Spirituality or just emotion...?

[_ludwigm]

I want them defend from franktalk's type of mass killers. Put me in telestial for this sentence.

Emotion...

You global warming people sure do get worked up. If you care so much for people then go to where people need help and help them. Or are you one of those who wish to take everybody's money and spend it on your causes? Maybe you can get the UN to manage the program. They did such a wonderful job with the food for oil program.

Just for laughs go back and look at the early projections of the global warming people. Then compare with what actually happened. When they get anything right let me know, but until then it is all junk.

I want my offsprings defend from franktalk's type of mass killers. Put me in telestial for this sentence. Again.

[_Franktalk]

Let us look at temperatures for a moment.



As you can see the earth is cool right now. You can also see that cooling makes for drastic changes in the species mix. Many die off. So please tell me again why we should do things to cool the earth?

[_Tarski]

Let us look at temperatures for a moment.

As you can see the earth is cool right now. You can also see that cooling makes for drastic changes in the species mix. Many die off. So please tell me again why we should do things to cool the earth?

OMG, you really are clueless!
You asked a question here.
Would the actual scientific answer satisfy you?
Do you really want to know? Or is your mind closed up?
If I thought for a minute that this was anything more than a rhetorical maneuver, I would try to educate you.

You don't know the science. Do you want to learn or not? Don't waste my time.

[_sheryl]

Good fine. (Exceot that I essentially never think things are black and white

Oops! You were doing fine but now you have lost me. You see, listening to our mystical inner voices and confirming spiritual feelings of warmth etc. etc. is often just a way of letting our subconscious speak to us and it is no surprise that this would end up being just a confirmation of our preconceptions and prejudices.

In other words, you think you are listening to the Great Spirit but you are only listening to yourself in disguise.


How to overcome this? Well, we need public standards of evidence and rationality and that is what real science is all about. It is never perfectly executed but it moves along surely but slowly.

I chuckled not because you are wrong, but because you are more right than you know.

I though would rephrase a comment and instead of saying listening to the Great Spirit is listening to oneself in disguise, I would say listening to oneself is listening to the Great Spirit in disguise, and this disguise goes very deep into the layers of our subconscious.

The outer person as well as several layers deep is a distortion, an arising of appearances in an impure state, and so remaining on the surface will always lead to misunderstanding. This is distortion preaching distortion or as scripture says, the blind leading the blind. And so just because we have public standards of evidence and rationality, does not mean that we are any closer to seeing how things really are.

The best scenario is to have those who are sighted, these who can see deeper than the disguise among us, offering teachings and clear sight, bringing Light into the inner planes where all the disguising is occurring in the shadows of the outer darkness. And then with access within to greater Light, we come together and share, because a collective does have a better chance of seeing because there might just be one or two within the collective, who are a bit more clear, or who can see a bit more than most. This requires though that we do not hold arrogantly to our ideas or to surface appearances when we come together, but remain open, feeling, yes feeling, within. For Light has a different feel than darkness, and ideas that are put forth in a collective that have less distortion will feel different, will feel light, less heavy than ideas with heavier distortions.

It though requires that we remain open, holding our ideas lightly, knowing that we are all blind, including ourselves, but then allowing the ideas with more Light to penetrate our consciousness, revealing to us our own blind spots.

This occurred for me yesterday, which is what led me to post here.

May we all be freed from blind spots.

Sheryl

[_Franktalk]

OMG, you really are clueless!
You asked a question here.
Would the actual scientific answer satisfy you?
Do you really want to know? Or is your mind closed up?
If I thought for a minute that this was anything more than a rhetorical maneuver, I would try to educate you.

You don't know the science. Do you want to learn or not? Don't waste my time.

This is what global warming people do when confronted with data that does not fit their agenda. They name call and avoid answering any questions. In reality the earth has been very warm for most of its history. We're in a cool period right now and we are hopefully coming out of it. In the chart I linked to we have the history of global temperatures going back to Cambrian times. As you can see the earth has been cooler and warmer than the earth today. If the climate people knew what changed the temperature of the earth they could use their models and reconstruct the known past temperatures. The models could then be checked against the geologic record and ice records to see if the models are correct. I know of no model that has ever correctly described the past earths temperatures. It is a big unknown. If they can't duplicate the past there is NO confidence that forward projection means anything. The parameters are adjusted to arrive at the desired political end. They arm wave and demand more money and more research so all of their buddies can live off the taxpayer.

I found a good paper which describes one case of data manipulation. I will post the link. It is hard to get through but it will show you just how easy it is for a key player in this game to stack the deck.

http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long ... tivity.pdf

It also shows just how complex the whole system is in trying to determine just what drives the climate and how much.

[_sheryl]

Hi Sheryl!

Hello my dear friend!

I know that you enjoy Paul's teachings, as do I. The above reminds me of the following:

Romans 13:1-4

1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Wow! So, I would offer that even Lucifer has powers of God!! However, he has chosen to use those powers to influence us to choose evil. Is this not necessary for us to experience in order for us to progress?!!! How many people would rather deny this teaching and say it is impossible that God is the one who gave satan his powers, because they do not recognize that it is satan who chooses to use them for evil rather than for good? Especially, they are offended to think such a thing because they believe it somehow detracts or diminishes Christ in some way. For me, this only is indicative of how awesome Christ truly is, for He used the powers of God for ONLY good--resisting the influences of evil choices of others who have powers of God.

I agree with you about Lucifer having the powers of God, for I believe that any being that works contrary to the will of God embodies Lucifer, is Lucifer. Though when reading the verses you offered, what comes to mind is that the law is for the lawless, or those who do not love. The law of this world is for those who do not love or care at the basic levels, and the greater Law of God is for those who are lawless or who do not love fully. Thus the Law, the worldly law as well as the Greater Law of God, is right and good.

by the way, in studying Romans the other night, I also came across a passage which supports your discussion on the world being a dream state of our spiritual existence in the flesh.

Romans 13:11-14

11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.

12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.

13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.

14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.


He has also taught that once we belong to Christ, our spirits are saved and God sees our spirits and basically disgards our mortal self.

I would say that belonging to Christ is more than a mental concept, that putting on the armor of Light is more than an idea. If we are wearing the armor of light we will know it, for we will not be harmed by darkness ( which is the consequences of the law). If though we do not put on the armor of Light, we walk not according to Grace but according to the law and our lives will reflect that. If we wish to know how to come to walk in Grace, we have examples given to us in scripture, of individuals approaching Yeshua in humility, taking full responsibility (not blame) for their state, and seeking healing in full faith. Healing being a releasing of who they are not, from the shades and shadows that keep them in bondage, so that they can be, so that they can walk in this world, as they truly are, without being harmed from this world. Their suffering then arising out of Mercy, to get them to let go of lies and distortions that keep them in bondage to a false self.

However, WE are still suffering in the flesh from our own ideas and attachment to it - for that is where we choose evil over good - it is NOT our spirit which makes these choices. If our spirits "mortify" our physical choices, we are still good with God; but our "damnation" is self induced, and NOT by God. Inasmuch as Paul himself "died daily", so do we, even though our spirits belong to God. Oh, there is so much freedom in this understanding - even though we struggle with it until we become more and more perfected and One with Christ and Father and with each other.

Is this not beautiful?? All praise and Glory to the Most High God Almighty!!!!

Shalom,

jo

I agree though will offer just a touch of clarification. Our Spirit is already walking free, as it truly is in other planes. Our labor is to align ourselves with that free Spirit and not the appearance of bondage in this world. Suffering, yes indeed, is because of our attachments to that which is false. By law we suffer so that we might let go, so that we might repent.

Repentance is a constant process, as Paul states. I die a little each day means each day he repents or lets go of a little bit more of what he is not, aligning himself with his Spirit who already walks with Christ.

Shalom!

Sheryl

[_Tarski]

This is what global warming people do when confronted with data that does not fit their agenda.

What?
I offered to explain things to you.
Do you want to learn or not?

If so, I need to know how much mathematics you know.

[_Franktalk]

What?
I offered to explain things to you.
Do you want to learn or not?

If so, I need to know how much mathematics you know.

I know enough to get me in trouble. But I offered to wait ten years to see who is right and who is wrong. I guess that is not good enough. So now you wish to bury me in equations. It has been tried before and I guess I am due for another. So sure give me all you got. But while I go through the detail I will have questions that you will not like. Are you willing to answer the questions I have? I will warn you the questions are why the structure of the model and the weight assigned to each variable.

For instance. The sun is pretty much assumed to be constant in most models. This allows the driving force of climate to be something other than the sun. But I will argue that the sun is not constant and any model which makes it so should be thrown out. Are you ready to answer those kinds of questions?

You may find this to be the most frustrating thing you have ever done.

And don't give me a bunch of links to junk. If the raw data is not traceable back to the source I will not waste my time. And don't give me sorted data that is a self fulfilling prophecy. You know, like tree rings. This should be fun.

[_Tarski]

You may find this to be the most frustrating thing you have ever done.

This doesn't sound encouraging.
You might ask yourself, if I were explaining how we model stellar evolution or how we model the diffusion of a certain fertilizer in soil, would you be trying to make it frustating by doubting everything at every step and trying demand that every variable you can think of be included in the model? Would if even occur to you be all worked up about who did the research to get the data or whether maybe some of the measuring equipment might not be perfect (something we do in fact consider statistically)?

It seems odd to me that people will trust science enough to get on airplanes and undergo brain surgery, but when the science says something they perceive to be inconvenient for their religion or politics, then somehow they go to great lengths to find a way to worm out of the conclusion. We see creationist pastors acting like they are biologists and talk radio hosts acting like they are PhD climate scientists.
It gives the game away; understanding isn't the real goal for the denialist.

As far as being able to find (very very few) qualfied scientists in the actual field of climate science with a contrarian view, I would just remind you of how easy it was for the tobacco industry to find a few scientists willing to deny the cancer-tobacco connection. The parallel with the oil inductry is striking.
In fact, if there were somehow a popular religious reason, say if your religion used tobacco in some sacred ceremony, then I am quite sure you would come up with whatever pseudo-scientific nonsense you needed to deny the cancer connection including doubting the data and finding contrarian scientists to back you up.


So, if you really did want to understand the science, why would you give me a harder time than if I were explaining optics or weed dispersal dynamics?

Now if you really want to explore the science then we will have to do so slowly and start out making a few points to clear up common misconceptions and clarify our expectations.
Another reason for going slowly is that I actually have to do my own research and explaining what I can say about climate science will take a lot of work on my part. In short, I have time constraints--which is why I want to make sure that you would in principle be open to changing your mind.

Also, I will have nothing to say about economic policy. For purposes of the scientific discussion, we should try to suspend our hopes and fears and try to act as if we didn't care about the effect on humans. --occassionally I get so frustrated that I actually don't care truth be told.
The evidence is telling a physical story and we should just try to see what that is as clearly as possible without demanding absolute certainty (which isn't possible in any science).

You can even pretend that global warming is a good thing for all I care. By the way, I notice that deniers will say on one day that GW is not occuring, then on the next day say that only AGW is a hoax, and then on a third day tell me that global warming is actually a good thing because of increasing growing seasons or something. The only common thread here is the political paranoia. Make up your mind guys.

[_Franktalk]

You might ask yourself, if I were explaining how we model stellar evolution or how we model the diffusion of a certain fertilizer in soil, would you be trying to make it frustating by doubting everything at every step and trying demand that every variable you can think of be included in the model? Would if even occur to you be all worked up about who did the research to get the data or whether maybe some of the measuring equipment might not be perfect (something we do in fact consider statistically)?

Good science is founded on doubting everything.

It seems odd to me that people will trust science enough to get on airplanes and undergo brain surgery, but when the science says something they perceive to be inconvenient for their religion or politics, then somehow they go to great lengths to find a way to worm out of the conclusion. We see creationist pastors acting like they are biologists and talk radio hosts acting like they are PhD climate scientists.
It gives the game away; understanding isn't the real goal for the denialist.

An airplane can be observed so can brain surgery. A projection into the future can not be observed. I do not accept that if someone gets a degree that that means only the truth comes out from them. Many of the founding concepts of science came from people who were self educated. Many of the founding fathers of science rejected the currently held beliefs of the "experts". So your words come from an establishment of men trying to defend their castle. I reject the idea and believe it is false.

As far as being able to find (very very few) qualfied scientists in the actual field of climate science with a contrarian view, I would just remind you of how easy it was for the tobacco industry to find a few scientists willing to deny the cancer-tobacco connection. The parallel with the oil inductry is striking.
In fact, if there were somehow a popular religious reason, say if your religion used tobacco in some sacred ceremony, then I am quite sure you would come up with whatever pseudo-scientific nonsense you needed to deny the cancer connection including doubting the data and finding contrarian scientists to back you up.

So you believe that a bunch of guys who all get taught the same thing and all get jobs that depend on them agreeing with each other that somehow in that environment a consensus is meaningful. I can see we will not agree on much as we go further.

So, if you really did want to understand the science, why would you give me a harder time than if I were explaining optics or weed dispersal dynamics?

To have faith in any projection requires faith in all of the parameters used in the model and how each parameter relates to the others. In systems which have many variables they may form systems of feedback, it is critical to the accuracy of the model to get everything right. Just a few years ago people had no idea that clouds were somewhat dependent on cosmic rays entering the atmosphere and creating a shower of particles that would seed cloud formation. So before this time the system of the sun's radiation and ability to shield the solar system from cosmic rays was not even considered in any climate study. This is why I made the comment about the sun. If we can't predict the sun and the sun impacts our climate then we are lost from the start. If we then say that we will assume the sun's output to be constant then our model is junk. The choice of variables and their relationship is indeed a choice and it may not be based on the best science. This is where you and I will not see any common ground.

Now if you really want to explore the science then we will have to do so slowly and start out making a few points to clear up common misconceptions and clarify our expectations.
Another reason for going slowly is that I actually have to do my own research and explaining what I can say about climate science will take a lot of work on my part. In short, I have time constraints--which is why I want to make sure that you would in principle be open to changing your mind.

Just so you know I already believe that man has had an impact on the earth in many ways. I also believe that the earth is built with many safety valves to prevent out of control changes to the environment. I hold this view based on Biblical study. But you can also obtain the same view by looking at the temperatures of the earth going back a billion years. It does seem there is some upper and lower limit that the temperature fluctuates but is bounded. In the past the earth has had green house gases far exceeding what we have today. We did not have thermal runaway. The hockey stick chart shows a runaway condition. You will have to show why CO2 is such a big deal. You will have to explain the past.

"Earth's climate and atmosphere have varied greatly over geologic time. Our planet has mostly been much hotter and more humid than we know it to be today, and with far more carbon dioxide (the greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere than exists today. The notable exception is 300,000,000 years ago during the late Carboniferous Period, which resembles our own climate and atmosphere like no other."

http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carbonife ... imate.html

Also, I will have nothing to say about economic policy. For purposes of the scientific discussion, we should try to suspend our hopes and fears and try to act as if we didn't care about the effect on humans. --occassionally I get so frustrated that I actually don't care truth be told.
The evidence is telling a physical story and we should just try to see what that is as clearly as possible without demanding absolute certainty (which isn't possible in any science).

I agree.

You can even pretend that global warming is a good thing for all I care. By the way, I notice that deniers will say on one day that GW is not occuring, then on the next day say that only AGW is a hoax, and then on a third day tell me that global warming is actually a good thing because of increasing growing seasons or something. The only common thread here is the political paranoia. Make up your mind guys.

There are three possible conditions. The earth is getting warmer, the earth is staying the same, and the earth is getting cooler. Depending on when you bracket a set of years all three can be true. Man's effect on climate is not a hoax. What may be a hoax is the amount of impact and projections forward. What is also a possible hoax is stating that we may be able to control the climate.