Posts by joey jojo

10

elder school and jabs

by enoughisenough in

i watched a video ( can't think which one now.

)..and the presenter said he had been given unverifiable information from an elder's wife that the elders needed to have the "jabs" in order to attend elder school in person now and there wasn't to be a zoom, and if they didn't have the jabs, they needed to contact the branch.

( my thought: when will these toothless lions (elders) wake up and be real men and use their god given intelligence and quit allowing the manipulation?

joey jojo

The elders have a Discord site?

146

Science News article: ‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans

by Disillusioned JW in

a news article has the headline of " ‘case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans"; see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans .

the article says in part the following.. 'the scientific consensus that humans are altering the climate has passed 99.9%, according to research that strengthens the case for global action at the cop26 summit in glasgow.. the degree of scientific certainty about the impact of greenhouse gases is now similar to the level of agreement on evolution and plate tectonics, the authors say, based on a survey of nearly 90,000 climate-related studies.

this means there is practically no doubt among experts that burning fossil fuels, such as oil, gas, coal, peat and trees, is heating the planet and causing more extreme weather.. a previous survey in 2013 showed 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering earth’s climate.. this has been updated and expanded by the study by cornell university that shows the tiny minority of sceptical voices has diminished to almost nothing as evidence mounts of the link between fossil-fuel burning and climate disruption.. the latest survey of peer-reviewed literature published from 2012 to november 2020 was conducted in two stages.

joey jojo

Hi again Vid,

The only reason I comment on your posts, is for anyone that upvotes it, or for the casual reader that accepts what you have posted without checking.

So in this latest post you talk about Arctic ice melting and flooding the world. No expert believes this to be case.

Why?

Because Arctic ice melting will have zero effect on ocean levels. It is like an ice cube in a drink, as it melts, it doesnt magically add more water to the glass. The total amount of water is already in the glass, except some of it is in frozen form.

You posted a link from NASA in another post, I suppose that means you trust NASA as a source. Here is another post showing how the Arctic Ice is indeed shrinking. It even has a slider so you can see it for yourself.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/#:~:text=Key%20Takeaway%3A,covered%20in%20ice)%20each%20September.

146

Science News article: ‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans

by Disillusioned JW in

a news article has the headline of " ‘case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans"; see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans .

the article says in part the following.. 'the scientific consensus that humans are altering the climate has passed 99.9%, according to research that strengthens the case for global action at the cop26 summit in glasgow.. the degree of scientific certainty about the impact of greenhouse gases is now similar to the level of agreement on evolution and plate tectonics, the authors say, based on a survey of nearly 90,000 climate-related studies.

this means there is practically no doubt among experts that burning fossil fuels, such as oil, gas, coal, peat and trees, is heating the planet and causing more extreme weather.. a previous survey in 2013 showed 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering earth’s climate.. this has been updated and expanded by the study by cornell university that shows the tiny minority of sceptical voices has diminished to almost nothing as evidence mounts of the link between fossil-fuel burning and climate disruption.. the latest survey of peer-reviewed literature published from 2012 to november 2020 was conducted in two stages.

joey jojo

Disillusioned JW:
I notice that you made the claim of "By the way, one wind turbine cannot generate the amount of energy in its lifetime that was used in its manufacture." I am not convinced that one wind turbine cannot generate the amount of energy in its lifetime that was used in its manufacture.

Im glad you noticed this too. Of course its a false claim. The guy quoted was taken completely out of context and Vidqun got this quote from his favourite source of scientific facts - Facebook memes.

Heres the whole story:

https://fullfact.org/online/wind-turbines-energy/

For anyone who cant be bothered clicking on the URL:

On his blog Mr Homer-Dixon writes: “The poster is fraudulent. I didn’t write the text, the text itself is selectively quoted, and the argument it makes, taken in isolation, is meaningless.”

The full quote from the book is:

“The concept of net energy must also be applied to renewable sources of energy, such as windmills and photovoltaics. A two-megawatt windmill contains 260 tonnes of steel requiring 170 tonnes of coking coal and 300 tonnes of iron ore, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. The question is: how long must a windmill generate energy before it creates more energy than it took to build it? At a good wind site, the energy payback day could be in three years or less; in a poor location, energy payback may be never. That is, a windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it.”

So Mr Hughes was saying only that placing windmills in bad places may mean they don’t generate enough energy to “pay back” the energy it cost to produce them, not that all turbines will fail to do so.

Mr Homer-Dixon adds, “it would be pointless to put wind turbines in poor locations”.

15

Future

by punkofnice in

i wonder what this earth will really be like in 500 years from now?.

what are your thoughts?.

joey jojo

If humans don't have another technological interruption, like the dark ages, the technology available 500 years from now would seem like magic to us.

146

Science News article: ‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans

by Disillusioned JW in

a news article has the headline of " ‘case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans"; see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans .

the article says in part the following.. 'the scientific consensus that humans are altering the climate has passed 99.9%, according to research that strengthens the case for global action at the cop26 summit in glasgow.. the degree of scientific certainty about the impact of greenhouse gases is now similar to the level of agreement on evolution and plate tectonics, the authors say, based on a survey of nearly 90,000 climate-related studies.

this means there is practically no doubt among experts that burning fossil fuels, such as oil, gas, coal, peat and trees, is heating the planet and causing more extreme weather.. a previous survey in 2013 showed 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering earth’s climate.. this has been updated and expanded by the study by cornell university that shows the tiny minority of sceptical voices has diminished to almost nothing as evidence mounts of the link between fossil-fuel burning and climate disruption.. the latest survey of peer-reviewed literature published from 2012 to november 2020 was conducted in two stages.

joey jojo

Vidqun
This is an Australian graph. Look at the gloabal monthly temperature anomalies (1880-2021). These follow a similar pattern.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4975
Interestingly, data had to be suppressed, indicating that "Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years." I wonder why.

Wow Vidqun, you have outdone yourself this time.

After you make the claim that it hasnt risen, you link the climate spiral from NASA that shows proof that earths temperature has risen.

30

Opinions on the Divine name in the New Testament? + an interesting question

by Blotty in

i am genuinely curious and mainly posting this for research purposes, i do not have enough knowledge on either of these subjects to debate them in any useful manner.. (this information is as far as i am aware and may be incorrect in places)as most know the nwt is known for placing a form of the divine name in the nt (new testament) - while i agree the evidence is significantly weak for it too appear in the nt, a few things must be considered - (from my limited research)rev references the name twice (3:12, 14:1)early copies of the lxx contain the divine name (likely the versions that the nt writers copied?

stafford has a couple of videos on this subject)it was emphasized over and over the name [divine name, which ever form you prefer] would be "known" (other words used aswell) forever - if this is true, why then go against your own message in some cases and replace it with a surrogate?some also claim the nwt is dishonest for not translating some occurrences of "lord" as the divine name - common ones i notice are: phil 2:10-11, 1pe 3:14-15, heb 1:10yet these all use "lord" as a title not a proper noun, seems to be staunch trinitarians who make this claim most oftenscholar qualifications:why does a scholars qualification's matter?

sounds dumb i know.

joey jojo

I'm no bible scholar either but here are some things that I have found interesting over the years.

In an effort to support the validity of the bible, the WT claims that nothing in the bible has been changed, altered or omitted in any significant way over the centuries of translating. However, they take it upon themselves to insert Gods name in the new testament over 250 times, completely ignoring the fact it has never been found in any fragment or copy.

The oldest copies of the NT in existence are written 100 years after Jesus died. They are not complete books, only scraps of parts of scriptures.

The first complete books of the NT are dated to the 3rd century, not the complete bible- only some books.

The first complete NT bible, the codex sinaiticus doesnt appear until the 4th century.

None of the gospels were eyewitness accounts and the originals werent written until decades after the death of Jesus.

Luke and Paul never met Jesus, yet between them are responsible for writing about half of the books of the NT.

God did not dictate the canon of the bible- it was decided upon by men.

Many books that we have in the NT werent universally accepted as belonging in the bible and some still arent by certain branches of christian faiths.

The version of the bible used by JW's is the protestant bible which didnt exist before 1534 CE, which separated the apocrypha. If JW's believe God inspired the books of the bible and it was already complete in the 1st century, then why accept a revised version over 1000 years later which removes some books?

31

Hobbies

by peacefulpete in

jw
friends

i think it's been a while since this was asked.

tell us your hobbies, interests, pastimes, whatever you find enjoyable as a diversion from work and school.

i am lucky enough to live in a small cabin on a lake, i enjoy rowing my old boat and fishing, i play with car projects, and we travel as much as we can.

joey jojo

For those of you into amateur radio, have any of you dabbled with SDR -software defined radio?

6

Australia 2021 Census: why did JW grow?

by shepherdless in

hi all, some may remember about 5 years ago, i did a few articles on what the australian census of 2016 said about jw and some other religions.

i have been meaning to add a bit on the 2021 census; the more detailed results have only been available in the last month or so.. an obvious question is why and how did jw numbers increase between 2016 and 2021. it is reasonable to assume the pandemic had a role.

the data doesn't fully answer that question, but it does show that a lot of over 35 y.o.

joey jojo

No doubt the pandemic scared a few back.

The chart indicates that there are far fewer babies being born into the org in 2021 than 2006, that's interesting.

59

Why isn't this forum growing like reddit exjw??

by nowwhat? in

admittedly it 90% crap over there but still they are up to 80k in subscribers.

over here it's the same half dozen or so that posts something, including myself.

why is that?.

joey jojo

Wow- 3 mins and I already have a down-vote, Im impressed (but not surprised).

The mega thread is sacrosanct after all.

59

Why isn't this forum growing like reddit exjw??

by nowwhat? in

admittedly it 90% crap over there but still they are up to 80k in subscribers.

over here it's the same half dozen or so that posts something, including myself.

why is that?.

joey jojo

"after thousands and thousands comments on a Lloyd Evans thread, people think this is a hate Evans fan club 😊. They have hard time taking page seriously"

Of the people posting on the mega thread, 1% are people that claim to be genuinely butt-hurt by Lloyd Evans in some way and the other 99% seem to be sh1t-posting for lulz.