Scientists say global warming is continuing

Jul 29, 2010 By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID , AP Science Writer

(AP) -- Scientists from around the world are providing even more evidence of global warming, one day after President Barack Obama renewed his call for climate legislation.

"A comprehensive review of key climate indicators confirms the world is warming and the past decade was the warmest on record," the annual State of the Climate report declares.

Compiled by more than 300 scientists from 48 countries, the report said its analysis of 10 indicators that are "clearly and directly related to surface temperatures, all tell the same story: Global warming is undeniable."

Concern about rising temperatures has been growing in recent years as atmospheric scientists report rising temperatures associated with greenhouse gases released into the air by industrial and other human processes. At the same time, some skeptics have questioned the conclusions.

The new report, the 20th in a series, focuses only on and does not specify a cause.

"The evidence in this report would say unequivocally yes, there is no doubt," that the Earth is warming, said Tom Karl, the transitional director of the planned NOAA Climate Service.

Deke Arndt, chief of the Climate Monitoring Branch at the National Climatic Data Center, noted that the 1980s was the warmest decade up to that point, but each year in the 1990s was warmer than the '80s average.

That makes the '90s the warmest decade, he said.

But each year in the 2000s has been warmer than the '90s average, so the first 10 years of the 2000s is now the warmest decade on record.

The new report noted that continuing warming will threaten coastal cities, infrastructure, water supply, health and agriculture.

"At first glance, the amount of increase each decade - about a fifth of a degree Fahrenheit - may seem small," the report said.

"But," it adds, "the temperature increase of about 1 degree Fahrenheit experienced during the past 50 years has already altered the planet. Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying and heat waves are becoming more common and more intense."

Last month was the warmest June on record and this year has had the warmest average temperature for January-June since record keeping began, NOAA reported last week.

And a study by Princeton University researchers released Monday suggested that continued warming could cause as many as 6.7 million more Mexicans to move to the United States because of drought affecting crops in their country.

The new climate report, released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and published as a supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, focused on 10 indicators of a warming world, seven which are increasing and three declining.

Rising over decades are average air temperature, the ratio of water vapor to air, ocean heat content, sea surface temperature, sea level, air temperature over the ocean and air temperature over land.

Indicators that are declining are snow cover, glaciers and sea ice.

The 10 were selected "because they were the most obviously related indicators of global temperature," explained Peter Thorne of the Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites, who helped develop the list when at the British weather service, known as the Met Office.

"What this data is doing is, it is screaming that the world is warming," Thorne concluded.

Explore further: Satellites sees a question mark in Tropical Storm Ana

More information: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate

3.6 /5 (14 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Worlds oceans warmest on record this summer

Sep 16, 2009

(AP) -- The world's in hot water. Sea-surface temperatures worldwide have been the hottest on record over the last three months, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Wednesday.

June Earth's hottest ever: US monitors

Jul 15, 2010

Last month was the hottest June ever recorded on Earth, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday, amid global climate warming worries.

Earth records 7th warmest July on record

Aug 15, 2007

Scientists said the month of July brought record and near-record warmth to the Western United States and was the seventh warmest July in recorded Earth history.

2007 was tied as Earth's second warmest year

Jan 16, 2008

Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth’s second warmest year in a century.

Recommended for you

Operation IceBridge turns five

Oct 17, 2014

In May 2014, two new studies concluded that a section of the land-based West Antarctic ice sheet had reached a point of inevitable collapse. Meanwhile, fresh observations from September 2014 showed sea ice ...

Is Australia's claim to Antarctica at risk?

Oct 17, 2014

While Australia's commitment to a 20-year plan for Antarctica has been welcomed by some it has also raised concerns over the nation's ability to fulfil a credible research role in the south polar region.

User comments : 97

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

danlgarmstrong
3.2 / 5 (5) Jul 29, 2010
OK, the report does not specify a cause. The question then becomes - what, if anything can or should we do about it?

Preparing for the displacement of millions (billions?) of people whose lives are disrupted by climate change is one thing that must be done. Do we decide to deal with it by arming ourselves against an onslaught of barbarians? What about our own people? Will New Yorkers become like the New Orleans refugees from Katrina? And how long before that happens anyway? Will we be able to maintain a stable production of food when climate patterns become unpredictable?

Debate (or at least the hate speech that goes with it) about the cause of global warming is stupid. We need to deal with the consequences of it.
Arkaleus
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 29, 2010
The product of industrial production is wealth and liberty. GW is the product of political connivers who desire to take both of those things from you.
danlgarmstrong
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 29, 2010
Increasing industrial production is a fact of life. Increasing CO2 concentration in our atmosphere is a fact of life. Neither will stop in our immediate future, even if they were absolutely determined to be the cause of GW or not. Actually I do support, of course, the research into the 'cause'. I DO NOT support how bitter the debate has become. It overshadows the actual problems caused by global warming happening now, and the even greater consequences that are yet to come. We need to stop the political wrangling and figure out how to prepare for the global impact of Global Warming before it is too late.

marjon
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 29, 2010
The product of industrial production is wealth and liberty. GW is the product of political connivers who desire to take both of those things from you.

Wealth and liberty will be the best tools available for all to adapt.
If people have the wealth and independence they won't be standing on freeway overpasses waiting for the government to rescue them.
danlgarmstrong
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 29, 2010
Unfortunately the people with the most wealth and liberty gain these from the majority of us with much less wealth and correspondingly less liberty. They will be able to flee to higher ground when the waters rise around them. The rest of us will drown.
marjon
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 29, 2010
Unfortunately the people with the most wealth and liberty gain these from the majority of us with much less wealth and correspondingly less liberty. They will be able to flee to higher ground when the waters rise around them. The rest of us will drown.

No, they do not. We all gain when everyone is free to trade.
New Orleans is below sea level because of government actions and efforts. Most who live near a shore pay a lot of money to live there and should have no trouble leaving.
omatumr
1.6 / 5 (13) Jul 29, 2010
What a coincidence! Only "one day after President Barack Obama renewed his call for climate legislation."

Were any of the "Scientists from around the world" receiving public tax funds?

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Author of 2009 paper, "Earth's heat source - the Sun"
Jigga
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 29, 2010
The product of industrial production is wealth and liberty. GW is the product of political connivers who desire to take both of those things from you.
This is completely ideological stance, which has nothing to do with reality, sorry.

Actually every insight could be manipulated in behalf of some political agenda, including the concepts of wealth and freedom itself. As we know, both they're were restricted deeply after 11th September "events" just in the name of the improved fight for the wealth and freedom of Americans. And as we know, just the eight years standing republican party policy has lead into deepest economical depression of modern era.

I could talk now about supersymmetry in social systems and the proverb, "every path to hell is paved with good intentions" - but it would have probably no meaning in your case.
Caliban
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 29, 2010
An amusing thought comes to mind. Over the winter, while there were blizzards, record snowfall, and record low temperatures in the midwest and the east coast, everyone was screeching that these were incontrovertible evidence to the falsity of GW.

Well, now we are having record highs and low rain over the same areas, and I don't hear a peep about how this weather pattern contradicts GW.

What we are hearing, of course, is how GW is a conspiracy of the red/green progressives, liberal media, socialist, wannabe, havenot, lazy, tax and spend, educated, elitist left to divest all the hardworking, honest, god fearing, freemarket CONS of their oh-so-righteously and justly held wealth, individual freedoms, and unregulated capitalism, as if no one else had to work to earn an income, or valued their personal freedom and individual liberties.

This is why their position in the "debate" over GW is so obviously based in IDEOLOGY, and has so little, if anything, to do with SCIENCE.
Caliban
4 / 5 (4) Jul 29, 2010
@Jigga,

My apologies for the similarly-themed comment above. I thought it useful and worthwhile to attempt shedding some light upon the inherently hypocritical attitudes that inform, if not most, then a large portion of the Anti-GW stance. There is precious little science to support an AntiGW stance, so the "debate" almost always boils down to this vast, leftwing conspiracy to strip everyone of their wealth and freedom. What teabaggery.
Ravenrant
5 / 5 (4) Jul 30, 2010
So the science is confirming what those of us with a moderate amount of intelligence have known was obvious for years yet the brainless nabobs of negativism have managed to keep us from doing anything about it.

Does anyone but me see how wrong our society has gone when we teach know-nothings that their opinions not only matter but they have a right to voice them? Stupidity is a choice, not a right.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Jul 30, 2010
New Orleans is below sea level because of government actions and efforts.

So did the government dig it out before they built it or did they pray to your god to sink that den of sin and villany?

New Orleans has always been partially below sea level.

Start adapting Marjon.
knikiy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2010
The argument may be settled when there is nobody left to argue.
marjon
1.9 / 5 (9) Jul 30, 2010
political agenda, including the concepts of wealth and freedom itself.

What is wrong with a 'wealth and freedom' political agenda?
Do you prefer a 'tyrannical impoverished' agenda being practiced by the current regime?
marjon
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2010
New Orleans is below sea level because of government actions and efforts.

So did the government dig it out before they built it or did they pray to your god to sink that den of sin and villany?

New Orleans has always been partially below sea level.

Start adapting Marjon.

Not all of NO was below sea level. If it were, how cold anyone have ever settled there? If the locals want to build sea walls to keep out the sea and claim more land, more power to them. Why should the federal governemnt do so?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2010
What is wrong with a 'wealth and freedom' political agenda?
Do you prefer a 'tyrannical impoverished' agenda being practiced by the current regime?

The last anti government program, free marketeer I debated with prior to you admitted that he was on the dole last night. The one prior to that was also on the dole. I'm willing to bet you're on the dole as well, Marjon. Is that assumption accurate?
Not all of NO was below sea level.
Which would be why I said "New Orleans has always been partially below sea level."
If the locals want to build sea walls to keep out the sea and claim more land, more power to them. Why should the federal governemnt do so?
Because the job of government is to do for the few what they cannot do alone.
marjon
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 30, 2010
Not all of NO was below sea level. If it were, how cold anyone have ever settled there? If the locals want to build sea walls to keep out the sea and claim more land, more power to them. Why should the federal governemnt do so?

Is that your excuse for not defending the state?
Because the job of government is to do for the few what they cannot do alone.

That was not the reason. The Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for controlling the MS river to promote commerce. What a concept, the government promoting free trade!
Javinator
5 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2010
What is wrong with a 'wealth and freedom' political agenda?


Wealth is relative. You can either have a gradient of wealth distribution in which some people are rich, some are poor and the rest are in between somewhere or you can have communism where everyone is equal in terms of wealth.

Not everyone can be wealthy at the same time.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Jul 30, 2010
Is that your excuse for not defending the state?
Uhm, you quoted your own statement.
That was not the reason. The Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for controlling the MS river to promote commerce. What a concept, the government promoting free trade!

No, the job of the US government as outlined in ALL founding documents is to establish a body that can do for the few what they cannot do themselves.

And the levee system was originally built and designed by the French in the 1800's before we owned New Orleans and were built for flood protection. 50 miles of 3 foot high earthen walls in order to maintain the farmland in the area and feed the French settlers.
marjon
1 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2010
is to establish a body that can do for the few what they cannot do themselves.

That is not why the US Constitution was written.
"establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty "
That was the intent. The practice has morphed into something more akin to what you want, redistribution of wealth.
"that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government,"
This quote is just as valid today as when it was written.
Javinator
5 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2010
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.


Elected officials selected by the majority.

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government


Not everyone in the country can be will with the government at the same time since we don't all have the same idea of happiness. There will always be a population that is unhappy with the decisions the government makes. Thats what the next election is for.

Also, "promoting the general welfare" and doing for the few what they cannot do themselves are the same thing.
marjon
1 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2010
Also, "promoting the general welfare" and doing for the few what they cannot do themselves are the same thing.

No, it is not. It means to promote conditions whereby all have the opportunity to achieve whatever they define has 'happiness'.
The Bill of Rights was intended to protect the rights of few from the majority.
Pure democracy descends into tyranny because mob violates the rights of the minorities.
marjon
1 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2010
"When we encourage more investment, and ensure this investment is being channeled to the most productive uses, growth will follow."
"almost no one in government is doing anything about reducing the roadblocks to investment. "
"Unfortunately, such prospective entrepreneurs will face a tangle of registration, regulatory and licensing hurdles, many of which have been backed by established businesses that want to avoid just this kind of new competition."
"n their hubris, however, the Congress and this administration believe they can do what even the most successful corporations can't. They take money away from individuals and businesses, either in the form of taxes or borrowing that squeezes out private capital, and claim to invest that money better than would have those individuals, despite much worse information and inferior performance incentives."
"who was using the money before the government diverted it, and how many jobs were they creating?
http://www.forbes...acroecon
Javinator
5 / 5 (5) Jul 30, 2010
No, it is not. It means to promote conditions whereby all have the opportunity to achieve whatever they define has 'happiness'.


You're agreeing with me. The "few" that are unable to pursue happiness are supported by the government to allow for that pursuit.

Pure democracy descends into tyranny because mob violates the rights of the minorities.


First of all your system in the US is not pure democracy.

You're the one who frequently states that people can vote with their feet and move. Democracy is not tyranny and the rights of the minorities are not violated. There's a difference between policies you don't like implemented by the government and a violation of your rights.

You don't have the right to happiness. You have the right to pursue it.
marjon
1 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2010
""In a worst-case scenario, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire and failing to fix the AMT could result in (1.5 percent) of fiscal drag in 2011 on top of the 1 percent fiscal drag we expect to occur as the Obama fiscal stimulus package unwinds," Deutsche said in a note to clients. "If the recovery remains soft/tentative through early next year, this additional drag could be enough to push the economy to a stalling point.""
"Deutsche compared the situation to Japan in the 1990s, when the government let tax cuts expire and cut stimulus, leading to another leg down in the recession and ensuring the nation's "lost decade" of no economic growth."
http://www.cnbc.c...38467149
More evidence of how taxes reduce prosperity.
The "few" that are unable to pursue happiness are supported by the government to allow for that pursuit.

No, I don't agree with that.
marjon
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 30, 2010
"Quantifying just how much taxpayer money will have been wasted on the hastily developed Volt is no easy feat. Start with the $50 billion bailout (without which none of this would have been necessary), add $240 million in Energy Department grants doled out to G.M. last summer, $150 million in federal money to the Volt’s Korean battery supplier, up to $1.5 billion in tax breaks for purchasers and other consumer incentives, and some significant portion of the $14 billion loan G.M. got in 2008 for “retooling” its plants, and you’ve got some idea of how much taxpayer cash is built into every Volt."
http://www.nytime...=opinion
Who killed the electric car? Socialism works?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jul 30, 2010
is to establish a body that can do for the few what they cannot do themselves.

That is not why the US Constitution was written.
"establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty "
That was the intent. The practice has morphed into something more akin to what you want, redistribution of wealth.
"that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government,"
This quote is just as valid today as when it was written.

You simply used more words to state exactly what I did above.
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Jul 30, 2010

You simply used more words to state exactly what I did above.

I don't see where the federal government can redistribute wealth. That's what you support, no?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Jul 30, 2010

You simply used more words to state exactly what I did above.

I don't see where the federal government can redistribute wealth. That's what you support, no?

No, that's what you think I support because you're too willfully ignorant to educate yourself in civics. Want to build some more strawmen or are you quite content to stick to what we've actually discussed in the thread?

We live in a Republic, that is rule by law. Your opinion of how things should be doesn't matter.
marjon
1 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2010
We live in a Republic, that is rule by law. Your opinion of how things should be doesn't matter.

Rule of law with individual rights protected from the the state. It is called the FIRST amendment.
My opinion matters every election day and every time I write. Why protect popular speech?
What does one do when the state refuses to enforce the law and are actively preventing any other government, like AZ, from enforcing the same law?
The current regime wants illegal aliens but can't get Congress to agree. Ignoring one weakens all laws.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2010
Rule of law with individual rights protected from the the state. It is called the FIRST amendment.
First amendment allows you to have an opinion, and express it, in the grand scheme of things your individual opinion isn't worth the breath used.
My opinion matters every election day and every time I write. Why protect popular speech?
Your opinion matters to you, the rest of us wouldn't care what you do if you stopped sharing.

You have a right to free speech, which includes your verbal diarrhea. I have a right to call you an idiot after reading your tripe. I also have a duty to tell you and other that your opinion is misinformed and to provide explicit evidence showing that. In short, your opinion is only opinion, and not evidenced by anything other than the ridiculous contortions of logic you provide.

Beyond that, it appears you don't understand what your rights are or where they come from. Without government you would have no rights. Ponder that ignorjon.
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Jul 30, 2010
"The economic "rights" asserted by Roosevelt in his second Bill of Rights differ and conflict with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They are claims on the liberty of others. If I have a right to medical care, you must have a corresponding duty to supply it. If I have a right to a decent home, you must have a duty to provide it."
"The argument for the welfare state belongs in the same family as "the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden." That's Lincoln again."
http://www.powerl...6865.php
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jul 30, 2010
http://www.powerl...6865.php
Yeah I'm also formerly from MA and know what WRKO preaches. Ultra right wing talk radio...

I've probably heard you call in with a "Well Michael Savage Says...." on many a commute home.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2010
I also have a duty to tell you and other that your opinion is misinformed and to provide explicit evidence showing that.

What evidence?
Without government you would have no rights.

That is not how the founders of the USA saw it.
Rights are unalienable and inherent.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Jul 30, 2010
". All the great laws of society are laws of nature. Those of trade and commerce, whether with respect to the intercourse of individuals or of nations, are laws of mutual and reciprocal interest. They are followed and obeyed, because it is the interest of the parties so to do, and not on account of any formal laws their governments may impose or interpose."
'But how often is the natural propensity to society disturbed or destroyed by the operations of government! When the latter, instead of being ingrafted on the principles of the former, assumes to exist for itself, and acts by partialities of favour and oppression, it becomes the cause of the mischiefs it ought to prevent.

If we look back to the riots and tumults which at various times have happened in England, we shall find that they did not proceed from the want of a government, but that government was itself the generating cause;"
http://www.ushist...2-01.htm
Caliban
5 / 5 (2) Jul 30, 2010
Without government you would have no rights.

That is not how the founders of the USA saw it.
Rights are unalienable and inherent.


It is indeed, just how the Founders and Framers saw it. That's why they went to the trouble of Revolution, and creating a more perfect union.
Yes, we are all born equal and with inalienable rights, but, without creating a government by, of and for the people, there is nothing to preserve, enhance, ensure or keep operative those rights, save Might, and Lex Talionis is no defender of the Rights of All, you moron.

Essentially, what mangy wants is a bifurcated system of government, that would enforce the rights of the haves, while preventing the have- nots from exercising the same rights in their own interest.

Mangy wants Lex Corporatatis.

Careful, mangy- you don't want the lips of the mangyhole to become inflamed by corporate shillitis, because that might cause a burning, itching discomfort as you blow your noise.
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Jul 30, 2010
I want the government to protect everyone's individual rights to liberty and property. Gate's and Buffet have the same right to their property as you have to yours.
It is not the function of government to guarantee outcomes.
Mangy wants Lex Corporatatis.

That is what all you statists want. An all powerful state leads directly to corruption and large corporations who have the funds to bribe the politicians. If the state didn't have that power, consumers would control the corporations.
stanfrax
5 / 5 (1) Jul 30, 2010
scientist say globle warming is continuin - we are on a planet with created boarders from past - mistakes events beliefs - we all want to live and live in peace - were forced to use the monertary system and now the banks rule the world and all the corparations - they say they are intrested in globle warming but only if they can profit - they dont get to conserned because there just a buisness - leaders use this system or they wouldnt get in power - the only way around is - one world - one planet - truth and reality - its repeat mistakes events beleifs - the systems that av been used to rule countrys have all been tryed - the planet needs to consentrate on mankind
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Jul 31, 2010
we all want to live and live in peace

Unfortunately that is not true. Some want power over others. I think it is a psychological flaw, but we all know people who must 'be in charge'. Unfortunately, the more 'talented' ones are able to float to the top and acquire the power to control millions of people's lives. They don't want peace, they want power.
And then there are those who want peace, but don't want to be controlled. They try to follow the Golden Rule, respecting their neighbor's rights and property while protecting their own. These are the people those power seeking psychotics and their 'fellow travelers' must attack.
We are now living in a time where those psychotics face real challenges and like wounded animals, will struggle vigorously to keep their power.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2010
I also have a duty to tell you and other that your opinion is misinformed and to provide explicit evidence showing that.

What evidence?
Perhaps if you weren't posting 40 messages a day about the same foolish thing you'd be capable of following the conversations.

Without government you would have no rights.

That is not how the founders of the USA saw it.
Rights are unalienable and inherent.

And the people came together to form a government that demanded the rule of law to protect those inalienable and self-evident rights, for without that government, foreign tyrants had taken away their liberty as you intend to do to many millions of people who you don't agree with.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2010
And the people came together to form a government that demanded the rule of law to protect those inalienable and self-evident rights,

Then you agree human rights do not originate from governments.
you intend to do to many millions of people who you don't agree with.

I have been the only one who has promoted individual rights here. SH and others support state coercion and the individual's subservience to the state.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2010
It is not the 'rule of law' that keeps society together. The USSR had all sorts of laws that guaranteed individual rights.
What keeps society economies together is the trust, the faith, that those who swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution will do so.
People in border states have no such faith the federal government will follow its laws. What faith, what trust should anyone have that any of the other laws will be enforced?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2010
Then you agree human rights do not originate from governments.
I never said they did, another marjon strawman argument. I said that without government you wouldn't have any rights.
I have been the only one who has promoted individual rights here. SH and others support state coercion and the individual's subservience to the state.
Two strawmen. Vote with your feet and move out if you don't like what the government is doing to ensure that all citizens receive their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
It is not the 'rule of law' that keeps society together.
I never said it was, but I'll say so now. I said we live in a Republic, which means rule by law.

The laws ARE what keep society together. The fact those laws are supposed to be applied evenly, without regard to the status or attributes of the individual is what makes a country a Republic.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2010
I said that without government you wouldn't have any rights.

Which means that you think the source of rights are the government.
A Republic does not mean rule of law, unless you define the law to mean a Constitution that protects the unalienable rights of the individual.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2010
Marjon,

If only you questioned your religion, and the data you're receiving from extremely inaccurate sources, with as much fervor as you question opposing viewpoints, you'd be a far more eloquent and capable debator, regardless of whether you continued to hold those views or changed your opinion.

Question what you see, hear, feel, and think, otherwise you'll never learn anything. I made that mistake for a long time. I'd like to think I outgrew that aspect of mental immaturity, although I do catch myself engaging in the action from time to time. Djninics, on this site, receiveed rather harsh rebukes from me on a topic in which I was entirely wrong. When I finally gave myself the necessary mental reset, I discovered this error and promptly apologized, as I had become you.

Question everything, and only accept what can be supported empirically as fact, anything else is opinion or belief.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2010
I said that without government you wouldn't have any rights.

Which means that you think the source of rights are the government.
No, it means without a government you wouldn't have the freedom to have rights. They would be suppressed by theologans, or demagogues, or mercenaries, warlords, slavers, muyrders, etc.
A Republic does not mean rule of law, unless you define the law to mean a Constitution that protects the unalienable rights of the individual.
The People's Republic of China would tend to disagree. China is a Communist Republic.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2010
Question everything, and only accept what can be supported empirically as fact,

There are many facets of life, and even in physics where such certainty in impossible.
One must then make choices based upon limited knowledge and risk the consequences.
Real leaders do this every day. They can do this if they have a fundamental belief, a philosophy in which they have faith.
It is too bad you limit yourself, SH.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2010
it means without a government you wouldn't have the freedom to have rights.

Rights existed before governments. Was that not mentioned by Thomas Paine?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2010
There are many facets of life, and even in physics where such certainty in impossible.
And how is that a problem? This is why you cling to religion, it has answers that complete your world view. You're afraid of not knowing something, but what your true evil is, in fear, you are shutting out things that may upset your incorrect and falsely complete view of reality. It's ok to not know something, the fun part, and the purpose of life is to figure out the unknown.
One must then make choices based upon limited knowledge and risk the consequences.
Again, fear. Fear that the unknown will get you. That's your inner monkey talking.
Real leaders do this every day. They can do this if they have a fundamental belief, a philosophy in which they have faith.
Starting to see yet?

It is too bad you limit yourself, SH.
I think you have that wrong, sir.

In nature the weak will be afraid of every shadow for that fear is often wrong, but will enable survival.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2010
Think about your instincts marjon. How often have you heard a loud or unexpected noise and jumped. That is your instinct. You don't conciously jump.

How often has that reflex saved your life? How often has that instinct been wrong? That's what an instinct does. When our ancestors faced the loss of the forrests, and found themselves in a field full of hungry, predators, they were in deep trouble. These predators were faster, stronger, meaner, and much better suited for running than we were. We evolved from those primates and carry their traits. When these animals found themselves predated upon the most helpful attribute they had was fear. They would fear the unknown because predators could be there, and those who were more fearful, survived longer, procreated more often.

We are no longer a scared primate in the fields. We are human beings, powerful, dominant, well suited to our environment; human is what you do despite your instincts, not because of them.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2010
That is my philosophy, that's what I have faith in, and that's what I believe. In short, that is my opinion based on what I know, and what I've intepreted from the evidence observed in reality. That is my brand of atheism. No easy answers, lots of unresolved questions, and the reward of resolving exploits of curiosity.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2010
Again, fear. Fear that the unknown will get you. That's your inner monkey talking.

That gives you an excuse to use government to violate unalienable rights?
That is where your defense of the state must lead. If rights can only exist in the presence of the state, then the state must be preserved at all costs, even when it violates the rights of a few.
That is my philosophy, that's what I have faith in, and that's what I believe.

That is not my heuristic, which is based upon what I have interpreted from the evidence observed in reality.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2010
That is not my heuristic, which is based upon what I have interpreted from the evidence observed in reality.
And you're afraid to look any further.

How difficult it must be for you to bear the burden of that fear. Hence why I say you're incorrect when you discuss limitations.
Ronan
not rated yet Aug 01, 2010
...In other news, the geology community has issued a statement reaffirming the validity of plate tectonics, biologists feel that they ought to mention that more evidence has surfaced supporting the theory of Darwinian evolution, and chemists everywhere have taken time out of their busy schedule to point out that the valence shell model of the atom is still a useful and effective model of electron behavior.

...While it is, of course, all to the good (well, not exactly, what with the whole death-by-climatic-destabilization scenario, but...y'know what I mean) toget a bit more evidence that climate scientists haven't been barking up the wrong ice core for all these years, I'm not sure if it qualifies as news.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2010
"Each time we see and hear of the preferred approach used in Washington these days, I am reminded of a phrase that aptly describes how elected officials address uncertainty: “analysis paralysis.”
"As a result, the status quo issue continues, due in no small part to the executive’s inability to effectively deal with uncertainty.

But, uncertainty is also a fertile field for societal manipulation.

Ideologues in office – whether elected or selected – feed the fears inherent in uncertainty to setup the system for statist takeover."
"Uncertainty is not new. Indeed, in many ways, uncertainty is life itself.

I believe the late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen would posit uncertainty as: “Life Worth Living”.

In their way, that’s what the Founders did drafting and signing the Declaration of Independence.

"

Read more: http://dailycalle...vMolC88K
"
SH: How do you handle the fact of uncertainty?
John_balls
5 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2010
Marjon,
Do you ever tire of getting the intellectual smack down from skeptic herectic?

He has demolished your augments in so many places on these boards that it make me almost embarrassed for you.

Skeptic has even thrown you an olive branch to take a introspective look at yourself and your belief to try to open your mind to critical thinking. It appears you research only sources of information that already reinforces your preconceived notion of how the world works, hence your fear of the unknown that was aptly stated by Herectic.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2010
SH: How do you handle the fact of uncertainty?

Uncertainty is inevitable. Fearing the inevitable is ridiculous. Now I can affect how often uncertainty arises within my life. I used to be very controlling of my environment, in some instances I still am, and that's the wrong way to do it. What I try to do now is increase my knowledge of reality in order to prepare myself for when uncertainty does arise. If I have sufficient time when uncertainty arises I will gather as much relevant information and expert opinion as possible in order to make the best guess I can formulate.

If I were to shut down again, and revert to simple environmental control, only taking in the information I like and rejecting reality, I would face greater uncertainty with less time for evaluation than I could manage. I'd make worse decisions, injure more people inadvertantly, get worse advice because it was easy or popular, and in effect, I'd do and say really stupid things.

How do you handle it?
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2010
SH: Why do keep bringing up 'fear'? Projecting?
I used to be very controlling of my environment, in some instances I still am,

I am not surprised. Why do you feel the need to control, fear?
Maybe you should try to make a living farming for a few years, milk cows twice a day and discover how much of that environment you can control. The only way farmers can survive is to live with the uncertainty of nature.
Or try to manage a product development team or, figuratively, herd cats.
As noted by Scully in The Demon and the Quantum, those in the field of biology believed they were much more certain about their field than the cosmologists were about theirs. The biologists should pay attention as their field is a subset of the cosmologists.
You say ask questions. I ask, "How do you turn on a living cell?". Still waiting for the answer and damn few scientists will say "I don't know."
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2010
He has demolished your augments in so many places on these boards that it make me almost embarrassed for you.

Where, when?
Still waiting for anyone's defense of statism and how it will protect individual rights and promote prosperity. Data from USSR, FDR, Carter, Obama demonstrate the destructive nature of the state.
So please, defend socialism. I am waiting.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2010
Maybe you should try to make a living farming for a few years, milk cows twice a day and discover how much of that environment you can control. The only way farmers can survive is to live with the uncertainty of nature.
Or they can learn about mechanics and nature and make preparations to prevent controllable losses. Perhaps you should spend some time in the jungle without a shred of clothing and see if that changes your opinion on civilization and your preconcevied notions of ethics and morality. I have managed a product development team, several times, with great success.
You say ask questions. I ask, "How do you turn on a living cell?". Still waiting for the answer and damn few scientists will say "I don't know."
Then you're not listening. We don't know how to do it manually. We don't understand the exact conditions yet, but we're getting closer every day.

You're the one against finding out. Believing in the dogma oriented ban on genetic research and evolution speak.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2010
We're reverse engineering life right now. We further our ability to do so each and every day. The dogmatists, some of which you adhere to, prevent our ability to further that knowledge through misuse of law and the creation of false ethics. Obfuscation of curiosity and science, usually through conquest by theology-driven barbarians isn't a new occurance. Classical greek culture is a prime example. Pre-hellenic greek culture believed some really bizarre stuff, giant turtle carrying the world, the belief in a patheon of gods controlling nature, etc. Then Thales came along, not the physorg poster but the Greek philosopher, who predicted, with some accuracy, a solar eclipse. The religious were soundly refuted, and reason grew through their culture. Science was performed and we discovered the sun was the center of the solar system, the planet was round, and atoms make up matter, all without the tools to prove it. Then the god fearing Romans came.

You are the unthinking barbarian here.
Caliban
5 / 5 (1) Aug 01, 2010
He has demolished your augments in so many places on these boards that it make me almost embarrassed for you.

Where, when?
Still waiting for anyone's defense of statism and how it will protect individual rights and promote prosperity. Data from USSR, FDR, Carter, Obama demonstrate the destructive nature of the state.
So please, defend socialism. I am waiting.


While you self-righteously await a defense of "statism" perhaps you could amuse yourself with flying a kite. Or re-reading "The Fountainhead".
Or playing a rousing game of Whack-A-Mole, in the mangyhole.
In any event, you haven't got a case against "statism"; what you do have is a case of mangy.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2010
Let's look at your beliefs, marjon, and ignore your religion. Your instinctive belief can rudimentarily be surmised as "God exists". I have no problem with your core belief, and I can't refute it unless you define it. Now let's look at the doctrine and dogma, which defines Your God. Your Bible is divided into two main parts. The OT and the NT. The OT has 181,253 words within its pages. The NT has 774,746 words within it's pages. That's alomost a cool million words, all there to codify and describe your God. That's fear's machinations at work. For each refutation that can be brought up causes the creation of a deflection through explaination or parable. Each incorrect statement requires new interpretation and potentially another story. Just like genetic code, your argument must evolve to suit the change in observed reality, but you refuse, thus making your God a falsehood and violating your own rules. How you deal with that is what I take issue with. You attempt to control your reality.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2010
Why do you bring up the Bible? I have said nothing about religion. I just asked how a collection of chemicals turn on and start replicating themselves.
You're the one against finding out.

If I did not want to know, I would not have asked the question and neither would many who have faith in God.

Still waiting for a defense of statism.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2010
Still waiting for a defense of statism.
You'll be waiting for a long time as it is entirely off topic within our current conversation.

Why don't you ask those questions of your religion or your god, and not only of the ones who are trying to determine the answer? I've heard you say God has all the answers. If he exists, as long as he isn't talking, I'll be listening to the people who are looking for the answer. Marjon, some scientists do have faith in god, but they don't share your 1 million word description of him curtly called "Christianity". Some of them believe in a creator or a first cause, but the truthful ones don't impose any artificial attributes upon him.

You don't have faith marjon. You're delusional. Faith is belief without evidence. Delusion is belief contrary to evidence. Delusion can come from being unintelligent or from ignorance. I don't think you're unintelligent.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2010
You'll be waiting for a long time as it is entirely off topic within our current conversation.

It has been entirely on topic throughout.
Is that why you bring up religion you don't can't defend the state?
BTW, many people live and have lived in jungles, on plains on the ice caps without a forming a government.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2010
It has been entirely on topic throughout.
Is that why you bring up religion you don't can't defend the state?
I don't see a need to defend the state. The state isn't a single entity. It is a collection of entities and individuals. If you would like to bring up a single entity, and discuss it I'd be happy to do so. via PM, I think many wouldn't appreciate the derailment fo the comments section.

BTW, many people live and have lived in jungles, on plains on the ice caps without a forming a government.
That's very true and I think we could do it globally if we had a simple and universal code of ethics. We could get rid of classes and wealth and everyone would get what they need through shared burden and duty to each other without a need for regulations and dominance, but that would require a great many changes in our cultures and societies. We'd need to elevate ourselves to a state of rational thought. Socialism can be peaceful anarchy, but it cannot be forced, only accepted
marjon
1.3 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2010
Is this logical SH:
You attack religions, voluntary organizations that have a belief system you disagree with and have no means or authority to use force to make others join them or stay in their organization.
You support coercive organizations, therefore you must support their ideology and they do have the means and the authority to force others to join them and fund their activities.
You do have to work on your control issues.
John_balls
5 / 5 (4) Aug 01, 2010
Is this logical SH:
You attack religions, voluntary organizations that have a belief system you disagree with and have no means or authority to use force to make others join them or stay in their organization.
You support coercive organizations, therefore you must support their ideology and they do have the means and the authority to force others to join them and fund their activities.
You do have to work on your control issues.

Since when are religions voluntary organizations?? Correct me if I'm wrong most parents raise their children up in the ways of the cult that they are brain washed in.
Due to this brainwashing at an early age most people have a very difficult time breaking the spell much like yourself.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2010
I don't care for what passes as socialism in the world today. Socialism would never function as long as there is a need for dominance or hierarchy within the governing body. That would be Oligarcy, which is rule by a group. In a Republic, the rule of law judges society. No state I'm aware of, including the US, adheres to the term Republic. Rather than follows the methods in which they are able to change imperfect laws, they stagger and create more bandaids and complexities through which more people will be able to violate the law. Our laws have become too long, too complex, because of the fear that they aren't perfect.

Nature prefers simplicity. The definition of simplicity here is "that which expends the least energy to accomplish a task". If our laws were more simple, and reasonable, then our thinking would be less clouded, and actual discussion would come of it. Not this ridiculous polarization we experience today.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2010
You attack religions, voluntary organizations that have a belief system you disagree with and have no means or authority to use force to make others join them or stay in their organization.
Do what I say or you'll be tormented for eternity. Yep, very voluntary. http://www.youtub...81Ok9Urk
You support coercive organizations, therefore you must support their ideology and they do have the means and the authority to force others to join them and fund their activities.
I'd like to know when the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation forced people to join their foundation.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2010
Do what I say or you'll be tormented for eternity. Yep, very voluntary. http://www.youtub...81Ok9Urk

Believe it or not.
The state says do what I say or you go to jail, NOW.

I'd like to know when the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation forced people to join their foundation.

Me too.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2010
Believe it or not.
The state says do what I say or you go to jail, NOW.
But it isn't for all of eternity. The punishment fits the crime and in the cases where it does not, logical human beings make the decisions, not an invisible, immoral God figure.

I'd like to know when the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation forced people to join their foundation.

Me too.
Well you were the one who stated it was so. Explain yourself.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2010
But it isn't for all of eternity.

Why do you care? You don't believe it. You don't mind a government using real force to make you do what you do not believe, but you are all upset about a voluntary organization that persuades?
Are you jealous that you can't be as persuasive?

From JFK:"Tax reduction thus sets off a process that can bring gains for everyone, gains won by marshalling resources that would otherwise stand idle—workers without jobs and farm and factory capacity without markets. Yet many taxpayers seemed prepared to deny the nation the fruits of tax reduction because they question the financial soundness of reducing taxes when the federal budget is already in deficit. Let me make clear why, in today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarged the federal deficit—why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues."
What happened to such democrats? They had to become Rep as Ds turned commie.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2010
Since when are religions voluntary organizations?? Correct me if I'm wrong most parents raise their children up in the ways of the cult that they are brain washed in.
Due to this brainwashing at an early age most people have a very difficult time breaking the spell much like yourself.

This must be the real source of the animosity many atheists have. They are rebelling against their parents.
I constantly questioned the church and the Bible as I went through confirmation. I have faith because it fits in with my heuristic.
BTW, it IS the responsibility of parents to educate their children, not the state. Given the hatred of Christianity and Judaism in state schools today, the home is the only place anyone will be exposed to the Bible.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2010
JB: Please demonstrate how any church in the USA uses force (guns, jail) to make people attend and donate money or enforce church rules.
How does that compare to any government in the USA?
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Aug 02, 2010
Why do you care? You don't believe it.
And we're all interconnected. You believe in this so I must understand why in order to evaluate it appropriately. Sorry, scientist by nature.
Are you jealous that you can't be as persuasive?
Are you saying this for my benefit or for your own?
This must be the real source of the animosity many atheists have.
It is interesting that you class people by what they don't believe in as opposed to what they do believe in.
Given the hatred of Christianity and Judaism in state schools today, the home is the only place anyone will be exposed to the Bible.
Ah, but it isn't hatred. There's no hatred for your religion in schools, there is only evidenced discussion. If the evidence and discussion makes you hate the church that doesn't make the discussion a form of hate speech. If religion was compelling and accurate, it would be taught in schools as it was when it was found compelling and accurate.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2010
Please demonstrate how any church in the USA uses force (guns, jail) to make people attend and donate money or enforce church rules.
How does that compare to any government in the USA?
You didn't watch the video I linked above. I'd recommend you do.

As for your statements on government, Religion compares to a great many governments, those that are theological in doctrine. Your religion is akin to the governments of Turkey, Syria, pre-war Iraq, Iran, China, and on and on. Where ever the doctrine and dogma of a belief system are made law, there is a comparison to your religion.

Religion is one of the methods by which human beings are dehumanized by an oppressive or opportunistic power. As Hitler used the doctrine of the Christian church to inspire hatred for the Jews, the Christians use the dogma of their theocracy to inspire hatred for homosexuals, social liberalists, minorities, women, science, educators, and members of secualr organizations.

Just read your posts.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2010
You believe in this so I must understand why in order to evaluate it appropriately. Sorry, scientist by nature.

To what purpose? Control?
"The head of the ACLU in Louisiana believes that if you believe in God you will eventually be led to fly planes into buildings, become a suicide bomber, or decapitate people on TV."

Read more: http://blogcritic...vSNIEAHC

"They believe that they answer to a higher power,"

Read more: http://blogcritic...vSNR8sYQ

I think this is the core of your atheist belief, just as Ayn Rand believed, there is no higher power. Man IS the highest power and man can then do whatever he wants without consequence. Especially if he can take the power to prevent others from stopping him.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2010
To what purpose? Control?
Understanding, preparing myself for the unknown. Have you not understood that as the goal within my "heuristic"?
I think this is the core of your atheist belief, just as Ayn Rand believed, there is no higher power. Man IS the highest power and man can then do whatever he wants without consequence. Especially if he can take the power to prevent others from stopping him.
Ayn Rand was a child. She believed in the same "pull yourself up by the bootstrap" methodology that you subscribe to. Interesting that you don't know that. As for the statements of human centrism, that is simple arrogance. Humanity controls little and knows less. If we were the highest power we wouldn't have to worry about asteroid strikes and other such.

I've given you the core of my beliefs. Athiesm isn't a belief, it is a lack of belief.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2010
Athiesm isn't a belief, it is a lack of belief.

Which is a belief.
"United States Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that Atheism warrants the same protection as all other religions, "
"The dichotomy that Atheists try to create between science and religion is false. The conflict is between interpretations of science coming from different religious worldviews. "
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2010
Which is a belief.
No, it isn't a belief. Lack of belief does not imply belief. The Supreme court snippet you added simply states that people have a right to not believe in things that others do believe in, and as such the school of thought has the same rights as the school of thought that belief originates from.

"The dichotomy that Atheists try to create between science and religion is false. The conflict is between interpretations of science coming from different religious worldviews. "
This statement is maligned. The only dichotomy created is one of fact and fiction. Going back to your core belief, "God exists" there is no dichotomy. Hence why there can be scientists who believe in the concept of a God. Your version of biblical literalism is the issue as science soundly refutes biblical literalism, not the core of your belief.

Within the parables, even Jesus tells his follwoers that they have it wrong. Simply re-read the story of the good Samaritan.
frenchie
3 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2010
skeptic,

we all know marjon is retarded. Be kind to the mentally impared and simply pat them on the head.

Nothing you do, or say will ever change the blissful ignorance people such as marjon live in. Just have to hope survival of the fittest takes care of that...although if you ask marjon, he/she probably doesn't believe in Darwin's crazy cooked up theories anyway.

people who make sense are scary! booga wooga

P.S: you've all successfully derailed a thread which could have been interested had it stayed on the topic at hand. So i'll reiterate the first poster's question:

-------------------------------------------

OK, the report does not specify a cause. The question then becomes - what, if anything can or should we do about it?
Caliban
5 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2010
OK, the report does not specify a cause. The question then becomes - what, if anything can or should we do about it?


The question has value -at least rhetorically, but still.

I don't understand this logic at all.
Now that a report has been published that does not specify a cause of, and yet explicitly confirms Global Warming, we are only now free to do something about it?

I suppose that we are now free to duplicate the effort to again discover the cause of Global Warming.
What happens if, as did the first time around, human CO2 production is found to be the driver behind Global Warming? Can we then, at last, act on that knowledge? Or do we have to start all over again until we discover some other cause?
Whatever it takes, I suppose, to insure continued profitability, at any cost.
Her's just a taste of where that criminally flawed sort of thinking ends:

http://www.democr...covering

Sweet dreams, y'all.
marjon
1.3 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2010
This statement is maligned. The only dichotomy created is one of fact and fiction. Going back to your core belief, "God exists" there is no dichotomy. Hence why there can be scientists who believe in the concept of a God. Your version of biblical literalism is the issue as science soundly refutes biblical literalism, not the core of your belief.

Within the parables, even Jesus tells his follwoers that they have it wrong. Simply re-read the story of the good Samaritan.

That is your heuristic.
Let's see if the editors remove this too.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2010
we all know marjon is retarded. Be kind to the mentally impared and simply pat them on the head.

We have another 'tolerant liberal' who would rather insult than discuss.
Is that what 'science' is today, an echo chamber?
Caliban
1 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2010
we all know marjon is retarded. Be kind to the mentally impared and simply pat them on the head.

We have another 'tolerant liberal' who would rather insult than discuss.
Is that what 'science' is today, an echo chamber?


Mangy is an echo chamber. Continually asserting, and reasserting, over and over, and when one of those pointless assertions is addressed, simply respond with another assertion, that is usually unrelated to the one responded to. In a loop. An echo chamber. A noise generator.
Mangy sits, spotted backside cushioned caressingly by the datapoint armchair, blowing noise from the mangyhole.
The presence of mangy here at physorg fulfills a single purpose, and that is not to engage in rational debate. Not to advance Science, not to promote the general good- but, rather to generate noise, and drown out the free exchange of ideas that this forum was designed to provide.
John_balls
5 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2010
Since when are religions voluntary organizations?? Correct me if I'm wrong most parents raise their children up in the ways of the cult that they are brain washed in.
Due to this brainwashing at an early age most people have a very difficult time breaking the spell much like yourself.

This must be the real source of the animosity many atheists have. They are rebelling against their parents.
I constantly questioned the church and the Bible as I went through confirmation. I have faith because it fits in with my heuristic.
BTW, it IS the responsibility of parents to educate their children, not the state. Given the hatred of Christianity and Judaism in state schools today, the home is the only place anyone will be exposed to the Bible.

You honestly have not questioned your faith or took the time to analyze it. If you did, you would of seen through the con game called cult/religion like the thousands before it.

marjon
1 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2010
You honestly have not questioned your faith or took the time to analyze it. If you did, you would of seen through the con game called cult/religion like the thousands before it.

I have just as CS Lewis and millions of others have.
If you can't comprehend that, you must be very intolerant and closed minded, a typical 'liberal' today.
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2010
we all know marjon is retarded. Be kind to the mentally impared and simply pat them on the head.

We have another 'tolerant liberal' who would rather insult than discuss.
Is that what 'science' is today, an echo chamber?


Mangy is an echo chamber. Continually asserting, and reasserting, over and over, and when one of those pointless assertions is addressed, simply respond with another assertion, that is usually unrelated to the one responded to. In a loop. An echo chamber. A noise generator.
Mangy sits, spotted backside cushioned caressingly by the datapoint armchair, blowing noise from the mangyhole.
The presence of mangy here at physorg fulfills a single purpose, and that is not to engage in rational debate. Not to advance Science, not to promote the general good- but, rather to generate noise, and drown out the free exchange of ideas that this forum was designed to provide.

Still, only insults, sigh.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2010
"Unlike physics or biology, the social sciences have not demonstrated the capacity to produce a substantial body of useful, nonobvious, and reliable predictive rules about what they study—that is, human social behavior, including the impact of proposed government programs."
"The most fundamental lesson that emerges from such experimentation to date is that our scientific ignorance of the human condition remains profound."
"programs that try to change people are even more likely to fail than those that try to change incentives. "
"At the moment, it is certain that we do not have anything remotely approaching a scientific understanding of human society. "
http://www.city-j...nce.html
But all you socialists know what is best for the rest of us?
Caliban
5 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2010
A quote from an opinion piece, in support of the mangynoise that we haven't a clue as to how it could be possible to devise, implement, and administer useful, effective, beneficial policy.

Followed by a taunt that nobody understands humans or society well enough to be able to make good policy.

No one, except mangy, that is.

Does that mean that you have seen the light, mangy? Are you the annointed Apostle, the voice crying in the wilderness -the chosen Messiah of your god, MAMMON?

I wonder what C. S. Lewis would think of the depth of your religious self-examination.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2010
A quote from an opinion piece,

It a quote based upon empirical observations, you know, science.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Aug 03, 2010
That is your heuristic.
Let's see if the editors remove this too.
It isn't a heuristic, I'm starting to think you don't know what that means.

John_balls
5 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2010
That is your heuristic.
Let's see if the editors remove this too.
It isn't a heuristic, I'm starting to think you don't know what that means.


Agreed.
marjon
not rated yet Aug 03, 2010
Heuristic defined:
"(1) Heuristics do not guarantee a solution; (2) Two heuristics may contradict or give different answers to the same question and still be useful; (3) Heuristics permit the solving of unsolvable problems or reduce the search time to a satisfactory solution; (4) The heuristic depends on the immediate context instead of absolute truth as a standard of validity. A heuristic is anything that provides a plausible aid or direction in the solution of a problem but is in the final analysis unjustified, incapable of justification, and fallible. It is used to guide, to discover, and to reveal.

Koen, Billy V. 1984. Definition of the engineering method. Washington, DC: ASEE.
"
Arkaleus
1 / 5 (1) Aug 10, 2010
As you can see by the length and intensity of this thread, global warming really is about ideology and very little else.

It's about the kind of government you will live under, and the manner in which they will rule. There really are only two sides to the GW debate: Statists and Free Agents. Statists insist that they must force their subjects to do what is best for themselves (or what is best for the rulers, in practice) and Free Agents demand limited government and individual liberty and choice.

The conflict between these two ideologies has moved into climate change because the statists realized they could use "climate change" as a vehicle to rapid power, and the free agents were distracted by the "scientific" packaging of global warming. The debate isn't within the realm of climate science, the data is irrelevant as are the warnings of doom; the struggle is as it has always been - The freedom of mankind versus the tyranny of power.