The Drabblecast Forums

A Politician heard about the Crook Worms
and took
a good look
at the Worms.

This Politician took
in Symbiotic Worms
from a Nigerian Crook
that had Crook Worms
but the Worms
the Politician took
that aren't yet Crook
Worms
and hence we got the "I'm not a Crook
Worm".

This Crooked Worm
does make you squirm
since slimy speech
can beseech
thee to vote for a slimy Crook
that won't admit he's a Crook
as you overlook
past transgressions
due to a regression
in your capacity to think as slimy speech
does reach
into your mind like a leech.

- links -
Previous viewtopic.php?f=70&t=5327&start=1880#p49507

Crook Worm viewtopic.php?f=70&t=5327&start=1880#p49496

NPR 'I am Not A Crook' http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =245830047

strawman wrote:I have heard about the corruption of the Marcos family.

In the initial report published by the Philippine Daily Inquirer, 28 members of Congress (five senators and 23 representatives) were named as participants in the PDAF scam. Twelve of these legislators were identified by the newspaper, and close to ₱3 billion in PDAF funds coming from these legislators alone were exposed to the scam. Notably, the Inquirer named Bong Revilla, Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada, Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. and Gregorio Honasan as the five senators who participated in the scam. Revilla was the largest contributor among the 28 legislators, with around ₱1.015 billion of his PDAF funds being transferred to organizations identified with the JLN Group of Companies, although the extent to which legislators participated in the scam varied widely

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priority_D ... _Fund_scam

the profitability of Napoles' business ventures has been questioned: according to disclosures made with the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2011 and 2012, the corporations under the JLN Group of Companies reported a total net income of less than ₱1 million,[20] and Merlina Suñas, one of the whistleblowers in the PDAF scam, has claimed that the Napoleses are not knowledgeable about the coal industry.[18]
...
Napoles is a member of the Roman Catholic Church and is known for having close ties with a number of Catholic clergy. She maintains a home for priests in Makati which is run by Monsignor Josefino S. Ramirez,[24] who previously served as rector of the Quiapo Church,[25] where her mother funded the church's feeding programs for the poor and malnourished.[26] Ramirez reportedly brought the image of the Black Nazarene on a number of occasions to Napoles' house, where they would hear Mass, and has confirmed that he receives from her a monthly stipend of ₱150,000,[26] and lives in one of Napoles' houses.[25] The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Manila has distanced itself from Napoles, saying that the projects she funds are part of Ramirez's personal apostolate and are not official projects of the archdiocese.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Lim-Napoles

I have to admire your firepower, my friend. Wherever you find your links, there seems to be a supply as voluminous as the tides.

It's possible to miss some larger principles in the resultant fog of details.

So I'd like to bring up the principle of Restraint.
As you point out, there is a tide of secularism. Its proponents gained an edge by telling people that religion was a pointless restraint on the freedoms people ought to enjoy to do as they like. "If it feels good, do it" was the slogan of the 60's to the present.

The consequent drug addiction, abortion, AIDS and STD's were deadly, but what came to the rescue? Science. No matter what bad consequences from what had previously been considered irresponsible behavior, science could handle it. Science didn't cure the underlying problem. But it made the intolerable symptoms manageable at an acceptable cost.

But science and scientists, being human, and by necessity specialists, didn't look at the fundamental principles of restraint. Restraint happens at the front end, and they were concerned with the back end, where the consequences manifest. The front end is restraint against adultery, for example. If you don't engage in the behavior, no need to treat the consequences.

This is on the individual level.

But restraint, on a societal level, concerns issues such as the source of human rights. The founding principles of American democracy speak of rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that are inherent and given by an authority greater than the State. The system of self-government they designed to address this fundamental truth was all about rights of the individual, and restraints on the state. Those restraints were to preserve the inherent individual rights, all based on the states' authority being subsidiary to God-given rights.

In my lifetime, I have seen these restraints subverted by a massive intrusion of the State, concurrent with the replacing of God as ultimate authority with what you call "secularization".

There's a parable you are familiar with about the tenant farmers in a vineyard, who plot to overthrow the owner. The unseen. absent owner emboldened the self-interested tenants. God seems distant. We are challenging the "outdated" notion that his authority should restrain our self-interest. The State, with it's scientists will take care of all our problems. And we will leave to the wisdom of our Supreme Court what, if any, is the basis for our individual rights.

Now who is king of the mountain? Now who determines who lives or dies, or is free to do as he pleases? Who can deny that the State is now where the majority think their individual rights come from?

As I consider the killing fields in Cambodia, the tens of millions killed in the 20th century under totalitarianism, I think this lesson will be most painful.

http://www.norden.org/en/about-nordic-c ... ote]Sweden maintains a Nordic social welfare system that provides universal health care and tertiary education for its citizens. It has the world's eighth-highest per capita income and ranks highly in numerous comparisons of national performance, including quality of life, health, education, protection of civil liberties, economic competitiveness, equality, prosperity and human development.[/quote]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden

Technocrats can do a good job
just look at Sweden and Japan.

Americans
do the Global Policing Job
and that might distract from the Job
of improving America.

Americans
may also be too individualistic
unlike the Japanese and the Nordics.

Once we do mention taxes to an
American
I can
already imagine the American
squirm
like a slimy worm.

I had several Nordic friends
that in the end
left Sweden and Denmark
to make their mark
in the Philippines.

The Philippines
also lacks the strong social cohesion
that reduces the tension
between the State
and the Individual that we hate.

Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland have the highest levels of social cohesion according to the Social Cohesion Radar, a study released on the 16 July by the Bertelsmann Stiftung and Jacobs University, Bremen, Germany. The study, which examines 34 countries in the EU and the OECD, also concludes that Lithuania, Latvia and the southeast European countries of Bulgaria, Greece and Romania suffer from low social cohesion.

The study found that the three most important socio-economic factors associated with social cohesion are national wealth, as measured by gross domestic product (GDP), a country’s income gap, as measured by the Gini coefficient, and its level of development towards a modern information society, as measured by the Knowledge Index. The study also found that the share of immigrants in a country's population shows no statistically significant effect on social cohesion.

The Bertelsmann Stiftung stated that a cohesive society is characterised by resilient social relationships, a positive emotional connectedness between its members and the community and a pronounced focus on the common good. Each of these domains were addressed in the study through three measurable dimensions: social networks, trust in people, acceptance of diversity, identification, trust in institutions, perception of fairness, solidarity and helpfulness, respect for social rules, and civic participation.

http://www.eurodiaconia.org/policy-area ... ion-?lang=

http://www.norden.org/en/about-nordic-c ... fare-model

Nordic welfare states are based on a shared political goal of encouraging strong social cohesion. The Nordic social model is renowned for the universal nature of its welfare provision, which is based on the core values of equal opportunities, social solidarity and security for all. The model promotes social rights and the principle that everyone is entitled to equal access to social and health services, education and culture.

This also applies to care for social outcasts and vulnerable groups in society. A central goal is to create opportunities for all to take part in the social life and in the decision-making process in society. The Nordic model is also characterised by strong ties between welfare and labour-market policy. The welfare system is mainly funded by taxes, which are relatively high in the Region.

We are relatively well-off compared to the rest of Europe. The levels of employment and flexibility on the Nordic labour market are high – as are the birth rates. Comprehensive and financially affordable child-minding services and care of the elderly enable women, especially the low-paid, to combine family and work.

It is precisely because the Nordic welfare states have largely taken over tasks such as these that women have been able to enter the labour market and the political arena to a greater degree than in other parts of the world.

The countries you site...Japan and Scandinavian countries share one characteristic. They are racially and culturally homogenous. They also have negative population growth, which means that in the long run they cannot remain that characteristic. Back in the 80's, Japan was the business model that many (especially the auto industry) thought would take over. Don't hear much of that talk for the last 20 years of Japanese stagnation.

strawman wrote:But science and scientists, being human, and by necessity specialists, didn't look at the fundamental principles of restraint. Restraint happens at the front end, and they were concerned with the back end, where the consequences manifest. The front end is restraint against adultery, for example. If you don't engage in the behavior, no need to treat the consequences.

Science involves facing the facts
and the Truth shall set us free.

Religion and ignorance, you see
is actually more restraining
and constraining
and than knowing
the facts
and then acting
based on the facts.

The fact
that Homosexuality has Genetic Basis
is one case where Religion
is still somewhat blind to Reason.

A Reasonable
Man maybe a Specialist
but that's no reason
to assume that the Specialist
can reason
less than a Generalist.

A True Scientist
like a Medical Specialist
will humbly consult other experts
for their expertise.

True Medicine
and True Science
Truly Works
unlike mostly untrue Religion.

Faust didn’t really believe that there was heaven and hell even when the truth was told to him, which a major fault Faust has as a scientist. Mephostophilis told Faust that “hell hath no limits” but still he doesn’t not believe what he is told because he is blinded power. This is another example of how Faust is a very bad scientist because he only believes what he wants to believe and this makes him a warped. In this way he would not be a very good member of the royal society.
     Faust is defiantly a scientist because he is a scientific investigator and literally sells his soul for more knowledge, even if that knowledge is tainted with his inexhaustible craving for power. Some of the scientist from the Royal Society for the improving Natural Knowledge would approve of some of Faust actions, because he was perusing knowledge of science. Still at the heart of his search for knowledge is that Faust’s undying want power that makes him ignore vital bits information

http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=62844

It is the typos and grammatical errors that lead me to discover that your citation is a high school (hopefully) English paper, which I wouldn't give a passing grade to. But I guess you get points that it is, after all, the "helpme.com" website... so at least the author is aware he or she is in need of help.

One area I would suggest as helpful is to consider the difference between belief and knowledge. Knowledge implies a degree of certainty that belief does not claim, except for those confused partisans for whom the fact that it is THEY who believe something elevates the belief to certainty. Thus showing that the roots of totalitarian impulses begin in the individual. It is said of such people that they are often wrong, but never in doubt.

But neither knowledge or belief results in wisdom. Wisdom is the result of understanding.

Strawman wrote: Japan and Scandinavian countries share one characteristic. They are racially and culturally homogenous

America is indeed a melting pot
and has hot
race
issues
but the issue
maybe is to overcome race
as an issue
and embrace
the need
to support each other indeed.

Secular Societies
can be more tolerant
than Faith based Societies
with great Religious Intolerance
that by chance
we still have in the World.

America leads in Religious Tolerance
and was the first in the World
to incorporate
the Freedom to choose your Faith
at any rate.

Many would love to live in America
despite of many great American
shortcomings since America
is definitely better than
maybe Iran
or Afghanistan.

http://www.migrationeducation.org/47.1. ... f2a89b0c29

recent research conducted on the local level of schools in post-war Bosnia. In those schools, where Bosnians and Croats are taught together, both Bosnian and Croat pupils are more likely to share resources and engage in collective endeavours.

The discussion on the best way of diversity management, whether via weak, strong, group based or individual equality based forms of minority accommodation, is still ongoing. Overall, the existing research questions whether there is any general policy solution to challenges of ethnic diversity. But the oldest recipe remains the most promising; direct and personal inter-ethnic contact rather than mere residential coexistence, attenuates negative effects of ethnic diversity by generating tolerance, empathy and knowledge of shared commonalities.

"America Religion: Contemporary Trends", it seems that Evangelicals are now succumbing to the same forces of secularization.
Using data from the University of Chicago's General Social Survey, Chaves discovers that among White Evangelicals born in the decade 1981-90, some 22 per cent now say they have no religion, a figure is close to the 24 per cent of mainstream Protestants born in the same decade who say the same.
What is interesting, is that if you go back a decade and look at White Christians born 1971-80, just 12 per cent of Evangelicals say they have no religious affiliation, compared with 19 per cent of mainstream Protestants: the secularisation trends are clearly converging.
This tallies with the anecdotal evidence that we picked up in Virginia that suggested that non-belief was rising among the young Christian community much faster than headline polls suggested.
After several decades of doubt over the data, says Chaves, it is now clear beyond reasonable doubt that America is secularizing

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peter ... e-realise/

I'm willing to concede if I am wrong
but many wrong
headed Religious Types
to love to hype
their 'Interpretation' of Biblical Text
that maybe quite hexed.

Science is comfortable with uncertainty
and it's the desire for certainty
that certainly drives
many to derive
comfort from Religion.

Religion maybe contrary to Reason
in some cases like Contraception
and the mere mention
of Contraception
will make many in my former Religion
squirm
like a slimy worm.

Even if evidence suggests contraception
prevents many illegal abortions
these Religious types
thus still hype
their Pro-Life
Credentials
as if Holy Sperm was indeed special.

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/ ... -disputed/

A long-term study in St. Louis that offers women the free birth control of their choice has revealed that, amongst other positive effects, the program lowered the abortion rate for the participants. In fact, the results were dramatic. There were 4.4 to 7.5 abortions per 1,000 women in the program, compared to a national average of almost 20 abortions per 1,000 women nationally.

That having access to free contraception would make women much better users of contraception shouldn’t be a surprise, and for feminist-minded folks, this study just reaffirmed what we already knew, which is most people will take a good deal when they get it. The problem is that in the past few years, a number of conservatives have taken to denying that there is a link between contraception and lowering the unintended pregnancy rate. Indeed, some anti-choicers have promoted a strange theory that contraception actually raises the abortion rate, because it encourages people to have sex and then to abort the pregnancies that result. Their term for it is the “contraceptive mentality”

strawman wrote:One area I would suggest as helpful is to consider the difference between belief and knowledge. Knowledge implies a degree of certainty that belief does not claim, except for those confused partisans for whom the fact that it is THEY who believe something elevates the belief to certainty. Thus showing that the roots of totalitarian impulses begin in the individual. It is said of such people that they are often wrong, but never in doubt.

The primary threat to pluralist coexistence, then, is the totalitarian drive for ideological conformity, which is itself a function of the psychology of belief.  The inability to tolerate dissent from one’s view of ultimate reality has, no doubt, multiple sources –  needs for cognitive certainty, simplicity, and security, the tribalistic desire to demarcate in-group from out-group, the egoistic urge to prevail in argument and dominate others. Whatever its exact roots in the human psyche, anything we can do to lessen the totalitarian impulse increases the chances that the culture wars will remain non-violent, and that our pluralistic culture will survive. 

Since our innate predilections for cognitive security, tribalism, and egoism are not about to change any time soon, the task becomes one of making the best of our psychology when it comes to holding a worldview.  This is to ask, what sorts of worldviews are least conducive to totalitarian excess, and therefore most likely to countenance an ideologically neutral public space?  Is it possible that some understandings of reality are more likely to promote a live-and-let-live stance towards their competitors?   Since a worldview involves a commitment to an epistemology, are there some epistemologies that militate against the totalitarian temptation?

A worldview based on empirical inquiry, not faith, tradition, revelation or authority, is the clear choice when it comes to combating totalitarianism.  Why?  Precisely because the content of an empirically derived worldview is held as a matter of evidence, not faith; it’s responsive to observation of a world that’s understood to exist independently of the needs and desires that faith so often flatters.  Empiricism therefore keeps us cognitively humble. 

http://www.naturalism.org/culture_wars.htm

A worldview based on empirical inquiry, not faith, tradition, revelation or authority, is the clear choice when it comes to combating totalitarianism. Why? Precisely because the content of an empirically derived worldview is held as a matter of evidence, not faith; it’s responsive to observation of a world that’s understood to exist independently of the needs and desires that faith so often flatters. Empiricism therefore keeps us cognitively humble.

The evidence for this is where?

Taken out of the debate between science and religion, totalitarians always use "science" and "progress" to flatter self-described "progressive" forces into curtailing individual rights and freedoms "for the collective good". It is the mechanism whereby plentiful and economical energy, economic development, and material well-being can be denied by groups that exclude skeptics, claim the "science is settled", and that the only people whose voice is entitled to be heard are the people who agree with them. That is the totalitarian impulse, and seems not so different to me from the Church of the Dark Ages killing people to save their souls.

They ALL claim to have an "empirically derived worldview" and, if you ask them, they all claim to be cognitively humble. The same people who make careers out of the benefits of "diversity" always seem to lead the charge to silence and punish those who disagree with them.

If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”?
http://www.thecrimson.com/column/the-re ... age=single

If you Claim that Christianity
is the only way
then you elevate Christianity
over other ways
to reach the 'Deity'.

The Deity
may not exist at all
and do recall
that the only way
to determine Objective Truths
is via Observations.

If we observe
that certain Religious Traditions
are no longer adequate
at any rate
then abandon
the Traditions.

However, the Christian Religion
is mostly impervious
to the obvious
need
to adapt to the World
indeed
with its focus on the After World.

Christian Intolerance
maybe intolerable
and quite terrible
by chance
even between Christians
that you might label Pseudochristian.

Most teach that their ‘way’ is the only way. 5 There can be no more than one group that is completely right. But if all but one group are wrong, then perhaps all are wrong. Most religions do not accept any beliefs differing from their own. And although their own tenets or dogma proclaim that faith, hope, and love are their foundations, many of them still commit atrocities in the name of some unseen God who, they claim, demands it.

One point of conflict comes from how the Bible itself is viewed. Many progressive and mainline Christians, believe that numerous biblical passages are not factually accurate, are ethically doubtful, conflict with other statements, or allow a diversity of interpretations. Many conservative Christians maintain that Scripture is God's Word: Their authors were directly inspired by God. Thus, their writings are inerrant. It remains a puzzle why the creator allowed the Bible's authors to produce statements that are so ambiguous that thousands of individual belief systems have resulted.

The Bible contains many commandments inciting religious intolerance, such as: Exodus 23:32, Exodus 34:14, Deuteronomy 5:7, Deuteronomy 6:15; Deuteronomy 7:25, Deuteronomy 13:6-9, Deuteronomy 17:2-7, 2 Chronicles 15:13, Jeremiah 10:2, Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23, and Romans 16:17.

In order to become more tolerant, we would have to ignore some biblical passages. As a minimum, these would include:

The commandments inciting people to kill, such as Deuteronomy 13:6-9; Deuteronomy 17:2-7; 2 Chronicles 15:13.
The commandment telling us to avoid unbelievers (Romans 16:17).
It would also be helpful if Christians were skeptical of:

Passages in the Bible derived from other religions, such as those in nearby Middle-Eastern Pagan cultures, Egyptian religion, Mithraism, etc.
Events, beliefs and policies which were typical for the society and conditions prevailing in biblical times but are no longer applicable today.
It must be recognized that we must be prepared to abandon dogmas and teachings unworthy of the present age, however important part of the creed they seem to be. It can be done. In North America, we painfully abandoned human slavery as profoundly immoral in spite of the many biblical passages allowing, regulating and condoning it. Most denominations have abandoned the instruction to be fruitful and multiply by allowing couples to regulate their family size. Canada and the U.S. have extended freedom to religious minorities. We no longer execute homosexuals and Witches.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/tomek22.htm

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

Evidence for climatic change is taken from a variety of sources that can be used to reconstruct past climates. Reasonably complete global records of surface temperature are available beginning from the mid-late 19th century. For earlier periods, most of the evidence is indirect—climatic changes are inferred from changes in proxies, indicators that reflect climate, such as vegetation, ice cores,[55] dendrochronology, sea level change, and glacial geology.

Temperature measurements and proxies
The instrumental temperature record from surface stations was supplemented by radiosonde balloons, extensive atmospheric monitoring by the mid-20th century, and, from the 1970s on, with global satellite data as well. The 18O/16O ratio in calcite and ice core samples used to deduce ocean temperature in the distant past is an example of a temperature proxy method, as are other climate metrics noted in subsequent categories.

Historical and archaeological evidence
Main article: Historical impacts of climate change
Climate change in the recent past may be detected by corresponding changes in settlement and agricultural patterns.[56] Archaeological evidence, oral history and historical documents can offer insights into past changes in the climate. Climate change effects have been linked to the collapse of various civilizations.[56]

The Degree of Uncertainty
over Climate Change
is quite low
and we know
that Science
has Uncertainty
built-in but Science
does respond to data better than Religion
since Religion
is based on Traditions
and much fine Divine Revelation.

Are you going to abandon
your sets of Divine Revelations
if data comes in that there's no God?

Wait.. There's no objective evidence
for God
but there's much evidence
for Climate Change.

Scientists would abandon Climate
Change
if data shows that the Climate
isn't going to change.

I'm willing to change
my beliefs
and I think are you stuck to your beliefs.

strawman wrote: totalitarians always use "science" and "progress" to flatter self-described "progressive" forces into curtailing individual rights and freedoms "for the collective good". It is the mechanism whereby plentiful and economical energy, economic development, and material well-being can be denied by groups that exclude skeptics, claim the "science is settled", and that the only people whose voice is entitled to be heard are the people who agree with them. That is the totalitarian impulse, and seems not so different to me from the Church of the Dark Ages killing people to save their souls.

Some scientists feel the hockey stick graph, published in 1999, dangled both feet over this edge. Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes used data gathered from tree rings, lake sediments, ice cores and corals to recreate the global temperature over the past 1,000 years. The image they produced was a startling visual communiqué of the world's post-industrial warming trend. It was featured prominently in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2001 report.

But Mann et al's willingness to use unproven methodology irked some scientists, including Hulme: "I don't think it was seminal for scientists. To me that was never a decisive interventional piece of evidence. The data was absolutely scanty."

Shepherd disagrees. "I think it would be characterised as a watershed moment in climate science," he says, although he recognises it as "one of the singular most polarising graphs or scientific pieces of data that exist".

The problem for Mann and Hansen is the world wants to see all the canaries keeling over together, a clear public moment of unequivocal proof. Shepherd says the public wrongly see science like a court case, in which reasonable doubt can outweigh a larger body of evidence. But science has a natural indifference to the desire for certainty. Each time a scientist gets too far ahead of the curve it makes the scientific community deeply uncomfortable. Disagreements of this kind can be latched onto as evidence that the scientific process is flawed, fuelling the denial movement.

Consensus on climate change built incrementally through the 1990s until, by the time the 2001 IPCC report came out (with the hockey stick graph in it), there were very few scientists who felt uncomfortable attributing some climate change to human activity.

But Hulme says there was no collective eureka moment and there will always be doubt and questions. "Science doesn't really do that. It is always an unending process of confirmation, correction, refutation … It is the collective social practice of science that in the end gives science its particular credibility and status.

http://www.theguardian.com/global-devel ... scepticism

http://www.theguardian.com/global-devel ... ce-weather

November 2013, typhoon Haiyan delivered destruction to the Philippines and a stark message that the world is underprepared for the violence of climate change.

Dozens of typhoons hit the Philippines every season but this was not just another storm. Climate scientists have long predicted that as the Earth warms extreme weather events will become more extreme. Haiyan was a marker of how far we have gone down that road. Its unprecedented power and devastation gave us an insight into a dangerous future in which climate change fuels weather of hitherto-unimagined ferocity.

For you the God Question
is settled
while you question
if Climate Change is settled.

I question
the Logical Double Standard
that Religion
does impose
by standard.

I suppose
that such Cognitive Dissonance
by chance
is resolved
by dissolving logic
in favor of illogic.

Science is mostly logical
unlike the mostly emotional
Religion
that can really drive Reason out
of People without a doubt
since Religion
is about suspending doubt
while Science is about
perpetual doubt.

I still have my doubts
about
Climate Change.

I'm willing to change
my opinion on Climate Change
and many Scientists too
in my view.

Are you going to abandon
your sets of Divine Revelations
if data comes in that there's no God?

I do not believe that data will ever tell us how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, and those looking at nothing but data live very strange lives. Not a great big step from there to imaginary hockey sticks, to refusing to publish your data, to declaring that any expressors of doubt will be pilloried and shunned.

Gotta love that scientific method.
Totalitarianism! -Who, me?

“Let not a wise man boast of his wisdom, and let not the mighty man boast of his might, let not a rich man boast of his riches; but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the LORD who exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things,” declares the LORD.” Jeremiah 9: 23-24.

There is little consensus
on Christian Scriptural
Interpretation
unlike the consensus
on Climate Change
that's practically
begging for action.

The Truth speaks
to those that seek
and are meek
but your opinion maybe unchangeable.

A seeker of Truth
may holdout
until the 3% without
a doubt
loses doubt
but it might be too late
at any rate.

As far as I know
the data does show
Climate Change exist
while God doesn't exist.

Science has the power
to save us while Religion is powerless
unless
your God miraculously decides
to put aside
his laziness
and put my doubts to rest.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-cons ... nety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.


AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2

American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4

American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5

American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6

American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7

American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8

The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9[/quote]

strawman wrote:I do not believe that data will ever tell us how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, and those looking at nothing but data live very strange lives. Not a great big step from there to imaginary hockey sticks, to refusing to publish your data, to declaring that any expressors of doubt will be pilloried and shunned.

The Hockey Stick graph isn't imaginary
unlike perhaps your Deity.

There are many possible reasons
why a paper could be refused publication
and censorship isn't the 'only' cause.

Science isn't totalitarian because
the Scientific Method is accessible
to all unlike Divine Revelation
that in my opinion
seems more totalitarian as you surrender
to God
and beg for mercy as a sinner.

Islam is about surrendering
to God
and what hath God
told the martyrs in 911 to do?

I do
wish that the Abrahamic
God
prevented such tragic
loss of life
but I do
doubt that God
is even alive.

So you wouldn't expect them to need to resort to cooking the books and silencing the counterarguments, would you?
The world will be destroyed by power-hungry men sooner than by climate change. There has been PLENTY of data, and history itself is nothing more than the documentation of that destruction, for which they have convinced you that religion is responsible.

[Then the massive western guilt in which these carbon life-forms have been marinated will make them accept that their very molecules should be taxed, until the carbon falls prostrate before the silicon, and all is subjected to the collective, bowing down to The Great and Powerful Oz.. -But everybody already knows that).]

http://www.elsevier.com/connect/8-reaso ... ur-article

Before they even go to the editor-in-chief, articles are checked for technical elements. The main reasons they are rejected are:
....
1.The article contains elements that are suspected to be plagiarized, or it is currently under review at another journal. (Republishing articles or parts of articles, submitting to one or more journals at the same time or using text or images without permission is not allowed. See our ethical guidelines.)
The manuscript is not complete; it may be lacking key elements such as the title, authors, affiliations, keywords, main text, references and all tables and figures).
The English is not sufficient for the peer review process,
The figures are not complete or are not clear enough to read.
The article does not conform to the Guide for Authors for the journal it is submitted to.
References are incomplete or very old.

2.  It does not fall within the Aims and Scope.

For the journal Carbon, the material studied may contain carbon, but is not carbon.
The study uses a carbon material but the focus is on something different.
There is no new carbon science.

3.  It's incomplete.

The article contains observations but is not a full study.
It discusses findings in relation to some of the work in the field but ignores other important work.

4.  The procedures and/or analysis of the data is seen to be defective.

The study lacked clear control groups or other comparison metrics.
The study did not conform to recognized procedures or methodology that can be repeated.
The analysis is not statistically valid or does not follow the norms of the field.

5.  The conclusions cannot be justified on the basis of the rest of the paper.

The arguments are illogical, unstructured or invalid.
The data does not support the conclusions.
The conclusions ignore large portions of the literature.

6.  It's is simply a small extension of a different paper, often from the same authors.

Findings are incremental and do not advance the field.
The work is clearly part of a larger study, chopped up to make as many articles as possible.

7.  It's incomprehensible.

The language, structure, or figures are so poor that the merit can't be assessed. Have a native English speaker read the paper. Even if you ARE a native English speaker. Need help? We offer language services.

8.  It's boring.

It is archival, incremental or of marginal interest to the field (see point 6).
The question behind the work is not of interest in the field.
The work is not of interest to the readers of the specific journals.

Assuming that a Person
takes many lives due to his Religion
who am I to question
his interpretation
of his Religion
or his actions.

I will not separate a man from his actions
and his reasons
for undertaking the actions.

When men justify
killing based on Religion
it is my humble opinion
it does justify
the condemnation
of that corrupting
Religion.

Religion
may have corrupted
more men
than saved men from corruption.

I think Secularization
will save many Nations
from the corruption
that Fanatical Religion
had brought to us as we finally see
each other
as Genetic brothers
and sisters.

strawman wrote:that religion is responsible.

Good luck with that.