"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton

Jim Logajan wrote in
:

Matt Whiting wrote:
Why is it that Christians who accept things they aren't 100% sure of
(they call it faith) are called nutcases or worse, yet when it is
scientists who accepts things they aren't 100% sure of it is somehow
different?

I thought Christians were, by definition, 100% sure their belief in
god is correct?


Well, depends on what you call a christian.


Anyway, scientists are never 100% sure (by definition).


Correct.

In this, I think only Buddhists are completely on the same page.



Bertie

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"John Mazor" wrote:
"Matt W. Barrow" wrote:
What evidence of globa;l warming?

How about:

- Melting icecaps
- Melting glaciers
- Documented changes due to warming in other local climates

We're in an interglacial period - warming is to be expected during this
period. Glacial rebound is still underway from the last ice age.

Maybe, maybe not. It's hard to predict how all the cycles and epicycles will interact for
any given warming or cooling trend at any given time. One thing that has been well
established about the cycles is:
"It was now clear that not only the most obvious feedback, but also the most momentous
one, was the connection between global temperature and greenhouse gas levels. Relatively
straightforward analysis of the data showed that a doubled level of CO2 had always gone
along with a rise of a few degrees in global temperature. It was a striking verification,
with entirely independent methods and data, of what computer models had been predicting
for the planet's greenhouse future." http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm at the
very end.

So there's a strong link between rises in temperature and the greenhouse gas CO2. From
one of the websites you so blithely blew off:

"The atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, have increased since
pre-industrial times from 280 part per million (ppm) to 377.5 ppm (2004 Carbon Dioxide
Information Analysis Center), a 34% increase. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the
atmosphere are the highest in 650,000 years. Carbon dioxide is a by-product of the burning
of fossil fuels, such as gasoline in an automobile or coal in a power plant generating
electricity."

So yes, it might all be natural cycles - or it might not. What we do know is that we are
pumping gasses and compounds into the atmosphere that *could* lead to anything from
catastrophic warming to a pre-mature ice age (or both). Are you so confident that all the
modern recorded changes are due solely to ice-age warming that you're willing to dismiss
it all as "fraud" the way Barrow did? (I think not, but you did chime in on his post
where he said that.)

What do you think caused the last ice age to end? Why should that factor
now be inoperative?

You can start by specifically refuting in detail, and demonstrating
the fraud in the following:

http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

The graphs on those two sites come from the same place - repetition doesn't
make it any more true. Besides, the author of the EcoBridge site managed to
mislabel the graph claiming "This graph below shows the record of global
average temperatures...." The author couldn't be bothered to actually read
the graph labels - indicating the usual problem of using secondary sources
as references.

But the Wikipedia entry got it right.

There is also something important missing from that graph - can you guess
what it is?

Aside from full labeling of the axis and the nature of the graph, the absolute values of
the temperatures can only be guessed at - but again, the wiki entry gives a comparison of
those in the text, along with the widely accepted conclusion that human activity probably
is contributing to, or possibly is totally causing, the temperature rise.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...ional_panel_su
pports_98_global_warming_evidence/

which are simple enough even for the layman to follow.

I'm a lazy man myself, and although I think the preponderance of evidence
(and basic considerations of physics) suggests human activities have been a
factor in changing the climate, the article is hardly a ringing endorsement
that paleoclimatologists have a firm handle on past climate trends.

Oh, absolutely. The aip.org entry shows just how hard it is to nail down the cycles and
epicycles and which factors (sunlight, sunspots, cow farts, etc.) influence them to what
degree. Call me a worry-wort if you want, but from what we do know, I'm just not happy
with the significant possibility that humanity's footprint on the ecology might well be
contributing to speeding up some very unpleasant climate changes in the coming decades
that would not have occurred otherwise. The scientists may or may not be right, but if
they are...

As to being a layman, I'll have to check with my wife.

Glad to see that you can maintain your sense of humor in all this.

John,

Religion can be the
principal source of violence as in the Inquisition, but even that had undertones of
personal and political gain.


Religion itself is all about personal and political gain.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

WolfRat,

It won't be Muslim fanatics it will be our own home grown
terror as PC tyranny and fascism tightens it's grip.


Ah, but luckily you'll still have your guns...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Morgans,

True, the American way on the most part is away from violence as a means to
influence others.


That is a really good one!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

WolfRat,

How many of those under
30 crowd know Obamma is half white?


And how many know he is spelled Obama?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Grumman-581,

I'm not sure if that says
something about


It says that you are a racist idiot - nothing else.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

I'm not judging you, I know nothing about you. I'm simply pointing out the
history of christianity to any particularly pious people who might be
reading. I'm not clear that time has anything to do with it, these are
events. Wasn't there something about "those who fail to remember...?" and
that IS important because I think many christians would like to give it
another go. Intolerance is becoming the order of the day. Don't get me
wrong, I believe it will happen, the apocolypse WILL occur, especially if it
can make money.

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

Don't judge me, on what happened a thousand years ago.

That was a little period of time called the dark ages. Ignorance ruled.
Period.
--
Jim in NC

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 10:43:36 +0100, Thomas Borchert wrote:

It says that you are a racist idiot - nothing else.

If I was racist, I wouldn't be able to acknowledge that some black women
are really nice looking, would I?


--
See NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email.

"John Mazor" wrote
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote
Because it's implicit in the scientific method that nothing is 100%
certain,
Somethign that has been explained to you over and over and over and over
and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
and over and over

And still you won't get it.

Now that's a sig worth considering.

....... But but (tm) ...... it's more than 4 lines and there was no "-----"
thingy.



--
There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot.