On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 2:48:20 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

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?

Claiming that my vision hasn't happened because it hasn't happened in
the last 150 years is surely short-sighted and ignores the rate of
advancement of technology. All you have to do to expose this fallacious
assertion is to consider what a Tesla factory looks like today with
robotic assembly and compare that to what a carriage "factory" looked
like 150 years ago. But I was thinking ahead dozens of "instants" not
backward.

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...

Responding to questions (and yes, verbal attacks) is not preaching.
You do indeed have a thin skin and, perhaps a guilty conscience? :-)

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...

We all have excuses:

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.

That is patently false:

" 5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and
to virtue knowledge;

6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience
godliness;

7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity."

-- Peter II

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.

All of that was done with corrupted Christianity. True Christianity
disappeared by the fourth century AD except in the lives of a few humble
people.

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...it-carl-sagan/

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?

More straw-man deceitfulness.

"2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable
proponents of all points of view.

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

"4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there s something to be explained,
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?

But you still haven't looked carefully at the climate models?

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?

Predictions are fine, but actual experimental evidence is the sine qua non
of science.

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?

Venus is NOT in the habitable zone. Didn't you get the memo?

And could you please explain why climate models treat the most important
greenhouse gas improperly?

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...

And regurgitated straw-man. When are you going to ascend to a higher
level?

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

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/settled

"to appoint, fix, or resolve definitely and conclusively"

THIS is the implied definition when you and other AGW advocates use it.

- we're not dealing with Holy Scriptures which should be followed to the
letter as in Christianity.

Even if the translators made a mistake? :-)

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".

Even when you preach falsehoods :-)

And you imply that I don't try, so you make another false assertion.

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...

You have exhibited real zeal here, so that's just another straw man.
And as for zealot: "a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in
pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals."

And that is definitely you :-)