Calistoga CA and end of The Dream

As I write this the northern California fires continue raging and Calfire doesn’t expect containment for another week.  Santa Rosa the area’s ‘big city’ has been decimated, quite literally.  Major fires in Mendocino County and around Clear Lake (yet again) with Sonoma and Napa valleys being particularly hard hit this past week.

Right now heroic efforts continue to cut fire-lines and other defenses against the huge Tubbs fire in order to save Chateau Montelena Winery of “Bottle Shock” fame and the beautiful little town of Calistoga at the head of the Napa Valley.

All hinges on the weather.  Beyond a certain point, heat and wind will overcome the best defenses, given a few days of favorable winds/temps and the town has a good chance.  (Saturday turned out to be a good day for them and I wish them well these next couple critical days.)

Not that it’s more important than the other catastrophes going down, but this one’s personal, I know the town and the landscape fairly well so this hurts in a way destruction in places I'm not connected with can't. 

Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell - Profiles in Self-Delusion

These past decades its been painful, in fact increasingly hideous, watching self-absorbed Republican/libertarian self-interest bulldozing ahead with their ruthless cynical campaign of malicious disinformation, all dedicated to out screaming legitimate and critical scientific information thus crippling public education about the global climate situation we are creating for our world (no one escapes).  

It's as though the GOP leadership has been reduced to egomaniacal fools who possess no conception of the reality that humanity and society is utterly dependent on our biosphere's good health, which in turn is dependent on moderate global weather patterns, among other things such as constructive environmental stewardship. 

A couple years back Joseph Romm Ph.D. wrote "The coming GOP civil war over climate change" an optimistic take on the struggle within the Republican Party between those who are committed to demonizing then ignoring serious science and their few remaining rational souls.  Unfortunately it looks like the civil war is over and that the one time Grand Old Party has really and truly jumped down the poopshoot of reality denial in favor of a whole hearted embrace of their delusions of self-grandeur and being God's personal appointed agents of tribalism who defiantly see the greater world and anyone not in their clique as an enemy.  

But, enough of my struggle to understand what's happening out there - this post is about sharing Joe Romm's recent article where he considers Senator Mitch McConnell's (Republican Majority Leader) commitment to destroying any and every effort to reducing fossil fuels consumption.

In Radical Shift, GOP Leaders Actively Embrace Catastrophic Climate Change

BY JOE ROMM SEP 11, 2015 

HTTP://THINKPROGRESS.ORG/CLIMATE/2015/09/11/3700163/GOP-LEADERS-EMBRACE-CLIMATE-CHANGE/

Over the past year, GOP leaders, driven by Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), have made a radical shift in the party’s public position on climate change. They are now actively seeking to destroy a global climate deal.

In any other universe this would be a major news story. ...

In fact, for most of the past quarter-century, most of the GOP leadership has at least given lip service to the idea that global warming is a global problem that needs a global solution. Not only have they abandoned that public position, but they now apparently believe the role of the “exceptional” and “indispensable” nation is to actively work to undermine the world’s best chance to save billions of people — including generations of Americans — from needless misery.

In its Monday piece, “GOP to attack climate pact at home and abroad,” Politico reports:

“Top Republican lawmakers are planning a wide-ranging offensive — including outreach to foreign officials by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office — to undermine President Barack Obama’s hopes of reaching an international climate change agreement that would cement his environmental legacy.”

Let’s set aside Politico’s ridiculous framing, whereby the purpose of Obama’s efforts to achieve a global climate treaty is strictly personal and political — to “cement his environmental legacy” — rather than what it in fact is, moral and science-based, to avert centuries of misery for billions of people. For Politico, such framing is a feature, not a bug.

What’s radical is the nakedly immoral and self-destructive greed underlying McConnell’s strategy, which includes one of his aides “informing foreign embassies about GOP plans to oppose Obama’s strategy on global warming.”  

Consider that the Pope’s recent climate encyclical …  

Later there's this tidbit: 

Last November, the Obama administration leveraged the Clean Power Plan (CPP), which cuts carbon pollution from the electric utility sector, to get Xi Jinping to announce China’s game-changing commitment last year to peak CO2 emissions in 2030, “and to make best efforts to peak early.”

McConnell immediately complained he was “particularly distressed” by this deal because it supposedly “requires the Chinese to do nothing at all for 16 years.”
In fact, China had also pledged to double its carbon-free power capacity between 2015 to 2030, ...

As if to directly rebuke McConnell, two weeks later the Chinese announced that they would peak in coal consumption by 2020! By the spring it was clear that the Chinese would beat their coal and CO2 targets by several years.

McConnell apparently decided his crusade to persuade GOP governors to simply defy the new EPA standards and thereby block U.S. climate action wasn’t enough. …
… McConnell’s actions end the pretense that the GOP leadership has any interest whatsoever in trying to globally address the gravest preventable threat America faces. As Chait notes, ... without a peep of protest from within the party or the conservative movement — says everything you need to know about the party’s stance on climate change.” …  (For the rest of Joe Romm's story link here)

________________________________

For more about Joseph Romm

October 10, 2012

Why Aren't Politicians Listening to Joe Romm About Climate Change?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/why-arent-politicians-listening-to-joe-romm-about-climate-change/263432/

For years, he's been arguing that talking about the science of warming is a winning political strategy. Now, new polling data are backing him up.

He's been called "America's fiercest climate blogger." And as a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a former Clinton administration official on clean energy, and an MIT-trained physicist, the subjects he covers are vast -- ranging from energy policy to the role of rhetoric in communications, as discussed in his new book Language Intelligence. But there's been a recurrent theme over the years at Joe Romm's popular blog Climate Progress -- the argument that political leaders, and perhaps most prominently President Obama, need to step up and explain to the public why global warming is such a dramatic threat to our livelihoods and future. …

Now, a raft of new polls are showing that this issue has the potential to move independent and swing voters -- the subject of the first Climate Desk Live Capitol Hill briefing on October 10. So we stopped to chat with Romm, who will present at the briefing, about his unusual take on this subject.

Climate Desk: You've been writing for a long time about how climate is a winning political issue. So what first got you onto this? ...

(link to the interview)
________________________________

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_J._Romm

http://thinkprogress.org/person/joe/

Profiles in climate science denialism, David Rose the yellow journalist

The folly at Science of Doom's denying AGW denial thread keeps building, and now a regular commenter has added climate science denier extraordinary David "AGW is Hoax" Rose the reporter from the UK Daily Mail tabloid into the mix.  Here's what he writes:

R.D. February 21, 2015 at 1:29 pm

Although only a sporadic lurker on this blog I couldn’t agree more Paul. ...

{With nearly 80 comments in this SoD thread, hate to think what happens when he's a regular.}

"... Because that sleepy Sunday morning I’d just read this piece by a well-known Jewish journalist in London called David Rose. I’d recommend every remaining lurker on this thread to do the same. For along with the d-word come some very ugly words and thoughts indeed, at least if you put your head above the parapet to the extent David has in the UK."

~ ~ ~
"Well known" "journalist" Rose may be, although notorious yellow journalism expert is closer to the mark.  What I can't comprehend is why doesn't it matter to RD and his "sceptical" crowd, (or SoD for that matter), that David Rose has been shown to be guilty of malicious misrepresentation of established facts and broadcaster of slanderous lies on numerous occasions. 

Here's another recent blog defense at "Breitbart's blog," Donna Edmunds started a February 3rd article with this splendid rendition of David Rose the victim, rather than the predator that he is:

"David Rose is a journalist who sometimes writes about the grey areas within the climate change debate. As a result, he has already endured calls for his own children to murder him, been compared to Hitler despite being Jewish, and had his personal contact details published on Twitter. ..."

~ ~ ~
And so the Republican/libertarian echo-chamber goes.  Without that fabricated foundation of lies they have nothing to defend.  Then they wonder why some call them Denialists!

For instance to claim that Mr. Rose writes about the "grey areas" of climate science is a bald faced lie!  Mr. Rose has been denying the most fundamental of contemporary geophysical facts, fabricating lies in order to deny that our planet has kept right on warming and that this warming is caused by our greenhouse gases that we and our society are injecting into our thin atmosphere (and oceans).   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1J09xL0NGQ

2014 Officially Hottest Year on Record

climatecentraldotorg

Worst, no matter how many times David Rose is given learning opportunities by experts who actually understand these matters, or scientists he's misrepresented, he ignores them all, in order to stick to his malicious, some call it treasonous, "Hey, it's all good, AGW is a hoax" storyline.  

But, do any members of the Republican/libertarian community care that Rose's news stories are based on lies and misrepresentations???  
Does SoD care?  

I have collected a list of articles and responses, that share various details of Mr. Rose's many frauds against the public's interest to be allowed to honestly learn about climate science and how we know we're impacting our life supporting Earth.

considering the angry mind of your typical right-winger

An incident occurred this afternoon that I find so quintessentially representative of what I see to be one of the main problems with your typical rightwing/Republican/Libertarian/TeaParty/Christian types (and yea, OK, extreme left wingers fall into this category also) that I've decided to record the incident.  

Another climate science skeptic dodges another challenge

More interesting times with climate science denialists over at 

http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/#comment-26712

1. citizenschallenge Says:
   August 1, 2014 at 15:38
   krischel writes, August 1, 2014 at 07:48:
   If you can still defend the fraud Michael Mann with a straight face, then obviously you’re immune to any critique of your chosen saviors :)
   

   ~ ~ ~
   Write up your list of specific charges defining Dr. Mann’s alleged fraud. Let’s take a closer look at them.
   {not surprisingly K never offered any follow up with specifics re Dr. Mann, just as he never supplied the list of stolen emails he claims prove fraud.  
   Typical contrarian behavior}
   

Null Hypothesis101 #3 drifting off topic

{last edit evening 8/5/14, as usual, damn those typos.}

Here's the latest installment in my dialogue with K over at the "Climate Science Falsifiability" comments thread at OurChangingClimate, though he's drifted quite far from his alleged interest in examining his take on the "null hypothesis" and it's use in climate science.  

It seems to be the one thing I can depend on when dialoguing with such characters, they will try every trick in the book to distract the attention away from the question at hand and waste our time and available space with off-track extraneous nonsense.

Skim through this to see how it works.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

citizenschallenge Says: 

July 31, 2014 at 19:56

Krischel claims that ” In the case of AGW, our null hypothesis is natural climate change”.

K still hasn't faced the fact that there is nothing “unnatural” about current climate change. Huge increases of CO2 has always warmed our planet!

CO2 has always had it’s insulating properties, nothing has changed about those physics!

Today’s “climate change” is a natural result of greatly enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations.

Null Hypothesis101 #2 the response

{I forgot about this one from a couple days ago that I didn't get to post.}

A quick update from a coffee shop in Corrales, NM

Krischel responded at OurChangingClimate with the following that seems to totally evade the simple questions about "null hypothesis" I'd asked about.

krischel Says:  July 21, 2014 at 02:21 

@citizenschallenge: 

Yes, “consensus” is a political idea, not a scientific one. Science doesn’t work through consensus, it works through the strict application of skepticism to necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statements. 

#1 – the verification of experiments, or observation of data, is not subject to consensus. CO2 has risen steadily for the past 17 years, while global average temperatures have had no statistically significant warming, no matter how many people wish to deny that. 

#2 – Medical “science” is a lot more primitive than you would believe. A sad amount of focus is put on epidemiological studies (observational studies), which leads to all kinds of false flags, causing treatment and medical advice that is actually *damaging* to humanity. Hormone replacement therapy and low-fat nutrition advice come immediately to mind. 

#3 – A “consensus” is poll of people where their opinions align. 

#4 – I’ll be a bit more specific -> in all fields of science, blindly accepting the “common understanding” is a negative. We should always be brutally skeptical of even our most cherished and deeply held beliefs. Without challenges to the “common understanding”, science simply does not progress. 

That being said, having a common understanding of the scientific method is *crucial* to the proper practice of science. Sadly, this isn’t generally the case in the AGW debate.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

krischel Says: July 21, 2014 at 02:21 -  

"Yes, “consensus” is a political idea, not a scientific one."

~ ~ ~ 

Do you actually believe that?

What's the point of designing reproducible experiments - 

if not a desire to find support in "consensus"?

~ ~ ~ 

Don't you appreciate that the "consensus" is nothing more than the "general agreement" among informed experts.

And that the consensus is always provisional in light of new and better information?

krischel's crazy making and “consensus”

I'm playing a little catch up here since I've been out of wifi range for days and am only within range for a short while, so this will remain slightly behind the conversation at http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable where K's taken the conversation from "null hypothesis" to "consensus".

krischel Says: July 21, 2014 at 02:21 

@citizenschallenge: 

Yes, “consensus” is a political idea, not a scientific one. Science doesn’t work http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/#comment-26489 through consensus, it works through the strict application of skepticism to necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statements. 

#1 – the verification of experiments, or observation of data, is not subject to consensus. CO2 has risen steadily for the past 17 years, while global average temperatures have had no statistically significant warming, no matter how many people wish to deny that. 

#2 – Medical “science” is a lot more primitive than you would believe. A sad amount of focus is put on epidemiological studies (observational studies), which leads to all kinds of false flags, causing treatment and medical advice that is actually *damaging* to humanity. Hormone replacement therapy and low-fat nutrition advice come immediately to mind. 

#3 – A “consensus” is poll of people where their opinions align. 

#4 – I’ll be a bit more specific -> in all fields of science, blindly accepting the “common understanding” is a negative. We should always be brutally skeptical of even our most cherished and deeply held beliefs. Without challenges to the “common understanding”, science simply does not progress.That being said, having a common understanding of the scientific method is *crucial* to the proper practice of science. Sadly, this isn’t generally the case in the AGW debate.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

krischel Says: July 21, 2014 at 02:21 -  

"Yes, “consensus” is a political idea, not a scientific one. "

~ ~ ~ 

Do you actually believe that?
What's the point of designing reproducible experiments - 
if not a desire to find support in "consensus"?
~ ~ ~ 

Don't you appreciate that the "consensus" is nothing more than the "general agreement" among informed experts.

And that the consensus is always provisional in light of new and better information?

Ironically you denialist types turning this principle of "consensus" into some tar baby - is nothing but another ruthless profoundly cynical political strategy that has stonewalling as it's goal rather than good-faith learning.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  

#1 Has nothing to do with consensus, because you refuse to acknowledge the warming of polar regions and ocean depths. - you have presented a cheap Argument from Ignorance.

#2 Why did you ignore the "consensus" question?  Merely complaining that medical sciences aren't perfect, get's no one anywhere.

Tell me, if you suffered severe bodily injury, would want to be taken to your favorite mechanic or your PhD philosophy sparing mates - or would you prefer to be dropped off in a certified Emergency Room?
Think the principle of "consensus" might have something to do with that choice?

#3 Is an example of the pure cynicism that is the lifeblood of the contrarian.  Trying to compare the process of learned folks who have expert level understanding and the conclusions they draw from their experiments and experiences - with the flakey civilian population who can be swayed by any well scripted soundbite, since they appear too mesmerized by Hollywood expectations to have any interest in actually understanding the fundamental of our planet's climate system.

#4 There's a big difference between "brutally honest" (which is a necessary and good thing when done in good-faith) and being a malicious vandal who uses lies of convenience (such as your #1) to confuse and stonewall - rather than to learn and move forward in our understanding.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

krischel Says: - July 17, 2014 at 08:02 

Did you actually read the climategate emails? The dirty tricks, lies, and attacks on reputable scientists came from the warmists :)

~ ~ ~

CC:  I already answered in the affirmative - yes I have read many of those emails.

Now, how about you sharing which of those emails you find most heinous?

Can you support that opinion with any facts?

Oh, and exactly who are these "reputable" scientists that were "attacked" and what did those "attacks" consist of?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Krischel does a great job of avoiding direct responses, instead constantly layering in ever more layers of misrepresentation and avoidance.  So I invite anyone to respond to these simple questions I raise.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

"Null Hypothesis" 101

I'm having a conversation with Krischel at Bart Verheggen's weblog.  It started with a guest post by Hans Custers' considering the question "is climate science falsifiable?" which has turned into an endless discussion pretty much held up by Krischel and his claims that somehow climate science hasn't and doesn't properly use the "Null Hypothesis".  Many have tried arguing with Krischel who defy all.  I admit this stuff gets over my head, but even without having a thorough understanding myself, I can catch evasions and inconsistencies and poor arguments.  There is a difference between a real expert explaining himself and a poser.

Still, I am into this for the dialogue and I've asked K to help me better understand his claims that climate science is somehow invalid for such and such a reason…

I started by expressing my basic understanding and we shall see where it goes from there:

Is Climate Science falsifiable?

By Jos Hagelaars

 Bart Verheggen'shttp://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/


July 17, 2014 at 07:23 {the following has been slightly edited and added to}
OK krischel help me out, 
I'm trying to study up on this "Null Hypothesis" 101, using:

Basic concepts of hypothesis testing
Handbook of Biological Statistics
http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/stathyptesting.html
~ ~ ~
Null Hypothesis Martyn Shuttleworth
https://explorable.com/null-hypothesis
~ ~ ~ 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
~ ~ ~
Sure, pretty basic stuff, but that's were understanding starts, with the basics.

In any event, krischel I'm trying to understanding this Null Hypothesis and how it's supposed to function regarding dynamic geophysical processes, process that can not be measured with absolute precision.

Seems to me Null Hypothesis is a statistical test that scientists use for very specific questions within specific parameters as part of gathering date and producing studies.

Seems to me the "consensus" is the result of thousands of small Null Hypotheses succeeding or failing and each providing another pixel of information.

I believe you try to get people to focus on the pixels in order to ignore the image.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mind you I'm no scholar - I'm coming at this from a more worldly view - you see, I'm an old handyman, these days I'm constantly confronted with old homes and their nightmare situations of all varieties.  In other words, I feel like I live "Null Hypothesis situations" every time I'm on a job - so I think I know something about approaching unknown  situations where how I assess the situation and the choices I make, result in big differences in outcomes.

Then I read your evasions to Hans Custers/Bart Verheggen/Willard/Victor Venema...

In truth when reading your stuff all I hear is philosophizing with no connection to how the real world operates. That's why I keep saying you set impossible standards (so of course your expectations will never be met.)

Still, I'll listening to you if you're into sharing some critiques, comments, suggestions on the following specific questions and why they might or might not meet your expectations?  

How's this for a string of Null Hypotheses:

Our planet, by the good fortune of it's orbital local plus the stability afforded by it's partnership with our moon, evolved into a global heat distribution engine, infinitely complex, yet composed of basic and understandable components {Y?N}

These components follow fundamental understandable rules of behavior. {Y?N}

{Scientists know about the various drivers that influence our climate as the eons of time changes march by, perhaps not with absolute precision, but resolution short coming should not make us blind to trends and where they are taking us.}

GHG levels are but one of our climate's features - 
but GHGs is still a major driver that acts in concert with other "drivers". {Y?N}

Society has introduced geologically massive quantities of these GHGs into our thin atmosphere. {Y?N}
~ ~ ~

Here's a null hypothesis test to run some models on:
Warming a closed system will energize that system. {Y?N}

Energizing our planet's hydrological cycle and adding moisture to it will result in enhanced torrential rain and drought and wind events. {Y?N}

A warming global heat distribution engine will not impact the hydrological cycle of our planet - meaning there will be no change in historical weather patterns.  {Y?N} 

The Unspoken Backbone of Climate Science Denial

{edited Monday evening}
I've become convinced that the unmentioned backbone of climate science denial is Faith-based Thinking with it's accompanying absolutism that creates a profound disconnect from Earth's "environmental" realities and the needs of future generations.

I believe communicators would benefit from better incorporating (heck, understanding) the mindscale of these folks who believe they understand Thee Word and Will of Thee God Almighty of Time and Space, something all the "Holy" books warn us is absolutely incomprehensible, but that all too many presume to have figured out.  

It matters because this faith-based refusal to look outside their bubble get's translated into the way they avoid and "evaluate" (or should I say evade) real world Earth observations and other scientific information.

For instance, Republican's still despise "Environmentalists" or anyone who wants to defend or speak on behave of our planet's biosphere and its animal/plant inhabitants with a contempt that reveals a profound ignorance of, and hubristic disregard for, our planet's miraculous folds within folds of inter-connected life-support systems that sustain each and everyone of us.

My musing was inspired by this response that Dan Barker offered to a Christian waving scripture around. He did an excellent job of defining the issue with a clarity I can only dream of achieving.  Thus I'll share his words. I have taken the liberty to transcribe his response and I hope some will find this of interest and pass it along.

This video is not about climate science, it's about recognizing who you are dealing with and considering how to better represent and defend your own rational approach in the face of Faith-based attacks and evasions.

Dan Barker - On Needing A Personal God

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hpI-OdwxDw&feature=youtu.be

Bantaawan lagundong

2:15 - ... maybe there was this self-proclaimed messiah named Yeshua, ...

2:30 - But the things that he said were put into his mouth many many many many years later.  One thing he said, if he said it, that I think is actually worthwhile.  

He (Jesus) said: They who are a whole, those who are healthy don't go to a doctor.  

It's only they who are sick. 

Christians have a pessimistic view of human nature, 

you (Kyle Butt) think human beings are sick and need a doctor to be fixed up,

you (Kyle Butt) think there's something wrong with us and we need to be "saved"

you (Kyle Butt) think that if we would submit to the doctor that he would heal us 

But we atheist and agnostics don't view ourselves as sick, we don't view ourselves as sinners, we don't feel a conviction of wrong.  We make mistakes, we don't buy into this supernatural mythological lie that you people are promoting that there's actually something spiritually wrong with humanity. 

3:25 -  Suppose you were convicted of a horrible crime, you were in prison, and then you learned that you were being released, 'wow, you'd feel free. Wow, I'm being saved, you'd feel wonderful and I would feel better too. 

But what would make you feel better, knowing that you'd been released because of the good graces of the Governor who decided to bestow mercy upon you and pardon you and let you free, which would be pretty neat if that happened.  Or knowing that the reason you were being released was because you were found to be innocent of the crime in the first place.  What would give you more dignity, what would make you feel better for the world to know, 
'Hey I didn't even do that crime' ?  

4:00 - That's how we atheists and agnostics are, (holding up the Bible)

we don't buy into this ancient primitive book of contradictory and unhistorical, unscientific words.  These are just words on a page.

This book was written by human-beings, human-beings make mistakes.

What were they exempt?  Were they super-humans or something? 

Did they never misinterpret? Did they never goof?

Why are you conferring some supernatural authority to these human beings -

their in all religions as well.

4:30  -   If you look at the Bible, with not a bias of faith and loyalty, you can see very easily that this is not a reliable book to base our life on.

But most of your arguments are based on quoting the scripture as if it were some kind of magic talisman - oh quote the Bible that will make everything important.  

Well it doesn't!

And if you don't buy into that myth in the first place, if you don't see yourself as sick, if you don't see yourself as needing a savior, if you rise above that toddler mentality of putting yourself down, of denigrating your rationality, denigrating you... whatever urges you have to sin, and we all have them.  

5:00  -  But view yourself neutrally as a natural creature in a natural environment doing the best we can to truly figure out how to be moral human-beings with reason and compassion, then you could be a better person.  I'm not saying your a bad person, but get rid of the baggage, get rid of the monkey off your back.  And take some advice of Jesus, don't be one of the sick people that has to go to the doctor.

Clap your hands and say I did not commit the crime.

Most Christian are afraid that people are going to start thinking for themselves, the Bible says very clearly, Paul says "Bring into captivity every thought onto the obedience of Jesus Christ."  Captivity is not freedom, and in Proverbs, "Lean not on your own understanding.  

Most Christians are afraid that people will think for themselves, most atheists are afraid that they won't.    

Dan Barker 

Freedom From Religion Foundation 

https://ffrf.org/about/getting-acquainted/dan-barker

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Here's a full version of what Dan has to share

Dan Barker - Losing Faith in Faith Lecture

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmPqUkB-mVE

BPofABC

Uploaded on Nov 9, 2011

Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, 
presents his "Losing Faith in Faith" 
lecture at Chico State University in the Fall of 2011.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Discussion with Pete Ridley #3

At first I had intended to go through our longish email exchange and pick out highlights I wanted to discuss, but I'm over it.  Ridley's given me plenty of fodder in real time plus he's taken up enough of my time already.  Here we go with the third installment.  

This time I am not posting Ridley's complete 1400 words since, quite frankly, too much of it is confusing gobbledegook, to borrow his own term.  If you're into the slough check out his link below, see if you don't agree that Ridley seems conflicted and unsure if he wants to talk political shenanigans or science, although I'm getting the feeling it's all the same to him.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/spotlighton-psi-acumen-ltd.html?showComment=1404767773627#c6142771578776265384

Pete Ridley - July 7, 2014 14:16 PART 1 

What on earth gave you the idea that I wanted to Talk science here? My blog name gives the game away about my topic of interest – Global Political Shenanigans. Anyone deciding to read articles on this blog should recognise from its name that they are likely to encounter comments from politicians and political pundits like Christopher Booker, Matt Ridley, Nigel Lawson and his GWPF. {...} 

I did try to help you to find reliable sources of information about greenhouse gases to help you better understand the impact of atmospheric CO2. It seems to me that you need all the help that you can get. 

{...} “ .. It seems that the difference between thee and me is that I am searching for the truth about CACC while you are simply promoting your environmentalist agenda .. ”.

~ ~ ~

Yea, my agenda... like honestly learning about our Earth's geophysical processes.  What do you have against learning about our planet or being concerned about our biosphere's wellbeing?  

You do realize it's our life support system, don't you?

Incidentally, why shouldn't Earth have an advocate?