Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:32:08 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:

It is seldom that. I don't actually know any atheists who make
that claim, and I certainly don't. It almost always means a
lack of belief in deities, not a claim that there are none.
Atheism makes no claims at all.

Not common usage. If you insiste on redefining words, you need
to make that clear or you'll look stupid.

This is BY FAR the most common usage.

No, it's not. Your personal experience, among a small, self-
selected circle of friends, does not constitute valid data for the
English speaking world.

And you are stupid.

What you insiste on conflating with atheism is, in fact,
agnosticism. To insiste on using the same word for both, entirely
different concepts, is deceptive (and deliberately so, since you
cannot possibly be unaware of it).

"But we distinguish between them as weak and strong atheims."

Only when you get called out on it. Otherwise, you _never_
distinguish between them. You *always* pretend they are the same
thing.

Serious question: Why do you object to calling agnosticism
agnosticism? What is it about that word that you object to? Or is
it that you know you're a freak and want to feel less like one by
pretending you're part of a much larger group?

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:13:51 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:

This is BY FAR the most common usage.

No, it's not.

Well, you have not demonstrated yourself to be in possession of many
facts about other areas, no reason to expect differently here.

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:13:51 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:

This is BY FAR the most common usage.

No, it's not.

Well, you have not demonstrated yourself to be in possession of
many facts about other areas, no reason to expect differently
here.

I'm much smarter than you are. That's why I know things you don't.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

In article ,
says...

On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 2:46:54 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 11:26:24 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

An increase in cloud cover ought to reduce, not increase, the
warming, right? We observe a warming. If this warming occurs despite
increased cloud cover, this implies that the CO2 effect of the
warming is even larger...

Did you even LOOK at the second chart in

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weath...tures/70004226

There are no charts on that page, only text, pictures, and links to other
pages.

Funny. I see them.

Now it worked better. Yes, those diagrams show a temperature drop during
the two latest years, after the El Niño in 2014-2015. As expected. Look
at the 4th diagram on that web page, there the two latest large El Niños
are even pointed out.

However, I did check out the first chart on this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

and it does indeed show a temperature drop during the latest year shown
on that chart.

But a global temperature drop in recent years can be expected, since the
years 2014 and 2015 were El Niño years and they are often followed by
somewhat lower temperatures a few years afterwards. Or, more properly, El
Niño years have temporarily unusually high global mean temperatures and
compared to that, the following years which are closer to the long term
trend will appear somewhat less warm.

1998 was another year with a strong El Niño and also a temporarily
unusually high global mean temperature. And up to a decade or so
afterwards, AGW deniers got very excited and shouted and yelled that now
the global warming trend had ceased. Well, it didn't cease -- about a
decade later the warming trend had caught up so that what was an isolated
extraordinary warm year in 1998 had become a normal temperature in 2008.

So the global mean temperature has dropped during the latest two or so
years. But it's not because of changing cloud cover, it's because of the
El Niño in 2014 and 2015. DO you think this very recent and so far short
trend of a temperature drop will continue during the next 20 or 30 years?
I say it won't -- within a few years the global warming trend will
resume. What do you say?

I don't know. I also haven't found a good source that shows cloud cover
over time. Something like that ought to be available with the satellite
systems we have today. I have merely pointed out some problems with the
climate science that should moderate the overbearing zeal with which many
advocates display.

And I just pointed out a quite plausible mechanism other than changing
cloud cover which can cause this temperature drop: the end of the latest
El Niño.

that I posted April 22nd? It shows global temperatures dropping
significantly for the past two years.

We're not talking about weather here. Indeed we cannot predict the
weather even a month in advance. But in climatology thes no need
to predict the weather on individual days. In climatology we're
interested in long term averages

Not sure what you're smoking here, but the chart I referenced isn't
about monthly temperatures.

Those long term averages also makes temperatures during one or a few
individual years quite insignificant. But if the trend continues over
decades, then it becomes climatologically significant.

Maybe they are and maybe they aren't.

Check the history of the global mean temperature curve.

You don't seem to be able to see the charte on

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weath...tures/70004226

It sets variation at zero for 1880 and shows the highest temperature as
~ +1.8 degrees 3 years ago. Over the last two years, however, it has
dropped 0.6 degrees: one-third of the amount it has gained over the past
137 years!

What has happened
in recent years is extremely likely a repetition of what happened from
1998 and a decade onwards. So don't get too excited yet, first wait 20 or
so years to see if the cooling continues (hint: it won't -- but check for
yourself to be convinced).

I'm willing to wait. The zealotry is on the side of those not willing
to wait :-)

And what's your preferred choice of action during this wait? Note that
"buseness as usual" is also a chice, it's not a non-choice.

Do you have a house? If not, let's suppose you had a house. Would you pay
for a fire insurance on that house? Or would you prefer to wait and see
whether your house catches fire or not? :-) If and when it catches
fire, it will be too late to get a fire insurance... anyway, to get, or
to not get, a fire insurance is a choice.


So instead of focusing on the last two years, you should instead focus
on the last 20-50 years. Don't throw away half a century of data just
because of temporary short term deviations recently.

The short-term deviations ARE significant if a new factor is in play.
We may want a little extra greenhouse gas if we're heading toward another
another Little Ice Age:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

And more cloud cover implies more water vapor in the air, which is the
greatest greenhouse gas of them all.

Water vapor is routinely measured at thousands of meteorological stations
all over the world. A long term trend in increased water vapor therefore
ought to be visible in those measurements. SInce you claim this might be
happening, what does these measurements say?

Good point.

The takeaway from this is that the
LIA resulted in torrential rains that washed out crops in the summer which
was too short to grow abundant crops anyway. I think we may fare better
if this occurs again, but people would still starve. Many countries in
Europe lost 10% of their populations, a significant amount when you
consider that the Plague killed about 30%. And isn't it interesting that
the plague occurred after the Medieval Warm Period when global
temperatures were falling? Maybe some of those deaths could have been
avoided if folks had good food?

Back then people were unaware of bacteria and other microbes. Wastes from
both humans and cattle were left in the streets and were cleaned away
only when they became too severe physical obstacles whe some dignitary
was to visit the city's major or king. Vastly improved personal hygiene
is the reason we don't see plague outbreaks today. And we won't see them
either, ven if the little ice age should recur. After all, there's no
plague in Greenland, on Svalbard or in northern Canada, is it?

Look, I believe in being a good steward of the earth, trying to curb
excesses, keeping the environment clean and all that. But I also believe
in people and that we all have a responsibility there, too. And I also
believe in a Higher Power which many today have disowned. One of the
consequences of that is a vaunting arrogance that WE can handle the
situation. Maybe the solution isn't where some believe it to be ...

The solution is definitely not in trusting that some "higher power" will
help. Of course there are "higher powers" we cannot control, like the
force of gravity or the forces of electromagnetism which can cause
disasters if handled improperly. Immight add the weather as something we
cannot control, and that is true to a large extent. However, mankind has
now reached a situation were we do noticeably influence the climate due
to AGW. And here we do have a choice of how to act in the future.

And don't be mislead by a temporary drop in the global mean temperature
due to e.g. the El Niño, which is a well-known but unpredicatable
phenomenon.

The trend over the past 40 years is concerning, of course. The recent
drop does give us some respite. It will be interesting to see what the
future brings.

Probably a repetition of the temperature curve from the years following
the 1998 El Niño. In 10 years we'll know.

The arrogant one here is you since you claim to know the psychological
motivations of people you've never met.

I was merely replying to one who was overzealous in doing the very same
thing you are accusing me of. So I guess the pot and the kettle are
sooty :-)

Why follow a bad example? Instead, try to be a good example yourself -
how about that?

Thank you, BTW, for having a reasonable discussion about GW/AGW. There
are only a couple of others here who are so inclined.

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
Martin Brown wrote in
news
On 25/04/2018 11:58, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 10:25:45 PM UTC-6, Chris L
Peterson wrote:

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 18:35:39 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

I base my beliefs on evidence.

You have NO evidence for atheism.

Atheism isn't a belief.

Of COURSE it is.

It is a claim that the precise number of deities in the universe
is known to be exactly Zero.

Which is, _by definition_, unprovable. Ergo, a statement of faith.
Pure belief.


It doesn't require evidence. It's simply the
default position when there's no evidence for any deities.
Which, of course, there is not.

Of COURSE there is evidence. You just refuse to accept it.

When did you last see a miracle performed then? Or do you apply
double standards to your religious "evidence" and to scientific
evidence.

I know a guy who was cured of an incurable disease by the laying on
of hands by a Catholic priest. Miracle? Spontaneous remission?
Misdiagnosis? Some unique combination of factors that actually
cured it, unknown to science? Could be any of them. There's no
evidence to support any of them.

And you're a ****ing moron if you believe otherwise. (And we both
know you do.)


What was the name of the man cured and the date and location?
What was the disease?

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:13:51 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:

This is BY FAR the most common usage.

No, it's not.

Well, you have not demonstrated yourself to be in possession of many
facts about other areas, no reason to expect differently here.


Actually this is one of the few times he is right. We’ve had this argument
before. I’m an agnostic. As originally defined by Huxley. I don’t believe
in any god but there’s no way I can disprove the existence of a god or
gods.
You can define me as an agnostic atheist but I define myself as
agnostic.
North Americans often assume this is some kind of cop out to avoid
persecution. Ridiculous. I’m British from a country where more than 50%
have no religion and a percentage of those who claim to have a religion in
the census call themselves Jedi knights.
But I’m an agnostic.

Mike Collins wrote in

rnal-september.org:

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
Martin Brown wrote in
news
On 25/04/2018 11:58, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 10:25:45 PM UTC-6, Chris L
Peterson wrote:

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 18:35:39 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

I base my beliefs on evidence.

You have NO evidence for atheism.

Atheism isn't a belief.

Of COURSE it is.

It is a claim that the precise number of deities in the
universe is known to be exactly Zero.

Which is, _by definition_, unprovable. Ergo, a statement of
faith. Pure belief.


It doesn't require evidence. It's simply the
default position when there's no evidence for any deities.
Which, of course, there is not.

Of COURSE there is evidence. You just refuse to accept it.

When did you last see a miracle performed then? Or do you
apply double standards to your religious "evidence" and to
scientific evidence.

I know a guy who was cured of an incurable disease by the
laying on of hands by a Catholic priest. Miracle? Spontaneous
remission? Misdiagnosis? Some unique combination of factors
that actually cured it, unknown to science? Could be any of
them. There's no evidence to support any of them.

And you're a ****ing moron if you believe otherwise. (And we
both know you do.)


What was the name of the man cured and the date and location?

So you can stalk him like a psychopath? Yes, I honestly believe you
would, and intend to. If you want to call me a liar, be a man for
once and just come out and say it so everybody can dismiss you as a
loser who can't admit when he's bested.

What was the disease?

I'm not sure why I'm bothering, since you won't believe it anyway,
but I'm about 99.9999999% sure it's the first reply here (if it's
not, it's an identical experience):

https://forums.catholic.com/t/personal-miracles/34332/2

(He's till cured, 13 years later.)

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

502 Bad Gateway.

Of course, web server problems don't invalidate miracles.

Quadibloc wrote in news:25531e26-679d-4c29-
:

502 Bad Gateway.

Works find for me, in multiple browsers.

Of course, web server problems don't invalidate miracles.

If, indeed, they are miracles, and not just something we don't
understand. But when proof is impossible, proof isn't the point. He
can't prove it was divine intervention, and dumbass-boy can't prove
it's not.

Here's the entire post, for them what have ****ed up, useless web
browsers:

*****

I’ll start with my story, which just happened:

My Condition

I was diagnosed by a multitude of physicians with Atypical
Trigeminal Neuralgia and Post-Herpetic Neuralgia, a fancy way of
saying that the V1 branch of the right trigeminal nerve had been
damaged by shingles. The upper 1/3 of my right face, around my eye
and my right scalp was affected. The myelin sheath was ripped from
parts of the nerve, so that all heat, touch and pressure sensations
caused pain and facial paralysis. Even without stimulus, the pain
was constant. I could not put my teeth together for long because
the pressure sensation would induce pain. I couldn’t wear a hat,
allow a fan to blow on me, or be in hot weather. Wearing glasses
was painful, but I can’t do without them. There were times before
doctors upped my anti-convulsant dosages that I could see the pain,
hear it, and taste it. It looked like a soft grey film cutting me
off from the world, it sounded like a power line humming, it tasted
like ozone. I sometimes wept uncontrollably when in its grip. Other
times I simply bore it, allowing it to wash over me like fiery
waves. As one doctor described it, “Terminal level pain without
being terminal”. I think you can see why Trigeminal Neuralgia is
known colloquially as “The Suicide Disease”.

The pain had very gradually increased since my bout with ocular
shingles three and a half years ago. I was on the highest levels of
Neurontin and Tegretol that I could stand (I’m still tapering off
Neurontin now). I could barely function. It was difficult to even
read a newspaper.

The Mask

My neurologist prescribed a lidocaine patch (lidoderm), and that
brought great relief. I took to wearing a mask of lidocaine patches
(lidoderm) all of the time, day and night, beyond the
recommendations of the manufacturer. I had to cut the patch into
swaths to fit it around my eye and nose. It was like a “Phantom of
the Opera” mask done in bandages. It horrified and fascinated
people more than anything I’ve worn for Halloween. Even my GP
shuddered when he saw it. I stopped taking Tegretol (I gradually
tapered off) because it made me a zombie. I had to have my mind
back. The mask gave me enough relief to do without Tegretol. Even
with the mask, the pain was always with me at some level.

I could take off the mask long enough for an interview, but I knew
that once I was hired I’d be walking in wearing a mask. I was
resigned to wear it for the rest of my life. There was only an
outside chance that the scheduled Botox injections would help. I
feared that one day the pain would rise even higher and I would
spend the remaining decades of my life in a paralysis of pain.
High, constant levels of trigeminal pain cannot be lessened by any
known remedy.

The Healing

My brother invited me to a healing service nearby to be conducted
by Fr. Pat Crowley SS CC (Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of
Jesus and Mary), originally from Ireland. I thought… “Won’t hurt
anything, why not?” I believe miracles can occur, but I expected
nothing of this except a bit of relaxation and worship. The healing
service was preceded by a mass. Afterwards Fr. Pat laid hands on
each person who came up. There was singing sometimes and praying in
tongues. People were slain in the spirit often. I was not, though I
took a few steps back after encountering the Holy Spirit in a
physical way.

I could feel the healing right away, like nothing I could describe.
I was stunned and couldn’t believe it. I thought, “This is
something temporary and psychological, but perhaps I can learn from
this to control the pain mentally”. I kept the mask on at first,
but it began to itch so badly, I ripped it off after leaving the
church. My face is still slightly sensitive, but the paralysis is
gone and there’s no pain.

Aftermath

I tried to keep quiet about it in case the pain recurred, but I
wasn’t able not to tell people. People have been very concerned and
ask each time I see them. I’d have had to avoid people for a few
days in order to keep it quiet, because it was too fresh in my
mind. But then, this will always be fresh in my mind. It’s like
asking the blind man whom Jesus healed what happened. How can he
dissemble? I tried, “I got better”, but people want to know how
that happened.

This is the most dramatic thing that has ever happened in my life.
I was facing a fate far worse than death.

I owe more than my life to God. Now I have a very clear idea of
grace. Were a ball to float in mid-air, you would rightly assume
that some outside, unseen force was acting upon it. Grace is the
unseen force, the Holy Spirit affecting the world. It can heal. It
can also influence behavior in ways that could not naturally be
achieved. I understand now completely what Paul spoke of when he
said that God worked through him, that he achieved nothing by his
own power. Thanks be to God.


--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 21:30:25 -0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:13:51 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:

This is BY FAR the most common usage.

No, it's not.

Well, you have not demonstrated yourself to be in possession of many
facts about other areas, no reason to expect differently here.


Actually this is one of the few times he is right. We’ve had this argument
before. I’m an agnostic. As originally defined by Huxley. I don’t believe
in any god but there’s no way I can disprove the existence of a god or
gods.
You can define me as an agnostic atheist but I define myself as
agnostic.

You can, of course, label yourself anyway you want. But you are, by
definition, an atheist. A skeptical one, which is good.

However, the usage he was incorrect about was mainly "atheist", not
"agnostic". He treated the two words as if they were on the same
spectrum of belief. They're not.