‘Years of Living Dangerously’: Pastor Rick Joyner Models Feynman’s Ideal Scientist!

Guest essay by Jim Steele, Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University

Richard Feynman idealized the good scientist as someone who displays “a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.”

In Episode 4 of Years of Living Dangerously while attempting to depict his resistance to “their science”, the producers inadvertently revealed that it was only climate skeptic Pastor Rick Joyner who truly practiced Feynman’s ideal.

 

In contrast the documentary’s producers demonstrated how one-sided political consensus building is practiced to evoke climate alarm. While Pastor Joyner leaned over backwards to understand his daughter’s global warming concerns, the documentary failed to report the science that might make the CO2 connection invalid. While Joyner embodies Albert Einstein’s advice to “Never Stop Questioning,” the documentary tries to subtly denigrate his questioning as a stubborn refusal to believe what the alarmist were preaching. In gross contrast to America’s public schools where coordinated efforts teach students how to resist peer pressure and think for themselves, the documentary offered no scientific discussion. They simply demonstrated that consensus is built via heavy peer pressure.

The documentary exploited the struggles of Apalachicola Bay’s oyster fishermen who have recently watched their oysters disappear as the bay has become increasingly saline due to low flows Apalachicola River. Pastor Joyner willingly boards 2 fishermen’s boat to witness the absence of oysters in their hauls, and then the documentary implies that it was CO2 climate change at the root of the fisherman’s suffering. Although sympathetic to the fishermen’s plight, Pastor Joyner maintained his skepticism and his stance is supported by most scientific studies.

Although the narrator briefly mentioned the fact that reduced flows in the Apalachicola River were partly due to increased upstream diversions, we never witness anyone sharing or discussing this alternative viewpoint with the pastor. Nor is anyone informed that during an earlier cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the droughts of the 1950s brought even less precipitation to the region, yet there was still greater river flow and less damage to the bay’s fisheries. In a 2008 report “Importance of River Flow to the Apalachicola River-Bay System”1 scientists reported, “A cumulative deficit evaluation of the drought events showed that the greatest cumulative rainfall deficit occurred during the mid 1950’s drought event, but the greatest flow deficit occurred during the 1999–2002 drought event.” The report warned, “With permanent reductions of Apalachicola River flow in the region related, in part, to reservoir and other recent water management practices, the adverse effects of natural droughts would be accentuated.”

If the documentary wanted to educate the public about the best practices of science, they would have examined all the facts including well know water management practices. But only Pastor Joyner seemed willing explore such alternative viewpoints. The producers’ efforts would have done more good, if they had tried to enlist the pastor’s influence to promote better watershed management. But the producers seemed intent on bending over backwards to suggest recent droughts were unnatural and caused by rising CO2. But our best scientists do not support that suggestion either.

Regards the droughts that affected the river’s flow, the NOAA Drought Task Force had reported that “the prior year’s southern Plains drought that spanned October 2010-August 2011, …existed owing to a strong sensitivity of that region to La Niña conditions.” In contrast the ocean surface patterns gave no warming of the looming 2012 drought, and climate scientists determined that year’s drought was “an event resulting largely from internal atmospheric variability having limited long lead predictability”2

The NOAA Drought Task Force concluded,

“Climate simulations and empirical analysis suggest that neither the effects of ocean surface temperatures nor changes in greenhouse gas concentrations produced a substantial summertime dry signal over the central Great Plains during 2012.”

Drought always causes higher temperatures, but curiously they also reported that given the lack of rainfall the high temperatures were not as high as expected writing, “The scatter plot shows that 2012 was the driest summer in the historical record, though the temperature anomaly of +2°C was exceeded by two prior summers — 1934 and 1936. Indeed, although the 2012 summer experienced less rainfall over the central Great Plains than in either 1934 or 1936, those years were about 0.5°C warmer.” Such observations contradict what we would predict if the region had been experiencing the additive effects of CO2 warming. That is likely due to the fact that the southeastern USA has been a “warming hole”3 that experienced a slight cooling trend between 1895 and 2007 even after climate scientists questionably adjusted the data as discussed in “Unwarranted Temperature Adjustments: Conspiracy or Ignorance?

clip_image002

Instead of discussing all the science, the producers try to bludgeon Pastor Joyner with Christian peer pressure beginning with his daughter. Then Katherine Hayhoe visits and repeats the same simplistic arguments from episode 1. Then former U.S. Representative Bob Inglis piles on. Finally Pastor Joyner is brought to Dr. Richard Muller who has been hailed as the Koch-brothers-funded skeptic who now believes in CO2-caused warming. But the producers fail to mention that Muller’s homogenized instrumental data may suffer from the same biases illustrated in “Unwarranted Temperature Adjustments: Conspiracy or Ignorance?.” Or contrasting satellite data that shows the global average has not risen in 17 years.

clip_image004

Or that not one tree ring study (from locations where temperatures are not influenced by urbanization effects) supports Muller’s interpretation of rapidly rising temperatures. A paper by 10 of the world’s top dendrochronologists reported, No current tree ring based reconstruction of extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperatures that extends into the 1990s captures the full range of late 20th century warming observed in the instrumental record.”4 In contrast to Muller’s reconstructions, a majority of the tree ring studies show a slight cooling since the 40s, despite the rise in during the 80s and 90s. This has been called the ‘divergence problem”.

Nor do the producers discuss with Pastor Joyner about Muller’s dubious suggestion that his reconstruction of the global average since the 1850s was due to CO2. Most climate scientists do not believe CO2 had a significant impact until after the 1950s. For example when discussing the abrupt warming in the Arctic from the 1920s to 40s, Sweden’s top climate scientist and IPCC member Lennart Bengtsson wrote:

“It seems unlikely that anthropogenic forcing on its own could have caused the warming, since the change in greenhouse gas forcing in the early decades of the twentieth century was only some 20% of the present. Second, it remains to be explained the marked cooling trend between 1940 and 1960, a period with a similar or faster increase of the greenhouse gases than between 1920 and 1940” [emphasis added]

As data accumulates Bengtsonn has become more skeptical but his shift to skepticism has not gotten the same media fanfare as Muller. Bengtsonn has become increasingly upset by the IPCC’s attempt to force a consensus, similar to the tactics employed by Years of Living Dangerously against Pastor Joyner. In a recent interview here Dr. Bengtsonn’s wrote,

“I believe the whole climate consensus debate is silly. There is not a single well educated scientist that question that greenhouse gases do affect climate. However, this is not the issue but rather how much and how fast. Here there is no consensus as you can see from the IPCC report where climate sensitivity varies with a factor of three! Based on observational data climate sensitivity is clearly rather small and much smaller that the majority of models.” [emphasis added]

The episode interspersed segments of applying peer pressure to Pastor Joyner, with 60 Minutes’ Lesley Stahl who visits Greenland to suggest rising CO2 has created unusual changes there. But Stahl failed to do her homework or ask the probing questions that 60 Minutes was once known for. For example she never asked about the research from climate scientists as Los Alamos National Laboratories who concluded:

we find no direct evidence to support the claims that the Greenland ice sheet is melting due to increased temperature caused by increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. The rate of warming from 1995 to 2005 was in fact lower than the warming that occurred from 1920 to 1930.6 [emphasis added]

As seen in their graph, Greenland temperatures show a more cyclical nature with more warmth in the 30s and 40s and in agreement with most tree ring studies.

clip_image006

The retreat of Greenland’s glaciers has been largely due to intruding warm waters driven by changes in natural ocean oscillations. Those ocean oscillations increased the flow of warm Gulf Stream waters that eventually bathe the coast of Greenland and islands in the Arctic Ocean. Those warm currents melted the bottoms of any glaciers that terminated in the ocean.

Greenland’s largest outlet glacier, Jakobshavn Isbrae, drains about 7% of the Greenland ice sheet and generates 10% of the Atlantic’s icebergs. During the Holocene Optimum beginning about 9000 years ago, Jakobshavn retreated further than its present day terminus and remained that way for almost 7000 years. It was only recently during the Little Ice Age, that Jakobshavn rapidly advanced several kilometers beyond today’s terminus.7

The North Atlantic Oscillation and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation’s influences on warm ocean currents explain both Greenland’s cyclical temperature behavior and current glacial retreat. The glaciers’ most rapid 20th century retreat occurred between 1920 and 1950, followed by an advance in the 1970s and then a renewed retreat in 1998.7,8,9 [emphasis added]

The rapid retreat of Jakobshavn between 1920 and 1940, as well as in the 1990s, corresponds to North Atlantic regime shifts during which warm waters from the Atlantic were pushed into the Arctic. Marine biologists wrote, “The warming in the 1920s and 1930s is considered to constitute the most significant regime shift experienced in the North Atlantic in the 20th century.”10 Fishery biologists observed that “species of fish such as cod, haddock and herring expanded farther north while colder-water species such as capelin and polar cod retreated northward. The maximum-recorded movement involved cod, which spread approximately 1200 km northward along West Greenland.” The warm water and associated species lingered for 2 more decades before retreating in the 1960s.

We are all blinded by our illusions and we can only free ourselves from those illusions by careful observations, experiments and respectful debate. I was brought up in a devout Christian family but I am no longer a churchgoer. My parents and I differed on the concepts of evolution. However I still embrace their ideals embodied in the Golden Rule and Abraham’s devotion to knowing the greater truth. Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son to be closer to God is religion’s equivalent of Feynman’s ideal scientist who leans over backwards to prove that he has not been fooled by clinging to a cherished belief. Pastor Joyner embodied the best of his religion and science. He willingly ventured into the wilderness of climate alarmism and respectfully listened to a parade of opposing viewpoints. He allowed his daughter to share her opposing beliefs to his congregation. He demonstrates his faith that only the truth will set you free.

Compare Pastor Joyner’s actions to those of prominent global warming alarmists and ask who best demonstrates the integrity of Feynman’s ideal scientists and the pursuit of truth. Compare Pastor Joyner openness to David Suzuki’s demand that society “Deny the Deniers the Right to Deny.” Or top CO2 climate scientist Kevin Trenberth’s Joint Presidential Session on Communicating Climate Change speech titled “Communicating Climate Science And Thoughts On Climategate” when he advises fellow scientists to act contrary to scientific ideals. Branding skeptics as deniers he condescends, “Debating them about the science is not an approach that is recommended. In a debate it is impossible to counter lies, and caveated statements show up poorly against loudly proclaimed confident statements that often have little or no basis”. And in the published versions provides a cartoon proclaiming skeptics are the world’s greatest threat.

Accordingly climate alarmists have circled the wagons and refused to debate with climate skeptics, preferring hit pieces such as Years of Living Dangerously. Climate modeler Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann’s side kick on the RealClimate website, would only appear on John Stossel’s show if there was no face to face debate and skeptic scientist Dr. Roy Spencer removed himself while Schmidt was on stage. And Michael Mann, the creator of the hockey stick interpretation of climate change not only calls everyone who disagrees with his viewpoint a denier but anti-science. But it is only via thorough skeptical examination that challenges every hypothesis does a scientific opinion become trustworthy. But climate alarmists like Mann demean any and all who question CO2 as deniers, as if the truth has been already determined. They promote their view on websites and op-ed pieces encouraging a new intellectual tyranny aimed at shutting down all skeptics.

I suggest they will be better scientists if they emulated Pastor Joyner, and listen to all sides, promote more debate, and then let the truth lead us wherever it may.

Cited Scientific Literature that supports Pastor Joyner’s Skepticism

1. Livingston (2008) Importance of River Flow to the Apalachicola River-Bay System.

Report to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection

http://mayorvanjohnson.com/files/Livingston_Report.pdf

2. An Interpretation of the Origins of the 2012 Central Great Plains Drought

Assessment Report. NOAA Drought Task Force.

http://drought.gov/media/pgfiles/2012-Drought-Interpretation-final.web-041013_V4.0.pdf

3. Menne. M., (2009) The U.S. Historical Climatology Network Monthly Temperature Data, version 2. The Bulletin for the American Meterological Society. p. 993-1007

4. Wilson (2007) Matter of divergence: tracking recent warming at hemispheric scales using tree-ring data. Journal of Geophysical Research–A, 112, D17103, doi: 10.1029/2006JD008318.

5. Bengtsson, L., et al., (2004) The Early Twentieth-Century Warming in the Arctic—A Possible Mechanism. Journal of Climate, vol. 445-458

6. Chylek, P., et al. (2006) Greenland warming of 1920–19 30 and 1995–2005. Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 33, L11707, doi:10.1029/2006GL026510

7. Young, N., et al., (2011) Response of Jakobshavn Isbræ, Greenland, to Holocene climate Change. Geology, vol. 39, p. 131‑134.

8. Motyka, R., et al. (2010) Submarine melting of the 1985 Jakobshavn Isbræ floating tongue and the triggering of the current retreat. Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 116, F01007, doi:10.1029/2009JF001632

9. Csatho, B., et al., (2008) Intermittent thinning of Jakobshavn Isbræ, West Greenland, since the Little Ice Age. Journal of Glaciology, vol. 54, p. 131‑145.

10. Drinkwater, K. (2006) The regime shift of the 1920s and 1930s in the North Atlantic. Progress in Oceanography vol. 68, p.134–151.

Greenland discussion adapted from the chapter “Many Ways to Shrink a Glacier” in Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism

Read previous essays at landscapesandcycles.net

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate News, Consensus. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to ‘Years of Living Dangerously’: Pastor Rick Joyner Models Feynman’s Ideal Scientist!

  1. jauntycyclist says:

    keep the truth as a gimp in the basement and pocket the money. Zed’s dead.

  2. Kate Forney says:

    “That is likely due to the fact that the southeastern USA has been a “warming hole”3 that experienced a slight cooling trend between 1895 and 2007 even after climate scientists questionably adjusted the data as discussed in “Unwarranted Temperature Adjustments: Conspiracy or Ignorance?””

    ————

    No, there were no scientists who adjusted the data unless Lysenko was also a scientist.

  3. wws says:

    This show should have been called “Years of Lying Casually”.

  4. Steven Mosher says:

    ‘Albert Einstein’s advice to “Never Stop Questioning,”

    That is an interesting practice which of course Einstein didn’t practice himself.

    of course one always stops questioning

  5. dp says:

    A response video repeating the events of the first but including the missing scientific ethos espoused by Dr. Feynman is exactly the kind of thing I thought Topher would be doing with all that new gear our contributions recently funded.

  6. ddpalmer says:

    Ian Somerhalder, who did the segment with Pastor Joyner, is doing a live Q&A on Wednesday the 7th at noon Eastern time on facebook. Maybe he would enjoy answer why they hide the truth from the Pastor?

  7. Madrigaul says:

    May 6, 2014 at 5:47 PM |

    Anyone reading this anywhere near NYC?
    See below, and note deadline. Excellent opportunity for someone on our side?

    PRESS INTERVIEW REQUIREMENT
    SUBJECT: Energy and Green Tech
    Summary: Climate Warning

    Name: Roselle Chen Reuters Television – New York Bureau
    Category: Energy and Green Tech

    Email: query-3woc@helpareporter.net

    Media Outlet: Reuters Television – New York Bureau

    Deadline: 3:00 PM EST – 6 May

    Query:

    Climate expert who can speak on the White House’s dire warning
    on climate change, calling for action.

    Requirements:

    Climate expert or professor in the NYC area.

    Back to Top Back to Category Index

  8. Jimbo says:

    “Climate simulations and empirical analysis suggest that neither the effects of ocean surface temperatures nor changes in greenhouse gas concentrations produced a substantial summertime dry signal over the central Great Plains during 2012.”

    I wonder why?

    Abstract
    ‘Little Ice Age’ aridity in the North American Great Plains:
    a high-resolution reconstruction of salinity fluctuations from Devils Lake, North Dakota, USA
    http://hol.sagepub.com/content/4/1/69.short

    As regarding the Apalachicola river we have this small gem.

    Letter
    N Pederson et al
    The depth of the 2006–9 drought in the humid, southeastern US left several metropolitan areas with only a 60–120 day water supply. To put the region’s recent drought variability in a long-term perspective, a dense and diverse tree-ring network—including the first records throughout the Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint river basin—is used to reconstruct drought from 1665 to 2010 CE. The network accounts for up to 58.1% of the annual variance in warm-season drought during the 20th century and captures wet eras during the middle to late 20th century. The reconstruction shows that the recent droughts are not unprecedented over the last 346 years. Indeed, droughts of extended duration occurred more frequently between 1696 and 1820. Our results indicate that the era in which local and state water supply decisions were developed and the period of instrumental data upon which it is based are amongst the wettest since at least 1665. Given continued growth and subsequent industrial, agricultural and metropolitan demand throughout the southeast, insights from paleohydroclimate records suggest that the threat of water-related conflict in the region has potential to grow more intense in the decades to come.

  9. richard says:

    In seconds i can get to this link and the problems from the dam in the Apalachicola River on fish, mussels etc. There would be a great programme to be made about the effect of dams around the world.

    http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/florida/howwework/apalachicola-river-dams-and-politics-can-migrating-fish-survive.xml

  10. Gary says:

    Then there is the admonition of the Christian apostle Paul who said not even to give the appearance of doing wrong so that those who oppose you will have no grounds for dismissing you. Although I didn’t see this propaganda piece, it seems that Pastor Joyner exemplified the advice.

  11. Michael D says:

    Sorry, Kate, I’m not sure whether you are saying “the data was not adjusted” or ” the folks who did it were not scientists.”

  12. …Pastor Rick Joyner Models Feynman’s Ideal Scientist!
    ———
    Heh – another model.

  13. Michael D says:

    In some circles, making Joyner a Christian is the equivalent of making Shylock a Jew in Shakespeare’s day. It will undercut his credibility among a certain portion of the population.

  14. Jimbo says:

    I forgot the link

    Letter
    N Pederson et al
    The depth of the 2006–9 drought in the humid, southeastern
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/1/014034

  15. Merovign says:

    It was never about science, it was always about power and control.

    The extent to which shallow peer pressure succeeds is depressing, but universal.

  16. Stephen Skinner says:

    “Although the narrator briefly mentioned the fact that reduced flows in the Apalachicola River were partly due to increased upstream diversions, we never witness anyone sharing or discussing this alternative viewpoint with the pastor.”

    What about the Colorado river?

  17. Larry in Texas says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    May 6, 2014 at 10:08 am

    Physician, heal thyself! You stopped asking the right questions a long time ago, kid. That is also what is important – not the fact of inquiry alone, but whether you are asking the right questions.

    Speaking of the right questions, Dr. Lennart Bengtsson’s comments on this subject are particularly enlightening. But I don’t expect either the IPCC or the warmists who post on this site to have any good answers. Especially since the effects of CO2 are logarithmic, we should have seen significant early warming in the 1960s and 1970s, given the measured increases in CO2 began to be seen around 1960. But we shall see – the ideologues have an answer for everything.

  18. more soylent green! says:

    The only skeptic the producers could find is a pastor? No climate scientists? Not Freeman Dyson, not Burt Rutan, not Harrison Schmidt, nor Richard Lindzen?

    BTW: From the above account, the pastor acquitted himself well. However, there is little chance the choice of a christian pastor was coincidental, it was a thinly disguised attempt to portray skeptics as anti-science, for who could be more opposed to science than somebody of faith?

  19. RACookPE1978 says:

    So, in the tens of thousands of years BEFORE the dams were placed in the foothills far upriver… What happened?

    Drought comes in the summer, early fall to the mountains and valleys upstream. No rain, no freshwater stream flow at all, no river flow at all, right?

    So the “river” has no freshwater flow at all. None. Zero, zilch. The bay is 100% salt water, even more brackish by low levels and higher evaporation, right?

    Now, man builds a dam in the foothills in the 1920′s, 1930′s and 1940′s. Freshwater is trapped upriver, used by cities, treated by city 1, left to flow to city 2, treated at city 2, left to flow to city 3, treated at city 3 … left flow gradually to the bay and then to the ocean. Same amount of rainfall, just released gradually instead of sudden 100% freshwater floods in the spring and late fall!

    So ONLY NOW “after the dams restrict freshwater flow” there is concern for almost – brackish water in the bays that will harm mollusks?

  20. Steven Mosher says:

    Larry. Correct einstein then.
    Or maybe question that you know what the right questions
    Are. Or question that you know all the questions ive asked
    In the last 7 years.

  21. Crispin in Waterloo but really in Yogyakarta says:

    @wws

    >This show should have been called “Years of Lying Casually”.

    Would “Years of thinking casually” also apply? What is so recognizable in the antics of alarmists is the priestly character of their pronouncements. Remember that the practice of priestcraft is to claim the ability (because of training, special knowledge, inner understanding, revealed visions etc) to have insights and understandings that are not available to the non-priests. The bottom line here is that those without special knowledge and understanding are demanding that a) people demonstrate they are members of the ‘faithful’ and b) accept that priestly interpretations of ‘data’ be accepted without question.

    It is this key element of ‘interpretation’ that separates the priestcraft from Feynman’s science. Having a scientific approach requires learning how to interpret evidence. Having faith in the skills of the priest means one does not have to have that understanding – responsibility is given to ‘the elect’. The priest does not have to demonstrate to the faithful how he or she arrived at the conclusion – though some do of course. But the whole point of publishing scientific papers is to start conversations which continue in the Journals so as to share perspectives on reality. It is to demonstrate the evidence and delineate the logic.

    A climate scientist who refuses to show the evidence, claims special understanding, says, “Trust me,” declares that contrary conclusions are evidence of ignorance (of their special knowledge and inner understanding), declares deviations from catechistic recitations to be the utterances of the damned and lost is definitely living on that planet-in-the-mind where climate metaphysics rules resplendent.

    Speculative divination and inspired leaps of faith are hardly substitutes for detailed examination of the physical world. Wise or unwise, knowledgeable or not, I will continue to investigate reality for myself and draw my own conclusions. I encourage everyone else to do likewise.

  22. jim Steele says:

    @carpediem

    Thanks for the links to Joyner’s sharing of his experience filming Years of Living Dangerously. After watching his presentation I have even more respect for his integrity.

  23. jim Steele says:

    more soylent green! says:The only skeptic the producers could find is a pastor?

    The could have asked Roy Spencer but the were pretty sure he was not going to convert to gain the same political exposure that enticed New York”s Rep Grimm. May his indictments expose the truth

  24. “The only skeptic the producers could find is a pastor? No climate scientists? Not Freeman Dyson, not Burt Rutan, not Harrison Schmidt, nor Richard Lindzen?”

    Bingo. But it could backfire.

    Imagine a hypothetical atheist/skeptic blog in the near future: “How a mere pastor, so obviously deluded by his religion, showed up highly trained specialists in the climate debate”.

    Of course we’ll get the usual rationalizations, such as the notion that science has learned a valuable lesson and that it won’t happen again.

  25. T-Bird says:

    ” … it was a thinly disguised attempt to portray skeptics as anti-science, for who could be more opposed to science than somebody of faith?”

    Somebodies of Faith, like all these people?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

    Or this man, a giant in analytical chemistry who then founded a missionary university?

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0584854706001339

  26. jim Steele says:

    Steven Mosher says: ‘Albert Einstein’s advice to “Never Stop Questioning,”
    That is an interesting practice which of course Einstein didn’t practice himself.

    Mosher, I am curious to your evidence that shows Einstein “stopped questioning’?!?!

    Alternatively are you trying to argue that we should stop questioning the causes of climate change becauae you know all the answers???!!!??? Or you just trying to redirect the discussion???

  27. reidhb says:

    only people who were children of child abusive families believe in Global Warming.

  28. David A says:

    Steven Mosher says:May 6, 2014 at 10:08 am
    ‘Albert Einstein’s advice to “Never Stop Questioning,”
    That is an interesting practice which of course Einstein didn’t practice himself.
    of course one always stops questioning
    =========================================
    ??? When did he stop questioning? How do you know? Why does one “always stops questioning”
    ——————————————————-
    Steven Mosher says:
    May 6, 2014 at 6:07 pm
    Larry. Correct einstein then.
    MOSHER, ARE YOU OK? YOU QUOTED EINSTEIN SAYING NEVER STOP QUESTIONING, SO HOW DOES LARRY’S STATEMENT CORRECT EINSTEIN.

    Mosher says…Or maybe question that you know what the right questions
    I NEVER READ LARRY SAYING HE KNEW ALL THE QUESTIONS

    Mosher says…Are. Or question that you know all the questions ive asked
    In the last 7 years
    APPARENTLY YOU KNOW WHEN EINSTEIN STOPPED FOLLOWING HIS OWN ADVICE.
    ALSO, I NEVER SAY WHERE LARRY SAID HE KNEW ALL THE QUESTIONS YOU ASK, I JUST SAW HIM STATE HIS VIEW, FROM READING YOUR COMMENTS, THAT YOU DO NOT ASK SOME OF THE RIGHT QUESTIONS. (I AGREE WITH HIS PERCEPTION)

  29. Txomin says:

    And yet, the imdb page for ‘Years of Living Dangerously’ still has a rating of 8.5/10…

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2963070/

  30. Don Stubbs says:

    I wonder to what extent the credibility of skeptics of CAGW, AGW, global warming, “climate change”, et alia is diminished by the presence of key figures in the debate who believe in things for which there exists no evidence. There are certainly scientists who could successfully compartmentalize their scientific research (e.g. Roger Millikan) and their irrational beliefs.

    It is unnerving to me the amount of mythology that lies just under the surface of the skeptical dialogue. How many skeptics believe that the deity of their culture has their “hand” figuratively on the global thermostat? Hope it’s not Shiva at the controls!!!!

    I was gobsmacked when I discovered that Roy Spencer is a creationist. It certainly does not invalidate his contributions to climate science. It certainly does not help in ridding ourselves of the need for non-scientific, supernatural explanations.

    We must fight against the shackles of the cultural myths into which we are born.

    Hopefully we can reduce the need for people to seek “scientific” knowledge from their pastors, mullahs, priests, or gurus.

    REPLY:Oh, puhleeeze.

    Isaac Newton was a “creationist” and studied alchemy, shall we judge him for that and toss out his work? Max Planck won the 1918 Nobel Prize in Physics and is considered the founder of Quantum mechanics. He had been raised an observant Lutheran and was an elder in his church from 1920 to his death. In 1937 he delivered the lecture, “Religion and Natural Science”, stating that both religion and science require a belief in God.

    Shall we throw Planck and all his work into the rubbish pile? Should we also discount the body of work of all these people?. – Anthony

  31. Unfortunately Rick Joyner in other (more important areas such as Christian doctrine) is a fruitcake.

  32. A. E. Soledad says:

    Those of you who dislike the age of the Printing Press we Christianics gave you

    Those of you who dislike the modern industrial age we Christianics gave you

    Those of you who dislike the modern internet we Christianics gave you, when we invented it to outwit atheists in the Soviet Empire

    go – leave. Get out.

    Go live in the ”great atheist civilization” you’re going to look up on *our

    electronic space age internet – since atheists don’t have a space age internet of their own.

    We started this nation with a Declaration of Independence referring to God.

    Not to you. Atheists are constantly wrong. Matter of fact when are they ever right?

    We don’t need atheists, we invented the printing press due to Christianity.

    Not atheism.

    We invented the modern indusrtrial age in Western Europe, and America,

    between England, Germany, the United States, Spain, – all these were Christianic Empires who discovered the whole other half of the globe and documented it.

    Atheists didn’t do that. A Christian, CHRISTopher Columbus, did.

    Atheists are to social philosophy

    what Green House Gas Law believers are, to physical science.

    Complete quacks who couldn’t make it in the wild.

    Christianic empires alone form the warm, safe, cuddly world where deluded Academics can forget the atmosphere doesn’t have a Green House Gas Law, but has an Ideal Gas Law.

    Christianic empires alone form the secure stable world where the law of the jungle isn’t the only law IN the jungle like it is, in the great Atheist experiment, the now crushed and humiliated Soviet Empire, whose daughters are selling themselves as prostitutes to Creationists,
    to escape the dread dismal, cynica despair of atheism come to full bloom.

    Christianic empires incubate the fragile, non-viable in-the-wild atheist, and the useless pratting prancing Academic:

    Christianic empires host them having made the world safe for them.
    Not the other way around.

    Don’t just remember it.
    Honor it.

    Show you’re sincere and think you could make it on your own.

    Go to Russia,
    Wipe out everything ever derived from invention of the printing press,

    The very first thing out of your mouth would be “I wish I had some of that Christianic Empire Space-Age Internet Freedom! I wish I had some of that “Bill of Rights” like those people who have “In God We Trust” written on their money! I wish I had something to eat, like those fat happy Christians!”

    And back on that Boeing 777 – yet another invention of the Christianic Empires, the modern aerospace sciences –

    you’d be.

    Beat down by a trip out there to meet Darwin’s Dog face to face
    without those Christians to make it safe for you to close your shallow mind down and get a few winks of sleep.

    Go on, it’s a big world out there, abandon all this crap Christianic Empires invented and go form your own ‘Great Atheist Empire’

    We’ll compare your space age solar system probes and Mars rovers to our Christianic Empire ones.

    In God We Trust.

    All others will show empirical proof they are right and were right first or they will be laughed to scorn to their faces.

    Ask the CAGW believers if we will.

  33. Steve Garcia says:

    CO2 got railroaded, really:

    “Pastor Joyner willingly boards 2 fishermen’s boat to witness the absence of oysters in their hauls, and then the documentary implies that it was CO2 climate change at the root of the fisherman’s suffering. Although sympathetic to the fishermen’s plight, Pastor Joyner maintained his skepticism and his stance is supported by most scientific studies.”

    This is so much like the courtroom where the prosecutor in a murder case presents the photos of the victim, bloody and gore, trying to get knee jerk reactions out of the jury, and his whole angle is to get the jury to CONNECT in their minds that THIS accused did it.

    However, ins cuh cases, there is nothing in the photos that connects the victim. YES, SOMEONE did it – but nothing in the photos is proof of THAT accused having done it. The victim would be just as dead and bloody if someone ELSE did it. The victim is dead; the accused is on trial. The photos do nopt link the accused to the victim.

    But this is done all the time, because: “BUT WE HAVE TO CONVICT SOMEONE, DON’T WE?. AND THIS ANIMAL DID IT!”

    This is the entire purpose of the photos. To railroad via emotional knee-jerk reaction.

    The photos, however, actually are shown only for effect and to railroad the accused – BY MEANS OF THE WORDS THE PROSECUTOR SPEAKS WHILE THE PHOTOS ARE BEING SHOWN. No other reason. It is necessary to connect IN THEIR MINDS the blood and gore and THIS accused. Without his narration, there IS no connection.

    And it is only ONE side of the story.

    Similarly (and PLEASE do not let’s go off topic here!) – in the OJ Simpson trial, as soon as the prosecution case was completed, the news media began a flurry of “WELL, it seems pretty damned obvious that OJ did it, right?” without EVER hearing one word from the defense. Ok, now, that was only for illustrative purposes, not to discuss whether OJ did it or not. So, PLEASE, no OJ comments!

    This one-sidedness IS what has been done in the case of CAGW and CO2 – since the 1980s when James Hansen indicted CO2 and told the Congress about the blood and gore to come.

    It was convict first, before they had any evidence.

  34. jim Steele says:

    @ Don Stubbs

    Only manipulative politics tries to paint a religious person as anti-science. I know numerous engineers, chemists and doctors who are very religious AND great scientific thinkers/practitioners. In fact many religious people feel motivated to do their absolute best by arising above themselves to serve their god by tying to put aside their biases to better understand how the world works. I see that as a very admirable quality that often makes for better science.

    Evolution has been the big divide, but being a creationists does not mean can not excel in all the other arenas of science. All sides become philosophers when faced with the 2 great discontinuities: 1) How does life arise from non-life and 2) how does something emerge from nothing. The answers are unprovable and thus always a matter of faith whether you believe in the Big Bang or the Big Command.

    The thinkers of St Thomas Aquinas’s day believed in spontaneous generation, and although Pasteur showed it was misapplied to rotting meat, evolutionists today still must rely on some form spontaneous generation where lipids coalesce into membranes or RNA forms from a primordial soup and then becomes enzymatic. And both scientists and religious folk rely on some extraterrestrial force explain

    To deal with that Great Discontinuity Francis Crick, who discovered the structure of DNA. and his colleague Leslie Orgel suggested “Directed Panspermia” where alien life sent DNA to colonize other planets. Many famous scientists have embraced some version of panspermia. Lord Kelvin. Herman von Hemholts advocated panspermia. And Savante Arrhenius who the AGW crowd honors as the discoverer of CO2 warming believed in panspermia. When it comes to those great discontinuities we are all philosophers and our beliefs will be a matter of unprovable faith.

    The worrisome folks are the religious fanatics and CO2 fanatics who try to shove their beliefs dow our throats. Lets not judge people by their beliefs but by their works.

  35. TimTheToolMan says:

    Mosher writes “‘Albert Einstein’s advice to “Never Stop Questioning,”
    That is an interesting practice which of course Einstein didn’t practice himself.
    of course one always stops questioning”

    Black humour?

  36. Colorado Wellington says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    May 6, 2014 at 10:08 am

    ‘Albert Einstein’s advice to “Never Stop Questioning,”

    That is an interesting practice which of course Einstein didn’t practice himself.

    of course one always stops questioning

    On his spiritual quest the seeker has reached a plateau of almost poetic inscrutability.

  37. Colorado Wellington says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    May 6, 2014 at 10:08 am

    ‘Albert Einstein’s advice to “Never Stop Questioning,”

    That is an interesting practice which of course Einstein didn’t practice himself.

    of course one always stops questioning

    On his spiritual quest the seeker has reached a plateau of almost poetic inscrutability.

  38. Mike says:

    Funny that Joyner rejects the evidence and consensus of tens of thousands of scientists on this subject but has no problem believing in a “Magic Man in the Sky” for which there is no evidence. He’s made very handsome living convincing others of this fairy tale to the point where he gets many of them to give him 10 percent of their salaries/wages. He believes (or at least tells the people he’s fleecing) that amputated human limbs can grow back with sufficient prayer. Yeah … give me some evidence on that one!

  39. M Simon says:

    A. E. Soledad says:
    May 7, 2014 at 9:20 am,

    Weeeel. Not exactly. The modern age was in large part created by those in revolt (open or otherwise) against the Church. The Church exalted faith. The Modernists exalted reason. Which is not to say that various admixtures didn’t co-exist. But which predominated is the essence of the matter.

    And the Jews long ago squared that circle. If faith and reason conflict so much the worse for faith – say the Jews.

  40. Karl says:

    Spencer is not a “creationist.” He commented positively on intelligent design and was labled a creationist by the ad hominem warmist gang.

Comments are closed.