continues..shortly

god is...beyond sex

its not..what i believe..its what..*may have been..
because you science lot..cant fill-in..the blanks..

[its..a working..hypo-thesis..[a theory]
JUST LIKE..YOU LOT..HAVE GOT

a theory..[all you got faith..in]
plus mine...i got..my faith..in

all your facts..re species/evolution
with my certainty..that you cant name..
ANY MACRO-evolution..[into..*new genus]

[and i note..you again..didnt name..*any]

to finish..previous post
[for your amusment..and titilation]

previous/quote..continued

""While..the sequence/alignment..shows comparatively..how related..two species are,..
*there is no indication
as to..how*..they evolved""

thats..a scientist
speaking..the truth

it..like all of them..genus/evolution like steps..
emerged..as god self-discoverd..[grew into omnipotance]

over time..[by natural/expectation..progression]..
based upon logical reflection..

and god..expanding..the concepts
of what god isnt..

[yet god still..created..
and sustains..to live.].

the qualities..of all/aspects of life...[as recorded by evolutionists..who cant name..exgact..*'progression..
nor confirm it..with any science/method;..

[to wit..rote science/theory]

thus the..[my]..*theory..
[of celular..alpha/macro-evolution..[theo-wry]

[to wit..many creation events..

then//in time..homo..[adam]
who..lol..wanted hetro..[eve]

'"it seems..that you
may actually..believe
in..macro-evolution,""

autoniouse/spontanios..self macroevolution...?

*nope..

micro/evolution..
[species..with-IN genus..
changing species]..im fine..with that

but wait..till YOU find..a new genus
before granting..you..that licence..
or verifying it..as a possability

im just joining..the facts..as the facts emerge

i love science discovery..cause
it teaches me..more..about our god

[my theory continues..on
into the next lives..[spirit]
where we enter the higher..[and lower]..spiritualised evolution possabilitiess...

as..we get nearer..
or chose..to devolve..further..from god...

[reaching..the supreme state..of our own]

with our own..''let there be..light moment
as realised..SUN*S..of good...[god]

[birthing..our own new/earth]..

just like satan did..to this one
[just like god did..to the universe
by doing living/evolving..growing...our own planetry-system

undergoing..[evolving]..'our own'..genus evolution's...

[just like..lord satan..
[now our..sun]..did before us

the one true/good god
origonates..[in-spires]..all light..from..[via]..all the suns..

in all..the heavens

just like..all wells
draw..waters/spirit..from..the same deep waters

ok call it nuts,.,.
but im joining together..the facts
and filling in..my own gaps..my own thesis..[beliefs]

plus..heck
mr vuckyou

that certainly
ain't from..no 'creation site..!

anyhow..i will ignore..your witty sin-icism...
till ANY..of you..can deliver proof..of gods..non egsistance

for..all of my life experience
confirms..his living loving/hand
behind it all..

[we can know god..by loving..his creation]

that we do to/for..the least
we..do to/for..him

I wonder, is it simply because we have 2 eyes that we always seek this perfect symmetry of protagonist/antagonist?
It seems semantically questionable to me that 'scepticism' could ever be the thesis or antithesis in any dialectical event. Surely it would be more accurate to accept 3 positions; 'warmists' to the left of us, 'denialists' to the right of us...
I consider myself a sceptic, but I refuse to share a camp with the spurious 'Lord' Monckton.
We currently inhabit a paradigm, which worships intelligence and education. Sadly, neither will guarantee any immunity from bad decisions.
As I suggested in another post recently, anyone who has ever been in a close relationship, like or akin to marriage for instance, would -if they have an ounce of honesty- be familiar with the fact that the smarter partner is not always or necessarily right.
Making good decisions is not just about intelligence. Knowledge of the subject as Steven Myer has pointed out is very important, but perhaps the most important attribute is objectivity, and that is exactly what is at issue here.
Not only the scientists, but everyone who indulges in debates such as this one is being attacked (consciously or unconsciously) for a lack of objectivity. While ad hominum attacks should never be encouraged, it is nevertheless true that one's background will inevitably colour one's thinking and influence one's decisions; a point which I think Squeers was alluding to.
What a charming 20th century buzz phrase is 'confirmation bias'! 2000 years ago, the legendary Jesus was attributed with the acute observation that we should “Judge Not, Less we Ourselves be Judged”; demonstrating that in judging others we inevitably tell the world more about our own bias, than we do of the people we presume to judge. Hardly surprising that the most common criticism levelled by conservatives is that warmist scientists are only interested in the money.

I for one would be very grateful if the entire AGW thing just went away. Then perhaps we could start to address those issues we can predict; that finite resources must inevitably run out, that pollution can never be a good thing, that inequality inevitably leads to conflict...

Thanks for your posts, Grim - a breath of fresh air....

@stevenlmeyer: We are NOT going to curtail greenhouse gas emissions in any meaningful way.

My own prediction is peak oil will hit in the next few years, and failing some miracle in battery technology our only hope of keeping the tractors and trucks that drive our civilisation going will be Coal to Liquids, which roughly doubles the amount of CO2 produced per joule of energy consumed. (A miracle in battery technology is not out of the question. Eg: http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/21153-sufiy/161327 )

The rest of the commentary here seems to be little more than hairy chest beating mostly over topics unrelated to the article. Such is OLO I guess.

However since no one else has, I will take Matt Ridley to task on a few things. He is right in say the most difficult thing about predicting the climate is water vapour feed back. But then he goes on to say:

"there is absolutely no consensus about [whether] ... Water vapour ... in practice amplify or dampen any greenhouse warming remains in doubt."

If he is saying there is no consensus in the climate science community about what effect water vapour will have then this flat out, unabridged rubbish. Out of the 100's of published climate scientists maybe 3 or 4 disagree with the consensus.

It's difficult to say if that's the worst of Matt exaggeration's and dare I say it outright deceit. For example this:

"It was warmer in the Middle ages"

It was in Europe. But globally average temperatures are warmer how. http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

Or maybe:

"And ocean heat content has decelerated, if not flattened, in the past decade."

Well this is the graph. http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ It doesn't look "flat" to me.

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the idea. The article was a bit of a curates egg - some solid, some very flaky. And as I said, no one challenged the flaky bits. Disappointing.

PS, here is another bio of Matt Ridley: Prolific journalist, hard line libertarian, and chairman of Northern Rock Bank when it went broke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley#Northern_Rock

good points grim..the same flaws [in the science machinations...of climate change..were begat in the THEORY of evolution]

now i studied evolution in depth
only cursurilly egsamined the climate change THEORY

i note both used clever 'models..
and model based bling...its so your mind has seen
thus it is led to believe...[thing is the models/pictures graphs/trees]

mate they dont compute..
[when egasamined closely]

look at the last tre of life link for egsample
get a picture of the beastie...compare it to the next 'evolution'

there is no wat...one mutation..or rather a series of mutations can occure[in fact there are so many feedback mechanisms..like dna repair..or acidification balance in oceons..via the sxcience fact that acif is neutralised by lime]

and great briton is built on a huge limestone reef
let alone other barrier reefs[and shells etc]..science says c023 becomes limestone

so too the insanity of evolution..[of genus]
its sold to kids..just like the scam theory global warming

then adults cant dispute..because first it needs to refute all the lies stuck in our childish minds by the decievers

decievers doing what the peers decree to be true

but every science needs to have definitive qualifiers[faulseifyables]
that if refuted refute the theory

no faulsifyables no science

i would keep exposing evolution
but its clear that only stezza..has even
any vague comprehention..of the subject..

but as a teacher of the irreverant THEORy..
has had to buy into the coolaid..to get peer recognition
he has made them more important that god..doing it all for us

lies start when we are little
little white lies..that decieve kids away from the only living loving good...[god]..sustaining every life its being...

[not cleanibng up our mess...
but giving us our lives..so we can get that glory..

if only we put into action[deed/work]
the law..of love they neighbour
be his protecter

all life is your brrr-other...

its not a bother
its your br-other