“…a report, written by a team of experts recommended by the Royal Society and led by Lord Oxburgh, vindicated the work of the climate research unit, completely exonerated Jones and pronounced that his research was robust and solid.”

From The Observer. The whole article is worth reading: Google: “Feel free to doubt climate change: just don’t deny it”

Thanks
Richard

1) This is the wrong thread and 2) please save the condescension.

Perhaps you could respond minus the condescension where we were discussing the issue of what caused life.

And yes, you are correct. People aren’t stupid which is why the vast majority of people believe that intelligence is behind the universe.

Blessings,

Frank

You just make this up as you go along, don’t you? You can’t define your terms. You can’t say what “intelligence” is. You’re not able to play with the big boys. We get that.

Frank, can I give you some adult advice? People aren’t stupid. Define your terms is a question the dog understands. Pretending you don’t hear, re-re-re-repeating the claim, making it up as you go along — that doesn’t fool anyone. It makes you look dishonest. And silly. You look silly. You make faith look silly.

People aren’t stupid, but you treat us like we are. “Intelligence is implied by specified complexity” — but you have no idea what intelligence is or how it works. And you act like no one will notice.

Brother Frank you can’t persuade people to Jesus till they see you trust Jesus enough to take a thousand little carefully reasoned baby steps from where you are to where you’re going. But you don’t do that. You rush to the bible and backfill with whatever trash is to hand. You get to Jesus with careful non-definitions, studied imprecision, bobbing and weaving away from honest questions. You are a caricature of sly prideful ignorance. You drive people away from faith. For shame. Jesus is ashamed of you Frank. Ashamed.

Now go, and sin no more.

Lloyd O. Roumetha

What percentage of those people, who apparently have no knowledge of basic Biblical content know what the Bible says about homosexuality, do you think?

To become a US citizen, one must take a basic civics test. (Practice tests are available online, if anyone is interested in them.)

I think such a thing should be administered before being able to call oneself Christian.

(Obviously this is not realistic, but sometimes I think it would be very nice.)

I’d rather live in a community of people who knows more about Matthew 25 than Leviticus 18:22, rather than the other way around.

(Sorry for the slightly off topic post; I just found those figures shocking, but somehow not that surprising.)

I did want to post two quotes from John Stewart about this.

Following that AGW is just a money making scam for those involved:

am so sick of fact cat scientists, with their easy double-blind study money.

Ooohhh, I study global weather patterns, my shirts are so fancy they need their pockets protected.

Summing up the segment ion AGW:

So on the one hand 90-95% of the scientific community believes global is real and that we’re causing it.

On the other hand, it gets cold in winter and scientists are paid!

I read through about 30 of these yesterday, and I have to agree with Nathan.

Perhaps it’s not fair to judge not having read the article fully, but I have no reason to expect that things improve any.

It’s not only that these are easily countered with other facts, it’s that they are simply not reasons that climate change is natural.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! (Of course, this claim would be challenged by most who specialize in this topic.) For thousands of years, there was no “real scientific proof” (though I am not really sure what this phrase means) that the earth was round. Yay! A reason why the earth is flat!

Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

This is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. It’s an emotional argument really (I believe Nathan called it false humility). I will reuse my forest fire example (I will make up the stat obviously, to make my point). Forest fires since the beginning of human history only account for less than 0.0072 percent of all forest fires during geological history. See, how could one say that humans are able to cause forest fires?

3. Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

Again, this is completely and utterly irrelevant to the science at hand. Larger forest fires than anything supposedly started by humans have occurred an untold number times throughout the earth history, See, how could one say that humans are able to cause forest fires?

I also have to point out my favorite one. Reason number 35 states: It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything.

It makes sense that this newspaper would be on the level of the National Enquirer. They are simply insulting the intelligence of their readers with this article.

“Polls show that the Bible remains the most popular book of all time, and almost all U.S. homes (93 percent) have at least one. Yet only half of U.S. adults can name a single Gospel, and most don’t know that the first book of the Bible is Genesis.

“A 2000 survey showed that even 60 percent of those chapter-and-verse-quoting Evangelicals thought Jesus was born in Jerusalem rather than Bethlehem. Similarly, a 2004 survey of high school students found that 17 percent thought “the road to Damascus” was where Jesus was crucified and 22 percent thought Moses was either one of Jesus’ 12 apostles or an Egyptian pharaoh or an angel. Half of high school seniors also thought Sodom and Gomorrah were married. (Can gay marriage really be far off?)”

So, would I be able to include this fact to in a list of ‘100 reasons why Genesis is NOT the first chapter in the bible”? Come on Frank, you can tell me this one, you’ve studied logic! I haven’t, but I seem to remember that it’s called Argumentum ad populum.

And really, this?: “Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming”.

Something like a third of Americans aren’t aware that the earth goes round the sun, not the other way round. A similar number don’t know that Genesis is the first chapter in the bible! This says nothing about the veracity of the position.

Nothing new here.

Climate Change is Natural: 100 reasons Why

I don’t know how many of these are legit. There is so much controversy on this issue, I’m not sure who to believe. But if you want to compare, read this link and the one from Nathan above.

Blessings,

Frank

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm

Oh, I deserved every bit of what I got; I should know better by now than to take trolls seriously. I was just having such an interesting conversation in the other thread that I got distracted and started seriously arguing with him in this one

Tim, I took it to be a reference to Peter Finch in the movie Network.

Look, Mark’s schtick is as follows:

1. Make a statement of fact that isn’t true (ie a lie)
2. Fail to provide any evidence for the statement when called on it
3. Yell ‘touchy feely’ stuff that just ‘feels right’ to him, again with nothing to back it up, about opening your eyes (to his ‘facts’?)
4. If all else fails, accuse the other person of supporting genocide, again with nothing to back it up. I’m sure those victims would be delighted that their deaths were being exploited by a someone to make crude political points that they don’t even understand.

He’s bad mannered, rude, can’t back up anything he says and also can’t admit he’s wrong when he gets called on his ‘facts’. Notice nothing from him about his ‘lowered emissions’ factoid, and no reply to this: 1) The ten warmest years on record all occurred since 1997.

You were wrong to call him a rodeo clown. He’s just a clown. Quoting Coulter for cripes sake!

Ah, so you were talking about the Excedrin comment when you made the remarks about humor. That makes sense, then.

I seem to have confused that more obvious attempt at humor with your normal trolling/random “liberal” flaming. Sorry about that.

Sorry. You only acted offended because, due to the juxtaposition of an accounting of the Rwandan genocides/atrocities you had just seen, your twisting of my words caused you to cry.,/i>

Your words didn’t move me at all; for one, that was a typo (it was supposed to say “Manly Tears,” which is a TVTropes reference), and second, I was referring to the show I had watched prior, not your comments. It was difficult viewing

(see also: the abandonment of Viet Nam / zero action re: Rwanda / Elian Gonzalez / etc. ad infinitum…)

and then, p.s. In case the thrust of the foregoing comments didn’t penetrate, this is what I’m driving at: adhering to Kyoto / other draconian “climate saving” tactics will result in the destruction of “the little guy” at a rate that may well dwarf the above, liberal caused, atrocities. But hey who’s counting, right, lefties?

Where’s the joke(s)?

Then Toby said, If someone has an aneurysm you really don’t want to give them a form of aspirin. Aspirin effects platelet function and would cause extensive bleeding in the person with the aneurysm.

Hey wait . . . did you really know that all along and were actually showing us your murderous tendencies toward people that don’t think like you do?

OOOOOH! I see! Toby’s brilliant hilarity is the “joke” you’re referring to. Right?

Sorry. You only acted offended because, due to the juxtaposition of an accounting of the Rwandan genocides/atrocities you had just seen, your twisting of my words caused you to cry.(Yeah, especially since I just got done watching this absolutely depressing (see: Many Tear-inducing) show about the genocides in Rwanda (where they kidnap kids from their homes and force them to become soldiers, and threaten to kill them and their families brutally if they refuse). So yeah….”humor” to that affect would be kind of lost on me….) It was Toby who claimed murderous intentions reside in my heart. Sorry again. Will try to work on both of those (imaginary) flaws. Hope you guys can forgive me.

And still, no one has admitted the truth of the column: “global warming” is a lie propagandized by lying, leftist “scientists”, politicians and the “news” media. But then, that last sentence explains itself, doesn’t it? Keep circling the wagons and demonizing the opposition, boys. You’re doing a great job.

Thanks for putting this at the beginning, BTW, so I knew to take the rest of it with a grain of salt….Ann Coulter? Are you being serious? She’s a joke even amongst the hard-right conservatives here in the deep south, much less as a “credible” source of information.

You express no qualms espousing an ideology that has led / will lead to the actual slaughter of millions

….what?

then, you misrepresent my protestations to it and act as victim to my “gags about eugenics” as though, even if you weren’t telling a non-truth about the tenor of my comments, my “actions” would somehow be more -or at least as- reprehensible as the atrocities themselves.

[:/

I think you are putting WAY too much thought into this; one thing that you and I do not have in common, Mr. Ducharme, is that I do not make a habit of accusing people of being “permissive of [insert cause of genocide here]” when I disagree with them. In fact, it was you who, in your second quote in my response here, accused *me* of harboring ideas that “will lead to the [slaughter of millions],” and without the slightest defense of that claim to boot.

I simply find your jokes tasteless, is all. I’m not “offended” by them; I just don’t think they are funny, and your attempt to use them to make a political point or send a message (or whatever it was you were trying to do) got lost in the translation because you used such distracting, shockingly-out-of-context “humor.” I mean, that would be like me cracking random “Hah hah, Jews died in the Holocaust LOLZ!” jokes when talking about whether or not god is infinite. It’s just not necessary to make the point. It’s also disrespectful, but if it were funny I think we could probably excuse even that. But it wasn’t.

P.S.

I know I’m probably wasting my breath, but this all reminds me of a passage from Narutaru, wherein the main character Shiina makes a joke about how “Banda Academy” sounds like “Panda Academy;” the Banda Academy girl (who is standing next to her) considers the comment disrespectful and slaps Shiina, then walks away mad; the girl’s boyfriend asks her why she’s so worked up about it, and she says, “That girl looks so stupid….people like her are so simple and stupid, they don’t think about anything. They’re just gonna get out of high school and have a bunch of stupid kids and not do anything with their lives,” and so on and so forth. Her boyfriend says something like, “What makes you say that?” And she says, “I can see it on her face.” He says, “Come on, you can’t know all of that just by looking at her face.”

Yeah, especially since I just got done watching this absolutely depressing (see: Many Tear-inducing) show about the genocides in Rwanda (where they kidnap kids from their homes and force them to become soldiers, and threaten to kill them and their families brutally if they refuse). So yeah….”humor” to that affect would be kind of lost on me….”

Thank you for illustrating the central truth of Ann Coulters’ latest book: ‘Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and their Assault on America’. You express no qualms espousing an ideology that has led / will lead to the actual slaughter of millions then, you misrepresent my protestations to it and act as victim to my “gags about eugenics” as though, even if you weren’t telling a non-truth about the tenor of my comments, my “actions” would somehow be more -or at least as- reprehensible as the atrocities themselves. Thank you for reminding us all how it is done. It’s always good to know the “ethics” of your opposition.

Tim also posited this pearl, “On a serious note: Catholicism was the original Christianity.” In the book of Acts you will find the creation of the church of Christ by His apostles thus, the “Acts” of the apostles. Just as in the entirety of the Bible, it says nothing of a “trinity”, the “virtue” and “necessity” of worshiping false idols, spending the lions’ share of the churches resources on the church/things outside the will of God(see: Acts 5:1-11), raping little children, ascribing infallibility to mortals, etc., etc.
So, that statement of yours is lacking even an Infinitesimal portion of truth. The tree stuff is all for fun and is neither here nor there in the context of Christianity. Unless you think that other peoples’ harmless traditions can “infect” you if you imbibe of them. You can be that superstitious if you like, but leave me out of it.

At least I ascertain the facts when venturing into “your territory”. You should do the same when “teaching” me of mine. I’m not the only one reading this, you know.

Lastly (for now): If the mirror of truth has revealed to you something unpleasant, don’t smash the mirror, purge the “something unpleasant”.

thank you,
From: the guy on the wall

Yeah, especially since I just got done watching this absolutely depressing (see: Many Tear-inducing) show about the genocides in Rwanda (where they kidnap kids from their homes and force them to become soldiers, and threaten to kill them and their families brutally if they refuse). So yeah….”humor” to that affect would be kind of lost on me….

And please, don’t go about spreading rumors that Catholicism is synonymous with Christianity.

On a serious note: Catholicism was the original Christianity. In fact, it was them you have to thank for the Germanic Yule Tree’s incorporation into the “Christmas” celebration.

Mark, you sound like a crazy person. Shouting out the window won’t make your assertions true, and they won’t change the facts. Last post to you, cheerio.

As much as I hate to throw around insensitive terms like “crazy,” I agree with your assesment here….but in any case, it may help to point out that that strange quote was most likely a reference to an old movie about the early-1900’s economic crises, wherein a TV anchor instructs people to open their windows and shout that they’re “mad as hell” and “not going to take it anymore.”

…I could be wrong about that, but that’s the only thing I can think of that would make any sense of it, so…0.0

It’s okay, Nathan. Letting go of childish illusions is a good thing, see?

I wouldn’t in the first place - I was pointing out a similar fallacy to the one you were rude enough to make. And there’s nothing liberal about eugenics. Unless you think eugenics is equivalent to animal breeding, in which case you won’t see the difference between the Nazis and someone who breeds puppies.

By the way -
1) The ten warmest years on record all occurred since 1997. Interpret that how you wish.
2) Still waiting for a cite for your ‘emissions have lowered claim’.

Good point. Liberals are not 100% monolithic. It’s more like eighty five - fifteen. Ninety - ten at worst. And please, don’t go about spreading rumors that Catholicism is synonymous with Christianity.

I’ll apologize if you will…You first…Gee, Nathan, don’t you feel better already? (sorry…that’s must be the rodeo clown in me…)

Oh, and for appearances: Your belief in the absolute opposite of reality, concerning GW, perfectly illustrates the thrust of “Who “Peer Reviews” the Peer Reviewers?”. (Or at least the consequences of its thrust.)They speaketh, therefore you believeth. Point made and confirmed by your own willingness to take as gospel anything they say. Remember, “What all scientists agree is that a rise of just three degrees would be enough to lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people.”? (emphasis mine) “All” scientists, huh? Isn’t that like arguing from a previously, self established, dogmatic assertion tautology thingy or something? What about the people currently freezing there tautologies off in Siberia? What about the fact that these same geniuses can’t even tell you what the temperature will be a month from now? Liberals never cease to amaze! It’s like the example of government: They destroy everything they touch while simultaneously “riding in to the rescue” to wreck up the place some more. And here we have lying “scientists” alternately screaming, “THE MERCURY IS FALLING! / THE MERCURY IS RISING!” over the course of a few short decades and YOU swallow it hook, line and sinker. Come on, Nathan, get your ears out of their slobbering, politically motivated mouths for a moment and engage your own brain, would you? Besides, you’re really starting to tick dad off.

You clearly have the ability. Ironically, all you lack is the will.

Nonsense. Cite please.

“Hm, maybe that’s why the earth has actually cooled the last ten years!”

Er, the past 10 years is among the warmest decade on record for hundreds of years. They followed an extra warm El Nino in 1998. Again, the facts just don’t bare out your assertions.

And no, there’s nothing in my ideology about eugenics. My ideology sides with Norman Baulaurg, who is credited with saving the lives of a billion people. Why don’t I pin all the abusive Catholic Priests on you, say that’s part of YOUR ideology.

And my point stands anyway - you troll frothing-at-the-mouth posts about the deaths of ‘millions of black kids’ then in the next post claim we just don’t get your sense of humor. Lovely.

Not you, Slappy, your ideology. You know, the one you to which you align yourself. Please keep in mind you are addressing a former card carrying member of the fraternity. That is, I always meant to get a card.

By the by, considering we have lowered the output of emissions in recent decades -tremendously- and your previously noted stats rendered but a half a degree, why to worry now? Aren’t we already headed in the “right” direction? Hm, maybe that’s why the earth has actually cooled the last ten years! Just kidding, I don’t believe any of this fallaciousness, er, clap-trap, was merely inquiring into the “thought” process.

Take your time answering….gotta go gather wood for the (apparent) coming ice age…

And sorry that we’re weren’t suitably amused by your gags about eugenics and 20 million dead black kids, Mark.

When you say things like this you really show how little you know about science and pretty much cause anyone listening to shut down and only hear your well trod over, oft repeated, politically conservative claptrap.

If someone has an aneurysm you really don’t want to give them a form of aspirin. Aspirin effects platelet function and would cause extensive bleeding in the person with the aneurysm.

Hey wait . . . did you really know that all along and were actually showing us your murderous tendencies toward people that don’t think like you do?

See what I mean? Where did that come from? It boggles the mind.

It reminds me of when I first tried to read FLCL….

P.S. How are rodeo clowns irrelevant? I mean, to a rodeo that is. A nightclub in downtown Detroit would be a bull of a different stripe, however. Were you referring to the status of their relevance as pertains to Detroit night clubs? I know you didn’t specify because it will likely destroy your whole “rodeo clown” theory but I feel I must give you the opportunity to acquit yourself all the same. Please clarify, because I think it necessary before we go any further.

Hah….yes, my “rodeo clown theory” XD I certainly put a lot of “thought” into that one….

What all scientists agree is that a rise of just three degrees would be enough to lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. So I’m not sure where you’re getting the view that half a degree world average rise is not significant.

Thank you for the kudos. Glad to have lightened things up a little around here. But please, could you call in a “welfare check” on Toby? I’m afraid he may have popped a vessel. For some raisin, he appears to have surmised that my little screed, a couple of posts ago, was directed at him. Which of course it was, it’s just that the desired affect was not to cause a spontaneous aneurysm. I beg of you, rush a bottle of Excedrin over to his house, STAT! And remember, the continued presence of wild-eyed liberal rants on this chat board is in your hands so, go steadfastly forth in your mission young brave.
FOR THE GOOD OF THE BOARD! FOR LIBERAL LUNACY! LONG MAY IT REIGN!

Dreading the end of our stimulating tete a tete, Mark

P.S. How are rodeo clowns irrelevant? I mean, to a rodeo that is. A nightclub in downtown Detroit would be a bull of a different stripe, however. Were you referring to the status of their relevance as pertains to Detroit night clubs? I know you didn’t specify because it will likely destroy your whole “rodeo clown” theory but I feel I must give you the opportunity to acquit yourself all the same. Please clarify, because I think it necessary before we go any further.

Thank you,
Mark “Bouncing Barrels” Ducharme

Man, secular “science” sho has some funny peoples promulgatin’ it!

(see also: the abandonment of Viet Nam / zero action re: Rwanda / Elian Gonzalez / etc. ad infinitum…)

….that’s why I like you, Mark. You always come out of nowhere with something completely irrelevant. Kind of like a rodeo clown; something light-hearted to remind us all not to take any of this horrible mess too seriously

What? Little guy? What little guy? What about the top heavy tax cutting makes you think that “conservatives” give a crap about the “little guy”?

Do you even know what government is? The government is US. We are the government. It’s supposed to be a reflection of it’s people. And I guess because you find it abhorent it’s actually doing it’s job. Because it’s not supposed to be just like you, or just like me, it’s supposed to be an average of all of us—minorities are equal to majorities, women are equal to men, atheists are equal to theists, old to young. If you don’t like it, then I guess you could move to the nearest theocracy in which they believe precisely what you do and oppress everyone else.

Eugenicist Sanger + “planned parenthood” “clinics” = 30 mil MORE dead black babies

Leftist “thought” / lame, lying demonization = zero people w/ the courage/power to stop the above insanities

Which leads one to advance this problem: how does liberal “compassion” X liberal action = so many dead people of color?

(see also: the abandonment of Viet Nam / zero action re: Rwanda / Elian Gonzalez / etc. ad infinitum…)