I am only young, 19 years of age. I am currently using Olive oil for my shaving, which is also a very good alternative. What olive oil and your hand lotions have in common as they both moisturise skin well and they don’t contain any chemicals like sodium lauryl/laureth sulfate (makes the shaving cream expand and foam), which can dry the skin, especially for those who may have drier skin/sensitive skin..

Any other natural creams and oils should be used more publicly, instead of shaving creams.

In fact, the lead author of the cosmic ray study said, “[The paper] actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step.” But I guess what the studies ACTUALLY say doesn’t really matter to you as long as you can somehow twist things around to spread your politically-inspired, non-scientific misinformation.

I find it interesting that you’ll take a single researcher’s preliminary results and somehow interpret them as unequivocal refutation of thousands of well-established studies by hundreds of climate scientists over a couple decades. …and you call ME ideological about climate science. Seriously?

Of course, since you seem to come here, spout off your misinformation, and never come back to address any responses, I’ve no doubt wasted my time again by responding. It’s almost as if you’re taking pride in your unwillingness to educate yourself on the issue.

Where to begin? I’m fighting my internal monologue that’s tellng me to debate Thomas point by point. Oh, what the hell…

1) The discovery of deep currents that make the planet, “less sensitive to climate change than previously thought”, is a good thing. That doesn’t mean global warming is not happening. Less sensitive does not mean, stopping it from occuring. It means…wait for it…LESS sensitive. Kinda’ like a plane that is missing 25% of it’s left wing, it’s less sensitive to falling than a plane missing 100% of both wings…but it’s still falling.
2)Far more greenhouse gasses escape than first thought? Again, if true, great! That doesn’t mean that there is no evidence of ANY greenhouse effect.
3)Cosmic rays contribute to global warming. I’ll accept that (without looking) as fact. That doesn’t mean that man isn’t accelerating the effects of global warming. I’m unfamiliar with this style of debate reasoning, “it happens naturally so we (humans) shouldn’t have to limit our impact on the environment when it is within our power to do so”?
4)I think it’s safe to say we can all google a story to support any cause. It’s also important to put that story in a marginally objective context.
This is no joke, I just googled the following off of the top of my head:”roman catholics are space aliens”. I got this as a top 10 search result:
“ROMAN CATHOLIC SPACE ALIENS!!
Wannabe/Newbie Anglican ^ | 9/07/2006 | Mark Marshall”

Upon actually READING the article I found that it is a joke. But if I quickly googled it just to make a fast debate point without thoroughly reading it I might have made myself look rediculous and misinformed…like Thomas’ fourth point.

What Thomas failed to note from his google search is the following:

“…the 2006 article wasn’t framed in the context of climate change but was relevant to the topic.

She (Monnett’s wife , who is a respected scientist) feared what happened to Monnett would send a “chilling message” at the agency just as important oil and gas development decisions in the Arctic will soon be made.

“I don’t believe the timing is coincidental,” she said.

Monnett’s work included identifying questions that needed to be answered to inform the environmental analyses the agency must conduct before issuing drilling permits.”

You were right Thomas, follow the money.

And yet here we are…

I don’t know if Camping has it online anymore, but he did have an explanation of how, based on biblical information (and he had plenty of verses to back him up), there were exceptions to the verse you quoted and that it was possible (for some individuals) to know the date and time. I didn’t find his explanation particularly compelling, in much the same way I don’t find the verse you quoted as particularly compelling… but as you know, I don’t find the whole belief in the return of Jesus (or related dogma) particularly compelling in the first place.

That aside, I don’t think Hemant was commenting on what the “true path of a Christian” is, though I’m sure he would agree, as do I, that doing the best you can to emulate Christ is a pretty good path to tread.