Open thread – November

News, view and (civil) debate.

369 thoughts on “Open thread – November

  1. john byatt says:

    well done the whitehouse

  2. john byatt says:

    This combination euphemism and pun is about the closest to a monty python sketch as you could write.

    the shekel in the fishes mouth story, the compilers of the new testament would have included it purely because it contains a miracle

    apart from how unlikely the story is “hey pay your temple tax”

    http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/BS/k/1586/Miracles-Jesus-Christ-Coin-in-Fishs-Mouth.htm

    the story is repeated weekly in sermons throughout christianity

    those who understood the story meaning would have been ROFLMAO

    so what is it all about

    the fishes mouth was an euphemism for the female vulva at the time and the pun on shekel is referring to the male organ

    the writer had jesus telling the romans “to get fucked” those in attendance would have been trying to stop from laughing, but it did not happen anyway and is just part of the myth

    If the creationists and fundamentalist wish to disseminate crap that AGW is a hoax then their own religion is the biggest and longest lasting hoax of all

    • john byatt says:

      This is the sort of crap that the new testament writers believed in sacred number FFS

      The Literary Canon: 153 Fishes in the Net

      1. Seven disciples are on the shore of Tiberias. Simon Peter enters a boat to go fishing; the others foIlow. The number of Simon Petros, Simon Peter, is 1925.

      ‘Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three’ (John 21: 11).

      A circle is therefore drawn with circumference 1925 represent Peter, and six more circles are placed so that the circumference of each passes through the center of the first circle and also through the centres of the two on either side. A larger circle contains them all. In this most economical fashion the seven disciples are packed into 11 the circular boat, like the coracle of the Celtic saints, which, since the circumference of the lesser circles is 1925, will be found to have a diameter of 1224.

      Why there should have been exactly 153 fishes in the net is a question which has puzzled commentators from the earliest time. Obviously the number had an esoteric significance, and by reference to the sacred canon of number and geometry this may be discovered. The parables and many of the episodes in the New Testament form the literary expressions of geometrical processes. This is particularly clear in the case of the 153 fishes. The key is the number 1224, which is the value by gematria of both to dikton, the net, and icthys, fishes.”. 1224 is equal to 8 times 153, and 153 is the sum of the numbers 1-17.

      as i said the whole thing is a hoax based on the ignorant beliefs in magic number as we see with 666

      thus concludes the lesson for today ,

    • J Giddeon says:

      All very interesting but it does rather miss the point.

      It’d be like criticising 1984 because it doesn’t accurately describe musophobia.

  3. J Giddeon says:

    More signs that the great scare is unravelling:

    * Unbelievably I saw some on ABC Breakfast TV talking about turney’s Ship of Fools AND pointing out that, despite Gore’s claims, the Arctic sea ice extent in Dec 2008 was the same as Dec 2013. The poor presenters didn’t know how to respond to such unexpected heresy and I wondered for a moment if the very foundations of our national broadcaster would crumble. But alas things went on as normal although I’m sure there were multitudes of ABC lovies who heard a contrary climate view for the first times in their lives.

    * Trenberth is now admitting that the 1976-1998 warming was “enhanced” by the “the positive phase of the PDO”. He also says that the the negative phase of the PDO explains the post 1998 surface cooling, which of coarse, according to this blog doesn’t exist. Wow, how’d have thunk it, natural forces play a part in the climate!. Who knows, one day we might even find out the sun plays a role as well. I just don’t know how we’ll ever reconcile this with our settled knowledge that its all caused by changing the make-up of the atmosphere by .01%

    • john byatt says:

      shit and here it appears that sea ice extent is equal lowest 9/1/14

      http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    • BBD says:

      Dear Gideon

      * Trenberth is now admitting that the 1976-1998 warming was “enhanced” by the “the positive phase of the PDO”. He also says that the the negative phase of the PDO explains the post 1998 surface cooling, which of coarse, according to this blog doesn’t exist. Wow, how’d have thunk it, natural forces play a part in the climate!. Who knows, one day we might even find out the sun plays a role as well. I just don’t know how we’ll ever reconcile this with our settled knowledge that its all caused by changing the make-up of the atmosphere by .01%

      Please explain how a natural, quasi-cyclic variability can create a centennial trend. Bear in mind that oscillatory systems average out to zero over time. This really is very important.

      Thanks!

      BTW, the argument about surface cooling isn’t really worth having. It is to take a statistically insignificant trend from a very short time-series characterised by two strong La Nina toward the end, and it is to ignore the ongoing increase in ocean heat content which is a clear indicator that energy continues to accumulate in the climate system. This could only happen if it were in radiative imbalance. Note that this energetic accumulation continued, unabated, despite the recent, unusually profound solar minimum.

      • BBD says:

        My apologies – that should be “Dear J Giddeon”, of course.

      • BBD says:

        Gosh, that killed the thread off. Sorry. Was it something I said?

      • J Giddeon says:

        “explain how a natural, quasi-cyclic variability can create a centennial trend.”

        Well I wouldn’t have thought they could. I’m not entirely sure why you’d think they would. Bear in mind that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system with many roughly cyclic systems operating on many different time scales. One such variable isn’t, of itself, going to have sufficient influence to create any particular trend, centennial or otherwise. It may be possible to argue that a particular variable has greater influence at this or that point in time, but even that is usually going to be a stretch. I guess this type of thinking (that one variable can create a trend) comes more easily for those who think that tweeking the make-up of the atmosphere by a fraction of a percent can cause massive changes, But you might have noticed that I don’t buy that.

        “BTW, the argument about surface cooling isn’t really worth having.”

        And yet many climate scientists are looking at it. There are two good reasons why this ought to be investigated. firstly the assertion that the ‘missing’ heat is going into the deep oceans is based on the flimsiest of data may very well be wrong or exaggerated.
        Secondly, the entire scare is based on the projections of models which project surface temps. We have been assailed for 3 decades now with assertions that temps at the surface will rise by x degrees and this is the justification for economic upheavals. We need to know why the models are being falsified by the real world so that the models can be fixed and then the danger re-evaluated.

        • BBD says:

          J Giddeon

          Well I wouldn’t have thought they could. I’m not entirely sure why you’d think they would.

          You said it. *You* were talking about the PDO. If you don’t believe the PDO is relevant to centennial-scale climate projections, why raise it in the first place?

          But you might have noticed that I don’t buy that.

          Perhaps you should cease argument from ignorance and acquaint yourself with the basic physics. Ray Pierrhumbert wrote an excellent and comprehensive primer. I recommend it wholeheartedly. Please try to remember that your opinion is scientifically weightless and arguments from ignorance and from incredulity are logical fallacies. TL-DR: you didn’t say anything.

          firstly the assertion that the ‘missing’ heat is going into the deep oceans is based on the flimsiest of data may very well be wrong or exaggerated.

          This is incorrect. There are >3000 ARGO floats sampling OHC 0 – 2000m in all major ocean basins. The data are unequivocal. You are arguing from assertion and you are wrong.

          Secondly, the entire scare is based on the projections of models which project surface temps.

          Again, argument from assertion and again you are wrong. The best evidence for climate sensitivity to CO2 is from paleoclimate behaviour. How, for example, do you explain the early Cenozoic hyperthermals without invoking an efficacious GHG forcing? For a comprehensive review of sensitivity estimates derived from Cenozoic climate behaviour, see the landmark study arising from the PALAEOSENS Project: Rohling et al. (2012).

          * * *

          If you respond, can you try and refrain from arguments from incredulity, ignorance and by assertion? Also reference any claims you make. Thanks.

        • BBD says:

          We need to know why the models are being falsified by the real world

          This claim is incorrect. Please show by reference to the published literature – not crap on denier blogs – where “the models” have been falsified.

          Are you sure you understand what this term means?

        • BBD says:

          I guess this type of thinking (that one variable can create a trend) comes more easily for those who think that tweeking the make-up of the atmosphere by a fraction of a percent can cause massive changes, But you might have noticed that I don’t buy that.

          Having established that oscillations cannot force a centennial trend, how do we explain the centennial trend?

          Global average surface temperature (GISTEMP); linear fit 1900 – present

          How do we account for that?

        • BBD says:

          Let’s check.

          Well, it’s not the PDO:

          GISTEMP and PDO, decadal means

          And it’s not the sun:

          GAT vs TSI (cubic fit)

          So what does that leave?

        • BBD says:

          It leave GHG forcing:

          GAT vs GISS forcings: solar; WM- GHGs; total net forcing

          GAT (surface) annual means are shown at the top (green). The three lower curves are coherently-scaled forcings. Well-mixed GHGs (blue) and solar (yellow; bottom) bracket the total net forcing (red).

          It leaves the laws of physics, as expressed through radiative transfer (see Pierrehumbert, above).

          * * *

          Remember, if you respond, no arguments from assertion, ignorance or incredulity. And I want to see references for any substantive claims you make only to the published literature not rubbish on denier blogs.

        • J Giddeon says:

          Well BBD, let’s start with your utter comprehension fails….

          Despite your assertions I didn’t raise PDO as “relevant to centennial-scale climate projections” I merely mentioned it in regards to Trenberth’s finding that it was the cause for the recent hiatus. It was you who then decided to extrapolate it to absurd lengths which I didn’t and don’t go along with. Now you’ve utterly turned it around. Perhaps you need to read the thread again.

          I never said ” “the models” have been falsified.”. I said they were being falsified. Let me know if you need me to explain the difference :) .

          I’ve pointed to this before but clearly it doesn’t fit with what you want to be true and is therefore summarily discarded. I can but try again.

          Von Storch…
          “At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase……If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations…..There are two conceivable explanations — and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn’t mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.”

          You write “This is incorrect. There are >3000 ARGO floats sampling OHC 0 – 2000m in all major ocean basins. The data are unequivocal. You are arguing from assertion and you are wrong.”

          I’m not arguing from assertion, (although you certainly have the slogans down pat). I’m simply stating things that you ought to know but clearly have chosen not to know. Argo has been operating only since 2003 and not fully until 2007. In
          that time many problems have been found. Its touching that you have so much faith in these data, but it really is quite too early to be betting the house on its accuracy. Still its currently telling the story that you want to hear so you’ll believe it without question. Well the adjusted data is telling the right story…the raw data isn’t quite so accommodating. As Trenberth says (and he’s a really consensus guy so you are required to believe him upon pain of excommunication) “Trenberth questions whether the Argo measurements are mature enough to tell as definite a story as Hansen lays out. He has seen many discrepancies among analyses of the data, and there are still “issues of missing and erroneous data and calibration,” he said. The Argo floats are valuable, he added, but “they’re not there yet.”

          Valid Argo data only goes back to 2007….2003 if you want to be completely credulous. Why is it that you see such a short time frame as being more than sufficient to prove your point, but the much longer hiatus timeframe is, in your view, too short to draw conclusions. Six year trend that tells the right story is gold. 17 yr trend that tells the wrong story – nothing to see here folks. Can you spell hypocricy :) .

    • Nick says:

      Is the super dope Giddeon still posting?
      Passing on another attempted gotcha framing as in ‘Trenberth admits’ a PDO factor, an influence from natural variability ?…

      FYI, Gids, Trenberth has spent at least two decades exploring the interplay between natural modes and variability, and anthropogenic influence. It’s not as though his publication record is hidden away.

      Gloating about your ignorance yet again?

  4. john byatt says:

    definition of heatwave takes into account local conditions etc

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-11/wa-closes-parks-ahead-of-heatwave/5195514

  5. Gregory T says:

    Who would of thought that people would die from an anomaly ?

  6. Andrew Strang says:

    Possibly for the general benefit of J Giddeon and to punctuate the thread, an interesting new infographic appears here –

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2014/01/10/about-that-consensus-on-global-warming-9136-agree-one-disagrees/

  7. john byatt says:

    Roy obviously did not understand what the ten years referred to,

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/01/al-gores-10-year-warning-only-2-years-left-still-no-warming/#comments

    read the comments

    • J Giddeon says:

      You know there’s an awful lot of this going on. Poor scientists making predictions about future climate and being totally misunderstood. For reasons that elude me, we only find out that they’ve been misinterpreted AFTER the prediction is falsified. You’d think that these people would make strenuous efforts to immediately set the record straight but I guess they’re way to busy an important for that.

      Poor Flannery never meant that dams wouldn’t fill. Gore never meant that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013. Trenberth has been saying (quietly) for decades that nature systems can overwhelm CO2.

      But somehow, the information that they’ve been misunderstood remains unavailable for the longest time and only surfaces when they’ve been shown to be wrong. Well, they weren’t wrong, they were just misunderstood. I blame Big Oil.

      • john byatt says:

        “Poor Flannery never meant that dams wouldn’t fill. Gore never meant that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013. Trenberth has been saying (quietly) for decades that nature systems can overwhelm CO2.”

        quotes too hard ?

        you are like a creationist with this hoax drug cult religion accepting anything the priests tell him,

        so come on, quotes and your own explanations not bolt and roy’s distortion

        • john byatt says:

          and old Roy’s drug cult priests have been claiming that god will return just about every year for the past 2000. some people still believe that crap.
          waiting waiting

        • J Giddeon says:

          Yes I agree..the priesthood of both religions are hopeless at predicting the future.

        • J Giddeon says:

          “quotes too hard ?”

          We did an entire thread on Flannery’s failed prediction so refresh your memory from there..
          I linked to Gore’s speech above to help Nick, who was determined to NOT find it.
          I was being satirical about Trenberth.

        • john byatt says:

          still no quotes, and don’t tell me tell Roy about his mushroom cult failed predictions

      • Nick says:

        Giddeon’s extraordinary non-stop dancing effort continues!

        Dimwit, you were pinged the first times you tried out your stupidities here…you just will never acknowledge it. Never. That’s OK. I know the score. You’re a pathetic serial liar and dull provocateur.

        It must be complete exhaustion on your part: you can barely stand up. But, hey, they’re playing your song again, you must stagger to your feet even if you cannot think straight…

        Put him out of his misery.

        • J Giddeon says:

          Wow, Nick’s really gone over the edge. And to think that when I first came here, I pegged him as the most cerebral of the group. First impressions aren’t always right I guess.

        • Nick says:

          Infantile. I’m OTE because you are serially incorrect and obnoxiously incorrigible? Your choice of ‘material’ and the conclusions you think flow from it proves you are a fantasist, well over the edge of reality.

          The options :You did not read the Gore speech, or did read it but have a crippling comprehension problem. Or your egoism keeps your gums flapping, facts be damned. If your ego is driving you to do that, you need therapy.

          It’s not exactly difficult to see the divergence between Solomon’s ‘interpretation’ and the source material.

        • J Giddeon says:

          Yes Yes Nick, I get it. You’ve decided that poor Al didn’t really think the arctic would be ice free by 2013, he was just passing on info that others thought that. Don’t shoot the messenger and all that.

          Funny that he didn’t say at the time that he didn’t accept these predictions. Funnier still that when so many others started saying that he’d made that prediction, he didn’t set them right. Only when the prediction is shown to be definitively wrong do the foot-soldiers decide that he was badly misinterpreted.

          /sarc off.

          The fact is that these high priests of the faith are more than happy to put these predictions out there in line with Schneider’s exhortation to scary scenarios. They serve the purpose of getting the plebs suitably concerned so that desired changes are more amenable. This was especially so in 2007 at the height of the hysteria. Gore wasn’t about to say anything even close to a reasoned assessment. The whole point was to build the hysteria, and it worked – for a while. Now its rebounding and the retreat is on. But the people remember those who cried wolf and aren’t about to be fooled again.

        • Nick says:

          Yes, yes, I get it..

          No, you still do not want to have a clue, dancing fool.

          Solomon: Gore / said / will

          Gids goes ditto, look at the transcript! Gore said! It will! By now!

          transcript: Group x and group y / project / could…one group that Gore relayed projected a later figure, Solomon ignored that..but by Solomon’s magnificent parsing, surely Gore ‘said’ that ,too! LOL

          I didn’t ‘decide’ any of that, the f**king facts speak for themselves, nitwit! Clearly Gore thought that, if credible projections were made, then the Arctic Ocean could be ice free by the dates he relayed.

          Could. Will. Could . Will. Could. Will…hey, different words, different meanings! Wow! Are you going to play Humpty Dumpty or are you going to be a grown-up?

          Now a Giddy ‘look, a squirrel’: why didn’t Gore reject the projections at the time of reporting them ? Because Gore was reporting the specialists estimates. He, like Flannery, relays the science from the source. He’s not a sea ice specialist,and never pretended to be. You’ve discovered that Gore is an activist? Such a well-kept secret! He has never pretended to be other than an advocate for action on the weight of evidence and credible projection. He advised his audience of these authoritative estimates. The term of one has not run yet. The other [earliest bound] was an over-estimate, though its context has not been reported by you or Solomon.

          Why do you find this so difficult to understand? Because your dancing fool act depends on your playing the idiot. Simple grabs for simpletons. You’ve dumbed yourself down to rock bottom in quoting Solomon.

          “Now it’s rebounding and the retreat is on” Unintentionally amusing usage there, Gids.

          Somewhere up the page you sagely counselled against using too little data to determine a trend. Here, you are sure that the Arctic sea ice decline trend has reached an inflection / is rebounding, based on one season. Even though Arctic sea ice is at the 4th lowest December extent in the 36 year satellite record.
          And the declining trend is ahead of most projections made over the last twenty years.

  8. john byatt says:

    Lindzen’s 1989 Global temperature prediction

    “we only find out that they’ve been misinterpreted AFTER the prediction is falsified”

    cannot remember anyone in 2007 saying dams would never fill again and quoting Flannery

    and cannot remember anyone in 2006 saying that the Arctic would be melted by 2013 and quoting Gore, read that there was a possibility based on one paper bust most papers and IPCC expected the melt to occur towards the end of the twenty first century,

  9. john byatt says:

    Bushfire Abbott

    Perth Hills residents wait nervously to inspect razed homes
    Devastated Perth Hills residents are anxiously waiting to inspect their homes after at least 46 properties were razed by a bushfire that swept through the area.

    Four people are unaccounted for and with only 70 per cent of the fire zone assessed, authorities say more homes could have been lost.

    The blaze, which has now been contained, flared at Parkerville yesterday morning and quickly spread to surrounding areas, including Stoneville and Mount Helena.

    Anxious residents, meanwhile, have been critical about the amount of information flowing down from emergency services.

    “I don’t think people have got the information they’re after; we’re all on a bit of a wild goose chase and now everyone’s just waiting for that phone call,” said Stoneville resident Russel Goldsmith.

  10. john byatt says:

    (2007) extreme precipitation events predicted for west of Brisbane

    http://www.hpsc.csiro.au/users/abb029/TCs_extreme_rainfall_reports/GCCC_Phase2_final.pdf

    three years later The inland Tsunami

  11. john byatt says:

    most of these predictions of effects of human enhanced global warming were made prior to 1900,,

    That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.
    That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
    That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
    That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.

    Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
    That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
    The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
    They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.

    They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
    The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
    The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
    The expansion of the Hadley cells.

    The poleward movement of storm tracks.
    The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
    The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
    The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
    That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

    Seventeen correct predictions?

    how many have the sceptics made? ONE it would cool….. WRONG

  12. john byatt says:

    climate sceptics party bringing this moron to australia

    http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-essex

    “There is no such thing as global temperature. And if there is no global temperature, how can there be global warming?”

    bring popcorn and tomatoes

    • J Giddeon says:

      Yeah a complete dunderhead….
      “Chris Essex
      Christopher Essex is Professor of Applied Mathematics at the University of Western Ontario. In 2003, he was invited to teach on the thermodynamics of photon and neutrino radiation at the UNESCO advanced school in Udine, Italy. He is also known for work on anomalous diffusion, especially on superdiffusion and extraordinary differential equations. In connection with that, he is codiscoverer with K.H. Hoffmann of the superdiffusion entropy production paradox. He has also worked on applications of dynamical systems theory, such as chaos cryptography, and recently the limits of computation, among other applications of mathematics. By invitation, he has been organizing annual sessions for the World Federation of Scientists in Erice, Sicily on different aspects of the limits of climate forecasting. He has cochaired those sessions with Antonino Zichichi of CERN and Nobel Laureate T.D. Lee. He held an NSERC postdoctoral fellowship in the Canadian Climate Centre’s general circulation modelling group (1982-84). He also held an Alexander von Humboldt Research Fellowship in Frankfurt, Germany (1986-87). In 2002-03 he was a sabbaticant at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, Denmark, supported by a Danish National Bank foreign academic’s program. He is an award-winning teacher and a recipient, with Ross McKitrick, of the $10,000 Donner Prize for 2002, for the book Taken by Storm: the Troubled Science, Policy, and Politics of Global Warming-now in its second edition. That book was also a finalist for the 2002 Canadian Science Writers’ Book Award. In November 2007 he was a panelist and featured speaker at the Chicago Humanities Festival on the theme of climate angst. He is also coauthor with Robert Adams of Calculus: A Complete Course, 7th edition. In December 2007 he was a guest of the Vatican. In 2007 he was commissioned by the Queen to serve on the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.”

    • J Giddeon says:

      And of course this is the first time its happened. Well except for the other 200+ times since 1970 when Griffith temps have exceeded 40c.

      I wonder what they blamed in 1972 when they had a three such days in one month followed by two the next month. Or in 1979 when the same thing happened. Perhaps in those days they just called it weather.

      • john byatt says:

        Most Griffith monthly record high temperatures have been in the twenty first century, you ignore the bleeding obvious

        • J Giddeon says:

          Even if that were true, (and its not), it would be entirely beside the point. the issue was days over 40c and the record shows this was a regular event in the past.

  13. john byatt says:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140109003752.htm

    Jan. 9, 2014 — Ocean dead zones — regions with levels of oxygen too low to sustain marine life — have grown to become a common feature of coastal regions around the world. A new study published in the January 8 issue of PLOS One by Christopher Gobler, Professor in the School of Marine & Atmospheric Sciences at Stony Brook University and colleagues, has found that low pH levels within these regions represent an additional, previously unappreciated, threat to ocean animals.

  14. john byatt says:

    J Giddeon says:
    January 11, 2014 at 1:43 am
    More signs that the great scare is unravelling:

    * Unbelievably I saw some on ABC Breakfast TV talking about turney’s Ship of Fools AND pointing out that, despite Gore’s claims, the Arctic sea ice extent in Dec 2008 was the same as Dec 2013. The poor presenters didn’t know how to respond to such unexpected heresy and I wondered for a moment if the very foundations of our national broadcaster would crumble. But alas things went on as normal although I’m sure there were multitudes of ABC lovies who heard a contrary climate view for the first times in their lives.

    * Trenberth is now admitting that the 1976-1998 warming was “enhanced” by the “the positive phase of the PDO”. He also says that the the negative phase of the PDO explains the post 1998 surface cooling, which of coarse, according to this blog doesn’t exist. Wow, how’d have thunk it, natural forces play a part in the climate!. Who knows, one day we might even find out the sun plays a role as well. I just don’t know how we’ll ever reconcile this with our settled knowledge that its all caused by changing the make-up of the atmosphere by .01%

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

    What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this thread is now dumber for having read it.

  15. john byatt says:

    Monthly GISS @ RC

    data is NASA GISS monthly global temperature anomalies. If you do a least squares regression with this data 1980 to Date1, you will get an “end point” at Date1 on a line of slope X. These end points are traced out in black & the slope in red. If adding more recent data causes the regression slope to increase, it will be due to the temperature rise accelerating during the period of that more recent data. Such acceleration is evident up to July 2007. – See more at:

    http://tinyurl.com/lkfu7my

  16. john byatt says:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1971.73.6.02a00620/abstract

    the fertility cult of the catholic church is not in dispute, think anti gay, anti condom, anti abortion, every sperm is sacred.

    That christianity is linked to ancient drug cults is also not in dispute, just what type of drug is the question

    I see that Pyne wants Judeo-christian values taught in schools,

    what no more catholic kids chanting “the jews killed jesus” going home on the school bus

    the creationists who claim that AGW is a hoax have themselves fallen for the biggest hoax in history, no jesus no paul, no god, and that is a fact

  17. J Giddeon says:

    Judith Curry, speaking before a US Senate committee about AGW, sums it all up in one sentence….

    “a theory whose basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain.

  18. J Giddeon says:

    I really don’t want to get into this whole Jesus-didn’t-exist thing with JB. He’s just as doctrinaire on this as any fundamentalist and isn’t really interested in actual knowledge or unbiassed evaluation.

    But it probably does need to be pointed out that “Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted”.

    You could say there is a consensus on this. Then again we do know that the consensus can often be wrong.

    • john byatt says:

      seeing you quote without crediting .

      you can start here

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

      about another ten years of study for you

      you obviously have never read any of the non christian sources

      hoist on your own petar as usual

      • J Giddeon says:

        I advise that the majority of experts on the issue agree that JC existed.

        The main reason for those views are the relative unanimity among the contemporary sources eg Tacitus, Josephus and Suetonius.

        From this, using whatever is the opposite of logic, JB concludes that I “obviously have never read any of the non christian sources”.. You’ve just gotta shake your head and hope that he does have a driver’s licence.

        • john byatt says:

          you have obviously never read Tacitus, Josephus and Suetonius.

          probably read the interpolated version of josephus ,

        • john byatt says:

          http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html

          Louis H. Feldman writes (Josephus, Judaism and Christianity, p. 57): “The fact that an ancient table of contents, already referred to in the Latin version of the fifth or sixth century, omits mention of the Testimionium (though, admittedly, it is selective, one must find it hard to believe that such a remarkable passage would be omitted by anyone, let alone by a Christian, summarizing the work) is further indication that there was no such notice…” I regard this as an important and powerful piece of evidence, although one that doesn’t get much attention.

          the argument for both sides is there, was reading this stuff forty years ago, and on it goes

        • J Giddeon says:

          JB, you are making it too easy…

          1. If you are going to say its obvious I did this or didn’t do that, its probably worthwhile to have some passingly valid reason behind that. Even BBD won’t be able to help you out if you just stamp your feet and shout “tis too”.

          2. I obviously haven’t read josephus but I probably have read it?

          3. a week ago it was A FACT that there was no Jesus (” the biggest hoax in history, no jesus no paul, no god, and that is a fact”). Now “the argument for both sides is there”. JB’s ‘facts’ are rather nebulous. ;)

          4. In the late 70s I did an Ancient History elective as part of my BA. Main areas of study….Thukydides and the Flavians. If, as you claim, you’ve read Suetonius et al, you’ll understand the ramifications of that.

        • john byatt says:

          Suetonius you have to be joking,

          there is no evidence that jesus existed, he is a myth,

          but if you wish to believe that a water walking, magic man existed then go for it the evidence does not back your ignorance

          this is not new info, most of this was known in the early ninteenth century

          http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

        • john byatt says:

          Paul was a load of crap as well,

          http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/saul-paul.htm

        • J Giddeon says:

          Well JB you’re all over the place on this. First you say I should read Suetonius, now he’s a joke. Then you say I haven’t read Josephus and then I probably have. Then its a fact that there was no Jesus…then there are arguments on both sides…now we’re back to it being a fact. Perhaps you need to reacquaint yourself with what you last wrote before making a fool of yourself each time.

          Now I find that you don’t even understand the parameters of the issue with your ” but if you wish to believe that a water walking, magic man existed”. The question of the historicity of Jesus is whether there was a man named Jesus, born in the 4 yrs either side of 1 CE who died in the reign of Tiberius on a Roman cross and whose followers spread word of his supposed deeds into the Greco-Roman world. Questions of his divine abilities are religious, not historical.

          What I see is someone who came across a book (Allegro) that said what he wanted to hear. JB accepted it without further thought or investigation even though most experts rejected and even mocked it and the publishers apologised for even printing the drivel. All rather pathetic and not worth the effort in trying to set him straight. As I said earlier, he has the faith of a fundamentalist and mere data ain’t gunna shift him from that.

        • john byatt says:

          jesus is the greek rendition of the name, go back to basics,

          “Now I find that you don’t even understand the parameters of the issue with your ” but if you wish to believe that a water walking, magic man existed”. The question of the historicity of Jesus is whether there was a man named Jesus, ”

          obviously now you accept that at least part of the jesus story is myth,take away the miracles and magic man stories and you are left with nothing but a name Yeshua, a very common name at the time,

          had you read the historical accounts and followed up on them you would have found that they are complete nonsense for any claim of an historical person,

          so again you at least concede that part of the story is complete myth,

          the same myth as it relates to dionysus, mithra etc etc

          by your reasoning Zeus existed , i mean we even have coins to confirm that

        • john byatt says:

          just as you do not accept expert evidence from climatologists , believing that you know better, you also now claim to know better than an expert in the field of comparative religious studies, the dead sea scrolls and a renowned scholar in philogy

          http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=john+allegro&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

          nothing new here

        • J Giddeon says:

          “For instance, when John M. Allegro wrote a rather bizarre work (The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1973]) to argue that Jesus probably never lived, he was greeted by intense criticism from his peers, even though he admitted that his views were only speculation on his part. Norman Anderson reports that, in England, Allegro’s thesis was dismissed by fifteen experts in Semitic languages and related fields who lodged their protest in a letter that was published in the May 26, 1970 issue of The Times (apparently referring to the American edition). They judged that Allegro’s views were “not based on any philological or other evidence that they can regard as scholarly.” The book was also “met with scathing criticism in review after review.” See Anderson’s Jesus Christ: The Witness of History (Leicester: InterVarsity, 1985), p. 15, fn. 2. John A.T. Robinson concurs, mentioning Allegro’s volume in a section of his book entitled “The Cynicism of the Foolish.” Robinson asserts that if such reasoning was found in other disciplines, it “would be laughed out of court.” See Robinson’s Can We Trust the New Testament? p. 15”

          (here)

          Allegro is the sky dragon slayer of the “Christ-myth” world.

          “he (Allegro) admitted that his views were only speculation on his part.” Mere speculation to the author…obvious fact to the gullible reader. Dear oh dear

          BTW the above experts wrote to the Times because the book had been serialised in its pages. Strangely JB claimed the book had been banned. Dear oh dear :)

        • john byatt says:

          it was banned in australia,

          the debate is no longer about whether drugs were used in ancient religions but rather which were the drugs

          Clark Heinrich (born 1945) is an American author living in the coastal mountains of California, specializing in comparative religion and ethno-botany since 1974. He has reportedly studied with masters of yoga and Western mysticism.
          He is known for his views on consuming the mushroom fly agaric or Amanita muscaria as a hallucinogenic to achieve religious ecstasy. His book Magic Mushrooms in Religion and Alchemy, which is an improved second edition of his earlier Strange Fruit, explores the role that Amanita muscaria may have played in various mythologies, belief systems and religious art throughout history, such as Native American Anishinaabeg mythology, the Rig Veda, the Puranas, the biblical Old Testament and New Testament, Gnosticism, the Holy Grail legend, Alchemy and Renaissance painting.[1]
          The book The Apples of Apollo: Pagan and Christian Mysteries of the Eucharist deals with possible occurrences of entheogens in general, and Amanita muscaria in particular, in Greek and biblical mythology and later on in Renaissance painting, most notably in the Isenheim Altarpiece by Matthias Grünewald.

          here we have a complete strawman

          “What I see is someone who came across a book (Allegro) that said what he wanted to hear. JB accepted it without further thought or investigation”

          my readings on comparative religion started many years previous and revealed that there was nothing unique about christianity, just a rehashed god from previous religions, many of these ancient religions were fertility and drug cults but i never even suspected that christianity was also of the same ilk,

          i knew that jesus was a mythical being decades before reading allegro

        • john byatt says:

          loved his reference

          “John A.T. Robinson concurs, mentioning Allegro’s volume in a section of his book entitled “The Cynicism of the Foolish.” Robinson asserts that if such reasoning was found in other disciplines, it “would be laughed out of court.” See Robinson’s Can We Trust the New Testament? p. 15″

          John Robinson (bishop of Woolwich) – Wikipedia, the free …
          en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Robinson_(bishop_of_Woolwich)‎
          John Arthur Thomas Robinson (16 May 1919 – 5 December 1983) was an English New Testament scholar, author and the Anglican Bishop of Woolwich.
          ‎Early life, ministry and …

          new testament scholar = christian apologist

          did not see that coming did you?

        • john byatt says:

          I purchased a copy allegro’s book in the early eighties when it was still banned in australia from this bookshop in sydney,

          http://adyar.com.au/index.php/catalogsearch/result/?q=sacred+mushroom+and+the+cross

          under the counter job in a plain brown paper bag, “it is banned so i cannot display it”

        • J Giddeon says:

          Banned?

          Your Serendipity link says “This list includes eight books which are banned in Australia”. The eight banned books are specifically marked. Your Allegro tripe isn’t one of them. Dear oh dear.

          ‘under the counter job in a plain brown paper bag, “it is banned so i cannot display it” ” The shop-keeper is probably still laughing at the suckers who bought a piece of rubbish just because they thought it was banned.

          Your credulity knows no bounds.

        • john byatt says:

          gee your not doing to well here are you?. i have put up heaps of evidence and so far you have one evangelical and a bishop .

          so any evidence for this magic man?

          normal position from you lot, all religions in the middle east etc may have been drug cultures but not goody goody christianity, and you talk about being duped, ironic

        • J Giddeon says:

          So your ‘evidence’ it was banned has crumbled to one hysterical assertion by someone who thinks that when a book goes out of print its a conspiracy to suppress it. Dear oh dear JB. It just gets more and more embarrassing for you. I thought you’d hit rock bottom when you linked to the Serendipity site because you thought it supported your silly claims only to find it did the opposite. But after hitting rock bottom, you find a way to sink even further.

          Face it old boy, when you bought the book in the brown paper bag, you were being made a fool. But you must be used to that.

        • john byatt says:

          You still do not get it the serendipity site was to show you that many books about drugs are still banned in australia. the store where i bought it was the only bookshop in australia which had it you fool, why because at the time it was banned but a friend at james cook uni knew were i could get a copy when i was next in sydney, you are just displaying your own ignorance about a book which you have only just found out exists,

        • J Giddeon says:

          Attaboy, JB. Never admit an error. Stick to your guns no matter how foolish you look.

          There isn’t the slightest evidence that this silly book was banned anywhere including Aust. When I first mentioned this you would have, like me, done a Google search to find evidence of it. And like me you would have found that there is scant mention of Allegro being banned.And like me you would have stumbled upon the Serendipity site which had the book in question in a list that included banned books. But unlike me you didn’t bother to read it carefully in your haste to post your ‘vindication’.

          Think about it. Its not mentioned in any listing of banned books.
          It was so not-banned in the UK and the USA that it was syndicated in their press.
          Its held in the Mitchell Library as a first edition (1970) (see below)

          Your gullibility led you down the garden path. But we’ll all pretend to not notice, ok?

        • john byatt says:

          this copy has been updated each year

          http://ahcult.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/the-sacred-mushroom-and-the-cross-john-allegro.pdf

          enjoy giddeon

          Reply
          john byatt says:
          January 26, 2014 at 6:19 am
          “To the reader, enjoy a once banned book”.

          no it wasn’t banned says the guy who only ever heard about it a day or so ago

          the reality and the giddeon

        • J Giddeon says:

          I first started reading about the changes in the thinking about Jesus following the Dead Sea Scrolls when I read a book called “The secret life of Jesus”
          by Robert Macklin back in the early 1990’s. This book was a speculative look at what Jesus might have been like given the new data about Essenes. Among lots of other data it covered the Allegro controversy which led me to source that book from Mitchell Lib. I didn’t read it in full but got enough to know why it had been heavily panned. It also led onto other reading including Thiering and Meurois-Givaudan.

          In Macklin’s book, he mentions the Talmudic tradition of Mary being impregnated by a Roman soldier called Pantera (panther). He speculates that this is the correct story of the virginal birth – a girl who strays and then finds a divine excuse. He then speculates that, since the only panthers known in the Roman world were black then this Pantera must have been a Negro. He then speculates that Jesus would have therefore looked quite different to the average Jew and this is why he was successful and also a bit of an outsider.

          Speculation built on speculation leading to a fun conclusion that even the author doesn’t believe.

          And this is what Allegro does. Even he calls his book speculative. But in the hands of types like JB speculation becomes fact.

          If JB had read Macklin’s book he’d be telling us how it is a FACT that Jesus was black and anyone who doesn’t buy that is just a christian apologist and therefore wrong wrong wrong. You can probably, at a stretch, call it research, but I wouldn’t.

        • john byatt says:

          Macklin is not a specialist why the hell would i read that, might as well read crap like the da vinci code,

          too funny claiming that i would read von dickhead and it is you reading the nonsense

        • john byatt says:

          no wonder you believe anything that watts tells you,

          you have had practise believing anything the church tells you

          Yeshu (ישו in Hebrew and Aramaic) is the name of an individual or individuals mentioned in Rabbinic literature.[1] The oldest works in which references to Yeshu occur are the Tosefta and the Talmud, although some scholars consider the references to Yeshu to be post-Talmudic additions.

          [2]
          During the Middle Ages, Ashkenazic Jewish authorities were forced[by whom?] to interpret these passages in relation to the Christian beliefs about Jesus of Nazareth. As historian David Berger observed,

          Whatever one thinks of the number of Jesuses in antiquity, no one can question the multiplicity of Jesuses in Medieval Jewish polemic. Many Jews with no interest at all in history were forced to confront a historical/biographical question that bedevils historians to this day.[3]

          In 1240 Nicholas Donin, with the support of Pope Gregory IX, referred to Yeshu narratives to support his accusation that the Jewish community had attacked the Virginity of Mary and the divinity of Jesus. In the Disputation of Paris, Yechiel of Paris conceded that one of the Yeshu stories in the Talmud referred to Jesus of Nazareth, but that the other passages referred to other people. In 1372, John of Valladolid, with the support of the Archbishop of Toledo, made a similar accusation against the Jewish community; Moses ha-Kohen de Tordesillas argued that the Yeshu narratives referred to different people and could not have referred to Jesus of Nazareth.[4] Asher ben Jehiel also asserted that the Yeshu of the Talmud is unrelated to the Christian Jesus.[5]
          There are some modern scholars who understand these passages to be references to Christianity and the Christian figure of Jesus,[6] and others who see references to Jesus only in later rabbinic literature.[7][8] Johann Maier argued that neither the Mishnah nor the two Talmuds refer to Jesus

          as evidence of a historic jesus it would be thrown out of court,

          oh and barbara, i have spoken to her,

  19. john byatt says:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/21/2013-4th-hottest-year_n_4638954.html

    NOAA fourth hottest
    tied seventh in GISS ( 2013 hotter in GISS than NOAA though

    possible el nino developing northern autumn

  20. john byatt says:

    “. Then its a fact that there was no Jesus…then there are arguments on both sides…now we’re back to it being a fact”

    you fail to understand the onus of proof, it is impossible to prove that something does not exist, eg a flying spag monster, so the responsibility falls on those who claim something does exist, in this case your claim that the jesus of the gospels existed,

    so far you have failed to provide any evidence, handwaving to scholars who represent the christian church

    did you really think that the church would acknowledge the myth?

    all a myth

    • J Giddeon says:

      Onus of proof…we have any number of pre-Christian writers who talk about him eg Suetonius, Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny, The Talmud (which gives him different parentage), the Koran. There are no 1st and 2nd century texts that dispute his existence. OK, so you want to ignore all that because its inconvenient. That’s fine,but don’t call it scholarship. What proof do you want? A certified copy of the birth certificate from the Nazarene municipal council?

      ” in this case your claim that the jesus of the gospels existed”

      I understand why you constantly want to redefine the terms of my ‘claims’. I don’t and haven’t in any of the above, claim that Jesus of the Gospels existed. I, and the vast majority of scholars of the period, simply say that a man named Jesus was born around 1CE and died in the reign of Tiberius on a Roman cross. That’s all I say. Since you are on very thin ground on that point, you keep trying to change the issue.

      If pressed, I’d suggest that this man was a relatively minor political leader of a vaguely rebellious sect (either Essenes or an offshoot of the Essenes) who had some shamanistic skills learnt from his predecessor (John the Baptist) and who overstepped the mark in some way with either the Pharisees or the Romans. His best asset, like many well-known but failed leaders (eg Julius Caesar) , was that he was succeeded by some very capable men.

      • john byatt says:

        no he was the sacred mushroom incarnate, and again you cite sources without any actual reference to anything, you have been duped by the catholic church for two thousand years

        “what proof do you want”

        well let us have your proof from Pliny for a start

        • john byatt says:

          Scratch Pliny

          Pliny the Younger
          Pliny the Younger was a Roman official born in 62 CE. In one letter c. 106 CE he said “Christians were singing a hymn to Christ as to a god …” That is all. In all of Pliny’s writings, we find one small tangential reference, and not even to Christ, but to Christians. Again, notice, the absence of the name Jesus. This could have referred to any of the other “christs”[139] who were being followed by some Jews who thought they had found the messiah.
          Pliny’s report is only of what other people believed. Even if this sentence does refer to a group who followed Jesus it is not particularly enlightening as no one denies that Christianity was in existence at that time. Pliny’s report might be useful in documenting the religion, but not the historic Jesus.

        • john byatt says:

          scratch the talmud

          Talmud
          Perhaps surprisingly, some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, a collection of Jewish civil and religious law, including commentaries on the Torah, as evidence for the existence of Jesus. They claim that a man called “Yeshu” in the Talmud refers to Jesus.
          However, this Jesus, according to Gerald Massey, is actually a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia who lived at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus. And regardless of how one interprets the name “Yeshu”, the Palestinian Talmud was written between the 3rd and 5th century CE, and the Babylonian Talmud was written between the 3rd and 6th century CE, at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion.
          In other words, even if it does refer to Jesus, it is even more recent then the gospels and even less useful as an eyewitness reference.

          see you have been believing a load of codswhallop

        • john byatt says:

          scratch Suetonius

          Suetonius
          A Roman historian born in 69 CE mentions a “Chrestus,” a common name meaning “good,” used by both slaves and free people and occurring more than 80 times in Latin inscriptions. Apologists assume that “Chrestus” means “Christ”, which it generally does not. But even if Suetonius had meant “Christ,” it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus.
          Suetonius wrote a biography called Twelve Caesars around the year 112 CE, mentioning that Claudius “banished the Jews from Rome, since they had made a commotion because of Chrestus,” and that during the time of Nero “punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief …” Notice that there is no mention of Jesus by name. It is unlikely that Christianity had spread as far as Rome during the reign of Claudius, or that it was large enough to have caused a revolt.

          any of this sinking in?

        • J Giddeon says:

          A book called “Godless” – that’s your preferred source? Completely impartial, is it?

          As an example of its lack of rigour, “Godless” says the fact that the Talmud was finalised several centuries after the event is conclusive. But it fails to point out that the Talmud was an oral history only written down following the 70CE destruction of the temple. So it is quite contemporary. Also it is highly hostile to JC. If there was the slightest evidence that he was a fiction, they surely would have used it. But nowhere in any ancient literature is there any claims that the JC was a fiction.

        • J Giddeon says:

          And once more from Wikipedia, just to show how screwball your beliefs are (yes they are beliefs just like fundamentalist beliefs)

          “Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity. There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.”

        • john byatt says:

          ignore that it is rational wiki

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

          The Talmud contains passages that some scholars have concluded are references to Christian traditions about Jesus. The history of textual transmission of these passages is complex and scholars are not agreed concerning which passages are original, and which were added later or removed later in reaction to the actions of Christians. Scholars are also divided on the relationship of the passages, if any, to the historical Jesus, though most modern scholarship views the passages as reaction to Christian proselytism rather than having any meaningful trace of a historical Jesus.

          you idiot, i have been reading this shit for thirty years or more

        • john byatt says:

          http://www.amazon.com/Godless-Evangelical-Preacher-Americas-Atheists/dp/1569756775

          Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists

          now i am pissing myself laughing at your pathetic attempts

        • J Giddeon says:

          “i have been reading this shit for thirty years or more”

          So you say….but there’s no evidence for that.

        • john byatt says:

          there certainly is and it is in the theological section at james Cook uni, just about every book there has a record of when i took it out, only a few years ago a friend who lives in Townsville range to say that he was going through some of the books and my name was in every fucking one he picked up,

          the theological section contained real scholars writing real comparative studies and even about the drugs in religion, books not available in the public realm,

          when james cook uni opened many UK universities donated many books, r books about Soma and other drug cultures where priced at about $5000 at the time, they were the culmination of decades of work by these scholars and really only affordable by such institutions

          you know nothing about such things and i find your insistence that most scholars agree simply a confirmation of your own ignorance

        • john byatt says:

          Your ignorance is breathtaking

          “But it fails to point out that the Talmud was an oral history only written down following the 70CE destruction of the temple”
          sheesh

          The first Christian censorship of the Talmud happened in the year 521.[1] However, far better documented censorship began during the disputations of the Middle Ages. Advocates for the Christian church alleged that the Talmud contained insulting references to Jesus and his mother, Mary

          . Jewish apologists during the disputations said there were no references to Jesus in the Talmud,

          and claimed Joshua and its derivations was a common Jewish name, that they referred to other individuals. The disputations led to many of the references being removed (censored) from subsequent editions of the Talmud.

          but what would the people who wrote it know compared to giddeon , your name is ironic, you just ignore anything you do not like and write complete drivel

          so after claiming scholars are on his side he now disputes scholars

          As evidence of the historical Jesus[edit]

          Bart Ehrman and separately Mark Allan Powell state that the Talmud references are quite late (hundreds of years) and give no historically reliable information about the teachings or actions of Jesus during his life. Ehrman clarifies that the name “Son of Panthera” (Roman who allegedly was the seducer of Mary) was a tradition, as scholars have long recognized, that represented an attack on the Christian view, that he was the “son of a virgin.” In Greek, the term for virgin is Parthenon, pun of Panthera. [43][44]
          Also, there are contradictions in the Talmud about the times when Jesus lived. In Sotah 47a, Sanhedrin 107 it is said that Jesus lived in days of Alexander Jannaeus’ reign (103 BC to 76 BC), but the Sanhedrin 43a (Jesus’ execution) is an Amoraic reference about events that occurred from 200 AC to 500 AC.
          Peter Schäfer states that there can be no doubt that the narrative of the execution of Jesus in the Talmud refers to Jesus of Nazareth, but states that the rabbinic literature in question are from a later Amoraic period and may have drawn on the Christian gospels, and may have been written as responses to them.[45]
          Scholars argue that the Talmud provides no evidence of Jesus as a historical individual, instead they view the Talmudic references as reaction to Jesus as the messiah of Christianity.

          jews reject that it is about jesus

          may have drawn on the christian gospels,

          not much evidence to go on there, i have read christian apologist books that after concluding that each separate reference is bogus to then have the hide to say that many bogus references must point to a historical jesus

  21. john byatt says:

    HE ANUNNAKI AS REFLECTED IN THE SCRIPTURES

    Is there evidence in Western religious literature that corroborates the activities of the Anunnaki as it is found in the numerous myths, poems, and hymns of Mesopotamia? These Sumerian sources deal with the same events – the creation of Man, its subsequent modification into a modern man or Homo sapiens, the existence of god-kings, the coming of the Deluge, and many of the subsequent events of recorded history.

    There is a large body of religious literature besides the Book of Genesis which deals with the period before the Deluge. Sources such as the three books of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, the Gnostic teachings, the Dead Sea scrolls, the Haggadah or the oral tradition of the Jews, the Rabbinical writings, the works of Josephus, and many works of the Pseudepigrapha.

    Much of what is not intelligible in these ancient religious writings is explained in part in the large library of available Sumerian, Babylonian and other cuneiform inscriptions. It will be demonstrated that the Scriptures and Sumerian literature, regarded in a historical context, and stripped of their spiritual and mythological verbiage, support and augment each other remarkably. For it is clear that Sumer was the fountainhead for the events and stories of the Old Testament and other Western religious writings.

    Much as Biblical apologists have tried to avoid or cloud the issue of the origin of the Old Testament, the historical facts clearly show that its antecedents are in the valley of Mesopotamia.

    So what has allegro discovered,? hardly surprising that many of the ancient sacred words also originated in Mesopotamia, words as used in the earliest gospels.

    how hard is this ?

    • john byatt says:

      “To the reader, enjoy a once banned book”.

      no it wasn’t banned says the guy who only ever heard about it a day or so ago

  22. john byatt says:

    re your reference to passage in the book by Habermas

    Gary Habermas – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Habermas‎
    Gary Robert Habermas (born 1950) is an American evangelical Christian apologist, … Gary R. Habermas and Antony G. N. Flew, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?

    bet he reckons he did. too funny giddeon you are way out of your depth

    • john byatt says:

      enjoy Zoroastrianism /ˌzɒroʊˈæstriənɪzəm/, also called Zarathustraism, Mazdaism and Magianism, is an ancient Iranian religion and a religious philosophy. It was once the state religion of the Achaemenid, Parthian, and Sasanian empires. Estimates of the current number of Zoroastrians worldwide vary between 145,000 and 2.6 million.[1]
      Zoroastrianism arose in the eastern region of the ancient Persian Empire, when the religious philosopher Zoroaster simplified the pantheon of early Iranian gods[2] into two opposing forces: Ahura Mazda (Illuminating Wisdom) and Angra Mainyu (Destructive Spirit) in the 7th century BCE.
      Zoroaster’s ideas led to a formal religion bearing his name by about the 6th century BCE and have influenced other later religions including Judaism, Gnosticism, Christianity and Islam.[3]

      and lets not forget Haoma the drug, possibly aminita

      • john byatt says:

        ah the internet certainly beats spending a decade in the theological section of james cook uni

        in those days you had to sign a little chit in the back of the book you were borrowing

  23. john byatt says:

    Evidence of drugs in ancient religions including christianity

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_A._P._Ruck

    for some strange reason we seem to believe that the drug culture began in the sixties.

    thousands of years ago they were not seen as “drugs’ but the plants of enlightenment , sacred plants

        • john byatt says:

          “Erwin Panofsky asserting that art scholars are aware of many ‘mushroom trees’ in Christian art. but he claimed that they were pine trees”, bad move, amanitia is associated with pine trees and the pine cone in ancient art and sculpture

          http://www.egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm

          so if the creationists and fundamentalists wish to claim that climate change is a hoax then i will expose their own religious hoax, I kept quiet due to not wishing to upset the christian mainstream,sorry but it is becoming too dangerous to now consider their sensitivities.

          apologies to those offended

        • Bernard J. says:

          Heh, I think that we’d have a few evening’s worth of fat-chewing about religion, mythologies, and entheogenesis, John.

          On Amanita, it’s as partial to oak and birch as it is to pine (oak especially around here) and although I sadly cannot attest to it’s psychotropic qualities (which are heat-labile) I hear that it has a delicious savoury bacon flavour.

        • john byatt says:

          did not even know in the beginning that it was associated with pine as my early readings were about the siberian shamans and the birch tree’s symbiotic relationship. the pine tree association came later.

          came across it once when i lived in tassie, across the road there was a small pine plantation, was surprised to find it there,

          no have not tried it as i have not tried any drugs, those who take it thinking they are having some sort of spiritual enlightenment, deeper understanding etc just fooling themselves,

          “The Dead Sea Scrolls scholar John Marco Allegro also proposed that early Christianity sprang from cultic use of the fly agaric in Second Temple Judaism, and that the mushroom itself was used by the Essenes as an allegory for none other than Jesus Christ”.

          he is not saying that early christians necessarily took the drug as the apologists have tried to make out, only that the gospels stories reflect an ancient tradition of reverence of the amanitia “christ crucified”

          they are reading used in the wrong context

          alas, up here they only talk about football

        • john byatt says:

          just as Salman Rushdie ridiculed and took the piss out of catholicism and the politics of Canada UK USA Australia and New Zealand in the satanic verses the new testament writers were doing the same to the romans.

          i can just imagine them saying ” hey put the one in about the shekel in the fishes mouth” and having a good laugh.

          after reading it i thought that if anyone else in Australia was likely to understand it then it would be phillip adams, so i rang him, shit you have done a lot of reading he said, could only discuss it briefly as he was catching a plane

        • john byatt says:

          “after reading it” ( the satanic verses)

        • john byatt says:

          As a child we had the worlds best disposal shop, about two acres of great stuff, even jousting sticks and old ship figureheads, a real treasure hunt .As a child i came across boxes of books at the back of one of the sheds, filled with these,books Roy Unwin the shopkeeper could not believe his luck that he had a purchaser, think i hid them from my parents for a few years, but they were the beginning of a wonderful journey, i accepted that god was crap but where did the shit come from

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinker's_Library

  24. john byatt says:

    An anniversary edition of sacred mushroom and the cross was released last year by john’s daughter and jan irvin at gnostic media, it not only has the original text but also includes updated findings over the last three decades,

    Allegro’s acedemic publications

    http://www.johnallegro.org/academic-publications/

    • john byatt says:

      rest in moderation amazon edition jan irvin’s book on the controversy

      Review
      Christianity and the Piltdown Hoax (one of the largest academic scandals in history) share many similarities: In both stories the information was constructed and then salted into the information stream, and, through the word of noted scholars, presented as fact, the truth. Scholars have egos and once committed to their ideas through scholarly publications, faculty meetings, and conferences, have difficulty seeing, hearing, or even appreciating an adverse view. To waver from a strongly held opinion could spell academic ruin and withdrawal of acclaim. This leads to lively debate,counter stories, and even character assassination if one side or the other is being out trumped in the symbolic mêlée. Jan Irvin (The Holy Mushroom) has captured what we might call an anthropology of clarification regarding whether or not mushrooms, and mind-altering substances in general, played any role in the development of not only Judaism and Christianity but the total culture in play at that time. It is now recognized in many academic communities (anthropologists,sociologists, psychiatrists, psychologists) that sufficient evidence exists of the importance of these substances, both textual and visual, to say yes in very large letters. It is no longer theory. The questions Irvin asks is this: If mind-altering substances did play this major role, then how would this affect our interpretations of the Bible and the Quran? Would this shed light on the origins of mystical experiences and the stories, for example Abraham hearing voices and Ezekiels convenient visions? What would this suggest about the shamanic behavior of Jesus? What impact would this have on organized religion? These are bold questions. This is a very useful volume for those interested in the Holy Mushroom and the politics of truth. Detailed and wonderfully illustrated; great bibliography.
      ~ Professor John A. Rush, Sierra College

      John Allegro’s revelation of the sacramental role of a sacred mushroom in the ancient religions spanning the agrarian region from Mesopotamia to the Near East was immediately and unfairly rejected by a chorus of scholars less competent than him, but continuing research into early Christianity and the mystery religions of the Greco-Roman world and their perpetuation in alchemy and European folkloric traditions has vindicated the correctness of his discovery.
      ~ Professor Carl A. P. Ruck, Boston University –

  25. john byatt says:

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Holy-Mushroom-Judeo-Christianity-re-evaluation/dp/0982556209

    the controversy

    Review
    Christianity and the Piltdown Hoax (one of the largest academic scandals in history) share many similarities: In both stories the information was constructed and then salted into the information stream, and, through the word of noted scholars, presented as fact, the truth. Scholars have egos and once committed to their ideas through scholarly publications, faculty meetings, and conferences, have difficulty seeing, hearing, or even appreciating an adverse view. To waver from a strongly held opinion could spell academic ruin and withdrawal of acclaim. This leads to lively debate,counter stories, and even character assassination if one side or the other is being out trumped in the symbolic mêlée. Jan Irvin (The Holy Mushroom) has captured what we might call an anthropology of clarification regarding whether or not mushrooms, and mind-altering substances in general, played any role in the development of not only Judaism and Christianity but the total culture in play at that time. It is now recognized in many academic communities (anthropologists,sociologists, psychiatrists, psychologists) that sufficient evidence exists of the importance of these substances, both textual and visual, to say yes in very large letters. It is no longer theory. The questions Irvin asks is this: If mind-altering substances did play this major role, then how would this affect our interpretations of the Bible and the Quran? Would this shed light on the origins of mystical experiences and the stories, for example Abraham hearing voices and Ezekiels convenient visions? What would this suggest about the shamanic behavior of Jesus? What impact would this have on organized religion? These are bold questions. This is a very useful volume for those interested in the Holy Mushroom and the politics of truth. Detailed and wonderfully illustrated; great bibliography.
    ~ Professor John A. Rush, Sierra College

    John Allegro’s revelation of the sacramental role of a sacred mushroom in the ancient religions spanning the agrarian region from Mesopotamia to the Near East was immediately and unfairly rejected by a chorus of scholars less competent than him, but continuing research into early Christianity and the mystery religions of the Greco-Roman world and their perpetuation in alchemy and European folkloric traditions has vindicated the correctness of his discovery.
    ~ Professor Carl A. P. Ruck, Boston University –

    • john byatt says:

      bump

      • john byatt says:

        ” Ezekiels convenient visions?

        I had a good long discussion with Barbara Theiring about his many many years ago after her essay on the von dickhead drivels and yes narcotics was mentioned.

        we could never agree on her teacher of righteousness though

        prior to allegro i had read many apologists books on the claims that jesus was a person of history, most of them worked their way through the usual sources and accepted that each was probably not in itself a proof, they always seemed to end up saying ah but look at the many non proofs there are this must be evidence of jesus , came out like that anyway

        after allegro the books changed, no longer did they put up both sides, it was like the kleptocracy viewed themselves as being under attack and had to reinforce the barricades,

        I think that some social atheists actually hope that a jesus existed and maybe then it is all real, i get this impression from those who have started their journey from the wrong end.

  26. john byatt says:

    Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists

    http://www.amazon.com/Godless-Evangelical-Preacher-Americas-Atheists/dp/1569756775

    i am pissing myself at your pathetic attemps here

  27. john byatt says:

    .amazon.com/Godless-Evangelical-Preacher-Americas-Atheists/dp/1569756775

    godless Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists

    goes into mod if full link is included

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 769 other followers

%d bloggers like this: