White House Issues Climate Report

[Andre]

I see God's will being done in both examples. Nowhere did God's will get thwarted by man's actions.

You asked for examples of where "people affected God's will". The 2 Kings 20 is a clear and unambiguous example. God intended to do one thing, man prays, and as result, God does something else.

God's initial intent was for Hezekiah to die and Hezekiah's prayer caused God to relent.

People will say that God intended Hez to recover all along.

Then was God lying when He said through the prophet:

This is what the LORD says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover

People struggle with the idea that our supplications can move God to "change His mind". This scripture (and others) shows that this indeed happens. Why else would we pray, if we did not believe our prayers can move God?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

That is why I won't debate you, Andre. You have not shown where people's actions override God's will, yet you insist you have.

Have a great day, Andre.

 

[Andre]

That is why I won't debate you, Andre. You have not shown where people's actions override God's will, yet you insist you have.

Have a great day, Andre.

I have indeed shown that there are cases of what you asked for - cases where "people affected God's will".

If you have difficulty accepting what the Scriptures plainly teach, then your issue is not with me, it is with the author 2 Kings.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I'm moving on, Andre. Maybe Crabtownboy will show me where God's will was impeded.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Free will does not affect God's will. if it is his will for the earth to be scorched, then putting up my truck keys will do nothing. Furthermore, I believe you knew what I meant, and are only trying to confuse the issue, on purpose. I think you do that a lot, around here. But a tap-dance thru scriture will not stand against proper application. God's will, will be done. He promises this, plenty of times.

 

[carpro]

So you say.

QUOTE]

If they exist and if the National Press Club was going to publish their names on May 19th ?

Perhaps because you didn't read very carefully. Why don't you try again?

 

[carpro]

Apart from the entirely unjustified implication that I might be lying, my point is entirely legitimate. Even if 31,000 scientists have agreed that global warming is not connected to human activity, this does not mean one can conclude these 31,000 are correct simply because there is no "list" of those who think there is a connection. If we polled all scientists, we might well find that many times as many scientists think that there is a connection.

In fact, this almost certainly would the case, based on the wikipedia statement that "the overwhelming majority of scientists" do think there is a connection.

Unless, of course, wikipedia, like me is "lying"....

Wikipedia is generally a poor source and they provide no proof either.

Anybody can say anything...

Here goes.

The overwhelming majority of scientists do not subscribe to the theory of what is known as "global warming".

There. Now it's a fact, since no proof is required.:thumbs:

 

[carpro]

I do believe the article about the 31,000 scientists is a lie.

Persistent , aren't you? :laugh:

And just as wrong as you were when you said it the first time.

Another case of the wish being father to the thought.

 

[carpro]

I'm moving on, Andre. Maybe Crabtownboy will show me where God's will was impeded.

You can't even prove God exists...

at least, that's another of ctb's wild claims.

So he can't even have a will to impede, can he?

 

[Andre]

Free will does not affect God's will. if it is his will for the earth to be scorched, then putting up my truck keys will do nothing. Furthermore, I believe you knew what I meant, and are only trying to confuse the issue, on purpose. I think you do that a lot, around here. But a tap-dance thru scriture will not stand against proper application. God's will, will be done. He promises this, plenty of times.

You can accuse me of intentional distortion all you like. The text of 2 Kings 20 is clear - God's changes His mind in response to a prayer from mankind. And we have this from Jeremiah 18:

If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it

I am not sure how this could be more clear - God does indeed have intentions that are subject to alteration based on what humans do.

However, it appears that your argument is that God has stated that the world will be scorched, so there is no point in us trying to stop it (e.g. by being careful with greenhouse gases). Is that really your point? If not, please tell me exactly what connection the "God's will" vs "Man's will" issue has in relation to the global warming question.

 

[Andre]

The overwhelming majority of scientists do not subscribe to the theory of what is known as "global warming".

There. Now it's a fact, since no proof is required.:thumbs:

You seem to be arguing that people have no more grounds to believe wikipedia's statement that the overwhelming majority of scientists believe in global warming than in your statement to the contrary. Is that what you are asserting here?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

And I'd also like to hear CTB's answer to my first question, you know, how about those WMD reports from the White House ? Correct ? Actionable ?

 

[Andre]

I have never denied that 31,000 people signed this petition. I found the list, and picked three at random. Here is what an internet search revealed about these 3 randomly selected petition-signers:

Roger L. Allard is Assistant Vice president and principal engineer at FM Approvals. Allard joined FM Approvals in 1974 as a mechanical engineer in the Hydraulics Section and held the positions of senior engineer, assistant manager, and group manager before assuming his present position as principal engineer in 2004. He is a registered professional engineer, and a member of the Rhode Island Society of Professional Engineers, the National Society of Professional Engineers, the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).


Carlton L. Austin: wrote an article for "Veterinary Pathology", titled, "Ocular protothecosis in a dog"

Dr. Charles H. Antinori practices Cardiothoracic Surgery and General Surgery in Cape May Court House, New Jersey. Dr. Charles Antinori graduated with an MD.

These are hardly experts in climate. That is what is so misleading about the petition.

 

[carpro]

You seem to be arguing that people have no more grounds to believe wikipedia's statement that the overwhelming majority of scientists believe in global warming than in your statement to the contrary. Is that what you are asserting here?

I'm not arguing at all. Just stating a fact.

That seems to be all you require. Who needs proof?:thumbs:

 

[Andre]

I'm not arguing at all. Just stating a fact.

That seems to be all you require. Who needs proof?:thumbs:

Here is the statement from wikipedia again:

The average global air temperature near the Earth's surface increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the hundred years ending in 2005.[1] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations"[1] via the greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward.[2][3]

These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least thirty scientific societies and academies of science,[4] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[5][6][7] While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC,[8] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.[9][10]

You respond with:

Wikipedia is generally a poor source and they provide no proof either.

Anybody can say anything...

Here goes.

The overwhelming majority of scientists do not subscribe to the theory of what is known as "global warming".

There. Now it's a fact, since no proof is required

If you think that your counter-assertion undoes the force of the wikipedia claim, with all its specificities and with documented support, then I am happy to let the reader draw whatever conclusion they wish to draw.

 

[carpro]

Here is the statement from wikipedia again:

Wikipedia offers no proof, either.

But, since it's not necessary for you to have proof, why does it matter?

You just accept it as fact because you want it to be true.

I don't accept it as fact because no proof is offered even though I'm willing to believe it just as soon as it is settled science. It's not even close.

 

[Andre]

The strategy of simply denying that a claim like the wikipedia is not supported by "proof" is rather interesting. There are numerous footnotes in the wikipedia article. For example, the claim that "the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions" includes two supporting references. These are:

1. A guide to facts and fictions about climate change. Royal Society (March 2005). Retrieved on 2007-11-18.
2. ^ Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Science Magazine (December 2004). Retrieved on 2008-01-04.

Do you not consider this to be "proof". What would you consider to be "proof"? What similar support do you offer in respect to your counter-claim?

Is it a list of 31,000 people, some of whom are eye doctors, veterinarians, mechanical engineers, kidney specialists, mathematicians, and dentists?

I will admit that I have not chased up the sources for the wikipedia. But I am so confident that the sources will turn out to be real climate experts - and not a rag-tag collection of 31,000 dentists and eye doctors - that I am willing to open myself up to be proven wrong.....

 

[carpro]

The strategy of simply denying that a claim like the wikipedia is not supported by "proof" is rather interesting. There are numerous footnotes in the wikipedia article. For example, the claim that "the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions" includes two supporting references. These are:

1. A guide to facts and fictions about climate change. Royal Society (March 2005). Retrieved on 2007-11-18.
2. ^ Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Science Magazine (December 2004). Retrieved on 2008-01-04.

The references offer no proof. Just opinion.

 

[Andre]

The references offer no proof. Just opinion.

Here is something from one of the references. It is structured in terms what it asserts are "misleading arguments" put forward by those who generally do not believe in the whole global warming thing:

Misleading arguments 4.






The Earth is getting hotter, but not because of emissions ofgreenhouse gases from human activities. Carbon dioxide makes up such a tiny fraction ofthe atmosphere that even if it doubled it would make little difference to the climate.Variations in the sun are more likely to be the cause of climate changing than increases ingreenhouse gases.

About half of the solar energy entering the top of the Earth’s atmosphere eventually reaches thesurface where it is absorbed. Much of the solar energy is absorbed by the Earth’s surface and then released as infra-red radiation, some of which is absorbed by greenhouse gases such as water vapour,carbon dioxide and methane. The greenhouse gases act like a blanket over the surface of the Earth,keeping it around 20 centigrade degrees warmer than it otherwise would be, which is a phenomenon known as ‘the greenhouse effect’.​

Increases in the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere enhance the greenhouse effect and, on average, lead to further warming. It has been long established that carbon dioxide strongly absorbs infra-red radiation. The IPCC 2001 report pointed out that carbon dioxide is “the dominant human-influenced greenhouse gas”, and is responsible for more than half the warming due to changes in atmospheric concentrations.​

Based on direct analysis of gases found trapped in cores of polar ice, it is known that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide for several thousands of years before 1750 was about 280 parts per million. Between 1750 and 2000, during which industrialisation has occurred, the concentration rose by about 31% to 368 parts per million. The IPCC report noted that the current concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has not been exceeded during the past 420,000 years and that “the rate of increase over the past century is unprecedented, at least during the past 20,000 years”.​

Carpro: Are you asserting that the above is an opinion? Do people generally have opinion about how many parts per million of CO2 are present in polar ice? What is your "opinion" on this matter?​

 

[carpro]

Get back to me when you can back up your assertions.

Until then....

Finis'