On Sat, 26 May 2018 04:31:52 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 1:11:30 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Fri, 4 May 2018 05:15:00 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

I see our civilization progressing to the point where goods are
virtually free because automatic machines will make them, and
machines
will service the machines,

People have expected that for some 150 years now but it still
hasn't
happened...

150 years is an instant in the life of a civilization.

No human civilization has yer endured more than some 5000 years. 150
years is some 3% of that, which is definitely more than an instant.
Or are you claiming that no human civilization has endured more than
some 30 instants?

freeing people to do "something else." But what should
that "something else" be? Jesus and the Apostles had
"something
else": preaching the gospel. Should I preach the gospel at
you? :-)

You already do,

Actually, I don't. Reminding you of an alternative life style is
NOT
preaching.

Reminding once is not preaching. But repeatedly reminding is
preaching, in particular if you claim it is a superior lifestyle...

however you don't live as you preach.

I'm not preaching. You seem to have a rather thin skin.

Nice excuse to avoid having to live as you preach...


And when this hypocrisy is pointed out at you, you just shrug and
say
"I'm not perfect"...

Is that an excuse for you to ignore His teachings? There is no
shame in
being imperfect. The REAL shame is in not trying to improve
oneself.

Christianity is not required to improve yourself. Christianity may
even turn you into a much worse person. Remember the crusades? Or the
colonization in Africa and Asia? Or the total or partial extinction
of the original population of the Americas? All done with the purpose
of converting "pagan" people to Christianity, and all in the name of
Christ. Those who did this were convinced they were dooäing Good
Things and that they would go to Heaven as a reward.


Wow! And all that just because I have asked for a little less
over-
confidence, a little more caution about unintended consequences
and
a little more evidence for GW, particularly AGW.

What's next? Will you ask for more evidence that the Earth is
not
flat?

Straw-man argument.

"straw man  caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack"


https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/0...n-kit-carl-sag
an/

This, of course, indicates REAL hypocrisy.

Scientifically the question about AGW is settled.

Science is NEVER "settled." Science is about building models of
the world
around us and testing them against experimental evidence. NO model
is
perfect, and when a model fails to predict what actually happens,
one
should try to find out why.

Are you claiming that the question of whether the Earth is flat or
not has not been settled yet?


"2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable
proponent=
s
of all points of view.


"3. Arguments from authority carry little weight  authori=
ties have made
mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps
a bette=
r
way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at
most, there
are experts.


"4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If theres something to be expla=
ined,
think of all the different ways in which it could be explained."


Read the scientific literature if you want to educate yourself.

I have probably read more about GW than you have.

In your fantasy perhaps. I've known about GW and AGW since 1970 -
yes, to atmospheric scientists it was a concern already back then. I
have been a colleague to the late Bert Bolin who was among those who
founded the IPCC. Now, what are your credentials?


What remains is ideology, politics - and, unfortunately, denial
and fake
news.

I see a LOT of that from the AGW advocates.


There were strong theoretical implications that the Higgs boson
ought
to exist. They knew what they were looking for. Your phrase "NO
evidence" implies also the lack of these theoretical implications.

Your definition of "evidence" is different from mine. To me,
"evidence"
is actual measurement.

You limit your evidence to experimental evidence. But at some point
the very first experiment must be made. How do you decide on which
experiment to perform? Pure guesswork is of course one way, but
that's no good when the experiment costs very much, as it did in the
case of detecting the Higgs boson. Then it is much better to base
your decision on predictions by theories based on other experiments.
Even an uncertain prediction is much better than blind guessworks.
You don't want to call these predictions evidence - why not?

There is "theoretical evidence" against GW and I
have cited such.

Then could you please explain how the amount of CO2, a known
greenhouse gas, could increase so much *without** the Earth getting
warmer? And then why would it be so on Earth but not on Venus?

But I don't count that as REAL evidence, it just means
that the science is not as "settled" as the AGW advocates zealously
claim.

According to you, science is never settled - not even the question of
whether the Earth is flat or not...

Perhaps you misunderstand the word settled. That a scientific
question has been settled does not mean that the conclusion cannot be
modified even in small details - we're not dealing with Holy
Scriptures which should be followed to the letter as in Christianity.
It doesn't even mean that the major parts cannot be changed, only
that it is very or extremely unlikely that this would happen - like
e.g. the settled question that the Earth is not flat. And such a
major change should be made only if and when convincing evidence
appears, but not before that. Such evidence should also include a
feasible explanation why the earlier evidence should not be trusted.
Merely presenting a study which contradicts established conclusions
is not enough - that study might be erroneous. Such things has
happened many times in the history of science. Remember cold fusion?
Or the claim that vaccines cause autism?

If you want to be a good Christian trying to improve yourself, please
also try to learn to be more scientifically literate. Scientific
illiteracy is no virtue.

Yes, now I am preaching too. But, as opposed to you, I try to live as
I preach, instead of just saying "I am not perfect".


Calling people flat-earthers, science-deniers, etc., accomplishes
little
besides polarization. I really don't understand what you're trying
to
accomplish by re-opening this multi-pronged dialog with no new
information.

Calling people zealots accomplishes little besides polarization....

Your turn...