the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Deniers — Raise Your Hands

Posted by Jeff Id on July 16, 2009

I get mad at people in the media regularly these days but I’ve held my self back for about a week. — Good job Jeff. Of course all good things must come to an end, I found this dude on the web writing for money apparently. Someone needs to hold on to their checks, but I don’t care if their papers go bankrupt so they can spend as they wish.

John Moore: One world government and global warming/climate change/whatever

I knew I was poking the bear when I sent my most recent column (Climate skeptic arguments don’t hold ice, July 14) to my editor here at the National Post. The [Financial] Post publishes almost weekly columns about the fiction of climate change so understandably some readers are well persuaded that the whole global warming house of cards is already tumbling down. The torrent of e-mails and some 48 on-line comments later and I have a new appreciation of just how fiercely some hold on to their denier status.

I don’t think I can reply to John in a comment so I’ll do it here, the guy is an over the top warmer who has no concept that there may be a little gray area in science, or perhaps that even ‘super-weatherman certainty’ is overstated. Here’s what John’s selling.

A major talking point amongst the skeptics is a certain indignation over how “global warming” became “climate change”. Some people think this was a marketing move by the international forces of socialism to protect our Coke-like franchise. Actually, the terms are irrelevant. The general theory has been roughly the same for 150 years.

Reeallly. Global warming theory has been around for 150 years. I don’t recall reading that CO2 increases lead to moisture feedback in the system in any 150 year old papers? I don’t think we had the sensors or quantum math to determine the absorption spectra of CO2 either? Considering we’d barely started recording thermometers back then and we shipped them by horseback, perhaps he means someone conceived of the planet warming 150 years ago.

Here’s a beauty:

No small number of people were very angry about the term “denier” insisting that it lumps skeptics in with holocaust deniers. No apologies here. “Denier” is a term that accurately describes people who refuse to acknowledge established facts.

Well, don’t call me a denier. I’m not …yet. The idea that the science is somehow settled is partially the basis for the URL of this site. Scientific FACT he says. I wonder what in his credentials allow him to determine FACT, not that I put much too much weight in credentials anyway. Credentials demonstrate a foundation of knowledge which can be obtained through other methods and in the end science doesn’t really care what degree you have. “Fact” though, I don’t think that accurately describes a science which doesn’t even know the actual temperature and is still having fits about whether the all important moisture feedback may even be negative!

There’s a particular outrage amongst many skeptics about the notion that their arguments and many of the people who champion the cause are so routinely dismissed by other scientists and the media. On this and other issues I am often remonstrated for failing to give due credit to “the other side of the story”. It’s a phenomenon Thomas Homer Dixon has identified as “the unbalance of balance”; the idea that minority opinions deserve not just consideration but equivalence.

I’m not sure that the opinion of skeptics is the minority anymore. It certainly is a DEEP minority in the realms of government funded leftist scientists who’s salaries depend on global warming, but to the rest of us I don’t think Mr. Moore or the elite media is qualified to dismiss us. So apparently not only are those who point out inconsistencies being automatically assigned minority status by John, but we can’t have a voice until we pass the glass wall created by the unwilling media.

This dude is so far gone he even compares skepticism of global warming to a religious argument against evolution.

Creationists frequently invoke the same argument insisting that their religious objections to the theory of evolution are of equal merit to the theory itself.


As I wrote to the few polite people who wrote to me (okay aside from comedian Rick Mercer there were two) Occam’s Razor requires you to decide whether the established theory – while still not complete – is accurate or if the world’s scientists, all of the national scientific associations, almost every government and the media are involved in a massive conspiracy.

And to what end? Oh right, one world government and global serfdom. How could I be so blind?

It’s an extraordinary statement about society in general, that this type of individual is paid to speak his opinion.

Here’s a quote from his article linked in the first paragraph.

All right, let’s talk temperature. A popular skeptic assertion is that warming has stopped; they insist that 1998 was the warmest year, which is true because 1998 was an especially aberrant year. But take a look at the graph below: Does that look like a cooling trend to you?

Here’s his NOAA (strongest trend you can find) temperature graph.

Don’t forget that most of the signal above is actually created by corrections to the data (black line below). Whether they’re right or wrong, the signal is the correction added right onto the temperature graph.


Courtesy NOAA and WUWT

Well John, let’s have a look at what even the furthest left most wishful for warming scientists on the web are saying.

And perhaps a graph of satellite data which doesn’t experience the visually unreasonable corrections of NOAA data.


Thanks to Diatribe Guy

Now this graph is UAH which is satellite data that represents the lowest trend I’m aware of and isn’t necessarily correct or incorrect either. The UAH will warm again have no fear, but today there is cooling shown, it does exist and I wonder…

………Does this make Dr. John Moore the anti-science denier?

36 Responses to “Deniers — Raise Your Hands”

  1. James said

    If only you had to put up with him on the radio on the drive home from work every day! He somehow managed to get this column gig at the post after he had been on the Toronto airwaves for a few years. Every time he brings up the climate change topic I just want to toss my stereo out of the car! It is strange because he does usually seem to have some common sense in him.

    About a year ago, he did “the reading” and came to his warmer conclusion and has never considered that he could be wrong. The nearest I think I’ve ever heard him go to re-considering was when he said that even if the change is wrong or exaggerated, it can’t hurt to do all the changes required! It can’t hurt! Get off all that lousy terrorist oil and such.

    I think he can’t bear the thought of having to say he was wrong on air so won’t go there. Once a warmer, always a warmer.
    The irony of his religious fervour does not escape me at all.

  2. MikeN said

    Didn’t Arrhenius publish CO2 causes warming with water vapor feedback 100 years ago?

  3. Jeff Id said

    #2, It looks like CO2 warming is 109 years old.

    Arrhenius’ high absorption values for CO2, however, met criticism by Knut Ångström in 1900, who published the first modern infrared spectrum of CO2 with two absorption bands.

  4. Jeff Id said

    Maybe it’s here
    Svante Arrhenius, 1896b, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science (fifth series), April 1896. vol 41, pages 237–275.

  5. EJ said

    Great post Jeff!

    Too bad you couldn’t walk into his office and force some real science into his knowledge base.

    Nobel Laureate in Chemistry 1903.
    From Wiki

    “Arrhenius developed a theory to explain the ice ages, and first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.[3] He was influenced by the work of others, including Joseph Fourier. Arrhenius used the infrared observations of the moon by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh to calculate the absorption of CO2 and water vapour. Using ‘Stefan’s law’ (better known as the Stefan Boltzmann law), he formulated his greenhouse law. In its original form, Arrhenius’ greenhouse law reads as follows:

    if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.

    This simplified expression is still used today:

    ΔF = α ln(C/C02)
    Arrhenius’ high absorption values for CO2, however, met criticism by Knut Ångström in 1900, who published the first modern infrared spectrum of CO2 with two absorption bands. Arrhenius replied strongly in 1901 (Annalen der Physik), dismissing the critique altogether. He touched the subject briefly in a technical book titled Lehrbuch der kosmischen Physik (1903). He later wrote Världarnas utveckling (1906), German translation: Das Werden der Welten (1907), English translation: Worlds in the Making (1908) directed at a general audience, where he suggested that the human emission of CO2 would be strong enough to prevent the world from entering a new ice age, and that a warmer earth would be needed to feed the rapidly increasing population. He was the first person to predict that emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other combustion processes would cause global warming. Arrhenius clearly believed that a warmer world would be a positive change. From that, the hot-house theory gained more attention”

    I’m greatly interested to see how the modellers are going to be able to fiidle, sorry adjust, their mighty works to incorporate this “temporary pause” in the ever upwards heating as our planet plunges to its doom!

  7. Ryan O said

    Ah. You can tell the warmers are worried about the growing skepticism given how often they resort to ad homs and make holocaust analogies . . .

  8. Carrick said

    A point I like to drum into the ground is that according to the models, significant anthropogenic warming only occurred after circa 1970-80. Before that the effect of anthrogenic CO2 was roughly balanced by anthropogenic sulfate emissions.

    See for example this.

    As to the general theory being around for 150 years… that is a complete joke. This is a pretty good place for a historical treatment. According to this discussion, the general conclusion was that Arrhenius was proven wrong. And indeed modern theory does not agree with Arrhenius’s numbers either… he was quoting something like 4C per CO2 doubling (classic greenhouse gas effect), but isn’t the modern calculation closer to 1.5C?

    Quite obviously, it wasn’t until the mid-20th century that any “general theory” was developed, and I think until the late 1970s or early 1980s when the water vapor feedback mechanism was first proposed.

    So if I disagree with his assertions about the “facts”, does this make me a denialist or him just an idiot?

  9. Robert Austin said

    Moore exemplifies the old adage “a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.” While his “weisenheimer” audience may be largely ignorant of the intricacies of the climate controversy, he ably demonstrates that his knowledge is only a cut above those he derides. I have no problem with AGW proponents stating their case. On the contrary, I would say bring it on so that we can have a rational dialogue and possibly sort it out before we are stampeded into committing economic seppuku. I felt compelled to reply to his article not because he holds possibly incorrect views on AGW but because he used the epithet “denier” and trashed the reputation of Alan Carlin of the EPA without full knowledge of the circumstances.

  10. Mark T said

    A nit, but the proper term is “deniers,” not “denier’s.” The apostrophe is used for the possessive, not plural. 😉


  11. Jeff Id said

    #10, That’s one of the rules I know. The rest of them are a complete kludge of the queen’s English.

  12. Ryan O said

    Deny the queen, Jeff. Take English and make it your own. Liberate yourself from these oppressive rules!


  13. timetochooseagain said

    The water vapor feedback in models naturally first appeared when the first models appeared-Manabe and Whetherland, I believe. The more important point I think is in the cloud effects-although water vapor is greatly impacted by clouds!-but let’s suppose that in spite of a lack of continuity, the claim that the earliest greenhouse theorists are the source of AGW is true-so what? The age of scientific hypotheses now determines their merit? That is so unscientific it is baffling.

    BTW, I’ve decided that I’m NOT a skeptic. The evidence against catastrophic AGW is convincing IMAO-I’m actually a denier.

    Of course, Moore is using a quite different definition of denier-or he says so, anyway. Is denial a refusal to believe “facts”? Actually:

      /dɪˈnaɪəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [di-nahy-uhl] Show IPA
    Use denial in a Sentence
    1. an assertion that something said, believed, alleged, etc., is false: Despite his denials, we knew he had taken the purse. The politician issued a denial of his opponent’s charges.
    2. refusal to believe a doctrine, theory, or the like.
    3. disbelief in the existence or reality of a thing.
    4. the refusal to satisfy a claim, request, desire, etc., or the refusal of a person making it.
    5. refusal to recognize or acknowledge; a disowning or disavowal: the traitor’s denial of his country; Peter’s denial of Christ.
    6. Law. refusal to acknowledge the validity of a claim, suit, or the like; a plea that denies allegations of fact in an adversary’s plea: Although she sued for libel, he entered a general denial.
    7. sacrifice of one’s own wants or needs; self-denial.
    8. Psychology. an unconscious defense mechanism used to reduce anxiety by denying thoughts, feelings, or facts that are consciously intolerable.

    There is nothing negative at all about asserting Moore’s beliefs are false-he dresses his beliefs up as “fact” to make this into something negative. But then, so do religious believers-presumably including those nasty “creationists”…Anyway, there is nothing wrong with 1, to, or 3 generally. 4 can be quite bad in science, but the guilt here is misplaced. Phil Jones is the big denier in the 4th sense. Note that in 5 AGW is being substituted for God and Country! AH, we are traitors and HEATHENS! Yup. I’m a heathen. In 6, note it is ALLEGATIONS of fact. Finally, 7 is not negative but “virtuous”-I sacrifice a great deal of time to try and educate people on this issue. Yup, a self denier alright. Finally, 8. I think it is far more likely that Moore is the one “in denial” that his beliefs are falling apart before his eyes-but there here is a slight accusation of dishonesty.

    WRT Occam’s Razor-in a complex, nonlinear, dynamic system that varies on all timescales by several units, what does Occam’s razopr say about attributing a small .6 unit change to unique causes versus natural variability? I think THAT should be obvious.

    And is that a cooling trend? Actually, it looks to me like first a cooling, then a warming, then a flat or cooling, then a warming and MAYBE continued warming but if you look at HadCrut rather than GISS or NCDC, you get flat-and declining with satellites. And what was CO2 doing? Up, up, up faster and faster. Take the Log-straight line up. Extend that-it will keep going straight up. Let’s assume-as the IPCC does-that the post 70’s warming is the dread AGW upon us-generous, if you ask me-all our models and basic theory say warming should go forward in a straight line. Where does that leave us? At a non catastrophic 1.2 to 1.5 degrees of warming over the next century- at or below the lowest IPCC projections. So I ask-what’s the problem?!?!?

    But I am a denier.

  14. Ralph B said

    Sceptic here, but wish AGW were true and the Earth was warming as it would benefit more people than cooling would. Let’s put that carbon back where it came from in the first place. Please excuse me for thinking people are not a blight on the planet.

    Of course I am a complete idiot since I don’t believe in macro-evolution. I forgot, only atheists are smart and can be trusted to be scientists.

  15. curious said

    hi Carrick – re: the current calculation being “climate sensitivity of 1.5degC/CO2 doubling” – I’m not convinced this rests on anything solid. This notion of climate sensitivity is what started me questioning the global warming theory. It seems such a fundamental element of the hypothesis as it is advanced yet I haven’t found a straightforward derivation of it.

    I readily admit I haven’t searched every possible source on it so maybe it is out there somewhere. My conclusion from the looking I did was that it is a sort of empirical fit which has been justified on a mix of paleo and recent temp and CO2 records, implicit in which is that the CO2 driving climate proposal is correct. I did trawl the IPCC docs at the time and couldn’t find it and posted a question on CA. I’d welcome any other views or sources on this.

  16. Jeff Id said

    #14 When I read the bible, there’s nothing in it which contradicts evolution. Unless of course, you read it literally rather than as metaphor which IMO cannot have been the intent. Why would god put together a great puzzle, create curious people and then give them all the answers? He wouldn’t IMO but he might answer them like an adult telling a two year old where babies come from.

  17. Andrew said

    Yo! Full-Fledged Denier chiming in! 😉

    And I agree with JeffId that the bible was not written to be a scientific paper. Scripture doesn’t contain all the answers in life. It doesn’t even claim to contain them. God gave us brains to figure things out, too.


  18. Jeff Id said

    SteveM, sent me an email telling me not to discuss religion. I think he’s right. Let’s not turn this thread into a discussion about religion, it was my fault for bringing it up. I just didn’t want people to think that somehow my complaint about Lord Moore’s discussion about evolution means I think religious people are idiots.

  19. Andrew said

    AGW is religion, isn’t it? 😉


  20. Jeff Id said

    Main stream media are the idiots.

  21. Jeff Id said

    #19, Good point, so now what do we talk about 😀

  22. Andrew said

    Well, I have a general question. Since I’ve been observing climate blogs, all I have found is uncertainty. Is there some *good* information somewhere that is certain? Like a Non-Propaganda Climate Science 101 For The Web? I mean, as far climate science goes, all I see is spinning wheels (at best) and s*** flinging for the last decade. I’m looking for some good info. Where is it?


  23. Jeff Id said


    The Air Vent is a bit of a project along those lines, after looking at blogs for years what can you do except dig into the data yourself.

  24. Andrew said

    Jeff Id,

    Yes, I do come to the Air Vent to help me sift through the *stuff*. I admit it, I Favorited it! 🙂


  25. DeWitt Payne said


    I’ve found a few bits and pieces on the Web, but if you really want to know what’s going on, some advanced undergraduate/beginning graduate level textbooks are the way to go, IMO. I can recommend Grant W. Petty, A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation, 2nd Edition for the fundamentals of radiation transfer and why increasing ghg concentration should have some effect on the energy balance of the planet. Something on Physical Meteorology would be good as well. I haven’t found a textbook for that yet, but I’ve used to at least understand the basic concepts. For modelling, there’s A Climate Modelling Primer by Kendal McGuffie and Ann Henderson-Sellers that was recommended to me by lucia. I need to spend more time on that one. A good tool for visualizing the effects of ghg’s on radiative transfer is . Plug in numbers and watch the spectrum change.

  26. Andrew said

    Thanks, DeWP. I will look at your suggestions.


  27. rephelan said

    14.Ralph B said
    July 17, 2009 at 4:52 am

    I think the scientists you are referring to are not athiests at all, the simply worship a different god.

  28. rephelan said

    maybe I should read to the bottom of the thread before posting snarky remarks. On the other hand, I do teach Sociology of religion and would be delighted to expound on the topic to anyone who could stand it for more than, say, two or three days….

  29. John F. Pittman said

    A question for Dr. John Moore and others. It is reported that the temperature increase from about 1960 is mostly anthropogenic. The date changes somewhat, and sometimes mostly is majority or “essentially” depending on source. The question is how did you )or they) seperate the signal? I have a problem at work with one reponse and two or more inputs and I want to seperate the signal per cause. I need the details so I can progam it into a simple, compared to the sun earth atmosphere, ocean, land biosphere, heat transfer problem in a boiler. Please advise me. I am just a practicing engineer of 20+ years, and still somehow keep coming up with one equation and two unknowns, I can’t resolve. Please don’t send me to RC because when I posed the question to them, it turned out I was a denier (of something I had little opinion about) because I dared to ask for the equations so I could solve a problem at work. I have tried assuming it was mainly one factor, but crashes in the control logic indicate otherwise. I have tried assuming that smoothing would allow me to predict the paths of the heat transfer with two unknowns, but it crashes as well. I even took advanced programming and made a model that is available in my control logic; and it too crashed. Instead I decided to admit I could only get what the controls read out, and now it works just fine. Please tell me what I am doing wrong. And provide the equations so I can program it. Thanks in advance. Sincerely JF Pittman.

  30. timetochooseagain said

    John F. Pittman-How did the IPCC get its attribution statement: “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”? Good question. Unfortunately, the answer appears to be very unhelpful. Essentially, they took a bunch of climate models-which they know have serious issues replicating certain kinds of climate behavior. They told the models to show what global warming would occur when the models were forced with presumed (NOT measured, presumed) changes in solar irradiance and again presumed changes in volcanic aerosols. Their models are known to not simulate such modes of variability as the PDO, ENSO, etc. well, but they assume the internal variability is okay anyway. Then, when the models inevitably fail to show warming in the second half of the century due to the modeler’s choice of declining solar irradiance proxies over that period and the preponderance of volcanic eruptions like Pinatubo and El Chicon, a mix of anthropogenic factors within broad uncertainty ranges are tossed into the various models, and suddenly agreement with the mean surface t6emperature record more or less occurs! So they then say “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”-a problem with that is, besides the poor model performance on critical issues, and the dubious assumption that cloud cover only changes in response to temperature changes, almost all the forcing factors are highly uncertain and adjustable. Aerosols in particular are hugely uncertain, but are critical to obtaining agreement with the temperature record-not just their magnitude, but the time history are literally chosen on the basis of generating agreement rather than actual measurements (there are none). In other words, the entire argument relies on hideously circular reasoning.

    I’m sorry. These guys have no secret method of separating out desperate effects. They just assume what they want to prove.

  31. Balance said

    Jeff, I commend you for your restraint.

    I found the article to be hypocritical and idiotic. The reference to Occam’s Razor was almost mind-boggling. This idiot doesn’t even understand what it means. It’s basic premise is to look for the simplest explanation. Since the Earth”s climate has varied for billions of years it’s obvious the simplest explanation of the current warming is natural climate variation. Instead this idiot tries to manufacture another interpretation to suit his religious beliefs. And, that’s obvious what his article represents. It’s pure religious faith.

    Of course, anyone who is convinced that the current state of our knowledge of a complex system like climate is so complete that we know exactly what will happen in the future is simply stupid. We can’t even solve the mystery of most human diseases despite billions spent on research. The proposition that we can understand climate ignores man’s shortcomings in most scientific arenas. To accept that we understand this field of science while falling short of this same knowledge in almost all other fields can only be religion. Logic is left behind.

  32. John F. Pittman said

    #30 Timetochooseagain Don’t you think it interesting that someone is called a denier if they question “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”? “”Most”” in the supposed greatest climate work? not 63% or whatever, but most. “Observed”, you mean we don’t observe warming, it is unobservable or just what? This is not a literary complaint, but how can you put together “most” and “observed” and not have a number?!? Finally “very likey”, anybody who has not read Lucia’s clever dissection of IPPC numbers, numbers, stats and “very likely” is missing a good belly laugh. And finally we have some bozo who doesn’t understand that with statements such as these, many scientists and I know most engineers, just laugh at the claims and think the problem is that John Moore and the IPCC haven’t even fielded an argument worth the paper it is printed on.

    The theory of evolution versus the theory of AGW actually indicates the problems with the IPPC and its advocates. Most people not only do not know what the modern theroy of evolution is, not a suprise since it has been evolving since conception by Darwin’s grandfather; but they do not know the history of the theory. That it was mostly deductive until modern physics and chemistry developed methods to prove the fundamental concept that as one goes deeper the strata is older, the organisms simpler. The proof of folding, plate techtonics all just added more proof to the deductions made before we had methodology to prove. Finally starting in the 1970’s, experiments on microorganisms were able to establish gene maps to now, one only has to look in the literature and see where some biologist has traced a gene from fins to limbs showing that the deductions of evolutionary paths has been experimentally shown correct.

    Little if none of this is avaiable for AGW. Considering it is about of the same age as evolution, the lack of experiments and methodology to prove it should be quite a concern. Note that it was not available originally for evolution, but methods and experiments were found. It is not like we invented a time machine. However, one does not find the same type of scientific development that occurred for evolution for AGW. Why? Instead one gets a bozo with a temperature graph saying look it is getting hot, without looking at the details of how the IPCC could claim “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” So what! Getting hotter only shows temperature has increased.

    The point is the one made by the deniers. It has been considered acceptable, even if eventually you are shown to be wrong, to question a claim unless proof is provided. Proof has to meet standards, and it must be provided. Just where does it say one has to accept a theory so poorly formulated it states “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations” which provides no conclusive proofs, no numbers, but only reasonable arguments. It has been an accepted scientific practice that refusing to accept a reasonable argument until and unless the proof is provided is an honorable position. You will lose the argument when they provide it; but you are an honorable opponent.

    The AGW advocates have perverted the paradigm of honorable opposition, and in this respect they are the inheritors of the Stalinistic oppression of free thought and speech, as well as being anti-scientific. I find the media and other scientists silence in this matter the scientific version of “The Silence of the Lambs”. Inaction is cannibalizing our scientific objectivism and replacing it with political advocacy.

  33. Page48 said

    The dude who wrote the article just wants to be on the righteous side of some argument – probably any argument. He also probably wants to align himself with those he perceives to be the “smart people” so he can think of himself as “smart” by association.

    I doubt that he even understands the concepts brought up by comment #32. Or cares.

    He’s a preacher.

    I see a lot of this in the media these days.

  34. timetochooseagain said

    32. Nice reply! Yeah, the vague statement by the IPCC is really mind boggling. And the derivation, to quote Lindzen (This might have to be snipped) “Makes arguments for intelligent design sound rigorous by comparison.”

  35. John F. Pittman said

    Steve at CA has a good at Boundary Layer Clouds: IPCC Bowdlerizes Bony. Steve has asked abouta engineer type quality paper. I went t5o look to see what I could find as a Scope of Work. I htought perhaps some critics who said that the IPCC assumed that most warming had been manmade and mankind needed to do something about it were exaggerated. However, as far back as I can find; and this includes some write-ups at CA, this facet is true. I donot see where there was ever a formal define manmade warming. It appears that it was literally an assumption. Then assumptions were made about feedback that clearly support the necessity of doing something. But the type of work that many seem to expect showing that these assumptions are correct simply do not exist in a rigorous form.

  36. Page48 said

    Hey, rephelan, # 28, “maybe I should read to the bottom of the thread before posting snarky remarks. On the other hand, I do teach Sociology of religion and would be delighted to expound on the topic to anyone who could stand it for more than, say, two or three days….”

    I would love to hear what you have to say, and I can easily stand more than a few minutes, even a few days, if what you have to say is important….and I think you have a lot to offer.

    It doesn’t have much to do with the sociology of religion, but, do I have the cutest dog in the world, or what?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: