Global Warming / Climate Change

[computerwiz]

11 minutes ago, cme said:

You are so right.  My husband comes from a long line of family men that die before 65 or at 65.  My husband was next in line.  Colon cancer.

 

However, I know that pharmaceuticals are getting away with selling their products that do nothing or complicate the situation even more so.  So then they prescribe something else to combat the prescription that is making one sick.

 

I'm not into holistic but, I do look up things and have always seen the advantage of it.  Man was made from the earth so we need the chemicals or nutrients that make up our bodies.  I got his high blood pressure down, his cholesteral down and, I researched soursop and have been giving him this for the past 23 years.  No cancer, not even a polyp.

 

It takes every fiber of my being not to hijack a thread to talk about health stuffs.  So I'll just say I'm glad to hear you discovered soursop.  😊👍  Now look into grounding/earthing to help him even further.  😉

[Frances Bennett]

I've just spent a while reading this thread from the start and I can see the passion of everyone...you lovely lot!

 

I've been on a right journey with this climate change stuff myself.

 

Some of the posts from @Just another lowly sheep could have been written by me a few years ago. I researched into the amount of oil extracted from the earth each year and it's resultant effect on tectonic plates. I read and studied all the facts and figures related to global warming and carbon emissions and worried endlessly over my "footprint".

 

I saw it as absolute rock solid proof that we were on the brink and that Jehovah was about to step in.

 

Then somebody introduced me to the classic "problem-reaction-solution" matrix and explained to me how the 'powers that be' repeatedly either manufacture or over-inflate problems in order to drive a reaction that they then provide a solution to.

 

They simply said if you see a lot of money or power involved in the solutions being offered you need to double check you've not been duped.

 

I said..."Nahhh you're a silly conspiracy theorist and I'm not going to listen to you". 

 

But I couldn't get it out of my head and from that point on I started to see it everywhere...I couldn't unsee it once I'd seen it.

 

The deeper I dug (particularly using independent sources with no financial stakes in whichever "crisis" I investigated...mojeek is my friend) the more obvious it was.

 

TBH I felt a bit silly about some of the stuff I believed after I allowed myself to humbly listen to alternative qualified, scientific voices. In fact I've grown quite accustomed to the taste of humble pie...it goes down relatively easily now 🤣

 

Now I see the "problem-reaction-solution" matrix as absolute rock solid proof that we are on the brink and that Jehovah is about to step in, because the "problem-reaction-solution" matrix is man dominating man to his harm (Eccl 8:9) on a previously unseen scale, a scale that could very easily lead to very nasty global consequences and disasters that we (humans) may not have anticipated.

 

This is especially true with the climate crisis, a "problem" which some very reputable sources think is either manufactured or over-inflated. 

 

For a second take note  that the organisation taking the global lead in driving us to look at this "problem" is the UN...aka "the scarlet coloured wild beast" and that as we all "react" to the horrific threat they lay out before us (using scientists that they obviously have to financially support through partner organisations...🤔) they also are, rather conveniently, providing the "solution" to the problem...if only we all do exactly as they say and write into our individual member states laws the sustainability goals that they have outlined.

 

I mean its a global problem so it needs a United global solution, right?

 

It's a mere coincidence that vast amounts of money change hands as their sustainability goals are implemented and that huge amounts of control and power are given to those who comply and echo their views.

 

Thank goodness for the UN, eh. I mean, if Jehovah wasn't going to step in at least they're offering us peace and security if we follow their plan, right?!? 😜

 

Problem 

 

Reaction

 

Solution 

 

I know what you think..."Nahhh she's a silly conspiracy theorist and I'm not going to listen to her". 

 

🤣

 

 

Edited June 10 by Frances Bennett

[computerwiz]

1 hour ago, Mrs.Blessed said:

I dont want to offend anyone.. I really dont, but perhaps the friends who want to talk about changes in the environment and the weather can continue to share their observations and feelings...  While the friends who don't like this topic and think it's not interesting or important, can choose other topics on the forum to participate in? 

 

It's just all part of discussion sister Rebecca.  Some just may need to take the "passion" down a notch.  Nothing wrong with a civil discussion.  😉

  

1 hour ago, Mrs.Blessed said:

I feel like some friends are trying to shut this topic down? Is it just me?

I don't think we need to  discuss the political aspects of the term climate change.

 

It may feel that way due to the intensity of passion when discussing it.  Personally, I just want to help establish a balanced view of things.  And to encourage the friends to dig a little deeper, not just taking things at "face value".

 

  

1 hour ago, Mrs.Blessed said:

I feel like our natural environment and the weather and how it affects the brotherhood and our neighbors is a valid concern and topic of discussion.

 

Absolutely!  No matter what the cause, things are certainly worse and getting worse.  And our brotherhood needs help and support.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Watching and Waiting]

On 6/6/2024 at 1:37 AM, hatcheckgirl said:

And sure, we have full confidence that earth won't get ruined beyond repair, but definitely we can see how it is affecting our weather and climate systems!  I love when Lewis updates us with the information he has on this, but I don't understand much of the science.  Yet, we don't need to understand the science to appreciate how it's affecting mankind.

THIS  ⬆️

This is a forum of brothers and sisters and some act like they're trying to convince someone of their own opinions, with long winded posts.  Just state your 'opinion' and move on.  We all have 'one' when it comes to things that we simply would be a fool to keep beating the proverbial dead horse about, as if the use of many words will convince others, when frankly there's no way to know.  (Not talking about scriptural points and matters of faith.)

 

9 hours ago, computerwiz said:

We are quick to accept whatever scientists/researchers conclude.

 

"We" should be changed to "I."  Proclamations that include everyone in their accusatory nature are incendiary.  No, I am not quick to accept whatever scientists and researchers conclude and it is rude to infer that everyone does.  When there are facts to substantiate findings, that's different.  

 

As far as I know there are no children here that need to be taught. . . .believe there's an age requirement when you become a member.  If something is flat out wrong, the moderators will advise. No need to make others feel inferior or lacking in education, because that's how quite a number of these posts are coming off.

 

Said my piece and will now tune in to the posts that Carl updates about various 'natural' events happening that I find interesting. Been around on this earth a few decades and I am interested as to why some things that are not obvious are so different now.  Glad someone is doing the digging and I can just read about it.  I am thankful for them.

Edited June 10 by Watching and Waiting

[Just another lowly sheep]

15 hours ago, computerwiz said:

 

If you understand science then you understand correlation <> causation.  What we are seeing are merely inferences based on observations.

 

For example, if we take the same chart that was posted earlier:

 

 

 

What caused the "medieval warm period"?

 

What caused the "Little ice age"?

 

I too find it funny that we see the big spike at the end and everyone wants to run to a conclusion of a cause: It MUST be mankind's fault!!!

 

Well whose fault was the "medieval warm period"?  Whose fault was the "little ice age"?  You can't blame one without blaming the rest!!  That's not very scientific.  In fact, that seems biased toward a specific conclusion.

 

Let's take this further...

 

 

 

 

 

Please explain that period of stability while also blaming humans for climate change.  Kinda hard to do, isn't it?  🤔

 

 

On the flip side, if you dig deeper and look beyond the "obvious answer" that everyone so quickly sides with, you'll find there are other potential explanations for climate change.  Do you know how the earth orbits the sun?  It's not perfect...

 

 

 

Based on which part of the earth is getting a more direct blast from the sun, things could be hotter or things could be colder.  Land warms up faster than water, so when the northern hemisphere is closer during the earth's closer orbit, we can expect more than usual heat.  When the southern hemisphere is it...less heat is absorbed.

 

In any case, yes....man is indeed ruining the earth.  Look at what they did to that toxic spill in Ohio.  Look at the oil spills in the Gulf.  Look at all the plastics found in the ocean.  Etc etc etc.  There's plenty of that.

 

But this climate change stuff is politicized so much.....look at what it is doing to people: putting themselves into traffic to stop travel.  Throwing cans of soup or whatever onto valuable paintings.  Etc etc etc.  And the SAME PEOPLE who promote that idea continue to travel by airplane or other gas vehicles like it's no big deal.  Hypocrites!  If that doesn't scream "agenda" to you...then I guess words speak louder than actions to you....  

 

Anyone who appreciates sciences knows that science is never settled.  The Watchtower & Awake can take what is agreed upon and present it as what is known & believed by modern science.  If that view were to change 10-20 years from now, they could take the new stance, which could be completely different, and they'd be perfectly accurate at that time.  There isn't a problem there.

 

Could humans be to blame for our global warming?  Sure!  But I think it's foolish to close off our ears & eyes to other possibilities.  Everyone here seems to be in agreement that we should not fear doom from climate change.  And we can agree that science believes at this time that humans are to blame.  But then when you look at their very own charts without the bias, just trying to figure out things on your own, there's some head-scratching questions you got to ask...if you appreciate the scientific method.  🤔

I personally don’t put much stock in what scientists claim they know about ancient history, because so much of that is based on assumptions that earth was formed without a maker, and life magically came about as elements collided, etc. They can only make guesses based on “ice core samples”, and “tree rings” of ancient trees, geological layers, etc.

 

A so-called “medieval warm period”, and “little ice age”, before far more advanced technology and views from satellites, aren’t convincing, not enough actual accurate data, too much guesswork.

 

Now that we have the advanced technology to monitor and document the changes, I don’t believe for one second that all meteorologists and climate scientists, are united in the same “politics”. The scientific data is now quite universally agreed upon, that modern consumerism (mining resources, creating products, dumping the waste, burning fossil fuels to produce electricity worldwide, to run vehicles, global shipping, factories, etc) is pumping so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that we are changing the entire atmosphere and world climate, and causing increasing damage to all parts of earth’s ecology & environment in every corner of the globe. 

[Just another lowly sheep]

The “politics” of the “climate issue” are only about how to “fix” it, which humans won’t. Debates such as whether to continue using fossil fuels, or to turn to other energy sources. Or whether gasoline cars or electric cars are better, for example.

 

To say it’s “only political”, would be like saying “wars are not actually happening, that’s political propaganda”. The reality, is that we see wars happening, we see the missiles, rockets, bombs, guns, etc. We see mankind destroying cities and killing human beings.

 

That man’s system is “ruining the earth”, was not only foretold, it’s observable and proven. It’s happening before our eyes, just like war, increasing lawlessness, and the rest.
 

The “politics” only involves the business & financial interests, what possible “solutions” to implement. Those things will be “debated” as the destruction continues, until the end.

[Frances Bennett]

50 minutes ago, Just another lowly sheep said:

That man’s system is “ruining the earth”, was not only foretold, it’s observable and proven.

 

Ruining of the Earth was also mentioned before the flood.

 

Genesis 6:11-12

 

"But the earth had become ruined in the sight of the true God, and the earth was filled with violence. Yes, God looked upon the earth, and it was ruined; all flesh had ruined its way on the earth"

 

Yet no man-made interference with the fabric of the planet had happened then.

 

It was the men themselves that ruined it.

 

The Earth is an amazing creation. It is perfect and more robust than some would have you believe. Not easily ruined in a physical way.

 

 

[Witness1970]

On 6/9/2024 at 7:35 AM, Pjdriver said:

 

The problem I see is that now that we have climate change hammered into our brains....we will blame every disaster and heat or cold related deaths on it.  These things are nothing new. There have been great droughts and floods and storms, volcanic eruptions  and ice ages and heat waves etc....

since day one.

So while climate change may be happening and people die in these storms etc....it is FAR for being an existential threat, and a lot of hype created by politicians and for commercial interest.  

There is no existential threat for Jehovah's Witnesses.  Even though something could seem to be an existential threat to others, we know that God's Kingdom will prevent such things.

 

Nuclear war is not an existential threat to Jehovah's Witnesses, but it would seem to be so to others.

[Witness1970]

I agree that there is an agenda.  If certain politicians accepted climate change as real, it would mean the businesses that cause climate change should be responsible for cleaning up their mess.  The plutocracy in our government means that businesses are given a pass.

 

The "warm period" and the "Little Ice Age" can be explained as normal climate change.  Solar activity can cause some changes within limits, especially when combined with other factors.  Why compare those small changes to the tremendous change that is going on now?

 

It is a known fact that CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases.  The level of CO2 going into the atmosphere today is overwhelming.  Methane is more of a greenhouse gas than CO2, but fortunately, it does not stay in the atmosphere as long.  The CO2 stays much longer and the normal processes that remove CO2 cannot handle the excess.

[Timl1980]

Personally, and this is just my understanding from the scriptures, I believe the principal taught by Jehovah through the apostle Paul to come into play here. If you will turn to the following scriptures and read along, I believe this principle might help soothe things over.

 

1 Corinthians 8:7-13: However, not all have this knowledge. But some, because of their former association with the idol, eat food as something sacrificed to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.  8 But food will not bring us nearer to God; we are no worse off if we do not eat, nor better off if we eat.  9 But keep watching that your right to choose does not somehow become a stumbling block to those who are weak.  10 For if anyone should see you who have knowledge having a meal in an idol temple, will not the conscience of that one who is weak be emboldened to the point of eating food offered to idols?  11 So by your knowledge the man who is weak is being ruined, your brother for whose sake Christ died.  12 When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you are sinning against Christ.  13 That is why if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat at all, so that I will not make my brother stumble.

 

Paul's refreshing words here in verse 13 should give every single one of us pause, whether we feel that we are the offended party or not. 

 

At the end of the day, when everything is said and done, what truly matters is that Jehovah will set everything right.

 

From the overall view of this subject matter, civil discussions amongst the friends are perfectly fine. However, as mature Christians, we should also realize that we all have varying opinions and thought processes when it comes to this subject, or any other subject for that matter. 

 

Ask Jehovah points out, it is beauty to overlook an offense. For example, did Jesus point out all the mistakes of his disciples? And after Jesus returned to heaven, did the disciples show no understanding of all that Jesus had taught them? Do we read anywhere that the rest of the apostles continue to be angry at each other for abandoning Christ? 

 

The Bible's position on the ruination of the Earth by mankind is crystal clear, in as much as Jehovah himself said that man is bringing ruin to the Earth. 

 

What that means, both literally and scientifically, I'm not entirely sure. 

 

However, I don't need to be. Jehovah has everything firmly in hand, and as far as discussions go among Jehovah's servants, that's all that matters to me personally. 

 

However, I certainly understand a desire to talk about various world events and changes in the earth's climate and ecosystems, for better or for worse. 

 

And that is why I refer back to Paul's words in verse 13, because Paul said he would rather never eat meat again then stumble one of his brothers or sisters. 

 

If all of us see the wisdom of applying those words, then we should take a step back mentally and evaluate our public comments on subjects like these. If it applies, great. If not, then know you have the smile of approval from Jehovah and the warm Christian love of your brothers and sisters.

 

Edited June 11 by Timl1980

[carlos]

We removed a good number of posts in this topic where some members were being rude and insulting. How inappropriate to speak like that anywhere but especially in a forum titled "Encouragement for the Global Brotherhood" and open to the public. And what a shameful spectacle to any visitors!

 

Please remember this is a Christian forum and all participants are expected to express their viewpoints with kindness, respect and calm. It doesn't matter how right you think you are, that never justifies being mean to others.

[computerwiz]

Thanks Carlos!  

 

Nice reminders Tim!  

 

9 hours ago, Just another lowly sheep said:

A so-called “medieval warm period”, and “little ice age”, before far more advanced technology and views from satellites, aren’t convincing, not enough actual accurate data, too much guesswork.

 

 

5 hours ago, Witness1970 said:

The "warm period" and the "Little Ice Age" can be explained as normal climate change.  Solar activity can cause some changes within limits, especially when combined with other factors.  Why compare those small changes to the tremendous change that is going on now?

 

It is a known fact that CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases.  The level of CO2 going into the atmosphere today is overwhelming.  Methane is more of a greenhouse gas than CO2, but fortunately, it does not stay in the atmosphere as long.  The CO2 stays much longer and the normal processes that remove CO2 cannot handle the excess.

 

Now we are getting somewhere.  This is a good counter-point and I can accept that as an explanation.  But there still remains the question about the "stable period" during the industrial revolution.  Why did temps stop rising for nearly 50 years?

 

If we're going to blame industry as the cause, then the correlation should continue as long as the cause is in effect, no?

 

 

 

 

 

[trottigy]

1 hour ago, computerwiz said:

 

If we're going to blame industry as the cause, then the correlation should continue as long as the cause is in effect, no?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good question.

 

Look again at the chart and note that it is a chart about CHANGE. The reason for the area you note with a circle isn't that warming did NOT increase, but rather that it DID increase, but at a steady "rate" of about 0.3 C. (note: 0.3 C CHANGE is close to the peak change at all the other times noted)

 

 

And then after that the "rate of change" increases dramatically more than in any other period we know of.

 

Edited June 11 by trottigy

[trottigy]

 

The real question then becomes - what happened in the 1980s that started this dramatic climb. It turns out to LIKELY be a COMBINATION of environmental and human factors.

 

Here is one idea:

 

Quote

To explore possible mechanisms behind the 1980s regime shift, we used historical climate model simulations from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) (Jones et al., 2013) together with statistical modelling (Folland et al., 2013) of the main anthropogenic radiative forcing and natural (volcanic and solar) factors influencing global mean surface temperature. Using these approaches, we show that the rapid cooling of the Earth's surface (Robock, 2000), and especially of the oceans (Church et al., 2005), initiated by the El Chichón volcanic eruption of 1982 was followed by a recovery reinforced by anthropogenic warming. It is the scale and speed of these combined heating effects that we propose contributes to the synchronization of the regime shift between different systems. Although temperature appears to be the main forcing factor, volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols and their interactions with clouds (IPCC Chap. 7, 2013) and the brightening effect described by Wild (2009) may also have contributed. The 1980s regime shift is an example of unforeseen compounding effects that may occur if unavoidable natural events such as major volcanic eruptions interact with anthropogenic warming.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4738433/

 

EDIT: interesting reading on this change point in the 80s:

https://www.history.com/topics/natural-disasters-and-environment/history-of-climate-change

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151124081517.htm

 

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/29/science/temperature-for-world-rises-sharply-in-the-1980-s.html

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings

 

This last one:

Quote

In the 1980s, oil companies like Exxon and Shell carried out internal assessments of the carbon dioxide released by fossil fuels, and forecast the planetary consequences of these emissions. 

 

Their chart from that time is pretty accurate of what is happening right now.

 

Edited June 11 by trottigy

[computerwiz]

2 minutes ago, trottigy said:

 

Good question.

 

Look again at the chart and note that it is a chart about CHANGE. The reason for the area you note with a circle isn't that warming did NOT increase, but rather that it DID increase, but at a steady "rate" of about 0.3 C

 

And then after that the "rate of change" increases dramatically more than in any other period we know of.

 

 

Ok, getting warmer (pun intended) 

 

That makes it make more sense.  But raises a new question: how are we supposed to understand the rate of change as presented by the chart?

 

What I mean is if the "rate of change" is +0.2 C for one year, and next year it was +0.2 C (just eyeballing what looks to be the average rate of change), then by that logic, since the chart shows 2000 years and rarely does the rate of change go below "0", we should be at about 400 C hotter than we were 2000 years ago.  🤔  Because my understanding is if we have +0.2 C one year and +0.2 C the next, then we went up 0.4 C in that time frame....

 

^^^ all that is in reference to the 1st chart.

 

The SECOND chart you posted doesn't seem to be rate of change, but rather the overall average variance from the "pre-industrial level".  I wish that chart would go further back.  But anyways....

 

I would like to see this chart in relation to the amount of forest fires we've had in recent years.  I'd bet there's a big correlation there.  I'll have to see what I can find.

 

4 minutes ago, trottigy said:

It turns out to LIKELY be a COMBINATION of environmental and human factors.

 

Absolutely!  Which is why I'm now curious about any relationship between forest fires & what we're seeing in these charts.  If I was to guess what is the BIGGEST factor in current climate change, I'd suspect the cutting down of trees & destruction by fire to be the biggest culprit.  Not our fossil fuels & cow farts...  😁

[trottigy]

45 minutes ago, computerwiz said:

 

Ok, getting warmer (pun intended) 

 

That makes it make more sense.  But raises a new question: how are we supposed to understand the rate of change as presented by the chart?

 

What I mean is if the "rate of change" is +0.2 C for one year, and next year it was +0.2 C (just eyeballing what looks to be the average rate of change), then by that logic, since the chart shows 2000 years and rarely does the rate of change go below "0", we should be at about 400 C hotter than we were 2000 years ago.  🤔  Because my understanding is if we have +0.2 C one year and +0.2 C the next, then we went up 0.4 C in that time frame....

 

^^^ all that is in reference to the 1st chart.

 

The SECOND chart you posted doesn't seem to be rate of change, but rather the overall average variance from the "pre-industrial level".  I wish that chart would go further back.  But anyways....

 

I would like to see this chart in relation to the amount of forest fires we've had in recent years.  I'd bet there's a big correlation there.  I'll have to see what I can find.

 

 

Absolutely!  Which is why I'm now curious about any relationship between forest fires & what we're seeing in these charts.  If I was to guess what is the BIGGEST factor in current climate change, I'd suspect the cutting down of trees & destruction by fire to be the biggest culprit.  Not our fossil fuels & cow farts...  😁

 

This is just me ....

 

I know they use ice cores for temperatures before the 1880s or so. BUT, we have been actually measuring temperatures since then. PERSONALLY, I think temps from a core will tell you what was happening in that area at that time, but it can't FULLY take into consideration "global" issues. BUT, once they started measuring Ocean temps at several locations measurements improved - at least on what was happening globally.

 

This is really the only place we can focus IMO.

 

BUT when you look at the gradual change from 1000s to 1900s - with both warming and cooling periods - that makes sense, but then when you see how it has ONLY been warming since the 1980s and more and more dramatically - then you understand why some get concerned.

 

But as Burt has noted several times - we dont have to be in fear -> Jehovah has GOT THIS! However, it does show something is changing and more dramatically than it has since we have been keeping records.

 

EDIT: nice reference -> https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/the-raw-truth-on-global-temperature-records/

 

Edited June 11 by trottigy

[davanz]

[computerwiz]

10 minutes ago, trottigy said:

when you see how it has ONLY been warming since the 1980s and more and more dramatically - then you understand why some get concerned.

 

Yeah I think I'm onto something about wildfires...

 

Notice the jump in Canada around 1980s.  Wish there was more recent data, but that's all that this site has.

 

 

https://www.fao.org/4/ae158e/AE158E06.htm

 

 

The US...

 

 

https://phys.org/news/2023-09-forest-hot-treatment-biggest-payoff.html

 

 

 

What's interesting is the amount of CO2 coming from fires.

 

 

https://ourworldindata.org/wildfires

 

 

And here's why we are worried all this "climate change" stuff is politicized and weaponized.  Because if you do "research"....you get stuff like this:

 

 

 

 

But then when you start digging around for raw numbers....suddenly things look very different.

 

 

 

Further...

 

https://netl.doe.gov/carbon-management/carbon-storage/faqs/carbon-dioxide-101#:~:text=WHAT ARE THE PRIMARY SOURCES,(anthropogenic) CO2 sources.&text=Natural CO2 sources account,any natural or anthropogenic source.

 

 

 

 

And so now we of course wonder....

 

 

 

 

 

But all you hear from news & other media outlets is that WE are the biggest source of CO2.  But the truth is we are the biggest NET INCREASE of CO2.  And that is the problem me and I assume the others have with this whole thing.  The true situation is being overblown & misrepresented.

 

Humans are getting ALL the blame, and the "solution" is to switch to EVs and get rid of a significant number of cows.  While we are the major cause of increase, there are other sources increasing as well (forest fires).  Based on the statistics I found we are only 26% of the cause.

 

And besides....if the US & Europe decided to go completely green....what about China or India or Russia???  The solution is literally out of our hands.  And the news media & politicians & the "scientists" are all just stirring peoples emotions when we really can't solve this issue.

 

I don't know if that's the point others like me were making, but that's the point I'm making.  News outlets sensationalize & misrepresent things.  There's "more to the story" than it being all humans' doing.  And we don't want to jump on the "climate change" bandwagon because 1. we can't reverse this in this system of things and 2. the ones promoting it as a problem and "we have a solution" are all hypocrites and 3. it's doing some crazy things to people emotionally in various places.

 

So trying to help everyone be balanced and not buy into it too much.  😉

[trottigy]

Yeah, you can actually see the shift from things getting colder in the 1880s to the 1980s, but then that stops.

 

No wonder there was a Times article on "Freezing" in 1973 and 1977. I do remember a time when it snowed in Las Vegas - 1979.

 

I have a picture of me and my brothers with a snowman that year - somewhere.

[trottigy]

7 minutes ago, computerwiz said:

 

 

But all you hear from news & other media outlets is that WE are the biggest source of CO2.  But the truth is we are the biggest NET INCREASE of CO2.  And that is the problem me and I assume the others have with this whole thing.  The true situation is being overblown & misrepresented.

 

Humans are getting ALL the blame, and the "solution" is to switch to EVs and get rid of a significant number of cows.  While we are the major cause of increase, there are other sources increasing as well (forest fires).  Based on the statistics I found we are only 26% of the cause.

 

And besides....if the US & Europe decided to go completely green....what about China or India or Russia???  The solution is literally out of our hands.  And the news media & politicians & the "scientists" are all just stirring peoples emotions when we really can't solve this issue.

 

I don't know if that's the point others like me were making, but that's the point I'm making.  News outlets sensationalize & misrepresent things.  There's "more to the story" than it being all humans' doing.  And we don't want to jump on the "climate change" bandwagon because 1. we can't reverse this in this system of things and 2. the ones promoting it as a problem and "we have a solution" are all hypocrites and 3. it's doing some crazy things to people emotionally in various places.

 

So trying to help everyone be balanced and not buy into it too much.  😉

 

Excellent points!!! 

 

Only Jehovah can provide the solution - governments won’t cooperate for that. In fact, look at how much of the world's manufacturing is done in China - as they don't seem to mind the industrial waste that comes from so much of that - as long as the money keeps coming in.

 

But, as humans cant really change the amount of CO2 that comes from the Ocean, but they can hope to change human behavior - you see why the focus is there instead of on the Oceans or animals.

 

And this deserves a REPEAT ->

 

1. we can't reverse this in this system of things and

 

2. the ones promoting it as a problem and "we have a solution" are all hypocrites and

 

3. it's doing some crazy things to people emotionally in various places.

 

I am so glad we know the "Good News"!!!!!!!!!! Come on Kingdom!!!!        

 

[computerwiz]

[cme]

Wow! eye opener indeed!  Interesting! A bit confusing but, I'm sticking to it and re-reading it.  May Jehovah's Kingdom come quickly.

[cme]

On 6/10/2024 at 3:58 PM, computerwiz said:

 

It takes every fiber of my being not to hijack a thread to talk about health stuffs.  So I'll just say I'm glad to hear you discovered soursop.  😊👍  Now look into grounding/earthing to help him even further.  😉

Familiar with that.  I have something that is derived from pretty much the earth.  It has helped me alot.  A miracle if I must say.

[computerwiz]

3 hours ago, cme said:

Wow! eye opener indeed!  Interesting! A bit confusing but, I'm sticking to it and re-reading it.  May Jehovah's Kingdom come quickly.

 

The news sensationalizes things.  That's their job.  They have to be captivating otherwise they lose viewers.

 

Case in point, our previous CO told us about the local news reporting on his neighborhood and claiming that his mailbox was blown over by the hurricane that passed through years ago.  They never talked to him.  If they did....they would have found out he took the mailbox down himself because it was a nice mailbox and he didn't want it to get damaged!  👀

 

I've even noticed something similar with weather news sites.  One radar looking kinda red & scary, caused a neighboring congregation to go on zoom for the night.  I look at the weather app that I know and trust, and the same radar looked yellow.  Guess what.....it rained moderately, but by the time we left for our meeting, it was drizzling.  I suppose we may have sinned a little by joking about our neighboring congregation ....but the weather app they used sensationalized it, and it scared them.  😕

 

We are living in a time when just about the only thing we can fully trust is our organization.  Money motivates corporations & people waaaaaay too much.

[Tsheppar]

3 hours ago, computerwiz said:

I've even noticed something similar with weather news sites.  One radar looking kinda red & scary, caused a neighboring congregation to go on zoom for the night.  I look at the weather app that I know and trust, and the same radar looked yellow.  Guess what.....it rained moderately, but by the time we left for our meeting, it was drizzling.

I have noticed the Exact same thing where I live. You just put into words something I noticed , but I  left it as a passing thought. Even weather forecasts are being made scary when its just a regular rain storm.