different angle than anyone else on this thread seems to have taken.

I have been a "denier" of the politically pushed narrative by the left for a long time. It just doesn't make sense to me. The earth is too much of a self-correcting system for what they allege to be true. However, in the last couple of weeks I ran across something that is very interesting on this subject. I'll give a couple of links and let people decide for themselves whether or not they buy into it. As for myself, I think it looks pretty credible.

What I'm speaking to is geoengineering done by multiple governments around the world. It appears that this has been going on for around 70 years on some level with a massive increase in it in the last few decades, and it is having a massive effect on our climate and our health.

This first link is to a video interview with a guy by the name of Dane Wigington on usawatchdog.com. The second is a link to Wigington's site. On it there is an incredible amount of documentation for what he purports. I have downloaded about 40 of the documents that Wigington has on his site and am in the process of studying them and researching what he provides. He provides a lot of scientific, government, and academic evidence to back his conclusions. His site is pretty large so expect, if you're interested in learning if he is really credible, to spend quite a bit of time learning.

If Wigington is right, there is a lot of work for both Christians and non-Christians to do to respond to this. For me this is my first attempt to spread the word on this. Spend some time and see if you think this is credible or not, and if you do, start conversations on it with people you know as it will take a lot of political pressure from we the people to stop what is going on.

https://usawatchdog.com/climate-engi...ane-wigington/

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/