Scientists warn of climate catastrophe

Jun 18, 2009
The report says greenhouse gas emissions must be curbed
A man smokes a cigarette near a coal-fired power station near Beijing. The world faces a growing risk of "abrupt and irreversible climatic shifts" as fallout from global warming hits faster than expected, according to research by international scientists.

The world faces a growing risk of "abrupt and irreversible climatic shifts" as fallout from global warming hits faster than expected, according to research by international scientists released Thursday.

Global surface and ocean temperatures, sea levels, extreme climate events, the retreat of Arctic sea ice are all increasing significantly faster than experts predicted, they warned.

The stark warning comes less than six months before an international conference aiming to seal a global treaty to save the planet from the worst ravages of global warming.

A 36-page document summarized more than 1,400 studies presented at a climate conference in March in Copenhagen, where a new meeting will be held in December to hammer out successor to the Kyoto Protocol.

It said emissions and other climate indicators are at or near the upper boundaries forecast by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on (IPCC), whose 2007 report has been the scientific benchmark for the troubled UN talks.

There is also new evidence that the planet itself has begun to contribute to global warming through fall out from human activity.

Huge stores of gases such as methane -- an even more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide -- trapped for millennia in the Arctic permafrost may be starting to leak into the atmosphere, speeding up the warming process.

The natural capacity of the oceans and forests to absorb CO2 created by the burning of fossil fuels has also been compromised, research has shown.

The new report, written and reviewed by many of the scientists who compiled the IPCC document, calls on policy makers to take urgent steps to keep average from increasing more than two degrees Centigrade (3.6 degree Fahrenheit), compared to pre-industrial levels.

"Rapid, sustained, and effective mitigation ... is required to avoid 'dangerous climate change' regardless of how it is defined," it said.

"Temperature rises above 2 Celsius will be difficult for contemporary societies to cope with, and are likely to cause major societal and environmental disruptions through the rest of the century and beyond."

The IPCC has said that achieving this goal would require industrialised nations to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 25-40 percent compared to 1990 levels.

The new report suggested that deep and early emissions cuts -- one of the most contentious issues on the table in the UN talks -- are essential.

"Weaker targets for 2020 increase the risk of serious impacts, including the crossing of tipping points" beyond which natural forces reinforce the warming process.

(c) 2009 AFP

Explore further: Indians rally against climate change ahead of UN talks

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Report: Human activity fuels global warming

Feb 02, 2007

Today's release of a widely anticipated international report on global warming coincides with a growing clamor within the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prevent the potentially devastating consequences ...

Forests could flip from sink to source of CO2: study

Apr 17, 2009

Forests that today soak up a quarter of carbon pollution spewed into the atmosphere could soon become a net source of CO2 if Earth's surface warms by another two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), cautions ...

Recommended for you

Green dream: Can UN summit revive climate issue?

12 hours ago

Five years ago, the environment movement was in its heyday as politicians, actors, rock stars and protestors demanded a looming UN summit brake the juggernaut of climate change.

Rio's Olympic golf course in legal bunker

Sep 18, 2014

The return of golf to the Olympics after what will be 112 years by the time Rio hosts South America's first Games in 2016 comes amid accusations environmental laws were got round to build the facility in ...

User comments : 58

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ForFreeMinds
2.7 / 5 (21) Jun 18, 2009
Looks like more propaganda on AGW. Apparently written by those trying to achieve political power thru environmental control of humans. "The world faces a growing risk of "abrupt and irreversible climatic shifts" as fallout from global warming hits faster than expected..." The hubris is evident, especially since there hasn't been any warming for the last decade. Their approach: find any change and blame it on global warming and ask for taxpayers money for more research and support politicians who want to control you by taxing your energy use, and regulating energy production so it costs a lot more. And so they have the control.
John_balls
3 / 5 (16) Jun 18, 2009
Looks like more propaganda on AGW. Apparently written by those trying to achieve political power thru environmental control of humans. "The world faces a growing risk of "abrupt and irreversible climatic shifts" as fallout from global warming hits faster than expected..." The hubris is evident, especially since there hasn't been any warming for the last decade. Their approach: find any change and blame it on global warming and ask for taxpayers money for more research and support politicians who want to control you by taxing your energy use, and regulating energy production so it costs a lot more. And so they have the control.

Right, and smoking does not cause cancer either.
Noein
3.4 / 5 (17) Jun 18, 2009
Right, and smoking does not cause cancer either.


And evolution is fake. And the Holocaust never happened. And man never landed on the Moon. And HIV doesn't cause AIDS. All forms of reality denial are equally absurd, utilizing the exact same rhetorical tactics and fallacious arguments, including the most recent form of reality denial: global warming denial.

Different reality denialists deny reality for different reasons. Evolution denialists, for instance, deny reality because of their primitive stone age mythology. Holocaust denialists deny reality because of their racism.

Why do the global warming denialists deny reality? Because of their greed, their avarice, their shallow materialism, which are all symptoms of the disease of anarcho-capitalism.
JerryPark
3 / 5 (14) Jun 18, 2009
Chicken Little gets louder and louder in her tale of falling sky.

Strangely, when questioned about the sky falling, Ms. Little cannot produce a single piece of fallen sky.
LariAnn
2.9 / 5 (9) Jun 18, 2009
In response to Noein,
The problem is not whether, for example, many Jews died during WWII, but how much of what we have been taught is factual and how much is hype with a political agenda. Same with evolution. We can observe adaptation and change within a species today, how much of the conjecture about what happened millions of years ago is fact and how much is pushing an agenda of belief? If one million Jews were killed in WWII, is that less of a "holocaust" than if six million were killed, or is the larger number required to promote an agenda even if hard facts to back up that number are lacking? What is lacking in some of these cases is real hard facts, not hype, conjecture and supposition. The sad truth is that people that take both sides of the issues you mentioned have personal agendas and beliefs, and those of us who are looking for genuine facts don't have the resources to filter those out.
HeloMenelo
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 18, 2009
Noein

Brilliantly Put! Precisely what you are saying is the truth.
Godfather
2.8 / 5 (12) Jun 18, 2009
Noein - you are right, it's funny how at the end of these articles (which contain published stats from reputable institutions) there are a slew of posts with comments like "more propaganda" and "no evidence". Even though the article just cited the evidence.

I disagree with you on one point however. Capitalism is just an economic system designed for growth, its human greed that is the problem. In fact one of the very reason socialist states fail is greed and corruption. The economic system we have is a perfect engine for solving our problems, because it places the emphasis on the individual (not the state) to generate solutions (though I appreciate state subsidy is required for large scale operations).

Business, innovation, technology, and people are the key to slowing and stopping climate change. Though the main thing I do not understand from the climate change deniers, is that regardless of whether it is real or not, they never seem to show any concern that our way of creating energy is non-sustainable.
LuckyBrandon
3 / 5 (6) Jun 18, 2009
lariann-
"We can observe adaptation and change within a species today, how much of the conjecture about what happened millions of years ago is fact and how much is pushing an agenda of belief?"
its not pushing an agenda of belief, its putting forward a theory


" If one million Jews were killed in WWII, is that less of a "holocaust" than if six million were killed, or is the larger number required to promote an agenda even if hard facts to back up that number are lacking? "

you can look at the many hundreds or thousands of pictures of the camps and pretty much see it for yourself. i have a very close friend of mine whose grandparents still wear the mark from all of that bs.
GrayMouser
2.7 / 5 (12) Jun 18, 2009
Why do the global warming denialists deny reality? Because of their greed, their avarice, their shallow materialism, which are all symptoms of the disease of anarcho-capitalism.

Why do global warming fanatics advocate an unproven hypothesis based on flawed computer models that have never been able to predict the climate?
Avarice, their shallow authoritarian power grabbing, which are all symptoms of the disease of the modern Neo Facist/scocialist.
DoktorSerendipitous
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2009
Dear Saint Noein:

I might point out that once you call your belief reality, everyone who does not agree with your belief is a reality denialist. Thus, you might add to your long list of reality denialists a category called anti-AGW denialist. Here is a succinct definition: Anti-AGW denialist: A person who believes categorically that anti-AGW propositions cannot possibly be true.

Incidentally, how's your saintly life without greed, avarice, shallow materialism, and other assorted ancient sins of anachro-capitalism? And is deep materialism the way to go under post-anachro-capitalism?

Velanarris
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 19, 2009
Gotta love the picture of the "CO2 producing" Nuclear plant in the background.

Certainly not propaganda, not at all....


thorn
1 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2009
In about twenty years when all nations are bankrupt and most farmland is destroyed. Everybody born after 1990 will eat everbody born before 1990. You know because they'll be starving and we'll all be fat. Therefor climate change is their problem.
Velanarris
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2009
Oh look, Noein made another account.

So we're up to ghidon, MsDeeNyer, Noein, John_Balls, and Dutchtraveller. Good show. FYI: it shows the date of account creation and prior commentary.
rubberman
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2009
If the human lifespan was a thousand years there would be no debate on this subject
JerryPark
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 19, 2009
rubberman,

Why do you say that?

In fact, the human life span was close to 1000 years many years ago. Don't have any records of anyone discussing AGW.
Arkaleus
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 19, 2009
It's time to start treating the climate prophets like a hostile, invading, foreign religion. Their religion despises the free West and threatens our security and prosperity. Their motive isn't our salvation, it is our enslavement, deconstruction of our liberty, and ultimately the genocidal depopulation of the earth.

In my land there's a separation of church and state, but they would have their new religion dictate the terms of human government. It's a religion that sacrifices you and I on the altar to stave off the "terrible disaster" prophecied by their preists and prophets. It is exactly like the foolish Aztecs who thought the sun would burn them unless beating hearts were offered, and for this they slaughtered until they were denched in fat clots of blood.
Velanarris
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2009
rubberman,

Why do you say that?

In fact, the human life span was close to 1000 years many years ago. Don't have any records of anyone discussing AGW.

Could you cite your reference on a human being living up to a thousand years? As far as I know, that's never happened.
LuckyBrandon
2.8 / 5 (4) Jun 19, 2009
jerry-your a nut. in no way no how has man ever lived for 1000 years or anywhere even close. we live longer now than we ever have, and we will continue doing so most likely until no more can be done.
i second my buddy velannaris there....
GrayMouser
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2009
rubberman,

Why do you say that?

In fact, the human life span was close to 1000 years many years ago. Don't have any records of anyone discussing AGW.


Could you cite your reference on a human being living up to a thousand years? As far as I know, that's never happened.

He's referring to the Old Testament. And, in that case, I would classify Noah's Ark as a response to climate change ;-]
Velanarris
2 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2009
He's referring to the Old Testament. And, in that case, I would classify Noah's Ark as a response to climate change ;-]

I'm well versed in the Old Testament and there is nowhere where it is stated than man lived for up to a thousand years.

It is stated that the earliest rulers were as wise as a man who had lived to be a thousand years old, as 2well as showing a large disconnect between the old calendars of the time and our current calendar, so I'm wondering where Jerry got thousands of years from.

(Don't ruin my anti fundamentalist traps).
JerryPark
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 20, 2009
Velanarris,

Read Genesis. A quote from Genesis chapter 5 verse 5:
"And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."
Velanarris
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2009
Velanarris,

Read Genesis. A quote from Genesis chapter 5 verse 5:
"And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

And you believe the story of genesis to be true?
JerryPark
2 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2009
Velanarris,

I find no reason to dispute it. Why do you believe that it is not true?
Switch
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2009
I think this is the wrong place to be discussing theology. What I know is that if I was making a fire to warm my home in winter, and there seemed to be something stuck in the chimney, I'm going to put out the fire while I investigate! When things are fine after that, I can restart the fire. The logic people use today is that the clog will go away by itself, we can look without putting out the fire and the smoke is probably not coming from the fireplace so lets leave it alone. This is our home we're talking about. If we are or aren't responsible for global warming, the responsible thing to do is to stop and wait to know for sure.
RealScience
3 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2009
JerryPark - More like 930 months, or almost 80 years.
Not quite as big a mistranslation as "era" for "day" in the story of the seven eras of creation.

Velanarris - nuclear power plants don't have tall smokestacks. I see no reason to question that that's a coal plant - they often use cooling towers that look just like the ones at nuclear power plants).

Switch - good start on an analogy, but you aren't just starting a fire. You've had the fire going for a long time, and have been building it hotter and hotter because it is essential to your way of life. So you can't just put it out, you need to find an alternate way to heat your house, cook your food, boil water for your new-born child, etc., before you could put the fire out. So you try to find other ways of checking.

The question is at what point you decide that you have enough evidence to take drastic action. Some people believe we have enough already, others believe that the climate is changing but it is not us that is causing it, others believe that this climate is not even the optimmum one or that optimum is just a matter of perspective.

Of course some of the people on this message board ignore evidence whenever it goes against their view point. That certainly doesn't make them right, but doesn't necessarily make them wrong, either. It just makes them less worth listening to.
JerryPark
1 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2009
RealScience,

You assert that Adam's lifespan of 930 years was in reality 930 months (about 80 years) because of what?

If this is an error in translation, then when God reduced man's lifespan to 120 years, everyone would die in, according to your calculations, 10 years?

"Genesis chapter 5 verse 5:
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

"Genesis chapter 6 verse 3:
And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."

Velanarris
2.8 / 5 (4) Jun 22, 2009
Velanarris,

I find no reason to dispute it. Why do you believe that it is not true?


Because it was written in 100 AD and is not contemporary to the events it tells of, if they even occured.

You zealots don't seem to understand that back then a year was not 365 days. Nor did David slay Goliath with a single rock, nor did Moses part the red sea.

God didn't reduce man's lifespan to 120 years. Man refined his ability to tell time and made up God's lifespan change to explain why the old records don't match up to the new.

Babylonian calendar adoption drove the "shortening" as they had a solar precessional calendar as opposed to a lunar calendar year.


You can't pick and choose which myths are true and which are not. It depends on evidence, not faith.



JerryPark
1 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2009
Velanarris,

All the history of the Jewish people was made up in 100 AD?

How deluded is that?
Velanarris
not rated yet Jun 22, 2009
Velanarris - nuclear power plants don't have tall smokestacks. I see no reason to question that that's a coal plant - they often use cooling towers that look just like the ones at nuclear power plants).



Not the foreground, look where the steam is comming from.







That's the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Tokyo.



Velanarris,



All the history of the Jewish people was made up in 100 AD?



How deluded is that?
That's not what I said. That's when it was put to pen and paper as the book you call Genesis. The story of David had been around for almost 1000 years before it was included in the Old Testament.
Velanarris
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2009
Jerry,

You must be pretty pissed that they found the fossil intermediary between Lemurs and lower primates, and Man and higher primates. Kinda puts a big kink in your theory of how man developed.
JerryPark
not rated yet Jun 22, 2009
Velanarris ,

1. You are wrong about when the Torah and other Jewish texts were written.

2. Why would I be pissed about a fossil?

3. Why do you presume you know anything about what I believe?
Velanarris
1 / 5 (1) Jun 22, 2009
Velanarris ,

1. You are wrong about when the Torah and other Jewish texts were written.
No, I'm not. Cite a reference otherwise.

The bible, Old and New books, were written from about 150BC to 400AD. The last of which cited as being Revelation According to John (of Patmos).

The Torah and other Jewish texts are a retelling of former mythos from which very few written texts survived due to the Israelite campaign of genocide launched against the Moabites, Edomites, and other resident peoples of Canaan. This is the same place referred to in Egyptian texts as Djahi and Hurrian texts as Kinahhu.


2. Why would I be pissed about a fossil?
Kinda makes the whole argument against evolution, and the pre-ordained descent of the species invalid.

3. Why do you presume you know anything about what I believe?

Stating that humans previously lived for thousands of years means one of two things.

You're being a contrarian.

or

You're genuinely serious and believe the bible word for mistranslated word.
LuckyBrandon
1 / 5 (1) Jun 22, 2009
i can make it easier for ya i think velannaris...







jerry-too many things have been proven wrong within that ole ye sacred book of yours for you to even concider the possibility of them being fact anymore.



the great flood is a great example...didnt happen, not the way its written in there anyway...it happened, but only over a small portion of the world (its either the red sea or the dead sea..cant remember) as teh glaciers receded. from the perspective of the guy writing it, or the guy who saw it who told the story to the guy writing it, than it must have truly seemed like the whole of the earth was being flooded....BUT, it wasnt....



Faith placed into something created out of a lack of scientific understanding is not a faith at all...









Oh keep in mind too, in my understanding, there was a known translation issue when the bible was translated into english in that what looked like 10,000 years is actually 100,000 years; what looked like 1,000 years was actually 10,000 years, and so on...if that does indeed play true, then in that case jerry is really saying that man lived to 10,000 years old and he is simply quoting a mis-translation....of course either way its bs....

Wish I could remember who put that out now....but it escapes me...
Velanarris
1 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2009
Brandon, thanks for trying but you're off base by a bit here.

Did Noah's flood occur? Unknown. It's sugested by some in the fields of paleoarchaeology that Noah's flood did indeed occur to primitive man and that the story was retold over and over to the point of legend. Making its retelling in the Bible simply a point of common myth. Similar to our "Trojan War", assumed myth until Troy was found.

Now was the flood an event that obliterated the world? Hardly, but it was a great inundation that shook primitive society. Allegedly it would be associated with the flood waters and surges seen between 10,000 and 8,000 BC.

Keep in mind, every culture has a flood myth, most likely they all stem from the same place, or time period.

As for the known translation issue, that is known as "Plato's offset" and has very little to do with the Bible. Plato was known to have made the folly of ten in his retelling of the story of Atlantis, in which Atlantis didn't exist 9000 years ago, but more like 900 years ago, making the story line up surprisingly well with the Minoan and Phonecian civilization.

Coincidentally, a lot of the mythos of the Israelites is closely related to the Minoan/Phonecian mythos sans polytheistic overtones.
defunctdiety
5 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2009
Not the foreground, look where the steam is comming from.


That big white plume of condensing moisture is coming from a cooling tower. A common engineering control measure for thermal pollution in combustion generation facilities without heat-recovery generators. The pic caption even says it's a coal plant near Beijing. Velanarris you are the height of just-too-muchery.
JerryPark
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2009
Velanarris,

"Kinda makes the whole argument against evolution, and the pre-ordained descent of the species invalid."

You will have to work out your own problems with evolution. I can't help you there since I have no problem with evolution.
LuckyBrandon
3 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2009
velannaris-

very true...it is not set in stone thats that what it was...but it is, you have to admit, a little coincidental for the timing of the overflow of the mediterranean into that sea to be not all that long before the stories of giglamesh (unsure if proper spelling, but, the original Noah's ark story from i think babylon).
those times coincidence just too neatly for me to not say at least "this is most likely the source". we all know, there is no evidence to a biblical flood occurring worldwide at one time...that evidence should be obvious (at least as far as i know none has been found).
but the fact it was a lake, and we have seen and photographed the ruins at the old lakes shoreline, and again, the timing of it....although yes, it could be just a coincidence i will give you that.
i am in complete agreement on your second paragraph there....

"Keep in mind, every culture has a flood myth, most likely they all stem from the same place, or time period."
entirely agreed, with the exception of a few tribal religions (some extinct, some almost)...however the bible is merely the newest rendition of the same story....so again, entirely agree as one rolled over to the next book which rolled ot the next book which rolled to 2 more books...etc etc


"As for the known translation issue, that is known as "Plato's offset" and has very little to do with the Bible. Plato was known to have made the folly of ten in his retelling of the story of Atlantis, in which Atlantis didn't exist 9000 years ago, but more like 900 years ago, making the story line up surprisingly well with the Minoan and Phonecian civilization."

ok that would make sense, but backwards from what i remember. i believe it was like a discovery program or something that i am referencing there from way back when that was discussing the mistranslation from greek in the fashion i described. i want to say mid 90s even i bet....so i wouldnt doubt thats wrong or out of date at all...so thanks for the correction.



Scottar
1 / 5 (1) Jun 26, 2009
Excellent LuckBrandon.

There is an excellent site that goes into detail about the major religions and their origins- jesusneverexisted.com

Bureaucratic climate scientist do much the same thing. They take advantage of the public ignorance of the complexity of climate science. It's call the lie sandwich, a slice of lie between two truth's.

Earth getting warmer, CO2 rising! Must be our fault says Ogg the cave man. Must prepare sacrifice. Tell the villagers to bring precious tokens for sacrificial offering plate. Then bring plate to me- he, he.
wawadave
not rated yet Jul 03, 2009
I guess it would be asking too much that the religious zealots could go discuss their gobledigook on a religious forum some where other then here?
LuckyBrandon
1 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2009
i havent noticed any religious zealot comments since facts were laid down....
LuckyBrandon
1 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2009
JerryPark-



you actually made a good point out to another reason the bible is bs...how many people have you known or seen that have came anywhere freakin close to 120 yrs old. I can pretty much guarantee youve known none personally, and only heard of a couple in the world over the last couple centuries...



bad idea to post something that even a child knows there aint a fat chance of happening...well ok, a fat chance, but HIGHLY rare



velannaris-
i have to disagree with you about a worldwide flood not happening as being fact, as it is indeed. As far as I know, there is absolute proof in the geological record that a global flood has not occurred....if it had, the sediment line would be in the same layers of earth across the globe from the exact same time, with the exact same "laydown" pattern, etc etc...the fact that does not exist is proof in and of itself that a global flood did not occur.
Velanarris
1 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2009
By global flood, I do not mean, "the entire globe was covered with water"

I mean a distinct and geologically sudden rise in sea level.
croghan27
2 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2009




you actually made a good point out to another reason the bible is bs...how many people have you known or seen that have came anywhere freakin close to 120 yrs old. I can pretty much guarantee youve known none personally, and only heard of a couple in the world over the last couple centuries...



Lucky - would you accept that the Bible was written to make a point, not to establish an historical record or text?
LuckyBrandon
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2009
indeed...which is why it cant be taken as fact (especially in areas such as the earth being like 10k yrs old).
the points of course being moral values
Velanarris
5 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2009
The bible is a collection of texts, some of which are true, some of which are pure fantasy.

Typically the pure fantasy stories are the "moral" stories, like Genesis.

The few stories which have a basis in fact are greatly exaggerated tales of military actions like the Exodus story.
Egnite
2 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2009
The bible is a collection of texts, some of which are true, some of which are pure fantasy.

The few stories which have a basis in fact are greatly exaggerated tales of military actions like the Exodus story.


Much the same can be said about AGW but instead of ancient stories, we're talking about recent reports.

It's funny how much people can argue over unproven theories, it wouldn't surprise me if the next big war was over "Global Warming", would make a change from religion but it's along the same lines.



LuckyBrandon
1 / 5 (2) Jul 10, 2009
i can agree with that, but then again, doesnt exodus itself consist of GREATLY exxagerated feats, such as the building of pyramids, which had been proven nearly a decade ago were actually built by citizens as the ancient egyption version of taxation?



but that is a great example you use there, since I believe there is also evidence that a "loner" did live with a pharaoah as adopted son (at least I think I heard that)







Egnite-I suppose it depends on what constitutes proof to someone doesn't it? For example, a chemist looking through the microscope may see a molecule, and that is proof of molecular existence, yet to an accountant, they just see a blob and therefore it is not proof of molecular existence...but which is true, the analysis of the chemist who knows it to be true, or the analysis of the accountant to whom it is no different than believing in a higher power cuz all he/she sees is that blob?
Velanarris
1 / 5 (1) Jul 10, 2009
i can agree with that, but then again, doesnt exodus itself consist of GREATLY exxagerated feats, such as the building of pyramids, which had been proven nearly a decade ago were actually built by citizens as the ancient egyption version of taxation?
The Israelites were not slaves. The Israelites were under paid mercenaries. Exodus was their escape when the Egyptians turned on them for refusing to pay their taxes and so they ran from the Egyptian army and waged a war very similar to the German press into Russia during WW1 and WW2. The Israelites pillaged the country side for food, gold, etc and beat the Egyptians through Moses' great knowledge of the terrain. As has been said before, the winner determines history. Much as the colonists said they were "slaves" to English wills, the Israelites believed the building of the pyramids to worship a god that wasn't theirs'(taxation) was tantamount to slavery.

Like I said before, some stories in the bible are exaggerations of factual events.
JerryPark
not rated yet Jul 10, 2009
Velanarris,



Your above comment is a "just so" story [ad hoc fallacy] of monumental proportions.
Velanarris
1 / 5 (1) Jul 11, 2009
Velanarris,

Your above comment is a "just so" story [ad hoc fallacy] of monumental proportions.

No, it's an interpretation of events based on primary and secondary source literature.

Sorry to offend your sensibilities again.
JerryPark
not rated yet Jul 11, 2009
You just made it up.

Your desire for an altered reality doesn't make it happen.

Saying something happened in congruence with your personal fiction doesn't make it happen.

Facts remain facts.
Velanarris
1 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2009
You just made it up.
Nope. The Jews were always known as mercenaries. Even the Romans feared them becomming organized.

Your desire for an altered reality doesn't make it happen.
Saying something happened in congruence with your personal fiction doesn't make it happen.
Facts remain facts.

Then state facts that dismiss mine. It's debate, not ad hominem attack time.
JerryPark
not rated yet Jul 12, 2009
Velanarris ,

Keep saying it. Enough repetition will doubtless cause it to be true.

You could argue that all the Miss America contestants were mercenaries too, and I bet you could convince some people that that was true.

The facts which dismiss your statement is that there are no facts which support your insane statement.
Velanarris
1 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2009
Velanarris ,



Keep saying it. Enough repetition will doubtless cause it to be true.



You could argue that all the Miss America contestants were mercenaries too, and I bet you could convince some people that that was true.



The facts which dismiss your statement is that there are no facts which support your insane statement.




Actually, you're wrong.



The origins of the Hebrews start with the Hyksos. The Hyksos were Canaanites who fled famine adn settled in western Egypt. The Hyksos were composed mainly of the Hurrians, but was a confederation of approximately 10 different Canaanite tribes. The Hyksos were originally hired by the Egyptians for their battle prowess, refined from centuries of tribal warfare. The Hyksos grew so powerful as to usurp the government of Egypt, to the point of the Pharaoh driving them out and back to Canaan where they decimated many cities and villages.



Time passes several famines come and go and in the Egyptian texts a new group pops up, the Hibiru mercenaries. The Hibiru, (Egyptian for Hebrew), were more a social caste than a specific ethnic group, but they all spoke Hurrian, the language of the canaanite tribes of the Hyksos.



The Hyksos, by the way, used the word El for Gods.

The Hebrews of the time used the word El to mean God, and their word for their god was Elohim, God of All.



Now the Hittites invade northern Canaan, bringing with them a confirmed pandemic that spread through the Egyptian ranks, destablizing the region and creating the rise of mega tribes and the first Moabites, Edomites, etc. The Hebrew leave Egypt, their slavery status can't be confirmed, but they are pursued by the Egyptian forces. The Hebrew people plunder the land leaving no supplies for the troops pursuing, while engaging in skirmish warfare. At the sea of reed the espaing Hebrew people, who are on foot, have a field where the Egyptian Chariots cannot engage in battle, where they face the Egyptian military and do enough damage to send them home.



They engage in warfare with the tribes of Canaan and go on the genocidal rampage spoken of under David, when the land of Israel was consolidated.



If you want to dispute that timeline, bring a reference rather than a non rebuttal.
JerryPark
not rated yet Jul 12, 2009
Velanarris,

As I said before, "Your above comment is a 'just so' story [ad hoc fallacy] of monumental proportions. "



You should consider a career in fiction writing.
Velanarris
1 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2009
Velanarris,

As I said before, "Your above comment is a 'just so' story [ad hoc fallacy] of monumental proportions. "

You should consider a career in fiction writing.

Just like I thought, you haven't a word to disprove it. Thanks for the sophistry Jerry. Enjoy your mysticism.
JerryPark
not rated yet Jul 13, 2009
Velanarris,

I don't have to disprove every idiotic tale someone makes up.

You have the burden of proof when you seek to re-write history.
Velanarris
1 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2009
Velanarris,

I don't have to disprove every idiotic tale someone makes up.

You have the burden of proof when you seek to re-write history.

There's no re-write here. This is a commonly accepted timeline. Feel free to look it up before you tell someone they're wrong.