Even as it was drafted and ratified, the Constitution was deemed incomplete by many because “it has no declaration of rights,” as Virginia planter George Mason bitterly put it. His dissent, and the Virginia Declaration of Rights he had authored, eventually led to the Bill of Rights, which had been ratified by three-quarters of the states as of 217 years ago today. The 10 amendments spelled out for all time the rights of individuals and the limits of government power. Americans can thank founders such as Mason for insisting on a written guarantee of their rights to speak and worship freely, keep and bear arms, and much, much more. And readers can thank the dutiful local members of the National Society of the Colonial Dames of America for ensuring that Bill of Rights Day always gets its due on The Eagle’s Opinion pages.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- Agnatha on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
139 Comments
Sorry … this is not exactly historically correct. The reason some authors of the U.S. Constitution didn’t want the Bill of Rights attached to the new Constitution was that most of the original states had already included a “bill of rights” in their state constitutions. The big argument at that time was Federalists vs the States Rights people.
FOUNDING FATHER CORNER
Here is another in a series of quote from founding fathers setting out in their own words the importance these inspired men placed on religion and morality in our society. Benjamin Franklin is recognized as one of the least religious of our founding fathers. Yet look what he had to say about the need for prayer and God’s blessing on our country:
“In this situation of this Assembly groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine Protection. — Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance.
I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that “except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall be become a reproach and a bye word down to future age. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.
I therefore beg leave to move — that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business…” – Benjamin Franklin
The popular culture today says that America was founded as a secular nation. That religion was intended to be excluded from public life. The truth is, they are re-writing history and attempting to subvert the place of religion in America.
“The popular culture today says that America was founded as a secular nation. ”
I don’t see that changing. Not to your benefit anyway.
Religion was never to be excluded from public life. Each person’s right to worship (or not) as they choose is one of the tenets of our government — “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” There will be no national religion declared or financially supported.
“the limits of government power”
That stuff is pretty much all out the window.
Outlander that is a well written piece showing the mindset of our founding fathers – even Ben Franklin who was seen by many as the least religious of all.
The liberals in our nation have worked so hard to take anything that could be construed as ‘religious’ out of our culture that they can’t see the harm they have caused. We are reaping those rewards now.
Linda without realizing it has hit the nail on the head. ‘The free exercise thereof’ is the key phrase. We can have ‘gay pride’ participants invade a church and cheapen the taking of communion but people of faith have lost the right to have a religious display in the public square.
Those evil liberals have done nothing but destroy this fine country!
In the words of Bill Clinton: “Give me a break.”
My ancestors established a church later to become Baptist right in Philadelphia in 1687 (the Pennypack Baptist.) They later went on to Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Illinois and yes, Kansas to establish churches.
I would say from my perspective, the way this country was formed, the church (meaning the people) was integral to is development as a government and a nation.
“okobserver” –
If the people want to own and maintain “the public square” outside of government they can build a giant golden Buddha there, no problem.
But as soon as the “public square” takes taxpayers’ dollars for mowing the lawn and clearing the sidewalks of snow… it’s different.
Get it?
Thats right Reg. Society in frontier days revolved around the church. Schools were housed there. Social functions were held there but alas the libs decided how bad the Christians were. So the attacks were started. Today we see some of the results of their efforts.
“Social functions were held there but alas the libs decided how bad the Christians were.”
Why are these “libs” hunted down and put in prison. They sound like criminals to me.
are = aren’t
My point exactly Monkey. It is ok for an invasion of churches to take place but not for Christians to have a place in the public square.
Churches might not pay taxes but I can guarantee you that a lot of church money reaches the community in the form of materials to build new churches, feed the hungry, clothe the poor, house the homeless and so forth and so on..
Spend an evening at The Lords Diner, spend a Saturday morning at His Helping Hands, look at the work done by the churches in our community and then tell me I am wrong.
Calling civil rights “God granted” invites selective interpretation.
By people who CLAIM to know the will of “God”.
As we have seen and quite recently, this works to deny liberties, not establish or encourage them.
FORTUNATELY, I believe we are moving away from such silliness over the long haul.
Still waiting to hear why the libs who want to thwart the good work of the churches aren’t put in prison? They sound like evil people to me.
I think grmie knows the answer, but she is holding out on us. Is that very Christian? And isn’t that holding out contributing to the problem?
Junior writes:
As we have seen and quite recently, this works to deny liberties, not establish or encourage them.
If you are referring to ‘gay marriage’ amendments being defeated recently, this was a will of the people who are both secular and religious.
Legally, the ‘gay amendment’ may fall under equal protection clause, however, I’m not the one to make that call.
It does make one wonder where ‘equal protection’ stops and common sense takes over. What’s next?
StevenEDavis
Posted December 15, 2008 at 9:57 am | Permalink
Still waiting to hear why the libs who want to thwart the good work of the churches aren’t put in prison? They sound like evil people to me.
———————–
Sounds like you need to go home for a good cry Davis.
Looking for a way to be a recognized victim?
Don’t hold your breath.
“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make half the world fools and half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world…” Thomas Jefferson notes on the state of Virginia, and thats one of his more mild attacks on Religion. And it was Franklin who stated that “Lighthouses are more useful than Churches”
“okobserver” –
Here’s homework assignment for you:
Put “Gentleman’s Agreement” on your Netflix queue.
In the meantime, you might click this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentleman%27s_Agreement
It was a pretty controversial film back in 1947.
For all your whining you as a “good Christian” make; for all your rhetoric of alleged “victimization;” for all the bat-blind accusations that somehow your faith in a confabulation of myths, legends, and lies trumps somebody else’s faith in a different confabulation… the simple rule of the Constitution of the United States of America is: nobody’s “god” gets dibs. It’s simply irrelevant to our system of government.
But look at “Gentleman’s Agreement” to see just how subtle and insidious bigotry has been, and is, among your sect (albeit, large) of twice-borns.
Go do your thing, says the Constitution. We won’t even charge you taxes if you simply agree to not impose your theology on the rest of us.
Doesn’t mean you can’t vote or run for office or do whatever it is between noon on Sunday and church time the next Sunday… it just means it doesn’t mean that one hour a week in a pew gets any special favors outside of your hour of worship to Whomever.
Get it?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
As long as that religion is acceptable to Congress.
If Congress decides it is not a valid religion, then
forget it.
Sounds like you need to go home for a good cry Davis.
Looking for a way to be a recognized victim?
Don’t hold your breath.
* * * * *
I am home. I am crying. You’d deny me this?
And, don’t you get it? The Christians are the real victims. They suffer from the tyranny of a large minority.
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Treaty of Tripoli 1797
And readers can thank the dutiful local members of the National Society of the Colonial Dames of America for ensuring that Bill of Rights Day always gets its due on The Eagle’s Opinion pages.
–
Meeeeeooww
Dennis
“Christianity…[has become] the most perverted system that ever shone on man….Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.”
Thomas Jefferson
Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.”
-Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, 1794
“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813
StevenEDavis
Posted December 15, 2008 at 10:18 am | Permalink
Sounds like you need to go home for a good cry Davis.
Looking for a way to be a recognized victim?
Don’t hold your breath.
* * * * *
I am home. I am crying. You’d deny me this?
And, don’t you get it? The Christians are the real victims. They suffer from the tyranny of a large minority
——————————–
Enjoy your victimhood, sounds like you planned for it.
pathetic…
And lets not forget John Adams
“The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?”
“Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it.”
Strangely this “minority” as Steven Davis puts it, which includes the majority of the media and entertainment industry, is in fact, pushing the majority around. It is setting the agenda.
It is doing it stealthfully, incrementally. With words like tolerance and inclusion it pushes concepts and ideas that would have been unheard of a few years ago. And not tolerated. It eliminates the mention of God from copies of documents and revises textbooks to change understood history. In other words historical revisionism.
I, for one, have had enough. And I know that many others have as well. It is time to open our eyes and quit sitting back and letting modern culture substitute lies for reality.
“Grateful_Dave” posted –
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
As long as that religion is acceptable to Congress.
If Congress decides it is not a valid religion, then
forget it.
Ain’t it the truth!
Back in the 80s, the Ethiopian Zionist Coptic Church (a street gang responsible for importing tons of marijuana into Florida) went to court and claimed ganja was their sacrament. “Priests drink wine, we smoke ganja,” was their case.
And, indeed, what is the difference?
I’m either a vile drug dealer on grade school playgrounds selling hallucinogens or I’m a “missionary” for an ancient Indian religion merely distributing peyote buttons to the converted… and covering the costs of my “church.” (You’re not gonna tax my
home“parsonage,” are you?“Why is your wafer and wine, or your grape juice and cube of Wonder Bread more sacred than my symbolic toke of ganja, simply because I believe Haili Salasi was the Second Coming of Christ?” was the Ethiopian Zionist Coptic Church’s argument for trafficking in marijuana. Alas, it didn’t work.
Another “attack against religion,” y’know?
“Enjoy your victimhood, sounds like you planned for it.”
I will. Thank you. Sarcasm appears to be a foreign concept to James McCluer. Why am I not surpised…?
“I, for one, have had enough. And I know that many others have as well. It is time to open our eyes and quit sitting back and letting modern culture substitute lies for reality.”
Me, too. Is it time to take up arms and start killing those evil libs? How dare those bastards mess around with our exclusive right to define “reality”. Let’s string’em up!
You know when I was in college, many years ago, a Republican History Professor (I know, a rare person) once told me that historical revisionism was the business of historians. Maybe we should have his GOP card revoked?
Whatever are you whining about Steven Davis?
Man up, will ya…you are sounding whiny.
As has been previously pointed out, dueling quotations out of context from colonial figures proves nothing in particular (though, as much as I admire Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, and George Mason are all far more relevant).
I don’t recall the Franklin quote in question, but I have no interest in refuting it. Of course, Franklin had a much more subtle view of religion than Outie is implying, and did not believe in theocracy.
For instance, from his autobiography:
When he found I would leave him, he took care to prevent my getting employment in any other printing-house of the town, by going round and speaking to every master, who accordingly refus’d to give me work. I then thought of going to New York, as the nearest place where there was a printer; and I was rather inclin’d to leave Boston when I reflected that I had already made myself a little obnoxious to the governing party, and, from the arbitrary proceedings of the Assembly in my brother’s case, it was likely I might, if I stay’d, soon bring myself into scrapes; and farther, that my indiscrete disputations about religion began to make me pointed at with horror by good people as an infidel or atheist.
http://books.eserver.org/nonfiction/franklin/bf1.html
In the appendix of that autobiography, it was mentioned that, very late in life (as I recall, at one the Constitutional working sessions in Philadelphia), he suggested opening with a prayer. The suggestion was not taken.
Indeed, historians generally look to the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (authored by Jefferson with significant input by George Mason), as the early precursor to our First Amendment. It is not at all friendly to the revisionist view of modern dominionists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom
Thank God!
We still have the 2nd amendment.
Free speech, freedom FROM religion, right to a speedy trial, right to privacy?
Yeah. Not so much . . .
“I, for one, have had enough. And I know that many others have as well. ”
I laugh in your general direction.
And steel myself to fight you and yours. I’m figuring “God” is gonna do a no show.
Can’t you just imagine how god feels about having his image displayed all around, having his name on money… Makes me wonder about graven images, and no other gods before me.
In the words of Bill Clinton: “Give me a break.”
Doesn’t that depend upon the meaning of the word, “break”?
It was as I thought: Outie’s quote was from the very motion to which I referred, which failed.
http://books.google.com/books?id=PQvHLli2toAC&pg=PA209&lpg=PA209&dq=%22I+have+lived,+Sir,+a+long+time+and+the+longer+I+live,+the+more+convincing+proofs+I+see+of+this+truth+%E2%80%94+that+God+governs+in+the+affairs+of+men&source=web&ots=7GRsobZEkh&sig=a-THCB1U8qWVS0D7YQw2cW1FwLU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA211,M1
Criminee:
For all the bitching and whining, you would think we live somewhere other than where we do.
The fact of the matter is, the Bill of Rights is quite alive and well, thank you. There is no place on earth where speech is more protected, where debate for its own sake is more valued, and where persons of all faiths are more free to worship as they choose.
There is no place on earth where citizens are more “secure in their houses, persons, papers, and effects.” There are few other places on earth where citizens can take on the state, and have a realistic chance, if the facts so fit, to win. There are few places where independent courts really are, for the most part, independent courts.
Yes, there are disagreements about the application of those rights to particular circumstances. Yes, there are times where we don’t always live up to the ideal, and we should never be satisfied with “good enough.” Police and the State should always have their feet held to the fire; in the criminal realm, that is the role of defense counsel, and they truly are in that sense defenders of the Bill of Rights, ensuring that the State, in its zeal to protect its citizens, does not deprive its citizens of their rights.
And for all our complaining about the “bias” of the press (and each side sees that bias differently), the press is free to write what it chooses; I’ll take a biased free press over a controlled one any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.
Even as we debate and discuss the reach and limits of our rights (which is entirely proper), we should never forget that what we agree on is far greater than what separates us. The very idea that gov’t has limits imposed on it by a citizenry with inherent rights (whether you believe those rights are God given or come from our inherent humanity) is a concept foreign to much of the world, yes, even in much of what we think of as the western democracies. In much of the world, rights exist, if at all, at the pleasure of the State.
So even as we debate and discuss the state of our rights, we should never forget that that very discussion is a reflection of the freedoms we too often take for granted.
GMC, while I don’t disagree with any of that, I still keep in mind the line attributed to Jefferson about “eternal vigilance.”
And, hoo boy, recent years have called for it.
lindainks55
Posted December 15, 2008 at 11:07 am | Permalink
Can’t you just imagine how god feels about having his image displayed all around, having his name on money… Makes me wonder about graven images, and no other gods before me.
——————
Linda I have to wonder why you are imagining how a God you say doesn’t exist feels about anything. Also why would this God you say doesn’t exist even care about graven images and other gods before him.
You and Steven are in the outer limits today it seems.
Linda I have to wonder why you are imagining how a God you say doesn’t exist feels about anything.
Leaving aside the howling illogic of that statement, when did Linda say that God doesn’t exist?
Rage she says it frequently and the way she spells Gods name tells me even more.
Rage she says it frequently and the way she spells Gods name tells me even more.
I haven’t seen it even once, but even if she’s an atheist, that doesn’t make your little snit any more relevant.
It’s quite possible to consider, logically, what a Christian god might think or do, without necessarily believing in the concept personally.
Rage is I were to say that the Easter bunny would be disappointed in something when I don’t believe there is an Easter bunny what would my words mean?
Pardon me if it sounded snitty but I think it is a little funny when people who say our faith in Christ is crazy then try to take us to task for what that Christ would think.
Amazing how duh lib re-invent history.
Everything was fine since 1776. When the 60s came out and seculars came on the scene, then suddenly the history starts to look different.
Nothing is broken, nothing is wrong, let’s not fix it.
when I don’t believe there is an Easter bunny
WTF ARE YOU SAYING!!!??? Of course there is an easter bunny. Who do you think hides the eggs? Next thing you’ll be doubting the tooth fairy!!!
Pardon me if it sounded snitty but I think it is a little funny when people who say our faith in Christ is crazy then try to take us to task for what that Christ would think.
I’m not aware of any religious doctrines coming from the Easter Bunny.
But many people (including millions who support neutral government) look to their faith in determining the proper role of government.
Jehovah’s Witnesses objected to having their children forced to salute the American flag in school, because it was a “graven image.” It took two Supreme Court decisions (one reversing the first!) to get the school board to finally back off.
This is why government should stay out of the religion business, and also, I think, Linda’s point.
okobserver, Jesus and God unlike the Easter bunny have a body of work that documents their beliefs and opinions. And you don’t have to follow and believe what the Bible says to read it, one can also read the Koran, Bagavagita, Mein Kampf and not believe want they proclaim either
Rage, its not just the JW’s, Mennonites and Quakers wont say the pledge of allegiance either I’m sure other sects have similar tenets. In fact the Mennonite college(Bethel I think??) in Salina forfeits state money because they wont display the flag on Campus
Regular
Posted December 15, 2008 at 10:43 am | Permalink
Whatever are you whining about Steven Davis?
Man up, will ya…you are sounding whiny.
* * * * *
You silly rabbit, I am ridiculing people like you. It is something I enjoy. Very much, actually.
“You and Steven are in the outer limits today it seems.”
* * * * *
I remember and very much liked the old television program The Outer Limits. I am quite glad to be there. Your posts remind me of that every day. And, for that, I sincerely thank you!
Nothing is broken, nothing is wrong, let’s not fix it.
One thing that was anything but perfect was the failure of the Madison’s amendment that would apply the Bill of Rights to the states.
It took a civil war, and decades of judicial arguments before that happened, under the so-called “incorporation” doctrine.
I find the pretense that arguments over church and state started with 60s secularists as amusing as it is wrong.
The case involving the Jehovah’s Witnesses was decided in 1943.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette
“In fact the Mennonite college(Bethel I think??) in Salina forfeits state money because they wont display the flag on Campus.”
* * * * *
Actually the flag controversy is concerned with Hesston College, which is a 2 year Mennonite school located in Hesston, KS.
http://www.hesstonrecord.com/web/isite.dll?1021495578652
Also, I am not aware that Mennonites have any prohibition against saying the flag salute. Some of the more liberal Mennonites tend to see themselves as “citizens of the world” it seems to me. Their tradition of missionary work is pretty impressive.
TomPaine
Posted December 15, 2008 at 12:18 pm | Permalink
okobserver, Jesus and God unlike the Easter bunny have a body of work that documents their beliefs and opinions. And you don’t have to follow and believe what the Bible says to read it, one can also read the Koran, Bagavagita, Mein Kampf and not believe want they proclaim either
————————-
You who have tried to explain what Linda meant have totally discounted her words.
————–
“lindainks55
Posted December 15, 2008 at 11:07 am | Permalink
Can’t you just imagine how god feels about having his image displayed all around, having his name on money… Makes me wonder about graven images, and no other gods before me.”
_____________________
She either believes there a God and therefore he can accept or be disappointed in what his people do or she doesn’t believe there is a superior being.
If the former then she would know the answers without wondering – if the latter she is trying to use her unbelief as a weapon over the head of believers.
Can’t have it both ways.
Steven always happy to be of service for your amusement. I have found lately though that your post have little substance. You whine a lot, pat yourself on the back a lot, try to explan what your fellow libs mean in their posts but give no original thoughts.
In other words you seem to be in a slump.
Mennonites like Quakers dont swear oaths
You silly rabbit, I am ridiculing people like you. It is something I enjoy. Very much, actually.
You are a caricature of Liberals Davis – a sweater and hush puppy wearing caricature.
Pseudo intellectual adventures that you smith out, end up going no where.
“You are a caricature of Liberals Davis – a sweater and hush puppy wearing caricature.”
* * * * *
How do you know about my wardrobe? Have you been spying on me?
“You whine a lot, pat yourself on the back a lot, try to explan what your fellow libs mean in their posts but give no original thoughts.
“In other words you seem to be in a slump.”
* * * * *
No original thoughts??? In a slump??? You just deeply hurt me, Germ. I think I really will go cry now…
#
StevenEDavis
Posted December 15, 2008 at 1:04 pm | Permalink
“You are a caricature of Liberals Davis – a sweater and hush puppy wearing caricature.”
* * * * *
How do you know about my wardrobe? Have you been spying on me?
“You whine a lot, pat yourself on the back a lot, try to explan what your fellow libs mean in their posts but give no original thoughts.
“In other words you seem to be in a slump.”
* * * * *
No original thoughts??? In a slump??? You just deeply hurt me, Germ. I think I really will go cry now…
——————
I have never seen you utter an original thought. It’s the same old mantra regurgitated and then lapped up to regurgitate on another occasion.
Most of the Mennonites I know at Hesston would trample each other to be first in line to say the Pledge of Allegience.
A few of the intelligensia remember why their forefathers and mothers died rather than fight in the latest war, but most them just finesse the issue with the hypocritical, “I won’t fight, but I’ll support the gov’t that does.”
Not so at Bethel. North Newton people are a different branch and haven’t been so fully sucked into Prairie CONservatism.
OkO and Reguliar–
When Bush abruptly reversed his opinion on Global Climate change, was he wrong before or after he changed his position?
And doesn’t that mean that you must have been wrong when you used to agree with him?
Global Climate Change does not equal man-made climate change.
Remember that Crapn…
“Happy Bill of Rights Day”
Bah, humbug!
Signed,
Dick Cheney
Linda I have to wonder why you are imagining how a God you say doesn’t exist feels about anything. Also why would this God you say doesn’t exist even care about graven images and other gods before him.
———————————————
“Suppose that I were to argue: “I believe God exists, therefore He exists.” What’s wrong with the argument? Such an argument is specious, irrational, and rather silly. I think you would be right. Putting it into a syllogism, you would see the unstated premise is the problem.
Argument (A)
Premise 1: I believe God exists.
(Unstated) Premise 2: What I believe exists must exist in actuality.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
Now, suppose I were to argue “I don’t believe God exists, therefore He doesn’t exist.” Am I being any less specious, irrational, or silly? Of course not, because the middle term remains in only slightly unaltered form.
Argument (B)
Premise 1: I don’t believe God exists.
(Unstated) Premise 2: What I believe doesn’t exist must not exist in actuality.
Conclusion: Therefore, God doesn’t exist.
Now, suppose that I were to expand it to say that the fact that some people don’t believe means that God doesn’t exist. Obviously, the middle unstated term is altered again, somewhat slightly, but the same flaw in the argument remains.
Argument (C)
Premise 1: Some people don’t believe God exists.
(Unstated) Premise 2: What some people believe doesn’t exist must not exist in actuality.
Conclusion: Therefore, God doesn’t exist.”
William Kesatie
Dr. Drange’s phrasing of the Argument from Non-Belief (ANB) is set forth in his essay as follows:
To formulate ANB, I put first forward these two definitions:
Set P = the following three propositions:
(a) There exists a being who rules the entire universe.
(b) That being loves humanity.
(c) Humanity has been provided with an afterlife.
Situation S = the situation of all, or almost all, humans coming to believe all three propositions of set P by the time of their physical death.
Using the above definitions, ANB may be expressed as follows:
(A) If God were [sic] to exist, then he would possess all of the following four properties (among others):
(1) being able to bring about situation S, all things considered;
(2) wanting to bring about situation S, i.e., having it among his desires;
(3) not wanting anything else that conflicts with his desire to bring about situation S as strongly as it;
(4) being rational (which implies always acting in accord with his own highest purposes).
(B) If a being who has all four properties listed above were to exist, then situation S would have to obtain.
(C) But situation S does not obtain. It is not the case that all, or almost all, humans have come to believe all the propositions of set P by the time of their physical death.
(D) Therefore [from (B) & (C)], there does not exist a being who has all four properties listed in premise (A).
(E) Hence [from (A) & (D)], God does not exist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxAB8su_Q74
“Down, Oppressor Man”
Andrew Tosh Reggae Version
Down, Opressor Man
Where you going to run to?
Down, Opressor Man
Where you going to run to?
Down, Opressor Man
Where you going to run to?
All along that day.
You can run to the water
But the sea will be a-boiling
Repeat
All along that day.
You can run to the rock
But the rock will be a-melting
Repeat
All along that day.
I wouldn’t like to be a flea
Under your collar.
Reapeat
All along that day.
When Bush abruptly reversed his opinion on Global Climate change, was he wrong before or after he changed his position?
Who really cares? And it is laughable that when the temps drop, you alarmists call is “Climate Change” instead of “Global Warming”.
GMC, while I don’t disagree with any of that, I still keep in mind the line attributed to Jefferson about “eternal vigilance.”
Yup. Never argued otherwise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4nF-BTclRM&NR=1
Better version.
Sol–
The question was addressed to the Bush ass-kissers.
I just wondered if they believe they were wrong when they believed Bush before or after he changed his position 180 degrees.
“If God were [sic] to exist . . . ”
Actually, this is correct.
It’s called the subjunctive mood, used for statements contrary to fact or of a hypothetical nature.
Who really cares? And it is laughable that when the temps drop, you alarmists call is “Climate Change” instead of “Global Warming”.
Do you enjoy just making shit up?
“If a being who has all four properties listed above were to exist, then situation S would have to obtain.”
RoaCH’s argument breaks down here.
Assuming an omnipotent God, goodness could be decreed. But then human-kind would have no free will and could not choose the good by their own volition. They would be like angels who are incapable of anything but goodness and doing God’s will.
Do you enjoy just making shit up?
I’m not the one trying to sell the global warming farce. So ask yourself, is it fun making shit up? CO2… LMFAO. 3% – laughing even harder. Do change your undies frequently. Pissing in them all day fretting over the imagined will raise quite the odor.
Rage–
Yes, he does.
He’s got one graph from Duke University of questionable provenance purporting to show that the “troposphere” is cooling for about 8 years.
Ignore the fact that this is flies in the face of every other measure of temperature such as ocean, land, and observed temps . . .
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/27/global_warming_deniers/
The science isn’t settled — it’s unsettling, and getting more so every year as the scientific community learns more about the catastrophic consequences of uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions.
The big difference I have with the doubters is they believe the IPCC reports seriously overstate the impact of human emissions on the climate, whereas the actual observed climate data clearly show the reports dramatically understate the impact.
. . . .
In fact, science doesn’t work by consensus of opinion. Science is in many respects the exact opposite of decision by consensus. General opinion at one point might have been that the sun goes around the Earth, or that time was an absolute quantity, but scientific theory supported by observations overturned that flawed worldview.
. . . .
For instance, in April 2005, one of the nation’s top climate scientists, NASA’s James Hansen, led a team of scientists that made “precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years,” which revealed that the Earth is absorbing far more heat than it is emitting to space, confirming what earlier computer models had shown about warming. Hansen called this energy imbalance the “smoking gun” of climate change, and said, “There can no longer be genuine doubt that human-made gases are the dominant cause of observed warming.”
Another 2005 study, led by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, compared actual ocean temperature data from the surface down to hundreds of meters (in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans) with climate models and concluded:
A warming signal has penetrated into the world’s oceans over the past 40 years. The signal is complex, with a vertical structure that varies widely by ocean; it cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability or solar and volcanic forcing, but is well simulated by two anthropogenically [human-caused] forced climate models. We conclude that it is of human origin, a conclusion robust to observational sampling and model differences.
Such studies are also done for many other observations: land-based temperature rise, atmospheric temperature rise, sea level rise, arctic ice melt, inland glacier melt, Greeland and Antarctic ice sheet melt, expansion of the tropics (desertification) and changes in precipitation. Studies compare every testable prediction from climate change theory and models (and suggested by paleoclimate research) to actual observations.
How many studies? Well, the IPCC’s definitive treatment of the subject, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change,” has 11 full pages of references, some 500 peer-reviewed studies. This is not a consensus of opinion. It is what scientific research and actual observations reveal.
Much more at link showing how idiotic you have to be to ignore the scientific data for LimbaughLies.
Bottom Line
Both of the satellite data sources, as well as Had-Crut, show worldwide temperatures falling below the IPCC estimates. Satellite data shows temperatures near or below the 30 year average – but NASA data has somehow managed to stay on track towards climate Armageddon. You can draw your own conclusions, but I see a pattern that is troublesome. In science, as with any other endeavour, it is always a good idea to have some separation between the people generating the data and the people interpreting it.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/
One clue we can see is that NASA has been reworking recent temperatures upwards and older temperatures downwards – which creates a greater slope and the appearance of warming. Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre has been tracking the changes closely on his Climate Audit site, and reports that NASA is Rewriting History, Time and Time Again. The recent changes can be seen by comparing the NASA 1999 and 2007 US temperature graphs. Below is the 1999 version, and below that is the reworked 2007 version.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/
The deniers are simply wrong when they claim that the IPCC has overestimated either current or future warming impacts. As many other recent observations reveal, the IPCC has been underestimating those impacts.
*Since 2000, carbon dioxide emissions have grown faster than any IPCC model had projected.
*The temperature rise from 1990 to 2005 — 0.33°C — was “near the top end of the range” of IPCC climate model predictions.
*”The recent [Arctic] sea-ice retreat is larger than in any of the (19) IPCC [climate] models” — and that was a Norwegian expert in 2005. Since then, the Arctic retreat has stunned scientists by accelerating, losing an area equal to Texas and California just last summer.
*”The unexpectedly rapid expansion of the tropical belt constitutes yet another signal that climate change is occurring sooner than expected,” noted one climate researcher in December.
This last point, though little remarked on in the media, should be as worrisome as the unexpectedly rapid melting of the ice sheets. As a recent study led by NOAA noted, “A poleward expansion of the tropics is likely to bring even drier conditions to” the U.S. Southwest, Mexico, Australia and parts of Africa and South America. Also: “An increase in the width of the tropics could bring an increase in the area affected by tropical storms.” And finally: “An expansion of tropical pathogens and their insect vectors is almost certainly sure to follow the expansion of tropical zones.”
Why are recent observations on the high side of model projections? First, as noted, most climate models used by the IPCC omit key amplifying feedbacks in the carbon cycle. Second, it was widely thought that increased human carbon dioxide emissions would be partly offset by more trees and other vegetation. But increases in droughts and wildfires — both predicted by global warming theory — seem to have negated that. Third, the ocean — one of the largest sinks for carbon dioxide — seems to be saturating decades earlier than the models had projected.
The result, as a number of studies have shown, is that the sensitivity of the world’s climate to human emissions of greenhouse gases is no doubt much higher than the sensitivity used in most IPCC models. NASA’s Hansen argued in a paper last year that the climate ultimately has twice the sensitivity used in IPCC models.
The bottom line is that recent observations and research make clear the planet almost certainly faces a greater and more imminent threat than is laid out in the IPCC reports. That’s why climate scientists are so desperate. That’s why they keep begging for immediate action. And that’s why the “consensus on global warming” is a phrase that should be forever retired from the climate debate.
I see that the Crapn is in full arm flailing mode.
What you gonna do Crapn implement Carbon taxes?
Yeah, that’s a wise thing to do.
Perhaps we can fund more seal testicles studies.
angels who are incapable of anything but goodness and doing God’s will
———————————————-
I disagree that the deity can decree goodness.
And don’t forget Lucifer and 1/3 the angel population. Still, not enough to overcome the 51% democrat majority.
Okie,
“The liberals in our nation have worked so hard to take anything that could be construed as ‘religious’ out of our culture that they can’t see the harm they have caused. We are reaping those rewards now.”
I beg your pardon, but we have done nothing to keep you from practicing your religion; we just don’t want our tax money going to proselytize your particular religious views to our children, especially when your views are hateful toward other religions and groups. We also don’t want your particular religious beliefs inscribed in the laws which govern all citizens, not just christians. None of this keeps you from practicing your religion or expressing your beliefs, it just keeps you from using the government to force or coerce the rest of us into accepting your faith. You do that quite adequately on your own!
This country was not founded as a theocracy and despite your many attempts to turn it into one, it still isn’t! If you can’t live within our Constitution there are plenty of other places in the world. So pool all those billions you’ve collected, go buy a country of your own and ban anything you want!
outlander,
Do you think that Benjamin Franklin would approve of the obvious lies from Sen. Inhofe (R-Oil), Dennis Avery, and other AGW deniers?
Reguliar–
Were you wrong to believe Bush when he was in full Global Climate Change Denying mode?
Or were you wrong to believe Bush now that he has embraced it?
we just don’t want our tax money going to proselytize your particular religious views to our children, especially when your views are hateful toward other religions and groups.
———————————-
Then let’s stop funding public education. Biggest religion in America.
———————————-
We also don’t want your particular religious beliefs inscribed in the laws which govern all citizens, not just christians.
——————————————–
Damn straight! End the tax break for Married.
End all tax breaks or entitlements based upon marital status.
——————————————–
Hey Cosmos. What would Al Gore think of you beating your cats?
Health Insurance: Cost should not be based upon marital status. For coverage beyond the sponsor, provide insurance based upon number of dependents and other criteria as they do now. Not based upon marriage.
Let me ensure anyone I want if I qualify for a policy. I’ll pay for those I want ensured.
darn! insure.
Scientists abandon global warming ‘lie’
Here are some choice excerpts from the report:
* “I am a skeptic … . Global warming has become a new religion.” — Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
* “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly … . As a scientist I remain skeptical.” — Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
* Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history … . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” — U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.
* “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds … . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” — Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.
* “The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” — Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
* “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” — U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
* “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” — Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.
* “After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” — Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.
* “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” — Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
* “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp … . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” — Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.
* “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” — Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.
* “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense … . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” — Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
* “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another … . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so … . Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” — Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
* “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” — Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.
I took a look at your article, Sollie.
Actually, the author is wrong. There’s not that much difference between the two graphs.
The UK graph shows a -.5 C in 1910 and a +.4 C in 2006. That’s 9/10ths of a degree difference.
Then the article claims, wrongly, that “By contrast, NASA data shows worldwide temperatures increasing at a record pace – and nearly a full degree warmer . . . ”
Uh, no. The NASA graph shows -.35 in 1910 and a +.55 in 2006. That’s 9/10ths of a degree difference.
Sorry, Charley. Stick to writing and leave the science to the scientists . . .
and nearly a full degree warmer . . . ”
That’s 9/10ths of a degree difference.
Uh… yeah… I see your point.
::Eye roll::
SolDevVB,
The temperature anomaly data sets use different base periods. You have to adjust for those different base periods BEFORE comparing them to each other.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/whats-up-with-that/
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/4way.jpg
And the 2007/2008 period had a strong La Nina, which caused cooling.
Here is a pretty demonstrative graph. Looks like we are about where we were 30 years ago.
http://www.globalwarming.org/node/2754
What is really unbelievable is that the Global Warming Deniers claim that global warming scientists are making “big money” on their claims . . .
WTF?
The Goliaths of Big Oil and Big Coal and Big Plastic and Big Chemical claims that the tiny take of academic and government researchers are driving the sciences because of their greed.
Yeah. That climate scientist might make associate professor next year and increase his salary to a whopping 65 K. Plus the glamour a part-time research assistant.
Unbelievable.
it’s fuckin cold boys…Cosmos, dip your tea bag outside and see what happens…I’m guessing your graph will be shrinking.
Uh… yeah… I see your point.
::Eye roll::
Sol–
That IS exactly my point. The graphs showed exactly the same change. THE ARTICLE claimed they were different.
“Nearly a full degree” IS 9/10ths of a degree . . . which is what both graphs were showing over the same time.
“We also don’t want your particular religious beliefs inscribed in the laws which govern all citizens, not just christians. None of this keeps you from practicing your religion”
-Jed
A moral code is the basis for the laws which govern all citizens. Christianity is the basis for that moral code for many Americans. Our government was intented to be “For the People”.. Not “For the minority”.
If a majority of Americans believe a law should be a certain way, it should be a certain way whether that belief is religiously derived or not.
Christianity is in favor of outlawing murder and stealing. According to Jed’s desire to strip all religious influence from public policy, that means that a Christian has no right to support laws against murder and stealing because those laws are synonomous with his religious views.
Only a person who has no religious belief whatsoever can support laws against murder and stealing because then it is impossible for that person to be trying to push his religous beliefs on other people since he has no religion whatsoever.
Thus, Jed wants to alienate religious people (A strong majority of Americans) from having influence in the law making process because their beliefs are “tainted” with religious bias, and that is unnacceptable in his view.
Such a policy is NOT religion neutral, it is anti-religion and is at conflict with the idea of the “seperation of church and state”.
That climate scientist might make associate professor next year and increase his salary to a whopping 65 K.
=========
Yeah, I know that’s not much to you Capn’A, so where’s my 33%?
outlander,
Do you believe that the scientists on Inhofe’s and Avery’s lists were lying, when they said that Inhofe and Avery misrepresented their science and opinions?
How does that work? The scientists that AGW deniers cite to support their denial are liars?
I am glad we are relying on associate professors these days.
Let the record show that ReguLIAR has not the courage to disagree with WorstPresidentEver even when he clearly cannot agree with him.
Moral cowardice = CONservative.
CapnAmerica
Posted December 15, 2008 at 2:41 pm | Permalink
Let the record show that ReguLIAR has not the courage to disagree with WorstPresidentEver even when he clearly cannot agree with him.
====================
You must be retarded.
Any way I am back to work. Peace out ya’ll
2 Universities get multi-million dollar grants to study impact of cow flatulents
canadafreepress dot com/index.php/article/4064
Nineteen million dollars since 1990 is a lot of money – until it is compared to the whooping $50 billion that has fed the man-caused global warming hysteria. You read it correctly, that is $50 billion.
defendersdotorg/newsroom/press_releases_folder/2008/06_11_2008_house_pulls_for_more_funds_for_refuges.php
U.S. Funds Nearly $4 Billion in Climate-Change Research
businessandmedia dot org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice_climchange.asp
Yeah. no money there at all.
That blistering global warming…
http://www.globalwarming.org/node/2754
SolDevVB posted December 15, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Scientists abandon global warming ‘lie’
——————-
‘Inhofe recycles long-debunked denier talking points — will the media be fooled (again)?‘
http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/11/inhofe-morano-recycles-long-debunked-denier-talking-points-will-the-media-be-fooled-again/
SolDevVB posted December 15, 2008 at 2:51 pm
That blistering global warming…
————
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif
Of course, after the alarmists artificially lowered the world’s average temperature, there was global warming.
The accepted average was too high for the alarmist to make fit into their agenda.
LOL, yeah, NASA and Hansen. Still phucking with the numbers isn’t he? How many times has he been caught? Why is he so afraid to expose his algorithms? Why didn’t he use a modern language for his computations?
You do know the Gore/Hansen connection right?
Owah
Tafoo
Liam.
Keep saying it to yourself cosmos, you’ll catch on one day…
Cherry picking
A second important issue with NASA’s presentation is that they use the time period of 1951-1980 as their choice of baseline. This was a well known cold spell, as can be seen in the 1999 version (giss dot nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/fig1x.gif) of the NASA US temperature graph below.
NASA US Temperature Map August, 1999. Note the cooling trend since 1930, and particularly between 1951 and 1980.
Temperatures dropped enough during that period to trigger concern about the onset of an ice age (time dot com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html). Newsweek magazine went so far as to mention a proposed “solution” of spreading soot (denisdutton dot com/cooling_world.htm) in the Arctic to melt the polar ice caps. 1978 was the coldest winter on record ( sws.uiuc dot edu/atmos/statecli/Winter/coldhard.htm) in much of North America. By using a cold baseline, all recent temperatures become relatively warm – which causes the NASA maps to be covered with lots of hot red and brown colors. From looking at the NASA map above, one could easily believe that that the earth is having a meltdown. By contrast, the UAH map makes most of the earth look quite cool.
When we look at the temperature data for Alaska, the disparity is again quite striking.
The NASA temperature map for March above shows Alaska temperatures much above “normal”, while the UAH map shows Alaska temperatures well below “normal”. This is partially due to the fact that the 1951-1980 NASA baseline period was unusually cold in Alaska - due to the cold phase of a dominant ocean cycle, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (atmos.washington dot edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/PDO_egec.htm) (PDO), as shown below. The graph below indicates variations in Pacific temperatures, showing a cold period from 1950-1980 which exactly matches NASA’s baseline period.
“I haven’t seen it even once…” — Rage
—–
I’ve never said it even once! Never in my life have I or will I ever say god doesn’t exist.
For October, the GISS metric is showing the hottest October on record, nearly 0.8C hotter than it was 40 years ago in 1978 (from here).
However, the satellites are showing no such thing, showing a much cooler October, and a far smaller warming trend over the last 40 years (from here)
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/11/this-is-getting-absurd.html
I sent a query to Dr. John Christy, curator of the UAH global temperature anomaly dataset, inquiring about some of the changes in the RSS dataset. In addition to commenting on that, he was also kind enough to send along an advance copy of the soon to be posted UAH data for October, which you can see here.
Here is the plot, not much change, essentially steady up .006°C to 0.167°C from 0.161°C
Click for a larger image
Dr. Christy also writes about the RSS data set and it’s recent revise from Version 3.1 to 3.2:
Anthony:
As our last several papers show, we find considerable evidence that our
current procedure better represents the temperature variations than does
RSS’s, particularly in the 1990 period where we show RSS displays a
relative warming to every other independent dataset we’ve studied.
The Oct numbers have been run but not yet mounted on the website. I hope
to do that tomorrow. Globally, Oct almost the same as Sep.
John C.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/09/uah-for-october-sneak-peek/
You must be retarded.
*****
Okay, until you post something worth reading (which based on past experience will be never), you’re back on ignore, ANTI.
Have a nice day,
CapnA
To the Global Warming Deniers–
Do you also believe that smog doesn’t hurt people’s health? That sulphur dioxide doesn’t form with water vapor to make acid rain? That excess CO2 doesn’t combine with sea-water to drop ph and kill coral reefs? That the cod fisheries off of New England weren’t overfished and collapsed? That leaded gasoline and paint haven’t poisoned millions of American kids over the decades? That Hg from burning coal doesn’t spew into the atmosphere and ride up the food chain? That bringing the bald eagle and the American bison back from the brink of extinction was unimportant?
Do you disbelieve all environmental science or just global warming?
The context
GLOBALLY-AVERAGED land and sea surface absolute temperature TS has not risen since 1998 (Hadley Center; US National Climatic Data Center; University of Alabama at Huntsville; etc.). For almost seven years, TS may even have fallen (Figure 1). There may be no new peak until 2015 (Keenlysideet al., 2008).
The models heavily relied upon by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had not projected this multidecadal stasis in “global warming”; nor (until trained ex post facto) the fall in TS from 1940-1975; nor 50 years’ cooling in Antarctica (Doran et al., 2002) and the Arctic (Soon, 2005); nor the absence of ocean warming since 2003 (Lyman et al., 2006; Gouretski&Koltermann, 2007); nor the onset, duration, or intensity of the Madden-Julian intraseasonal oscillation, the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation in the tropical stratosphere, El Nino/La Nina oscillations, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation that has recently transited from its warming to its cooling phase (oceanic oscillations which, on their own, may account for all of the observed warmings and coolings over the past half-century: Tsoniset al., 2007); nor the magnitude nor duration of multi-century events such as the Mediaeval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age; nor the cessation since 2000 of the previously-observed growth in atmospheric methane concentration (IPCC, 2007); nor the active 2004 hurricane season; nor the inactive subsequent seasons; nor the UK flooding of 2007 (the Met Office had forecast a summer of prolonged droughts only six weeks previously); nor the solar Grand Maximum of the past 70 years, during which the Sun was more active, for longer, than at almost any similar period in the past 11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004; Solankiet al., 2005); nor the consequent surface “global warming” on Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and even distant Pluto; nor the eerily- continuing 2006 solar minimum; nor the consequent, precipitate decline of ~0.8 °C in TS from January 2007 to May 2008 that has canceled out almost all of the observed warming of the 20th century.
Figure 1
Mean global surface temperature anomalies (°C), 2001-2008
Since the phase-transition in mean global surface temperature late in 2001, a pronounced downtrend has set in. In the cold winter of 2007/8, record sea-ice extents were observed at both Poles. The January-to-January fall in temperature from 2007-2008 was the greatest since global records began in 1880. Data sources: Hadley Center monthly combined land and sea surface temperature anomalies; University of Alabama at Huntsville Microwave Sounding Unit monthly lower-troposphere anomalies; Linear regressions – – – – – – –
An early projection of the trend in TS in response to “global warming” was that of Hansen (1988), amplifying Hansen (1984) on quantification of climate sensitivity. In 1988, Hansen showed Congress a graph projecting rapid increases in TS to 2020 through “global warming” (Fig. 2):
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
Do you also believe that smog doesn’t hurt people’s health? That sulphur dioxide doesn’t form with water vapor to make acid rain? That excess CO2 doesn’t combine with sea-water to drop ph and kill coral reefs? …
But. But. But. Global WARMING !!!!!
’ve never said it even once! Never in my life have I or will I ever say god doesn’t exist.
So okobserver was creating her own reality, as usual.
“So okobserver was creating her own reality, as usual.” — Rage
—-
As always, one must consider the source.
“I’ve never said it even once! Never in my life have I or will I ever say god doesn’t exist.”
Since Linda brought up the Biblical reference to the commandment against worshipping graven images as a means to say that God wouldn’t like to see his name on coinage, then you are referring to a specific God. Therefore, it is not consistent to refer to this God with a lowercase G. The God of the Bible is one monotheistic God. Good grammar means you capitalize proper nouns.
Capitalizing the “G” does not mean that you believe that God exists or that you agree with him. Just proper grammatical convention since in this case, you are referring to one specific proper noun.
Note: Linda captializes the word “I” in her typing so she intentionally does not capitalize the word God. Has she ever explained why she does this?
Thanks for pointing out my errors, RFL. I won’t return the favor. If you should ever make any error in any of your posts and I would notice it, I would just keep on reading for content. If you plan to point out all my errors, you’ll be busy! I probably make one and sometimes more in each post.
SolDevVB posted December 15, 2008 at 3:08 pm
LOL, yeah, NASA and Hansen. Still phucking with the numbers isn’t he? How many times has he been caught? Why is he so afraid to expose his algorithms? Why didn’t he use a modern language for his computations?
————————
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/whats-up-with-that/
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/4way.jpg
And the 2007/2008 period had a strong La Nina, which caused cooling.
Uh . . . . .while it might be an interesting exercise in free speech, this is not the AGW thread . . . . criminee – does this mindless, pointless tit-for-tat EVER end?
Rage
Posted December 15, 2008 at 3:32 pm | Permalink
’ve never said it even once! Never in my life have I or will I ever say god doesn’t exist.
So okobserver was creating her own reality, as usual.
————————
I love when Linda gets self righteous. Even when I pointed out to her that she wasn’t typing the name right she did it again over and over. So lie to yourself Linda but don’t expect that to convince those who read your posts.
‘I never ever had sex with that woman, not once.’
No one believed him either.
Linda,
My intention was not to point out any errors.
I thought you had a thought provoking reason for wny you consistently do not capitalize God. I was giving you too much credit. Sorry!
GMC70,
Cos is just doing his job. He’s a high priest in the religion of AGW.
GMC70 posted December 15, 2008 at 4:38 pm
does this mindless, pointless tit-for-tat EVER end?
———————–
Not as long as people like Sen. Inhofe (R-Oil), Dennis Avery, Monckton, et al keep spreading falsehoods. And fools continue to believe those falsehoods.
‘Monckton’s triple counting‘
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/moncktons_triple_counting.php
“RFL” comes up with –
A moral code is the basis for the laws which govern all citizens. Christianity is the basis for that moral code for many Americans. Our government was intented to be “For the People”.. Not “For the minority”.
Nor was it “intented” to be for the majority.
Those certain rights… bestowed by God, allegedly (although how owning a manufactured device seems a little below “God’s” pay level), apply to majorities, pluralities, minorities and everybody under our system of government.
Nobody’s “god” gets dibs.
“If a majority of Americans believe a law should be a certain way, it should be a certain way whether that belief is religiously derived or not.”
Nope.
Doesn’t work that way.
If the Episcopalians came up with a proposition that demanded communion include real wine, they couldn’t force it upon grape juice Baptists.
And just because there are more Baptists who, by faith, shun alcohol, they can’t lord over Roman Catholics who do the ritual, y’know, the way it’s literally written in the Bible.
Give me a break, “RFL.” Especially for this –
“Christianity is in favor of outlawing murder and stealing. According to Jed’s desire to strip all religious influence from public policy, that means that a Christian has no right to support laws against murder and stealing because those laws are synonomous with his religious views.
Yup. You “Christians” invented the concept that wanton murder and theft might not be a good idea. Well, actually, it was the Jews, now wasn’t it? Before Moses climbed Mount Sinai, everyone in the world just accepted random murder and theft and adultery and then that Charlton Heston look-alike came down from talking to a burning bush and everyone slapped their foreheads and said, “Don’t murder! What a concept!! Don’t steal! Why didn’t we think of that?!”
“Only a person who has no religious belief whatsoever can support laws against murder and stealing because then it is impossible for that person to be trying to push his religous beliefs on other people since he has no religion whatsoever.”
Well, you’ve got me there. I can’t argue with that. Because I have no idea whatsoever what you’re trying to say.
Seems to me a humanist might have a better perspective on murdering a fellow human for a lot more down-to-earth reasons than “a flaming bush told me.” Your mileage may vary.
“Thus, Jed wants to alienate religious people (A strong majority of Americans) from having influence in the law making process because their beliefs are “tainted” with religious bias, and that is unnacceptable in his view.”
Again. Nope.
Our system of government was established by the Constitution explicitly to say nobody’s god has dibs.
If somebody who worships Bonzo the Sun God says he can walk in your house and rape your daughter, there are other elements than the rapist’s religion in play. And those elements — of morality — pre-date some guy talking to a burning bush.
Surprise!
Such a policy is NOT religion neutral, it is anti-religion and is at conflict with the idea of the “seperation of church and state”.
Y’know, there’s nothing in the Bible I’ve read that says, “Thou shalt not demand blow jobs from altar boys.” But I consider such behavior wrong on a lot of levels and I support the laws and “moral code” that proscribes such behavior.
Me! The lapsed agnostic (I’m not sure what it is I don’t believe in)!
With nothing in scripture or theology to back me, I kinda think demanding blow jobs from altar boys isn’t a good idea! If pressed, I may have to make a logical, psychological, sociological,or common sense argument against forcing blow jobs from altar boys, but under the laws of the the United States of America I can’t fall back on scripture (thank goodness, because my Bible doesn’t mention it) to make my case.
I have to come up with non-religious reasons to object to murder and/or theft.
And I’ll be on pretty solid ground when I make my case against demanding blow jobs from altar boys. I promise you I will. I can probably come up with a few arguments against killing people and stealing from them that don’t involve talking to shrubbery.
Your “…basis for that moral code…” is presumptive arrogance.
Most people who like Chevys don’t like the idea of random murder. That doesn’t mean people who drive Fords are wanton murderers.
(Those Dodge people, though… well, I have my doubts.)
C’mon, “RFL.”
You have to know better.
Whatever your agenda, don’t try to apply your religion to this particular system of government. The Constitution of the United States of America simply doesn’t allow it.
That’s what it’s for.
Monkeyhawk, once again you have proved that you are the clearest thinker/writer on this blog. It is a pleasure to read good, non-angry, reasoned essays brimming with common sense.
Dennis
You call that clear thinking Yellowdog?
I call it scarred, deformed personality that as yet to come to terms with his own identity.
I call it mindless rambling with no coherent thought process. I got that he is against priests demanding blow jobs and we agree on that the first time he mentioned it, the second time he mentioned it, the third time he mentioned, ad nauseum. Other that that I think he has a problem with Bonzo raping his daughter.
Regular
Posted December 15, 2008 at 7:32 pm | Permalink
scarred, deformed personality that as yet to come to terms with his own identity.
_________________________________
okobserver
Posted December 15, 2008 at 7:44 pm | Permalink
mindless rambling with no coherent thought process
Project much, folks?
YellowD–
Ditto that!
Regular
Posted December 15, 2008 at 7:32 pm | Permalink
You call that clear thinking Yellowdog?
I call it scarred, deformed personality that as yet to come to terms with his own identity
* * * * *
Well, tell you what Dennis, meet James and you will understand why this man has no clue as to what he is taling about… Those Aspergers’ people are just too impaired to understand the rest of the world…
taling = talking – sorry…
You sure like that Asperger’s term don’t ya Davis?
Learn that in freshman psychology class and you think everyone is impressed?
“So okobserver was creating her own reality, as usual.”
She always does. Man, would I hate to live there.
Regular
Posted December 15, 2008 at 10:58 pm | Permalink
You sure like that Asperger’s term don’t ya Davis?
Learn that in freshman psychology class and you think everyone is impressed?
* * * * *
Sorry James, I thought calling you Aspergers would be a compliment. I guess not. This is from a man who does not comb, nor cut, his hair, nor does he ever even act like a human being.
Do the Price family, who are big fans of James ever try to meet him?
NO! They do not! Sucks to be James and the Price family!!!
I generally try not to respond to this really pathetic troll. And will not any more.
This is all you got Davis?
Insult other posters?
Yeah, that’s about the size of Davis’s mental growth.
He has nothing else.
He met you Jimmuh.
That is more than anyone on your “side” has granted you.
And, I’ve seen you and can confirm Steven’s observation.
So, where you are at is you have made a bad show of defining yourself.
And two libs get to flesh you out the details.
Why is adult dating so popular? It almost seems to me that the whole dating industry has changed since I was a teenager
Find a hot sexy date here guys, [url=http://www.your_link.com]adult sex[/url]