On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 12:40:32 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

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:

However, some excuses are more valid than others. And one should not
demand more from others than what one demands from oneself.

I'm not "demanding" anything. I'm merely pointing out that there are
higher mountains to climb. Any "demands" you believe might be a result
of your guilty conscience?

But as for "not living up to my ideals":

"The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high
and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark."
--Michelangelo

Christianity is not required to improve yourself.

That is patently false:

That's disproved by history. The truly remarkable progress of science
which has happened during the last few centuries would not have been
possible if people had not gotten rid of the tyranny of religion.

True Christianity has not been practiced on a large scale since the time
of the Apostles (and not a very large scale then). What you describe is
the tyranny of fallen Man. The periods you describe are this:

"And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east,
they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find
it." -- Amos 8:12

THIS is what true Christianity is about:

" 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.

Another "nice" excuse - anything evil performed by a discipline was
performed by a corrupted version of that discipline, not by its pure
version. Well, similar excuses could be used about anything evil.

All you have to do is look at what the Apostles wrote and did and then
compare that with how people lived "Christianity" in the subsequent
centuries.

Btw, why did the Christians of the 4'th century CE let themselves be
corrupted?

It's what people do. True religion isn't "fancy" enough for them, so they
invent trappings and pomp. This was predicted:

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except
there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son
of perdition" -- II Thessalonians 2:3

And what would have happened if the early Christians had refused to let
themselves be currupted, I.e. had refused to let the Roman emperor
Constantine make Christianity the state religion? I'll give you the answer
to my second question above: then Christianity would today be an extinct
religion, much like what happened to Gnostiscism.

Since Christianity had fallen anyway, there's not much difference, is there..
Except, of course, that the way it DID happen allows us to have the Bible
today. In either case, God would have to restore the true Gospel once
again.

Perhaps then Islam would instead have become the world's most dominant
religion?

But it didn't happen. I believe God's hand has been at work for many
centuries preparing people for the Second Coming.

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

More straw-man deceitfulness.

You refuse to draw the conclusion from your own claims? But then you
admit that there are at least SOME scientific questions that have
been settled. OK?

Sure, to my satisfaction.

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.

Of course. Nevertheless, predictions are better evidence than the
absence of predictions, even if experimental results are still better
evidence. But before you can get experimental results you must decide
on which experiments to make, in particular if the experiments are
complex and expensive. On which evidence should you base such a
decision?

Science is multi-pronged and scientists disagree on what should be
experimentally investigated. This is the way it should be. The problem
with "climate science" is that it has become way too monolithic.

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?

Why is Venus hotter than Mercury? Is Venus closer to the Sun than
Mercury?

Come now, the pressure on Venus is 92 earth atmospheres and is 96% CO2.

BTW CO2 can, and does, work as a greenhouse gas also outside the
habitable zone.

I'm not denying CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

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

Which climate models do you refer to here? And which greenhouse gas
do you think is treated improperly and in what way?

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fe...r_warming.html

"Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the
extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent
NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever
the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the
gas as a critical component of climate change."


And how would you want to change these climate models so that they would
treat this greenhouse gas in a way you think is more proper?

That's not my job. I'm just pointing out that YOUR beliefs are suspect.

Please be specific in your answer. Yes, this requires you to understand
how these climate models work. You cannot critizise something you don't
understand.

So why do you accept its results when YOU don't understand them. The
fact is that each of us chooses our own "experts" -- probably based
on our own biases. To me, you seem to be VERY biased on the subject.

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?

When you admit that there are SOME scientific questions which have
been settled. And when you stop making these sweeping
generalizations. They are so easy to shoot down - one single
counterexample is enough...

I don't recall making "sweeping generalizations" so you seem to be over-
reacting.

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.

And when you use it, which definition do you use? If you use the same
definition, do you really believe that the question about whether the
Earth is flat or not has not yet been settled?

It is to my satisfaction. OTOH, AGW is not.

Do you have proofs that GW is not AGW?

I have suspicions based upon experimental evidence.

If so, please present it.

I have.

If your arguments still hold after the usual scientific scruitinity, you
will very likely get a Nobel Prize for your findings. Good luck!

I don't give a hoot about that. I'm just a guy who believes that AGW effects
are overstated by the advocates. OTOH, YOU and your ilk seem to have a BIG
problem with anyone disagreeing with the party line. That's VERY disturbing.

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

Well you did say "I am not perfect" instead of e.g. "I am trying.very
very hard"...

You seem to always pick the less complimentary interpretation :-)

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 :-)

I noticed your final smiley. But it is obvious that you think all
others must be like yourself. Surprise - they aren't! Well, some are
of course, but not all.

And you think everyone must believe as you believe or you zealously
attack them. Pot, kettle, black.