bcspace wrote:
Not suprising as my comparison was theological in the first place (see the bolded part). More lazy research on your part. You have trouble parsing even the most recent posts.
I
t appears you didn't understand the original question. My original question was 'On what basis do you draw' the conclusion that 'environmentalism is a counterfeit to the doctrine of Stewardship'. You have told me that you draw it on a theological basis, but this was by no means apparent from your original post, nor was it necessarily so. I could draw the conclusion that 'environmentalism is a counterfeit to the doctrine of Stewardship' on a basis which was not theological, and so could you. I understood that you believed 'environmentalism is a counterfeit to the doctrine of Stewardship', but not why, because you didn't explain why.
This is not a matter of 'lazy research' on my part, this is a matter of me asking a simple question and you not understanding it. When I want to find out what you think about an issue, I ask you. That isn't 'lazy research', that's being practical. I can hardly Google it, can I?
You see, now Fort embarks upon the same muddled journey through his weed choked path of courtroom-like word games in which relatively clear and concise statements or descriptions are tortured until they confess that Fortigurn is brilliant and you are a a dolt. Its a game he can't lose because all he has to do, much like Scratch, is just wear you down with an endless barrage of verbal smog until you give up in disgust, at which point he declares victory by default. The fact that he appears to really believe that others here don't see through this parlor game is what's really astonishing.
Fortigurn has put forth not one iota of his own evidence, a logical argument that could be analyzed as to its cogency, or one coherent idea of his own
period, regarding the main subject of this thread. Nor, for that matter, have any of the liberal opponents of mine during the entire discussion. After providing link after link and name after name, what we have are vague claims of belief in "the preponderance of evidence" and in "consensus", something derived from the mainstream media, not the professional literature. I have made a number of clear, declarative statements about that evidence and been met with ridicule, smarm, and hatred.
Not a single poster here has yet made a single, clear statement regarding what empirical evidence exists that would cause me to take AGW seriously. The closest was CaliforniaKid, who posted some propositions of belief in some major components of AGW, all of which are easily argued against by appeal to the settled and clear known facts as represented in the literature and reports to which I linked, as well as many other statements, essays, testimony before professional and governmental bodies, etc, by competent experts in the field that I could like to.
For example, if you wish to believe, for whatever reason, that there is a causal link between CO2 and global warming, or that there is a discernible human influence in the warming of the last century, or that the 30 percent increase in the atmosphere created by human activities if a minor greenhouse gas comprising less that one percent of all greenhouse gas, which happens to coincide with an utterly trivial warming of a little over half a degree centigrade in over a century, that's all well and good. But no evidence in nature exists for such a belief at this time. Therefore, why would one believe that at this time? Without evidence, what other variables would lead one to assume, beyond what nature is telling us, that something is going on for which there is no observational warrant?
_________________
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 3 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 3 (by Mr. Coffee x2) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 |
Hammer @ Feb 11 2007, 11:29 PM:
Just because it was written down by some people and there were some agreements by some, doesn't mean there really was such actual things going on.