Global warming?
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7574603.stm

Global warming?
 

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:18:48 -0700, Calif Bill wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7574603.stm

Did you read that link? "This year appears set to be the coolest
globally this century." This century started in *2000*.

And, "Even so, 2008 is set to be about the 10th warmest year since
1850".

The article is about the La Nina/El Nino temperature swing.

Global warming?
 

wrote in message
t...
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:18:48 -0700, Calif Bill wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7574603.stm

Did you read that link? "This year appears set to be the coolest
globally this century." This century started in *2000*.

And, "Even so, 2008 is set to be about the 10th warmest year since
1850".

The article is about the La Nina/El Nino temperature swing.

Yup, and the century is 8 years old. The GW worshipers keep telling us it
is man caused. So why a cooling year?

Global warming?
 

Global warming?
 

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:49:29 -0400, TJ wrote:


That's a popular misconception. This century actually began on January
1, 2001. The first century started with year 1 and ended on the *end* of
year 100. 100 years. That is the reason we call this the 21st century,
because it ends with 2100. Now, if you can show me where the first
century started with year 0, I'll concede your point.

TJ

You mean the hangover I had on January 1, 2000, was all for naught?

Global warming?
 

Global warming?
 

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:49:29 -0400, TJ wrote:

Now, if you can show me where the first
century started with year 0, I'll concede your point.

Why wouldn't it. I believe the calender is based on the work of one
man. What did he necessarily know?

Casady

Global warming?
 

Global warming?
 

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:15:30 -0400, TJ wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:49:29 -0400, TJ wrote:

Now, if you can show me where the first
century started with year 0, I'll concede your point.

There wasn't ever a year 1 either, what's your point.?
The calendar we use was invented in the 15th century and missed the
birth of Jesus by about 4 1/2 years by the current best guess

It doesn't matter when it was invented, or whether they got the dates of
specific events correct. What does matter is how they started counting.
If they started with 1, then 2000 was the end of the 20th century. If
they started with 0, then 1999 was the end of the 20th century. I think
they started with 1, since only mathematicians, computer programmers,
and engineers start counting with 0.

However, if you can show me where they started counting with the January
1 that *followed* the date when they *believed* Christ was born, then I
will also concede the point.

The truth is, nobody really knows. I don't think Pope Gregory ever
thought he would be questioned on the matter. After all, you just don't
question the Pope's edicts.

TJ

Go down to the store and buy a dozen eggs - do you get 11 eggs - 0 -
11?? a loaf of bread - you get "0" loaves maybe?

The whole arguement is not even rediculas, it is simply stupid.

Global warming?
 

John wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:15:30 -0400, TJ wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:49:29 -0400, TJ wrote:

Now, if you can show me where the first
century started with year 0, I'll concede your point.
There wasn't ever a year 1 either, what's your point.?
The calendar we use was invented in the 15th century and missed the
birth of Jesus by about 4 1/2 years by the current best guess
It doesn't matter when it was invented, or whether they got the dates of
specific events correct. What does matter is how they started counting.
If they started with 1, then 2000 was the end of the 20th century. If
they started with 0, then 1999 was the end of the 20th century. I think
they started with 1, since only mathematicians, computer programmers,
and engineers start counting with 0.

However, if you can show me where they started counting with the January
1 that *followed* the date when they *believed* Christ was born, then I
will also concede the point.

The truth is, nobody really knows. I don't think Pope Gregory ever
thought he would be questioned on the matter. After all, you just don't
question the Pope's edicts.

TJ

Go down to the store and buy a dozen eggs - do you get 11 eggs - 0 -
11?? a loaf of bread - you get "0" loaves maybe?

The whole arguement is not even rediculas, it is simply stupid.



Besides, if you wanted to know when "Christ" allegedly was born, you'd
have to consult a Hebrew calendar. :)

Global warming?
 

John wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:15:30 -0400, TJ wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:49:29 -0400, TJ wrote:

Now, if you can show me where the first
century started with year 0, I'll concede your point.
There wasn't ever a year 1 either, what's your point.?
The calendar we use was invented in the 15th century and missed the
birth of Jesus by about 4 1/2 years by the current best guess
It doesn't matter when it was invented, or whether they got the dates of
specific events correct. What does matter is how they started counting.
If they started with 1, then 2000 was the end of the 20th century. If
they started with 0, then 1999 was the end of the 20th century. I think
they started with 1, since only mathematicians, computer programmers,
and engineers start counting with 0.

However, if you can show me where they started counting with the January
1 that *followed* the date when they *believed* Christ was born, then I
will also concede the point.

The truth is, nobody really knows. I don't think Pope Gregory ever
thought he would be questioned on the matter. After all, you just don't
question the Pope's edicts.

TJ

Go down to the store and buy a dozen eggs - do you get 11 eggs - 0 -
11?? a loaf of bread - you get "0" loaves maybe?

My point exactly. So, if you are going to count 2000 years, why stop and
celebrate after number 1999? The first 2000 years is complete at the
*end* of year 2000, not the beginning of 2000. The next 100 years start
with the beginning of 2001.

The whole arguement is not even rediculas, it is simply stupid.


Yep. I read somewhere that most people in 1900 realized that that was
the last year of the 19th century. I guess that means that 20th century
man was stupider than 19th century man.

TJ

Global warming?
 

hk wrote:


Besides, if you wanted to know when "Christ" allegedly was born, you'd
have to consult a Hebrew calendar. :)

Ah, the word "Christ" in quotes, in that context. Explains a lot. In
fact Harry, you reveal much more by what you *don't* say than what you do.

I'm curious, Harry. Are all liberals as filled with hatred for those who
disagree with them as you are? If so, I don't think we should elect one.
Sounds like a diplomatic disaster waiting to happen if you ask me.

TJ

Global warming?
 

TJ wrote:
hk wrote:


Besides, if you wanted to know when "Christ" allegedly was born, you'd
have to consult a Hebrew calendar. :)

Ah, the word "Christ" in quotes, in that context. Explains a lot. In
fact Harry, you reveal much more by what you *don't* say than what you do.

I'm curious, Harry. Are all liberals as filled with hatred for those who
disagree with them as you are? If so, I don't think we should elect one.
Sounds like a diplomatic disaster waiting to happen if you ask me.

TJ


I use "Christ" in quotes because I don't believe he was the "annointed"
or "the messiah. For one thing, he did not fill all the stated criteria
of Jewish tradition. Are you aware that Jewish tradition requires that
the messiah be a human being, and not divine? Didn't think so. But I
have many other "theological" reasons.

My disbelief in Jesus as "Christ" is not based upon "hate," as you
simple-minded righties seem to so easily believe. My readings of
religious literature tell me that Jesus was a pretty cool dude. I am
most impressed by his reported compassion for the poorest among us, an
attribute *not* shared by those here who most loudly proclaim their
Christianity.

I have a relative, retired, who really follows the teachings of Jesus.
He and his wife spend almost all their time and most of their spare
money helping the hungry, the homeless, the medically needy and the
lonely, and they're not preachy. I would call him a "Christian." Too
many of the self-described "Christians" here are "I've got mine, so
screw you" Republicans.

Christianity and today's right-wing Republicanism are mutually
inconsistent.

Global warming?
 

On Aug 26, 8:54*pm, TJ wrote:
John wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:15:30 -0400, TJ wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:49:29 -0400, TJ wrote:

Now, if you can show me where the first
century started with year 0, I'll concede your point.
There wasn't ever a year 1 either, what's your point.?
The calendar we use was invented in the 15th century and missed the
birth of Jesus by about 4 1/2 years by the current best guess
It doesn't matter when it was invented, or whether they got the dates of
specific events correct. What does matter is how they started counting..
If they started with 1, then 2000 was the end of the 20th century. If
they started with 0, then 1999 was the end of the 20th century. I think
they started with 1, since only mathematicians, computer programmers,
and engineers start counting with 0.

However, if you can show me where they started counting with the January
1 that *followed* the date when they *believed* Christ was born, then I
will also concede the point.

The truth is, nobody really knows. I don't think Pope Gregory ever
thought he would be questioned on the matter. After all, you just don't
question the Pope's edicts.

TJ

Go down to the store and buy a dozen eggs - do you get 11 eggs - 0 -
11?? a loaf of bread - you get "0" loaves maybe?

My point exactly. So, if you are going to count 2000 years, why stop and
celebrate after number 1999? The first 2000 years is complete at the
*end* of year 2000, not the beginning of 2000. The next 100 years start
with the beginning of 2001.

The whole arguement is not even rediculas, it is simply stupid.

Yep. I read somewhere that most people in 1900 realized that that was
the last year of the 19th century. I guess that means that 20th century
man was stupider than 19th century man.

TJ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I used the timer on the stove to time my steak tonight.. When the
timer said zero, there was one second left until the tone went
off...??? Oh my.. global taxing?

Global warming?
 

hk wrote:
TJ wrote:
hk wrote:


Besides, if you wanted to know when "Christ" allegedly was born,
you'd have to consult a Hebrew calendar. :)

Ah, the word "Christ" in quotes, in that context. Explains a lot. In
fact Harry, you reveal much more by what you *don't* say than what you
do.

I'm curious, Harry. Are all liberals as filled with hatred for those
who disagree with them as you are? If so, I don't think we should
elect one. Sounds like a diplomatic disaster waiting to happen if you
ask me.

TJ


I use "Christ" in quotes because I don't believe he was the "annointed"
or "the messiah. For one thing, he did not fill all the stated criteria
of Jewish tradition. Are you aware that Jewish tradition requires that
the messiah be a human being, and not divine? Didn't think so. But I
have many other "theological" reasons.

My disbelief in Jesus as "Christ" is not based upon "hate," as you
simple-minded righties seem to so easily believe. My readings of
religious literature tell me that Jesus was a pretty cool dude. I am
most impressed by his reported compassion for the poorest among us, an
attribute *not* shared by those here who most loudly proclaim their
Christianity.

I have a relative, retired, who really follows the teachings of Jesus.
He and his wife spend almost all their time and most of their spare
money helping the hungry, the homeless, the medically needy and the
lonely, and they're not preachy. I would call him a "Christian." Too
many of the self-described "Christians" here are "I've got mine, so
screw you" Republicans.

Christianity and today's right-wing Republicanism are mutually
inconsistent.



I don't care whether you consider Jesus the Messiah as prophesied by
Judaism or not. If you must know, I have some doubts about that myself,
despite being raised as a Christian. The idea that some dude was
crucified just so I could get a get-out-of-jail-free card for heaven no
matter what I might have done with my life always seemed at odds with
the concept of being accountable for my own actions. I've always
preferred the accountability concept. I also don't care whether you are
Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, or any of a thousand or so other
religions - or if you have no religion at all. What difference is it
supposed to make?

Being the sort of person you are, of course you twisted my question into
something else, something that you preferred to answer, because the
question you wanted to answer made "Christians" look bad. My "hatred"
question wasn't simply about religion, or any other particular specific
subject. It doesn't matter what the subject is, you express hatred for
all those who disagree with you. Personally, I find it practically
impossible to hate anybody. Even you. But you do it so easily that I
must again ask if all liberals are that way. I'm just trying to
understand it, that's all.

TJ

Global warming?
 

"TJ" wrote in message
...

I don't care whether you consider Jesus the Messiah as prophesied by
Judaism or not. If you must know, I have some doubts about that myself
but, all I really want to know is What Kind of Boat did he have ?

Global warming?
 

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:46:59 -0400, TJ wrote:

hk wrote:
TJ wrote:
hk wrote:


Besides, if you wanted to know when "Christ" allegedly was born,
you'd have to consult a Hebrew calendar. :)

Ah, the word "Christ" in quotes, in that context. Explains a lot. In
fact Harry, you reveal much more by what you *don't* say than what you
do.

I'm curious, Harry. Are all liberals as filled with hatred for those
who disagree with them as you are? If so, I don't think we should
elect one. Sounds like a diplomatic disaster waiting to happen if you
ask me.

TJ


I use "Christ" in quotes because I don't believe he was the "annointed"
or "the messiah. For one thing, he did not fill all the stated criteria
of Jewish tradition. Are you aware that Jewish tradition requires that
the messiah be a human being, and not divine? Didn't think so. But I
have many other "theological" reasons.

My disbelief in Jesus as "Christ" is not based upon "hate," as you
simple-minded righties seem to so easily believe. My readings of
religious literature tell me that Jesus was a pretty cool dude. I am
most impressed by his reported compassion for the poorest among us, an
attribute *not* shared by those here who most loudly proclaim their
Christianity.

I have a relative, retired, who really follows the teachings of Jesus.
He and his wife spend almost all their time and most of their spare
money helping the hungry, the homeless, the medically needy and the
lonely, and they're not preachy. I would call him a "Christian." Too
many of the self-described "Christians" here are "I've got mine, so
screw you" Republicans.

Christianity and today's right-wing Republicanism are mutually
inconsistent.



I don't care whether you consider Jesus the Messiah as prophesied by
Judaism or not. If you must know, I have some doubts about that myself,
despite being raised as a Christian. The idea that some dude was
crucified just so I could get a get-out-of-jail-free card for heaven no
matter what I might have done with my life always seemed at odds with
the concept of being accountable for my own actions. I've always
preferred the accountability concept. I also don't care whether you are
Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, or any of a thousand or so other
religions - or if you have no religion at all. What difference is it
supposed to make?

Being the sort of person you are, of course you twisted my question into
something else, something that you preferred to answer, because the
question you wanted to answer made "Christians" look bad. My "hatred"
question wasn't simply about religion, or any other particular specific
subject. It doesn't matter what the subject is, you express hatred for
all those who disagree with you. Personally, I find it practically
impossible to hate anybody. Even you. But you do it so easily that I
must again ask if all liberals are that way. I'm just trying to
understand it, that's all.

TJ

Looks like you've become one of us. Now's he's calling you some good names.

"When will they ever learn, When will they ever learn?"
--
John *H*

Global warming?
 

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 05:22:02 GMT, "Rudy" wrote:


"TJ" wrote in message
...

I don't care whether you consider Jesus the Messiah as prophesied by
Judaism or not. If you must know, I have some doubts about that myself
but, all I really want to know is What Kind of Boat did he have ?


He didn't need no steeenking boat!
--
John *H*

Global warming?
 

TJ wrote:
hk wrote:
TJ wrote:
hk wrote:


Besides, if you wanted to know when "Christ" allegedly was born,
you'd have to consult a Hebrew calendar. :)

Ah, the word "Christ" in quotes, in that context. Explains a lot. In
fact Harry, you reveal much more by what you *don't* say than what
you do.

I'm curious, Harry. Are all liberals as filled with hatred for those
who disagree with them as you are? If so, I don't think we should
elect one. Sounds like a diplomatic disaster waiting to happen if
you ask me.

TJ


I use "Christ" in quotes because I don't believe he was the
"annointed" or "the messiah. For one thing, he did not fill all the
stated criteria of Jewish tradition. Are you aware that Jewish
tradition requires that the messiah be a human being, and not divine?
Didn't think so. But I have many other "theological" reasons.

My disbelief in Jesus as "Christ" is not based upon "hate," as you
simple-minded righties seem to so easily believe. My readings of
religious literature tell me that Jesus was a pretty cool dude. I am
most impressed by his reported compassion for the poorest among us, an
attribute *not* shared by those here who most loudly proclaim their
Christianity.

I have a relative, retired, who really follows the teachings of Jesus.
He and his wife spend almost all their time and most of their spare
money helping the hungry, the homeless, the medically needy and the
lonely, and they're not preachy. I would call him a "Christian." Too
many of the self-described "Christians" here are "I've got mine, so
screw you" Republicans.

Christianity and today's right-wing Republicanism are mutually
inconsistent.



I don't care whether you consider Jesus the Messiah as prophesied by
Judaism or not. If you must know, I have some doubts about that myself,
despite being raised as a Christian. The idea that some dude was
crucified just so I could get a get-out-of-jail-free card for heaven no
matter what I might have done with my life always seemed at odds with
the concept of being accountable for my own actions. I've always
preferred the accountability concept. I also don't care whether you are
Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, or any of a thousand or so other
religions - or if you have no religion at all. What difference is it
supposed to make?

Being the sort of person you are, of course you twisted my question into
something else, something that you preferred to answer, because the
question you wanted to answer made "Christians" look bad. My "hatred"
question wasn't simply about religion, or any other particular specific
subject. It doesn't matter what the subject is, you express hatred for
all those who disagree with you. Personally, I find it practically
impossible to hate anybody. Even you. But you do it so easily that I
must again ask if all liberals are that way. I'm just trying to
understand it, that's all.

TJ

Let us join together and offer this morning tribute to Harry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYEnpo2rma0

Global warming?
 

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:26:14 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:18:48 -0700, Calif Bill wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7574603.stm

Did you read that link? "This year appears set to be the coolest
globally this century." This century started in *2000*.

And, "Even so, 2008 is set to be about the 10th warmest year since
1850".

The article is about the La Nina/El Nino temperature swing.

The Republican Party Platform for 2008 includes addressing Global
Warming.

Global warming?
 

TJ wrote:
hk wrote:
TJ wrote:
hk wrote:


Besides, if you wanted to know when "Christ" allegedly was born,
you'd have to consult a Hebrew calendar. :)

Ah, the word "Christ" in quotes, in that context. Explains a lot. In
fact Harry, you reveal much more by what you *don't* say than what
you do.

I'm curious, Harry. Are all liberals as filled with hatred for those
who disagree with them as you are? If so, I don't think we should
elect one. Sounds like a diplomatic disaster waiting to happen if
you ask me.

TJ


I use "Christ" in quotes because I don't believe he was the
"annointed" or "the messiah. For one thing, he did not fill all the
stated criteria of Jewish tradition. Are you aware that Jewish
tradition requires that the messiah be a human being, and not divine?
Didn't think so. But I have many other "theological" reasons.

My disbelief in Jesus as "Christ" is not based upon "hate," as you
simple-minded righties seem to so easily believe. My readings of
religious literature tell me that Jesus was a pretty cool dude. I am
most impressed by his reported compassion for the poorest among us, an
attribute *not* shared by those here who most loudly proclaim their
Christianity.

I have a relative, retired, who really follows the teachings of Jesus.
He and his wife spend almost all their time and most of their spare
money helping the hungry, the homeless, the medically needy and the
lonely, and they're not preachy. I would call him a "Christian." Too
many of the self-described "Christians" here are "I've got mine, so
screw you" Republicans.

Christianity and today's right-wing Republicanism are mutually
inconsistent.



I don't care whether you consider Jesus the Messiah as prophesied by
Judaism or not. If you must know, I have some doubts about that myself,
despite being raised as a Christian. The idea that some dude was
crucified just so I could get a get-out-of-jail-free card for heaven no
matter what I might have done with my life always seemed at odds with
the concept of being accountable for my own actions. I've always
preferred the accountability concept. I also don't care whether you are
Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, or any of a thousand or so other
religions - or if you have no religion at all. What difference is it
supposed to make?

Being the sort of person you are, of course you twisted my question into
something else, something that you preferred to answer, because the
question you wanted to answer made "Christians" look bad. My "hatred"
question wasn't simply about religion, or any other particular specific
subject. It doesn't matter what the subject is, you express hatred for
all those who disagree with you. Personally, I find it practically
impossible to hate anybody. Even you. But you do it so easily that I
must again ask if all liberals are that way. I'm just trying to
understand it, that's all.

TJ


You're reaching. I have no use for certain posters here, and, as I have
stated, I don't much care whether they live or die. That doesn't mean I
"hate" them. It only means I don't give a damn about them.

You righties are always overusing the word "hate." "Hate" does not have
the same meaning as "dislike," "no use for," et cetera.

Oh...I don't want to make "Christians" look bad. "Christians" look bad
or look good depending upon their behavior. Many of the self-professed
"Christians" here give Christianity a bad name.

Finally, *you* asked why I put the word "Christ" in quotation marks.
That was a theological question, whether you think so or not. The word
"Christ" has a specific meaning, and in the case of Jesus, I don't think
it applies. But, as I stated, I think Jesus, if such a person existed,
was a cool dude, and certainly more of an advocate of my positions
toward my fellow man than many of the self-described "Christians" who
post here.

So, tell me...are you just another mindless rightie, like so many of
those who post here?


--
No way, no how, no McCain!

Global warming?
 

wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:26:14 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:18:48 -0700, Calif Bill wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7574603.stm
Did you read that link? "This year appears set to be the coolest
globally this century." This century started in *2000*.

And, "Even so, 2008 is set to be about the 10th warmest year since
1850".

The article is about the La Nina/El Nino temperature swing.

The Republican Party Platform for 2008 includes addressing Global
Warming.



What are they going to do, send it a post card?

--
No way, no how, no McCain!

Global warming?
 

hk wrote:


TJ wrote:

Ah, the word "Christ" in quotes, in that context. Explains a lot. In
fact Harry, you reveal much more by what you *don't* say than what
you do.



Finally, *you* asked why I put the word "Christ" in quotation marks.
That was a theological question, whether you think so or not. The word
"Christ" has a specific meaning, and in the case of Jesus, I don't think
it applies. But, as I stated, I think Jesus, if such a person existed,
was a cool dude, and certainly more of an advocate of my positions
toward my fellow man than many of the self-described "Christians" who
post here.

Check it out, Harry. There was no question there about what you put into
quotes. Just a comment. I will not debate theology with you any further.
It's not my area of expertise, and it's off-topic.

So, tell me...are you just another mindless rightie, like so many of
those who post here?


Nope. I already said once that I'm a moderate. I have little use for
extremists of any stripe. I have found most of them to be correct on one
or two things, but dead wrong on most others. I have also found some
that were dead wrong on *everything,* but I have never found one that
was correct about *everything.*

Take this for example: Remember the Obama/McCain/Hilton exchange on
energy policy? Paris Hilton's contribution was meant to be a parody of
the other two, but she actually made more sense than either extreme. If
one of the candidates would take that sensible, moderate approach to the
country's energy needs, he'd go a long way toward getting my vote. But
instead, I hear little that makes sense from either side. That really
scares me about our future, no matter who wins this race.

Notice how I pulled the thread back toward global warming?

TJ