You're right though. California seems to have got the climate change message at least. Solar Panels in a climate like ours in the UK are more of a long term eco saving than a way to save energy. A more effective way is to better insulate our homes. The roi is much better on loft insulation, cavity wall insulation and even double glazing, though the sound reduction afforded by double glazing is a more significant advantage if you live on a main road or under a flight path. .
Lest we forget, Jesus was full of the Holy Spirit. He had a closeness of communication with the Holy Spirit that you and I lack; He heard more clearly the Father's will than any of us do. Pretty much everyone nowadays believes in climate change. It's man-made climate change (via production of CO2) that perceptive people reject. (Please, let's not require a rehash of the difference between climate and environment, a/k/a pollution, yet again.)
I am sorry, I really wish I knew what this sentence means. Here's some bullets points as I understand it. Climate Change is an historic and ongoing reality. Historic causes include charges in the earth's axis, volcanic activity, melting ice, global cooling and ice ages, etc etc. Since the Industrial Revolution, with increasing speed due in part to increasing urbanisation, population growth, and the burning of fossil fuels to power manufacturing, electricity generation and motor transport, there has been a substantive increase in carbon emissions, which is contributing to (though probably not the sole cause) the global warming and increased climatic instability, and generally agreed by a significant majority of the scientific community. Coupled with this we have also seen significant deforestation of major tracts of the world's forests, for mining, agriculture, and urbanisation, which is a significant contributor as the is the earth's means of capturing carbon from the air and storing it in organic material (timber) and ultimately coal. As people entrusted with dominion over creation we have a sacred responsibility to care and nurture the environment that nurtures us, and if we fail in this, then we might expect the environment to fail to support our species. We have a symbiotic relationship with the creation, which is not simply a gift of the creator, but also a sacred trust. Plenty of people I know do not see it this way, so maybe I mix with the wrong sort of people. The Five Marks of Mission:The mission of the Church is the mission of Christ To proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom To teach, baptise and nurture new believers To respond to human need by loving service To transform unjust structures of society, to challenge violence of every kind and pursue peace and reconciliation To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation, and sustain and renew the life of the earth
Amazing though how it takes multiple bullet points and paragraphs of reasoned thought, to refute a mere single sentence. Do you suppose that's why they do it? .
Everyone I urge you to stay on topic, which has become almost too nebulous as it is. Any discussions of climate change, or other matters outside of politics proper, please feel free to start a separate thread about so that future readers can follow those conversations. Thank you.
This is becoming tedious. I have refuted absurdities only to have them pop up again and again, from the same stubborn sources. It's becoming apparent that spending hours explaining, in terms elementary enough for 2 or 3 certain people to grasp, only to have them cling to the erroneous narratives being fed by the globalists, is not a productive use of time. I'm out. Time to block the worst offender.
I take the point, however as at least ten news sources are reporting that Joe Biden (presumptive President Elect) is committed to recommitting to the Paris Climate Accord, I feel that Climate Change becomes part of a discussion of Christian Responses to US Politics. I do apologise if I have offended you. It was and is unclear, to me at least, exactly what point you were making in this sentence. I believe that the Five Marks of Mission have some standing among Anglicans and do represent A Christian Response.
Here are a few bits of an article here explaining the difficult times Republican lawyers are having alleging voter fraud. The most famous scene came in Pennsylvania, where a Trump lawyer strained to avoid acknowledging that their people were, in fact, allowed to observe the vote-counting process in Philadelphia. As The Washington Post reported:"At the city's federal courthouse on Thursday evening, attorneys for Trump asked a judge to issue an emergency order to stop the count, alleging that all Republican observers had been barred. Under sharp questioning from Judge Paul S Diamond, however, they conceded that Trump in fact had 'a non-zero number of people in the room,' leaving Diamond audibly exasperated. " 'I'm sorry, then what's your problem?' asked Diamond, who was appointed to the federal bench by President George W Bush. Denying Trump's request, Diamond struck a deal for 60 observers from each party to be allowed inside. "At one point on Friday afternoon, 12 Republican observers and five Democrats were watching the count, according to a ballot counter who was working." After that "non-zero" answer, Diamond pressed the Trump campaign lawyer to be more explicit - and he suggestively invoked their standing with the bar: "I'm asking you as a member of the bar of this court: Are people representing the plaintiffs in the room?" The lawyer responded more directly: "Yes." By the end of the hearing, Diamond invoked his right to make sure lawyers in his courtroom acted in good faith. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Another Trump lawyer, Jonathan Goldstein, was also grilled by a Pennsylvania judge this week. Under questioning, he acknowledged that, contrary to Trump's claims about rampant voter fraud, he wasn't actually alleging fraud in the 592 ballots he sought to disqualify in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Again, Trump's lawyer strained to avoid directly answering the question, but was ultimately forced to acknowledge it: THE COURT: In your petition, which is right before me - and I read it several times - you don't claim that any electors or the Board of the County were guilty of fraud, correct? That's correct? GOLDSTEIN: Your Honour, accusing people of fraud is a pretty big step. And it is rare that I call somebody a liar, and I am not calling the Board of the (Democratic National Committee) or anybody else involved in this a liar. Everybody is coming to this with good faith. The DNC is coming with good faith. We're all just trying to get an election done. We think these were a mistake, but we think they are a fatal mistake, and these ballots ought not be counted. THE COURT: I understand. I am asking you a specific question, and I am looking for a specific answer. Are you claiming that there is any fraud in connection with these 592 disputed ballots? GOLDSTEIN: To my knowledge at present, no. THE COURT: Are you claiming that there is any undue or improper influence upon the elector with respect to these 592 ballots? GOLDSTEIN: To my knowledge at present, no. ------------------------------------------------------- The Trump campaign also sought to temporarily stop counting some ballots in Detroit. It cited a Republican poll watcher who had said she had been told by an unidentified person that late mail ballots were being predated to before Election Day, so they would be considered valid. The judge, Cynthia Stephens, repeatedly asserted this was hearsay, but Trump campaign lawyer Thor Hearne sought to argue that it wasn't - despite it having been someone who said they heard about something they weren't personally involved in. He pointed to a vague note the poll watcher produced - which said "entered receive date as 11/2/20 on 11/4/20" - as evidence: STEPHENS: So I want to make sure I understand you. The affiant is not the person who had knowledge of this. Is that correct? HEARNE: The affiant had direct first-hand knowledge of the communication with the elections inspector and the document they provided them. STEPHENS: OK, which is generally known as hearsay, right? HEARNE: I would not think that's hearsay, your honour. That's first-hand personal knowledge by the affiant of what she physically observed. And we included an exhibit which is a physical copy of the note that she was provided. - - - The two later returned to the point, after Stephens reviewed the note, and Stephens echoed Judge Diamond's exasperation: STEPHENS: I'm still trying to understand why this isn't hearsay. HEARNE: Well, it's, it, I - STEPHENS: I absolutely understand what the affiant says she heard someone say to her. But the truth of the matter ... that you're going for was that there was an illegal act occurring. Because other than that I don't know what its relevancy is. HEARNE: Right. I would say, your honour, in terms of the hearsay point, this is a first-hand factual statement made by Ms Conoron, and she has made that statement based on her own first-hand physical evidence and knowledge -- STEPHENS: 'I heard somebody else say something.' Tell my why that's not hearsay. Come on, now. HEARNE: Well it's a first-hand statement of her physical - STEPHENS: It's an out-of-court statement offered where the truth of the matter is (at-issue), right? - - - In a later written decision, Stephens slammed the argument as "inadmissible hearsay within hearsay." And after the campaign appealed, Stephens rebuked it for failing to include required documentation. "I regret to inform you that your submission is defective," Stephens said. -------------------------- Another of the Trump teams' claims crumbled rather quickly in Georgia. In Chatham County, as in Michigan, the Trump campaign cited supposed evidence that 53 late ballots might have been predated so they could be counted. Except two witnesses they called acknowledged under oath that they didn't know whether the ballots were received after the deadline. And two others for the local board of elections testified that they were, in fact, received on time. Judge James Bass dismissed the case in a one-sentence, eight-word ruling, saying, "I'm denying the request and dismissing the petition" and abruptly adjourned the hearing.
I think somewhere, in a darkened, oval shaped office, some jaundice coloured person is muttering, "Fake News - Fake News" to himself, every time the next court action result is relayed to him. The tweets will be either coming thick and fast, or progressively petering out. Which would indeed be progress, if the latter transpires, . . . . . . we shall see. “The irony, or tragedy, is that you all managed to conduct an extremely smooth election, with record turnout, under exceptionally difficult circumstances – and yet, a significant portion of Donald Trump's supporters are now convinced that the process was flawed.” (Though so far no shred of evidence for it has been oficially presented and upheld, in court). What is this saying for the robustness of the American electoral system, and if so, could it have been how Trump got in last time? Under such circumstances, if the system is so suspect, that question can also be legitimately asked. I see he's rattling a begging bowl now. .
“If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John8:32-33. Quite a business man. Luke 12:16-21.
How is a phenomena like hurricanes a wild fires, which have occurred annually for at least as long as anyone has kept records, proof of climate change? I've spent most of my life in hurricane highway and the other part in an area famed for wild fires. I know first hand that their intensity and frequency are cyclical and have not gotten worse over time. They become more financially devastating and tragic because more and more people decide to move to areas where they most intense and frequent, beaches and dry wilderness regions. That's a problem that strms from people's judgment, not the climate. The worst hurricanes I ever lived through happened when I was a child more than 30 years ago. Indeed, from 2009 to 2012 I don't recall any major hurricanes in spite of being assured by the news that climate change would make those particularly bad years.
This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Credit: Luthi, D., et al.. 2008; Etheridge, D.M., et al. 2010; Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.) Find out more about ice cores (external site). https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Should Trump have his Twitter Account shut down if he continues with unsubstantiated accusations of electoral fraud attempting to instigate revolution?
I believe his right to free speech is enshrined in the first amendment to the cconssituation. This right citizens of the USA is assumed in UK and Australia, but not assured and very much limited. Twitter may indeed be ultra vires when they limit the free speech Americans. The rest of us just have to cop it.
I like your fervor @Botolph and generally agree with your premise. The first Amendment, as incorporated in the 14th Amendment, limits the federal and state government from "abridging freedom of speech". It is one of the foundational freedoms protected by the US Constitution and is one of the quintessential principles that makes America America. However, it does not protect people from censorship from private entities such as FB, Twitter, etc. Because of the one-sided way social media platforms have censored political speech over the last year, I wouldn't be surprised if that changes. Though it will probably not be under this incoming administration. Until then, Trump and his supporters should vote with their feet and move to a more tolerant platform, such as the new MeWe or Parler apps that appear more welcoming of conservative voices.
Is instigating rebellion recognised then as OK 'free speech' in the USA now then, as long as it is on Twitter and not in the other media? How often does Twitter have to 'correct' Trump's Tweets before they cancel his account. Happens to lots of others who break the Twitter rules? .
You don't need to use that kind of language to make your point @Tiffy. You're better than that I think.