In UK atheists considred more moral than theists.

[Bob Kelso]

Can I add that science reacting to better data over time is a strength and not a weakness.

because you are brain washed...

making amendments= we did not know what the F we were talking about hence the change. but this time everything is truthful/fact.. till you have to change it again and again and again...

So the process of updating our old information to its current, generally better, understood form is a problem for you? Would you prefer to think the earth is flat, or that heliocentrism is a lie then?

Could you imagine what you would say about a religion that changed it mind about 'god' as much as your scientist change their minds about science?

I’d imagine it’s around the same as what we currently say, given the vast amounts of sects in Christianity alone. Not to mention how churches have generally gotten with the times and how their interpretation of the Word changes to suit those times for the most part. IE gays are okay now in most churchgoers books.

You would say it take way too much faith to believe the current innervation of your 'god' would be the correct one. or didn't you say that the last innoration of your God was 100% correct? You would loose your minds if our roles were reversed and you were taught to view us that way. and rightfullful so..

There is not TRUTH in something always changing the story.

*emphasis is mine*

You are obviously uncomfortable, if not downright fearful, of not having a complete and solid answer. The *truth* is Drich, that there’s nearly not a damn thing in this world that’s so black and white as to be simply answered once, and that answer being the end all, be all. Sometimes we have to work with what we are currently capable of, and sometimes we have to accept that we may never know the extent of how certain things work.

I’m comfortable with not knowing, and I refuse to delude myself into accepting answers that aspire to being half baked.

but that's the problem isn't it. you care not for the truth only truthieness.. whatever the lemming infront of you says.. that is all that is important but you do not want a fate any different than the guy next to you.

You ever hear of the term “projecting” mate?

[The Grand Nudger]

The entire premise of christianity, lol..is that a jewish god fucked the pooch so thoroughly on the first go round...that he had to send his hippy son and a new magic book to earth to say "yeah...on second thought...".

Revision can't be that difficult of an issue for a christian to comprehend or be comfortable with.

[Bob Kelso]

One would certainly think so. What with their god myth about creating humanity and saying “scratch that” with a worldwide flood.

[Drich]

---

here's the thing sport.. CFC... are heavier than air, much. In Fact if there is a leak in a container it can stay indefinitely in an open air container if the material is not blown out or the container not tipped over.

Ozone... is 15 to 30Km high

it was said when we first were made to take our freon tests it would take 75 years to drop the levels low enough to effect the ozone layer. why? because it was supposedly the chlorine which broke apart from the molecule chain which caused atmospheric saturation takes a very long time to decay in the open air. so we should technically be getting worse/hole bigger for the next 50 years.

yet the hole is gone.

Which makes some in 'science' say we have no idea why the hole is or as there and why it is seal. but if the hole is seal then there is no way for the CFC's to split if less time cause the reduced saturation let alone regeneration of the O3 layer. This is not chemically possible.

A more sensible theory has to do with solar winds.. when the sun's output is very high it bombards the earth with actual particles of solar energy which could indeed break down O3 into O2 or just O (o3 being ozone into just oxygen) but you can't tax the sun and duponte (the makers of cfc refrigerant) isn't gong to pay the government billions to make people buy the 'new stuff' because the cfc they were making patent ran out...

Oh, guess what else! the Chfc/HFC (the stuff we converted to in the 90s to save us from the CFC of the 60 70 and 80) you know the stuff we used to replaced the cfc that ate a hole in the ozone???, That 'new stuff of the 1990s patents are running out, and guess what is next on the government chopping block for bad refrigerants! YES the SAME Chfc and HFC's that saved us from the ozone hole, are now global warming/climate change contributors so we have to stop using them Just as Duponts patents and licenses agreements are expiring! and guess who use has a newer replacement?!?! That right DUPONTE!!!! Dupont's new replacement which will be good for 20+ years until those patent run out are here to save us from our own.....  It just cost 10x as much!!! plus the pressures are crazy/more repair bills and home a/c system change out time cut in 1/2!! plus it is crazy toxic and some said highly flammable as it contains a high amount of natural gas.

Right, right, the universe itself is engaged in a massive conspiracy to make you look like a flaming idiot so that duponte can grind out more coin...and that's why we should do nothing in the face of this new challenge, which is fake news.

how about it is not chemically possible for the cfc's to do the damage claimed by the montreal protcol of 1987? 
https://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/...9382a.html
Motives aside the reason for the bann is bull shit. now fill in the blanks any way you like. Just know... the "dates" all of this stuff went down coincides with duponte production runs.
https://eng.ucmerced.edu/people/awesterl...nts/DuPont

These people seem to think duponte (the people who called for the bann who FUNDED the research into the hole/Which btw is like big tobacco paying for doctor endorsements) made out like a bandit by providing a crisis that threaten modern life and provided a solution that only cost 10 times more (.98 cents a lb verse 10 to 14 dollars a lb) and now are doing the very same thing just when their patents run out again, and again providing a solution which is 10 times more money.

But your right 'science is pure' as the snow it would never take money and "find" one way or another anything the funders wanted found... Just a coincidence that an extinction level problem forced people to pay 10times what they already pay for basically the same product (meaning end net result.)

Now Note to Jorge.. I started with my interpretation of some tertiary stuff. pretty low grade as facts are concerned.. most of it was popular belief. then he challenged so I got some primary strong secondary source material. Now intellectually his choice is to find primary stronger/more number secondary material to unseat what My guys just said... not more of the same stuff my sources invalidated, but material that addresses what my guys say.

Got a feeling he will go back to his usual MO and that is attack me my understanding of the industry I've worked in for over 25 years and or make some quip about my source material..

Again, what would you do here. how do I set this moron straight? he doesn't want a world view any bigger than the one he keeps under his hat. He clearly wants to be seen as a 'thinker' just doesn't want to give anything any thought.. he just wants to think about how to lock in what he already thinks he knows. or do I let it go as with you and have him harp on the preceived win... just because I did not beat him with the fact till he broke down and cried? where is the middle ground here? You guys do not seem to understand how to argue facts, you argue passions, you almost do not care what the facts are you just argue alongworld view lines.

[The Grand Nudger]

From your own link.

Nothing currently suggests that the role of CFCs must be called into question, Rex stresses. “Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions.” 

Again, and as before..I'm sure you're right, though. The universe is conspiring to make you look like an idiot so that duponte can cash a check.

[Drich]

So the process of updating our old information to its current, generally better, understood form is a problem for you? Would you prefer to think the earth is flat, or that heliocentrism is a lie then?

False/obtuse dichotomy.
bobbie this is not an either or situation. the problem lies when one takes a theory based system of learning and makes it his authority/position in order to remove and or replace God. Someone like this would often cite the great faith one must have in God, when an equal expenditure of faith is needed in an ever changing method of learning. but you would never hear one of you say that. you have complete trust in this system of truth, that is ever changing.. which means your truth your facts can not be true, which points to a large volume of faith to maintain something to be true when you know it could change!

For example I can prove to you the world is no more round than it is flat! yet here you are cheerleading that outdated notion as if it were God's truth... yet when I correct you you will shrug it off and say close enough.. (which is what people of faith say when they are wrong.)

I’d imagine it’s around the same as what we currently say, given the vast amounts of sects in Christianity alone. Not to mention how churches have generally gotten with the times and how their interpretation of the Word changes to suit those times for the most part. IE gays are okay now in most churchgoers books.

I was hoping you would take the... "invitation" to push the conversation more into this direction.. So do you think church doctrine has changed to allow gay people? or do you think people have changed? what of those who have not? (I don't live in england or europe haven't seen any gay run churches yet..) well I have seen gay people in church, but 'were not gay yet.'

You would say it take way too much faith to believe the current innervation of your 'god' would be the correct one. or didn't you say that the last innoration of your God was 100% correct? You would loose your minds if our roles were reversed and you were taught to view us that way. and rightfullful so..

There is not TRUTH in something always changing the story.

*emphasis is mine*

You are obviously uncomfortable, if not downright fearful, of not having a complete and solid answer.

bobert that is not true at all. I am pointing out you are trading truth for speculation and best guesses. that when you speak of truth you speak in faith, and ridicule us for having the same faith. As if faith in one is not the same faith in the other. except one is right and the other is admittedly wrong all the time.

The *truth* is Drich, that there’s nearly not a damn thing in this world that’s so black and white as to be simply answered once, and that answer being the end all, be all.

I am sorry you have to live in a world so befuddled with grey you must keep yourself in the dark about thing we can know as truth..

Sometimes we have to work with what we are currently capable of, and sometimes we have to accept that we may never know the extent of how certain things work.

oh, boy if that is not a confession of faith You don't know what one is! Did you know only half the faith you describe here is needed for God to come into your life?!

I’m comfortable with not knowing, and I refuse to delude myself into accepting answers that aspire to being half baked.

content with ignorance.. I somewhat used that earlier, in that most of you do not want a fate any greater than that of your neighbor. that contentment of ignorance is the doom of a lemming. If wisdom and knowledge is offered why not receive it?

but that's the problem isn't it. you care not for the truth only truthieness.. whatever the lemming infront of you says.. that is all that is important but you do not want a fate any different than the guy next to you.

You ever hear of the term “projecting” mate?
[/quote]
you ever hear an echo before bruh?

Hear's a bit-o-wisdom you don't seem to be fond of... lemmings.. they populate both sides of the of the argument, meaning my side has them and your side has them... here's the thing.. if you can't see any of those lemmings on your side of the argument... it is because you are one!

[The Grand Nudger]

 the problem lies when one takes a theory based system of learning and makes it his authority/position in order to remove and or replace God.

Why would that be a problem, lol?  Hell..if your god hadn't been such a damned dummy about everything we might not have needed to find a better way to learn about it all.

I'd be far more concerned about people taking the initially mistaken pronouncements of some fairy and then running with them forever. Like we do, lol.

[Minimalist]

You always provide me with perfect real world examples of the B/S I am talking about...

And you always provide perfect examples of why religious retards seemingly cannot function in the real world.

Grow up, Junior.  There's no fucking god and your bible is bullshit.

[Angrboda]

One final note. Your latest citation only states that Broecker was the first to use the term global warming in a paper, not that he was the only one who made that claim that year, so your conclusion that there was only one paper suggesting warming in 1975 simply doesn't follow. But then, in this case, as in the others, you are hoist on your own petard. The very article you cited says the following:

Broecker was not the first to predict CO2-induced warming. In 1965, an expert report to US President Lyndon B. Johnson had warned: “By the year 2000, the increase in carbon dioxide will be close to 25%. This may be sufficient to produce measurable and perhaps marked changes in climate.” And in 1972, a more specific prediction similar to Broecker’s was published by the eminent atmospheric scientist J.S. Sawyer in Nature (for a history in a nutshell, see my newspaper column here). ... Overall, Broecker’s paper (together with that of Sawyer) shows that valid predictions of global warming were published in the 1970s in the top journals Science and Nature, and warming has been proceeding almost exactly as predicted for at least 35 years now.

Happy 35th birthday, global warming!

[Bob Kelso]

False/obtuse dichotomy.

Is it, Drich? Is it really? Now I won’t speak for you, you can do that:

because you are brain washed... making amendments= we did not know what the F we were talking about hence the change. but this time everything is truthful/fact.. till you have to change it again and again and again...

The above doesn’t leave a lot of room for conjecture on your opinion of science changing it’s information with new data. Just working with what you put out, guy.

I’d like to make the humble suggestion of saying what you mean, explicitly. Whatever worthwhile points you could have made for your arguments are wasted through your lobbing of horseshit, then crying “gotcha” when people complain about the smell. Then you state what you “actually” meant*.

*I’m being generous here, frankly I think you’re full of it.

bobbie this is not an either or situation. the problem lies when one takes a theory based system of learning and makes it his authority/position in order to remove and or replace God. Someone like this would often cite the great faith one must have in God, when an equal expenditure of faith is needed in an ever changing method of learning. but you would never hear one of you say that. you have complete trust in this system of truth, that is ever changing.. which means your truth your facts can not be true, which points to a large volume of faith to maintain something to be true when you know it could change!

You are comparing apples to combustion engines. Faith in a deity (and the teachings in your Bible) and trust in the empirical methodology that is the scientific method, by which we have come to understand so much of the universe we inhabit, are so vastly different that it boggles my mind that theists try to make the comparison.

For example I can prove to you the world is no more round than it is flat! yet here you are cheerleading that outdated notion as if it were God's truth... yet when I correct you you will shrug it off and say close enough.. (which is what people of faith say when they are wrong.)

Oh for the love of Talos, Drich. Lay talk is a thing, when people use the word round it’s because they’d rather not have a conversation about Geodesy or use terms like “oblate spheroid” every damn time the subject raises it’s hoary head.

I was hoping you would take the... "invitation" to push the conversation more into this direction.. So do you think church doctrine has changed to allow gay people? or do you think people have changed? what of those who have not? (I don't live in england or europe haven't seen any gay run churches yet..) well I have seen gay people in church, but 'were not gay yet.'

Yes, to both. Doctrine and people change, usually hand in hand. Now I wonder why that is? Why would the “Mandate of Heaven” change with the times? It’s a pickle alright.

To give an example look at the best known sect in the world, the Catholic Church. Oh, they use slippery language (hundreds of years of practice y’know) but their doctrine “develops” as they’re wont to say.

Does your church still abide slavery, racism or such things? If they don’t it’s because their doctrine changed with the times. As for those who don’t? Traditionalists aren’t exactly receptive to change, are they?

bobert that is not true at all. I am pointing out you are trading truth for speculation and best guesses. that when you speak of truth you speak in faith, and ridicule us for having the same faith. As if faith in one is not the same faith in the other. except one is right and the other is admittedly wrong all the time.

Yeah, no. I accept that there are human limitations in what we can know as the “truth”, Drich. Are we to be faulted for things we didn’t or don’t yet know? Ignorance isn’t as dirty of a word as you’d like it to be. Ignorance is simply room for growth, as long as you don’t stonewall it with bullshit. Bullshit like pretend half-answers from several thousand year old religions.

In the pursuit of fairness though, new age woo isn’t much better.

I am sorry you have to live in a world so befuddled with grey you must keep yourself in the dark about thing we can know as truth..

Life is intricate, Drich. Complexity may scare you, but I don’t take pleasure in simplistic, self serving, lies about reality.

oh, boy if that is not a confession of faith You don't know what one is! Did you know only half the faith you describe here is needed for God to come into your life?!

Please, do explain to me how an admission of human limitation is, in any way, an admission of faith.

content with ignorance.. I somewhat used that earlier, in that most of you do not want a fate any greater than that of your neighbor. that contentment of ignorance is the doom of a lemming. If wisdom and knowledge is offered why not receive it?

As I said before, ignorance isn’t as dirty of a word as you’d like it to be. I will take an admission of honest ignorance, and a curiosity to find out what the answers are, over woo any day.

I am comfortable saying “I don’t know”. There’s a difference between that and willful stupidity.

you ever hear an echo before bruh?
Hear's a bit-o-wisdom you don't seem to be fond of... lemmings.. they populate both sides of the of the argument, meaning my side has them and your side has them... here's the thing.. if you can't see any of those lemmings on your side of the argument... it is because you are one!

There’s that willful stupidity I was talking about. Great example, man.