Sunday, May 27, 2012
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
AGW psychosis
Owen Abrey · Top Commenter · Sumit Pacific
This article typifies the approach to AGW. First of all, terrify the reader by introducing scary but irrelevant facts. So if we are talking atomic bomb's worth of energy, at 93 million miles the earth receives 1,000 atomic bombs worth of energy every second. That means the energy that strikes the earth every day is 86.4 million atomic bombs. So should 400,000/86,400,000 be considered relevant? Only if you don't count the fundamental fact that the more heat that strikes the earth, the more the earth sheds heat into the cold dark of space. It does not accumulate at such relatively insignificant levels.
Reply · Like · Unfollow Post · 6 hours ago
Carl Ek · Master and Commander at EK
Don't trash a bad article with your own bad logic !!!! (I could say that is typical approach of AGWD ..... D for Denier)
Indeed the earth is bombarded with almost a hundred million a-bombs every day. But since we are 93 million miles away (150 million kilometres for all the Canuckae) the inverse-square law reduces that A-bomb energy to the solar constant: 1.362 kW/m²
You should read the referenced articles and talk by James Hansen, who is the director of NASA's Goddard Space Institute.
Reply · Like · 5 hours ago
Owen Abrey · Top Commenter · Sumit Pacific
oK, do the rest of the Math then Carl. How many w/m2 do 400k atomic bombs effect when the surface area of the earth is 1x 10000000000 m2? Then when you can find that ridiculous miniscule number, how significant is that by comparison, given the earth's propensity to radiate more energy out the higher the solar radiation? But the average reader is not told these things. Why? Because you have to believe the popular myth, thats why. The dumbing down of the population of Canada so it can't do rudimentary math is part of the problem.
This article typifies the approach to AGW. First of all, terrify the reader by introducing scary but irrelevant facts. So if we are talking atomic bomb's worth of energy, at 93 million miles the earth receives 1,000 atomic bombs worth of energy every second. That means the energy that strikes the earth every day is 86.4 million atomic bombs. So should 400,000/86,400,000 be considered relevant? Only if you don't count the fundamental fact that the more heat that strikes the earth, the more the earth sheds heat into the cold dark of space. It does not accumulate at such relatively insignificant levels.
Reply · Like · Unfollow Post · 6 hours ago
Carl Ek · Master and Commander at EK
Don't trash a bad article with your own bad logic !!!! (I could say that is typical approach of AGWD ..... D for Denier)
Indeed the earth is bombarded with almost a hundred million a-bombs every day. But since we are 93 million miles away (150 million kilometres for all the Canuckae) the inverse-square law reduces that A-bomb energy to the solar constant: 1.362 kW/m²
You should read the referenced articles and talk by James Hansen, who is the director of NASA's Goddard Space Institute.
Reply · Like · 5 hours ago
Owen Abrey · Top Commenter · Sumit Pacific
oK, do the rest of the Math then Carl. How many w/m2 do 400k atomic bombs effect when the surface area of the earth is 1x 10000000000 m2? Then when you can find that ridiculous miniscule number, how significant is that by comparison, given the earth's propensity to radiate more energy out the higher the solar radiation? But the average reader is not told these things. Why? Because you have to believe the popular myth, thats why. The dumbing down of the population of Canada so it can't do rudimentary math is part of the problem.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Rambling run on sentences about freedom. A FB dialogue with Trish Reimer, and other dear friends
Wow.
16 hours ago · Like
Trisha Rutter Reimer So.....what *are* rights, anyway... Makes a person wonder what the rest of the world believes they have unequivocal "right" to.
16 hours ago · Like
Josh Abrey
Tobacco companies should be shut down, because they profit off of a product which is created to play off of mans weaknesses, and the end product is a slow painful death, as is the same with many hard drugs. But i'd have to agree with most of the other things here. People should have the right to live in the sins they want to. Is that not the meaning of 'free will'. If you believe in something and want people to believe it aswell, go through the actions necessary to make them choose to believe it. Making the government create rules that cater to your own morals and guide lines is kinda selfish. If you believe they will burn for their actions let God be the one to decide that, not the government.
15 hours ago via mobile · Like · 2
Cara MacGregor Hoeppner
If that were the case, all junk food, or even any food, companies should be shut down. More people die from cardiac disease and diabetes than tobacco. You can eat yourself to death as fast as you can smoke it to an early grave. Combine the two and its a guaranteed ticket to misery. How do you outlaw that?
People are finding all kinds of ways to self-medicate, the more "tolerant" our society becomes, it seems to be becoming more unhappy and unhealthy.
11 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1
Owen Abrey
The question of a right is deeper than one might comprehend at a glance. I have done a little research into the concept. A "right" is only given by God. God-given rights. They are conferred/endowed by the creator--therefore what God has given, no one can take away. Man can only recognize they exist. If they are not recognized by man, they don't cease to exist. But "rights" that are claimed to exist are often really not about rights.
Tantamount among the rights of man is the freedom of choice. It existed before any law. St. Paul recognized all that the Law can do is make us conscious of sin (the choice to turn from God) and the nature that never ceases to have an inclination to rebel; it cannot erase the freedom of choice and the accountability thereof. Freedom of choice is the right upon which all others are based. It was a right conferred to man that was not conferred to angels.
Ironically the doom of man is prefaced by the deceived choice, Eve was deceived. Her choice to sin was triggered as a result of the deceiver's provocation. Therein lies any shred of defense before the judgement of God--and that by the advocacy of the only man to live without sin. "Father forgive them for they know not what they do" has a universal application--applying to humanity over and above the men who were nailing Christ to the cross. For we all have crucified Him.
They lived in harmony with their creator without sin until the deceiver came. How long they did is not recorded but without death it could have been for a thousand years... while the impatient, fallen, angelic host watched not from the heights of heaven but from those places cast down. Contending that any being with true freedom of choice would rebel. A third of the hosts of heaven fallen to earth, invisible to the eyes of men, bore witness to these "sons of God" and their communion with God. An intimacy they never had. Not even Lucifer, who was the covering cherub, had that kind of relationship: the relationship of sons who loved their father.
And so the tapestry of this history of creation awaits the judgement of God; The contention of the accuser, that God is not fair. That there is no such thing as free will. That anyone would choose to rebel if in fact they had a choice. And we shall judge angels from the place of the redeemed, who were given the choice. The saints, who choose freely on the basis of that freedom purchased by the One who bore the Curse: The human doom and nature to choose wrongly. I suppose I am rambling. To bring it back to the question of the rights of man they all distill down to the freedom to choose. That Freedom is unique to every man. That is the core of what I shared. Not that it is good that we have the freedom to choose to sin, so much as it is good that it lies with us to choose otherwise.
The Laws did have value to guide human morals, but they have been subsumed by Freedom for they were powerless to stop sin. This reality followed an age where we lost the power to choose freedom. The law showed that all mankind had become slaves to sin. Man gave away that right to the Prince of the power of the air. But today that right alone withstands time and eternity whether we recognize it or not.
Rod Murphy owen you are a closet leftie - and like many you base it on God :)
Sandra Easton · Friends with Cara MacGregor Hoeppner
Oh Cara, I can see why u love Owen!!! I love him toooooo! That was great!
Trisha Rutter Reimer
Totally agreed with the freedom of choice thing. Absolutely no question. It is Biblical. I guess I'm referring more to the "laws" side of it, as in our country's laws. There's an understanding out there that because people don't want their rights taken away, there should be no laws (gov't/political laws) against such things. We do need the rule of law in our country. To what degree, I'm not going to say. But it is necessary.
Owen Abrey I love the idea of common law. Few people know that Canada has common law. Different scholars point to the Magna Carta as the beginning of common law: The law for the commons. I lean towards 1350, 2 years after the great plague in England. Infrastructure was decimated. The mortality among priests approached 90% because they were often at the bedside of the dying. Whatever passed for law was meted by priests for most matters and lords and kings on the larger matters. So the effect of large numbers of priest taught at the same time in an orthadoxy that gave rise to church law.
The effect on the rule of law was profound. In 1350, with great intentionality universities were established, primarily to retrain priests. But this was also an opportunity to consolidate laws, so they became more universa,l so that the application of law was the same across England. Priests turned out from these academies more or less at the same time, were educated more or less in the same way as each other. These events provided an opportunity to effect a profound legal shift in the country.
16 hours ago · Like
Trisha Rutter Reimer So.....what *are* rights, anyway... Makes a person wonder what the rest of the world believes they have unequivocal "right" to.
16 hours ago · Like
Josh Abrey
Tobacco companies should be shut down, because they profit off of a product which is created to play off of mans weaknesses, and the end product is a slow painful death, as is the same with many hard drugs. But i'd have to agree with most of the other things here. People should have the right to live in the sins they want to. Is that not the meaning of 'free will'. If you believe in something and want people to believe it aswell, go through the actions necessary to make them choose to believe it. Making the government create rules that cater to your own morals and guide lines is kinda selfish. If you believe they will burn for their actions let God be the one to decide that, not the government.
15 hours ago via mobile · Like · 2
Cara MacGregor Hoeppner
If that were the case, all junk food, or even any food, companies should be shut down. More people die from cardiac disease and diabetes than tobacco. You can eat yourself to death as fast as you can smoke it to an early grave. Combine the two and its a guaranteed ticket to misery. How do you outlaw that?
People are finding all kinds of ways to self-medicate, the more "tolerant" our society becomes, it seems to be becoming more unhappy and unhealthy.
11 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1
Owen Abrey
The question of a right is deeper than one might comprehend at a glance. I have done a little research into the concept. A "right" is only given by God. God-given rights. They are conferred/endowed by the creator--therefore what God has given, no one can take away. Man can only recognize they exist. If they are not recognized by man, they don't cease to exist. But "rights" that are claimed to exist are often really not about rights.
Tantamount among the rights of man is the freedom of choice. It existed before any law. St. Paul recognized all that the Law can do is make us conscious of sin (the choice to turn from God) and the nature that never ceases to have an inclination to rebel; it cannot erase the freedom of choice and the accountability thereof. Freedom of choice is the right upon which all others are based. It was a right conferred to man that was not conferred to angels.
Ironically the doom of man is prefaced by the deceived choice, Eve was deceived. Her choice to sin was triggered as a result of the deceiver's provocation. Therein lies any shred of defense before the judgement of God--and that by the advocacy of the only man to live without sin. "Father forgive them for they know not what they do" has a universal application--applying to humanity over and above the men who were nailing Christ to the cross. For we all have crucified Him.
They lived in harmony with their creator without sin until the deceiver came. How long they did is not recorded but without death it could have been for a thousand years... while the impatient, fallen, angelic host watched not from the heights of heaven but from those places cast down. Contending that any being with true freedom of choice would rebel. A third of the hosts of heaven fallen to earth, invisible to the eyes of men, bore witness to these "sons of God" and their communion with God. An intimacy they never had. Not even Lucifer, who was the covering cherub, had that kind of relationship: the relationship of sons who loved their father.
And so the tapestry of this history of creation awaits the judgement of God; The contention of the accuser, that God is not fair. That there is no such thing as free will. That anyone would choose to rebel if in fact they had a choice. And we shall judge angels from the place of the redeemed, who were given the choice. The saints, who choose freely on the basis of that freedom purchased by the One who bore the Curse: The human doom and nature to choose wrongly. I suppose I am rambling. To bring it back to the question of the rights of man they all distill down to the freedom to choose. That Freedom is unique to every man. That is the core of what I shared. Not that it is good that we have the freedom to choose to sin, so much as it is good that it lies with us to choose otherwise.
The Laws did have value to guide human morals, but they have been subsumed by Freedom for they were powerless to stop sin. This reality followed an age where we lost the power to choose freedom. The law showed that all mankind had become slaves to sin. Man gave away that right to the Prince of the power of the air. But today that right alone withstands time and eternity whether we recognize it or not.
Rod Murphy owen you are a closet leftie - and like many you base it on God :)
Sandra Easton · Friends with Cara MacGregor Hoeppner
Oh Cara, I can see why u love Owen!!! I love him toooooo! That was great!
Trisha Rutter Reimer
Totally agreed with the freedom of choice thing. Absolutely no question. It is Biblical. I guess I'm referring more to the "laws" side of it, as in our country's laws. There's an understanding out there that because people don't want their rights taken away, there should be no laws (gov't/political laws) against such things. We do need the rule of law in our country. To what degree, I'm not going to say. But it is necessary.
Owen Abrey I love the idea of common law. Few people know that Canada has common law. Different scholars point to the Magna Carta as the beginning of common law: The law for the commons. I lean towards 1350, 2 years after the great plague in England. Infrastructure was decimated. The mortality among priests approached 90% because they were often at the bedside of the dying. Whatever passed for law was meted by priests for most matters and lords and kings on the larger matters. So the effect of large numbers of priest taught at the same time in an orthadoxy that gave rise to church law.
The effect on the rule of law was profound. In 1350, with great intentionality universities were established, primarily to retrain priests. But this was also an opportunity to consolidate laws, so they became more universa,l so that the application of law was the same across England. Priests turned out from these academies more or less at the same time, were educated more or less in the same way as each other. These events provided an opportunity to effect a profound legal shift in the country.
Friday, May 11, 2012
Dialogue with Kenny Pittman:
The provocateur:
www.sunnewsnetwork.ca
The commissioner of the RCMP has ordered all chief firearms officers across Canada to put an end to backdoor long-gun registries.
· · · Share
- Tom Wilson and Kenneth Pittman like this.
Kenneth Pittman Harper is a fascist .Canadian rights are being diminished day by day. Nobody needs a gun except a hunter and until he needs it it should be in a community storage facility at the local police station.4 hours ago ·
- Owen Abrey Did you know that Hitlers facism was actually left wing? The Nazis were a socialist party. In the early days of facism, it actually embraced communism.
- Owen AbreyHowever, the root of facism comes from a latin word that meant, a bundle of sticks tied together. The first "facist" was a old king in Northern Italy. He had a mace made out of a bundle of sticks, (that was the handle). He ruled by the p...See More23 minutes ago · ·
1 - Kenneth Pittman More Canadian soldiers have been killed and have killed since the Korean War. After 50 years as the greatest peacekeeping nation we have reverted to a combat role that will benefit nobody but the rich and greedy who holds the puppet strings attached to these politicians of ours. The defence companies are posting record profits while the innocent perish.
- Owen Abrey A better argument for that could be made when looking at the USA. Mega companies like Haliburton have stolen the wealth of that nation. However, I know soldiers who served in Afghanistan--personally.
- Owen Abrey They have a different view about the value of their sacrifice and what it meant to the poor and powerless.
- Owen Abrey I am not saying I like the way things have gone, but I try to keep perspective as best I can...
- Owen Abrey BUT start talking about what Canada has done to their pensions, and I am with you all the way. It is disgraceful how we treat them.
It is neccessary to call everyone wealthy when you are unwilling to pick up a broom and start sweeping.
The easiest way to influence corporations, is not to picket outside their gates, but rather, to buy their stock.
Most bank stocks are less than 50.00/share
If every "complainer" bought some shares, they then have the actual right to stand up in shareholder's meetings and advocate and vote according to their conscience.
I have concluded that is the most democratic way to effect change. Democracy is actually not about protesting in the streets. Although it seems everyone has accepted that without really thinking about it.
Oh, well... sorry to rant, I have always been a bit "strange". I like to think outside the box. On either side of this question as well.
Today
Killing for profit is truly evil. But there are new grass-roots movements of ethical investors who are standing up and being heard.
One share is a small voice, but 99% can buy a share and be impossible to silence.
_______________________________
Sunday, May 6, 2012
If one were inclined to believe this before this note, they probably
will continue to believe it afterward-despite it's paucity of truth. It
is the ignorant manipulating the ignorance of people who want to
perpetuate their ignorance rather than be able to consider the facts
from a neutral, rational space.
Good points in reply. If you believe you are in a 3rd world country, and you live in Canada, then you have a profound astigmatism.
It is true that R&D in Canada could be much better. However, to build a Gen 5 air-force, the starting price is around 500 BILLION. Few single countries in the world can afford that, China being the notable elephant in the room. So, NATO thought it might be a good idea to cooperate on building one...what a concept! Canada's 60 planes and what ever we spend to acquire them is a blip in comparison to the 2500 planes the US will acquire. Silly Canada. We have so much, but are compromised by our small thinking.
The facts: The F-22 has the radar profile of a speeding marble. The F-35 has a profile of a speeding baseball--"speeding" faster than the speed of sound. Good luck. Learn from Baghdad and Tripoli. The stealth bombers came first and took out the air-defense. Come on people wakey wakey!
"
Delete
Good points in reply. If you believe you are in a 3rd world country, and you live in Canada, then you have a profound astigmatism.
It is true that R&D in Canada could be much better. However, to build a Gen 5 air-force, the starting price is around 500 BILLION. Few single countries in the world can afford that, China being the notable elephant in the room. So, NATO thought it might be a good idea to cooperate on building one...what a concept! Canada's 60 planes and what ever we spend to acquire them is a blip in comparison to the 2500 planes the US will acquire. Silly Canada. We have so much, but are compromised by our small thinking.
The facts: The F-22 has the radar profile of a speeding marble. The F-35 has a profile of a speeding baseball--"speeding" faster than the speed of sound. Good luck. Learn from Baghdad and Tripoli. The stealth bombers came first and took out the air-defense. Come on people wakey wakey!
"
Peorhum
Well
it is the JSF-joint strike fighter...it was meant to back up, to a
point, the F22 which was going to be doing the air combat role while the
F35 does the strike roles. The F35 is about being a bomb truck with
some air defence capability. It is designed to replace bomb trucks flown
by the US air force, US navy, US marines. It is designed to replace the
Harrier mainly with a supersonic Vtol aircraft. So yes your right, the
F35 even though it can do air defence, it isn't truly meant for that
role.
You voted
Score: 0
Alethia
Actually,
it is a 30-50 mile tactical range. Russia does have a missile capable
of 86 mile range, so the NATO strategy is to be able to deploy a fighter
that can "fight from the inside" get close enough to be effective with
shorter air-to-air missiles. If Russia is able to resolve and target a
speeding baseball 1.2 times the speed of sound, then we would be in
trouble...
DeleteProvidence
Owen Abrey
Josh. It is a good thing that "all things work together for good for those who love Him *and are called according to His purpose*" That adds extra significance to this event; you have an important job that God approves of. If it is true He intervened here, then He has a special purpose for you folk... one I think you are walking out right now. Like charts? "He has charted you on the palm of His hand." Is: 49 The word is Catov in the original which means to carve/write but the sense is often missed: Special significance is given to writing because what is written is the first step in becoming true...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)