Is the Planet Earth Warming or Cooling?

How can "CO2-caused global warming" happen other than by man-caused release of CO2 into the atmosphere?. It took tens of millions of years of photosynthesis to produce the deposits of coal and oil that have been (and are being) mined and burned now in a mere matter of tens of decades. Such rapid and recent release of heat and gas into the atmosphere is the explanation and cause of the rapid rise of temperatures and CO2 content. That's not theology, it's cause and effect. It's a matter of physics and of morality. How can either science or theology deny the connection?

And where are the numbers showing that the amount we release is more than all wildlife, the ocean, and natural phenomena? It's not cause and effect, its post hoc ergo propter hoc. (I know, science is immune to defects in reason). Likewise, do we have proof that CO2 leads temperature, instead of following it (as I have seen claimed)? It's a matter of morality that we actually check the science before forcing third world countries to remain in pre-industrial conditions. (When it comes down to it, even if GW is our fault, can we deny millions the access to energy that will allow them to care for themselves?)

"And where are the numbers..." There is a mind-set here that I find intriguing (and indeed scary). It starts with an a priori, non reasoned denial or affirmation that demonstrates its absoluteness and irrationality as polite discussion and evidence exhaust non-viable argument. It moves into virtually forensic parsing of language to find minute discrepencies which where found are elevated to unmerited demolition of the counter-position. It demands standards of proof for the disputed premise that are increasingly unrealistic and would make Thomas the doubter seem a naive dupe ("...showing that the amount we release is more than all wildlife, the ocean, and natural phenomenon"). Continued challenge or failure to "win" frequently evolves into rant and ad hominem attacks that are not necessarily disciplined to the subject nor to propriety but which could be likened to "violence". The next stage is the "rapture" like coalition of the mutually reinforcing like-minded who redefine rejection as vindication.

Climate change has now been added to the list of hot-button issues like race,religion, sex and sexual orientation which seem to trigger the syndrome.

God's physical creation is in peril. That is beyond "reasonable" doubt. Is not the issue what, when and how we can best "redeem" it/us from this peril and take our stewardship with appropriate seriousness?

Irrationality is conforming to popular opinion without looking at evidence. No one has ever presented more than opinion and scare stories to me. I have not seen the evidence so there is all room for reasonable doubt. I have heard the arguments from the other side, and without a comparison I have to say that they seem to make much more sense.

I am trying to keep an open mind on this, but the assertion that theory=fact and therefore is unquestionable leads me to question 'what are they hiding?'. Could it be that no one here really knows, that they have all merely followed the party line? Or is it that position is so weak that one commenter on a niche website could crumble it?

Astonishing! (Lets leave aside the evolution non issue) Without any scientific credentials or citations of those who have such credentials the contrarians feels qualified to state apodictically that X,Y, and Z are "not proven". What does not proven mean? Does it mean that the data are not there? that the contrarian has a more reasonable explanation of the data? That the principal scientists in eleven nations are all fools? Who exactly are the "thousands of scientists"? Are they the "signers" of the Robinson "petition"? Google that silliness if you want more information. On the other hand why clutter up your mind with information when you have a direct hookup to all truth?
"pet scientific theories"? Tell that to the people of Hiroshima! Atomic theory should be no more sacrosanct than any other "pet scientific theory" for the dyed in the wool contrarian.
I did not know that theology "broke" any questions. I thought that the job of theology was to deal with all questions with reasonable discussion. How silly of me.

Mr Lawlor,

Credentials are meaningless if you are using them to push baloney (by the way what are your credentials again?). You feel that it is proven. Very well, I am a reasonable person: prove it to me. I am willing to take the time to study the arguments of both sides that we might find the truth, is this not reasonable?

There are several "scientific" theories that those who disagree with are considered "contrarian", to avoid any discussion. In our case here, there are several of us posting (and how many more who only read these threads?) who are not fully convinced by the global warming case. It is rare that anyone actually presents the case for humans causing global warming, indeed they tend to focus on predictions of what might, possibly, happen. Among those predictions, those that have the biggest "shock value" are the ones that get the most coverage, because they sell. The problem is that there is not a single consensus about what the future of the climate holds, but we are expected to buy (quite literally) into the panic.

Let's have the debate, in the socratic sense (to find the truth), and dispense with the logical fallicies (to authority, to emotion, poisoning the well, ad hominem), shall we?

I'll even go first (This is of course open to all comers. Scientific data should be supported by a link to a relevant study, but feel free to make general observations as well.)

The cycles of nature are readily observable, from the short cycles of waves on a beach, to the cycle of the earth round the sun. We know that we have had tropical conditions globally in the past, and we have had Ice Ages. The temperature of the earth has varied widely in the past, why would this change be necessarily of human origin?

If credentials are meaningless I am not going to bother you with the meaningless. After all the credentials of the people (IPCC) who since 1995 have put out the syntheses of all the relavent research on anthropogenic global warming, and have conservatively declared a 90% agreement on the causation, are meaningless, what could I add to that? The National Assoc. for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) with many thousands of scienctist members has endorced these papers as have the national science associations of eleven other nations. Does my credential add anything to that? And of course all of these scientists are pushing what you in your superior wisdom call "Balony". If something with the widest scientific endorsement in the history of science (with the exception of perhaps evolution) and to which an absolutely gigantic research effort has been applied is "balony", what can my arguments achieve?

You claim to be a reasonalble person. The evidence you have provided in this and other threads contradicts this claim. It is quite obvious simply from the claim that evolution is an unproven theory that your reasonableness does not extend to the arena of science. The claim indicates that you do not understand what a scientist means by "theory" or "proof". I do not fault this in you. In fact this represents the view of 40% of all Americans who firmly believe that the entire universe is no more than 10,000 years old. Those of us who have spent a lifetime in science education have obviously failed miserably. My own contribution to this effort spans forty years and service in three universities.

You say, " It is rare that anyone actually presents the case for humans causing global warming, " Surely you are making a joke? Please take some time out from bombast to conslult at least one of the many well documented books devoted to this subject. Just go to Amazon and search "Global Warming". Books by Flannery, McKibbon, Bowen, Mitchell, Kolbert willl give you a good start. Please ignore their credentials which are meaningless. Shock value predictions do indeed sell papers and magazines, especially those which cater to the barely literate so avoid them and stick with material aimed at those who like a mental challange like Scientific American, and Science. I don't know whose panic you are not buying into: perhaps something in
"The National Enquirer?"

To begin a discussion we first must agree on several terms you throw around rather freely without evidence that you understand what they mean in the context of science: "theory", "proof", "relavent study". Let us start from some common ground, say, McKibbon's book or the recent IPCC report. Your hypothesis that global warming is caused by some natural cycle may have possibly occurred to one or two of the several thousand investigators somewhere along the way in the last 15 years of intense research! Let's not waste too much time resurrecting this (unless of course you have some new research data which will almost gurantee a Nobel at this stage of the game).

OK, let's go.

It has occurred to scientists who are written off because they consider it a possibility by those like yourself.

I have not anywhere indicated that I am a young earth creationist. A theory is roughly a statement or set of statements used to explain a phenomena. A theory is generally accepted as valid due to having survived repeated testing. A proven theory, therefore, would have to have been actually tested. The wonderful thing about origins is that it is practically impossible to recreate (pardon the use of the 'c' word). Thus it is, and will remain, an unproven theory. Silencing any questioning of it is unscientific. With the environment we can test predictions based on models (as well as project them backwards in time) so our theories here are still theories but there is a chance that some portions of them will be proven in the future.

You are still throwing around credentials as if they have a correlation to reality. There are scientists with lists of degrees on both sides of the question, people have resigned from the IPCC because they disagreed with the report issued with their name still on it. You are also still resulting to a number of obvious logical fallacies, not the least of which is ad hominem. Really, this is undermining your own credibility.

As to people rarely making the case, I mean person to person, not scientific studies. Rather, I mean you. Make your case. It should be easy for you to prove, with your superior experience and knowledge of science. As it should have been easy for you to actually answer my question (instead of dismissing it out of hand):

So I repeat myself: Why is it that this climate change is man made, when we know that the earth has been much warmer (and cooler) long before humans were on the scene (yes, I am granting long-day creation or even evolution, as reducing the variables makes for a better experiment).

Here today -
What on earth does this initial sentence of yours mean? "It has occurred to scientists who are written off because they consider it a possibility by those like yourself."

But, getting on with the discussion:
What you define as a "theory" is wrong. Your idea of theory is closer to the definition of an hypothesis than to what scientists mean by the term theory. This a basic flaw in your understanding of what scientists do with respect to global warming or any other scientific issue. You share this misunderstanding with a vast horde of others! again, we see the failure of education in science. A great sadness for me.

Theories are not conjectural and are not developed to explain "a" phenomena. For instance, since you seem to specialize in Evolution, exactly which phenomena is explained by this theory? Or by atomic theory, or gravitational theory, or Relativity?
Theories are not actually "tested" and they are never "proven" or "not proven". Proof is possible with respect to propositions in mathematics and perhaps in Philosophy but not with theories in science. For instance, since the fundamental set of principles (theory) permeating all of Biology is evolution, every piece of research is potentially related to it and most depend on it. A biologist cannot make sense of almost any area of research without it, for instance, DNA research studying the genome of the ant, or cellular research devoted to some particular organelle in the cell of the Right whale. Nothing any scientist can "discover" will ever prove or disprove the theory of evolution. Although the theory is not the scientific equivalent of theological doctrine since the scientific theory may be discarded if it no longer proves useful as an explanation. Theories are important to science because they serve to make sense out of the confusing mass of phenomena that characterizes the physical world. Science does not test theories. Hypotheses get tested.

An aside:
Evolution is not in itself a substitution for the term "creation". I can with perfect logic be a biologist for whom evolution is the key set of principles used in understanding all living things all of which living things change and develop over time, and at the same time I can fully accept the religious term "creation" which is not a term which explains the phenomena of change in living things over time. Creation as I understand it, theologically places God as the explanation for the original and continuing existence of all reality. I see this as a process and not an event. If it were not a continuous process then all of physical reality would vanish in the blink of an eye!

You are perfectly correct in calling any theory "unproven" since all theories are unproven and any theory may be replaced by a more useful theory at any time. When there are events, interactions, data that are more usefully "explained" by a different theory, then the former theory will be discarded in favor of the latter. In this manner the Ptolemaic theory was discarded in favor of the Copernican theory. This happened because the Ptolemaic theory simply became too complex and top-heavy. Relative simplicity is one criteria for the acceptance of any theory. Theories in science are constantly evolving by being modified and even giving way to new theories.

So, our discussion (on my part) has begun with an explanation of a fundamental concept: what a theory is in science. If there is no agreement on this then there can be no scientific discussion beyond this point because then I would be talking "science" and you would be talking something else entirely.

Perhaps I am still "resulting to a number of obvious logical fallacies", whatever that means, but I cannot "result to" ad hominum as a logical fallacy since it is not a type of logical fallacy at all but is a category of argument (acceptable or distasteful as it may be). I would say that your arguments against Global Warming are indeed illogical since fundamental to these arguments is a genuine logical fallacy, namely your acceptance of a false premise based on a misunderstanding of the nature of scientific theory.

Have we reached a point of irreconcilable differences?

Mr. Lawlor, this is a VERY fine statement, so belated thanks! I sent it to my son (a PhD student at UVa. and a T.A. there) perhaps to use in his tutorials as exemplary of a good, parsimonious statement of the theory/hypothesis distinction so often missed in latter-day undergraduate education. I wanted to say, also, that your persistent effort to explain a commonplace distinction in service to a reasoned point of view (yours) to one so stubborn in resistance is admirable. Your response to the neck-wringing assault one encounters so often in these times of ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY is a breath of fresh air. I shall take a lesson from you.

The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy

"So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!" (2Cor 5)

I mean you are writing off ideas without offering any support for doing so, and dismissing those who hold those ideas because they hold them.

Perhaps the confusion comes from the fact that hypothesis and theory are similar terms, at times even synonyms (at least Princeton sees fit to include hypothesis as a definition of theory). A theory only differs from a hypothesis in that a theory has some correlation to real results, a hypothesis is usually based on theory and is proven, disproven, or accepted as a theory (approved pending more information, perhaps?) How many theoretical models of the atom have we discarded, on the basis of science? Theories are indeed tested by science. The moment science stopped testing its own assumptions and theories is the point at which it failed itself.

You say theories as open to being replaced, but you reject any questioning of man-caused global warming (or evolution). These, you admit, are not established fact, but you treat them as such. This is where we may have irreconcilable differences, that you cling to the system of scientific education but deny the core of scientific discovery... the question.

The ivory tower of science is marred by its unwillingness to embrace that many of its accepted core principles leave much to be desired. Rather than look into the holes and see what their forefathers may have missed, they tend to ridicule those who disagree with them (this conversation is a case in point). Proof is impossible, therefore we are to take our place doing what our betters tell us. This is grade A baloney. If a scientific theory cannot meet a challenge from a kid like me, then why should I subscribe to following its dictates? Why should I be forced to meet your demands? Why should my money go to preventing others from having energy independence (kyoto treaty, anyone)?

BTW, an argument based on a false premise is not a logical fallacy, it can even be a valid argument. It would still be incorrect, but unlike ad hominem (and: appeal to authority, argument by ridicule, appeal to popularity, genetic fallacy) it may still be good logic. But a scientist wouldn't have any use for rationally proving things, as you yourself said, science cannot be proven, so why bother defending it logically?

Here today,
Perhaps you are very knowledgeable in some area or another but I am afraid that you are a total blank slate when it comes to: 1. Philosophy of Science (which deals in depth with what a theory in science is); 2. that part of philosophy that is Logic which would deal with categories of argument as distinguished from illogical thinking (one instance of which is the false premise), 3. evidence that you have the ability to understand ideas I have presented.

I spent most of my prior post trying to explain THEORY as it is understood in science. If you would like to get some additional information on this use a library or the internet to find out how scientists use these terms, look into Philosophy of Science and in this category consult such authors as Kuhn, and Popper. In popular usage THEORY and HYPOTHESIS may be synonyms. This is NOT AT ALL true in science, NEVER, EVER!

"A theory only differs from a hypothesis in that a theory has some correlation to real results, "
This statement is ridiculous, ignorant hokum, bunk and even, (to borrow a popular adjective) BALONY ! Where on earth did you get this notion? To give the definition yet another way: " A theory is a set of general propositions used as principles of explanation." When you use language in a scientific context you must be aware that the meaning may be specific and precise within that context. An hypothesis does not become "accepted as a theory" - NEVER, EVER! Although this idea is found in Junior High School General Science Textbooks, rest assured that it is not now and never has been true! You are constantly relying on your own understanding (wherever that comes from) and are completely closed to knowledge that can easily be checked out.

Let me state again: THEORIES ARE NOT TESTED, HYPOTHESES ARE TESTED.

Reading what you say leaves me constantly astonished:
"you (namely me) reject any questioning of man-caused global warming (or evolution)." Do not reject questioning, did not, never will! I do reject the asking of a question that even the most superficial reading of the research literature (or summary of it) would show has been central to the research for almost half a century! (global warming)

Please go to the internet and read a typical research report related to global warming ( for instance at www.realclimate.org). You will see that any and every piece of research is a QUESTION proposed for one of five or so hypotheses: 1. the earth is getting warmer; 2. this warming is not due to any natural cycle; 3. there are now greatly increased levels of man made greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere; 4. the major components of these gasses are caused by human activity; 5. IF MANKIND CONTINUES TO INCREASE THESE ATMOSPHERIC GASSES THEN EARTH WILL CONTINUE TO BECOME DANGEROUSLY WARMER. Each of these themes in global warming research is stated many, many times in the form of a perhaps highly technical questions which are much more specific than these five short summaries which I have presented. None of these questions is "wrong", none are "rejected' by me or by any other sane proponent of global warming. The empirical evidence for each hypotheses is gathered, is analyzed and conclusions drawn. Furthermore, none of these hypotheses nor all together constitute a "theory". Each is a hypothesis, a question to be answered empirically. Each of the IPCC reports is a synthesis of thousands of studies centered around these themes. Perhaps at some point Climatologists will propose a theory analagous to theories in other science areas like for instance, Tectonic Plate Theory. I don't see it proposed as yet. What we have at present are strongly supported data gathered in answer to specific hypotheses and leading to the hypothesis #5 suggested above.

The HYPOTHESIS is sort of the basic unit of scientific research. If there is no free wheeling hypothesizing (questioning) then there is no science. The naive skeptics who are almost totally ignorant of the vast literature of a field of scientific study (such as global warming or evolution) think that they have demolished the entire edifice by throwing out some catch phrase like "natural climate cycles" or "holes in the theory". They show profound ignorance in not realizing that literally thousands of investigators have devoted years of research to exactly this question as well as many other questions that the naive critics have never even considered. Then they compound their arrogance by demanding a quick and easy answer to "prove" that the natural cycle idea (or whatever) nullifies the work of many lifetimes of research. God forbid that these self appointed skeptics should read the research! Or even to make a serious effort to understand what the hell scientists do or how they do it. The idea in science is for a question to be asked (ie hypothesis proposed), a research study designed, funding obtained, the data gathered and analyzed, conclusions drawn, submission to a professional journal, peer review of design, of execution and of conclusions, publication. Then the challanges come in to the journal, usually in the form of questions from other scientists and the work is replicated and then perhaps accepted. All of this for one question, not for validating a theory. Eventually some scientists may declare that these new experimental results are not well explained by current theory and they develop a new theory that must itself withstand additional gathering of empirical data. The newly proposed theory may be a modification of the older one or it may represent a radical departure. In the latter case Nobel prizes will fly about. New science icons like Newton, Einstein, Gallileo, Darwin, Planck arise from radical departures and theory building.

You claim that I said "Proof is impossible," This a prime example that either you cannot understand what I said, or that you deliberately want to distort what I said. Let me repeat: Proof is attained on the level of the HYPOTHESIS, not at the level of THEORY. PLEASE READ THIS SENTENCE TWENTY TIMES FOR YOUR DAILY ASSIGNMENT.

AGAIN: scientific theories are discarded when their propositions cease to be the most useful principles of explanation. They are not demolished by "a kid like me", or by theologians, philosophers, historians, or by scientist contrarians who do not offer empirical data. Historically theories have never been discarded on the basis of one hypothesis no matter how solidly that hypothesis has been established. For instance, Copernicus did not discredit the Ptolemaic Theory by any new data. He basically proposed a new set of general propositions that explained in a much more elegant way the data already gathered. Copernicus simply moved the theoretical center of the universe away from Earth. The old theory had been accepted as very useful in explaining the observed changes in the positions of Earth, the moon, planets and stars and was able to predict exactly such phenomena as eclipses, but Copernicus suggested a simpler, more elegant explanation. All the old data fit into one or more propositions of the new theory. Gallileo, after observing the moons of Jupiter, was inspired to refine the new theory, which had languished almost unnoticed, leading almost to his own execution and to widespread acceptance. Please take note here that it was not your evil scientists who tried to get rid of old Galilleo, it was the theologians who did not know the difference between a theory and an hypothesis. Or perhaps more accurately between science and theology. By the way, the old Ptolemaic theory is still used by celestial navigators to plot the position of a ship at sea. It is still a useful theory and those evil scientists don't object at all!

Here today, if you can read all I have said in prior posts and still spout such wacky things as: "you cling to the system of scientific education but deny the core of scientific discovery... the question."and "Proof is impossible, " and "The moment science stopped testing its own assumptions and theories is the point at which it failed itself."; Then I must assume that Starlight is correct in the warning to me on Mar. 23 of the frustration of arguing with some folks. Nothing I have said has penetrated your invincible armor. I do hope that some readers of this blog will find some insight into and appreciation of the way scientists look at the world and how they try to make sense out of it. I have taken on the huge task of trying to show that scientists do this in a way different from the vision of poets and theologians, historians and philosophers.

I now bow out of this particular thread of responses completely frustrated. However I did enjoy the opportunity to sharpen my own ideas and revive the concepts that inspired me to devote so much of my life to science.

.

Sorry Frank, I posted this in the wrong place; it belongs here:

Mr. Lawlor, this is a VERY fine statement, so belated thanks! I sent it to my son (a PhD student at UVa. and a T.A. there) perhaps to use in his tutorials as exemplary of a good, parsimonious statement of the theory/hypothesis distinction so often missed in latter-day undergraduate education. I wanted to say, also, that your persistent effort to explain a commonplace distinction in service to a reasoned point of view (yours) to one so stubborn in resistance is admirable. Your response to the neck-wringing assault one encounters so often in these times of ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY is a breath of fresh air. I shall take a lesson from you.

The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy

"Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen." (Luke 24:5)

Frank, Your rigorous attempt to explain the long process of testing hypotheses was not wasted. I, for one, enjoyed the review. Some of us were rigorously trained in the "scientific method" at Catholic universities, and some probably at secular ones. We were taught to question the world around us and to have the freedom of "open minds". The Church (and our Faith) appeared to flourish in such an atmosphere. Yet, for some unknown reason, that "freedom" appeared to threaten some people (as you have pointed out, "faith" and "reason" are not always the same.) Oh well...a topic for another thread. I have been delighted that you chose to support Global Warming in this one. Thank you.

Here Today, a "Scientific method" that advances presumptions of faith and argues from faith assumptions (e.g. medieval Scholasticism) is in its argument neither science, nor philosophy, nor credible theology. You give a sense by your expressed brand of "science, philosophy, theology" that you are thoroughly medieval, scholastic — a pre-Vatican-One Catholic. God bless you, but your "rationality" escapes me totally and doesn't fly with informed reality or public consensus.

"Tomorrow" is sure to be "gone" with the rationality of such ostrichian worldview, in my opinion. I'm sorry for my bluntness, but it needs to be said. Jesus dared to show his anger with cheap peddlers in the market square. A little Christian forthrightness is needed now too!

Sevenup, I would be interested in your comments on ethanol; why (in the short run) is that a bad way to go? I am not trying to "nitpick"; I am genuinely curious; in the interest of dialogue, would you please educate me?

Starlight.... The Us News an World Report has a great essay on the politics of Ethanol...

Good question? Ethanol is the best transportation energy source out ther right now but if every available acre that would grow corn were so used we would only be able to produce 30 to 40% of what we need. With the inclusion af pine trees in the mix things are looking up. I said what I did to make sure that finding more oil is not one of the goals.
charley

No, although "oil independence" may be a short term goal for some, even if we were not facing a CO2 crisis (which we most definitely are, which therefore cries out for other forms of sustainable energy) we are also facing a "peak oil" situation, anyway, where the world's supplies of available oil will eventually run out. China's headlong rush to industrialize is eating up enormous amounts of the world's oil resources, but still nothing compared to the West's.

But it's a moot point. We must find other sources of clean energy. The Rocky Mountain Insitute, led by Amory Lovins, has long been active in generating new ideas in this arena.

E O'Rourke, It would be nice if everyone read everything that was written in the threads, but there is so much content, it is understandable why we all cannot do that. The "ice" and the "warming" are related, according to scientists I have heard and read. I hate to sound like a broken record, but as the Planet warms, the huge icecaps continue to melt (as they already are), and this puts more fresh cold water into the world's oceans. This causes certain warm water currents (like the Gulf Stream) to disappear, or to "drop down" far below the surface of the sea. Since these currents "move" the world's weather, this is actually expected to usher in another Ice Age in Europe and parts of North America.

See below for further explanations and sources on this.

Star:

Well said. Calling it Global Warming is a bit of a misnomer. The process is more complicated, including what happens to the polar ice caps, the oceans, etc. We seem to be feeling the effects in California: Chronic Santa Anas in the winter and hotter summers.

It will take a powerful amount of prayer to head this one off at the pass.

Kate

Bob,
What is the point of shooting the messinger? Either the message is bunk or it is accurate no matter who delivers it. As a old science professor I thought that he did a dam fine job of teaching some rather complex science in a captivating way. What he made was far from a hollywood movie (connoting fiction) and not a movie at all but a slide show, the old classroom standby. Like any politician his degree must be in communicating what he sees as an important message to a reluctant audience. Good job! and thanks, Al.

Al Gore studied at Harvard with a professor who was actually doing studies on Global Warming, "way back when" and developed his interest in the subject by actually helping to collect information as part of that professor's classes, which he explains in the movie. He kept up his interest while he was an adult and later as a member of the Senate. Why is it so hard for some of you to understand that an intelligent adult can maintain interests in a variety of subjects throughout adult life? Don't you? Based on yur writings to this site, I'm sure you maintain a variety of interests.

It's clear you have not seen the movie, or you would not be asking these questions. Mr. Gore has consulted with scientists from all over the world who speak in this movie. Further, the movie shows him lecturing on the subject in places as far away as China.

I have volunteered for one of the Agencies (NCAR--The National Center for Atmospheric Research) as a "tour guide" years ago and would take visitors around and explain the experiments used to study Global Warming. In order to do this (18 or 19 years ago) I had to take a course on what was known about the subject at the time. The science on this is REAL...and it has been grown since that time. Huge Cray Computers monitor the changes in the Earth's atmosphere, caused by such thing as carbon dioxide emissions, the burning of the rain forests in South America, and many other factors (those are just two.) We have bases in Antartica and at the North Pole where it is possible to measure changes in the Ozone Holes. If you do not want to rent the DVD, I suggest you go to any bookstore or library and at least look at the book of the same name (you don't have to buy it.) It is easy to make statements when you have not bothered to educate yourself.

God will not end the world...........Man will.
My wife always argued 'why would God destroy the world when he is still creating it and it is so beautiful ?' He might turn it over to new stewards if the present stewards can not take care of it. Who is to say that He is not doing that? The kind of thinking that predicts the appocalypse does not believe in present time creation. God has no time for men who predict the future and neglect the present.

Next time you quote someone else's work, here today, it is always proper to quote authorship (in this case, Robert Frost.) Perhaps you think many people "know" the Author of this well-known poem, but many do not. They might even assume it is your work. In fact, you said, "From the underdesk of Gone Tomorrow".

That might be construed as plagiarism. I'm certain you did not really mean to "steal" another's work, by publishing without attribution? It seems not, because you did add the quotes, anyway.
But why not just add two simple words? Robert Frost?

Gone Tomorrow, here.

My dearest troll, why should I fear to plagiarize a man while I try to conterfeit God? The mere poem that many recognize, all the more for your original response to it, is nothing compared to vast numbers of churches and theologies spread by my colegues. Are all these parodies of *shudder* His Church not more worthy of your scorn?

from the underdesk of Gone Tomorrow.

Plagiarism is plagiarism, HT. That's not an honest response. Actually, I recognized the poem, but not the author. I had to call my friend to get the name of the author, as my anthology did not contain the poem;I had just heard it a lot. And I read more poetry than most adults. What you have used in your response above is a defense mechanism called rationalization, another word for "excuse".

This is one of the advantages of having a formal education, I guess, because in a "regular" high school you would learn that proper attribution is very important. Actually, with all your research skills, I'm amazed that you are lacking in this bit of information.

No, "plagiarism" is the taking of a person's writing and refusing/neglecting to attribute source or authorship, and leading others to believe (even maybe believe) it is your own, or "from your desk" or whatever. It is grounds for getting kicked out of any good college or university. It has nothing to do with freedom of religion, (or freedom to start a new religion or worship as one pleases) which most civilized countries acknowledge these days, even if you personally, do not. They also acknowledge that plagiarism is an academic wrong.

These are established conventions of Western Civilization. It's frustrating when you continue to try to "make up" your own...

Wow, someone missed the point.

You're trolling, star, picking on the one source I forgot to site, after you already responded to the posting.

I started a thread explaining the GT alter ego (hence the sig line on some of my posts, linking back to that thread). I suggest you take a look, particularly since you seem to think my last post was at all serious (note this post lacks the sig line, and therefore is serious).

It was a mistake, and one that I cannot correct know (ironically because editing is locked after someone directly relplies to a post, it is you who have prevented me from correcting my mistake.

How about just saying "I'm sorry, my mistake" instead of this adolescent need to blame the person who pointed it out?

Also your understanding of trolling is way off the mark. A "troll" is a "stranger" who enters a site with one purpose only: to cause trouble. I have been here for a long time now, and I do not think that's what the "majority" of readers seem to think of my efforts here, although you may disagree.

Cheating, and especially the stealing of others' written work, is a huge pet peeve of mine. It does not amuse me. I thought you would get the point, and apologize, when I issued my first post, which unfortunately, went in above yours. (I thought maybe you didn't see it.) But based on what you just said, Mischiveous Little HT/GT of the Two Sides, you DID see it! YOu just chose to ignore it. Fine. But then, what was I to do? Ignore your ignoring and let it go? I think not. This was plagiarism, plain and simple. It should not go unremarked. Knowing you, I doubt if it will happen again.

Too bad about the limitations of the software. But that is not my responsibility, nor does it stop you from writing another post. Ever.
Peace, Star

Star & Here Today:

I hope we can call this little feud over. Star, he did apologize, just not quite in the words you were looking for. You made your point. Here today, I'm sure you'll be aware of the need to document details.

We should approach our blogging with a spirit of forgiveness and be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to one another. Otherwise, we might as well be blogging on a secular site.

Kate