Make haste more slowly

What fun - readers point out that some revisions are to be made to the Dessler paper in the light of comments made by Roy Spencer. I wonder if Steve M's comments will have an effect too?

Comments

[BBD]

Maurizio

See, more clap-trap. No actual response to my comment. Nothing.

But then to acknowledge the facts and respond directly and honestly would require that you concede the point.

You live in a hermetic fantasy of your own creation.

[BBD]

Shub

See my response to Maurizio. It applies equally well to you.

And yeah, if everyone sounds 'incoherent', maybe you need to think a bit harder. Perhaps not everyone wants to be as blunt as you.

This is you, last night:

I won't hold back from insulting you anymore. Try flashing your 'references', go ahead. Two can play your game.

Hypocrisy? Poor memory? The demon drink? You tell me.

simply to advance your leftist political ideal of a global environmental treaty?

You what? Me - a lefty? Good God you're even further detached from reality than MM.

[BBD]

GrantB

That's what I like to see: courage.

[Shub]

Please remind me to tell PFM that I will eat my own words now.

[Steve Short]

The Cornwall Alliance eh? Could that have anything to do with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Apologetic_Information_%26_Research

or this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Apologetic_Information_%26_Research

????

or are we talking, qualitatively speaking, vastly different levels of weirdness here......

eh BB?

[Steve Short]

like uhhh (say) this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_R._Bickmore

[BBD]

Steve Short

Nice try. Now, to complete your argument, you must do as I did with Spencer. You must find clear evidence that Bickmore's religious affiliations run directly counter to current scientific opinion on AGW. To be clear, I am looking for things like this:

Spencer is a signitory to the Cornwall Alliance's An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming.

This document contains the following statements. Read them carefully:

WHAT WE BELIEVE

We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.

[...]

WHAT WE DENY

We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.

There it is. Clear and indisputable. Man cannot cause dangerous alteration to the climate because the Earth is designed by God as 'admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory'. This is Spencer's belief system. How can it not influence the nature and direction of his work?

As I said earlier today, with Spencer, the theology is prior. With Bickmore, it isn't relevant. That's a very, very important distinction. I do hope haven't missed it in your hurry to score points.

[How do we know Spencer is a signitory. Follow the link and scroll down to 'scientists and medical doctors'. Spencer's is the first name listed.]

NOTE:

For those curious about this sort of thing, as Steve is, there are other names of interest in the list of signatories. Two in particular stood out. They were Joseph D'Aleo and Ross McKitrick.

[BBD]

Do you want to stop playing this game now?

[Steve Short]

Connect the little dots game:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Apologetic_Information_%26_Research

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_R._Bickmore

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/

Yep they're all there,

must signify sumthin signitorifying

All those tiny little dots.......

[BBD]

Steve

Gosh. You have entirely ignored my comment. I wonder why you did that?

[BBD]

Okay, let's try again:

Steve Short

Nice try. Now, to complete your argument, you must do as I did with Spencer. You must find clear evidence that Bickmore's religious affiliations run directly counter to current scientific opinion on AGW. To be clear, I am looking for things like this:

Spencer is a signitory to the Cornwall Alliance's An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming.

This document contains the following statements. Read them carefully:

WHAT WE BELIEVE

We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.

[...]

WHAT WE DENY

We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.

There it is. Clear and indisputable. Man cannot cause dangerous alteration to the climate because the Earth is designed by God as 'admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory'. This is Spencer's belief system. How can it not influence the nature and direction of his work?

As I said earlier today, with Spencer, the theology is prior. With Bickmore, it isn't relevant. That's a very, very important distinction. I do hope you haven't missed it in your hurry to score points.

[How do we know Spencer is a signatory? Follow the link and scroll down to 'scientists and medical doctors'. Spencer's is the first name listed.

There are other names of interest in the list of signatories. Two in particular stood out. They were Joseph D'Aleo and Ross McKitrick.]

[matthu]

BBD - take care not to ascribe something not included in the original:

"Man cannot cause dangerous alteration to the climate because>/b> [???] the Earth is designed by God as ..."

There is no causative link to God in the original.

[matthu]

Sorry about the over-emphasis.

BBD - take care not to ascribe something not included in the original:

"Man cannot cause dangerous alteration to the climate because [???] the Earth is designed by God as ..."

There is no causative link to God in the original.

[Barry Bickmore]

Thanks to BBD for his posts. It's nice to know that all my work programming Spencer's models into MATLAB didn't go for naught.

I thought I'd pop in, however, to help the rest of you guys figure out how to properly dismiss, based on my religion, the fact that Spencer has a penchant for eviscerating standard statistical methods.

Most religions teach that supernatural stuff happens, from time to time. And if anything supernatural happens, there's a potential for conflict with science, which doesn't allow supernatural causes. So an atheist could dismiss Spencer or me based on the notion that religious people "aren't scientific". (It's not too hard to find some weird supernatural stuff I believe, for instance.) That might get a bit uncomfortable, however, when it turns out that you would also have to dismiss a lot of other scientists (e.g., Henry Eyring was a Mormon).

What's more, most religions allow that most of the time things proceed according to the natural pattern, making them amenable to scientific investigation and prediction. Thus, there isn't a science-religion conflict for every religion on every scientific topic.

So, as BBD pointed out, if you want to ignore religious scientists honestly, you are stuck with trying to find points where someone's beliefs about the supernatural actually affect how they think about the science. BBD did a good job of showing how Spencer had said (by signing the Cornwall Alliance statement) how his religious beliefs affect how he approaches climate change, i.e., he doesn't think God would allow Earth systems to be significantly messed up by humans.

It's only fair, then, that I give you other guys some help finding some dirt on me. Here's how my religious views affect my approach to climate change.

In Revelation 11:18, it's talking about dealing out judgement in the "End Times". It says, "The nations were angry; and your wrath has come. The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great-- and for destroying those who destroy the earth."

Now, if the Bible says "those who destroy the earth" are going to get pistol-whipped come Judgement Day, it seems to me that it's pretty stupid for those Cornwall Alliance guys to think the Bible precludes the possibility of people... you know... "destroying the earth." In fact, I don't see where God has said anything directly about humans causing climate change, in anyone's sacred books, so I don't understand why anyone would start Bible-thumping about this.

Ok, now feel free to discuss what a religious nut I am.

[Shub]

Yeah, BBD, where is your "there it is" again?

Sorry I wasn't paying attention to all your religious mumbo-jumbo before.

[Shub]

Bickamore

BBD did not "show" anything.

All claims, irrespective of whatever quarter they arise from, have to be considered independently before they can be accepted or dismissed.

Even when there is evidence to suggest otherwise.

In my book, both you and Spencer are nutcases for believing in all this stuff in the first place. Yet, I don't bring that into play, do I? That is how it is done.

[Bad Andrew]

When I see BBD and other Warmers name calling and attacking personally people who disagree (happens a lot), I recall some words of another accused:

"Father, forgive them. They know not what they do."

Andrew

[BBD]

Barry Bickmore

Thank you for your kind words. Unfortunately, I fear that little good will come of them on this now elderly and disintegrating thread. Shub in particular seems a little tired and illogical.

[BBD]

matthu

There is no causative link to God in the original.

Really? What's this then?

We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception.

[Barry Bickmore]

Fair enough if you don't think anyone should ever bring up religious beliefs in such discussions. Personally, I wouldn't mind if someone told me that they thought my religious views were affecting the way I did my science, as long as they could point to some evidence for it. Everyone is biased one way or another, so we should welcome it when someone highlights a possible source. This should never be the main argument against someone's views, however.

It gets a little ridiculous when we try too hard to avoid mentioning science-religion conflicts, though. One system of thought allows supernatural causes, and the other doesn't. Conflicts will happen, so why pretend they don't exist? E.g., matthu seems to be trying a little too hard to protect Roy from the obvious implications of the Cornwall declaration.

In the end, someone's biases don't determine whether they end up being right or wrong, But in this case, it has been shown a number of times that Roy has used bogus statistical techniques, or even data hiding, to come up with the verdict that climate sensitivity must be low. Why does he keep this up? I don't think it's necessarily wrong to point out potential reasons for his continued behavior.

In fact, I don't mind asking what is going on with some of the posters here. I mean, it's clear from Roy's paper that he was using his lag regression statistics to argue that the models were biased away from the observations in the direction of higher climate sensitivity, and this was the point that was hyped in the media. But he didn't report the results from some of the models that did a much better job mimicking the data, and yet didn't have particularly low or high climate sensitivity. The obvious conclusion would be that, whatever the lag regression statistics address, it isn't climate sensitivity. So why are some of the posters here so intent on ignoring this issue? If you don't understand the arguments, are you just picking the side that tells you what you want to hear?

Instead of focusing on how impolite it is of BBD to bring up Roy's religious views that might affect his thinking about climate change, why not focus on BBD's substantive arguments?

[BBD]

Baqrry Bickmore

It's funny that you should say that. I have had endless trouble getting people to focus on my arguments here in a substantive manner.

Let's see if you have better luck.

[BBD]

Barry

Sorry about the typo. While you are here, the most current thread on this blog may also be of interest.

[matthu]

BBD

The mention of God is actually enclosed within dashes. My interpretation of dashes is that like parentheses they are both used to show an interruption in thought or some kind of aside.

So the passage is claiming that the environment is resilient and robust - and as an aside, drawing attention to the fact that they were fashioned by God.

But you don't need to take my word for it. I guess you could just easily ask Roy (or Ross McKitrick) whether he draws this conclusion from scientific reflection on what has gone on before over millions of years, or whether it is a necessary follow on from his belief in God.

I think I know what he would say.

[Shub]

"BBD's substantive arguments"?

Yeah we've heard lots of that before.

You admit yourself that you overestimate climate sensitivity in order to not be judged by God on Judgement day. But I am supposed to be upset with Spencer because his theology dictates his lower climate sensitivity.

Leaving all the God stuff aside:

"But he didn't report the results from some of the models that did a much better job mimicking the data, and yet didn't have particularly low or high climate sensitivity."

That matters not one bit to the analysis in question.

[Maurizio Morabito]

In a science area like climate change literally raped by hockey stick, and forever genuflected to the whims of politics as shown time and again by the IPCC antics and silences, it's beyond ridicule to use some statistical omissions to "demonstrate" that Spencer is a religious fanatic before he's a scientist. Like blaming public debt of billions on a thousand-dollar expense note.

For Spencer anyway, like for every believer, his own self can't be compartmentalized, and his findings are based on his beliefs just like his beliefs are based on his findings.

For us if it's the science we're interested in, then the root of Spencer's thoughts, his primum movens, is immaterial as we should confine ourselves to read what he has to say scientifically. Otherwise we'll forever fall into second-guessing any word anybody says, stopping any kind of scientific progress whilst we divide ourselves in multiple, incompatible science factions each one entrenched around a set of "beliefs".

[Shub]

Barry,
Spencer clearly states his reasons for choosing lagged regression.

If you want to say that, that is wrong, you'll have to give your reasons why.

Just saying 'Spencer got his results because of lagged regression' - doesn't add anything. We already know that.

[BBD]

Maurizio

In a science area like climate change literally raped by hockey stick, and forever genuflected to the whims of politics as shown time and again by the IPCC antics and silences, it's beyond ridicule to use some statistical omissions to "demonstrate" that Spencer is a religious fanatic before he's a scientist. Like blaming public debt of billions on a thousand-dollar expense note.

The point is that SB11 is simply the latest in a long continuum of books, blog comments, public speaking and papers all claiming - but never demonstrating - low climate sensitivity.

When faced with prolonged episodes of illogical behaviour, some of us look for explanations. Spencer's prior commitment to a fundamentalist religious position provides one possible explanation. His political affiliations dovetail in nicely too.

Just because you do not like this otherwise perfectly reasonable explanation does not invalidate it. You will have to do better than saying: BBD you're wrong.

And to be blunt, that's all you and Shub have got.

[Shub]

Oh, I see.

The Cornwall Alliance is a fundamentalist organization now?

Takes one to know one, I guess.

[HaroldW]

BBD -
The difficulty in such an assertion, is that it would appear equally to disqualify political partisans such as Hansen. I'm not willing to go there, it verges on ad hominem.

Naturally, it's fair to view the assertions of those whom one suspects of scientific prejudice, with an appropriate amount of salt.

And I certainly agree that the claims that SB11 was a "nail in the coffin of AGW" (or whatever the actual phrases were) are overblown. [And can we dispense with that metaphor entirely?] It is in no way a revolutionary paper. Unfortunately, there exist - on all sides of the discussion - those who will aggrandise any bit of scientific evidence which appears to buttress their policy positions.

[Maurizio Morabito]

Are we discussing if Spencer belongs to an organization that is compatible with his beliefs (and findings)???

Well...who's member of a club he disagrees with? I WANT NAMES 8)

[BBD]

Shub

The Cornwall Alliance is a fundamentalist organization now?

Of course it is. Do please take a moment to read the linked material in earlier posts.

[BBD]

Maurizio

I've explained my position in detail, several consecutive times on this thread. Now, either you are having cognitive problems or you are obfuscating. I don't know and I don't care. But I'm not going over this again.

See 7:19 pm.

[matthu]

As governments consider policies to fight alleged man-made global warming, evangelical leaders have a responsibility to be well informed, and then to speak out. A Renewed Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Examination of the Theology, Science, and Economics of Global Warming demonstrates that many of these proposed policies would destroy jobs and impose trillions of dollars in costs to achieve no net benefits. They could be implemented only by enormous and dangerous expansion of government control over private life. Worst of all, by raising energy prices and hindering economic development, they would slow or stop the rise of the world’s poor out of poverty and so condemn millions to premature death.

Hardly fundamentalist.

1.We call on our fellow Christians to practice creation stewardship out of Biblical conviction, adoration for our Creator, and love for our fellow man—especially the poor.
2.We call on Christian leaders to understand the truth about climate change and embrace Biblical thinking, sound science, and careful economic analysis in creation stewardship.
3.We call on political leaders to adopt policies that protect human liberty, make energy more affordable, and free the poor to rise out of poverty, while abandoning fruitless, indeed harmful policies to control global temperature.

Hardly fundamentalist.

BBD is simply using the term in a pejorative sense. An ad hom argument in other words.

[Maurizio Morabito]

Admittedly it's two of you driving the wrong way now but still the wrong way it is

[BBD]

matthu

BBD is simply using the term in a pejorative sense. An ad hom argument in other words.

Actually, it wasn't, but it's perfectly reasonable of you to read it that way.

And you have a point, albeit a minor theological distinction to an atheist like me. I'm not going to drill into this, but here's the famously reliable Wikipedia on Evangelism.

[BBD]

Maurizio

Admittedly it's two of you driving the wrong way now but still the wrong way it is

Now, what was it I said? Oh yes:

Just because you do not like this otherwise perfectly reasonable explanation does not invalidate it. You will have to do better than saying: BBD you're wrong.

And to be blunt, that's all you and Shub have got.

[Barry Bickmore]

Shub says:

"Spencer clearly states his reasons for choosing lagged regression.

"If you want to say that, that is wrong, you'll have to give your reasons why.

"Just saying 'Spencer got his results because of lagged regression' - doesn't add anything. We already know that."

Huh? At what point did I say there was anything wrong with Spencer choosing lagged regression? I actually think it was a reasonable approach. I merely have a problem with Spencer failing to report all the results of his lagged regression analysis--specifically the ones that cut off his conclusions at the knees.

[Barry Bickmore]

Shub says:

"You admit yourself that you overestimate climate sensitivity in order to not be judged by God on Judgement day. But I am supposed to be upset with Spencer because his theology dictates his lower climate sensitivity."

Really? When did I say that? The Bible verse I quoted merely said something about "those who destroy the earth," and I noted that it seems stupid, in that case, to conclude that the Bible indicates God wouldn't let humans do any real damage to Earth systems. In fact, I specifically said that I don't know of any religious tradition whose holy books say anything specifically about whether humans can cause climate change.

[matthu]

BBD - that link to Evangelicalism did not mention Fundamentalism in any way.
Wikipedia gives one definition of "Christian fundamentalism" as "militantly anti-modernist Protestant evangelicalism".

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

Perhaps now you will appreciate the difference. Roy Spencer has not (as far as I am aware) expressed any militantly anti-modernest view. You may want to review what you have previously said.

[BBD]

matthu

BBD - that link to Evangelicalism did not mention Fundamentalism in any way.

Please scroll down to 'Current usage'. As I said, this is theological hair-splitting for a Godless dog like me.

Can I ask again that we keep this substantive? I'm conceding a minor semantic point with good grace, and yet you tell me that the part of the link I provide that supports your argument doesn't exist.

[hro001]

@BBD

[in response to]:
The Cornwall Alliance is a fundamentalist organization now?

Of course it is.

You must have a rather unique definition of "fundamentalist" so, perhaps, instead of sending people off on yet another of your diversionary wild goose chases, you would share it with us. In my books, a coalition of individual Jews, Catholics and Protestants is the antithesis of all pre-requisites for a "fundamentalist" organization. The theologies of each would have them at war with each other rather than subscribing to a set of religious tenets!

But that aside, consider the following, BBD:

Biologically, we live within an inescapable network of mutuality. Science tells us that. Without the web of life, there is no life. We need each other. We are emphatically, biologically not alone. As the carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere rise, the planet will fail to provide for us. Life as we know it will die. Millions of human lives are on the line, rich and poor, old emitters and new, vulnerable and strong. There is no inoculation against this except all of us changing our behaviour all at once.

And consider the following:

There are many reasons - lines of evidence, if you will - all of which weave together to point me in a certain direction (much as a scientist or a jury might do before reaching a considered judgement), which we call a belief.

[I believe] because there is non-trivial historical evidence that a person called Jesus of Naza­reth rose from the dead 2,000 years ago, and it just so happens that He predicted that He would . . . I believe because of the testimony of billions of believers, just a few of whom are known to me and in whom I trust (and hence trust their testimony).

I believe because of my ineradicable sense that certain things I see and hear about in the world warrant the non-arbitrary categories of "good" or "evil". I believe because I have not discovered a better explanation of beauty, truth and love than that they emerge in a world created - willed into being - by a God who personifies beauty, truth and love.

One of these quotes is from a professor of climate change, the other from the Moderator of the United Church of Canada. Can you guess who said what? Never mind, I'll save you the trouble. The former can be found here while the source of the latter is here [scroll down to the end of the page].

You may not be aware of this, BBD, but there are a number of religious organizations that have jumped onto the climate change bandwagon. And be sure to check the signatories on this 2007 Press Release on "Science and Faith Unite on Biodiversity" under the auspices of the University of Oxford. It begins:

We are a group of scientists and religious believers, who may disagree on some issues, but are united on one: the need for action to halt the damage that human activities are now doing to the natural world.

Then perhaps you can give me one good reason why we should not discount any of Mike Hulme's contributions to the annals of climate science.

And I have to say that I do wonder why in all your walls of text, you've chosen (as far as I can tell) to omit any mention of the context of the signatories' evangelical declaration:

The world is in the grip of an idea: that burning fossil fuels to provide affordable, abundant energy is causing global warming that will be so dangerous that we must stop it by reducing our use of fossil fuels, no matter the cost.

Is that idea true?

We believe not.

We believe that idea—we’ll call it “global warming alarmism”—fails the tests of theology, science, and economics. It rests on poor theology, with a worldview of the Earth and its climate system contrary to that taught in the Bible. It rests on poor science that confuses theory with observation, computer models with reality, and model results with evidence, all while ignoring the lessons of climate history. It rests on poor economics, failing to do reasonable cost/benefit analysis, ignoring or underestimating the costs of reducing fossil fuel use while exaggerating the benefits. And it bears fruit in unethical policy that would

•destroy millions of jobs.
•cost trillions of dollars in lost economic production.
•slow, stop, or reverse economic growth.
•reduce the standard of living for all but the elite few who are well positioned to benefit from laws that unfairly advantage them at the expense of most businesses and all consumers.
•endanger liberty by putting vast new powers over private, social, and market life in the hands of national and international governments.
•condemn the world’s poor to generations of continued misery characterized by rampant disease and premature death.

In return for all these sacrifices, what will the world get? At most a negligible, undetectable reduction in global average temperature a hundred years from now.[emphasis added -hro]

Given the choice between signing on to Hulme's alliances and beliefs or Spencer's (and McKitrick's), I know which one I'd pick.

[matthu]

BBD - You are right - for some reason I missed the references lower down. (probably a typo in the search box!)

Nevertheless, I am glad if we can all now agree that the Cornwall Alliance is far removed from fundamentalism. Some people (myself included) would not view the difference as being only minor or purely semantic.

[BBD]

matthu

Nevertheless, I am glad if we can all now agree that the Cornwall Alliance is far removed from fundamentalism.

Far removed from fundamentalism? That's not what dear old Wikipedia says at all. Did I mention substantive somewhere along the line?

[Maurizio Morabito]

Bbd- your need to repeat the word "substantive" ad nauseam is the strongest evidence that your arguments aren't substantive at all.

[BBD]

Hilary

In my books, a coalition of individual Jews, Catholics and Protestants is the antithesis of all pre-requisites for a "fundamentalist" organization. The theologies of each would have them at war with each other rather than subscribing to a set of religious tenets!

I note your emphasis. And agree with your sentiment. However, I am having trouble finding a Rabbi in the following list of Southern Baptists and Presbyterians. Now we can go round the mulberry bush all night about this, but the estimation of many, the roll-call below is largely composed of Christian fundamentalists.

You must have a rather unique definition of "fundamentalist"

I'm sorry about another 'wall of text', but sometimes it just has to be done:

Here are some of the prominent endorsers among the approximately 500 people who have endorsed the Declaration so far:

ministry leaders like Tony Perkins (President, Family Research Council); Tom Minnery (Executive Vice President, Focus on the Family); Wendy Wright (President, Concerned Women for America); David Barton (President, Wallbuilders); Gary DeMar (President, American Vision); Rev. Lou Sheldon (President, Traditional Values Coalition); Dr. Ted Baehr (President, Christian Film and Television Commission & Movieguide); Hector Padron (Executive Vice President, Coral Ridge Ministries); Mark Tooley (President, Institute on Religion and Democracy); Rev. John Sorensen (President, Evangelism Explosion International); Dr. Ray Bohlin (President, Probe Ministries); Marita Littauer (President, CLASServices, Inc.); Rev. Robert L. Allen (President and Director, Midwest Apologetics Research Service); Dr. John L. Yeats (Director of Communications, Louisiana Baptist Convention); Shannon Royce (Executive Director, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation); Dr. E. Calvin Beisner (Founder, National Spokesman, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation); John Sanford (President, Feed My Sheep Foundation); Mark Williamson (Founder and President, Federal Intercessors); Mark Nordtvedt (Executive Director, Sound the Alarm); Leanne Payne (President, Pastoral Care Ministries); Rev. R. C. Sproul Jr. (President, Highlands Ministries); John Stonestreet (Executive Director, Summit Ministries); Julie Walsh (Coordinator, Freedom Action); Jerry Johnson (President, NiceneCouncil.com); Donna Hearne (Executive Director, Constitutional Coalition); Rev. Charles A. Dunahoo (Coordinator, Christian Education & Publication, Presbyterian Church in America); Gary J. Palmer (President, Alabama Policy Institute); John Aman (Director of Communications, Coral Ridge Ministries); Rev. Robert Andrews (Director, Gospel Parenting)

theologians, philosophers, ethicists, and pastors like Dr. Richard Land and Dr. Barrett Duke (President and Vice President, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention); Dr. William Dembski (Research Professor in Philosophy, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary); Dr. Daniel Heimbach (Professor of Christian Ethics, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary); Dr. Wayne Grudem (Research Professor of Theology, Phoenix Seminary); Dr. C. Ben Mitchell (Graves Chair of Moral Philosophy, Union University); Dr. Nelson Kloosterman (Professor of Ethics and New Testament, Mid-America Reformed Seminary); Dr. John Warwick Montgomery (Distinguished Research Professor of Philosophy and Christian Thought, Patrick Henry College, and Director, International Academy of Apologetics, Evangelism and Human Rights); Dr. Bruce Ware (Professor of Christian Theology, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary); Dr. Peter Jones (Director, Christian Witness to a Pagan Planet, and Adjunct Professor and Scholar in Residence, Westminster Theological Seminary, Escondido, CA); Dr. Douglas Groothuis (Professor of Philosophy, Denver Seminary); Dr. Mark Coppenger (Professor of Apologetics, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary); Rev. Jay Dennis (Senior Pastor, First Baptist Church-at-the-Mall, Lakeland, FL); Rev. Dr. David Hall (Senior Pastor, Midway Presbyterian Church, Powder Springs, GA); Rev. Dr. George Grant (Pastor, Christ Community Church, Franklin, TN); Dr. David Wells (Distinguished Research Professor of Theology, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton, MA); Rev. Gary Nelson (Senior Pastor, Vineyard Church of Scottsdale); Rev. Cecil Siriwardene (Senior Pastor, Sovereign Grace Bible Church); Rev. Chad Sadorf (Pastor, First Presbyterian Church, Villa Rica, GA); Rev. Paul Sagan (Pastor, Covenant Presbyterian Church, Fayetteville, AR); Rev. Kenneth Pierce (Senior Minister, Trinity Presbyterian Church, Jackson, MS); Rev. John G. Kearns (Pastor, Christ Harbor United Methodist Church, Northport, AL); Dr. Thomas Ice (Associate Professor of Theology, Liberty University); Rev. James R. Carlson (Pastor, Plymell Union Church, Garden City, KS); Dr. H. Wayne House (Distinguished Research Professor, Faith Evangelical Seminary); Rev. Christian A. Bayles (Pastor, Resurrection Free Methodist Church, Oklahoma City, OK); Rev. Steve Fargo (Teacher/Minister, Church of the Nazarene, Denton, TX); Rev. Ken Crabb (Pastor, Arden Presbyterian Church, Arden, NC); Rev. Stuart V. Burt (Assistant Pastor, Grace Lutheran Church, Grand Island, NE); Dr. Robert L. Reymond (Emeritus Professor of Systematic Theology, Knox Theological Seminary and Covenant Theological Seminary); Rev. Dennis M. Cahill (Pastor, Christ Community Church, Piscataway, NJ); Rev. Charlie Vaughn (Pastor, Austin Baptist Church, Austin, NV); Rev. Hector P. Gonzalez Jr. (Pastor, New Creation Church, Hialeah, FL); Rev. David A. Queener (Pastor, Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, Knoxville, TN); Rev. Gary Rogers (Pastor, N. Pownal Congregational Church, N. Pownal, VT); Rev. Ron Heffield (Pastor, New Life Community Church, C&MA, Orlando, FL); Rev. Gus Flores (Senior Pastor, Calvary Chapel, Coral Springs, FL); Rev. Richard Todd (Pastor, Las Americas Baptist Church, Hollywood, FL); Rev. William V. Welzien (Pastor, Keys Presbyterian Church, OPC, Key West, FL); Dr. Michael Bauman (Professor of Theology and Culture, Hillsdale College); Dr. Gregg R. Allison (Professor of Christian Theology, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary); Dr. Jay Wegter (Professor of Theology, The Master’s College); Rev. Wayne Rogers (Pastor, Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church, Stockbridge, GA); Rev. Brian Rihner (Pastor, Grace Evangelical Free Church, Denison, IA); Rev. Lawrence C. Roff (Senior Pastor, First Presbyterian Church, Schenectady, NY); Rev. Dr. Joseph Ton (President, Romanian Missionary Society); Dr. Thomas Sieger Derr (Emeritus Professor of Religion and Ethics, Smith College); Rev. Jim Tonkowich (independent scholar, former President, Institute on Religion and Democracy)

[BBD]

Maurizio

Bbd- your need to repeat the word "substantive" ad nauseam is the strongest evidence that your arguments aren't substantive at all.

Some actual content would be refreshing.

Lest we forget:

Just because you do not like this otherwise perfectly reasonable explanation does not invalidate it. You will have to do better than saying: BBD you're wrong.

And to be blunt, that's all you and Shub have got.

[Green Sand]

I just love the humility and understanding; it really does shine through truly promoting discourse

[BBD]

Green Sand

just love the humility and understanding; it really does shine through truly promoting discourse

Sorry, I know I'm a bit of a twat. But discourse requires substantive input from both (or all) interlocutors. That's not happening here. But I shall keep trying ;-)

Just to get the ball rolling, let's work together. Can you find me a Rabbi in amongst all those Southern Baptists? I admit I gave up half-way through.

[matthu]

Sorry, I know I'm a bit of a twat.

Well said, BBD.

[Bad Andrew]

"But discourse requires substantive input from both (or all) interlocutors. That's not happening here. But I shall keep trying"

BBD,

Try harder.

Andrew