Climate change

that's not what globalism means

Attached: globalism.png (729x271, 18.12K)

Cringe

With this thinking food and technology is globalist. White people are the first globalist btw.

Remember when the Church served a comparable function to the EU in binding disparate nations through a culture, values system, telos, and spiritual leader? Remember when half of europe scrapped that, warred for 100 years, and then had to develop a whole new system of diplomacy with Westphalia to cope, eventually culminating in a corrupt secular parody of the Church's function?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (720x540, 454.37K)

Yes, and it's a good thing that totalitarian degenerates in Rome don't have political power over me just like EU bureaucrats
The EU and the "Catholic Church" are both enemies of nationalism

This .

By the way, while some people are already speaking of things like space and technological advances and whatnot. Humanity's knowledge of taming the lands, forestry, agriculture, and other staples of civilisation are very few compared to other fields of knowledge as in most of them are independent farmers research by trial and error notebook, agricultural schools are there but far and few, and also winnie the pooh agricultural corporations like (((Monsanto))) for salting the earth because they are retarded greedy assholes who expect chemicals to do wonders where it take years to nurture the nature of the earth. We really took what our ancestors have toiled in sweat, blood, and years for granted.

Even if global warming were true it would be impossible for humans to make the earth uninhabitable or wipe out humanity. I say this because prophesy has already determined that these things will continue to exist until the end of time.

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5 one Lord, *one faith*, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

I'm not in favor of national churches either, only autonomous local churches just like the church at Ephesus
That church was one body just like 3rd baptist church of townsville today is one body, but all Christians worldwide are not

Make no mistake, only christian or former christian) countries give a care about the whole issue.
You want to live in a "green" world? Okie, dokie.
Go to war with China and force them do break up into smaller states and force them to adapt environmental policies.
There are literally no other options at all whatsoever.
I mean this. Same goes for India.

tigga, just read the article.
If you find any plotholes, speak it.

China is actually investing in green tech, warehouse of the world or not.

Your comment is incomprehensible.
You're an idiot who can't think outside political forces. I'm talking about the Philosophy of it, the current climate change narrative is that humans are a cancer unto mother Gaia and only Elon Musk can save us.

Why would nations be incompatible with religion?
They do not compete in any way. Go and convert all the nations.

no. why should I?

You need help, son.

fag

Humanity deserves to die.

what are you talking about. I understood that the poster was for national protestant churches, since the unifying nature of the catholic church and the pope is globalist and against nationalism apparently.

...

This

Yes except people are unlikely to do that thus creating the problems that are being warned about.
Two sided political establishments know well how to keep people voting for one side's policies or the other. It's also pretty irritating for many for even greater restrictions to be placed on ordinary civilians while corporations catch a break.

Worth worrying about if real. Worth handing over your autonomy to evil technocrats who care less than nothing for actually ever addressing the problem (that's the people in the jew york times and your federal politicians in case you don't know)? No

As others itt have said, corporations are never held to the standards that may effect the problem and they're the biggest offenders, the theatrics in the media is just another excuse for putting the boot on the people's throats.

The jew york times is staffed by midwit know-nothing paid stooges, there is no "green" technology that can meet the energy demands of the modern world, not without huge efficiency gains (and even then they all still have environmental drawbacks, just different ones). This isn't to suggest apathy, but to have a brain and not further hand people's lives over to the government for literally nothing.

And that being said, it's hardly certain that it's actually happening, or that greenhouse gases are to blame, it's just become a useful cause celebre for the usual gang of nation-wreckers. There's even evidence that we're on a cooling trend.

The pajeets are investing in their naval capabilities.
India world superpower 2020

Couldn't care less. You should only if there was conclusive proof that the theory was right.

Fair point, but I can't trust you user with that tripcode.

I feel like this is a test and I shouldn't trust you, Satan.

Welcome to Zig Forums, friend. Just want to give you a heads up that you are using the term "tripcode" incorrectly.

commie propaganda

Attached: come on now.png (598x369, 207.36K)

Under globalism, you have two cows and the gubment swaps them for a car that you're allowed to drive 10,000 miles.

God controls the weather, "climate change" is just one spook meant to seize the means of control through a global one world government

kek

To my mind, this is where it's at: you either side with the "commie scientists" or you side with the corporate behemoths who are more interested in their profits than "godly stewardship" of the Earth. We should never have taken either side. Christians should be activating a third path, one all the normies can follow, but we're still too captivated by one or the other side – usually the latter – because apparently we love mammon more than God. You hate communism? Good, so do I, but I also view corporationism as a complete corruption of Adam Smith's capitalism, and nothing less than Mammon in a natty business suit. (Pic related, and tell me that's not civilisation in precipitous decline!) We know the world's climate is changing, but we seem willing to cede the argument to the dipoles of politics, to the "earth mother" brigade or the rapacious naysayers who will do anything in their power to maintain this precise lifestyle even as the oil slowly runs dry and the consequences mount up. Where's the Christian response? Do we not care that God will hold us all to account for the trashing of the earth? We HAVE the technology to adequately produce enough energy from solar, wind, geothermal, yes, even thorium nuclear energy, and while it is an expensive option to replace our infrastructure, we can do it progressively, and we can view it as one step-backward for seven steps forward, but instead what have we been doing – mocking each of them as "earth mother" loopiness and sitting back down, self-satisfied that we've defeated yet another "cult". Winnie the pooh that. Let's do these things, let's ween ourselves off coal, oil and gas and eat a little less cow meat. Heck, even goat meat is better for the environment. Wouldn't kill us for Maccers to use lamb burgers.

What the winnie the pooh is wrong with us that even Christians get captivated by the lies of one side because we're soooooo scared of being captivated by the lies of the other?
smh

Absolutely - not only from the point of our stewardship of the planet but due to the immense suffering it will cause if not addressed in due time. A sustainable form of development is going to be necessary unless you want to live through a period of mass migration (which will make the current one look like nothing) and hunger the kind of chaos and misery that situation would bring.

I get it that scientists are all too often atheists but that doesnt mean that everything they say are lies. Its worth remembering that for all the skepticism and doubt senior politicans seem to have over it when it comes to things that will affect the poor and middle class they are treating it very seriously when it comes to how it will effect them. The US military for instance is in the process of transition its bases to rely on more green energy and is likewise studying the damage that climate change will have on their bases and how to prevent it. Likewise China isnt buying up arable land for no reason either - climate change is a big problem the only question is how to solve it as practicably and quickly as possible whilst preventing an unwarrent destruction of liberty

americansecurityproject.org/climate-energy-and-security/climate-change/climate-change-and-u-s-military-basing/

This.
Everyone who has a stake in this is prepping.
The army is making studies on how many of their bases are gonna be flooded, the effing gulf arabs are transitioning from oil and creating carbon-neutral cities, long-term businesses are starting to input climate-related profit losses in their accounting, even the oil industry is doing shady deals saying they will help in exchange for juridical immunity against climate lawsuits, and even Syria signed the Paris treaty.
It's not even "let's save the planet", it's "the planet is screwed, let's shield ourselves as much as we can from the damage, and try to limit it to 2 degree warming, to not turn it into a complement disaster. Now bite the pillow, we know this is gonna hurt"

Doesn't exist.

It’s not man-caused, and there’s nothing we can do about it.

Attached: BE78E0D7-93F8-4B9A-9AC8-AAA219EC2B8A.jpeg (750x540, 119.46K)

So if volcanic activity increased and solar radiation decreased yet global temperatures increased would you say that its would be reasonable to attribute that increase to humans or to some other factor?

I don't think its exactly like that, you see the last cold swing had plenty of volcanic activity still met with drastic temperature uprising, and that was between 1600~1800, before the industrial revolution.
I also don't think volcanic activity directly reduces temperature, maybe the output of smoke in the atmosphere and the cooling of larges amount of magma have some sense to it, but I would think they should contribute more to warming up.
Plus, maybe there wasn't so much solar activity in the past century, but we're definitely seeing a increase lately.

Volcanic gases will contribute to warming, but enough ash could block out the sun and act as condensation nuclei.

There's research showing that the elliptical pathway of the earth around the sun tends to change and this seems to coincide with climate changes.

No, the 11 year cycle is too small to affect things, and doesn't fit what is happening right now(notice how, according to your pic, she should have been slidding into a mini-little ice age for the past decade and a half?).

Also, that chart is very suspicious.
Not only is Y axis absent and ungraded, which is one of the most basic things any study should show.

Also, aparently we've been coasting fine for the past 4,5 millenia, sliding from warm periods to cold periods in a span of centuries, but suddenly, since the 90's, we've gone from a hot period to a cold one every half a decade almost, and then we should go?

There is also no link to show the data or the metholody that produced this stupid graph, to research it yourself.

And to plant a cherry on top of this turd, THERE IS NO CLIMATOLOGIST CALLED CLIFF HARRIS, to begin with.

So yeah, it's even less sourced than shit you find on /x/, for crying out loud.

*then we should go to the hottest we've been in 3000 years, within the span of 20 years?

Attached: Screenshot_2.png (211x1146, 357.68K)

Every country in the EU has parts of it's energy grid based off renewables, mate.

Even in my ass end of Europe, mining companies are complaining they are running out of money for salaries and mining supplies, due to competition from unsubsidised hydro and solar.

And it's not only us.
42% of coal plants are running at a loss, which might rise to 90% by 2030.

Tough question tbh.

No. It's sad to see how much politicians have backpedaled with this scheme over the years.

Attached: 1242323432.png (1275x1650, 845.29K)

No.

1. There's too many lies and goal-post-moving to know the reality of global cooling/global warming/climate change/global warming again.
2. Even if it were true, western countries have already limited their theoretical share of climate changd to miniscule levels. The issue becomes countries like China and India who don't give a crap and will not realistically give a crap. It doesn't make sense, then, to keep harping on this so long as not everyone agrees with the solution and acts accordingly. Otherwise, these are your options: A) the world ends at a faster rate but we can remain competitive with heretical and barbaric nations or B) the world will last longer but our society will likely fall to heretic and barbaric nations.

It's like a room where everybody hates each other and they all have a gun. It would be safer if there were no guns in the room, but there will be people who won't give up their leverage. So, if you give up your guns while two psychos keep theirs, you're no longer playing on an even field.

Clean Earth > (((Cl*mate Change)))

this
but also this

stuff like emissions agreements and taxes are dumb.
if you tax people who drive the same about every day to go to work, they aren't going to drive less.
if the countries that already put out the least emissions agree to put out less emissions, nothing happens.

further studies are OK
actual progress is OK
if we can go 100% to renewable energy, that would be fantastic, but that's not possible right now.
government/media doublespeak is bad. "100% of scientists agree the climate is changing" doesn't mean anything.