Yeah, a few random groups of people.  There's a difference between "some people" and "every accredited scientific community in the entire world".

I just had a funny thought.
Let's assume for a moment that the whole story about Jesus dying on the cross and being ressurrected is actually true. In the lights of the events of Battlestar Galactica's finale the thought springs to mind that he was a cylon.

Disclaimer: No offence to religious people intended (just in case).

Easter: The celebration of the reanimation of a jewish zombie who was his own father.

 

COUGARSHAMM POSTS #100

First, of religion ...my World Book dictionary defines religion as belief in God or gods...worship of God or gods...anything done or followed with reverence or devotion.

Theologically, philosophically, or metaphysically speaking, what I mean by religion is an act of homage by which we render to God both privately as individuals and publicly as social beings, the honor, gratitude, worship and obedience due Him and in the way prescribed by Him.

Religion, in the way prescribed by HIm, indicates revealed religion by God Himself...

One religion can't be as good as another becasue there is only one truth...and it is certain that God the Supreme truth could not have revealed contradictory teachings. Truth is neither yours nor mine...it's independent of us. We hold things becasue they are true. They are not true becasue we happen to believe them. Truth is consistent. If you have the truth on a given subject and my ideas conflict with yours, then I do not possess the truth. And if I am right, then you haven't got the truth.  

So from that, we can only conclude that in that list of yours above, there is only one true religion and all the rest are false religion.

And that's where the distinction lies in doing what you suggest above...especially for the person who is seeking Truth Who is God Himself...All of these can't be true so why pick up a Qur'an or study Shinto if neither of these is the one religion that God revealed?

 

They are like two halves of a surburban nuclear family, shovelling at the coal face of freedom.

Bless em!

My goodness! This has to be THE most ignorant statement I've read so far in this thread...!

Why? Because you might actually learn something. Learning leads to greater understanding. In this case of other cultures. What defines and drives them. By i.e. reading the Qur'an you might actually learn that the discrimation of women and the other teachings of the islamic fundamentalists are utter bullshit and just a tool of control whereas the real islam itself is quite liberal. But hey, why try to learn something right? The only effect would be that you could raise your mental horizon above the one of the nutshell you're living in. And who would want to do that, right?

 

Sorry mods, if this is a little inflamatory. But such ignorance is driving me mad.

Study resistant?

 

 

How do you know they're not the 'one religion'?

She doesn't know.

She was told something. She believes it.

 

Exactly my point. Every religion believes it's the one, true religion.

<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT; panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:auto; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

First, why don’t you go here, http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php , and you’ll see that not every scientist believes this is man-made, BUT you’ll just use the illogical response that this is just some right-wing think tank political agenda.

 

Oh wait you coccydynia, I could just say that global warming is just some left wing fear tactic, but let me continue and show you.

 

I will continue with a man who is the leading and most eminent climatologist and geologist in his country.  In Australia, he’s one of the foremost Earth scientist, Professor Ian Plimer.  You most likely never heard of him.  He has written a book called Heaven and Earth.  Great read with over 400+ pages and with 2311 footnotes (which I could easily use/plagiarize) are the product of his 40 years of in-depth research and entrenched scholarship. He looks at climate over geological, archaeological, historical and modern time. "Past climate changes, sea-level changes and catastrophes are written in stone."

Dr. Plimer says “Much of what we have read about climate change is rubbish, especially the computer modelling on which much current scientific opinion is based, which he describes as "primitive".

 

Speaking of computer models and the IPCC here is an article, http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/7116,  about how they are inaccurate by Dr. Tim Ball who is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.  Dr. Ball employs his extensive background in climatology and other fields as an advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition, Friends of Science and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.”

 

Dr. Plimer says "It is little wonder that catastrophist views of the future of the planet fall on fertile pastures. The history of time shows us that depopulation, social disruption, extinctions, disease and catastrophic droughts take place in cold times … and life blossoms and economies boom in warm times. Planet Earth is dynamic."

 

The Earth’s climate is more dynamically complex than what most calculations done on a supercomputer (which are primitive when compared to that of the Earth's climate).  The sun tends to be brushed aside as the most important driver of climate despite the crucial relationship it has with the Earth (which is why we went through a ‘cold period’ from 40s-70s due to the lack of solar flares from the sun). Oh wait you don’t believe that the Earth went through a cold period during the 70s here’s an article about that: www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf  Here’s a quote from that Time's article “As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval.”  Wait a minute that sounds like what is being espoused today!

 

What does a ‘dumb’ Aussie and Canuck know? Here again is a list of  over 31,000 American Scientists (of which over 9,00 have their PhDs) http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php.  I am NOT DISPUTING the influx of climate change.  I (as well as these other Scientist) am fundamentally disputing most of the assumptions and projections being made about the current cause (being man-made), mostly led by atmospheric scientists, who have a different perspective on time.   

 

Speaking of atmospheric physicists: William Gray and atmospheric climatologists: Harry von Loon and Dave Melita, signaled in the strongest terms that huge climate changes are afoot. Each weather guru suggested that global warming is part of a cycle that is nearing an end.

 

Van loon has been outspoken about how “solar storms combined with, or because of these storms, the Earth has been on a relative roller coaster of climate cycles. For the past 250 years global climate highs and lows have followed the broad pattern of low and high solar activity. It was cooler from 1883 to 1928 when there was low solar activity” This is what he was referring to (from the United States Historical Climatology Network dataset 1892-2006 Mean Annual Temperature Time Series):

 

 

On top of that Kyoto Protocol would avert only 0.06 C of Global Warming by 2050: So fully implementing it would not have that big of an impact.

 

Further more, <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} h2 {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; mso-outline-level:2; font-size:18.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte examined all peer-reviewed papers pertaining to climate change from 2004 to February 2007 (this was published in Energy and Environment) accumulating to a grand total of 528 articles.  Only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus view (meaning humans are the cause of global warming) If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%.  Only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright while the largest category are the neutral papers (48%)

 

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of  consensus here.  Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming.  In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

 

Finally, Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer Global Warming Alarm Mistaken: http://climateresearchnews.com/2008/12/physicist-dr-will-happer-global-warming-alarm-mistaken/  “I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken, I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect", said Happer. "Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science."”

Oh yeah what does that neonate know he was only fired by Al Gore and was told by Gore ‘science will not intrude on public policy.’ Besides that ninnyhammer only went to Princeton.

Here are some Harvard guys who work for the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: S. Fred Singer and Willie Soon both agree that it is not man-made and very much a political maneuvers.

If this insanity was remotely true then why wouldn’t they have pushed for a greater standard than Kyoto?

On May 31^st  2007 The head of NASA said “he was not sure global warming was a problem and added that it would be ‘arrogant’ to assume the world’s climate should not change in the future.” http://www.abcmoney.co.uk/news/31200780605.htm  Opps that was from abcmoney THEY MUST BE PART OF THE RIGHT WING CONSPIRATORS and had grand ole tea party, too!

I am finished with having a discussion with a complete neonate.  You've constantly asked for evidence.  Well here you go.  Oh yeah you're not going to read any of that because it's all just a bunch of 'right-wing' nut jobs!

I can see that you are chalkful of facts and are the end all be all about G-D and Global warming!

Thanks!

Why is it "illogical" to point out that they are right-wing think tanks with political agendas?  It's not illogical.  You honestly don't see a difference between science academies with oversight who must publish facts and research, and Republican political groups who have no oversight, don't do any scientific research, and are allowed to write whatever they want in their newsletters?

If you can't see the difference between those two groups, you've got a problem.

Regardless of whether or not you think it's illogical, I'm still going to point it out.  Yes, the Oregon Petition is right-wing propaganda.  It was created by Frederick Seitz, a former employee of R.J. Reynolds, the tobacco company, where he published lots of "independent" scientific research showing that cigarettes don't cause cancer and are actually good for you.  The petition itself consisted of mailing postcards to registered Republicans with the following text:

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, [sic] 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

 

Then there were checkboxes where you could pick what level of "scientist" you were.  The few times the media was able to actually investigate the list, they found a bunch of fake names, duplicate names, and a few scientists, who, when contacted, claimed they never received the postcard and had never signed anything.  After that got out, Seitz made the process private and refused to let anyone oversee the signature gathering or to see how he created the list.

 

 If you have some evidence showing that the united opinion of every accredited scientific community in the world is controlled by Democrats in the U.S., you should present it.  I'd be very interested in seeing it.

He is a geologist, but he is not a climatologist.

 I'm sure he does.  As I said, yes, there are scientists who think global warming is a huge conspiracy.  But these scientists are shown to be frauds by all accredited scientific organizations.  Organizations is the key here, because organizations have oversight, and publish in scientific journals, which are peer reviewed.  Individuals can write books on whatever they want, with as many lies as they want, and there doesn't have to be any oversight at all.  Oversight and review by others are really key elements of science; if you can't see why it's important, I don't know what to tell you.

So wait.... you're saying that atmospheric scientists shouldn't be able to research the atmosphere?  That the fact that atmospheric research is led by atmospheric scientists is some sort of conspiracy?

Schulte is actually a plagiarist who cut and pasted nearly his entire article from Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who, in turn, is also a plagiarist, and cut and pasted most of his article from a guy named Benny Pieser.  Pieser's article, the original, was rejected by Science magazine the first time because it was completely fraudulent.  He then redid it, but it turned out that the articles disagreeing with climate change included all articles in non-scientific publications (conspiracy magazines, etc)  Finally, after being rejected a third time, condemned publicly, he admitted the article was all lies and stated ""I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous"."

Did you even read that article that you pasted?  The part where NASA had actually just published a paper confirming anthropogenic global warming, and that their climatology department called him out as "totally clueless" and "a deep anti-global-warming idealogue"?  This article isn't supposed to be support for your conspiracy theory; if anything, it should show that the most of this guy's OWN EMPLOYEES are willing to say that he's deeply misled and confused.