My recent debate on global warming in the comments section of this post got me thinking, mostly because the debater, Willy, has been “debating” with me by posting links, whereas I’ve been writing from direct knowledge. I think what bothers me the most is Willy’s stealing of information from other sources, then not giving credit to those sources.
Willy says:
Human emissions of CO2 are now estimated to be 26.4 Gt per year, up from 23.5 Gt in the 1990s, according to an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in February 2007. Disturbances to the land – through deforestation and agriculture, for instance – also contribute roughly 5.9 Gt per year.
Now that’s lifted verbatim from Catherine Brahic of the New Scientist. Here’s the article. No citation from Willy here (which is tough, because it’s a comment system, so I’m willing to cut him some slack), but he cross-posted this post at his blog. He’s linked to copious sources before, but here, where he directly draws from the source, he gives no link, no credit.
He does it again from a post on environmentalchemistry.com. Willy says:
- There has been a decline in the 14C/12C ratio in CO2 that parallels the increase in CO2. In 1950 a scientist named Suess discovered that fossils do not contain 14C because they are much older than 10 half lives of 14C.
- There has been a parallel decline in 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. This has been linked to the fact that fossil fuels, forests and soil carbon come from photosynthetic carbon which is low in 13C. If the increased CO2 was due to warming of the oceans, there should not be a reduction in the ratios of C-13 and C-14 to C-12.
Again, lifted right from a source without citation.
Now, on his blog, Willy claims he’s “defeated” me, which is funny. I can’t post on Thursday, and he immediately claims victory. He also claims I was “deleting” his posts and that I banned him from the site. It’s odd that I’d let Bobak post all the crazy nonsense in his posts but start deleting the crazy nonsense from Willy and his toadies. Of course, that would be the rational answer– wait & see.
Willy’s debating style involves attempting to discredit the debater rather than debate the subject matter. It shouldn’t be a surprise, as it’s what the uninformed do in debates. Willy’s counter arguments contained accusations that I’m a Creationist, that I’m at a tiny school in Wisconsin, or that I’m a disciple of Rush Limbaugh. He’s also threatened to tell my dean about my Creationist ways.
Clearly, Willy can’t think for himself. He’s got numerous links to left-wing sources he runs to and cross-posts. He refuses to debate the issue, and instead of learning about the issue, he just cuts & pastes from other sources, even though the material he’s posting is often irrelevant to the discussion at hand. He has a persecution complex, thinking that he’s “fighting the man”, but in reality he’s “annoying a blogger”. And when his post appears, does he eat crow & apologize on his own blog? Of course not. He puts up a one-line note saying “the original post is now there”. No retractions that I’m a censoring Neocon thug. That would require humility.
Finally, as for debating style, you never declare victory. When you debate in a public forum, it’s never for you or who you’re debating. The audience determines who holds the most persuasive argument. Declaring victory is the sign of an immature debater.
So, I’m done wasting time & energy on Willy. If you want to see what I’ve said on the subject of climate change, check out the tabs on the side. If you want someone reposting paragraphs from other sites, go over to Willy’s blog. At least you’ll know that what you’re getting from me is my own thoughts.
(On a side note, I was actually annoyed with the spam filter, askimet, here on WordPress. It’s captured a few comments without asking for moderation, including those from Willy. But now that I see Willy’s irrational debating style, I think it’s more prescient than I originally gave it credit for.)
The Autopsy 
My apologies Doc. You’re right about the silly declaration of ‘victory’ in our debate. I did not realize my post was filtered by askimet, as all others instantly appeared, my response didn’t appear and I assumed wrongly that you deleted it.
I just returned from a social gathering where I was talking with a colleague, a PhD chemist like yourself, originally from Poland and now teaching at Vanderbilt. Hopefully with his assistance I’ll be better able to respond to your assertions.
He just returned from an international conference and he told me that it was the consensus of scientists at that conference that the processes involved with global warming have been triggered decades ago, and fossil burning is a significant contributor. He also shared my less informed opinion that as humans, we are in uncharted territory and in a period of co2 rise not seen since the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 million years ago. Computer models are inadequate to predict the exponentially increasing warming and CO2 rise trend we are presently in. As reported in Scientific American yesterday: (bear with me on some cut n paste):
“Earth’s climate is extremely sensitive. In other words, small changes in various physical processes that control climate lead to big results. … Some of these feedback processes are poorly understood—like how climate change affects clouds—and many are difficult to model, therefore the climate’s propensity to amplify any small change makes predicting how much and how fast the climate will change inherently difficult. Once the world has warmed 4 degrees C [(7.2 degrees F)] conditions will be so different from anything we can observe today (and still more different from the last ice age) that it is inherently hard to say when the warming will stop,” – physicists Myles Allen and David Frame of the University of Oxford.
It’s domino effect of which the processes are not completely understood but the trend is clear.
According to a report published in the Journal of Geophysical Research (Professor Andrew Watson), claims the rate at which the world’s oceans absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) is slowing down. In what he calls a “surprising and worrying development,” Watson reports that the amount of CO2 absorbed by the waters of the North Atlantic has halved between 1995 and 2005.
This article published this week shows the projections and models of CO2 rise have been conservative:
AP Oct 22: Carbon dioxide emissions were 35 percent higher in 2006 than in 1990, a much faster growth rate than anticipated, researchers led by Josep G. Canadell, of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, report in Tuesday’s edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Increased industrial use of fossil fuels coupled with a decline in the gas absorbed by the oceans and land were listed as causes of the increase.
“In addition to the growth of global population and wealth, we now know that significant contributions to the growth of atmospheric CO2 arise from the slowdown” of nature’s ability to take the chemical out of the air, said Canadell.
“the climate is changing even faster than the models said. In fact, Arctic sea ice is melting much faster than any models predicted, and sea level is rising much faster than IPCC previously predicted. What is really shocking is the reduction of the oceanic CO2 sink, meaning the ability of the ocean to absorb carbon dioxide, removing it from the atmosphere.” – Alan Robock, associate director of the Center for Environmental Prediction at Rutgers University
Like most lock-step conservatives of the Sen. Inhoffe variety, the main fear is that the “liberal environmentalists” will create restrictions in our energy policies that will affect our economy and in turn, your life in some way. Tony, you’re in denial that mankind has played any role in global warming and I believe the opposite, you’re entitled to your opinion but you should not allow your deeply rooted political beliefs affect your scientific scrutiny. Yes, studies can be skewed by funders with agendas. However, where we are on the same page, for different reasons, is that I seriously doubt anything realistically and practically can be done to mitigate the catastrophic warming event that is underway. We likely won’t see the catastophic effects in our lifetimes, but your kids probably will. That was the position of my Chemist colleague as well, although he was more open to the possibility of mitigation but reasoned that future energy production for mankind is also a looming crisis as we are not using this countries’ resources for productive means, unfortunately, quite the opposite.
Lastly, regarding this countries priorities, in talking with my colleague from Poland – a country where Bush enjoys the highest approval rating of any country in Europe – I begin to understand the extent to which this great country’s respect and standing in the world has suffered. he indicated the feeling was not only a loss of respect for our leadership, but the general feeling that “how could Americans be so stupid to elect this guy twice?”
As the father of modern conservatism, William F. Buckley said today in NRO, “If ours were a form of government patterned after that of the Europeans, Bush would probably have been replaced as leader of his party… Let the people pronounce on his stewardship in November 2008.”
The damage has been done to America and it will take decades to recover, if ever. As far as global warming goes, it’s probably game over.
Well Doc,
It seems you showed William the way regarding your accusations of “annoying a blogger” and discrediting your opponents credentials.
So far the only things you proven are that you are an expert in chemistry and that the evidence re: mankind’s influence on climate change isn’t conclusive. But we already knew that second part. The evidence is still compelling to the tune of 90 percent likelyhood in the scientific community. That means the burden is actually on you to prove that mankind is not a factor in aggravating climate change.
William–
Listen to yourself. “It’s domino effect of which the processes are not completely understood but the trend is clear.”
If you don’t understand the process, how can you possibly understand the trend? Similarly, Reason over Religion says something equally absurd: “that the evidence re: mankind’s influence on climate change isn’t conclusive. But we already knew that second part. The evidence is still compelling to the tune of 90 percent likelyhood in the scientific community.”
If it’s not conclusive, how can you possibly draw conclusions from the evidence!?!?
As we are working with an incomplete data set, we have no idea what’s actually causing the warming. One thing is clear from the historical record– CO2 lags behind temperature increases, to the order of up to 800 years. Now, this is a geologic measurement, and they’re typically loaded with large areas of uncertainty. But the measurements always point to lagging in the CO2 index compared to that of planetary temperature. In fact, there are periods where the temperature has sharply decreased, but CO2 emissions have continued into a high-zone.
What this means is that there are other, external factors besides carbon dioxide which influence planetary temperature. And this is why I think there’s little we can do to stop the warming in progress. In addition, adopting policies like Kyoto will do nothing to stop the process (European signatories have already been skirting the restrictions of the accord, with no consequences.) China is building one new coal-burning plant a week, India’s energy resources are starting to explode on the energy market, and Russia is working to monopolize energy distribution in Asia by controlling a vast array of natural resources. Forcing the US to hamstring itself for CO2 emissions standards will do nothing but further destabilize the political realities of the 21st century.
While other people are afraid of catastrophic warming, I’m not. I think that an increase in CO2 will provided an increase in flora around the planet, and subsequent increases in temperatures (along with manmade pollution) will increases not only cloud cover, but precipitation around the planet, leading to flooding, yes, but also to an increase in local agricultural markets.
During the Medieval Warm Period, European climes that were normally too cold for more temperate vegetation started growing more food. We can see in the architecture of the period that learning increased, people were happier (more food), and life was generally better than when it was warmer. I think Africa could see a cultural revolution of the same magnitude with a warmer planet, and maybe the continent could finally pull itself out of the cycle of war that we’ve seen the past 100 years.
But, ultimately, I think that this warming period will last for a few more years, and by the year 2020 we’ll see another decline in average global temperatures, simply because I think the sun is largely responsible for the warming, either by energy output or solar wind output. And by 2020 we’ll see a downwards trend and a general cooling of the earth.
I have no models to support this opinion, but it’s my gut instinct here. Warming periods normally last about 30 years or so, and we started this one up in 1980, so I’m thinking we’ll see a decline in the 2010s.
As for this statement: “I begin to understand the extent to which this great country’s respect and standing in the world has suffered. he indicated the feeling was not only a loss of respect for our leadership, but the general feeling that “how could Americans be so stupid to elect this guy twice?””
Bush “lost” to Gore in the popular vote. But he thumped Kerry. Kerry’s problem was his old war record. And you can’t elect a John Kerry when we have soldiers fighting in Iraq.
As for this years crop of candidates, I’m unimpressed all across the board. I’ll address this in a post here later.
Um no, it’s not absurd. From the EPA web site: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html
1 Throughout the science section of this Web site, use of “virtual certainty” (or virtually certain) conveys a greater than 99% chance that a result is true. Other terms used to communicate confidence include “extremely likely” (greater than 95% chance the result is true), “very likely” (greater than 90% chance the result is true), “likely” (greater than 66% chance the result is true), “more likely than not” (greater than 50% chance the result is true), “unlikely” (less than 33% chance the result is true), “very unlikely” (less than 10% chance the result is true), and “extremely unlikely” (less than 5% chance the result is true). These judgmental estimates originate from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
con•clu•sive (kən-klū’sĭv)
adj.
Serving to put an end to doubt, question, or uncertainty; decisive.
Do you really want to play a game of semantics until language has no meaning?
Reason–
We instituted confidence intervals when we know the answer, or where the answer should be. With manmade climate change, we don’t even that man is the sole cause of the warming, something which works against scientific reasoning. Especially when you look at the evidence of past warmings and CO2 trends there.
As for language having no meaning, your hero Al Gore has repeatedly stated that there is “consensus” on the issue of climate change and that the “debate is over”. Effectively he’s trying to silence critics. If he was just working against Bush & Inhofe, I’d give him some latitude. But it’s not. It’s chemists, physicists, climatologists, meteorologists– the very people analyzing the core of the problem.
If you’re going to talk about semantics, talk about the IPCC “group of scientists” that includes large numbers of government officials, activists, and politicians weighing in on the document. But the entire board is treated as scientists, and they had dissenting voices in the body. Doesn’t sound like “debate is over” at all.
My objection, and it’s one you should appreciate, is the lack of reason which is applied to the subject. It’s become political– hardly a rational forum. People are attacked because of their funding, not on their findings. It’s not the work of reasonable people, and it’s not how the scientific method works.
Doc:
First of all, your assertion that “Al Gore is my hero” is not based on anything other than hallucination.
If you are asserting that I have asserted that humankind is the sole cause of the current warming trend you are simply not paying attention.
I do not deny that politics are a factor. Be that as it may, is it fair for me to operate on the following suppositions:
The Earth has entered a warming trend.
Carbon Dioxide contributes to a “greenhouse” effect.
Human activity produces disproportionate carbon dioxide emissions; compare to say, for example, simple respiration.
?
Reason said:
“The Earth has entered a warming trend.
Carbon Dioxide contributes to a “greenhouse” effect.”
Good. Glad we’re in agreement. Earth is in a warming trend. CO2 contributes to global warming.
What is yet to be proven is mankind’s impact on the amount of warming. CO2 levels have increased, but the actual measured amounts of CO2 which have been released by mankind are nowhere near the amounts necessary to contribute to such a sharp increase in CO2 emissions. Additionally, the small contribution of manmade CO2 emissions to an overall climate warming are so insignificant it’s impossible to blame all of the current warming on that CO2 increase.
That’s not to say there’s not a very minor increase in temperatures due to human-origin CO2. And because of the longevity of CO2 in the atmosphere (anywhere from 10-100 years), the amount released from pollution is additive, for the most part. But the percentages released by humans is still irrelevant, even with 100 years of additive CO2 release, compared to the upswing in planetary CO2 concentrations.
What’s worse is the historical record which shows a long delay between temperature increases and CO2 levels. As CO2 lags by hundreds of years, it’s not a forcing factor of global temperatures, but rather an indicator of increasing temperatures that are working on the system outside of the CO2 greenhouse window. It’s hard for me to take this whole debate seriously when the data shows small CO2 concentrations have little to do with actual planetary heating.
I never said the debate was over. I am not Al Gore.
I am not saying I know that you are wrong. I am saying you are in a shrinking minority with regards to the conclusions you draw from the evidence that has been produced so far.
Amazing…. “And you can’t elect a John Kerry when we have soldiers fighting in Iraq.”
Right, we’re better led into war by the guy who started it with no plan. The recovered alcoholic who elected NOT to serve in Nam and went AWOL from a flight physical as soon as mandatory drug testing was implemented. The guy who was warned specifically and repeatedly (40 times) about an impending al Qaeda attack in summer ’01 (with terms like “preparations for hijackings”, “the system is blinking red” and “it couldn’t get any worse”), the guy who during this time, despite the warnings repeatedly refused to meet with his Anti Terrorism Director Richard Clarke on the bin Laden threat… the guy who after receiving all these warnings responded by going on vacation …for a month …yea, that guy certainly is the best guy to lead us in this perpetual state of war that he’s created, that his own commanding generals when returning from theater used described his planning and execution as “incompetent” and “a nightmare with no end in sight”. Yea, he sounds like a winner to me, not that decorated vet Kerry, whose swiftboat liars not only have been exposed as such, but have found to have been funded by the GOP… just like global warming denialists… to bring it full circle here, Doc.
Pssst Doc, We are in uncharted territory in human history, we don’t know what such a dramatic CO2 increase in the atmosphere will do, nothing like this has been observed. We know it did happen long before we evolved, 55 million yrs ago… and you know what happened then, and it wasn’t, as you suggest, a big fun food fest. There were mass extinctions. (whoops – I said “we evolved,” it that just a bogus theory in your mind as well?)
Reason said:
“I am saying you are in a shrinking minority with regards to the conclusions you draw from the evidence that has been produced so far.”
You’d be surprised how many others are in the “shrinking” minority. But science, fortunately, is not driven by consensus.
Willy raved:
“The recovered alcoholic who elected NOT to serve in Nam and went AWOL…” blah blah blah, Bush sux, Kerry r0cz0rs, whatever.
Kerry was the worst possible choice to run. I think he was chosen to lose by the Clintonian establishment so Hillary could run in 2008. He was such a bad candidate he lost to Bush. By 3 million votes. So say all you want about the BOOOSHITLER and his drunken, AWOL, Laura Bush abortin’, Karl Rovin’ illegal wars. Even with all of that info, most of America looked out and decided that he was STILL better than Kerry.
Then Willy said:
“Pssst Doc, We are in uncharted territory in human history, we don’t know what such a dramatic CO2 increase in the atmosphere will do, nothing like this has been observed.”
And immediately after:
“We know it did happen long before we evolved, 55 million yrs ago”
Wait a minute. If we’re in uncharted water, how did we know this happened 55 million years ago? Unless, we’re not in uncharted waters. But the waters have been charted, with relative accuracy, for the past 4 billion years, and we always get a lag of CO2 to planetary temperature.
What’s better, we had a mass extinction, and what happened? Life thrived. Maybe we had a mass evolution of those species. If the planet did have a sudden warming trend (and it wasn’t caused by CO2 Greenhouse), then the mass extinction was due to a planetary warm cycle caused by as-of-yet unknown phenomena, so the mass extinction cannot be attributed to increased CO2 emissions.
Thanks for proving my point for me, Willy.
My point is the we have not been around to observe such a CO2 increase in human history, of course you knew that.
Yes regarding the popular vote in 2000, the people were correct. In 2004, this Brit paper summed up the obvious thought. It goes to show you how easily manipulated and under aware Americans are. And…what a national nightmare it has been.
Reported moments ago on CNN – Prince Bandar, former Saudi Ambassador, has said if the US had paid attention to Saudi intelligence, 9/11 could have been prevented.
A history review is in order for those who really believe GW is ‘the great protector’.
—————
Anti Terrorism Director Richard Clarke repeated asked for a meeting with Bush on the bin Laden threat but was denied.
The PDB Bush received a month before 9/11 was entitled “bin Laden determined to strike in US” mentioned specifically:
* “a Bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks”
* “Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft”
* “patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.”
* “Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef”
The amazing thing is that Tenet warned Bush 40 times. Yes, count them – 40 times bin Laden was mention in Presidential Daily Brief’s from March 23-Sept 10, 01. For example:
* April 20, ’01 briefing entitled: “Bin Ladin planning multiple operations.”
* May 16 – “Bin Ladin supporters were planning an attack in the United States using high explosives.”
* May 17 – “UBL: Operation Planned in U.S.”
* June 22 – “intelligence suggesting a possible al Qaeda suicide attack on a U.S.target.”
* A terrorist threat advisory distributed in late June indicated a high probability of near-term “spectacular” terrorist attacks resulting in numerous casualties. Other reports’ titles warned,”Bin Ladin Attacks May be Imminent” and “Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats.”
* June 25 – Clarke warned Rice and Hadley that six separate intelligence reports showed al Qaeda personnel warning of a pending attack.
* June 28 – Clarke wrote Rice that the pattern of al Qaeda activity indicating attack planning over the past six weeks “had reached a crescendo.” “A series of new reports continue to convince me and analysts at State, CIA, DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency], and NSA that a major terrorist attack or series of attacks is likely…”
* July 5 – CIA briefed Attorney General Ashcroft on the al Qaeda threat, warning that a significant terrorist attack was imminent. Ashcroft was told that preparations for multiple attacks were in late stages or already complete and that little additional warning could be expected.
* July 23, the lead item for Counterterrorism Security Group discussion was the al Qaeda threat,and it included mention of suspected terrorist travel to the United States. Tenet told Bush that “the system was blinking red.” By late July, Tenet said, it could not “get any worse.”
What did our commander in chief do after receiving these dire warnings for months? He went on vacation – for a month.
When Bush retaliated against the Taliban, he had bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora and allowed him to escape (according to the CIA field commander on the ground at the time.
Doc, is this your definition of the actions of a president that deserved to be reelected?
Willy–
What I think is moot. What happened was a monumental failure of the Democrats in propping up a candidate that couldn’t beat a weak President. That’s the truth. As poor a job Bush did in his first four years, he still had enough to thump Kerry. And there’s no claims of “stolen election” here. Kerry lost.
Had Gore run again in 2004, he probably would have beat Bush. But he didn’t.
If it’s any consolation, the entire GOP field of frontrunners this year is going to have serious problems with Hillary or Obama. Hillary’s a shrewd politician, and she makes some bungles, but she’s positioned herself well and the memory of the electorate seems to have forgotten her health care boondoggle. Obama’s got a natural charisma that all of the GOP candidates lack.
This national nightmare of the corrupt and incompetent generation of neocon Republicans has resulted in abject failure, and because of this, no Republican has a chance to become president. Thank you Dumbya. The coming decades will see a reaction to this dark period in American history with the election of a Democratic president and widening Democratic majority in congress. A dynasty of sorts that will be a considerable improvement, but that I can admit, not wholly healthy for America, because as we know … absolute power corrupts absolutely. No matter what their flavor, politicans are politicians. The job requirements are sorely lacking for such an important position. Bush is an example:
“Education belongs to everybody. High standards belongs to everybody.”
–GW Bush
“We hold dear what our Declaration of Independence says, that all have got uninalienable rights, endowed by a Creator.”
–GW Bush
If you think it’s going to be a dynasty, you’re partially right– a dynasty of abject incompetence, one that will mirror or surpass that of the Bush Administration.
The Reublicans are bad, Willy, but the Democrats are far worse. Just ask Hillary and her donations from Hsu. Or Harry Reid and his shady land dealings in Nevada.
There a few blameless politicians, but as money runs the government, it also runs the political parties. It’s something that needs to be adressed, and it won’t be addressed by an apathetic public.
Regardless, we’ve strayed way from the topic.
Doc,
You are arguing that on based on these two “scandals” that Democrats are “far worse” than Republicans?
I don’t see any Democrats arguing that the Constitution doesn’t provide for habeas corpus. I don’t see any Democrats arguing that the executive branch is above the law. I don’t see many Democrats defending torture as a legitimate and productive tactic. I don’t see any Democrats calling the Constitution a goddamned piece of paper.
The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.
~George Orwell
Speaking of Hillary and her donations from Hsu, she gave back $800,000+. Let’s see what Fred Thompson does now that we learn his closest advisor, friend and fundraiser is a convicted cocaine dealer … and that Fred has been flying ’round the country on his plane. Normally Ii wouldn’t make hay over this but … it’s your ‘moral values’ campaign that Republicans have been touting for the past 7 yrs. Actually, the GOP culture of corruption in disguise.
Bush called the Constitution what? I’m outraged! Why, it’s all over the media. Wait, why isn’t it leading any news wire? Oh, because it’s hearsay. I hear he also expressed an interest in eating little children and setting puppies on fire….
As for Hillary & Hsu, she actively received the money from those donors, and still received the money. It’s not like it’s chump change. The Clintons have had numerous dealings with the Chinese (remember Al Gore’s fundraising at a temple?). A pattern of behavior has been established which really makes me raise my eyebrows.
And Fred? His advisor was convicted in the late 70’s and early 80’s. Then he finished his probation and started working in legal businesses.
If you’re going to hold that against a rehabilitated criminal, why do we even have prisons? Let’s just kill all lawbreakers because obviously their crimes can never be forgotten or forgiven, so why even bother imprisoning them?
Geez. Kennedy kills a woman while driving drunk and he’s reelected numerous times to Congress and lauded by the Leftist elite. Thompson’s advisor serves time for a crime, completes his punishment, then works to reestablish himself and he’s still a mongrel in your eyes. So in order to be completely rehabilitated, you should be a Democrat advisor and fundraiser, Willy?
Well, I can think of reasons why the witnesses may not agree to go on record other than the story not being true.
Also, Bush’s behavior is consistent with the “hearsay”, so that adds credibility to the story.
P.S.
Are you saying that the criterion for news credibility is dissemination through mainstream media?
P.S.S.
Speaking of hearsay, the Bush/Constitution story requires less in the way of assumption to warrant credibility versus this one:
“A virgin gave birth to the OneTrueGod™ , perfect in every way, so he could sacrifice himself to himself in order to absolve his mistake of creating a race of worthless pathetic sinners. Also, anyone that does not accept this, on faith alone, will be subject to the most brutal and hideous torture imaginable for all eternity.
But He loves you.”
“Are you saying that the criterion for news credibility is dissemination through mainstream media?”
No, but it’s far more credible than “rumor”, which this falls squarely into.
As for your next statement, you’re total contempt for religion is obvious, but you are freely mixing religious dogma from different aspects of Christianity.
Let me throw this at you, since you want to lock horns on religion– if God is love, and those who believe in love and die experience love for all eternity, then those who don’t believe in love would experience eternity without knowing love. Doesn’t that seem like a self-willed torture?
If the qualification for receiving eternal love is mere belief in love, can I assume that Jesus is unnecessary?
So long as your love=God, and you do what is in your part to believe in that, then you’re supporting the overall mission of the Universal Church. if you simply believe in love in a context of human understanding, then you’ll be set up for failure.
Jesus is necessary for Christians as he embodies God on earth. For others, who’s to say? God has the final decisions. I feel that if you did your best to be a good person in your life and ultimately believed in a global embodiment of love in a perfect being, then you’re doing OK.
It is my opinion that Christianity is the right path. But I don’t know if there are multiple paths, because I don’t know what God thinks.
“So long as your love=God, and you do what is in your part to believe in that, then you’re supporting the overall mission of the Universal Church. if you simply believe in love in a context of human understanding, then you’ll be set up for failure.”
Since you don’t know what “God” thinks, you can’t know this either.
“Since you don’t know what “God” thinks, you can’t know this either.”
Actually, I said if God = Love, so using that as definition, what God thinks is all in the context of love. So long as the supposition is accurate, there’s no ambiguity to such a statement. If God does not equal love, then it’s safe to say that everything we’ve thought of as a caring omnipotent being goes out the window, and this discussion is academic.
Here’s your groupthink:
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/news/2/ARTICLE/8503/2007-02-13.html
Doc:
Realclimate and or gristmill has a list of canned answers for the climate change alarmists to use to answer your comments. I detest
someone plagarizing other people’s work or using a political activist site tool to give mock-educated answers.
Doc:
Realclimate and or gristmill has a list of canned answers for the climate change alarmists to use to answer your comments. I detest
someone plagarizing other people’s work or using a political activist site tool to give mock-educated answers.
I do not even know the way I stopped up right here, however I believed this put up
used to be great. I do not recognise who you are but
definitely you are going to a well-known blogger
should you aren’t already. Cheers!