Ps37

Psalm 1 1 Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take or sit in the company of mockers, 2 but whose delight is in the law of the Lord, and who meditates on his law day and night. 3 That person is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither— whatever they do prospers. 4 Not so the wicked! They are like chaff that the wind blows away. 5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous. 6 For the Lord watches over the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked leads to destruction.

I had no idea someone could get appointed "Special Presidential Envoy For Climate" without having had more than sufficient prior access to "climate data" when he cited "scientists" as predicting ice-free arctic summers by 2014. But I suppose that people who think politicians who are appointed "Special Presidential Envoy For Climate," and who thereby dictate "climate policy," did not have more than sufficient prior access to "climate data" when citing the predictions of "scientists" wouldn't care.

John Kerry in 2009: https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/294394-john-kerry-in-2009/?do=findComment&comment=3690827

As I said earlier, I have no issue with anyone getting a tattoo of their own choosing, especially if it's faith-based. Just not for me.

I suppose one's level of skepticism determines their faith in the notion that placing anything under the aegis of "science" renders it always and everywhere pure, unadulterated, and beyond the influence and corruption of the regime under which it serves. I imagine that from 1933-1945 "science deniers" were not well-tolerated. https://www.nature.com/articles/35038223 I choose to remain skeptical. Others are (still, as far as I know) free to make their own choices.

Thanks for posting that. Jeff's great. l'm sure you've also seen his "Understanding the Wife Code." My wife and I laugh out loud no matter how many times we see it.

With the above in mind, I looked at some of the sources you cited: Wikipedia: The central policy of inviting readers to serve as authors or editors creates the potential for problems as well as their at least partial solution. Not all users are scrupulous about providing accurate information, and Wikipedia must also deal with individuals who deliberately deface particular articles, post misleading or false statements, or add obscene material. Wikipedia’s method is to rely on its users to monitor and clean up its articles. Trusted contributors can also receive administrator privileges that provide access to an array of software tools to speedily fix Web graffiti and other serious problems. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Wikipedia The Atlantic: The Atlantic is an American magazine and multi-platform publisher. It features articles in the fields of politics, foreign affairs, business and the economy, culture and the arts, technology, and science.[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atlantic Sixthtone: Sixth Tone is a state-owned English-language online magazine published by Shanghai United Media Group.[1][2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Tone) Scienceblogs: A writer at the New York Times Magazine reviewed the incident and commented, "ScienceBlogs has become Fox News for the religion-baiting, peak-oil crowd." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScienceBlogs From the References section of ScienceBlogs wikipedia entry: This month Seed magazine decided to introduce a new blog to its ScienceBlogs department, called Food Frontiers. It was sponsored by PepsiCo and was to be written by their scientists. Less than a day later Seed shut the blog down – before a word of substance had been posted – because of a backlash from its readers and other ScienceBloggers. That's how easy it is for the bloggerati to hound out undesirable opinions. This is a shameful response from nearly all parties involved. Suppression of free speech is never acceptable, no matter who is being censored or who is calling for it. That prominent science writers aided such suppression is even more problematic – and, in my opinion, even cowardly. But worst of all, because of this, ScienceBlog commenters, science journalists and bloggers everywhere missed an unprecedented opportunity. Why can't people – from both the left and the right – learn that the solution to "undesirable" speech is not suppression, but freedom of expression? This lesson, seemingly, must be made time and time again. Worse still, those positioned to understand this best are too often the first to cave in to trivial fears. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jul/20/pepsico-scienceblog-bloggerati A corporate-sponsored blog has no place in ScienceBlogs. It can't be taken seriously and drags down the legitimate blogs by association. If this blog is not closed prompty, I hope the other blogs leave ScienceBlogs as quickly as possible. Shame on you. Shame on the ScienceBlogs management. There won't be a scrap of honest opinion expressed over there that isn't filtered and vetted by cautious editors before making it online, and it will all toe the Pepsi line. It's going to be boring. It's going to blur the line between blog content and advertising. It's going to be bloodless dull blogging that will diminish the Scienceblogs brand. https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2010/jul/07/scienceblogs-blogging-pepsi While the science community reacted with indignation and shock this week over ScienceBlogs' decision to publish a blog on nutrition written by food giant PepsiCo, I was unsurprised. I've been here before with Seed magazine, owners of the ScienceBlogs network. Crystal clear. It seems I had to run my articles past the ads department. In more than a decade working in the industry, I had never come across such a blatant disregard for editorial independence. My motivation for telling this tale is that some people think that the ScienceBlogs fiasco has been a lot of fuss about nothing – that Seed is just trying to make a buck and went about it in a rather naive way, and the scientists who left the site are blowing the whole thing out of proportion. Journalism is a small, inter-dependent industry. Science journalism, like every specialism, operates in a particularly small world and I know that by telling this story, my colleagues may close ranks behind Seed. But in return for all the times we journalists ask others to blow the whistle and expose corruption, I know I must be willing to do the same. https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2010/jul/09/seed-editorial-independence-scienceblogs

I see. Blogs work for you, not so much for me.

I will grant you that it is a fair point that China does not produce more greenhouse gas than the rest of the developed world when lesser industrial powers like Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Korea are removed from the mix. Valid point. Since you have no data to support your assumption about me, it seems this falls more under the rubric of personal stuff, so it seems fair enough for me to make an assumption of my own: This seems like an effort to make it appear that China is half the polluter the US is, otherwise sticking with the absolute numbers should have sufficed. Since no evidence is presented for "faked magazine covers and other things" other than the fact that you state you "noticed" them, it seems assertions can be made or refuted on the basis of personal say-s0. It seems also that assertions can be made or refuted on the basis of personal recollection ("far back as I can remember"). In that case, some of us do in fact have memories that extend far enough back to remember when the warnings of the "coming ice age" were widely disseminated on a regular basis.

No, just a random crossing of paths at a home improvement store. Any other tattoos I've seen since then have been secular, which is fine by me as well.

The website I cited stated: But China emits more greenhouse gas than the entire developed world combined. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57018837 I guess we were supposed to be "gullible" enough not to notice that your attempt at refutation required you to alter the parameters to "per capita" ("for reasons everyone can understand"). Your own website states the following: "The rankings above change when we account for the population of each country (ie, per capita emissions)": China: 9.90 Metric gigatons United States: 4.70 Metric gigatons India: 2.30 Metric gigatons Russian Federation: 1.60 Metric gigatons Japan: 1.10 Metric gigatons Germany: 0.64 Metric gigatons As you see, China produces almost exactly the same amount of greenhouse gases as the United States, India, Russian Federation, Japan, and Germany combined.

I wonder if those of us who were just as skeptical in the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's, 1990's, 2000's of the "scientific" claims disseminated by the media were as contemporaneously "misinformed", "tricked", "fooled", "misled", and "in denial" as we are now. I've seen from your posts here and elsewhere how important this is to you. Just keep trying, and everything will be OK. The irony.

You might do the same. https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

But Obama's coastline acreage at 1 meter above sea level is safe. Check. But China emits more greenhouse gas than the entire developed world combined. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57018837 Check. Some place more trust than others do in the honesty of politicians, the donors who control them, the scientists funded by them, and the media who do their bidding in their claims that man controls climate through being able to "change" it. Some place more trust than others do that there can be no nefarious intent behind the application of the label "existential threat" to one issue after the other. Some place more trust than others do in the utility of labeling those who refuse to fall in line behind them as "deniers" or "anti-science" (or, as the issue-of-the moment requires, "anti-vaxxers", "racists", "sexists", "homophobes", "transphobes", "xenophobes", etc.). Some of us place our trust in knowing that it wasn't the guys in the boat who had any control over the sea level: Matthew 8:26-27 Mark 4:39-41 Luke 8:24-25

Sounds like pettifogging over "nearly completely" and "completely." If the title had read, "Rising Seas Will All But Erase More Cities by 2050", to what extent would the threat have been "less exaggerated"? If someone, God forbid, says to you "I'm going to all but erase you," how less threatened do you feel than if they were to say, "I'm going to erase you"? If the Times is engaging in exaggeration, are they not, by your previous definition a "denier" outlet? Does China know this?

Wouldn't surprise me if he did.

Thank you for that!

He did. As I said previously, I'm not a big fan of tattoos, and they're not something I have considered (or will consider) for myself, but I have no issue with anyone else having them, especially when they involve Scripture.

Not that I can recall.

When referring to the NY Times article "Rising Seas Will Erase More Cities by 2050", you stated Yet you also stated When the assertion that rising sea levels could all but erase cities is simultaneously "misleading" and "what scientists are predicting," I'm comfortable maintaining my skepticism.

Kind of makes you wonder why "non-hysterical" "non-denier" outlets would print misleading titles. In any event, when in the span of a few posts, someone can go from to I'm comfortable maintaining my level of skepticism.

For example, one that tells you that Obama and Kerry said cities were going to be "submerged" in the next century or so. You're a victim only as you let those guys tell you stories like that. I've looked at the data. While some areas of low-lying coastal cities would be flooded, none of them would be "submerged." "to go below or make something go below the surface of the sea or a river or lake: " https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/submerge I can't think of one that would even be completely flooded in this century. This kind of hysterical exaggeration is a common characteristic of denier websites. Since you stated: it would seem the following might be "hysterical exaggeration: "Rising Seas Will Erase More Cities by 2050": National Geographic "15 cities that could be underwater by 2030": NY Times First you state: Then you state: Seems like a bit of a moving target.

Posted twice before: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/pages/article/sea-level-rise-flood-global-warming-science https://www.timeout.com/things-to-do/cities-that-could-be-underwater-by-2030 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/29/climate/coastal-cities-underwater.html https://www.livescience.com/what-places-disappear-rising-sea-levels https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/30/world/rising-sea-cities-study-intl-hnk-scli-sci/index.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/us/politics/obama-climate-change.html https://www.npr.org/2021/04/23/990307470/john-kerry-says-climate-change-is-an-existential-crisi

One might assume that the "hysterical denier websites" like CNN, NY Times, NPR, would have "went with the scientific literature."