For example in the first episode we had talk of the “first Christian Kingdom” – ah, I thought, the man is going to talk about Armenia. But instead we got some sillyness instead. There was so much sillyness in the series I have not been able to sit and watch a single episode all through (I keep switching stations because the errors and so on irritate me).

As for Martin Luther – to talk of Luther without discussing predestination is bad. But the man even talked about John Calvin without discussing predestination – I give up.

I heard the maker of the series, on the radio about a month ago. He stuck me as a typical modern academic – a mixture of arrogance and ignorance.

By the way his basic thesis (which does not take long to spot) is false. Christianity has not flurished by adapting to whatever society it finds itself in – or by accepting any social change.

Certainly their are debates and changes within Christianity (as there were in the Catholic Church long before Luther), but Churches that accept everything – that just go along with whatever intellectial fashions come up, do not flourish.

In fact a Church dooms itself by doing that – look at the fate of the once “mainstream” Protestant Churches in the United States (and elsewhere) their “liberalism” (i.e. lack of belief) has led them down the same plug hole that the once “mainstream” media are going. It is the same of the Anglican Church in Britain – it is on the road to extinction, “liberalism” is killing it.

The Roman Catholic church also came close to destroying itself by the interpretations that were pushed of the Second Vatican Council, although the last two Popes do seem to have dragged the Catholic Church back from the brink of destruction.

No suprise for guessing that the BBC academic hates John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

Looking at Carbon Credits as Indulgences, we can really see an ETS as Pascal’s Wager.

Looking at Carbon Credits as Indulgences, we can really see an ETS as Pascal’s Wager.

Lindzen writes: “The defining characteristic of a greenhouse gas is that it is relatively transparent to visible light from the sun but can absorb portions of thermal radiation. In general, the earth balances the incoming solar radiation by emitting thermal radiation, and the presence of greenhouse substances inhibits cooling by thermal radiation and leads to some warming.”

Lindzen neglects the fact that plain old atmospheric pressure is what puts the skids under most thermal radiation, not carbon dioxide.

Therein lies the real crime. Climategate has compromised society’s efforts to determine whether AGW really does exist or not.

While extraordinary claims should normally require extraordinary proofs, and the onus is on the Warmists to prove their case, the whole topic of AGW has acquired sufficient traction that we’re in for decades of research to settle the issue on way or the other.

These people, assuming they are found to have obstructed research, should suffer whatever is the scientist’s equivalent of Mussolini’s fate.

The Climate Unit should be demolished, the site sown with salt and the surviving personnel sent to work in some menial position at an NHS hospital.

That’s farking brilliant.

Should read:

That’s frakkin brilliant.

http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Frak

I have just been watching The History of Christianity Paul, you would enjoy it. They are up to the Reformation, and an analogy just popped into my head.

The person who posted the CRU emails and data can be likened to Luther. He objected to the selling of Indulgences to shorten our souls spell in pergatory, in fact the very idea of pergatory.
Well for Carbon credits and trading substitute Indulgences. Both bogus and fictional of course.

Before Luther “God” was settled as far as the Catholic church was concerned.
After Luther we had Protestantism, so God wasn’t settled after all. Far from it.

So now we have the beginning of AGW Protestantism, now that we can get to examine how shoddy and dupicious the “Settled” science turns out to be.

It is going to be a long struggle to disprove these fanatical assertions of hellfire on earth, but I believe we will.
There are many vested interests here remember. As usual, follow the money.
Greens always scream that “Deniers” are in the pay of Big Oil, but look who finances the Warmers?

Well it’s us via our taxes stolen by the usual gang of criminals…

Big Government.

Goebbels would be proud of the BBC. Whether one is convinced or not convinced in either direction on alleged anthropogenic global warming, forgetting to mention the recent evidence of fraud by climate “scientists” would be like forgetting to mention President Obama while relating the news on US Afghan policy.

Incidentally, Mr. Marks, that kind of willful failure on the part of those who believe they are our intellectual superiors is why so few thinking people are now prepared to give the Climate Gang the benefit of any doubt at all. Show us the data!

However, we must be careful.

The situation reminds me of corrupt policemen – the “climate change” crowd fake evidence, they try to destroy evidence that does not fit their theory, they shamelessly lie and cheat, but……

Remember that many of the people that corrupt policement try to “fit up” are actually guilty.

It is quite possible that there is a globel warming problem, and that C02 emissions are the cause of it.