Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

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.

Only by your definition. Not that of normal people.

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.

And yet, you use one to describe the other.

Which makes you a loser.

--
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 Wednesday, 25 April 2018 13:50:33 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

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

Heckling the deluded soapbox turtle in a public space is always fair play.
Your delusions give you no extra rights. Quite the converse, in fact.
You have allowed your soapbox to speak for you in the absence of common sense.
Afterlife insurance salesmen are never seen [nor heard] without their soapboxes.
Some even lower themselves to a megaphone in the absence of anything new to say.
Spending millions of years perfecting soap boxes is not human progress.
The turtle still exists [completely] unchanged.
And unfazed that his shell no longer provides a raised platform for the barking mad.
Claiming the high moral ground only adds to your woes.
It undermines your soapbox so that it lists into the quicksand of alternate reality.
Remove your silly bias and rejoin the baying audience.
As we watch our supposed leaders scrabble for the limited number of soapboxes. On the last, gilded, gravy train down to AGW hell! ;-)

On 25/04/2018 16:25, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
Martin Brown wrote in
news

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?

It cannot have been incurable if it was cured.

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.

More likely the placebo effect if he believed in the power of the priest
or spontaneous remission - the human immune system is very powerful.

And you're a ****ing moron if you believe otherwise. (And we both
know you do.)
You are clutching at straws. BTW do you eat pork or shellfish?

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 1:32:30 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

In article ,
says...

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

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.

Isn't El Niño non-global?

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.

And I have pointed out another mechanism. Who's right?

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.

You make it sound like I'm somehow responsible for climate control. I'm
not and you're not. The world is NOT waiting. Even oil companies aren't
waiting. Good grief! I'm fine with the solar panel explosion (wind
power to a less extent).

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.

That's a bogus argument on three counts. One, it's the Chicken Little
syndrome; two, you argued wait and see above; and three, it's buying fire
insurance is a clear choice but attacking GW is multi-pronged and there
are many options: solar, wind, biomass, natural gas, nuclear, tidal
power, etc.; coupled with energy-saving technologies: battery technology,
LED lighting, catalytic processes, etc.

My point is that this is all being done, so why should ANYONE care about
my personal position?

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.

I'm happy with the way the situation is being addressed. There's no
logic in brow-beating individuals and disrespecting individuals.

“Show respect even to people who don’t deserve it, not as a
reflection of their character, but as a reflection of yours.�
-- Dave Willis

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?

Have I disrespected you? Where have I been a bad example? I'm sorry
if I have, but those on the AGW side have been MUCH worse.

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

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 09:02:48 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 25/04/2018 16:25, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
Martin Brown wrote in
news

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?

It cannot have been incurable if it was cured.

It's notable that the things that "miracles" cure are always the sorts
of things that the body has at least a small possibility of curing
naturally. What kind of miracles don't we ever see? Regenerated arms,
legs, or eyes. Repaired brains or spinal cords. Heck, even a simple
inguinal hernia has never been observed to be cured.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 20:52:30 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:

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.

And yet, you use one to describe the other.

I use "agnostic" as a qualifier. Which is very different from it being
an alternative to "atheist" or "theist".

On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 7:20:38 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

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.

I've always understood "agnostic" to mean one who "knows not" since that
is the literal meaning of the word; and "atheist" to mean one who KNOWS
that there are no gods. This is supported he

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

"In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there
are no deities."

As I have written before, it is not possible to "know" so it is not
possible to be an atheist in that sense. Those who claim to be atheists
are using a different definition.

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 06:20:22 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

I've always understood "agnostic" to mean one who "knows not" since that
is the literal meaning of the word; and "atheist" to mean one who KNOWS
that there are no gods. This is supported he

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

"In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there
are no deities."

As I have written before, it is not possible to "know" so it is not
possible to be an atheist in that sense. Those who claim to be atheists
are using a different definition.

Indeed. Everybody I've ever met who is an atheist uses the term to
mean they don't believe in deities. I've never met anybody who claims
certainty that there are not gods (although many will claim that,
beyond reasonable doubt, God (that is, the Abrahamic deity) doesn't
exist, or that Zeus doesn't exist, or that Odin doesn't exist, since
these are evidence based claims.

If you follow any forums populated by atheists, it's clear that the
notion of "atheism" involving a denial of the existence of deities is
not accurate.

"Agnostic" has different meanings, depending on context. In Huxley's
ordinal use, it simply meant "uncertain". That's losing favor in
common usage to a much better word, "skeptical". Increasingly
"agnostic" is being used in its more formal, epistemological sense,
related to knowability. Knowledge versus belief.

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 20:52:30 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:

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.

And yet, you use one to describe the other.

I use "agnostic" as a qualifier.

Which is your error. This has been explained to you several times.
Either you're too ****ing stupid to understand it, or willfully
retarded, or delusional.

Or all three.

--
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.

Martin Brown wrote in
news
On 25/04/2018 16:25, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
Martin Brown wrote in
news

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?

It cannot have been incurable if it was cured.

That is why it's considered (by some) to be a miracle, yes.

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.

More likely the placebo effect if he believed in the power of
the priest or spontaneous remission - the human immune system is
very powerful.

On what do you base this mathematical claim? What evidence do you
have to support that? Nothing. It is impossible to know, now, after
the fact. The only thing we can say for certain is that it is
inexplicable. All else - including your faith that there is no
deity - is just that: faith.

And you're a ****ing moron if you believe otherwise. (And we
both know you do.)
You are clutching at straws. BTW do you eat pork or shellfish?

I offer no interpretation of the events, and, in fact, mentioned
several other possibilities, which you dishonestly pretend I
didn't. I am not a theist, and believe - as an act of faith - that
there isn't anything in this universe that we *can't* understand,
only things that we don't *yet*. That you are incapable of grasping
the idea that someone can disagree with your faith without there
being something something wrong with them is a sign of your mental
illness.

Your blind faith has made you dishonest. Your stupidity has made
you stupid.

--
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.