@lantern53 Where were Bush's apologies? Didn't he say that history would be the judge hence no need to apologise? Also, the government is not some mythical separate entity from 'the people". America is the bastion of democracy, don't you agree? How are we to separate the actions of its people from its government? Democracy, especially one as purportedly strong as your own, implies consent if not endorsement.

@bcglorf The first point just restates what I said which I think we both agree on.

The second point about Pakistan has been over simplified to the point of misdirection. There are 3 domains of power in Pakistan; the ISI (Intelligence), the military and the government. The ISI largely controls the madrassahs and although there is a huge amount of violence in Pakistan at the moment (something you won't hear about in Western news broadcasts) the main area of contention there is about Kashmir. It has little if nothing to do with the USA. In fact the USA aids the Pakistan cause by their alliance with Pakistan in an attempt to oppose Chinese backed India. Further, charities does not automatically mean state-based endorsement. Its quite a stretch.

Plus, I can name many muslim nations that did not have spontaneous celebrations. Afghanistan for one. Sure maybe a few in Kabul got wind of it but as a nation they are still pretty much in the dark about the whole thing. Some more, Turkey (secular yes but muslim by demos), Azer Baijan, Sudan, Bosnia-Herzogoznia, Burkina Faso, Chad, Comoros, Gambia, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Mauritania, Somalia.... I'm sure there were lots of other countries that had spontaneous displays of celebration after 9/11... France, Cuba, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Venuzuela, Russia, Guatemala, Vietnam, Philippines, Laos, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Mexico, Serbia.

To paint any display of celebration with the brush of enemy eliminates any nuance or desire for understanding complex issues for the sake of post hoc raltionalisation of ones own immediate intuitions. Does the Westboro Baptist Church mean that America is no better than any of the Muslim nations you list? Of course not. To say as much as absurd. To see brown people doing the same is merely convenient.

The third point you seem to provide your own refutation. Drones etc do indeed fuel Al Queda. You admit as much. If the AL Qaeda aim is indeed about Pakistan and India (which I think you may be very confused about Al-Qaeda and its Pakistani brethren, two very separate entities with almost no commonality bar what we grant them). Al Qaeda in the Bin Laden days cared nothing for Pakistan. It was almost entirely focused on Saudi Arabia and only went to Afghanistan as a sort of Boys Own adventure club. They were the laughing stock of the Mujahaddin.

@JustSaying

Looks like I have some time on my hands....
Blergh, get that off me!
Look, Shiny, that post was not meant for you in the first place. It was *about* you, not *for* you.

I'm not sure how you could say that. It was both about me and for me. You obviously wanted me to read it ("@"shinyblurry), and you asked me a direct question at the bottom of it.

What I was trying to say, to tell others, was that you already made up your mind. And then you put it in a box, put that box in a safe, put that safe in a big ass wooden crate, poured concrete over it and threw it into the deepest pit of the ocean. Unless somebody's got a big red "S" on their shirt, the Hammer rule applies: Can't touch this!

Yes, I've made up my mind about God, and so would you, or anyone, if you were to receive personal revelation that He exists. You seem to think that isn't possible, but have you considered that it is impossible for you to know that? Why is it a virtue to you that one cannot come to any definite conclusions about truth? Is it an intellectually superior position to not know anything for certain?

You and me both know very much that my post is actually easy to reply to and contains a very definite core message concerning you and I know why you won't reply to it. Your way of arguing, from what I've seen, consists of very well known (at least to me) tactics like qouting small excerpts and single sentences, bogging down the discussion in details until your opponents grows tired and gives up. I used to do this all the time.

You asserted many things in your post which would require detailed refutations and it would be fairly time consuming to respond to all of it. That is why I asked you to narrow the field. I also don't have any tactics. I attempt to engage in an intellectually honest discussion and I wouldn't bother writing if it was for the purpose of winning an argument. I honestly don't care about winning the argument; I only hope to share something of value.

I also know that what I wrote about you (baseless assumption or not) isn't very nice. I realise how offensive it must be to you but I assure you, my intention is not to hurt your feelings, religious or otherwise. I may disagree greatly but I am not here to piss on your leg. I apologize for that even if I will continue to stand by my point.

That's okay; it's nothing I haven't heard before. I understand that posting on a website populated by atheists people are going to unload on me.

Actually your response to my rather innocent question regarding musical taste proves it. "I don't listen to secular music anymore" is what you wrote. You divide music into secular and non-secular. That's your worldview right there. Non-secular vs. secular.
Not listening to secular music means you don't listen to The Beatles, John Williams, Jimi Hendrix, The Prodigy, Beastie Boys, Ennio Morricone, Queen, Cypress Hill, Deep Purple or Jesper Kyd. All great musicians. It may even include people like Mozart or Beethoven. Why? Because it's not religious enough?
Your worldview is seperates everything into two categories: secular and non-secular.
I pity you for that. You miss out on so many wonderful things.

I haven't missed out on them; I wasn't always a Christian. I grew up in a secular home without religion and was saved later in life. I've tried what the world has to offer and I've rejected it. Or as the scripture explains, I am in the world but not of it. Jesus said you are either for Him or against Him; he who does not gather with Him, scatters abroad.

Having said that, I must also tell you this: I am glad you're here.
There is this discussion going on in this thread about the rightness of the ignore function. I see no problem with that. @shinyblurry certainly posts many things that aren't popular here but as far as I can tell he always stays civil and quite cool, given the nature of responses he gets. I understand why some people don't want to discuss anything with him. I advise against discussing certain topics altogether, this is why I posted in this thread at all, however I must say I never saw him behaving in troublesome ways.
Assuming that this site is a place for open discussion about pretty much any topic, I think shiny's input has its place here. Putting him on ignore is not an act of ignorance or cowardice or however you want to characterise it, it is simply unwillingness to to argue with him. It is the realisation that this crate of his ist way beyond our reach, our touch.
I don't like people to tell me what I want to hear, I want people to tell me what they think. I belive shiny does.

Thanks, I appreciate that. If people want to ignore me that is their choice, but this isn't anything new. The talk of banning and ignoring me started almost immediately after I arrived here. While this site is based on democratic ideals, some people only want that in a limited sense. By that I mean that some want to be free, for instance, to post anti-christian videos and express anti-christian opinions yet they are bitterly opposed to anyone posting about the contrary.

Looks like I have some time on my hands....
Blergh, get that off me!
Look, Shiny, that post was not meant for you in the first place. It was *about* you, not *for* you. What I was trying to say, to tell others, was that you already made up your mind. And then you put it in a box, put that box in a safe, put that safe in a big ass wooden crate, poured concrete over it and threw it into the deepest pit of the ocean. Unless somebody's got a big red "S" on their shirt, the Hammer rule applies: Can't touch this!
You and me both know very much that my post is actually easy to reply to and contains a very definite core message concerning you and I know why you won't reply to it. Your way of arguing, from what I've seen, consists of very well known (at least to me) tactics like qouting small excerpts and single sentences, bogging down the discussion in details until your opponents grows tired and gives up. I used to do this all the time.
I also know that what I wrote about you (baseless assumption or not) isn't very nice. I realise how offensive it must be to you but I assure you, my intention is not to hurt your feelings, religious or otherwise. I may disagree greatly but I am not here to piss on your leg. I apologize for that even if I will continue to stand by my point.
Actually your response to my rather innocent question regarding musical taste proves it. "I don't listen to secular music anymore" is what you wrote. You divide music into secular and non-secular. That's your worldview right there. Non-secular vs. secular.
Not listening to secular music means you don't listen to The Beatles, John Williams, Jimi Hendrix, The Prodigy, Beastie Boys, Ennio Morricone, Queen, Cypress Hill, Deep Purple or Jesper Kyd. All great musicians. It may even include people like Mozart or Beethoven. Why? Because it's not religious enough?
Your worldview is seperates everything into two categories: secular and non-secular.
I pity you for that. You miss out on so many wonderful things.
Having said that, I must also tell you this: I am glad you're here.
There is this discussion going on in this thread about the rightness of the ignore function. I see no problem with that. @shinyblurry certainly posts many things that aren't popular here but as far as I can tell he always stays civil and quite cool, given the nature of responses he gets. I understand why some people don't want to discuss anything with him. I advise against discussing certain topics altogether, this is why I posted in this thread at all, however I must say I never saw him behaving in troublesome ways.
Assuming that this site is a place for open discussion about pretty much any topic, I think shiny's input has its place here. Putting him on ignore is not an act of ignorance or cowardice or however you want to characterise it, it is simply unwillingness to to argue with him. It is the realisation that this crate of his ist way beyond our reach, our touch.
I don't like people to tell me what I want to hear, I want people to tell me what they think. I belive shiny does.

I don't listen to secular music anymore; I did use to listen to daft punk though. If you want to hear what I listen to now visit: http://www.elijahstreams.com/

I'm not going to comment on your commentary about me..if you want to engage me in a debate then select a topic. You spoke about many different subjects at the same time and I am not chasing all of those rabbits.

So, it seems to make your point of Christian tollerance you show me a site all about Christianity including a part where non-Christian speak is absolutely not allowed. Hmmmm.? You don't see the issue there?
You are allowed to say whatever you like, and others are allowed to speak their mind about what you said. Where's the persecution? Being ignored is not persecution, neither is being disagreed with, and so far as I know no one banned you.
My experience was far different, growing up in the deep south as a non-Christian is a truly hard row to hoe, and a dangerous one. I also disagree that our entertainment or education system is secular, it may have pockets of secularism, but not an entirety by far. Consider how you would feel if your money had "there is no god" printed on it, it's an example of how our society caters to religion across the board.
As far as religious freedom's being curtailed, that's a good thing, religion has enjoyed a freedom from responsibility for it's actions for far too long, and needs to be curtailed before we live in the Christian equivelant of sharia law, like many Christians support and vote for.
I would continue this discussion, but you do not seem to be following the logic or even the truthful statements I am presenting. As I wrote previously, I do not expect to change your mind, I simply hope to offer a different point of view for the other readers of this exchange.
Not ignoring, but done replying.

Here is a Christian website where you can talk about whatever you want:

http://www.christianforums.com/

There are some sections of the forum which are Christian only, but most are not. If the rule of the website was secular only, then I wouldn't post anything there. If it is anything goes, like the sift is, then I can talk about whatever I want to within reason.

You're also acting like no one brings up religion here. Go to the religion channel and you'll find hundreds of videos about it, most of them portraying it in a negative light. If the members of the sift are free to post videos and make comments against God and Christianity, then why aren't I, who am also a member, free to post videos and make comments supporting Christianity?

I grew up in a secular home without any religion. I wasn't persecuted by one Christian in my entire life. I realize some people grow up in religious homes and when they become atheists they get persecuted, but I just want to note that this isn't what Jesus taught them to do. I will join anyone in condemning that behavior. However, American culture is overwhelmingly secular. Our entertainment is secular, as well as our education system. I grew up without much of any exposure to Christianity, and I lived all over the country. So I think you are overrstating things, especially in America. You may say the same for me, but it's absolutely true that religious freedoms in America have been curtailed and dialogue about God has shunned from the national conversation. It's not as bad here as it is in other places but it could get that way pretty quickly.

As far as intolerance goes, I don't have a problem with you or anyone here. My most ardent critics are the ones usually on my heart the most often. I care about you guys and I hope the best for you. God bless.

I would posit this question: Can one post on religious websites freely without issue if you don't talk about (or believe in) Jebus?
Answer: No, one will be lambasted and inundated with outrage for suggesting another point of view where it's not wanted. (it makes little difference which religion we're talking about).
Neither act is right, I just wish to point out that the intolerance is almost always coming FROM the religious side, not towards it. The religious are just hyper sensitive, never having had to defend their position before (because they effectively silenced all dissenting opinion(s)). The non-religious are hardened by centuries of oppression from the religious, so we don't complain about it as much, we expect it from a certain percentage and try to ignore them.
I feel you can post on secular websites freely without issue if you don't talk ONLY about Jebus.

You can post on secular websites freely without issue, if you don't talk about Jesus. If you talk about the things the world loves, the world has no problem with that. If you talk about the things the world hates (Jesus) then the world will hate you for saying it.

Over 200 thousand Christians are martyred every year for their faith. The atheistic state in Soviet Russia killed at least 20 million Christians (probably a lot more) and the atheistic state in China has been persecuting Christians for over 50 years (and the governments before that for hundreds of years)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians

@shinyblurry
@newtboy has offered you his reasoning on the "whys" and he is not the first who has pointed this out to you.
his criticism does not come off as an attack on you at all but rather a fair assessment on how you interact in discussions here on the sift and i have seen many others (including myself) who have offered the same criticism.
@bareboards2 alluded to this very practice right here on this thread.

so while i will defend your right to be here and say what you need to say and ask empathy from others who may interact with you,i cannot understand your logic in posting walls of text peppered with biblical verses.
you acknowledge the fact this is a secular site yet continue to post scripture to people who have no interest in said scripture.

you cannot force people to give scripture the validity that you give it.

so you really cant blame people for tuning you out when you quote-mine,deflect,contradict and go verse crazy.

if you are trying to reach people then speak to them as people.but stop using the very vehicle they hold zero belief in,thats just a waste of time.

disagreements are fun but repetition is boring.you cant ask for a certain amount of patience and understanding and then not give it in return.

Most Christians (and other religious people) post on secular websites freely without any issue. It is only the zealous, hyper religious people that can't form a thought that isn't based on their fairy tale book that regularly garner animus.
The idea that Christians are persecuted by the non-religious is laughable. The opposite is true, in real life and the internet. When one side of an argument is arguing for exclusion or hatred of a group, it's invariably the religious side making that argument. Because you can find one post in 1000 that's blatantly anti-religious doesn't make you persecuted. What about the 250 in 1000 posts that are blatantly anti-secularism (like each and every post of yours I've ever read even part of)? I'm guessing that, like logic and rationality, you ignore them in favor of your story book answers and your imaginary friend's 'laws'.

A christian posting on a secular website garners hostility, and that's pretty much universal. You'll find it in the comment section of any news story regarding anything even remotely about religion, you'll find it on youtube, twitter, facebook, web forums..basically everywhere. Where ever a Christian voices an opinion 5 atheists appear to mock him..I think that's a rule on the internet.

@bareboards2
my comment was not really directed at you my dear.i painted my premise with a broad brush that expanded from this thread and addressed something i have found to be more and more practiced on the sift.

you posted your reasons why you used the ignore.
to get rid of the "rabble" and make it easier to read posts you enjoy.
now if that means posts that you agree with or dont find offensive ..well..that is kind of my point.

and you are so right.we all have a right to our opinion and in my opinion to sequester posts you disagree or find offensive is intellectually weak.

@VoodooV you literally just made my entire point by your post and i dont know if that was on purpose or by freak accident.

while i agree with your assertion that @shinyblurry tends to wade in the copy/paste waters and he dwells in circular logic land.you have to give the boy props for lending a perspective of a christian fundamentalist on a mainly secular left site.

that boy can rile you all up like a stick to a hornets nest.which is endless entertainment for me.

but lets change that paradigm shall we?
why dont you head down to your nearest baptist church and hand out fliers concerning evolution to the congregation and tell them god doesnt exist.

then maybe you would know what it feels like to get blasted by all sides at once.while shiny lacks in clear debate skills.you gotta admire his courage.

as for @chingalera seeking attention.
i dunno.
maybe you are right.
but the real question is how did you come to that conclusion?
by what means did you discern his intentions?motivations?
crystal ball? black magic? a little fairy come by and whisper in your ear?

no.
you used your OWN subjective understanding.your OWN experiences to presume the motivations of another sifter.
thats weak sauce and you better than that.

and then..finally..you ask for a daddy to come in straighten out the people who you:disagree with.argue in a way you dont find constructive (but may be they do).derail threads that maybe you would have enjoyed more if those pesky kids hadnt messed everything up.

the world dont revolve around you so get over yourself man.for fuck sakes!

i was sincere when i said i love your commentary because i truly do.
smart,witty and you usually have something to say.i ADORE your commentary but you are being self righteous on this thread.

i did something very similar last week to @renatojj and he called me out.he was right and i was wrong.

stop trying to impose your ideals of what constructive participation is based solely on your own and limited understanding.
this is not your sift but rather OURS and things will become chaotic at times.

the sift is organic.
allow it to metamorph into whatever it will become.
we do not need a big daddy to direct where it goes and thats the beauty of this site.

the irony in all this exchange between you and i is that i feel you have something to say and have always admired that about you.
allow other people to have their say as well.

what a profoundly sad thread this has become.

i am not referring to the most excellent posts by @Chairman_woo and his discourse with @shinyblurry.

no.

it is the ignore function use i am talking about.
what an intellectually weak and vapid excuse to not engage with those who you may disagree with or (gasp) not actually like.

are your tender sensibilities so fragile as to not survive scrutiny of one who may disagree? or is it the manner in which they disagree?
is THAT the measure of how you judge anothers ideas?
words?
and you find this to be a valid reason?
this makes sense in your world?

well allow me to point out that without the dissenting voice challenging your preconceptions and only allowing those that parrot the same homogenized,pastuerized vanilla-same cloned vomit will only serve to create a stagnant pond of lifeless banality.

but as long as you are safe in your little bubble world in which you are always right and the circle-jerk perpetuates a lackluster and flaccid worldview.then thats ok right? as long as the echo chamber reflects how RIGHT you are.

@chingalera offends you?
good! because maybe you needed to be offended.

@VoodooV we have to apologize to @bareboards2 for derailing her thread?
no we fucking dont.
human discourse is by its very nature an ugly evolving creature.so get over yourself.love your commentary,hate your high horse..so get the fuck off it.

@bareboards2 is a very nice and sweet woman,and sometimes can be sensitive but she is a big girl and i dont think we will find her weeping in a dark,curtains drawn room.in fact i am willing to bet she loves the fact her video got such a great discussion going.so who are you to judge? or tell us what we should or should not do for that matter?

this brings me all back to my main point.
the sift used to have a vibrant community that discussed,argued and debated.the arguments were legendary and we still see old skool sifters refer to these people with fondness,even if they disagreed with them vehemently.
they were passionate and had something to say.
the list reads like a funeral march to those great voices who have passed and no longer engage in the sift:@MINK,@rougy,@choggie,@thinker247,@joedirt

what do we have now?
bunch of panty waist pussies who will only jump on the band wagon because other people join in the carnage.jumping on @BoBknight,@shinyblurry,@Lantern.
its like a bully convention with free crystal meth.
these folks might as well be black living in mississippi in the 1800's.
look! a chrsitan fundamentalist!
a conservative right winger!
lets lynch em......

and those tired pussies dont even have the courage to choke on their own hypocrisy.
wont even acknowledge that those in the minority have some serious balls to post comments on a secular left site.
this hasnt become a self-masturbatory thread.
its one big circle jerk.

so to those old skool peeps that i know still lurk here on the sift.
please come back.
for the love of god come back.
because these pussies are to busy sucking each others dicks.

im going to get some fresh air because you fuckers have sucked all the vibrance out of the air and left it stale with your own hubris.

and for the love of christ.get the fuck over yourself.

On a daily basis, politicians, like Obama, and pundits in the lamestream media mindlessly bump their gums about global warming, uh... "climate change" (the term employed when the earth stopped warming), without having the slightest idea what they are talking about. Most simply parrot the line about a "so-called "consensus of scientists," without the slightest knowledge of the science or data, or point to extreme weather events as “proof.” Al Gore and Henry Waxman have become masters at this. Noam Chomsky should stick to linguistics. Once he ventures outside of his specialty, he’s just a run-of-the-mill leftist loon.

Science does not operate on the basis of consensus, but provable fact and hard DATA that is replicable. No one can prove that C02 causes warming, apart from the other forces that are chiefly determinative of climate--solar output, cosmic rays (and their effect on cloud cover), the earth's elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, etc. The earth's climate cycle has been in place for eons and is not being altered by any significant degree by anthropogenic CO2. In fact, 99% of the people who believe in the "global warming crisis" cannot even tell you what the current globally-averaged temperature is, nor how much it may have risen over the past century (or any other time frame for that matter). Nor do they know that the current globally averaged temperature is 1-2 degrees C below what it was during the Medieval Warm Period, when human activity could not have been a factor.

Neither temperatures nor sea level rise are accelerating. Temperatures haven't risen since 1997. And even the U.N. predicts just an 8.5" to 18.5" sea level rise by 2100 (2007 IPCC Report), far below the 20 feet predicted by Al Gore, or the 35 feet predicted by Joe Lieberman in 2002. In fact, sea levels have been rising at a rate of about 7" per century since the end of the last age 12,500 years ago, so the U.N.'s predicted range is likely to fall at the low end.

Weather stations around the world are notoriously unreliable, many placed in locations now near asphalt parking lots, etc., replicating the urban island heat effect. Calculating the globally averaged temperature in an enormously complex task. compounded when scientific frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann (of the infamous "hockey stick" graph) hide, and would not supply, their data because it does not support their predetermined conclusions of anthropogenic global warming. (Climategate). This is not surprising, however, since thousands of scientists stand to collectively lose billions in federal research grants if the hoax is exposed (more than $80 billion has already been spent on such research, nearly 500 times what oil companies have spent to fund so-called “skeptics”), a fact totally lost, or grossly misrepresented, by global warming religionists.

The fact is: even if the earth's temperature is rising marginally, from natural forces, it will be far better for mankind than falling temperatures. It will result in higher crop yields and less death around the world. More than twice as many people die of extreme cold than extreme heat.

Contrary to morons such as Al Gore (who will never agree to debate the topic, so fearful is he of getting his clock cleaned), scientific evidence clearly shows that we have had no increase in extreme weather events. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, summed up the latest science on weather extremes when he wrote that “There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change....There's really no evidence that we're in the midst of an extreme weather era - whether man has influenced climate or not,”
Pielke also explained that the data does not support linking Hurricane Sandy to man-made global warming. “Sandy was terrible, but we're currently in a relative hurricane 'drought'.” But that doesn’t stop politicians from trying to make political hay from them.

Much of the gum bumping about "global warming" may be attributed to the political aspirations of Al Gore who hoped to ride an environmental white horse into the White House. It all comes down to a politically-motivated overreaction to a 0.35 degree C increase in globally-averaged temperatures in the period from 1978-1997. Since 1998, temperatures have flat-lined. They are now at 14.5 degrees Celsius which is exactly where they were in 1997. What this amounted to was a hyperbolic response to a temporary and cyclical climate phenomenon, which has been replicated a myriad of times in human history.

The climate history of the 20th century, by itself, contradicts the CO2 equals warming hypothesis. From 1913-1945, CO2 was not a factor and temperatures rose slightly. And from 1945-1977, temperatures fell in the face of rising CO2. It was only in the period from 1978-1997 that temperatures and CO2 rose simultaneously. But since CO2 is likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, we will have periods of both rising and falling temperatures in the face of rising CO2.

The scientific travesty is that many politicians are trying to transform CO2 into a “pollutant” requiring draconian federal regulations whose only effect will be to stifle economic growth. CO2 is a harmless trace element constituting just 0.039 per cent of the earth's atmosphere (390 parts per million by volume). It's what humans and animals exhale and its presence helps plant production. 500 million years ago, CO was 20 times more prevalent in our atmosphere. The aim is to convince the uninformed that carbon dioxide is the equivalent of carbon monoxide, a highly toxic gas.

With time and historical perspective, the global warming crisis will turn out to be the greatest scientific fraud in history. But that won’t politicians from exploiting it in the short term.

On a daily basis, politicians, like Obama, and pundits mindlessly bump their gums about global warming, uh... "climate change" (the term employed when the earth stopped warming), without having the slightest idea what they are talking about. Malloy is just the latest in a long line of demagogic politicians trying to capitalize on the scare. Most simply parrot the line about a "so-called "consensus of scientists," without the slightest knowledge of the science or data, or point to extreme weather events as “proof.”

Science does not operate on the basis of consensus, but provable fact and hard DATA that is replicable. No one can prove that C02 causes warming, apart from the other forces that are chiefly determinative of climate--solar output, cosmic rays (and their effect on cloud cover), the earth's elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, etc. The earth's climate cycle has been in place for eons and is not being altered by any significant degree by anthropogenic CO2. In fact, 99% of the people who believe in the "global warming crisis" cannot even tell you what the current globally-averaged temperature is, nor how much it may have risen over the past century (or any other time frame for that matter). Nor do they know that the current globally averaged temperature is 1-2 degrees C below what it was during the Medieval Warm Period, when human activity could not have been a factor.

Neither temperatures nor sea level rise are accelerating. Temperatures haven't risen since 1997. And even the U.N. predicts just an 8.5" to 18.5" sea level rise by 2100 (2007 IPCC Report), far below the 20 feet predicted by Al Gore, or the 35 feet predicted by Joe Lieberman in 2002. In fact, sea levels have been rising at a rate of about 7" per century since the end of the last age 12,500 years ago, so the U.N.'s predicted range is likely to fall at the low end.

Weather stations around the world are notoriously unreliable, many placed in locations now near asphalt parking lots, etc., replicating the urban island heat effect. Calculating the globally averaged temperature in an enormously complex task. compounded when scientific frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann (of the infamous "hockey stick" graph) hide, and would not supply, their data because it does not support their predetermined conclusions of anthropogenic global warming. (Climategate). This is not surprising, however, since thousands of scientists stand to collectively lose billions in federal research grants if the hoax is exposed (more than $80 billion has already been spent on such research, nearly 500 times what oil companies have spent to fund so-called “skeptics”).

The fact is: even if the earth's temperature is rising marginally, from natural forces, it will be far better for mankind than falling temperatures. It will result in higher crop yields and less death around the world. More than twice as many people die of extreme cold than extreme heat. The scientific evidence clearly shows that we have had no increase in extreme weather events. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, summed up the latest science on weather extremes when he wrote that “There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change....There's really no evidence that we're in the midst of an extreme weather era - whether man has influenced climate or not,”
Pielke also explained that the data does not support linking Hurricane Sandy to man-made global warming. “Sandy was terrible, but we're currently in a relative hurricane 'drought'.” But that doesn’t stop politicians from trying to make political hay from them.

Much of the gum bumping about "global warming" may be attributed to the political aspirations of Al Gore who hoped to ride an environmental white horse into the White House. It all comes down to a politically-motivated overreaction to a 0.35 degree C increase in globally-averaged temperatures in the period from 1978-1997. Since 1998, as Mr. Hart correctly points out, temperatures have flat-lined or declined. What this amounted to was a hyperbolic response to a temporary and cyclical climate phenomenon, which has been replicated a myriad of times in human history.

The climate history of the 20th century, by itself, contradicts the CO2 equals warming hypothesis. From 1913-1945, CO2 was not a factor and temperatures rose slightly. And from 1945-1977, temperatures fell in the face of rising CO2. It was only in the period from 1978-1997 that temperatures and CO2 rose simultaneously. But since CO2 is likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, we will have periods of both rising and falling temperatures in the face of rising CO2.

The scientific travesty is that many politicians are trying to transform CO2 into a “pollutant” requiring draconian federal regulations whose only effect will be to stifle economic growth. CO2 is a harmless trace element constituting just 0.039 per cent of the earth's atmosphere (390 parts per million by volume). It's what humans and animals exhale and its presence helps plant production. 500 million years ago, CO was 20 times more prevalent in our atmosphere. The aim is to convince the uninformed that carbon dioxide is the equivalent of carbon monoxide, a highly toxic gas.

With time and historical perspective, the global warming crisis will turn out to be the greatest scientific fraud in history. But that won’t politicians from exploiting it in the short term. Obama has already wasted billions trying to fix a non-problem.
And now he’s even orchestrating the mindless followers of a new secular religion to march on the Mall to advance this silly agenda.

Why is deduction based on experimental knowledge impossible without a God?

You have never told anyone why this is not possible.

Could you be wrong about everything you know?

My answer for Stalin is nine posts up - you missed it.

Could you repaste it? I don't see it.

Fuck Jesus - his innovations are that you don't need to take personal responsibility for this life, this life is a transient thing to suffer through, and there is hell is a consequence. It's all pathetic fearmongering.

On the contrary, when you follow Jesus you have to take personal responsibility for every last bit of your life, including owning up to the wrong you've done in your life and making amends for it. Secular morality only operates when people can see you; God see's everything and you can't hide anything from Him. Your conscience is my witness to what I am saying, that you've broken His laws. People put on a front and say they're good people based on what people know about them, but God knows our hearts. Jesus said hell is a real place and that everyone who has not received Gods forgiveness will be going there. Jesus wasn't fear mongering when He said that; He said that to warn you about what is going to happen to you when you die. That's why He died on the cross. He died so that you could be forgiven and wouldn't have to go there.