Words can have more than one meaning, you know. The OED has cites for "dumb" in this sense going back to the 18th century (and to the 16th century for a related usage).
If someone doesn't believe that Jesus is God and refuses to trust the authority of the Bible, then I guess there are more important discussions to be having.
There are so many assumptions you've clearly never thought to question here. If you think the Bible has some sort of "authority", then good for you. Why do you expect me to believe it does as well?
Physics? As a Physicist, I'm not entirely sure how it's relevant here.
As an ex-physicist, it's simple - causality. The OT was written before Jesus was even born, therefore nothing Jesus did or said can have influenced it. (Absent time travel etc.) Equally and equivalently, nothing in the OT can provide any information about Jesus.
How about the sources based on eye-witness accounts
As a historian, I have to point out there are very large devils in the details you are glossing over here.
of him driving out the money changed from the temple and proclaiming that the OT was about him, that he was God and therefore acting in the OT and that judgement would later come?
Yes, you are right, that is some evidence for non-pacifist views. Driving out the money-changers was an aggressive act, surely. But that's only one incident - he wouldn't be the first person in history to apply their philosophy inconsistently. And claiming that he was the god of the OT is not explicitly the same as being non-pacifistic. We don't have any evidence, that I'm aware of, for Jesus' attitude to all the raping, pillaging, baby-killing, etc that the OT testament god condones. You can argue that he implicitly takes responsibility for those acts, and you might be right to do so, but you have to balance that with all the blessed are the meek, turning the other cheek, do unto others stuff which is not in the least warlike.
Anyway, I'm not really beholden to the theory that he was a pacifist - I do think the evidence points that way, but you've made some interesting points. My main concern was the unscientific and unhistorical evidence you posited.
I agree for the most part - but wars can start without anybody quite intending them to, or at least really wanting to. A Third World War nearly did happen this way, at a couple of points (over Berlin, Cuba). Certainly a recognition of the massive costs involved in a war helped restrain both sides at such times, but it's easy to imagine less happy outcomes.
I don't know about you, but I can still remember the last years of the Cold War, and contrary to what you are saying, the USSR was feared. The Warsaw Pact was still a massive military threat to NATO up until the late 1980s. Here's a quote from a 1985 US Marine Corps staff college report: NATO's conventional inferiority has been an accepted fact for some time now.
While there never was a missile gap, there was always a big conventional forces gap. Maybe (probably?) the higher technology of the West would have overcome the numerical advantages of the Soviets - but that didn't work too well for the Nazis. Just because the Dutch tried to cling onto their empire after WWII hardly disproves that there was a Soviet threat. In fact, given the fears that Indonesia might become Communist, Dutch actions there might even have been conceived as part of the same struggle - that's just supposition on my part though.
Jesus is God, being the second person of the trinity, therefore he is eternal and was present in the OT, in Revelation and today.
It was (almost) a rhetorical question on my part - I was pretty sure that your answer would be along those lines. No argument of that sort is going to convince somebody who doesn't agree with you already. Sorry, I'm sticking with physics and history on this one - only sources from Jesus' lifetime or (perhaps) later can tell us anything about whether he was a pacifist or not, and sources written by him are vastly preferable to any others (and unfortunately, non-existent).
Celestia might do some of what you are after. It's gorgeous, but only (!) simulates a hundred thousand stars or so.
The software that astronomers use for visualisation tend to be either home-grown or else part of very complicated data reduction and analysis packages (eg IRAF, MIRIAD, AIPS++) that nobody in their right mind would want to use if they didn't have to!
Jesus was no pacifist. Just look at the wars in the OT. Or at his reaction to the money-lenders. Or his prophesied return in Revelation.
What does the OT have to do with Jesus? By definition, it was before his time. Just as Revelation was after his time, and has no necessary connection with his beliefs.
The Roman Empire records are very clear about not only his existance but also regarding his interactions with the government (well, getting crucified).
Hey, just make it up as you go along, nobody minds really.
Oh. My. God. Obviously, my mistake was to assume that you knew anything at all about science. Or logic.
It's called "global warming", jackass.
So let me get this straight. You think the CO2 produced in the southern hemisphere stays there? So that southern hemisphere CO2 only contributes to warming in the southern hemisphere? Or what? OK, I'll give you another chance. Here's your first (amended) reply to me.
Read the post - the guy was blaming it on North America and Europe, neither of which is in the [Southern] Hemisphere.
So what if they aren't? If you have some brilliantly subtle point about why it matters which hemisphere the CO2 comes from, then please, treat me like a child, use all the insults you want, and just explain what your brilliantly subtle point fucking is.
The parent of this thread complained that it's North America and Europe who produce all the pollution,
The OP did not say "that it's North America and Europe who produce all the pollution". Go and look up the word "brunt" in the dictionary. It does not mean "all", it means "most", as I've already said. And "just over half" is "most" - or are you mathematically as well as scientifically illiterate?
and the truth is that while we consume 90% of the worlds resources, we're responsble for just over half the pollution.
And this matters because... ? The effect of our CO2 emissions on the world climate is not dependent on how energy efficient the generating process was, or what the per capita emission is or anything like that. It's a function of the absolute value of the CO2 emissions. Now, what do you think is going to happen to that number if China and India start producing CO2 at Western rates from Western lifestyles? That's not a rhetorical question. It's what the OP was pondering, and all your (rather defensive, ironically enough) nonsense has been completely beside that point.
Fine - except the OP didn't talk about the southern hemisphere either, so what the fuck were you talking about? And that substitution doesn't negate anything I said, or make your OP any more sensible. Try going back and actually trying to understand what I wrote, because you clearly don't. Or does reading scare you or something?
And as for bashing first world countries - hello? I live in one? That was the whole point of my OP? If I thought third world countries were so great, I'd go and live in one. How about responding to the things I actually said, and not what you assume to be a political agenda on my part.
Are you trolling? If so, I tip my hat to you - there are so many egregious things with that one line post, very impressive. But assuming that you are not trolling...
1. Was the subject line necessary? How was I exhibiting paranoia?
2. I'll be charitable and assume that what you wrote isn't quite what you meant. Because, like, North America and Europe are both in the northern hemisphere. (But I can't work out what you meant to write.)
3. I did read the OP, before I posted. I couldn't see why you were banging on about the northern hemisphere, as failedlogic never mentioned it.
4. The OP was not blaming "it" (presumably climate change) on North America and Europe. He said the "the brunt of the pollution stems from North American and European industrialization". That doesn't preclude contributions to the problem from other regions, it only means that the majority comes from North America and Europe. (So who's being paranoid now?)
5. And the OP was correct - North America and Europe do produce the majority of CO2 emissions. Here's some data. Using just the top 25 emitters, Europe (including half of Russia's figure, probably an underestimate as most of its population is in Europe) emits 4.0 billion tonnes, North America 6.6 billion tonnes, China and India combined (and heck, throw Australia in too) 4.8 billion tonnes. (The rest of the countries in the top 25 emit 3.8 billion tonnes (with the other half of Russia's figure), so North America + Europe are responsible for 55% of the total.) Of course this is only a factor of 2 smaller than North America and Europe's combined output. It's a major contribution to global CO2 emissions, no question.
But the OPs point remains - that if China and India were to have something like Western lifestyles, then their CO2 emissions will go through the roof. You can argue that Western countries are more efficient in particular energy uses if you like, but the fact is that the US produces 20 tonnes of CO2 per person, while China produces less than 3. If China became as "efficient" as the US, then it would be emitting 7 times as much CO2 as it currently does! That's what the OP was talking about. (And to reiterate, that's why it's silly to have included Australia in your discussion. We already have first world patterns of energy use, so are not relevant to the problem of industrialising countries. Instead we are part of the problem of already industralised ones.)
But at some point politics has to enter the picture. A bunch of academic scientists convinced that we are heading for trouble are never going to be able to do anything about it by themselves. They need to convince those with real power first. Hence the "task force of senior politicians, business leaders and academics from around the world". So you are almost right. It's no longer just science, it is moving into the realm of politics. And that is as it should be.
Australia is usually considered to be part of the Western/first/industrial world, whatever you want to call it. True, we're not in the northern hemisphere, but we not a third world country either. We have a first world standard of living and our patterns of energy use, etc, reflect that. (BTW, I don't want to excuse Australia's greenhouse performance by any means, but we are only the worst polluter per capita. Since we only have 20 million people, we are actually a much smaller polluter in absolute terms than the US, for example. Or China, for that matter.)
Yeah, well, that's what Norman Angell thought too. It's was what he argued in "The Great Illusion", published at a time of unprecedented levels of world trade. In 1910. Four years before the First World War. Oops! Nothing daunted, he updated his book in 1933 and again in 1938, and of course, we all know what happened in 1939...
Actually, I think the basic idea is sound enough, in the long run. But history shows that rational self-interest will not always be enough, that sometimes madness, stupidity and/or greed will lead to war, despite the interest of commerce.
PS There may be more truth to that saying about the US not bombing countries with McDonalds than people know - but it's not actually true. Eg Serbia in 1999.
Sure, some people in the public saw something of the test. Bright flashes of light, windows being blown out, that sort of thing. That does not make it a public test, designed to scare Japan as you claim. If they had wanted that, why not actually make it fully public? Invite reporters, representatives of foreign governments, etc, to watch. Or drop it over the ocean near Japan, so that it would explode harmlessly but perhaps awe them into surrender. No, they told no one and invited no one.
The fact is that virtually nobody knew about it at the time (if you've got evidence suggesting otherwise, let's see it.) It never got into the press. Nobody in Japan heard about the test, and they were certainly surprised when Hiroshima was bombed. The Russians knew about it, but only because they had spies inside the Manhattan Project. It was not a public test by any sensible definition.
Documentation? That article features precisely one climatologist who doesn't believe in global warming. One. That's hardly proof of your claim that physical scientists don't believe in global warming. (I'm guessing you don't actually know very many. I work with climatologists, geologists and physicists on a daily basis. I know of only one greenhouse skeptic, and it's outside his field anyway.)
Seems unlikely, since Pius IX was born about half a millennium after Dante died:) OTOH, you've gone to the trouble of actually reading Inferno, and I haven't.
Not supposedly, actually! Filming is complete and it's in post-production, with a release date of 30 September 2005 (although that has slipped once already).
Slashdot Mirror
Words can have more than one meaning, you know. The OED has cites for "dumb" in this sense going back to the 18th century (and to the 16th century for a related usage).
There are so many assumptions you've clearly never thought to question here. If you think the Bible has some sort of "authority", then good for you. Why do you expect me to believe it does as well?
Physics? As a Physicist, I'm not entirely sure how it's relevant here.
As an ex-physicist, it's simple - causality. The OT was written before Jesus was even born, therefore nothing Jesus did or said can have influenced it. (Absent time travel etc.) Equally and equivalently, nothing in the OT can provide any information about Jesus.
How about the sources based on eye-witness accounts
As a historian, I have to point out there are very large devils in the details you are glossing over here.
of him driving out the money changed from the temple and proclaiming that the OT was about him, that he was God and therefore acting in the OT and that judgement would later come?
Yes, you are right, that is some evidence for non-pacifist views. Driving out the money-changers was an aggressive act, surely. But that's only one incident - he wouldn't be the first person in history to apply their philosophy inconsistently. And claiming that he was the god of the OT is not explicitly the same as being non-pacifistic. We don't have any evidence, that I'm aware of, for Jesus' attitude to all the raping, pillaging, baby-killing, etc that the OT testament god condones. You can argue that he implicitly takes responsibility for those acts, and you might be right to do so, but you have to balance that with all the blessed are the meek, turning the other cheek, do unto others stuff which is not in the least warlike.
Anyway, I'm not really beholden to the theory that he was a pacifist - I do think the evidence points that way, but you've made some interesting points. My main concern was the unscientific and unhistorical evidence you posited.
I agree for the most part - but wars can start without anybody quite intending them to, or at least really wanting to. A Third World War nearly did happen this way, at a couple of points (over Berlin, Cuba). Certainly a recognition of the massive costs involved in a war helped restrain both sides at such times, but it's easy to imagine less happy outcomes.
While there never was a missile gap, there was always a big conventional forces gap. Maybe (probably?) the higher technology of the West would have overcome the numerical advantages of the Soviets - but that didn't work too well for the Nazis. Just because the Dutch tried to cling onto their empire after WWII hardly disproves that there was a Soviet threat. In fact, given the fears that Indonesia might become Communist, Dutch actions there might even have been conceived as part of the same struggle - that's just supposition on my part though.
It was (almost) a rhetorical question on my part - I was pretty sure that your answer would be along those lines. No argument of that sort is going to convince somebody who doesn't agree with you already. Sorry, I'm sticking with physics and history on this one - only sources from Jesus' lifetime or (perhaps) later can tell us anything about whether he was a pacifist or not, and sources written by him are vastly preferable to any others (and unfortunately, non-existent).
The software that astronomers use for visualisation tend to be either home-grown or else part of very complicated data reduction and analysis packages (eg IRAF, MIRIAD, AIPS++) that nobody in their right mind would want to use if they didn't have to!
What does the OT have to do with Jesus? By definition, it was before his time. Just as Revelation was after his time, and has no necessary connection with his beliefs.
Hey, just make it up as you go along, nobody minds really.
It's called "global warming", jackass.
So let me get this straight. You think the CO2 produced in the southern hemisphere stays there? So that southern hemisphere CO2 only contributes to warming in the southern hemisphere? Or what? OK, I'll give you another chance. Here's your first (amended) reply to me.
Read the post - the guy was blaming it on North America and Europe, neither of which is in the [Southern] Hemisphere.
So what if they aren't? If you have some brilliantly subtle point about why it matters which hemisphere the CO2 comes from, then please, treat me like a child, use all the insults you want, and just explain what your brilliantly subtle point fucking is.
The parent of this thread complained that it's North America and Europe who produce all the pollution,
The OP did not say "that it's North America and Europe who produce all the pollution". Go and look up the word "brunt" in the dictionary. It does not mean "all", it means "most", as I've already said. And "just over half" is "most" - or are you mathematically as well as scientifically illiterate?
and the truth is that while we consume 90% of the worlds resources, we're responsble for just over half the pollution.
And this matters because ... ? The effect of our CO2 emissions on the world climate is not dependent on how energy efficient the generating process was, or what the per capita emission is or anything like that. It's a function of the absolute value of the CO2 emissions. Now, what do you think is going to happen to that number if China and India start producing CO2 at Western rates from Western lifestyles? That's not a rhetorical question. It's what the OP was pondering, and all your (rather defensive, ironically enough) nonsense has been completely beside that point.
And as for bashing first world countries - hello? I live in one? That was the whole point of my OP? If I thought third world countries were so great, I'd go and live in one. How about responding to the things I actually said, and not what you assume to be a political agenda on my part.
1. Was the subject line necessary? How was I exhibiting paranoia?
2. I'll be charitable and assume that what you wrote isn't quite what you meant. Because, like, North America and Europe are both in the northern hemisphere. (But I can't work out what you meant to write.)
3. I did read the OP, before I posted. I couldn't see why you were banging on about the northern hemisphere, as failedlogic never mentioned it.
4. The OP was not blaming "it" (presumably climate change) on North America and Europe. He said the "the brunt of the pollution stems from North American and European industrialization". That doesn't preclude contributions to the problem from other regions, it only means that the majority comes from North America and Europe. (So who's being paranoid now?)
5. And the OP was correct - North America and Europe do produce the majority of CO2 emissions. Here's some data. Using just the top 25 emitters, Europe (including half of Russia's figure, probably an underestimate as most of its population is in Europe) emits 4.0 billion tonnes, North America 6.6 billion tonnes, China and India combined (and heck, throw Australia in too) 4.8 billion tonnes. (The rest of the countries in the top 25 emit 3.8 billion tonnes (with the other half of Russia's figure), so North America + Europe are responsible for 55% of the total.) Of course this is only a factor of 2 smaller than North America and Europe's combined output. It's a major contribution to global CO2 emissions, no question.
But the OPs point remains - that if China and India were to have something like Western lifestyles, then their CO2 emissions will go through the roof. You can argue that Western countries are more efficient in particular energy uses if you like, but the fact is that the US produces 20 tonnes of CO2 per person, while China produces less than 3. If China became as "efficient" as the US, then it would be emitting 7 times as much CO2 as it currently does! That's what the OP was talking about. (And to reiterate, that's why it's silly to have included Australia in your discussion. We already have first world patterns of energy use, so are not relevant to the problem of industrialising countries. Instead we are part of the problem of already industralised ones.)
But at some point politics has to enter the picture. A bunch of academic scientists convinced that we are heading for trouble are never going to be able to do anything about it by themselves. They need to convince those with real power first. Hence the "task force of senior politicians, business leaders and academics from around the world". So you are almost right. It's no longer just science, it is moving into the realm of politics. And that is as it should be.
Actually, I believe the rejection goes "I wouldn't sleep with you even if you were the last man on Earth!" Better luck next catastrophe :)
Put another way: you're still a monkey for now, so pitch in and help.
Linky showing that scientists never predicted that this would happen
Australia is usually considered to be part of the Western/first/industrial world, whatever you want to call it. True, we're not in the northern hemisphere, but we not a third world country either. We have a first world standard of living and our patterns of energy use, etc, reflect that. (BTW, I don't want to excuse Australia's greenhouse performance by any means, but we are only the worst polluter per capita. Since we only have 20 million people, we are actually a much smaller polluter in absolute terms than the US, for example. Or China, for that matter.)
"Weather" is not the same thing as "climate".
Yeah, well, that's what Norman Angell thought too. It's was what he argued in "The Great Illusion", published at a time of unprecedented levels of world trade. In 1910. Four years before the First World War. Oops! Nothing daunted, he updated his book in 1933 and again in 1938, and of course, we all know what happened in 1939 ...
Actually, I think the basic idea is sound enough, in the long run. But history shows that rational self-interest will not always be enough, that sometimes madness, stupidity and/or greed will lead to war, despite the interest of commerce.
PS There may be more truth to that saying about the US not bombing countries with McDonalds than people know - but it's not actually true. Eg Serbia in 1999.
The fact is that virtually nobody knew about it at the time (if you've got evidence suggesting otherwise, let's see it.) It never got into the press. Nobody in Japan heard about the test, and they were certainly surprised when Hiroshima was bombed. The Russians knew about it, but only because they had spies inside the Manhattan Project. It was not a public test by any sensible definition.
Documentation? That article features precisely one climatologist who doesn't believe in global warming. One. That's hardly proof of your claim that physical scientists don't believe in global warming. (I'm guessing you don't actually know very many. I work with climatologists, geologists and physicists on a daily basis. I know of only one greenhouse skeptic, and it's outside his field anyway.)
Good to see you're not bitter, though.
Me too. That was so wack!
Seems unlikely, since Pius IX was born about half a millennium after Dante died :) OTOH, you've gone to the trouble of actually reading Inferno, and I haven't.
Not supposedly, actually! Filming is complete and it's in post-production, with a release date of 30 September 2005 (although that has slipped once already).
There's no reason why it can't be all three.