If Dawkins expressed the arguments he makes in his recent book in a decent philosophy graduate seminar, he'd fail the course, whether it was taught by a theist or an atheist.

...that philosophy and science parted ways a long time ago. That is very unfortunate, but perhaps inevitable as science has become so complicated in the age of specialization. A philosopher might laugh at Dawkins' popular writings, but many physicists would consider a philosopher's attempt to deal with quantum mechanics to be pathetic. You cannot understand everything, but you should be able to understand the basic ideas of evolution and the importance of religion to most people. And that ought to make most of this discussion unnecessary.

Your values make good sense to me, but I have some questions, one very irreverent (Why do you live with those guys?) and others more on topic. Is it the warming itself that you seriously question, or rather just the cause? If you question the warming, are you aware of how much work has gone into these measurements, and how consistent the results are? As for the cause, I can understand doubt about climate models. But the basic greenhouse mechanism is well understood, as are the major feedback mechanisms. Even if this is not completely satisfying, does this not make it very likely that anthropomorphic CO2 is responsible?

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329

No, the two sets of statements that you claim are the same type of logic are certainly not.

You might want to learn some more about what trees do.

Let's also take a look at the recent temperature data that you claim implies that global warming is over. First this means that you recognize that global warming is a fact (or was). Apparently several decades of fast warming really was enough to convince you. Well, that and some other stuff is convincing. But for a few years, it has not been happening, at least according to the data you linked to. Is this enough to mean anything? No, it is not surprising if the various effects add up in such a way as to produce no significant change for a while, especially at some particular sites. It took many years of increase to convince you that warming was happening; so it should take just as many of cooling to convince you that it is not happening.

The Lindzen paper you refer to certainly seems convincing on the surface. His major claim is contested, however. For example, see here: http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/maccracken_on_lindzen/ (paragraphs numbered 12 and 13 are most relevant). That link is mainly concerned with refuting Lindzen's newsweek op-ed. The question is this: if Lindzen wants his research, such as the paper you refer to, to be taken seriously, why does he write things, such as that op-ed, that are so full of holes?

I was unable to access your reference on the satellite temperature data. I will try to find it another way later, although I must express serious skepticism concerning any mistreatment of the data in the official analysis.

The question that needs to be addressed is this: is Iran a real threat to Israel? Or is the threat of threat just noise? If Israel got rid of its nuclear weapons and reduced its army to one tenth its current size and the United States swore on the bible not to help it, then I would see a real reason for concern.

asked rhetorically:Are there a significant number of Persian-American and/or Arab-American pundits who argue that America should preemptively attack Israel because they are a threat to certain Muslim countries?

Than reminds me of why I am so puzzled when anyone says that Iraq war is all about oil. Would the true US patriot in the most extreme sense of the word be willing to trade Israel's safety for a better price on oil? I bet that there is almost nobody in the US who would support that. But that is the true opposite of the "dual loyalty" gang.

Who the hell did he write that for?

It was not for us; he has to know that we are smart enough to recognize it for the crap it is. So that means that what we think means nothing to him. The purpose of the statement is to quash the controversy. That means its intent is to distract the MSM enough so that they will not listen to us, but will move on to something else.

wrote:

Why send even a krispy kreme, much less an actual nod, in our direction, when, as his campaign has perceived, this issue puts him in jeopardy with those who are actually threatening to take their support elsewhere (knucklehead democrats, independents, and of course, the telecom 'community'). Those are the constituencies he is triangulating for, not us, the-too-smart for-our-own-good-sucker-community.

If it works as you are saying, then there was no reason for Obama to make a statement yesterday. He is trying to put out a fire. That fire is real to him even if our votes are not at risk. So keep pouring it on. The greater the heat from here, the less he will move to the right.

Keep in your awareness that the Solderberg piece, like others, is a carefully, even painfully, constructed set of lies. It is not an opinion about anything; it is an attempt to cover up law breaking, to hide where power resides and how more is obtained and misused.

Speaking softly about these things is the same as not speaking at all.

To emphasize what RMP wrote, from a bit different point of view: Immunity hides what happened. No discovery, no information.