If you need cash now, we offer fast payday loans up to $1000. The process takes less than 3 minutes.
Payday advance types of loans usually require the entire amount to be repaid on the next pay period. No credit or faxing needed for loans under $1000. Bad credit OK! Instant Decision; you can start today and have the cash you need quickly
We are an immediate loan specialist in Oxford, and we are quicker and more advantageous than run of the mill retail facade banks since we're based on the web and are open constantly. No compelling reason to sit tight for "ordinary business hours" or invest energy flying out to the store — our short application can be finished in not more than minutes. You can even apply from a cell phone while you're in a hurry!
We can loan up to $500 to Oxford occupants, in view of qualifying elements. On the off chance that endorsed, your credit will be expected on your next payday that falls in the vicinity of 10 and 31 days after you get your advance. Nitty gritty data with respect to expenses and reimbursement is accessible on our Rates and Terms page. As you consider whether an advance is proper for your prompt needs, you ought to likewise investigate other subsidizing alternatives. A payday credit is a genuine budgetary duty, and not an answer for long haul issues. Getting from a companion of relative may be a superior alternative.
Gary F - When you define 'informed' as 'in agreement with me' the world is full of stupid people. Jeff M - My argument is that 'Settled Science' is actually Religion & should therefore not be funded by the State. What are u arguing? That unsettled Science shouldn't be funded either? Paul B - No cheap sophistry here.. Nothing is certain, but all guesses are NOT created equal. So the question is are AGW proponents SCIENTISTS trying to discover the truth, or PRIESTS simply trying to validate their FAITH. And I maintain they are acting like Priests. Mike L. - Yep Dana - Science is the study of the Logos. God is the notion the Logos is alive Religion is BELIEVING you KNOW the Logos, Science is about Skeptical investigation. I think you are a PRIEST who BELIEVES he's a SCIENTIST. The Apocalypse is upon us, u don't know the tipping points, or the feedback math, or how much emission reduction it will take, but you sure KNOW it's on it's way. Ottawa - True not a good religion.
Karl - Freedom of Religion means you CAN evoke the name of God. Separation of Church and State means you CAN'T force me to. I don't care if YOU pray to Gaia, Just don't Cap & Trade MY money into her coffers. Hey Trevor - When the increase in Global Temperatures took a 10 year break - Skepticism increased just like one would expect AGW Advocates did not say "We understand the increased skepticism" They said things like: "The debate is over", "The Science is Settled", "The REALITY of Global Warming…" and they started calling me a DENIER. I said these aren't ADVOCATES anymore, these are BELIEVERS. It doesn't matter what the actual temperature is doing anymore, (AGW>ACC) It doesn't matter if our models work well, The Apocalypse must be taken on FAITH. Now I don't ask you to agree with my Skepticism, but do try to understand that there is nothing 'abstract' in my sense that AGW is now a RELIGION.
Ah Baccheus - If you listen to the left wing media it's all confidence & consensus. BUT if you broadcast hacked emails it's: “The fact IS that we CAN'T account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t" - Kevin Trenberth, NCAR scientist "Among climate researchers ..it is absolutely settled and without dispute that man is causing the environment to warm." So if it fails to warm…that's a TRAVASTY. Can you smell the Relegion yet? It's not a TRAVESTY when your Scientific Theory needs some work. A Travesty is when you've failed to convince the world of a Divine Revelation.
Gary F - No greater truth, no childish insult, no contempt for science. Science is TESTING what you THINK is true. Religion is PROVING what you KNOW is true. AGW has become the companion to Creationism. NOW AGW advocates KNOW the TRUTH and if the data doesn't agree, there's something wrong with the data. 30 years ago they had some Scientists, now Skeptics get fired and only Priests remain.
Perhaps then public funds going toward the election of any official who makes a religious statement on the campaign trail should be suspended as well? "Hobbes not Locke Socrates not Plato Rand not Marx Darwin not Disney" This cracks me up. The Hobbes-Locke opinion seems to contradict your Rand-Marx opinion. And Socrates? It's not even clear if the man existed except maybe as an allegory. If you're a top contributor in Philosophy, may God have mercy on that entire section. (Oops! Did I just lose government funding for invoking the name of God?) Logic seems to be slightly out of your grasp, as does a cursory understanding of prominent philosophers... EDIT: I thought you were incompetent before. Now it's just that you're crazy. You have the look and feel of someone on a streetcorner, rambling and unshaven, reeking of sewage, holding a cardboard sign "REPENT!"
LOL...It DOES take one hell of a lot of faith to buy the man made global warming hoax, so you might have a point. But they DO violate the Constitution. scottso...there are 3 types of lies. Lies, damn lies and statistics. - Mark Twain. That number is SO exaggerated that it is hilarious. 97% of climatologists probably agreed that the temperature was rising, but they are split pretty much down the middle on whether humans have any significant impact. And many have come out to EXPOSE the lies and exaggerations of alarmists. They have also exposed the FACT that the global temperatures have been going DOWN for the last 10 years...this is why the term "global warming" has been changed to "global climate change"....the alarmists know this too. And if there was so much consensus among climatologists, why were there 1500 emails about how to manipulate or hide the real numbers because they DID NOT SUPPORT the claims that humans are impacting global temperatures? Bob Rat...why do we refer to man made global warming and evolution as a religion? Because we see that they are matters of faith. As a matter of fact they require MUCH MORE faith than the faith in a higher power. And as for the "Obama / messiah" comparison, it is the liberals who were elevating him to such a pedestal. Faking faints in his presence, REFERRING TO HIM Oxford A SAVIOR, and getting a warm feeling running up your legs when he spoke are why we see many liberals as seeing him as their messiah.
I have been confronted with religious-like behaviors from some of my fellow 'scientists'. I agree that the earth is going into a warming trend. I simply don't think that CO2 is as important a catalyst as it is purported to be. Climate is incredibly intricate, and CO2 doesn't seem to have acted in such a role in the past. During the carboniferous, CO2 levels were around 800 ppm, more than twice the present day levels, and the average global temperature was identical to that of today (15 degrees Celsius). The earth also experienced heavy glaciation and sinking sea levels. The CO2 which is stored in fossil fuels came from this era. Where were the enormous warming effects of CO2 then? Why did it have little to no influence? I've yet to receive a straight answer, just correlational studies thrown in my face, without a single shred of causal evidence. I think that this is another case of what Richard Feynman called 'cargo cult science'. "In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head to headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land. Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they're missing. But it would be just about as difficult to explain to the South Sea islanders how they have to arrange things so that they get some wealth in their system. It is not something simple like telling them how to improve the shapes of the earphones. But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school--we never say explicitly what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition. In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another." - Richard Feynman -
These idiotic statements are made only by people who have never read the published studies. People who read the science are well aware of the scientific basis and the difference between scientific observations and religious faith. Rest assured that every published climate scientist has accepted that man is warming the environment. The only people who do not believe that are people who are removed from and ignorant of the science. Among climate researchers -- those who actually perform the scientific study rather than depend on uneducated faith, it is absolutely settled and without dispute that man is causing the environment to warm.
I understand the comparison, especially when well articulated like the late Michael Crichton did. However, I'm not in complete agreement that religion is the apt comparison. I look at it more like fundamentalism on environmental issues. And this really only applies to the more ardent believers, not someone who has only followed the main stream news and seen a few nature documentaries. If someone holds the belief that "man is a virus", then they are going to follow all sorts of issues where man is the enemy. And global warming fits that to a tee. Further, many of these fundamentalists probably wouldn't change their mind about CO2 reductions even if it was conclusively shown (warming) to be some other reason than man. They would simply switch to peak oil or ocean acidification or overpopulation or anything else that required the elimination of fossil fuels.
And deniers get all indignant when informed people call them "stupid" - go figure, huh? Google "epistemology" and "philosophy of science". ==== edit -- >"are AGW proponents SCIENTISTS trying to discover the truth, or PRIESTS simply trying to validate their FAITH. And I maintain they are acting like Priests." You maintain that based solely on faith that you know some greater truth that exists beyond empirical evidence and reality. It is a vacuous faith based on ignorance since you know nothing of either the science or the scientists - and it is wrong. ===== edit -- Your entire argument is nothing but the slinging of a childish insult. There is no AGW doctrine or dogma in climate science. Twenty years ago all (with the exception of Hansen and maybe a few others) of your so-called Priests were skeptics. As more information was gathered and analyzed from multiple independent sources and disciplines, the “data” led scientists to the conclusion that AGW was real. >”u don't know the tipping points, or the feedback math, or how much emission reduction it will take, but you sure KNOW it's on it's way.” So what? We cannot explain all of the variability in gravity or the speed of light, either. You are not skeptical of just climate science, you are attacking all science. And your lame “religion” analogy gives no indication of original thought. It is a common denier appeal to emotion taken directly from the talking points of its cousin in the anti-science political movement – creationism. >”but do try to understand that there is nothing 'abstract' in my sense that AGW is now a RELIGION.” No – it is nothing but an abstraction. Religion and science are mutually exclusive epistemologies, each of which can be described by a number of defining characteristics. You have not offered a single example where scientists have abandoned science in favor of religious belief, behavior, or explanation or have in any way confounded the two. The only confusion seems to be in your understanding of the concepts. ====== edit -- >"30 years ago they had some Scientists, now Skeptics get fired and only Priests remain." The people (scientists) are the same; it's their conclusions that have changed - just check out the last 20 years of Science, Nature, Int. J of Climatology, Clim. Dynamics, Climatic Change, Holocene, etc. Or - go to the NSF website and look at the PIs and Institutions that have been doing the research.
Hi PQ, If a person exhibits the characteristics of a skeptic then, by and large, this is what they will be referred to. On the other hand, if they display the psychological symptoms of denial syndrome then they’re likely to be referred to as a denier. I would hope that everyone is skeptical of climate change. Skepticism is healthy, it enables the individual to enhance their understanding of a subject and to examine, with objectivity and rationality, both sides of the debate. More and more we see that skeptics are accepting the reality of global warming leaving behind a higher concentration of deniers. These are the people that aren’t interested in facts, they don’t want to hear anything that goes against their particular mindset and refuse to be educated on any subject that borders on climate change. The argument that global warming is a religion is nothing more than an abstract concept dreamt up by detractors. You can remove every trace of religion from the world and the scientific facts will remain just as they always were.
No. This is an illogical argument with the reasons why clearly described in other responses so I won't go into the details. I personally don't think a question of this nature belongs in this category, is well below the level of discussion that other participants are trying to achieve and maintain, and your intention in asking it is to be disruptive. I think people coming here to learn more about the topic of climate change deserve better and questions like this one should be discouraged.
You would think a 'top answerer' in philosophy would understand basic logic. "Since Science is never settled, isn't Settled Science the same as Religion?" Talk about a non sequitur. 'If bananas are yellow, isn't a green banana the same as a duck-billed platypus?' Even though it's not a serious question, I'll give a serious answer. The 'settled science' is that humans are causing dangerous global warming. That obviously doesn't mean we know everything there is to know about climate science. There are still uncertainties about when various feedbacks and tipping points will be triggered, what all the feedbacks will be, how much we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change, etc. etc. Comparing science to religion is just plain stupid, but I'm sure you know that. By the way, this question is a perfect illustration of what I was talking about in my last question:
Since science is never settled, should medical advancement, technological advancement, and so on be cut off because it uses scientific research to achieve it's goals? Pheonix Quill. Evolution, Technological innovations, medicinal innovations, are settled science. You can't pick and choose what 'settled science' you want classified as a religion. I suppose the round earth theory, as opposed to the flat earth theory, is settled science as well.