The big brained types who either believe global warming is a real threat–or who used a warming trend as a means of grabbing power, promoting careers, scoring grants, internationalizing governance, or a combination of the above–want to impose wrenching and economy-wounding policies on the people of the world. Europeans already accept that kind of hyper control, but Americans are still resistant. So, global warming hysteria was born, which has for years screamed ONLY TEN MORE YEARS TO SAVE THE PLANET!, or THE POLAR BEARS ARE ALL GOING TO DIE, or FLOODS, FAMINES, EARTHQUAKES, MELTED HIMILAYAN GLACIERS IN 20 YEARS! People with reasonable doubts were compared to Holocaust Deniers, accused of being shills for the oil companies, and denigrated as anti science believers in a flat earth. Humans were declared THE ENEMIES OF THE PLANET, and a near religion was born with a quasi-Christian narrative of original sin (prospering via the use of fossil fuels), repentance (making Al Gore rich and dismantling economies and redistributing wealth), and redemption (a new world made green by renewable energies and depopulating to under 1 billion). Hallelujah!
It worked for a time. But then, when the climate models began to fizzle and alternative media was able to penetrate reasonable counter arguments to the hysteria meme. Some called the whole thing a “hoax,” which overstates the matter in my view. But more moderate voices allowed for the warming trend, said that some of it appeared to be natural, but some caused by human activity. They argued that draconian actions were not warranted and urged further study or suggested that our money was better spent preparing for potential changes rather than tilt at windmills by somehow trying to change the weather of the entire planet.
Well, in the last year the hysterics’ tactics blew up in their faces, with the IPCC report discredited and shown to be politicized, as Climategate revealed the nasty tactics employed by the scientific in crowd tried to keep the out crowd from having a voice at the table. Meanwhile, a cold winter–described by warming proponents as mere weather at first, and then as proof of global warming–interfered with the fear mongering about constantly rising temperatures, which, it turned out, had not risen in a “statistically significant” amount in 15 years.
The American people seem to have noticed. The most recent Gallup Poll reflects that the hysteria fever has certainly cooled considerably. For example, 48% think global warming is “generally exaggerated,” up from 31% only five years ago. A whopping 67% don’t think it will pose a “serious threat” in their lifetimes, up 9% in only two years. But that’s the problem with false hysteria. Generating it is relatively easy, particularly when it is supported by the Establishment and the MSM. But maintaining the fear long enough to really change society, that’s a lot harder. And once the balloon springs a leak, it is really hard to reinflate.
March 11th, 2010 | 11:28 am
Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird.
And they lay wait for their own blood; they lurk privily for their own lives.
So are the ways of every one that is greedy of gain; which taketh away the life of the owners thereof.
- Proverbs 1:17-19
:)
March 11th, 2010 | 1:06 pm
Good lord. Almost every statement you make is false, exaggerated or misleading. This may be the biggest mess of slop ever typed about global warming. You’ve typed what you wish had happened and what you wish will happen. No facts, no evidence, just your novelized narrative.
The break down:
The big brained types who either believe global warming is a real threat –or who used a warming trend as a means of grabbing power, promoting careers, scoring grants, internationalizing governance, or a combination of the above –want to impose wrenching and economy-wounding policies on the people of the world.
Europeans already accept that kind of hyper control , but Americans are still resistant.
ONLY TEN MORE YEARS TO SAVE THE PLANET!, or THE POLAR BEARS ARE ALL GOING TO DIE, or FLOODS, FAMINES, EARTHQUAKES, MELTED HIMILAYAN GLACIERS IN 20 YEARS!
People with reasonable doubts <YOU are reasonable, the OTHERS are hysterical) were compared to Holocaust Deniers, accused of being shills for the oil companies , and denigrated as anti science believers in a flat earth.
Humans were declared THE ENEMIES OF THE PLANET , and a near religion was born with a quasi-Christian narrative of original sin (prospering via the use of fossil fuels), repentance (making Al Gore rich and dismantling economies and redistributing wealth), and redemption (a new world made green by renewable energies and depopulating to under 1 billion).
But then, when the climate models began to fizzle and alternative media was able to penetrate reasonable counter arguments to the hysteria meme. Some called the whole thing a “hoax,” which overstates the matter in my view. But more moderate voices allowed for the warming trend, said that some of it appeared to be natural, but some caused by human activity. They argued that draconian actions were not warranted and urged further study or suggested that our money was better spent preparing for potential changes rather than tilt at windmills by somehow trying to change the weather of the entire planet .
Well, in the last year the hysterics’ tactics blew up in their faces, with the IPCC report discredited and shown to be politicized , as Climategate revealed the nasty tactics employed by the scientific in crowd tried to keep the out crowd from having a voice at the table
Meanwhile, a cold winter–described by warming proponents as mere weather at first, and then as proof of global warming–interfered with the fear mongering about constantly rising temperatures, which, it turned out, had not risen in a “statistically significant” amount in 15 years
The Gallup poll reflects the effectiveness of the right-wing noise machine. Since 1980, when conservative philosophy started to dominate America, our debt has increased, our citizens are poorer, our economy is in trouble, our soldiers in more danger and the Earth continues to warm unabated. Have you guys been right on anything?
March 11th, 2010 | 1:07 pm
[...] the original post: Global Warming Hysteria: Americans Not So Hysterical » Secondhand … Tags: big-brained, either-believe, Global Warming, grabbing-power, promoting-careers, [...]
March 11th, 2010 | 1:23 pm
I agree, for those over the age of 60 in the West, it is doubtful global warming will seriously affect them in their lifetime.
It’s the children that are born today that I feel sorry for, should we continue unfettered. Some simple sacrifice (not global economy changing type), coupled with some solid research could change their fate, though.
Daniel:
Serving and listening to god is always good, moral advice.
Numbers 32:15-18 (NIV)
(15) “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he [Moses] asked them. (16) “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. (17) Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, (18) but take for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man
[this probably means to rape the adolescent females]
March 11th, 2010 | 1:29 pm
Sorry, that’s
Numbers 31:15-18
You’d think after the dozens of times I’ve read that mythology, I’d get my references correct. uggh.
March 11th, 2010 | 2:49 pm
Jeffery, Jeffery, Jeffery,
Data is essentially irrelevant (to be fair, I consider the Pew research a source of data – but it’s not science). Truths and/or observations of Nature derived by control-based, hypothesis driven methodological naturalism are mostly irrelevant as well.
Why do you think Smith works for a “think” tank whose stated purpose, as presented in the Wedge Document, is to remove science from the world?
The most amusing part of this is that Smith accused me of conspiracy theories over Rom Houben.
Ok, I have the conspiracy theories, but rants like this aren’t???? I didn’t have a conspiracy theory; I was right.
And why all the hub-bub over global warming? It’s very suggestive that this is a new front the ID/creationists are pushing to undermine science. Sad, because I have family members and friends who nearly died from disease, but science saved their lives. Further, I have witnessed how science has prevented a world from starving to death – a very painful and unfortunate way to lose the only life you will probably ever have and which you had no choice in accepting.
And the lord (of the bible) is NOT good, Jeffery, – have you read the bible? Yikes, god sure likes to kill, encourage rape, sacrifice, kill some more, establish slavery, and he’s obsessed with the male reproductive organ, which I find most bizarre. Saying “good lord” makes little sense to me.
March 11th, 2010 | 4:00 pm
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by CO2HOG: SHS: Global Warming Hysteria: Americans Not So Hysterical http://bit.ly/cKt4ir #tcot…
March 11th, 2010 | 6:21 pm
David,
Proverbs is widely referenced Book of Wisdom.
Is using wisdom against your worldview?
March 11th, 2010 | 7:20 pm
My apologies to Wesley and all. My embedded comments in his essay did not appear in my previous comment.
But seriously, nearly every sentence you typed in this essay is false or dishonest. Some examples:
from the essay: Europeans already accept that kind of hyper control, but Americans are still resistant. (((follow me here… If Europeans already accepted draconian ‘green’ control, then it stands to reason that European economies must be failing, right? Unfortunately for your argument, most EU economies are no worse than the US economy where, according to you, the citizenry has resisted controls. What draconian controls have been instituted in Europe, by the way? What draconian controls have been proposed for the US and what is the expected impact on our way of life?)))
from the essay: But then, when the climate models began to fizzle and alternative media was able to penetrate reasonable counter arguments to the hysteria meme. (((I’ll let others decipher the meaning of “penetrate reasonable counter arguments” but the claim that “the climate models began to fizzle” is simply false.)))
from the essay:…accused of being shills for the oil companies (((many are, e.g., Inhofe, ClimateDepot, JunkScience))) , and denigrated as anti science believers (((e.g., Discovery Institute))) in a flat earth.
from the essay:…with the IPCC report discredited…(((this is absolutely false))).
About the poll itself. David makes an excellent point above. The question was, “Do you think that global warming will pose a serious threat to you or your way of life in your lifetime?”. I am almost 60, a scientist, and am convinced by the overwhelming available evidence that global warming is a definite threat to humans. But even I would have answered the poll question ‘no’. My grandchildren, and theirs, cannot answer that question for themselves yet, and it is up to us to speak for them.
Wesley, have I misjudged you (my god, you’ve written books!)?” From this essay one could get the impression your belief in the supernatural underpinnings of human behavior overwhelm your consideration of scientific knowledge (physical facts, data, evidence etc.) You should be ashamed of the trash you typed in this post. Dishonest, uninformed, slanderous, (did I mention dishonest?) and trite. Thank allah that so few read it, but I suspect it was typed to be picked up by the likes of the reliably dense and dishonest hofts out there.
March 11th, 2010 | 10:29 pm
I am over 70, a engineer with graduate degrees, papers and patents in thermal systems. In addition have worked on projects linked to thermal profiles and infrared “windows”, in the atmosphere. Having gathered considerable surface and ocean data, I would be more worried about a gradual cooling rather then heating. Noted that the latest AMSR-E satellite data indicates the Arcitic might have the second highest sea ice extant in 8 years, following a 3 year upward trend.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Think I might invest in a union suit from L.L. Bean.
March 11th, 2010 | 11:29 pm
Jeffrey -
Other than the fact that he has the unmitigated gall to disagree with you, what evidence do you have that Wesley’s “belief in the supernatural underpinnings of human behavior” overwhelm his “consideration of scientific knowledge”?
I grew up around Calvinists, and you and David outdo the vast majority of them for self-righteousness and an unwillingness to consider opposing views. Most people would agree that the credibility of the “scientific consensus” around global warming has taken quite a few whacks lately. Now is the time to try and convince people, not fulminate angrily against real and imagined opponents.
March 12th, 2010 | 12:06 am
I R an amer a can cit us in who is so stoopid that I need enny and eevry one to think for me cuz it hurtz……>HEY what kind of floors do any of you “commentors” have in your abode? Ya know if its carpet you are guilty.. if its wood with or without a finish you are guilty….if there is concrete underneath the linoleum or other flooring you are guilty…if it is dung you are guilty…If you are living in a tent you are guilty. If you are using electricity to read this you are guilty. what kind of solutions for energy are sustainable ? IF YOU KNOW THE ANSWER THEN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT BECAUSE !?!
March 12th, 2010 | 10:46 am
J. Bob,
“…I would be more worried about a gradual cooling rather then heating.”
Do you have evidence other than the arctic ice to support your opinion? That the area of arctic ice is slightly greater this winter than in 2007 (but still less than 2002) is not very convincing.
March 12th, 2010 | 2:30 pm
sparkvarc,
I base my opinion on his statement, “…changes rather than tilt at windmills by somehow trying to change the weather of the entire planet.”
The rest of your comment is similar to Wesley’s essay. Those with whom you disagree are always elitist, self-righteous, arrogant, humorless and prefer facts to beliefs. OK. The essay contained no facts, no evidence, only falsehoods and exaggerations. Wesley can read. He understands the evidence and chose to misrepresent it. There is no persuading him at this point.
If you want less self-righteousness, try being honest for a change.
This argument is not a difference of opinion as much as you may wish to frame it that way. The evidence on either side in not equal. On one side we have years of research, thousands of peer-reviewed articles and overwhelming evidence supported by most professional climate scientists. On the other side we have Jim Inhofe, Wesley, Rush and FOX “News”.
wils,
So much clowning… The issue is not guilt, the issue is how to reduce CO2 emissions. How much atmospheric CO2 comes from the manufacture of tents, floor finishes and carpeting? Is it possible to manufacture these items by methods that generate less CO2? Yes. Is it possible to generate electricity without generating CO2? Yes.
March 12th, 2010 | 3:01 pm
Jeffrey:
Have you missed the events of the past few months? The fact that many data sets are under review? That a number of the more ominous claims in the IPCC have been withdrawn? The ongoing slap fight about leaked E-mails suggesting collusion among climate scientists to suppress skeptical research from peer-reviewed journals?
You can’t seriously think that all opposition to AGW is from Fox News and the oil industry, can you?
March 12th, 2010 | 3:08 pm
Daniel:
I do not turn to mythology or fabricated gods for insight. I turn to evidence and data.
Proverbs 28:21 and 28:23 commands me to treat people with disrespect and then rebuke them afterward. Don’t you know your own holy book???
J Bob’s statements are suspect. If he claims to have publications (notice he didn’t say they were referred, peer-reviewed), then he ought to be intimate enough with the peer-review publication process and research science to actually publish a paper supporting his conclusion if it is valid and stands up to scrutiny. I have had plenty of rejections and plenty of publications in peer-review.
When you are at all time lows for ice content, most likely you are only going to increase in a period of leveled warming.
BTW, J Bob, for an “engineer”, you, of all people, should appreciate the actual lack of trend in the data you cited, as well as the absence of error bars (this does NOT invalidate it). Does it fluctuate between the levels of 2002 and 2007? Where will it be in 50 years? Is there indeed a downward trend – why or why not? How does this data compare with that from the 50s, 60s, 70, 80, & 90s?
SparcVark:
Data and evidence, please. For example, please provide me with QUALITY data and evidence demonstrating that there is no global warming. I do not care about your emotions or mythology.
March 12th, 2010 | 4:43 pm
David wrote,
“Daniel:
I do not turn to mythology or fabricated gods for insight. I turn to evidence and data.
Proverbs 28:21 and 28:23 commands me to treat people with disrespect and then rebuke them afterward. Don’t you know your own holy book??? ”
Uh, what version are you actually reading?
You do know that it is possible to be a highly educated fool don’t you?
Proverbs 23:9
March 12th, 2010 | 5:32 pm
David:
I think you have this backwards. Folks are proposing that global warming is caused by human CO2 emissions, which will cause such a catastrophe in such short order that a radical reduction in CO2 emissions is called for, even if this reduction would cause enormous economic damage.
Now, to oppose carbon taxes, cap and trade, more regulation, etc. as a policy, I could argue that:
- The planet is not, in fact, getting warmer.
- The rate of warming is not so fast as to present a crisis.
- The planet is getting warmer, but human activity is not the cause.
- Reducing CO2 emissions would not meaningfully affect the temperature rise.
- Mitigating the effects of global warming would be cheaper than attempting to prevent it.
- The effects of global warming will be livable and are cheaper than attempting to prevent it.
In other words, I shouldn’t have to prove to your satisfaction that the planet is not warming to disagree with your policy prescriptions. Heck, I *do* think that the planet was warmer on average in 2000 than in 1900. This does not mean I am somehow obligated to subscribe to the rest of your viewpoints.
I think that AGW proponents oversold their case, and are now digging in their heels as the controversy deepens. If the polls are any guide, this is not working.
March 12th, 2010 | 6:51 pm
Sparcvark,
I likely have studied the ‘events’ of the past year at least as carefully as you but am unimpressed. Much ado about very little by FOX “News”, Inhofe, Sean, Rush and a number of lesser hofts.
Here’s your evidence:
The fact that many data sets are under review? (Good. When the data sets are shown to be false or inaccurate, come on back to talk. Understand the difficulty in finding independent climate scientists to review the data sets since they ALL have already reviewed them concluded that the Earth is warming.)
That a number of the more ominous claims in the IPCC have been withdrawn? (Good. Inaccurate claims should be withdrawn. By “a number” you clearly imply more than one. You don’t mean to imply that “a number” of errors in a 3000 page technical report invalidates the entire report or more importantly the cited scientific literature the report was based on. I’ll start on the errors. 1. The Himalayan glaciers will NOT be melted by 2035, but will in fact continue to melt. Please supply more and explain the impact on the theory of man-made global warming.)
The ongoing slap fight about leaked E-mails suggesting collusion among climate scientists to suppress skeptical research from peer-reviewed journals? (This is overhyped as well. There is not a single body of true believers with veto power over publication. Can the skeptical scientists not post their unfairly rejected manuscripts online? Certainly in the age of alternative media there exists ample venues to share their high quality data.)
Neither the errors addressed in the IPCC report, nor the furor over the stolen emails have changed the convincing evidence that the Earth is warming, very likely because of the accumulation of human-generated CO2 in the atmosphere. Obviously, knowing the future with absolute certainty is not possible, but it is very likely that if we keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere, the Earth’s temperature will continue to increase with catastrophic impacts on human civilization by the end of the century.
I will be so bold as to state that unscientific climate skeptics have relentlessly overhyped minor mistakes in an attempt to invalidate global warming. If there was nothing we could do about global warming there would be no argument. If the behavioral changes necessary to significantly reduce CO2 emissions affected no one there would be no argument.
March 12th, 2010 | 10:27 pm
jeffery help me out …. if matter can neither be created nor destroyed then how can we add more co2 than is available? And if it is available then is there not something that will benefit from it? If evolution is true(it must be because thats what all of the peer reviewed science says) then it really does not matter about the globe warming because it is all random and purposeless.
March 13th, 2010 | 2:26 pm
Wils,
Good questions… and answerable.
Firstly, the Law of the conservation of matter is often misunderstood. It is really that matter and energy in this universe can be neither created nor destroyed. This is why a god is not necessary to create the cosmos we observe. It is known as the energy of a vacuum. So, even if you have a TRUE vacuum (absolutely no particle matter), you still have energy. Under the correct states, this energy can produce matter – to be fair these conditions are extraordinarily rare and only the smallest chance of happening, but given enough “time”, a vacuum can sample all quantum states. This energy of a vacuum can be experimentally observed – it is known as the Casimir effect. I would recommend studying quantum electrodynamics to get an understanding of these issues. Several Nobel prizes in physics have been awarded for this work.
Moving on to CO2.
CO2 actually is the product of the combustion of a hydrocarbon (gasoline, essentially, is almost a hydrocarbon) a compound composed, primarily in this case, of hydrogen and carbon. Due to the chemical nature of the hydrocarbon (think “gasoline” and “coal”), there is tremendous energy which is released as heat when you mix these hydrocarbons (think “gasoline” and “coal”) in the presence of oxygen (O2) with a little bit of heat ( a process called ‘combustion’). Where does this released energy come from? It comes from the net effect of BREAKING the chemical bonds that hold the carbons together and the REFORMING of new bonds with O2. Some molecules release a ton of heat (exothermic) when their chemical bonds are broken and new ones formed. Now, these hydrocarbon molecules, which need a little bit of heat energy to get started (think “spark plug”) and some O2, have had their chemical bonds broken. What happens next? A chemical reaction occurs. The carbons have been separated and they combine with O2 to form CO2. This has been known for well over 100 years. The heat released from combustion can be utilized to drive an engine in a cycle known as a Carnot cycle.
Now, we know where CO2 comes from, but so what? It’s just a chemical conversion, right? True. But…
The problem is that the CO2 comes from the combustion of sources like “gasoline” and “coal” and this “gasoline” and “coal” has been underground and sequestered for millions of years. In other words, it is not presently part of the active carbon cycle – that is, until we started pulling it out of the Earth, removing it from sequestration, and burning it, thus releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere. For millions of years it was happy just sitting there. Now, we are removing it and putting it into the atmosphere.
But CO2 is just a gas, so what? CO2 is interesting because it has a chemical structure: 0=C=0 That is, carbon “double bonded” to 2 oxygen atoms. These 2 C to O double bonds love to absorb the electromagnetic spectrum in the IR range. This causes molecular vibrations. Microwaves, for example, work at higher wavelengths (thus, lower energy) of the electromagnetic spectrum to ‘tumble’ water molecules, which creates friction, which heats up food. Color dyes, for example, work selectively absorbing the colored parts of the electromagenetic spectrum (remember how prisms break up light into colors – dyes selectively absorb certain wavelengths or “colors” of light).
CO2 can be dangerous at high levels in our atmosphere because it readily absorbs IR (infrared), which is another word for ‘heat’, in the the electromagnetic spectrum (think “light”). Our atmosphere needs a little bit of CO2, otherwise, Earth would be freezing cold. But, we can’t have too much of we end up like Venus – a molten lead field. It is a delicate balancing act. The concern is a runaway greenhouse effect – more CO2 gets released, which warms the planet more, which kills plants that give off CO2 when they die, which releases more CO2, which warms the planet more, which kills more plants, which releases more CO2, with more plants being dead – less CO2 is re-absorbed, etc, etc, etc.
Previous epochs had high levels of CO2, previous epochs had low levels of CO2. Our present epoch is just right for us, but we are RAPIDLY (that’s the key) changing the CO2 levels.
Will it kill us (by killing plants, which are the fundamental foundation of our food chain) in 5 years? No.
Will it pose a problem in 50 years if we don’t stop putting so much CO2 into the air? Most likely.
Is it avoidable? I think yes. With some simple sacrifice and solid research, we can cut back on fossil fuels (think “gasoline” and “coal”) and ultimately not need them – and future generations will be spared.
Consider how much energy comes from hydrocarbon combustion – coal plants that power our lights, tvs, steetlamsp, and AC, gasoline for our cars, petrol for tankers that ship our goods, etc, etc, etc.
Moving on to your last point, wils.
Is there something that will benefit from it?
Scientists asked this question about 30 years ago. Indeed, it was speculated that global warming from CO2 release upon fossil fuel combustion MAY be a good thing. More plants could flourish with more carbon around to use. (remember, when plants are alive they take in CO2, when they die they give off CO2). However, scientists have found 2 things that seem to rule this benefit out. 1) there is not enough usable nitrogen in the world for plants to flourish without use helping them by fertilizers (more on this point in a minute). 2) temperatures may increase faster than plants can adjust through evolution to survive and thrill in the higher temps
As for the fertilizer, farmers all over the midwest place TONS of nitrogen on their crop fields in the form of fertilizer to help their plants grow. Where does this nitrogen-fertilizer come from? It comes from heating up N2 and H2 (nitrogen and hydrogen). It is known as the Haber process. Where does the energy come from to heat up the N2 and H2 to produce usable nitrogen-fertilizer? You guessed it, good old fossil fuel. Actually, agriculture is one of the biggest producers of CO2.
I hope this clears things up and if you have any questions, I can try to help – catch me in later posts, maybe.
March 13th, 2010 | 2:34 pm
Jeffrey:
Well, for the IPCC report, other claims withdrawn that I know of are that 40% of the Amazon rainforest was at risk from global warming, and the bizarre statement that 55% of the Netherlands are below sea level (the real number is about 26%). The thing about the Dutch claim and the bit with the Himalayas is that they are so wrong that it’s a sign they were not fact-checked before being included in the document.
And scientists who disagree with the “consensus” can certainly publish on the web or distribute papers out of the trunk of their cars, but their work was being dismissed because it wasn’t being published in peer-reviewed journals – so there’s more than a bit of the Catch-22 here.
As for the data, if there are discrepancies in the surface temperature sets, would that not call the predictive modeling into question? The models are already suspect to me because none predicted the cooling we’ve experienced over the last decade. Phil Jones recently admitted in a BBC interview that it might be impossible to properly replicate or verify his temperature data.
Long story short, it just looks like there’s plenty of room for debate on the issues, and I find the “shut up, they explained” attitude on the part of AGW proponents baffling. Why not admit the jury is still out and welcome open debate?
March 13th, 2010 | 2:36 pm
Daniel:
King James Version. You should study your holy books more closely.
I recommend reading many versions of the bible to see how much humans have changed their initial concocted mythology to fit their present cultural values. Further, I recommend comparing books of the bible (like the gospels) for consistency. They are wildly inconsistent and contradictory.
From the KJV, I believe the verses are:
Pro 28:21 To have respect of persons is not good: for for a piece of bread that man will transgress
Pro 28:23 He that rebuketh a man afterwards shall find more favor than he that flattereth with the tongue
(verse 22 has something to with greed and gambling, if I recall)
March 14th, 2010 | 10:24 am
David
You are correct that Proverbs states…
Pro 28:21 To have respect of persons is not good: for for a piece of bread that man will transgress
Pro 28:23 He that rebuketh a man afterwards shall find more favor than he that flattereth with the tongue
What I don’t get is how you came to the following conclusion…
“Proverbs 28:21 and 28:23 commands me to treat people with disrespect and then rebuke them afterward.”
There is some serious cognitive disconnect on your part here.
(And yes, I do reference various translations)
Back to the topic of the article by Wesley, and my initial response to it, motives do matter and the “great unwashed masses” have tons more homegrown common sense than many, many so-called intellectuals.
I could wish you Godspeed in your endeavors, but I am no fool.
2 John 7-11
.
March 14th, 2010 | 9:31 pm
Daniel,
People are free to tell themselves whatever they wish; some approaches seems to be beneficial.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19770047
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146%2Fannurev.neuro.23.1.155
If one believes the world was created a few thousand years ago and for a while it never rained despite being laden with water (no evaporation???), according to cobbled mythology that humans later voted as being divine scripture, and everything we have present on this Earth survived a flood that covered the whole earth to at least a depth of ~28,000 ft and the survivors packed onto a boat not much bigger than a 747 – built by an old guy and his sons, along with all the animals, food, and potable water for 375 days, then thrived afterward in a world devoid of a food chain and thus the human race started not once, but twice, from the tiniest sample population… all without any physical evidence indicating the actuality of such an event…
well, I want no-part of that kind of homegrown common sense.
Do you have any quality data and evidence supporting your claim regarding common sense in various peoples, Daniel?
(BTW, how will these folks explain the Neanderthal genome, when it’s sequenced in the next year or so? It’s all made up?? Satan put Neanderthal fossils & artifacts here to tempt us?? It’ll be interesting to see)
Hopefully my endeavors won’t entail anything sped by “god” (presumably the Jehovah-jireh)… I’m not really in a hurry to follow his examples of rape, enslavement, human sacrifice, and killing people. (~I Chron 21:14, ~Duet 3:7, ~Josh 11:14, etc, etc)
Actually, you may want to think twice about bidding me Godspeed, as I recall, the bible warns against doing such to people who do not accept the doctrine laid out in the bible (don’t associate with them, don’t let them near you, don’t greet them, etc).
And your “unwashed masses” comment is interesting. I grew up dirt poor, my family couldn’t afford application fees and I mostly had no health insurance growing up; vanity fair holds little appeal (no, not the stupid magazine, people).
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact