You, above many posters here, seem to be able to navigate the waters at the confluence of thinking and faith. I admire that.

And how could I argue with this?

” but he has chosen to change the world through his people within the structure he chosen… the church. As soon as Christians begin to agitate for moral and ethical change outside the church, they go where God has not commanded them to go. ”

You make a lot of sense sam. You are right that I dont care who you marry or what you do inside your churches. I do care what happens when the church wants to control the state. You have found middle ground in your post.

Thanks.

I’m sure KFG doesn’t care, but for the benefit of other Christians reading the link here is my humble opinion:After reading more closely, I do have to agree with Outlander that this guys view of Christ is a crock, although it points out some valid problems in His church. In my opinion, the most relative information if found in the third comment:

-OneSalientOversight, 06.13.2006…” I don’t think your assertion that there has been a mistranslation of “kurios” is accurate – nevertheless I can understand where you are coming from.

As an Evangelical and a Political Liberal, I find no problem whatsoever in “God the dictator” as you may put it. The bible is full of examples whereby God and Christ are deemed to be the king over the earth.

The error of modern Evangelical Christianity – along with the historic faults of the Roman Catholic church (inquisition etc) is that their attitudes and actions go beyond the bible’s borders. The bible nowhere says that God’s people, the church, should work to dominate and control the nation they live in.

This may have been true in the Old Testament – certainly God called Israel as a political entity to run itself as a theocracy. Nevertheless when Christ came he instituted a “New Covenant” whereby God’s people would not be determined by racial background, but by faith in Christ and obedience to God.

The way that God changes the world is through the message of the gospel proclaimed in the church – thus the group of believers becomes the place where people are changed. By opting to go into politics, modern evangelicals are actually disobeying God the King.

Paul makes it clear in the epistle of 1 Corinthians, chapter 5, that a clear line exists between the church and “the world”, to the point where sins that require immediate action within the church require no action at all when committed by those in the world.

Yes God is king and he is Lord over all creation – but he has chosen to change the world through his people within the structure he chosen… the church. As soon as Christians begin to agitate for moral and ethical change outside the church, they go where God has not commanded them to go. “

“DING DING DING DING DING!

“Must be smokin’ that union dope grown by those lazy ass western kansas farmers.”

No, KFG, AfKansastan weed would markedly IMPROVE Joe’s thought processes. AND, he’d seem much less paranoid about a 60’s style communist take over, too. Somebody get him a prescription!

One, it will piss off outlander.

And two, the COMMENTS under here are priceless, and they were also why I said THINKING people would like the article.

Really.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214×77175

heheheheheheheh

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-rigby/christians-who-want-democ_b_22942.html

DING DING DING DING DING!

Must be smokin’ that union dope grown by those lazy ass western kansas farmers.

As I had already said “Maybe after several thousand years …

Actually, it would be interesting to see what a Milankovitch ‘glacial era’ will be like coming after a super-interglacial. I suspect it will be temperate.”

Yes, in the LONG run we can expect a cooling. I am more concerned with the coming few centuries rather than far out millenia.

Normally Climatologist study what causes climate change and other scientist in the enviromental field just study the effects, but are not conclusive about how and why it is happening, just that it is.

My issue is that in the political arena, the enviromentalist have made their own conclusions that are not based in fact. Their conclusion is that corporations and man is causing it and must be stopped. Because their agenda is not the enviroment, but to end capitalism.

Websites like this: http://globalchange.gov/ has the information. And buy the way, the Bush Administration is doing something about it and they have their initive to help reduce greenhouse gases.

But of course the leftist don’t believe government sources. Air America with Randi Rhodes and Al Franken, where the leftist get their news.

First, some scientific input from scientists who have nothing to gain from dissing global warming:

“First, earlier this year two Harvard researchers, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, showed that, contrary to an influential paper published in 1998 in Nature by Michael Mann, Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes (MBH), the Mediaeval Warm Period (about 1100 to 1450) and Little Ice Age (about 1600 to 1900) were probably global in their influence. This fact argued against late-20th century climate warming being particularly unusual in rate or magnitude.

Second, at the recent World Climate Conference in Moscow, Vladimir Putin’s science advisor Yuri Izrael commented that “all the scientific evidence seems to support the same general conclusions, that the Kyoto Protocol is overly expensive, ineffective and based on bad science”.”

“Professor Bob Carter is an environmental and climate scientist with cogent views about climate change, global warming and anthropogenic influence. In his presentation, Professor Carter argued that, when considered in the context of the longer time scales over which climate change operates, global average temperature may be expected to fall. Any human-caused warming effect, should it be demonstrated, may act to diminish the rate of this cooling, and therefore be beneficial. Regarding the short-term warming trend which occurred in the closing years of the twentieth century, it is the case that both the magnitude and rate of this change ‚Äì- however caused ‚Äì lay well within the bounds of earlier natural change. Bob Carter described research which is based largely on oxygen isotope ratios in ice cores and sediments which quite accurately reflect the temperature at which the ice was laid down. These ice cores provide an important and continuous record of global temperature change over short to intermediate time periods, and are not subject to the errors possibly induced when different techniques are used for different time periods, such as the combination of thermometer measurements with tree ring analysis and other proxy methods.

“Public discussion of global warming, or climate change, is based almost exclusively on the climatic record of the last 1,000 years,” said Professor Carter.

“This is an inadequate period over which to assess the magnitude and rate of natural climate change, especially in judging whether contemporary climate change is unusual. Our knowledge of Earth’s climate change through time is based upon geological studies. The record reveals, first, that climate is never static but always changing, and second, that climate change often occurs cyclically, with periodicities which range between 11 years (the sunspot cycle), through 20, 41 and 100 thousand years (the Milankovitch frequencies, related to Earth’s changing orbital geometry and hence insolation), to millions and tens of millions of years.”

“Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.”

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of “climate change skeptics” who disagree with the “vast majority of scientists” Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. “Climate experts” is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore’s “majority of scientists” think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. “While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change,” explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. “They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies.” ”

Theory:1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

CF you cherry picked your definition. Read number 6. That, in my opinion, is what global warming, as supposeddly caused by man, is to me: A theory.

“the majority of attempts to politicize and adulterate scientific discourse are coming from the Right. Whether it’s global warming or evolution, the Right-Wing attack on scientific method and principles in the name of some phony understanding of ‘diversity’ or ‘pluralism’ is consistent and well-documented. And the real danger, as we’ve seen here, is that the phony “he said / she said” model of discourse usurps scientific method and standards.”

In many aspects, true, and I do agree the major arguments against global warming are coming from the right. However, as I stated earlier, I do not listen to arguments WHEN THEY ARE DRIVEN BY POLITICS! If my views coincide with some right wing group, it is coincedence, and nothing more. Anything else is like saying hitler liked carrots, I like carrots, ergo I believe as hitler did. Bad reasoning.

Liberals are just as much at fault in making bad science political as wing nuts are. I am in no way asking Ben to appologize for his expertise. I believe he may be wrong in his conclusions, but as JR stated, we are on the same page as to what should be done. We arrive at that conclusion via different routes.

BTW, JR, I was refering to Brian when I said he brought nothing.

My case has been stated: Do something to stop polluting the ground air and water, and do it now!

As is the case with most subjects and Hannah Arendt. Some people are just too dang right about stuff.

JR,

Fair enough, and I’m all for fellow travellers working to ameliorate the effects of climate change. Frankly, J M Walker’s position seems, to me, to be the ‘conservative’ one: namely, knowing that the consequences of CO2 overproduction might be catastrophic and unmanageable, the judicious thing to do is act even in the absence of definitive proof.

As for Joe Williams, well, with Joe, I tend to confine myself to matters of foreign policy and the definitions of ideology. I try to stay within my area of expertise.

Without question, true.

Delegitimiizing science by saying that “I check out my doctor’s recommendations by going to the internet” is laudable in some senses, but that does not put you on equal footing with said doctor. Those who think it does are fooling themselves, and unfortuately fooling those who listen to them. Outlander, paying attention, I hope?

My point was simply that his own agenda would tend to work against human caused global warming. Even if he does not acknowledge it. Certainly I was not attacking Ben!

We who trust the abundant science that human activity IS causing global warming say we need to to do A B C. (Forgive the simplfication).

Walker also says we need to do A B C. Lets not castigate him just cause we disagree with the why of his agreement! We got plenty of idiots who disagree with us AND say stay the course! Let’s work on THEM!

PS. You missed ringing the bell on Joe when he said maybe it is just our time to go!

Ben Huie has no reason to apologize for having expertise and arguing from a position of knowledge. He’s qualified to render scientific judgements. J M Walker is a moderately informed layperson whose statements carry correspondingly less weight.

The fact that J M Walker is ideologically on the same page as Ben Huie is quite beside the point. The scientific conceptual game is played according to a very specific and stringent set of rules. You either play it or you don’t. And when J M Walker says that various explanatory schemes are only ‘theories,’ this shows ignorance of how the game is played. ‘Theory’ has a very specific meaning: it denotes a mutually reinforcing set of hypotheses that are experiementally repeatable, and that have generated the same outcomes across multiple iterations. ‘Theory’ means that an explanatory hypothesis has proven repeatable in different circumstances by different experimenters. And the basic test a theory has to pass is that it explain some specific phenomena in light of everything else we know.

Now, it is of course true that the proof for some scientific theories is inferential rather than direct; I can’t see quarks, but they nonetheless are granted status as physical entities. In these cases, the test of the hypothesis is whether it fits with the other, more fundamental hypotheses that are observable, and whether it explains the phenomena in question with a minimum of additional principles or qualifications.

A lot rides on not bastardizing our scientific discourses or dumbing them down. In particular, what is at stake is the reliability of our conceptual reconstruction of the physical world. I agree that this is too important to play politics with. This being the case, the majority of attempts to politicize and adulterate scientific discourse are coming from the Right. Whether it’s global warming or evolution, the Right-Wing attack on scientific method and principles in the name of some phony understanding of ‘diversity’ or ‘pluralism’ is consistent and well-documented. And the real danger, as we’ve seen here, is that the phony “he said / she said” model of discourse usurps scientific method and standards.

Kudos, Ben.

Ease up on JM a bit. You know, like he did with me?

He first said that I added nothing and then noticed that he and I essentially agree but for different reason.

He is on the right side. You don’t beat up someone who is already on the right side just because he has different reasons or is singing a different song!

A better target is the guy saying oh well maybe it is our time to go. I think he posted before to this issue that global warming wouldn’t be such a bad thing!

Chemical & Engineering News is another one.

Bloom, Deomorphology – relationship between changing climates and landforms.

Robinson and Henderson-Sanders, Contemporary Climatology – a good overview of climate systems with some look toward the future

Parrish, Interpreting Pre-Quaternary Climate from the Geologic Record – how we get from geology to climate.

I’ll try to post a few more tomorrow.

Of course I don’t know where you stand, I’m not a mind reader. I said I ASSUME…get it?? The point was that we take precautionary steps for many things in life..that’s what insurance is all about. Some of us would like to take out a bit of insurance based on the dire consequences of warming.

Ben, some of those tobacco execs still think that’s true based on their testimony before congress.