In UK atheists considred more moral than theists.

[The Grand Nudger]

Meh, fuck em.  They're the only people convinced by their own lies.  It would be sad if they weren't such assholes about it.

[Drich]

I don't understand your division. Sin is a stain. if you do not want the stain you have it removed. the only way to remove the stain is through atonement. so Not wanting sin not wanting the stain having the stain removed are all the same as they all channel through atonement. how can you separate atonement though this process?

no.. that is claiming you don't want sin.. it is like me giving you a vanilla ice cream and you want strawberry, then I say if you want straw berry then come to the table and get it your self...

You may prefer strawberry but if you want is not great enough you will not get up and get it.

The same is true here when I say want I mean the type of want a man 2 days in the desert wants water or a man on fire wants the fire put out.. I'm not speaking of a lackadaisical preference that has no power of motivation.

Lets say your going out and you are wearing your favorite shirt, but notice a 18" round stain on your shirt. can I assume you hate stains? to the point where you would change your shirt, and if you favored your shirt you would make an effort to remove said stain. Otherwise who could claim they hate a stain on a nice shirt if they did nothing to fix it, and wore it out?

Your sin is that stain, atonement is the oxyclean. again how can you hate a stain and not make any effort to do anything? here the only thing that can be done for a hated stain is to attone.

A psychologist by the name of Victor H. Vroom postulated what came to be known as Vroom's expectancy theory (see here and here).  The point of his theory was that there are additional factors determining motivation and action beyond simply the desirability of the goal involved.  For example, if I believe that my boss might retaliate against me for reporting a grievance, I may be inclined to not report the grievance even if I want to do so.  Stronger motives may overrule lesser motives and interfere with the link between desire and action.  Additionally, the person has to believe that they possess the "instrumentality" necessary to achieve the desired end.  Thus a therapy client may want to change their behavior, yet not believe themselves capable of making the necessary changes or developing the relevant discipline to do so.  Among other things, Vroom's expectancy shows that there is not a straight line between wanting something and acting so as to satisfy that want.  At a minimum, this shows that simply wanting something is not necessarily in and of itself enough.  Your claim was that just wanting not to sin was sufficient to motivate the belief which Jesus states is clearly required.  As noted, if I don't believe that believing in Jesus will effect the removal of my sin, then no matter how much I may not want sin, I will not be moved to believe in Jesus any more than I did previously, which is not believing in Jesus at all.  Your examples are defective, it has long been recognized that simply wanting something, no matter how dire, is not necessarily sufficient to motivate behavior.   It is the behavior, believing in Christ, which is required, not simply the desire.  I would also note that you're assuming that a person who already believes in the efficacy of the atonement of Christ will be motivated to believe in the atonement of Christ.  That's rather redundant and irrelevant.  The question is rather are people always going to seek atonement through Christ when they don't want sin, and the answer to that is a resounding no.  Plenty of devout Muslims have a genuine desire not to want to sin, yet none of them are going to seek atonement by believing that Christ was God and that his sacrifice could wash away their sin.

In terms of your examples, if I want strawberry ice cream and believe that no matter what I do, I will not get strawberry ice cream, I will not be motivated to act.  (Suppose the person telling me to come and get it is evil, and is just teasing, and won't let me reach the strawberry ice cream.) If I want water after two days in the desert, yet there is the grand canyon to jump, an ocean to swim, thirty rabid bears, one hundred ravenous lions, and a brigade of U.S. soldiers standing in my way, I'm not likely to make the attempt.  Wanting not to wear a stained shirt may be irrelevant if I'm required to wear a shirt, and the only shirt I have access to is the stained one.  Or perhaps it was a gift from my rich uncle, and he will write me out of his will if I am seen not wearing it.  In short, you've provided examples where a desire may in fact lead to an action, but that's not really relevant.  I'm not debating that wanting not to sin may be sufficient to motivate belief and atonement.  I concede that point.  What is relevant are the counter-examples such as the Muslim who genuinely wants not to sin, yet will not atone in the way Jesus requires.  Quibbling about the strength of the desire is simply a red herring, in addition to being an additional constraint which wasn't originally claimed and so technically would be moving the goalposts.  But no mind, I don't think it saves your argument anyway.

...and if people in general do not live in vrooms world???

Granted if I did live there I would be wrong.. But If I or put several like minded people together like me you would have a church, several churches of like minded people and you would have a religious movement, put several of those together they would unite under a single religion nemaly Christianity. I am saying in this situation Christianity as a whole do not live in vrooms world. If this were true despite your objection and valid observation then I would I not be correct?

Can you see how/where I am coming from, even if I am not speaking to your specific situation? Can you not graciously add the steps needed to complete what I would identify as one step and what you identify is two or more? You have to understand and make allowances for a completely different world view. Our life philosophies are so radically different wouldn't you think the core understanding of even basic words also take on different meaning?

If then you are the smart one if you can not make allowances for the perceived discrepancies you have identified then who will bridge the gap you are creating?

For example, vroom may have indeed identified a reason for a want to not manifest itself into a action. But you have to also take note the example given was in an oppressed or victimized mind.. So then these people vroom identifies are the exception and not the rule. these exceptions (about being conditioned to expect punishment for asking or seeking what you want) do not include any atheists, as you all so clearly state there is no god.. if there is no god then there is no excuse for reprisal. If you are working from a no God position then you can't hide under the skirt of vroom observation. You can be 'damaged' by something you declare is not there!

So then When speaking about want necessitating action we have the examples in Christianity so we then can say Christians are not apart of vrooms observation and as for the reason just mentioned Atheists are exempt from vrooms actions. So in your mind's eye how is anything you just brought up topical to this conversation? are you just fact checking again? are you looking for anyway to legalistically make me wrong? are you even tryng to be apart of the conversation?

Understand I speak in generalities and will not make exception for you I will not fuss over ever detail and sub group. that is the point of this board. IF you have a question concerning vroom group, then ask. It is not my responsibility to examine and make allowances for every single social group concerning everything I have to say.

To put it the other way, none of you including you do this unless you are trying to fact check me into oblivion. this is a very dishonest tactic. always looking for the exception and despite if it applies you run with the exception and demand me recant what I've said. F-you if you think I am going to change or run from you because you bark at me with fallacious reasoning and dishonesty.

You want to ask questions serious questions, I will give you a serious answer, but you will also have to make allowances with me and I you as we will not be coming from the same starting point. I can and will do this as an effort to meet you in the middle, however I will not be manipulated into making allowances for every situation or sub group on the planet. If this is your intent then let just get back to the fact checking and name calling, and not wiast any more of each others time in this parlay or sorts.

---

then answer this how many papers/articles (Because the above is an article) by 1980 were there on global warming considering the three points of references we are using? I count 3. So How many on global cooling using the same references? I have 9 written down so tell me how I am wrong. remember one of the three sources voting for co2 warming is media related.

The table I quoted you earlier cited 44 different scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 in the warming column, so not only are you wrong, you can't even count.  And that's not including the citation from 1953.  Produce your nine scientific references on global cooling so I can laugh in your face.  And the above article represents reporting of a paper delivered to the American Geophysical Union, not just an article in a popular publication.  Gilbert Plass was a noted environmental scientist in the 1950s, and his opinion matters when determining what science thought about the subject.  It was quoted to refute your claim that the first paper on global warming was produced in 1975, which it ably does, not as evidence for the number of papers pro and con during the 70s and before.  Your interpretation of it as such is a straw man.  I did not use it in any count of scientific papers, so it can be omitted from that count.  Media related articles matter only insofar as they cite actual scientific papers and that doing so does not result in counting the same paper twice.  If it causes you discomfort, I give you full permission to exclude it from the count of relevant scientific papers.  Purely media reports on their own are irrelevant as explained to you earlier.  I thought you had finally wised up and conceded the point, but apparently I was mistaken.  You're showing yourself to be every bit the deluded idiot that I have maintained you are.  You were shown to be misrepresenting the Wikipedia article in multiple ways, including claiming hundreds of pro-cooling papers and that it showed that global cooling was a scientific fact in the 70s, in addition to ignoring the graph and text saying otherwise.  Then you misrepresented an Ars Technica article which also refuted your claims.  Then you misrepresented an article from realclimate.org which also did not support your claims.  You don't even appear to bother to read the articles you cite before doing so.  I admit, I occasionally do not fully read an article before citing it, but I have not been repeatedly wrong about the content of a citation as you have been.   And now you're claiming you are right based on a mistaken count of the pro-warming papers cited and trying to sneak the nose of the camel under the tent by claiming "media related" citations are relevant.  All you are doing is proving what a monumental douchebag you are.

and the article I quoted you showed you and your table to be wrong. it revealed in fact only 3 sources pointed to global warming as of 1975. what more is there to say unless you have conclusive evidence to show otherwise...

And remember the 1972 newspaper article was based on the 1970 paper presented to the president. so really the three mentionings are really only two. Everything else you have to say is meaningless without proof that over turns the reference material I provided.

Also what appears to you as not reading is call selective discussion. this is indeed a common practice in tertiary sourcing. most 3rd rate sources are filled with commentary and pointless or even misleading facts. So in a news paper or blog situation I selectively quote to build an argument I know I can support with something stronger. again this draws out the conversation. It gives the opponent a false sense of security most of the time. it make one feel superior as if I did not read or understand the article.

The problem is most of you do not know that a secondary source trumps a tertiary source. so when I bring in something stronger you think I am contradicting myself when my second reference partially over turn what the first source says... 

In truth. I try and find a source that will allow both of us to start out supporting both. most tetery material is good like that. they want to balance fact/truth with popular thought. so I weed through and pull out all the truth, you all tend to weed out the popular stuff, then I take the truth and pair it with a stronger source, and if you do not yield I take a primary source and beat you with it while you all typically maintain the tertiary material and call me stupid for not reading what I quoted...

this is not a gotcha tactic.. this is a method of learning that promotes internal thinking, promotion of logic/reason, research and preparation. It also requires a lot of patents as the people you typically deal with are seemingly one or two generations away from stoning people they disagree with, and have not master how to properly escalate a conversation with proof and evidence despite the claim their minds only work that way!

---

then answer this how many papers/articles (Because the above is an article) by 1980 were there on global warming considering the three points of references we are using? I count 3. So How many on global cooling using the same references? I have 9 written down so tell me how I am wrong. remember one of the three sources voting for co2 warming is media related.

The table I quoted you earlier cited 44 different scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 in the warming column, so not only are you wrong, you can't even count.  And that's not including the citation from 1953.  Produce your nine scientific references on global cooling so I can laugh in your face.  And the above article represents reporting of a paper delivered to the American Geophysical Union, not just an article in a popular publication.  Gilbert Plass was a noted environmental scientist in the 1950s, and his opinion matters when determining what science thought about the subject.  It was quoted to refute your claim that the first paper on global warming was produced in 1975, which it ably does, not as evidence for the number of papers pro and con during the 70s and before.  Your interpretation of it as such is a straw man.  I did not use it in any count of scientific papers, so it can be omitted from that count.  Media related articles matter only insofar as they cite actual scientific papers and that doing so does not result in counting the same paper twice.  If it causes you discomfort, I give you full permission to exclude it from the count of relevant scientific papers.  Purely media reports on their own are irrelevant as explained to you earlier.  I thought you had finally wised up and conceded the point, but apparently I was mistaken.  You're showing yourself to be every bit the deluded idiot that I have maintained you are.  You were shown to be misrepresenting the Wikipedia article in multiple ways, including claiming hundreds of pro-cooling papers and that it showed that global cooling was a scientific fact in the 70s, in addition to ignoring the graph and text saying otherwise.  Then you misrepresented an Ars Technica article which also refuted your claims.  Then you misrepresented an article from realclimate.org which also did not support your claims.  You don't even appear to bother to read the articles you cite before doing so.  I admit, I occasionally do not fully read an article before citing it, but I have not been repeatedly wrong about the content of a citation as you have been.   And now you're claiming you are right based on a mistaken count of the pro-warming papers cited and trying to sneak the nose of the camel under the tent by claiming "media related" citations are relevant.  All you are doing is proving what a monumental douchebag you are.

media accounts are dismissed by you because it was through the media that I was proven right. all along I pointed to the media and now you want to completely exclude it. You are moving the goal posts and you know it. you initial assessment said there was no claims being made... again not true and I conclusively showed you where such claim were being made. where else would the common person have access to papers on global warming or global cooling.. can't your millennial mind get around the fact that with out newspaper, sources like time magazine and the nightly news, there was no other way to transmit this kind of information to the public???

Now again if science was so opposed to this global cooling phenomena/theory (Which btw there were record cold winters happening like record heat now) then why didn't 'science' put out a global warming campaign that equaled or at least matched the media bitz on global cooling? where was the global warming movie with shatner or nimoy? where was the life magazine article on global warming or debunking of the time article? why because there were 3 papers written of any considerable note and one of them was a newspaper article on one of the others

The truth is the media is all we had, and to remove it from the discussion is another dishonest tactic as no other form of communication span the gap between scientific community and the common person. there was no google there was no youtube. if you weren't on the news or in a news paper then you did not exist.

Why is it so hard for you to simply be fair?

Can't you see how narrow your victory would be if we had to remove the facts that drove this movement? or does that not matter? are you simply looking for plausibility, that it could have happened the other way IF and only IF we took away the events or methods used in history during that time period?

That is like saying who won WWII if the americans did not have guns? You are forgoing the fact the we did have guns and we did win, yet you push an unreal scenario of what could have happened or what would have happened if we did not have guns in the war..

The same is true here taking away the media is taking away the world had access to those scientific discoveries!

---

---

THAT WAS NOT WHAT I SAID!

Stahp.  OFC it was, the forums exist.  They didn't disappear between now and when you last posted.  Don't try to sell the dumbest lie in the history of lies.  Just accept that you're an idiot and move on.

It's not as if it would matter.

Your right you're an idiot.. I've moved on.

[Angrboda]

A psychologist by the name of Victor H. Vroom postulated what came to be known as Vroom's expectancy theory (see here and here).  The point of his theory was that there are additional factors determining motivation and action beyond simply the desirability of the goal involved.  For example, if I believe that my boss might retaliate against me for reporting a grievance, I may be inclined to not report the grievance even if I want to do so.  Stronger motives may overrule lesser motives and interfere with the link between desire and action.  Additionally, the person has to believe that they possess the "instrumentality" necessary to achieve the desired end.  Thus a therapy client may want to change their behavior, yet not believe themselves capable of making the necessary changes or developing the relevant discipline to do so.  Among other things, Vroom's expectancy shows that there is not a straight line between wanting something and acting so as to satisfy that want.  At a minimum, this shows that simply wanting something is not necessarily in and of itself enough.  Your claim was that just wanting not to sin was sufficient to motivate the belief which Jesus states is clearly required.  As noted, if I don't believe that believing in Jesus will effect the removal of my sin, then no matter how much I may not want sin, I will not be moved to believe in Jesus any more than I did previously, which is not believing in Jesus at all.  Your examples are defective, it has long been recognized that simply wanting something, no matter how dire, is not necessarily sufficient to motivate behavior.   It is the behavior, believing in Christ, which is required, not simply the desire.  I would also note that you're assuming that a person who already believes in the efficacy of the atonement of Christ will be motivated to believe in the atonement of Christ.  That's rather redundant and irrelevant.  The question is rather are people always going to seek atonement through Christ when they don't want sin, and the answer to that is a resounding no.  Plenty of devout Muslims have a genuine desire not to want to sin, yet none of them are going to seek atonement by believing that Christ was God and that his sacrifice could wash away their sin.

In terms of your examples, if I want strawberry ice cream and believe that no matter what I do, I will not get strawberry ice cream, I will not be motivated to act.  (Suppose the person telling me to come and get it is evil, and is just teasing, and won't let me reach the strawberry ice cream.) If I want water after two days in the desert, yet there is the grand canyon to jump, an ocean to swim, thirty rabid bears, one hundred ravenous lions, and a brigade of U.S. soldiers standing in my way, I'm not likely to make the attempt.  Wanting not to wear a stained shirt may be irrelevant if I'm required to wear a shirt, and the only shirt I have access to is the stained one.  Or perhaps it was a gift from my rich uncle, and he will write me out of his will if I am seen not wearing it.  In short, you've provided examples where a desire may in fact lead to an action, but that's not really relevant.  I'm not debating that wanting not to sin may be sufficient to motivate belief and atonement.  I concede that point.  What is relevant are the counter-examples such as the Muslim who genuinely wants not to sin, yet will not atone in the way Jesus requires.  Quibbling about the strength of the desire is simply a red herring, in addition to being an additional constraint which wasn't originally claimed and so technically would be moving the goalposts.  But no mind, I don't think it saves your argument anyway.

...and if people in general do not live in vrooms world???

Granted if I did live there I would be wrong.. But If I or put several like minded people together like me you would have a church, several churches of like minded people and you would have a religious movement, put several of those together they would unite under a single religion nemaly Christianity. I am saying in this situation Christianity as a whole do not live in vrooms world. If this were true despite your objection and valid observation then I would I not be correct?

Can you see how/where I am coming from, even if I am not speaking to your specific situation? Can you not graciously add the steps needed to complete what I would identify as one step and what you identify is two or more? You have to understand and make allowances for a completely different world view. Our life philosophies are so radically different wouldn't you think the core understanding of even basic words also take on different meaning?

If then you are the smart one if you can not make allowances for the perceived discrepancies you have identified then who will bridge the gap you are creating?

For example, vroom may have indeed identified a reason for a want to not manifest itself into a action. But you have to also take note the example given was in an oppressed or victimized mind.. So then these people vroom identifies are the exception and not the rule. these exceptions (about being conditioned to expect punishment for asking or seeking what you want) do not include any atheists, as you all so clearly state there is no god.. if there is no god then there is no excuse for reprisal. If you are working from a no God position then you can't hide under the skirt of vroom observation. You can be 'damaged' by something you declare is not there!

So then When speaking about want necessitating action we have the examples in Christianity so we then can say Christians are not apart of vrooms observation and as for the reason just mentioned Atheists are exempt from vrooms actions. So in your mind's eye how is anything you just brought up topical to this conversation? are you just fact checking again? are you looking for anyway to legalistically make me wrong? are you even tryng to be apart of the conversation?

Understand I speak in generalities and will not make exception for you I will not fuss over ever detail and sub group. that is the point of this board. IF you have a question concerning vroom group, then ask. It is not my responsibility to examine and make allowances for every single social group concerning everything I have to say.

To put it the other way, none of you including you do this unless you are trying to fact check me into oblivion. this is a very dishonest tactic. always looking for the exception and despite if it applies you run with the exception and demand me recant what I've said. F-you if you think I am going to change or run from you because you bark at me with fallacious reasoning and dishonesty.

You want to ask questions serious questions, I will give you a serious answer, but you will also have to make allowances with me and I you as we will not be coming from the same starting point. I can and will do this as an effort to meet you in the middle, however I will not be manipulated into making allowances for every situation or sub group on the planet. If this is your intent then let just get back to the fact checking and name calling, and not wiast any more of each others time in this parlay or sorts.

Sorry Drich, but people do in general live in Vroom's world, because that is the world of normal human psychology. If you're human, it applies. As noted, it applies to many devout Muslims and there is nothing stressed or exceptional about that group. It also applies to devout Hindus. And devout Buddhists. These are not abnormal subgroups, Drich, you're just trying to find a way to weasel out of admitting that you were wrong. Which, btw, means that you have been bested concerning scripture, if you hadn't been before with the tohu/bohu nonsense, or Min's point about children on the ark. Not that I expect to get an acknowledgement from you. You appear constitutionally incapable of admitting that you were wrong.

The table I quoted you earlier cited 44 different scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 in the warming column, so not only are you wrong, you can't even count.  And that's not including the citation from 1953.  Produce your nine scientific references on global cooling so I can laugh in your face.  And the above article represents reporting of a paper delivered to the American Geophysical Union, not just an article in a popular publication.  Gilbert Plass was a noted environmental scientist in the 1950s, and his opinion matters when determining what science thought about the subject.  It was quoted to refute your claim that the first paper on global warming was produced in 1975, which it ably does, not as evidence for the number of papers pro and con during the 70s and before.  Your interpretation of it as such is a straw man.  I did not use it in any count of scientific papers, so it can be omitted from that count.  Media related articles matter only insofar as they cite actual scientific papers and that doing so does not result in counting the same paper twice.  If it causes you discomfort, I give you full permission to exclude it from the count of relevant scientific papers.  Purely media reports on their own are irrelevant as explained to you earlier.  I thought you had finally wised up and conceded the point, but apparently I was mistaken.  You're showing yourself to be every bit the deluded idiot that I have maintained you are.  You were shown to be misrepresenting the Wikipedia article in multiple ways, including claiming hundreds of pro-cooling papers and that it showed that global cooling was a scientific fact in the 70s, in addition to ignoring the graph and text saying otherwise.  Then you misrepresented an Ars Technica article which also refuted your claims.  Then you misrepresented an article from realclimate.org which also did not support your claims.  You don't even appear to bother to read the articles you cite before doing so.  I admit, I occasionally do not fully read an article before citing it, but I have not been repeatedly wrong about the content of a citation as you have been.   And now you're claiming you are right based on a mistaken count of the pro-warming papers cited and trying to sneak the nose of the camel under the tent by claiming "media related" citations are relevant.  All you are doing is proving what a monumental douchebag you are.

and the article I quoted you showed you and your table to be wrong. it revealed in fact only 3 sources pointed to global warming as of 1975. what more is there to say unless you have conclusive evidence to show otherwise...

And remember the 1972 newspaper article was based on the 1970 paper presented to the president. so really the three mentionings are really only two. Everything else you have to say is meaningless without proof that over turns the reference material I provided.

Also what appears to you as not reading is call selective discussion. this is indeed a common practice in tertiary sourcing. most 3rd rate sources are filled with commentary and pointless or even misleading facts. So in a news paper or blog situation I selectively quote to build an argument I know I can support with something stronger. again this draws out the conversation. It gives the opponent a false sense of security most of the time. it make one feel superior as if I did not read or understand the article.

The problem is most of you do not know that a secondary source trumps a tertiary source. so when I bring in something stronger you think I am contradicting myself when my second reference partially over turn what the first source says... 

In truth. I try and find a source that will allow both of us to start out supporting both. most tetery material is good like that. they want to balance fact/truth with popular thought. so I weed through and pull out all the truth, you all tend to weed out the popular stuff, then I take the truth and pair it with a stronger source, and if you do not yield I take a primary source and beat you with it while you all typically maintain the tertiary material and call me stupid for not reading what I quoted...

this is not a gotcha tactic.. this is a method of learning that promotes internal thinking, promotion of logic/reason, research and preparation. It also requires a lot of patents as the people you typically deal with are seemingly one or two generations away from stoning people they disagree with, and have not master how to properly escalate a conversation with proof and evidence despite the claim their minds only work that way!

First of all, even if the article you quoted claimed that 1975 was the first article on global warming, that would only point to one of our two papers being wrong. It wouldn't indicate which one was wrong. So, by asserting that your paper proved mine wrong, you'd just be assuming that yours is right. But then, I don't have to point that out to a genius like you, do I? Even if your interpretation had been right regarding what your paper said, you would still have had to show that each paper cited by my article did not predict warming, and I rather doubt you would have done so. But fortunately we don't have to concern ourselves with such niceties as I have already pointed out that you are doubly wrong in interpreting your article as refuting the one I cited. First, as noted in your paper itself, the 1975 paper wasn't the first to predict global warming, so your own article refutes you. Second, as pointed out to you as well, the paper you cited did not claim that it was the first paper to predict a warming of the climate, only that it was the first the author could find that used the term "global warming" (and the search wasn't even conclusive, as noted, some of the papers cited in my article aren't even indexed by the database he used). So, rather than proving you right, it simply proves that you have reading comprehension issues. So, no, you are still wrong.

I'm not going to get into your rationalizations concerning primary and secondary sources because, as noted, I think they are just rationalizations you use to avoid being honest with yourself, and also, most times you end up being wrong anyway. By the way, this bullshit about selective quoting is bullshit because in the cases I've brought, there was nothing selective about your quoting -- you were just plain claiming things that the article either didn't say, or about which the article said something contradictory. That kind of selective quoting is called "lying" and "quoting out of context" respectively, both of which render your argument null and void.

The table I quoted you earlier cited 44 different scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 in the warming column, so not only are you wrong, you can't even count.  And that's not including the citation from 1953.  Produce your nine scientific references on global cooling so I can laugh in your face.  And the above article represents reporting of a paper delivered to the American Geophysical Union, not just an article in a popular publication.  Gilbert Plass was a noted environmental scientist in the 1950s, and his opinion matters when determining what science thought about the subject.  It was quoted to refute your claim that the first paper on global warming was produced in 1975, which it ably does, not as evidence for the number of papers pro and con during the 70s and before.  Your interpretation of it as such is a straw man.  I did not use it in any count of scientific papers, so it can be omitted from that count.  Media related articles matter only insofar as they cite actual scientific papers and that doing so does not result in counting the same paper twice.  If it causes you discomfort, I give you full permission to exclude it from the count of relevant scientific papers.  Purely media reports on their own are irrelevant as explained to you earlier.  I thought you had finally wised up and conceded the point, but apparently I was mistaken.  You're showing yourself to be every bit the deluded idiot that I have maintained you are.  You were shown to be misrepresenting the Wikipedia article in multiple ways, including claiming hundreds of pro-cooling papers and that it showed that global cooling was a scientific fact in the 70s, in addition to ignoring the graph and text saying otherwise.  Then you misrepresented an Ars Technica article which also refuted your claims.  Then you misrepresented an article from realclimate.org which also did not support your claims.  You don't even appear to bother to read the articles you cite before doing so.  I admit, I occasionally do not fully read an article before citing it, but I have not been repeatedly wrong about the content of a citation as you have been.   And now you're claiming you are right based on a mistaken count of the pro-warming papers cited and trying to sneak the nose of the camel under the tent by claiming "media related" citations are relevant.  All you are doing is proving what a monumental douchebag you are.

media accounts are dismissed by you because it was through the media that I was proven right. all along I pointed to the media and now you want to completely exclude it. You are moving the goal posts and you know it. you initial assessment said there was no claims being made... again not true and I conclusively showed you where such claim were being made. where else would the common person have access to papers on global warming or global cooling.. can't your millennial mind get around the fact that with out newspaper, sources like time magazine and the nightly news, there was no other way to transmit this kind of information to the public???

Now again if science was so opposed to this global cooling phenomena/theory (Which btw there were record cold winters happening like record heat now) then why didn't 'science' put out a global warming campaign that equaled or at least matched the media bitz on global cooling? where was the global warming movie with shatner or nimoy? where was the life magazine article on global warming or debunking of the time article? why because there were 3 papers written of any considerable note and one of them was a newspaper article on one of the others

The truth is the media is all we had, and to remove it from the discussion is another dishonest tactic as no other form of communication span the gap between scientific community and the common person. there was no google there was no youtube. if you weren't on the news or in a news paper then you did not exist.

Why is it so hard for you to simply be fair?

Can't you see how narrow your victory would be if we had to remove the facts that drove this movement? or does that not matter? are you simply looking for plausibility, that it could have happened the other way IF and only IF we took away the events or methods used in history during that time period?

That is like saying who won WWII if the americans did not have guns? You are forgoing the fact the we did have guns and we did win, yet you push an unreal scenario of what could have happened or what would have happened if we did not have guns in the war..

The same is true here taking away the media is taking away the world had access to those scientific discoveries!

I am being fair. You were attacking science, not what the media says science is. If the media was wrong about what the science said, then it's doubly irrelevant. How society's general dependence on the media for information about science affects society's views on the science is an important question, but it's not the one under consideration. And beyond the media representations, the science was generally available to anyone who wanted to examine it. It's not like the science was only talked about in closed door meetings. So, as to the question you raised with your satirical OP, it renders what the media said, as opposed to what science and scientists said, irrelevant. If you don't understand that, then you don't even understand your own argument.

---

---

Now, given the utter crapfest of ignorance, mistakes, idiocy, and plain egotistical obstinance you've displayed so far, I'm not altogether sure if I will continue to respond. In spite of yourself, you've managed to demonstrate only two things, a) that I have been for the most part engaging you constructively over the past year, contrary to your claims otherwise, and b) that you are every bit the deluded idiot that I have been maintaining that you are.

Feel free to respond or not, as you see fit. I may or may not display a further retrenchment from constructively engaging you in future.

[Drich]

...and if people in general do not live in vrooms world???

Sorry Drich, but people do in general live in Vroom's world, because that is the world of normal human psychology.

Vroom describe a state of perpetual fear. fear of speaking out lest someone else says some thing bad. fear of independence and fear of none hive minded thinking. how is this normal? are you all so intrenced into a collective that vrooms vision of the world is accurate? if so it is already too late. I think vroom speaks to crushed people while in some cases like with islam they live out as a majority it is still regional and once people shed oppression then leave vroom's world behind!

I say this to say Atheists out of every group should be free from vrooms world free from oppressive and restrictive rules and worry free of back biting and being ratted out by others.

 If you're human, it applies.

maybe to some sub conscious degree or another. but I can honestly says I do not consciously live this way and neither does anyone else I know.

You might live differently and everybody you know does as well. unless you can show me something different I have to agree to disagree. you may see it I certainly dont' not in my life.

 As noted, it applies to many devout Muslims and there is nothing stressed or exceptional about that group.  It also applies to devout Hindus.  And devout Buddhists.  These are not abnormal subgroups, Drich, you're just trying to find a way to weasel out of admitting that you were wrong.  Which, btw, means that you have been bested concerning scripture, if you hadn't been before with the tohu/bohu nonsense, or Min's point about children on the ark.  Not that I expect to get an acknowledgement from you.  You appear constitutionally incapable of admitting that you were wrong.  

because in this case i am not. what does hindus buddhists or muslims have to do with CHRISTIAN SCRIPTuRES?!!? you exceptions speak to sub sets of people my Scripture/hence my world view set me free from!!! How can you of all people not draw to corrleation between my not living in vroom's little world and my experience with God? and as a result how other who do not have the same experience I have with God IE muslims buddhist and hindus live under the boots of their oppressive regimes?!!? There is a reason I am free from vroom's doom and gloom! That because loving God come with a broom!!! and I can sweep away all of vroom boom boom!

First of all, even if the article you quoted claimed that 1975 was the first article on global warming, that would only point to one of our two papers being wrong.  It wouldn't indicate which one was wrong.  So, by asserting that your paper proved mine wrong, you'd just be assuming that yours is right.

there is no right and wrong in my arguement. it is the fact that there are so many wrong nothing is right. as it is just a matter of time before what is said is proven wrong. there is fact, and there is what is being presented as fact today. which again point to faith.. if you has 1/2 as much faith in God as you do science you would have your proof of God. that's the point I make each and every time we discuss this.

 But then, I don't have to point that out to a genius like you, do I?  Even if your interpretation had been right regarding what your paper said, you would still have had to show that each paper cited by my article did not predict warming, and I rather doubt you would have done so. But fortunately we don't have to concern ourselves with such niceties as I have already pointed out that you are doubly wrong in interpreting your article as refuting the one I cited.  First, as noted in your paper itself, the 1975 paper wasn't the first to predict global warming, so your own article refutes you.

you are wrong it says it is not the first to predict co2 causing a rise in temp. the paper of 1975 is indeed the first mentioning of the term global warming!!!

 Second, as pointed out to you as well, the paper you cited did not claim that it was the first paper to predict a warming of the climate, only that it was the first the author could find that used the term "global warming" (and the search wasn't even conclusive, as noted, some of the papers cited in my article aren't even indexed by the database he used).  So, rather than proving you right, it simply proves that you have reading comprehension issues.  So, no, you are still wrong.  

i just said what yu said and i'm still wrong.. make sense i'll own up to being wrong if you do here.
[quote]
I'm not going to get into your rationalizations concerning primary and secondary sources because, as noted, I think they are just rationalizations you use to avoid being honest with yourself, and also, most times you end up being wrong anyway.  By the way, this bullshit about selective quoting is bullshit because in the cases I've brought, there was nothing selective about your quoting -- you were just plain claiming things that the article either didn't say, or about which the article said something contradictory.  That kind of selective quoting is called "lying" and "quoting out of context" respectively, both of which render your argument null and void.

this is not a rationalization this is how structured research is compiled. this is also how peer reviewed scrutiny is preformed. You always poop on what you do not understand. in 3 months you will beating me over the head with 2ndary and primary sources. just like when I introduced the lexicon and concordances to you backwards monkies. you pooped on me for weeks now I see you people use the very same materials!!!

This is nothig new, you can truly adit when I a right or am doing something 'smarter' than you do them of course not it f's with the persona you all have worked so hard to keep me under, so when I do make one mistake out of 10 you can blow things up as if nothing I say or do is ever correct... funny how that always work in one direction huh?

I am being fair.  You were attacking science, not what the media says science is.  

calling bull shit here. the two work together in 1980 even in 1990 there was no google there was no research there was no access to the 2 papers that said global warming was a possiblity when all of the media bombarded one with stories of doom and gloom, and the comming ice age. I remember one winter it got so cold in central Fl the ground literally froze. not to mention almost singal handedle wiped out our whole produce business in one winter. it changed the world I lived in people lost jobs it was the end and here we go to school field trip to the 'science center' to watch a film with captian kirk telling us of this ice age that we have comming...

If media and science were not working together then where was the objections? where was the the guys who wrote those two articles? in truth just like with the global warming clowns in 1998 (hottest summer ever and the state caught fire and burned for like 3 months) it made sense it would never get cold again. it just made sence and the media found every scientist they could put on tv or quote in a magazine article they could and sold it to EVERYONE just like what they are doing now. I'm sorry if you are too young to remember but I am not. i will not forget how everyone was preaching the sky was going to freeze over and 2/3 of everythign was going to be covered in snow!

If the media was wrong about what the science said, then it's doubly irrelevant.

then your an idiot.. if it was wrong then quoting the same 'scientific method' what makes you thik it is right now? has our track record improved?

 How society's general dependence on the media for information about science affects society's views on the science is an important question, but it's not the one under consideration.

because you know the bottom falls out of your arguement otherwise.

 And beyond the media representations, the science was generally available to anyone who wanted to examine it.  It's not like the science was only talked about in closed door meetings.  So, as to the question you raised with your satirical OP, it renders what the media said, as opposed to what science and scientists said, irrelevant.  If you don't understand that, then you don't even understand your own argument.

BULLSHIT! in 1980 there was n access to scientific research! are you too young to remember a time without google? did you not know the average person's exposure to scientific research began and ended with whatever the encyclopedia had to say?!?! if it was not in there they a trip to the science center to hear a lecture or to be placed on a quarterly news letter was it! and THEY WERE The ONES PLAYING THE SHATTNER ICE AGE VIDEO!!!

You are programed to skew information so you can proceed as if you are always right is yur problem you just edit and cut fact till your assertin is correct. look at all the cutting you had to do to what I said to appear correct AND THEN Demand I amit fault! I purposely set my situation with in a set of well defined parameters as those parameters demand a singular answer. You cut those parameters out and ou can reshape the facts any way you like.

I will not let you do that.

---

---

Now, given the utter crapfest of ignorance, mistakes, idiocy, and plain egotistical obstinance you've displayed so far, I'm not altogether sure if I will continue to respond.  In spite of yourself, you've managed to demonstrate only two things, a) that I have been for the most part engaging you constructively over the past year, contrary to your claims otherwise, and b) that you are every bit the deluded idiot that I have been maintaining that you are.

Feel free to respond or not, as you see fit.  I may or may not display a further retrenchment from constructively engaging you in future.

I understand. you do you.

[Minimalist]

And Dripshit does Dripshit so Jorm comes out way ahead!