It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pelosi Speaks of God? The Shortest Thread Ever on ATS

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
So...apparently Pelosi has some kind of contact with the Lord Almighty because she knows, that Trump pulling of of the rape of the Paris Climate bull-crap has "Dishonored" God himself.


Firstly, a God who could not communicate with any of creation would not be a God. Your assumption that God does not speak, or does not hear, is flawed.

But I doubt that Pelosi's invocation of God was anything more than hyperbole.

Secondly, the word "rape" is the wrong word to describe the necessity of having to actually do something about climate change.

Thirdly, with America being the second worst offender in the world for greenhouse gas emission (after China), to decide to not act against climate change is ecologically irresponsible and greedy. Tiny countries with far smaller economies have agreed and seem to think they can cope with the costs.

Trump is proud of his history of tax avoidance. This is just another such scheme.

Make no mistake, Trump doesn't care about the average American. He is one of the 1% wealthiest people in America, by the 1% and for the 1%! He'll stiff the rest of America for his own purposes, as he has always done.

On the other hand, Nancy Pelosi has served America, politically, for a long time, actually achieving things that make America great (check out her Wikipedia entry).

Perhaps she knows a thing or two that you don't?




House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) said at a press briefing today that withdrawing the United States from the Paris Accord on climate change dishonors God.


So I must ask the question which will cost me some points here on ATS. Since when does God speak to an old, piece of crap # like Pelosi? What gives this bitch the right to tell us what honors and dishonors God? I don't often speak to God but I will. Dear God...if you truly exist and if I'm right that Pelosi lied about you speaking to her directly...please...make her explode.

Oops...here is one of the many, many links: Link




America dishonours God all the time, for all sorts of reasons.


Your assumption that God can communicate with his creations and does hear is the one that's flawed. God doesn't exist; is not real, is not tangible, and has never before been proven to communicate with any life on earth, hear your prayers, or even exist. Your logic is as follows;


I believe in God. My definition of God includes "it" being able to communicate and hear prayer. Because I believe in God; he by default must communicate with life on earth and hear prayer because if by my definition of "it" cannot; it is not a God.


Faith is a probability function; it is not a fact and in regards to organized religion; is not based on any concept of proof or fact.

There is no evidence God exists; therefor, there is no way we can "Dishonor" something that doesn't exist.
edit on 4-6-2017 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: SBMcG

My husband has a PhD in Chemistry and he disagrees with your findings. I'm trying to get him to post, but he knows he won't change your mind with data (you'll just say it's fake).

His bottom line is, wouldn't it be prudent to take the conservative approach with the only planet we've got to live on? Why take a chance that "real science" ends up saying "oops, guess it was man-made after all - too late now"

And actual experts at MIT conclude 80 years of the Paris accord would only reduce temperatures by .2 degrees if every country lived up to their promises.


And those experts at MIT also conclude that it's a big mistake to pull out of the Paris accord. Small steps lead to bigger steps.

Yet they do not explain how the cost justifies the result. It doesn't. The actual facts and their biased opinions are two different things.



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

Good thing I did not cherry pick data and I specifically went with US Muslims for support for terrorism.


So you just want to remove all US Muslims but leave all the others??



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: SBMcG

My husband has a PhD in Chemistry and he disagrees with your findings. I'm trying to get him to post, but he knows he won't change your mind with data (you'll just say it's fake).

His bottom line is, wouldn't it be prudent to take the conservative approach with the only planet we've got to live on? Why take a chance that "real science" ends up saying "oops, guess it was man-made after all - too late now"

And actual experts at MIT conclude 80 years of the Paris accord would only reduce temperatures by .2 degrees if every country lived up to their promises.


And those experts at MIT also conclude that it's a big mistake to pull out of the Paris accord. Small steps lead to bigger steps.

Yet they do not explain how the cost justifies the result. It doesn't. The actual facts and their biased opinions are two different things.


So they're experts until you say they aren't experts. Got it.



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: SBMcG

And for the record -- a single PhD in chemistry is not qualified to substantiate the theory of man-made climate change.


But your minor in Chemistry is??? There are plenty of PhD's in Chemistry who will agree with him as well.


So your husband thinks it would be wise to hold back the progress of much of the western world including the United States costing millions of jobs and trillions of dollars based upon a theory based upon fake evidence for which there is no proof?


This is the only planet we got, dude. The western world along with the rest of it is useless to us all if the vast preponderance of scientists are right.


As I clearly stated in my post, I am not an expert in chemistry or climate change. I am basing my conclusions upon the expertise of others and the FACT that much of the loony "man-made" climate change claim is based upon proven and admitted FAKE DATA.

Only an idiot would think an accord to regulate carbon dioxide emissions that allowed the world's worst polluters to go right on polluting FOR 20 YEARS while others bore the massive economic impact of regulations that "might" minimally affect CO₂ levels was a good thing.

Ask your PhD husband what he thinks about other PhD's who deliberately fake research data to forward a political agenda.



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: SBMcG

And for the record -- a single PhD in chemistry is not qualified to substantiate the theory of man-made climate change.


But your minor in Chemistry is??? There are plenty of PhD's in Chemistry who will agree with him as well.


So your husband thinks it would be wise to hold back the progress of much of the western world including the United States costing millions of jobs and trillions of dollars based upon a theory based upon fake evidence for which there is no proof?


This is the only planet we got, dude. The western world along with the rest of it is useless to us all if the vast preponderance of scientists are right.


As I clearly stated in my post, I am not an expert in chemistry or climate change. I am basing my conclusions upon the expertise of others and the FACT that much of the loony "man-made" climate change claim is based upon proven and admitted FAKE DATA.


You're the one who brought up your education credentials - why? I assume to add some credibility to your post. Just letting you know that others have even better credentials who disagree.



Ask your PhD husband what he thinks about other PhD's who deliberately fake research data to forward a political agenda.


He asks you what you think about other PhD's who deliberately fake data to get lots of funding from oil and gas conglomerates.



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: SBMcG

And for the record -- a single PhD in chemistry is not qualified to substantiate the theory of man-made climate change.


But your minor in Chemistry is??? There are plenty of PhD's in Chemistry who will agree with him as well.


So your husband thinks it would be wise to hold back the progress of much of the western world including the United States costing millions of jobs and trillions of dollars based upon a theory based upon fake evidence for which there is no proof?


This is the only planet we got, dude. The western world along with the rest of it is useless to us all if the vast preponderance of scientists are right.


As I clearly stated in my post, I am not an expert in chemistry or climate change. I am basing my conclusions upon the expertise of others and the FACT that much of the loony "man-made" climate change claim is based upon proven and admitted FAKE DATA.

Only an idiot would think an accord to regulate carbon dioxide emissions that allowed the world's worst polluters to go right on polluting FOR 20 YEARS while others bore the massive economic impact of regulations that "might" minimally affect CO₂ levels was a good thing.

Ask your PhD husband what he thinks about other PhD's who deliberately fake research data to forward a political agenda.


This right here. Period. If we just followed the "Majority" of anything we'd be doomed. There is a huge subset of actual scientists who actually follow the scientific method who do not falsify their data and come to repeatable conclusions that claim man made global warming is not a real thing at all.

In fact; the entire argument that "CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and greenhouse gases sit in the atmosphere and prevent heat from escaping" is out right misrepresented. CO2 doesn't just sit in the atmosphere; it's processed and turned into oxygen by plant life. So tree's scrub the CO2 from the atmosphere; I.E. it's self regulated.

The fact that the global temperatures are indicating an ice age is absolutely the polar opposite of the premise.

The scam is great in principle though and here is how that works;

We instate a world wide carbon tax; we reduce CO2 emissions; we drastically lower CO2 to the point in which it can damage plant growth; we move into an ice age and then we're being penalized for NOT emitting and we get a "whoops, everybody OVER participated and created this new problem; time to pay up AGAIN!"

It's literally the most massive crime that could ever be perpetrated; it's an attempt to rob every single person on the planet earth. The real truth is incredibly simple; climate change is cyclical and will repeat and worsen until life is no longer sustainable and subsequently our star; Sol, supernovas.
edit on 4-6-2017 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I wonder if anyone has bothered to ask this nutball Pelosi for proof that even if fully implemented, the truly dumb Paris Climate Accord would actually even affect the climate one way another?

This is what leftists do. They will repeat something over and over again until people accept it as fact. That's an Alinskey tactic I know, but it's quite effective.



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 04:21 PM
link   
The planet would be cooler if Pelosi would keep her mouth closed.



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: SBMcG

And for the record -- a single PhD in chemistry is not qualified to substantiate the theory of man-made climate change.


But your minor in Chemistry is??? There are plenty of PhD's in Chemistry who will agree with him as well.


So your husband thinks it would be wise to hold back the progress of much of the western world including the United States costing millions of jobs and trillions of dollars based upon a theory based upon fake evidence for which there is no proof?


This is the only planet we got, dude. The western world along with the rest of it is useless to us all if the vast preponderance of scientists are right.


As I clearly stated in my post, I am not an expert in chemistry or climate change. I am basing my conclusions upon the expertise of others and the FACT that much of the loony "man-made" climate change claim is based upon proven and admitted FAKE DATA.


You're the one who brought up your education credentials - why? I assume to add some credibility to your post. Just letting you know that others have even better credentials who disagree.



Ask your PhD husband what he thinks about other PhD's who deliberately fake research data to forward a political agenda.


He asks you what you think about other PhD's who deliberately fake data to get lots of funding from oil and gas conglomerates.


Jesus Christ...

I brought up my chem minor because THE POST TO WHICH I WAS REPLYING made an argument based upon chemistry and I wanted to make sure they knew I understood that point.

I get it. You bought into the "man-made" climate myth. It's not my fault that numerous scientists and experts faked their research to make that theory work.



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: SBMcG

My husband has a PhD in Chemistry and he disagrees with your findings. I'm trying to get him to post, but he knows he won't change your mind with data (you'll just say it's fake).

His bottom line is, wouldn't it be prudent to take the conservative approach with the only planet we've got to live on? Why take a chance that "real science" ends up saying "oops, guess it was man-made after all - too late now"

And actual experts at MIT conclude 80 years of the Paris accord would only reduce temperatures by .2 degrees if every country lived up to their promises.


And those experts at MIT also conclude that it's a big mistake to pull out of the Paris accord. Small steps lead to bigger steps.

Yet they do not explain how the cost justifies the result. It doesn't. The actual facts and their biased opinions are two different things.


So they're experts until you say they aren't experts. Got it.

False. They are experts until they give baseless opinions. When they stick to the facts and report empirical data, experts, when they make baseless comments based in opinion they have no authority on those opinions.



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: SRPrime


In fact; the entire argument that "CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and greenhouse gases sit in the atmosphere and prevent heat from escaping" is out right misrepresented. CO2 doesn't just sit in the atmosphere; it's processed and turned into oxygen by plant life. So tree's scrub the CO2 from the atmosphere; I.E. it's self regulated.


And vast amounts of trees have been demolished in rain forests across the world for business purposes. Also, there is loss of phytoplankton in the ocean, which is also a significant absorber of CO2. The great barrier reef being dead in some places and dying in others (with no real hope of recovery if nothing is done) shows us how bad the oceans are.



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

Good thing I did not cherry pick data and I specifically went with US Muslims for support for terrorism.


So you just want to remove all US Muslims but leave all the others??

Are you being obtuse? I don't know why it's so hard for you to follow along.



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: SBMcG

My husband has a PhD in Chemistry and he disagrees with your findings. I'm trying to get him to post, but he knows he won't change your mind with data (you'll just say it's fake).

His bottom line is, wouldn't it be prudent to take the conservative approach with the only planet we've got to live on? Why take a chance that "real science" ends up saying "oops, guess it was man-made after all - too late now"

And actual experts at MIT conclude 80 years of the Paris accord would only reduce temperatures by .2 degrees if every country lived up to their promises.


And those experts at MIT also conclude that it's a big mistake to pull out of the Paris accord. Small steps lead to bigger steps.

Yet they do not explain how the cost justifies the result. It doesn't. The actual facts and their biased opinions are two different things.


So they're experts until you say they aren't experts. Got it.

False. They are experts until they give baseless opinions. When they stick to the facts and report empirical data, experts, when they make baseless comments based in opinion they have no authority on those opinions.


The idea and concept of what an expert is, is flawed. Data presented is data presented; it doesn't matter who presents it or what their "credentials" are -- it only matters what their intention is and the accuracy of the data they present.

I.E. An expert can misrepresent data and facts to gain money/power/influence and use their "credentials" as a way to back the "truth" of the data. People are people; there is no such thing as a credible person; just credible data. The problem with the world today is; we don't vet the data, we blindly trust the data based upon the credentials of the person presenting it. That's not science; that's straight two thousand percent fallacious.

We see this proofed by experts "mishandling" evidence to put people in prison. Just look at Detroit or Chicago as case and point evidence. Corruption knows no bounds and the one thing that is an absolute constant is people are people; and it's always better for a person to make a decision that's going to benefit them more than others, and as long as that's the case; people are always going to succumb to corruption; that's why we're supposed to police the system with third party inspections.
edit on 4-6-2017 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: SRPrime

Again, I'm not an expert, but if data has to be faked, manipulated, and lied about to forward an unproven theory, I automatically think the opposite of that theory is more likely to be the case.

I'm all for a clean environment -- given the rapid growth of Humanity in the last 150 years I think we've done amazingly well, but there's a political agenda behind this "man-made" climate change lie.

Fake Data + Politics = Bad Science
edit on 4-6-2017 by SBMcG because: Correction



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So a doctor uses empirical data to say you have a fever of 101, your glands are swollen, your sinuses are hurting, and the x-ray shows congestion, but they don't have the right to have an opinion that it's a sinus infection based on that data?

Some people are trained to not only look at the data, but to interpret that data and make a diagnosis. The MIT experts looked at the data and made a diagnosis.



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
So I must ask the question which will cost me some points here on ATS. Since when does God speak to an old, piece of crap # like Pelosi? What gives this bitch the right to tell us what honors and dishonors God? I don't often speak to God but I will. Dear God...if you truly exist and if I'm right that Pelosi lied about you speaking to her directly...please...make her explode.

Oops...here is one of the many, many links: Link




Isn't cnsnews fake news?

mediabiasfactcheck.com...

They're practically extreme right, which puts them in a less than credible category (all extremists, not just those on the right lack credibility).

As for the story itself, if Pelosi said it, well... I don't believe anyone, especially high ranking political figures when they claim God spoke to them and told them to do something.



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Sorry, they did not make a diagnosis. It's like going to the Dr., finding out you have the flu, and them saying you should take antibiotics.

And yes, Dr.'s actually do that.



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

One would have to be obtuse to think it's a good solution to remove all Muslims in order to prevent a few bad ones, just like removing all men to prevent some rapes.



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

One would have to be obtuse to think it's a good solution to remove all Muslims in order to prevent a few bad ones, just like removing all men to prevent some rapes.

Sorry, logical fallacy. 19% of US Muslims refuse to say terrorist attacks are always wrong.



new topics




 
18
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join