May I suggest a simple distinction between voters?
One group believes in a God of their own image: sitting on a throne; possessing familiar human passions... a lord who is directly involved in, even controlling, their lives.
The other contains a much larger spectrum: from people who firmly believe in a God, but one who’s beyond our ability to grasp, all the way to atheists, with countless variations in between.
This distinction has profound implications considering the unopposed groundswell of scared people who have been convinced they’re God’s personal agents.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Why Liberals Should Vote This Election {806 words}
The following is my essay, "Why bother to vote?" after Gail an editor at the Four Corners Free Press touched it up while trimming 50 words {all for the better} for publication in their October 2010 issue.
After another couple changes by myself this incarnation weights in at 806 words:
Why Liberals Should Vote This Election
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
May I suggest a simple, left v. right distinction between people... voters?
The one group believes in a God of their own image: sitting on a throne; possessing those familiar human lordly passions of jealousy, judgment, vengeance, occasionally love... a lord who is directly involved in, even controlling, our lives.
The other group, contains a much larger spectrum. Beginning with people who firmly believe in God and her/his presence, but, who also appreciate God is beyond our human ability to grasp. As for knowing God’s mind... or plan, forget about it! Can a toddler hope to understand Einstein?
From there the spectrum of perspectives follows the whole gamut of wonder and curiosity about our creation and god...
After another couple changes by myself this incarnation weights in at 806 words:
Why Liberals Should Vote This Election
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
May I suggest a simple, left v. right distinction between people... voters?
The one group believes in a God of their own image: sitting on a throne; possessing those familiar human lordly passions of jealousy, judgment, vengeance, occasionally love... a lord who is directly involved in, even controlling, our lives.
The other group, contains a much larger spectrum. Beginning with people who firmly believe in God and her/his presence, but, who also appreciate God is beyond our human ability to grasp. As for knowing God’s mind... or plan, forget about it! Can a toddler hope to understand Einstein?
From there the spectrum of perspectives follows the whole gamut of wonder and curiosity about our creation and god...
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
“Folks, its about to become very dangerous to be a climate scientist”
{I need to take a little break before finishing my open emails to Lord Monckton, or as I think of them, my virtual conversation - (since AGWHoaxers are so fantastic at creating and broadcasting charges, but not at all good about honestly defending their increasingly indefensible nonsense.).
Here is something else of critical importance to consider. Brought to you by the excellent AGW education videographer Peter Sinclair, AKA Greenman3610.
Here is something else of critical importance to consider. Brought to you by the excellent AGW education videographer Peter Sinclair, AKA Greenman3610.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Climate Denial Crock of the Week
with Peter Sinclair
“Folks, its about to become very dangerous to be a climate scientist”
September 28, 2010
“..or for that matter, any kind of scientist.”
That’s what one of the world’s most well known climate scientists recently
told friends.
This article in Politico is the case in point.
In the event the House of representatives shifts to republicans, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, a foe of progress, reason and science, will become chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
He has vowed to obstruct the pursuit of truth about climate change, and intimidate those foolish enough to ask questions and seek answers about the real world.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Close Encounters of the Absurd Kind - Ben Santer 2/24/10
This is an excellent talk given by Ben Santer and no matter how often I listen to it, the guy makes sense, he speaks clearly and yes I find him believable.
Tragically most Americans, particularly your Republican/Libertarian types, would rather listen to theatrics from the likes of Lord Christopher Monckton and an actor Topher (50 to 1 Project) with their transparent political entertainment that doles out soothing bromides and the promise that nothing needs to change.
For a taste of the scientific understanding behind the considered educated opinion of experts who are actively working in the field of climatology, check out these videos which are followed by an interesting commentary by Dr. Santer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The following is pilfered from RealClimate.org.
You can find it at:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/close-encounters-of-the-absurd-kind/
Filed under:
• Climate Science
• IPCC
• skeptics
— 24 February 2010
Guest commentary from Ben Santer
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Part 2 of a series discussing the recent Guardian articles.
A recent story by Fred Pearce in the February 9th online edition of the Guardian (“Victory for openness as IPCC climate scientist opens up lab doors”) covers some of the more publicized aspects of the last 14 years of my scientific career. I am glad that Mr. Pearce’s account illuminates some of the non-scientific difficulties I have faced. However, his account also repeats unfounded allegations that I engaged in dubious professional conduct. In a number of instances, Mr Pearce provides links to these allegations, but does not provide a balanced account of the rebuttals to them. Nor does he give links to locations where these rebuttals can be found. I am taking this opportunity to correct Mr. Pearce’s omissions, to reply to the key allegations, and to supply links to more detailed responses.
Another concern relates to Mr. Pearce’s discussion of the “openness” issue mentioned in the title and sub-title of his story. A naïve reader of Mr. Pearce’s article might infer from the sub-title (“Ben Santer had a change of heart about data transparency…”) that my scientific research was not conducted in an open and transparent manner until I experienced “a change of heart”.
This inference would be completely incorrect.
Tragically most Americans, particularly your Republican/Libertarian types, would rather listen to theatrics from the likes of Lord Christopher Monckton and an actor Topher (50 to 1 Project) with their transparent political entertainment that doles out soothing bromides and the promise that nothing needs to change.
For a taste of the scientific understanding behind the considered educated opinion of experts who are actively working in the field of climatology, check out these videos which are followed by an interesting commentary by Dr. Santer.
Added 8/4/2013
The following is pilfered from RealClimate.org.
You can find it at:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/close-encounters-of-the-absurd-kind/
Filed under:
• Climate Science
• IPCC
• skeptics
— 24 February 2010
Guest commentary from Ben Santer
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Part 2 of a series discussing the recent Guardian articles.
A recent story by Fred Pearce in the February 9th online edition of the Guardian (“Victory for openness as IPCC climate scientist opens up lab doors”) covers some of the more publicized aspects of the last 14 years of my scientific career. I am glad that Mr. Pearce’s account illuminates some of the non-scientific difficulties I have faced. However, his account also repeats unfounded allegations that I engaged in dubious professional conduct. In a number of instances, Mr Pearce provides links to these allegations, but does not provide a balanced account of the rebuttals to them. Nor does he give links to locations where these rebuttals can be found. I am taking this opportunity to correct Mr. Pearce’s omissions, to reply to the key allegations, and to supply links to more detailed responses.
Another concern relates to Mr. Pearce’s discussion of the “openness” issue mentioned in the title and sub-title of his story. A naïve reader of Mr. Pearce’s article might infer from the sub-title (“Ben Santer had a change of heart about data transparency…”) that my scientific research was not conducted in an open and transparent manner until I experienced “a change of heart”.
This inference would be completely incorrect.
Has Monckton finally arrived at his Waterloo?
A group of scientists has put together a detailed study of Mr. Lord Monckton’s Congressional testimony, unlike LM’s many lectures and blogs, LM was under oath while giving false testimony to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
Hopefully, we can finally see the court trial that the good Lord keeps threatening.
With him as defendant !
{hope springs eternal}
Hopefully, we can finally see the court trial that the good Lord keeps threatening.
With him as defendant !
{hope springs eternal}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Visit - Professor Scott Mandia website: Global Warming: Man or Myth? Monckton Testimony at US Congress: Ignorance or Perjury?
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
{#11c} Lord Monckton, Mr. Ferguson, SPPI, v. Dr. Rajendra Pachauri (IPCC) - anatomy of a character assassination
Previously, I wrote about the anatomy of Ben Santer’s character assassination. In this next example, we have the added element of “tactical set up.” But, first a look at a couple quotes regarding Dr. Pachauri’s qualifications:
10/14/9 MFMI 46:05
“And now here is the truth.”
“Do you know that the guy who runs the science panel of the UN’s climate panel, is he a climatologist? Nope. Is he a physicist? Nope. Is he mathematician? Nope. He is a railroad engineer. So we have removed his railroad lines from this graph and we’ve added His Lordship’s much grander purple lines and we’ll see they all run in parallel.”
SPPI Blog, Monckton’s Pachauri Letter
“Though you are chairman of the IPCC, whose principal task is to evaluate and present
climatological results, you are a railroad engineer by origin and may be unaware that the technique is a statistical abuse. Therefore, we will now show, using the same technique on the same data but selecting different endpoints, that it is possible to generate opposite results, demonstrating the technique to be defective. . .”
Unfortunately, once again Lord Monckton what you’re saying is not the truth. Pachauri is no more a “railroad engineer” than you are a member of the House of Lords! I dare you to look at his accomplishments:
10/14/9 MFMI 46:05
“And now here is the truth.”
“Do you know that the guy who runs the science panel of the UN’s climate panel, is he a climatologist? Nope. Is he a physicist? Nope. Is he mathematician? Nope. He is a railroad engineer. So we have removed his railroad lines from this graph and we’ve added His Lordship’s much grander purple lines and we’ll see they all run in parallel.”
SPPI Blog, Monckton’s Pachauri Letter
“Though you are chairman of the IPCC, whose principal task is to evaluate and present
climatological results, you are a railroad engineer by origin and may be unaware that the technique is a statistical abuse. Therefore, we will now show, using the same technique on the same data but selecting different endpoints, that it is possible to generate opposite results, demonstrating the technique to be defective. . .”
Unfortunately, once again Lord Monckton what you’re saying is not the truth. Pachauri is no more a “railroad engineer” than you are a member of the House of Lords! I dare you to look at his accomplishments:
Sunday, September 19, 2010
{#11b} Lord Monckton, Mr. Ferguson, SPPI, v. Dr. Ben Santer - anatomy of a character assassination
Lord Monckton, and SPPI's Mr. Ferguson,
In this email I want to look at how some lies never die. In particular, today's reincarnation of the Wall Street Journal's travesty, with it's relentless, substance lacking, attacks on Dr. Benjamin Santer.
From SPPI’s Blogwatch: “Science ad rem, not politics ad hominem”
“However, a single scientist – Ben Santer – was asked by the IPCC substantially to alter the scientists’ final draft. He did so, crossing out five references to the absence of any evidence of a human influence on climate, and substituting the directly opposite conclusion.... the contrarian opinion of a single scientist who was willing to write what the IPCC’s bureaucrats wanted.”
10/14/9 MFMI 43:00
“Now we come on to a lie we find in the 1995 report. And this is one of the most extraordinary lies of the lot. Time and again, the scientists in that report said “We can not find any anthropogenic, or human signal, in the climate record. We are having no effect on temperature so far as we can see.” They said it five times very clearly, here’s one sample of it, here’s another. And now watch this, here is what the bureaucrats did. They rewrote the final draft, yet again, after it had been cleared and signed off by the scientists, to say the exact opposite: The body of evidence now points to a discernible human influence upon climate. And, that has been the official line ever since.”
Lord Monckton you often repeat this meme. To do so you ignore reams of contrary evidence. Why should we take your word for it?
Beyond that, why must you paint climate scientists like foreign enemies? In my last email I documented how these charges against Professor Ben Santer were shown to be gross falsehoods. Yet, here we are nearly fifteen years later and the same knowingly false charges are still being advertised. What a stellar example of the Monckton brand of “fidelity to the truth.”
In this email I want to look at how some lies never die. In particular, today's reincarnation of the Wall Street Journal's travesty, with it's relentless, substance lacking, attacks on Dr. Benjamin Santer.
From SPPI’s Blogwatch: “Science ad rem, not politics ad hominem”
“However, a single scientist – Ben Santer – was asked by the IPCC substantially to alter the scientists’ final draft. He did so, crossing out five references to the absence of any evidence of a human influence on climate, and substituting the directly opposite conclusion.... the contrarian opinion of a single scientist who was willing to write what the IPCC’s bureaucrats wanted.”
10/14/9 MFMI 43:00
“Now we come on to a lie we find in the 1995 report. And this is one of the most extraordinary lies of the lot. Time and again, the scientists in that report said “We can not find any anthropogenic, or human signal, in the climate record. We are having no effect on temperature so far as we can see.” They said it five times very clearly, here’s one sample of it, here’s another. And now watch this, here is what the bureaucrats did. They rewrote the final draft, yet again, after it had been cleared and signed off by the scientists, to say the exact opposite: The body of evidence now points to a discernible human influence upon climate. And, that has been the official line ever since.”
Lord Monckton you often repeat this meme. To do so you ignore reams of contrary evidence. Why should we take your word for it?
Beyond that, why must you paint climate scientists like foreign enemies? In my last email I documented how these charges against Professor Ben Santer were shown to be gross falsehoods. Yet, here we are nearly fifteen years later and the same knowingly false charges are still being advertised. What a stellar example of the Monckton brand of “fidelity to the truth.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)