Hi, Stan. You're new here, like a whole lot of people. You've just shown up, and here's your very first comment.
I noticed that this blog is in the running for a Best Science Blog award.
I've looked over the site. Cna someone point out where the science is on it. I have looked but I can't find any.
Let me introduce myself. My name is PZ Myers. I'm an associate professor of biology at a small liberal arts university in the upper midwest. I make no grand claims for myself, but I have been exceptionally busy lately, with lots of travel and lectures, and it's all on top of teaching two courses, one of which is both new to me and a new course in our discipline, so I'm writing lectures at a frantic pace and trying to keep up with 80 students. I'm also working on a book and have a magazine column to write, in addition to other irregular writing jobs. I'm stretched very, very thin right now, I'm a bit frustrated myself that I haven't had much spare time for the blog, and I'm feeling extremely cranky.
Welcome, Stan Palmer, I'm going to unload on you as a proxy for all your fellow denialist idiots!
First, though, I'll help you out. Look on the left sidebard, for A Taste of Pharyngula. If that's not enough, there's an archive of my Seed columns. You didn't seem to look very hard before leaping to your rather clueless indictment; I suspect you were directed here by one of those right-wing sites and came here with preconceptions. I daresay you probably didn't look at all, but instead simply scampered over here to toss off your petty, ignorant comment.
And then, of course, what's bringing you and your fellow naive whiners here is the need to defend the climate change denialist, McIntyre — so many of you, after carping that I'm not meeting your demands, are protesting that he's not a denialist, and you aren't denialists, and you're all here in the cause of good science.
Bullshit.
My expertise is not in climate, but in biology, and I'm familiar with his type — it's a common strategy among creationists, who do dearly love to collect complaints. There are people who put together a coherent picture of a scientific issue, who review lots of evidence and assemble a rational synthesis. They're called scientists. Then there are the myopic little nitpickers, people who scurry about seeking little bits of garbage in the fabric of science (and of course, there are such flaws everywhere), and when they find some scrap of rot, they squeak triumphantly and hold it high and declare that the science everywhere is similarly corrupt. They lack perspective. They ignore everything that doesn't fit their search criterion, and of course, they're focused only on putrescence. They aren't scientists, they're more like rats.
And the worst of the rats are the sanctimonious ones that declare that they're just 'policing' science. They aren't. They're just providing fodder for their fellow denialists, and like them all, have nothing of value to contribute to advance the conversation. You can quit whining that you and McIntyre are finding valid errors; it doesn't matter, since you're simultaneously spreading a plague of lies and ignorance as you go.
So bugger off, denialists. I am not impressed.
Everyone else, please do vote for Bad Astronomy. Real scientists can see the big picture and understand that the real power of science lies in the explanations, not the pettifoggery with statistics — not that I expect the right-wing gomers at the Weblog Awards who nominated the purveyors of junk science for their award to to know that, or for the swarms of freepers and limbots to care.
Oh, and the next clueless ass to whine at me that they can't find any science here will be disemvoweled. I'm feeling peevish, so it's not a good time to prod.
- Log in to post comments
Congratulations with the hottest scienceblog thread on the web!
Truth Machine is a fucking LEGEND!!!! !1000 posts and he stayed true. Woo Hoo,What can be said about such a lad? Awesome. Saw through the trolls. Put them to the test and put them to rest (except for that pissant Kim).
If I'm ever in the States I shall seek you out and buy you a drink my boy.If for no other reason than you can provide the most stimulating, intellectual arguments I've ever heard.
I'm sorry, Who Cares, Mann no longer has any credibility. Whether his initial mistake was deliberate or not, his subsequent conduct will forever place him outside the pale of scientists. And where are the data points to make the divergence go away? There is very little recent tree boring. If dendroclimatic proxies are so important, why aren't they updated?
Bride, well you just might be right about that, but you aren't disabusing me of the notion.
=====================================================
Proving you got to the 1000, but couldn't rig the beauty contest, Truffy phuckwit. PZ is even more pissed off. As to ChemicalBobby-ha.
JohnS
Oh Bride, no contest. I was just here for the last part of the thread. He sure was getting flaky at the end though, huh?
================================
It's nighty night time here in the land Kim thinks is so stupid so I'm off but I'd like to leave the following.
a) Truth Machine just made me $80 bucks in the dinnner party sweeps for who made post #1000. I owe him bigtime.
b) The award for the most "In Need Of Therapy" post goes to JohnS.
c)Kim, try and make a point in ONE POST. Trying to make you agrument over several entries with this "=========" crap in between is really fucking irritating when you're trying to read it.
Oh, my, God. Who Cares, I have a bone to pick with you and if I weren't tired I'd have noticed it immediately. You trash Holland's article like you understand it, then admit you've no idea of the term 'divergence' as he used it.
Who Cares? I do, damnit. Can you not read the article?
===========================
Bride of Shrek has style criticisms. Well, there is no accounting for it, but the criticism was as cogent as any here.
================================================
Provide backup to the assertion that Mann is disqualified.
You do realize that you just disqualified every scientist on the planet because Mann was one of several people working on that article, so those would be disqualified as well, which in turn leads to disqualifying the scientists they worked with, which ...
Besides Mann did correct mistakes he made but the mistakes corrected were not in the methods or data used. Oh wait that was checked by the IPCC and you do not accept their research.
And why the proxies aren't updated? Just ran a check on the NCDC and it seems there are 207 updates available just for tree rings after 1999. Oh and another update on temperature by Mann, et al in 2005 using the data available on Volcanic and Solar effects.
Hey Shrekables, thanks for your therapy listing. I'm indeed flattered to be counted. After big bro PZ banned me I thought I would be forgotten. I had all my peer reviewed paper lists for ChemicalBobby to check over, and banned, BANNED, most unfair. Anyway now that all you boys have gone, any beer in the fridge- none of that low alcohol stuff, mind. 1000 but couldn't rig a beauty contest, whoda thought it.
JohnS
I read the article. What I do not understand I generally store as an unknown variable. Normally I'd look up that kind of unkown. However in this case the variable didn't have impact on my responses so I saw no need to do the look up.
In other words, you were so biased you didn't see the importance of the divergence problem. It speaks to Mann's credibility, you know.
==================================
Well, Stan, I got insults, fairy tales, and refusal to look at the evidence. And this site was neck and neck with Climate Audit for awhile.
Simply amazing. I'm finished. I'd rather talk to laymen. They are a lot more scientific.
============================================
To Truth Machine,
Sir, I salute your indefatigability.
To The Trolls (and with all due credit to Bill Hicks),
"Shut the fuck up. Your denial is beneath even you and, thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you.
Ha ha. Have a nice life."
Kim at #913:
Historically, there is no relationship between CO2 level and global temperature. Why should there be now?
Chew on this post from Jeff Severinghaus, Professor of Geosciences, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (via RealClimate):
This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.
Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.
The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.
See also his Science article conclusion:
Although the recent CO2 increase has clearly been imposed first, as a result of anthropogenic activities, it naturally takes, at Termination III, some time for CO2 to outgas from the ocean once it starts to react to a climate change that is first felt in the
atmosphere. The sequence of events during this Termination is fully consistent with CO2 participating in the latter 4200 years of the warming. The radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing, which is then further amplified by fast atmospheric feedbacks that are also at work for the presentday and future climate.
The nice thing about this thread is that it exposes the extent of denialist idiocy - all in one handy place. Thanks, folks!
These threads don't go away, you know. Your idiocy will be on display for a very long time!
Hah, Roger of Ockham should move to La Jolla. Even laymen find that reasoning tortured.
=====================================================
Doesn't take any time at all for Kim to outgas an opinion and outguess the experts.
@Kim(#1013):
Yes. I'm biased due to the general tone of the article you try to uphold as sound research. It is not sound, it is trash. It is based on circular reasoning, wishful thinking, distortions and possible selective use of data (which can't be tracked since unlike a sound scientific article there is no reference/source or data list) instead of sound data. Which is one of the reasons I could not be bothered to sacrifice my free time to do look up unknowns.
What is more once I did go after this so called divergence problem I found within about 10 minutes an article explaining where the problem is. And it is not as general as your apologia is trying to make it out as. Further it is a known problem, coping strategies are/have been devised.
Then there is the additional problem of this apologia you are defending being the only article against the data and methods used which means that to defend it you need to ignore stacks of other articles that did not have to be published in a journal of which it is known that the editor will publish just about anything and can't be bothered to see if the article is good science.
Then there is your implicit agreement that scientists are untrustworthy due to the people they worked with or worked for because they are not accepting your delusion of how the world should work.
What is more once I did go after this so called divergence problem I found within about 10 minutes an article explaining where the problem is.
Yes. Tons of great knowledge is out there, readily available. There are many sound, reasoned responses to every one of their idiotic claims, and yet they refuse to take off their blinders.
Hehe. Kim is a creationist... she says it can't be proven false.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH.
She loves science though. Fuckwit.
@ stevie_C (#1021)
Hehe. Kim is a creationist... she says it can't be proven false.
Please tell me how in your opinion the AGW-hypothesis empirically could be proven false.
It's truly stating the obvious, but it's a sad commentary on the denialists' intelligence that I actually have to point this out to them: JohnS, who claims in his comment #1011 that he has been banned, has not been banned. Can we go on for another thousand comments in pointing out that if he had been banned he would not have been able to make comment #1011?
CG, which is more likely, that CO2 outgassed from the ocean after warming, or that something else started the warming cycle, and CO2 finished it? A simple one for the razor.
Who Cares, why on earth you choose to interpret a persuasive article as some sort of research article is a mystery to me.
So little wonderstruck Stevie, if you can't prove creationism false does that make you a creationist? So prove it false.
====================
This is science???
Easy, JePe, if the earth cools and CO2 continues to rise, voila. You'll know soon enough, one of these mananas.
========================================
By the way, I don't understand Mann's explanation for the divergence. Would you care to explain it to me, Who Cares? Has it gone away?
================================
@ #1023
It's truly stating the obvious, but it's a sad commentary on the denialists' intelligence that I actually have to point this out to them
PZ Myers obviously concludes that all "denialists" are by definition stupid?
Intelligent generalisation!
I don't have to prove it false. The theory of evolution and every other science has shown it to be completely unnecessary. Unless your of the "big bang" goddidit crowd, then you can just say god did evolution too and makes bummble bees fly while he's at it.
Can't "prove" god doesn't exist either. But you can say the same about Zeus, Thor and Gnesh too.
Kim claimed CREATIONSIM can't be proven false. You have a creationist on your side JePe. With friends like that who needs logic.
Who Cares, why on earth you choose to interpret a persuasive article as some sort of research article is a mystery to me.
Because persuasive articles do not have to be true. Take for example "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", it was very persuasive but a complete fraud and forgery.
Then there is the use of this article to discredit research without bothering to look up the reasons why your persuasive article is wrong.
And the disingenuous claim that it comes from a scientific journal without pointing out that it is a social sciences journal or that it is known that the editor will publish anything that contradicts AGW because of her upbringing.
In short if you want to discredit research you don't do it with a polemic/apologia but with other research.
JePe. No. Just you and the stupid denialists that have infested this blog.
We label our denialists on a case by case basis.
Evolution denialists are usually deluded religious sheep.
Walked on the moon denialists, are crackpots or paranoid conspiracy theorists.
So PZ, what do you think of the circularity of the main signal in Mann's hockey stick coming from strip bark bristlecones more sensitive to CO2 fertilization than to temperature. Do you understand that on that tautology hangs the horror of Kyoto?
=========================================
If logic ruled the world Stevie C Smartypants, you wouldn't need the likes of me. The world is full of should'ers and do'ers...which one are you? What have you done lately to produce economic value for your fellow man?
If intelligence were the only measure of man, perhaps you would have it made. So you and the rest of the brainiacs around here should get over the copious atomic wedgies you suffered as youths, drop the the act, and get a sense responsibility and make a contribution that would really make a difference.
Get you hands dirty or get out of the way.
Shall we remind Steve that unnecessary is hardly the same as impossible?
===========================================
So Kim, are you a Young Earth Creationist, or an Old Earth Creationst?
I sell drugs Salesman. Lots and lots of drugs.
It's nice that you value humanity one the dividends it pays though... brilliant philosophy.
So big oil are the saints and scientists lepers? Brilliant.
My plan is to get in your way.
If I'm a creationist because I can't prove creationism false, then surely you are one too, if you can't prove it false. You are stumbling over your first baby steps in logic.
=========================================
@ Stevie_C (#1031)
Considering the tone of this thread I am ashamed by the lack of civility by fellow atheists.
I don't know if Kim is a creationist, I do know that Al Gore is a Christian Fundamentalist.
Most interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps#Support_for_Al_Gore
Ethical drug salesmen are bound by law to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, but they are not required to tell the whole truth. Professionally, that is.
============================================
JePe, I am not a creationist. Steve-C lies deliberately, but ingenuously. Tough that one. Deliberately because he should have read my refutation of creationism on the same thread that he picked the other quote up on. Ingenuously because he really has no clue about my point about falsification.
================================================
"truth machine" should be renamed "Napoleon complex" (or at the very least, "insult machine"). You are going to feel pretty silly in a few years when people are crying "Global Cooling" again. I'm sure you'll find a way to link the two just to save face. You remind me of that comic book store owner on the Simpson's.
@Stevie_c:
Off course creationism cannot be disproved. That is because it is setup in such a way that it is unfalsifiable.
I didn't see your refutation of Creationism. Just that you state it can't prove it to be false. Which I disagree with. I didn't say I was a drug salesman. There's more than one way to sell drugs.
Al Gore is not a christian fundamentalist. That's absurd. Mike Huckabee is.
I'm uncivil to assholes, it doesn't matter if they're atheists.
Thank you, Who Cares. But who set it up that way?
===============================
@ Kim (#1040)
I did not think you were a creationist, the regular folks here at Pharyngula specialize in creationists and if you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Dearest Truth Machine,
reading your postings I really get the feeling that you are a kind of Insult Producing Machine (IPM) but if your name refers in any way to science then there is a contradictio in adjecto in your disgusting name: Truth!
By defintion science and truth can't considered as synonymic because every scientific statement and even theory is just a hypothesis about reality and possibly will be falsified one day. Truth(!) is a religious matter. So please just lower your head and pray, ask the LORD for enlightment about climate change; may be HE will help you to boost your little stinking rinky-dinky [TRUTH(?)]-machine. By the way, when you have choosed your name you obviously must have been in a dangerous state of overestimation of your abilities.
After all I find this thread quite funny. I'm a foreigner from old Europe and always interested in new English words. I have learned a lot of interesting swearwords here. Is that the normal way of dialog in the USA? How teachs PZ Myers his scholars? I guess they will become perfect cursers, but what else? Shame on him...
Here him and some other guys appear more like neanderthals than like homo sapiens sapiens.
I'm curious for your reply, dear IPM and for the funny invectives you will provide...
It's probably #21 at the Kentucky thread, but I'm not going back there. Too many have insulted me while agreeing with me.
Now, I may return for amusement, but for now it palls. It's a small point I had there, but oh did they tussle over it like it was a big bone.
======================================
It is easy to criticize creationists until you start going into how YOU think something came out of nothing. It usually comes down to the many world's theory, which states that what can exist does exist, but then you have to conclude that this allows for a creator or god. If this is the case, then such a god could have the power to create a consistent physical Universe, one that would throw the unfaithful into an fruitless hunt for what they think is truth.
This is why I think Atheists are bigots. I have more respect for Agnostics, even though they are so broad minded as to be unable to form an opinion.
My cat's breath smells like cat food.
Tetrahydrocannibol and Psylopsybin or Phencyclidine and Benzoylmethyl Ecgonine?
NIce jump in inference with oil v. scientists. Could you step on your dick anymore? Most science minded folk in my opinion lack the social intuition to get anything tangible done on their own; this thread is, indeed, empirical proof of that. The outcasting they (you) deserve is of their (your) own making. Grow up!
PZ lined up two piss buckets for a silly contest; and from the looks of it they started overflowing with urine days ago. Perhaps you enjoy the smell.
@Kim:
I might not be on my best behavior on this thread (seeing that it is a troll/spam trap), have used some underhanded and sneaky debating tricks but I do value truth (biased from how I look at it)
@ Stevie_C (#1043)
Al Gore is not a christian fundamentalist. That's absurd.
Well, he is a "born again christian".
You should really check Al Gore's political voting behaviour in the past.
Who Cares, I know, but you were still as honest as any here. Now, merely as an exercise, try reading that paper as a believer.
===============================
I suspect Gore would reject Phred now in a Washington Moment, but they do have a past.
======================================================
Perhaps you enjoy it Macheen. You did come in here.
I'm not even a scientist, few in this thread are.
So what evidence are you claiming exists?
Besides that fact that the regulars here want
the AGW denialists to go away.
What evidence do you have?
David, yeah yeah something from nothing, heard it all before,
but then you have to skip the whole "where did gods come from?"
problem. Oh right, they exist outside the universe, laws within
the universe (and logic) don't apply to them.
David, I thought I was an atheist until age fifteen, when I realized I could no more support the belief in no god as I could in God. Since then I have gloried in the twin blessings of curiosity and agnosticism. Several years ago, though, some moron told me about The Everlasting Man, and now I wonder about the limits of skepticism. Probably, I'm just getting old.
===================================================
By the way, I don't understand Mann's explanation for the divergence. Would you care to explain it to me, Who Cares? Has it gone away?
I wish you all would explain your explanations as well as he does.
Here's an excellent overview article from New Scientist on the topic of this thread, worth quoting extensively:
[snip]
So the politics is nasty, but what about the science? First, the big picture. The rise in temperatures during the 20th century is generally accepted because it is based on direct measurements. What the hockey stick graph shows is that such a sustained and rapid rise is an anomaly in the context of the past thousand years. This is what you would expect if human activity is to blame for the 20th-century warming, but it is suggestive only. The warming might be caused by natural factors.
Evidence of human involvement comes from many other sources, including climate models. The simulations created by these models can be made to match the temperatures measured over the past 140 years only when the increase in greenhouse gases is included. These graphs also appeared in the 2001 IPCC summary.
The hockey stick has been repeatedly misrepresented as the crucial piece of evidence when it comes to industrialisation and global warming. It is not. Even if the hockey stick were shown to be a doodle that Mann did on a napkin during a night out, the evidence that the world is getting warmer, and that this warming is largely due to human activities, would still be overwhelming.
Fraught with danger
Leaving that aside, did Mann get it right? Does the hockey stick accurately reflect northern hemisphere temperatures over the past 1000 years? There is no doubt that reconstructing past temperatures from proxy data is fraught with danger. Take tree ring records. They sometimes reflect rain or drought rather than temperature. They also get smaller as a tree gets older, so annual or even decadal detail is lost. "You lose roughly 40 per cent of the amplitude of changes," says tree ring specialist Gordon Jacoby at Lamont-Doherty.
To reveal the "signal" behind the noise of short-term and random change, a proxy record for one region must be based on as many tree ring records as possible. It must also correlate with direct measurements of local temperature during the period of overlap - which adds another layer of complication, as in some cases human factors such as pollution might have affected recent tree growth.<./i>
So the first question is whether the proxy records Mann chose are reliable indicators of temperature. Some have been questioned. "He has a series from central China that we believe is more a moisture signal than a temperature signal," Jacoby says. "He included it because he had a gap. That was a mistake and it made tree-ring people angry."
Mann accepts that some of the measurements he uses do not directly represent temperature change. His argument is that, for instance, coral records showing rainfall levels in the Pacific are proxies for the El Niño cycle and so for changes in ocean temperatures. Jacoby is not convinced. "I'm not slamming what he did overall. It was a great effort, a great step," he acknowledges. "But he got into hot water by defending it too hard in places where he shouldn't."
[...]
Indeed, the proxy records suggest that high temperatures in one region tend to be balanced out by low temperatures in another. The tropical Pacific, for instance, appears to have cooled during the Medieval Warm Period and warmed during the Little Ice Age. "The regional temperature changes in our reconstruction are quite large; it's simply that they tend to average out," Mann says.
Most attacks on the hockey stick, however, focus on Mann's statistical methods. The meta-analysis he pioneered, in which different proxy records are merged, involves sorting and aggregating these signals and smoothing the result. Mann then meshed this proxy synthesis with the instrumental record.
Critics complain that by combining smoothed-out proxy data from past centuries with the recent instrumental measurements, which preserve more short-term trends, Mann created a false impression of anomalous recent change. "To be fair, Mann did correct that later on," Jacoby says. This made the blade shorter, but did not change much else. Mann also points out that he was one of the first to include error bars, which show how much variance is lost due to smoothing.
[...]
The charge from McIntyre and McKitrick, however, is that Mann's computer program does not merely accentuate this shape, but creates it. To make the point, they did their own analysis based on looking for differences from the mean over the past 1000 years instead of from the 20th-century mean. This produced a graph showing an apparent rise in temperatures in the 15th century as great as the warming occurring now. The shaft of the hockey stick had a big kink in it. When this analysis was published last year in Geophysical Research Letters it was hailed by some as a refutation of Mann's study.
McIntyre and McKitrick say that their work is intended to show only that there are problems with Mann's analysis; they do not claim their graph accurately represents past temperatures. "We have repeatedly made it clear that we offer no alternative reconstruction," McIntyre states on his Climate Audit blog.
The obscure statistical arguments were overshadowed in late 2005 when Mann refused to give Congressman Barton his computer code. Mann regarded the code as private property, but his opponents claimed he feared refutation of his findings. Mann did eventually publish the code, but the damage was done.
In the meantime, three groups had been scrutinising the claims of McIntyre and McKitrick. Hans von Storch of the GKSS Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, concluded that McIntyre and McKitrick were right that temperatures should be analysed relative to the 1000-year mean, not the 20th-century mean. But he also found that even when this was done it did not have much effect on the result. Peter Huybers of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts came to much the same conclusion.
The work of Eugene Wahl of Alfred University, New York, and Caspar Ammann of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, raised serious questions about the methodology of Mann's critics. They found the reason for the kink in the McIntyre and McKitrick graph was nothing to do with their alternative statistical method; instead, it was because they had left out certain proxies, in particular tree-ring studies based on bristlecone pines in the south-west of the US.
"Basically, the McIntyre and McKitrick case boiled down to whether selected North American tree rings should have been included, and not that there was a mathematical flaw in Mann's analysis," Ammann says. The use of the bristlecone pine series has been questioned because of a growth spurt around the end of the 19th century that might reflect higher CO2 levels rather than higher temperatures, and which Mann corrected for.
What counts in science is not a single study, however. It is whether a finding can be replicated by other groups. Here Mann is on a winning streak: upwards of a dozen studies, some using different statistical techniques or different combinations of proxy records (excluding the bristlecone record, for instance), have produced reconstructions more or less similar to the original hockey stick.
CASE CLOSED! And give Fred Pearce an award for excellence in science writing.
@Stevie_C (#1029)
I don't have to prove it false.
I don't ask you to prove it false, I only want to know what kind of empirical observation could falsify the AGW hypothesis.
David @ 863:
I did:
http://solardat.uoregon.edu/SolarRadiationBasics.html
The sun does emit many more infrared photons than in the visible range, but in terms of energy, they're about equal.
True. But this would be due to increased thermal radiation due to a warmer atmosphere.
To my knowledge, clouds do on the whole cool the earth, and are accounted for in modern climate models.
It's not the solar radiation in the visible spectrum that is converted into heat, Nor is it the solar radiation in the near-infrared. The solar flux is very low at the wavelengths that CO2 is strongly absorbing, but the thermal radiation from the Earth is significant at one of the absoption peaks. What is true is that clouds can help cool the Earth by reflecting solar radiation back into space.
That's beside the point. Ideology need not be incompatible with empiricism and honesty.
JePe. I wasn't talking about AGW. I was talking about creationism.
Kim claims she's not a creationist. But I read her posts and she was either claiming that ID is something to teach in science class because it strengthens scientific thinking because it's fallacies are a good lesson to learn. OR she thinks ID is a sound idea to be investigated.
If she thinks ID is a sound idea, she's a creationist.
And she's not too bright if she can be swayed by the religious arguments of a mormon.
Plus she's fallen for the 50/50 fallacy of god versus no god.
Steve_C
The only evidence I claim exists in regards to this thread is that you and you compadres are a social misfits (a fact embodied the invective posts above). That makes you neither worthless nor pathetic, simply immature. There is a glaring irony (that is, in the classic definition of troll) to the consistent GOAT flames purveyed by you and your ilk.
You called down the thunder. Well, now you got it. -Russell as Earp in Tombstone
..and yet you wonder why it keeps coming. Habitual dick steppers always do.
Take a clue from Who Cares and kim...although they may eschew my endorsement, at least they possess the skill and will to be decent.
Again if the the world/universe abided soley in logic..you would have ceased flaming long ago.
@ Stevie_C (#1060)
JePe. I wasn't talking about AGW. I was talking about creationism.
Yes, I saw that, but in #1022 I asked you explicitly to name empirical observations that could disprove the AGW hypothesis in your opinion. Until now you avoided to answer that question. Instead you started talking/writing about creationism, which was not the topic.
Is it my fault you don't get it?
We got flooded by denialists from AC. We told them to bugger off. Yet they kept coming demanding a debate on AGW. One we never wanted or cared to engage. They came here with the insults, cluelessness and bullshit. Do they deserve decency and flowery language? No.
Yes, some have managed the stomach to debate them, or at least try to inform them. But like classic trolls, they just repeat themselves or move the goal posts.
You Macheen? You're just a pompous concern troll.
Steve C: The government should get out of the child raising and education business. That solves whatever problem you have with what teachers teach. It is funny how many so called "multiculturalists" want to get rid of the most important part of many people's culture. Their multiculturalism is only skin deep. They want the world to look like the "it's a small world" ride, but everyone must be secular, atheist, and believe in economic equality and environmentalism above all else. Yes their two most dastardly sins: Economic inequality and being politically incorrect.
I don't want to debate AGW. I could give a fuck about CA denialism. Plus, I think many more here are better at making an argument for AGW than I am.
This is an evodevo godless liberal blog. Even says so at the top. When I want to go talk about climate change, I'll go to realclimate.
Religion is not important or even necessary.
It's a distraction and pointless.
That's why it's kept out of public schools ya big baby.
I want chruches to be taxed actually. Their tax exemption should end.
The only problem with most replications of Mann's work is that they use the same data and/or are peer reviewed by the same people. Another issue is the graph sticks the proxy records and measurement records together at the same time. Whatever it is that means.
The issue here is that religion is not logic, it's emotion. It's not facts that can be proven or disproven, because it's faith. I think that's Kim's point, there's no way to prove or disprove it.
The problem with any explanation, scientific or religious, of why we're here (an unimportant question as far as I'm concerned), is that it ultimately hits the same wall; where is the material from? So there's always a point where you have to say that question is unexplainable, unknowable and since we're clearly here, unimportant, since we're here regardless of the answer. Regardless if you use religion or science to explain it, you can't explain where everything came from. You also then have to try and wrap your mind around the idea of infinity; material that goes on forever, or the idea of nothingness; material that stops and has nothing on the other side of where it stops.
So in the end, the debate is meaningless.
Religion is not important or even necessary.
It's a distraction and pointless.
You have a religion, you are just too blind to see it. The religion of non-religion, of worldly possessions, of worldly pleasure, etc. Benjamin Franklin once said "If mankind is this wicked with religion, imagine what we would be like without it."
Er...for the record, I was addressing David with my chicken entrails comment. Carry on, everyone, but first, please shed a tear for David's poor, oppressed white Christian male heritage.
This is one of the most stupid posts I've read in quite awhile. Using 'religion' in this sense makes the word essentially meaningless and your comment even less so.
Worldly possessions doesn't even make sense as that is all anything is, the same for pleasure. There is nothing of merit in any of the above. And using Ben Franklin - no lover of religion- as your argument from authority is, well, odd.
Then you have the religion of Athorism and Azeusism.
You just don't know it.
Is there something other than worldly pleasure?
I'm up for unworldly pleasures... what ya got?
Life should be enjoyed, not suffered through worrying about a fictional hell
or an enternity in heaven spent praising the man in the white robe (which sounds alot like my idea of hell).
@ Stevie_C (#1064)
I don't want to debate AGW.
If you don't want to debate AGW, why the hell did you bother to react on me or Kim or others?
If you are so cocksure of AGW it can't be a problem to define just ONE empirical observation that could falsify the hypothesis.
If that makes the term "religion" meaningless, then IT IS meaningless. That was my point. You are hypocrites and bigots. Everyone has a religion, a value system, a belief system, gods that they worship.
"
I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel:" ...
-- Ben Franklin.
Yes, of course, "the lord of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers" and everything.
But really, are you seriously trying to compare the faithful belief in a supreme being that has always existed and created everything from the same nothingness it came out of, to paying attention to worldly possessions and the human experience?
I am pretty sure I've never gotten on my knees on a Sunday and prayed to my car. But whatever floats your boat.
I try not to participate in flame wars but really: You are a profoundly ignorant human being.
A value system is not a religion. Again your using the word in a way to make it mean nothing. A religion may incorporate a value system or many but they do note make it a religion.
I am pretty sure I've never gotten on my knees on a Sunday and prayed to my car.
I know a guy who spends so much time polishing his car that he probably could have bought another one with all the time and labor he has put into it so far. Prayer is just a connection.
Does the phrase "Fuck Off" ring a bell? That's pretty much been the extense of my postings to a great degree.
David. Belief system does not equal religion.
And yes, I agree with you, religion is meaningless.
Wow. He's managed to downgrade polishing a car to prayer.
At least when you're done polishing a car you've accomplished something.
Prayer, not so much.
#1076 is just wow weak. So much for this discussion.
"That was my point."
A point that neatly grasped it's own tail and devoured it until it vanished into nothingness.
@Stevie_C (#1077)
You don't seem to have an answer, maybe your guru PZ Myers can answer my simple question:
What empirical evidence can falsify the AGW hypothesis?
I doubt if I will get a serious reply.
Meet me over at CA! Hurry! I'm about to post!
In the end, it doesn't really matter if it's warming or not, or what causes our warming. The politicians overall are going to implement what the scientits tell them in a way the politicians want to implement them, however that is finally decided upon. Companies that will make money off of carbon controls will push certain legislation. Other companies that benefit in other ways will push other legislation. Other politicians and other companies that don't benefit or don't see one or would be harmed will fight certain things.
Nobody here has any control over it (basically), so arguing about what climate's doing and why is like arguing about religion or politics.
JS...gotta love the irony of your typo: scientits. Freudian slip perhaps?
Nonetheless, fine post.
No control, indeed.
This thread is insane! I couldn't resist getting a comment in this 1000+ comment monster.
I'm a regular Pharyngula reader, and I know PZ is fond of using both barrels, which is what I like about this blog. At first I felt that his original post was even harsher than normal; PZ even admitted that he was cranky when he wrote it. But after sampling 1000+ comments (there's no way I'm going to read them all), PZ's original post seems tame in comparison. The pro-CA pit bulls that have been sent to troll here are pretty bad, but I'm sad to say that some of the Pharyngula supporters have also gone a bit too far. It seems to have made everybody cranky. It's strange how the anonymity provided by the internets allows people to say things they'd never say to each other over a beer.
What strikes me is that a lot of the anti-PZ commenters have been suggesting that Steve McIntyre has stayed above the fray by only saying nice and conciliatory things about other blogs. They try to paint McIntyre as the calm one and PZ as the lunatic. First, McIntyre doesn't need to say anything harsh because he's got hordes of vitriolic fans to do it for him. He can let his readers do the dirty work and keep his hands clean. Second, I read McIntyre's article about the voting. While he tries to play the good guy by suggesting that it should be a tie (which was a good idea), he repeatedly suggests that BA's supporters used vote bots. So out of one side of his mouth he suggests that both blogs deserve to win, and it's too close to call, while in the same breath he suggests that his opponent's supporters cheated. Instead of being conciliatory, I think McIntyre is saying that he is the obvious winner, AND he's also so magnanimous as to allow an undeserving runner-up to share the title. So he's not quite so kind as his supporters paint him. This whole debacle has become nasty, on all sides.
"David" must be a David Barton fan.
Franklin was not an atheist (he believed in a creator God) but he wasn't really a Christian (he doubted the divinity of Jesus.) He did not attend church. He supported the separation of church and state. He saw the primary function and benefit of institutional religion as being one of containment:
I don't see how any of that supports the claim that !R = R. David's use of the Franklin quote was a non-sequitur.
Many "founding fathers" and many folks back then in the realms of the upper ranks of society were deists.
McIntyre said it wasn't worth the effort or time to find out who won, and that it seemed clear that both sets of votes had been subjected to some kind of automated hack. Once it became political in nature, it might have been (and probably was) people that don't usually even frequent the blogs, but politically motivated people. However, at the close of voting, his site was ahead after all.
Whatever, it's just an Internet poll, who cares.
The only reason it's even a tie is because PZ sent is votes to two other blogs rather than just BA. If he had known CA was going to even come close to winning he would of never thrown the match. He tried to do something nice and the CA twits benefits.
I'd be bitter too.
I just like that quote.
There's also this:
Ben Franklin lived at a time when many were religious, and as a politician, he had to get along with them. Unsurprisingly, his public speeches — "That God governs in the Affairs of Men" was a speech — might not entirely reflect his private thoughts.
Indeed. Franklin wrote these words six weeks before his death, in response to a letter from Yale University president Ezra Stiles. I believe they accurately express his opinions at the time he wrote them:
#1088
The only reason it's even a tie is because PZ sent is votes to two other blogs rather than just BA. If he had known CA was going to even come close to winning he would of never thrown the match. He tried to do something nice and the CA twits benefits.
I'd be bitter too.
PZM lost all credibility in this thread. History shows that the type of people who call others rats etc. as mr Myers does, (like Joseph or Adolf) probably don't have good intentions.
Mr. Myers reminds me of Trofim Lysenko (considering AGW).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko
David. Belief system does not equal religion.
From dictionary.com:
Religion:
1. A set of beliefs ...
2. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices ...
3. The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices ...
Pick which definition that you wish. I can give you a symbolic analogy to how you and the other so called non-religious really do have a religion when it comes down to basics.
With a PZ = Hitler post followed by a post which not only quotes the dictionary, but also OMITS 75% of the definitions the dumbass is trying to quote, and the longest Pharyngula thread in memory, the Climate Auditors have verified that they are in fact more dishonest and more insane than the creationists.
And that's a feat if I've ever seen one.
@Dustin
I don't call people rats, it's your host (Mr. P.Z. Myers) who did. I just observe and remind you that in general people who used this kind of terminology were not friendly to mankind.
JePe:
It would be pretty easy to falsify AGW; a couple of thoughts on the evidence that would do so:
1 Evidence that CO2 does not absorb infra-red radiation as climatologists believe it does;
2 Evidence that burning fossil fuels does not release CO2;
3 Evidence that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have not increased from 280ppm to 385ppm over the period since the industrial revolution;
Many more similar observations could have falsified AGW; but your problem is that the evidence is in, and it is against you. There is a difference between unfalsifiable and unfalsified - AGW is unfalsified, not unfalsifiable, just like the theory of evolution.
PZ = Hitler.
Butchering a few Zebrafish is not the equivalent of exterminating the Jews.
Surely you exaggerate, JePe.
PZ liez, liez I tell you. Not little fibs but giant enormous fibs. Banned I was. I was too close to the truth that PZ was really pissed with his goons failing the beauty contest rig. Only let me back in after the 1000, which as I said before, rather unfortunately proves what a set of phuckwits his goons really are. Com'on PZ tell us who let you down. Truffer?. He didn't even fill the fridge with beer. You just can't buy good help these days.
JohnS
If you were banned, why are you here?
Rigged? PZ won last year. And could of won easily this year.
BUT GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK FUCKING SKULL.
He told his regulars to vote for a BA after it looked like CA might win it.
He doesn't care about winning... he wanted another good SCIENCE blog to win.
@ Robin Levett (#1095)
Show me first that CO2 is the culprit of the global warming that took place until 1998. Since 1998 the warming has stabilized, which is incompatible with the growing CO2 in the atmosphere.
Someone who was banned and yet is still posting here must, obviously, be a morpher.
Who on this list could that possibly be?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/plonk.php
@ Calgeorge (1096)
Whoever calls humans "rats" as PZ. Myers did, places himself in the category of dubious figures.
Hitler used it upon jews/gypies.
Stalin used it upon his adverseries
Meyers used it upon "denialists"
It's a shame!
JePe:
Which, if true, would be extremely worrying. Fortunately, it's not.
However, this is beside the point - do you accept that the evidence I suggested would, if found, falsify AGW?
It took over a thousand posts before a Hitler comparison? Wow. Call the Zombie!
First the denialists are the Galilleo-types, then they are the Jews...what's next? Do we go back in time and they will compare themselves with the "ultimate martyr" (ie - the Christ fellow, unless they go further to, say, Dionysus, or any of the others)? This just keeps getting better and better.
Just who is this Steve McIntire of whom many here so fawningly speak? Does He not speak Himself or is that act simply beneath Him- and better left to His blind, idiot minions? Is there some sort of Koolaid and Electrodes to the Genitals induction ceremony and is it only after passing that test that Steve's Truth will be revealed? Is His hold on them somehow cyberhypnotic? Does His blog only give the uninitiated browser a throbbing headache, while gently soothing the psyche of the faithful with His carefully arranged symbols and numbers? And is it true that by believing in Him one receives a coupon good for 50 cents off every gallon of gas that one guzzles?
I mean, seriously, PZ, why don't we get some Koolaid?
Francaois O writes "
So, about rewriting history, or just writing it. Oreskes claims, for example, that continental drift was rejected because it didn't fit the way the geologists of the time were doing science. And for her, that's a good enough excuse. But she doesn't really dwell on HOW it was rejected. How "drifters" were labeled as nuts, and how the slightest perception that you might consider the hypothesis as worthy of investigation was enough to stop your academic carreer. It's the "how" that is important. How peer pressure acts through the publication and funding system. Geologists of the 1920's knew full well how to conduct science."
Thanks for your cartoon version of history. Apparently you and your source left out the facts that perhaps the two greatest geologists of the 20th century, Sir Arthur Holmes and James Dutoit were among the "drifters" or at least anti-fixists.
The problems with Wegener's "Continental Drift" hypothesis are legion, though to a certain extent he was on the right track. Modern Plate Tectonics has little to do with Wegner, but is largely built
on the ideas of Holmes.
In Wegner's model, continentral drift was the motion of the sialic crust through the basalt sea-floor powered by an obscure force arising on rotating oblate spheroids "The Eotvos Effect". Geologists and Physicists were perfectly right to denounce this as the nonsense it was.
Holmes figured out the mechanism, thermal convection in the Earth's mantle, by the 1920's. Holmes and Dutoit tried to get Wegner to listen, but largely failed.
In some sense Wegner deserves a lot of credit for popularizing the issue, but because of a number of geological howlers he committed and his silly mechanism based on the Eotvos effect, he attracted the wrong kind of publicity in the scientific community. They were right to crap on him.
Holmes however persevered. He predicted the existence of subduction zones decades before they were discovered.
It wasn't bloggers or non-scientifically trained pundits who found eveidence for what is now called plate tectonics, but geologists themselves.
Sceince doesn't need the help of self-aggrandizing retards who think they are experts.
David writes:
"1. The sun emits a lot more infrared than visible spectrum. Go look it up. More CO2 would mean more heat emitted back into space.
2. CO2 traps heat, which causes evaporation, which causes clouds to form, which causes visible spectrum to be reflected back into space, which means less visible spectrum to be converted into heat by CO2."
And how's that been working out for Venus so far?
Well I'll be damned. This might be the one thing that I have to actually give Truth Machine credit for. Not his own ability to never let an argument die, but his ability to lure the rest of you suckers in while constantly abusing you, only to reach a goal he made perfectly plain had nothing to do with you.
So he got to abuse you and get his wish.
Though I doubt that those of you still here will admit or even acknowledge to yourself that you've been played.
Let it never be said I don't give credit where credit is due.
David (#1092)
Wow, could you possibly be more dishonest? Or have you made an honest (if jaw-droppingly basic) logic error?
I believe this one is called an Illicit Conversion:
- All A are B, therefore all B are A.
- All dogs are mammals, therefore all mammals are dogs.
- All religions are belief systems, therefore all belief systems are religions.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
A simple error, or rank dishonesty? Perhaps a little of both? Sadly, your use of ellipses gives you away. I've bolded the parts you left out, for easy identification:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
Conclusion: Dishonesty.
Holy crumbling shortcake! You really believed you could get away with that kind of crap here?
Speaking of crap, JePe crapped all over whatever was left of his own credibility when he dragged Hitler into the discussion. Pathetic. Also interesting is that an AGW denialist would point to a short-term - and I mean really, really short, less than a decade - alleged discontinuity in the covariance between greenhouse-gas levels and warming trends. Grasping at straws, it seems.
And how's that been working out for Venus so far?
Venus is a lot closer to the sun, does not have an ocean, has a lot more CO2, has sulfur in the atmosphere, has slower rotation, etc., etc.
Kseniya: I was not being dishonest. I pointed to the source of the information (dictionary.com) and asked Steve C to pick one. I was emphasizing "set of beliefs," which is the only reason why I left the other stuff off. Assuming that Steve had picked the first one:
1. A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.
Atheists believe in the Big Bang (a creation of the universe, when time starts). They believe in a Creation from nothing into something. The only difference is that the Creator is some physical process that has always been there somehow rather than a Creator god that is supernatural (outside the subset).
And before you cry foul, the rest of that definition starts with "usually" and "often" which obviously implies that they are not necessary.
David (#1109):
So how many religions do you have?
David writes (in a vain attempt to extricate his head from his posterior cavity)
"And how's that been working out for Venus so far?
Venus is a lot closer to the sun, does not have an ocean, has a lot more CO2, has sulfur in the atmosphere, has slower rotation, etc., etc."
Homework for David. What would be the black-body temperatures of Venus and Earth if neither had atmospheres?
Yes it has a lot more CO2. It also has twice the Albedo too, and that is rather the point, which seems to have sailed right over your head.
SO it has sulfur? And how far down in the Venusian atmosphere is that? And one can only wonder what Venus's rotation rate has to with its mean surface temperature of 460C?
David writes:
"Atheists believe in the Big Bang (a creation of the universe, when time starts)."
Was George LeMaitre an Atheist? He was only President of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and along with Gamow, an architect of the Big Bang theory.
"They believe in a Creation from nothing into something."
Ah yes, the comic book version of astrophysics. The Big Bang singularity was not "Nothing".
"The only difference is that the Creator is some physical process that has always been there somehow rather than a Creator god that is supernatural (outside the subset)."
That physical process "Big Bang" can be interrogated with the Scientific method. God can not.
"And before you cry foul, the rest of that definition starts with "usually" and "often" which obviously implies that they are not necessary."
The only thing I'm going to cry foul over is your lack of scientific knowledge and history. It drives you to put your foot in your mouth.
It's a pitty that most of the scientists and also the bloggers here aren't able to reflect philosophic matters. Very often they simply collect and interpret data in a system immanent way. In particular in the knowledge of history and philosophic consideration they often are poor and of big ignorance. Furthermore the abilities of rationality itself is extremely overrated by them.
In fact rationality is like a lawyer: always following the interest of a party. When you look at history you will learn that rationality always creates systems which are rational in a closed system of "rational" believes and that the trust in rationality alone leads to mass murder and holocaust.
The "Age of Enlighment" found its terrible awakening in the French Revolution, when Robespierre, Saint Just and others killed thousands in the name of rationality. Later Lenin, Stalin and Hitler did so, too. Georg Buechner, a German revolutionist of the 19th century wrote "Dantons Tod" a play about the death of Danton, one of the leaders of the French revolution of 1792. Saint Just's speech in this play is a shining sample how rationality provides the basic for killing. In this speech he passionately affirms and glorifies the unyielding and inhuman necessity of history, the march of revolution which grinds underfoot whole generations that stand in its way, likening its effects to the irrestible eruption of a volcano or an earthquake. And he points out that it is pure rationality to recognize the essential way of history and to act as a tool of it. As a tool of history you have to forget of moral values, compassion and love, you have to act in the necessary way and you have no personal responsibility for you actions. And so Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler sent out the NKDW, the revolution gards, the SA and SS to kill millions and millions in the name of rationality as each of them understood it.
Obviously human beings are not able to hold on moral values only by rationality. It looks like there must be something else what asks you very personally: "What are you doing? Why do you slaughter your brother?"
If you call this questioner conscience then you have to ask where comes conscience from? If you only consult rationality, rationality will tell you that it is not rational to pamper all those old people suffering from dementia in the homes for the aged, it is not rational not to kill all those thugs in the jails who have no chance for socialize and cost a lot of money and bear a lot of risk for the honest citizens. There is only one entity who says as a fixed point beyond of human scrutinizing and relativization : You shall not murder and you shall honour your father and your mother! In old Shinto and Buddhist Japan the elders often were sent to the mountains to die from starvation. This was very rational because it saved capabilities for the youngsters (but it missed love and compassion).
By the way: to call human beings "rats" is disgusting and reveals a serious lack of education and a limited view on moral values. Last time I've read this in relation to human beings was in a newspaper called "The Stuermer" (The Storm Trooper) a Nazi-magazine from the 30th of the 20th century and it referred to the Jews. So please be carefull with your swearwords, killing starts with killing words which deny someones humanity!
Wow 1113 posts and the concern trolls continue to Godwin.
Peter,
PZ's rat analogy was drawn against a specific type of behaviour.
Now personally, I don't like the analogy, since I have far less fondness for the parade of whining shills that have recently infested this blog than I generally hold for members of the genus rattus.
In fact, it's safe to say in thirty years I've not once encountered a rat that whored itself or its intellectual honesty for corporate interests.
But the behaviour that PZ cited has been evidenced over and over again in this very thread and no tediously sanctimonious post from you, however long, is going to change that.
The CA readership introduced themselves and lo' PZ was vindicated.
In fact, one member of the infestation is currently in another thread claiming ID as science, "because it's not impossible".
Frankly,
You guys are one big old heaped load of fail.
Hey Michael- he -of -the- mysterious-X. Truffy did battle manfully. However I'm not sure however who was pulling who here old boyo. Confirmed for me what beauty contest rig failures you all were, although all you PZ goons, in delightful turns of phrase, were always keen to tell that old PZ had no winning intention. Indeed over 1000 posts to defend what was said to be not important. Stretches truth as well as other body parts don't you think, you wankers. Better effort expected next year- of course thats right - PZ is not interested in winning. Hahahahahaha. Did I say you lost. Hahahahaha
JohnS
Why argue with loons who think water vapor, which lasts ~10 days in the atmosphere, is responsible for climate change?
Giggles?
I don't think us "PZ goons" ever said AGW was not important. What some of us said was that we were not interested in argument, and "the truth machine" has in fact been fairly consistent in supplying abuse instead of argument. What I don't find credible is claims that denialists are unwanted here. It may be true for the blog in general, but with regards to this thread they are wanted--wanted as targets to abuse.
I think that "JohnS" might be the aneuploid ghost of James Joyce.
O, rocks! she said. Tell us in plain words.
Dear Mr. Weinstein,
the big bang theory claims (be aware it's just a claim, it may be wrong, it's a theory - probably we will have a better one some day) that in the moment of the big bang there was a mass with a volume of zero and without the dimension of time. "Before" the big bang there was no time.
Accordingly to definition time is a dimension wherein the phenomena of cause and impact happen. When there is no time then there is no cause and no impact. If the beginning of time itself starts with the big bang, with the beginning of the universe (as stated by space-time-theorem) the cause of the big bang, which happened at a point of not existing time, must be something existing in a "time" dimension completely independent from space and time of our universe. There is no other way to understand the start of the big bang by logical reflection, because: there is nothing without sufficient reason that it is (principium rationis sufficientis - Leibnitz). This means that this "something" is transcendent and is neither inside the universe nor is it the universe itself. Because this something was the cause of the big bang we can call it Creator or God.
Stephen Hawkings suffered a lot by the problem of the not existing time before the big bang and tried to save his idea of a self creating universe by "imaginary time" which should be existent 10 to 43 seconds before the real time began. So our materialistic friends have a lot of problems to solve because a volume of zero and an imaginary time is just another word for "I don't know what is was!" Hawkings claims that his calculations about this imaginary time are correct and work out means nothing. Sir Herbert Dingle refers to the possibility to provide imaginary things as real in mathematics:
"You can tell logical truth and logical lies in mathematics and inside mathematics there is no way to distinguish one from the other. You only can differentiate them via logical reflection and experience outside of mathematics. You have to evaluate the possible relation between mathematical solution and physical execution then."
Hawkings reason to claim an imaginary time was, that he dislikes the original big bang theory because it "indicates a divine creation" and this he denies because he can't believe it.
Well, that looks remarkably like reheated Hugh Ross material.
Tell me, Peter, do you actually understand the material you're using, or are you just a mindless parrot?
I'm sorry man, I just can't take anyone named "Peter Hunter" seriously. If that's his real name, just how fucked and cruel up were his parents?
Better name than Richard Hunter...
"the truth machine" has in fact been fairly consistent in supplying abuse instead of argument
That's false. Virtually every one of my posts included argument, even if they included abuse. However, much of the argument was not about AGW, it was about the topic PZ wrote about -- trolling by AGW deniers, and how and why they aren't wanted here. And the abuse was always connected to the point, it wasn't abuse for its own sake.
I noticed Kim never returned for her/his abuse on ID.
"I'm not a creationist"
Uh huh.
@TM 1123, that does not change the fact that you are a social misfit, who would rather step on his own dick than close a deal. That is you ultimately value acrimony over harmony.
Like Stevie, this fact neither makes you worthless nor pathetic, simply immature. You may be intelligent, indeed f'n brilliant, but you possess neither the skill nor will to be decent. I sure you think you have many friends and admirers, but I am sure your at large appeal is minimal.
You may not care, but I believe that's what behaviorists call antisocial.
So how many religions do you have?
The first Commandment states "thou shalt have no other gods before me". This has never meant just literal gods such as pagan gods, etc. This means that one should not "worship" money, worldly things, lust for the flesh, etc. Christians struggle every day not to have "other gods" before Him. We are not perfect, of course.
Homework for David. What would be the black-body temperatures of Venus and Earth if neither had atmospheres?
If you were to measure the temperature on Venus at one earth atmosphere pressure, you'd find similar temperatures to what we have here on earth.
That physical process "Big Bang" can be interrogated with the Scientific method. God can not.
A thought experiment:
1. Atheist A exists in set of equations X
2. Entity B exists in superset of X labeled Y
3. Atheist A, no matter how hard he or she tries, would never be able to measure Y, as they are limited to the set of equations X.
4. Atheist A spends all his or her time measuring X and disbelieving in Y simply because they cannot measure it.
My point was that even Atheists have a religion. It doesn't matter if it is based on measurable things. Everyone worships something.
That doesn't make much sense. If X is a closed set of equations, of what relevance is Y? Your entity B would never be able to do anything that violated the rules of X. You've just defined God into pointlessness. It can't be measured because it doesn't do anything.
If X is a closed set of equations, of what relevance is Y?
I never said it was a closed set. The set of equations themselves in atheists equations X prevent the Atheist from measuring Y.
Again clueless these are not religions.
As hard as it is to believe you are profoundly incorrect. You start with a bizarre assumption and then put your fingers in your ears.
This is not a thought experiment because it required little thought to make it and even less to see it's flaws.
You have to have evidence that the superset of Y even exists in the first place. This same silly ass experiment could be applied to invisible floating teapots.
And if atheist X can't measure it what makes you think you can measure/feel/know anything about it either? Simply -You can't so stop pretending.
Really, are you in 5th grade. The 'atheist' is simply a human being. If he can't measure Y then neither can anyone else. Again- no evidence of existence.
There is no set for atheists and theists. It's all the same data.
That will only be true if Y has no effect on X. Hence, closed set.
See also Shit, Making Up
Exactly. At the expense of meaning. That's dishonest. I emphasized the remainders of the definitions you butchered, to adjust for your dishonesty.
David, you cannot arbitrarily assign values to words and the claim the new values prove your points.
Look up "belief". There are four definitions. Only one mentions religion. You have performed an illicit conversion. Your arguments are specious. And you will never see that, let alone admit it. None are so blind as those who will not see.
I'm not antisocial.
I'm anti fuckwits like yourself Sales Macheen.
You come here from nowhere with your bullshit concern and jockass comments, not knowing any of us and saying you have evidence as to why scientists fail.
You're an ass. I don't have to be nice to you. I have no reason to be. You've shown that you deserve exactly the treatment I gave you.
Fuckoff.
I don't step on my dick. I smack idiots, like you, in the face with it.
Exactly. At the expense of meaning. That's dishonest.
No, Steve C said that religion was not a belief system, yet every single definition started with "a set of beliefs". My logic is not flawed, nor was I being dishonest.
The 'atheist' is simply a human being. If he can't measure Y then neither can anyone else. Again- no evidence of existence.
Incorrect. Think of a person living in three dimensional space "interacting" with people living in a subset: two dimensional space. The two dimensional beings would only be able to measure a limited subset of three dimensional space: the intersection with their two dimensions. This is perfectly plausible.
That will only be true if Y has no effect on X. Hence, closed set.
I explained it above.
Again clueless these are not religions.
Religion is "a set of beliefs," therefore if you have multiple religions they are really just one religion to you. Set A union set B = Set C.
#1000: "1000 and I'm out of here."
Falsified by #1123
#1107: "Though I doubt that those of you still here will admit or even acknowledge to yourself that you've been played."
Also Falsified by #1123
#844: "suck my left tit until the right one gets jealous"
Unfalsifiable, vulgar, but oddly interesting!
It took over a thousand posts before a Hitler comparison?
Of course not. We're dealing with denialists, remember?
The thread got Godwined back in the 300s, iirc.
Though I have not been able to stomach any more than a skim of the last ~500 posts, I will say I've received an education, albeit one of dubious value: GW deniers are actually more dishonest and reprehensible than creationists, most of whom were originally lied to by someone nominally trustworthy, for reasons of perceived spiritual authority.
Apologetics for untrammelled Capitalism, in the face of potentially disastrous consequences to be borne by our descendents and in the absence of persuasive authority figures, just looks like deliberately antisocial behavior with malice aforethought to me.
Man, you are wrong and you simply can't admit it. So much for being humble.
"Think of a person living in three dimensional space "interacting" with people living in a subset: two dimensional space. The two dimensional beings would only be able to measure a limited subset of three dimensional space: the intersection with their two dimensions."
You're still making the whopping great assumption that there's something of "Y" to be measured at all. There isn't.
@1134
I simply came to a public street corner in a neighborhood you happen to frequent to provide feedback on your failings to appeal convincingly to a wider audience.
If you have no need to discuss the matters of this thread, or this blog for that matter, in public than I am sure it would take far less effort to set up a private arena for such, rather than focus your energy consistently conjure malevolent rants at passers by who happen to take exception to your public point of view.
What basic need does it serve within your soul to make such public display of ugliness?
Our society takes place amongst a diverse public, a fact you don't seem to be settled with.
I may be an ass for pointing out your poor attitude so bluntly, but I would argue your efforts here only serve demonstrate that your personality further off the evolutionary track than the average honorable man.
I simply came to a public street corner in a neighborhood you happen to frequent to provide feedback on your failings to appeal convincingly to a wider audience.
This is as good a definition of "concern trolling" as any regular here could supply. Thanks for making plain your motivations: maybe GW deniers have honest individuals within their ranks after all.
Soul? Not sure what that is. Please explain.
We're not in the broader public. We're on a tiny little corner of the internet. And I'm not trying to appeal to anyone.
That you don't fucking get why we're telling very specific people to fuck off just shows how DENSE and totally unaware of the situation you are...
Try checking out other threads. You might learn something. But I doubt it.
Man, you are wrong and you simply can't admit it. So much for being humble.
Let us assume that your belief system is nowhere near a religion because people have labeled your belief system as somehow different because you can measure things in your belief system (as if a religion can never be based on measured things). You have a creation (big bang, nothing into something), you have saints (Al Gore, Einstein, Hawking), you have things that you strive for (money, pleasure), you have sins (income inequality, being politically incorrect). Either way, it is analogous. Stop being a bigot. Everyone has a religion "per se".
Yes, feedback such as:
Proving that 1) You don't know who any of us are, or what we might really be doing when we're not on this blog, and 2) You're an incredible asshole who has no right lecturing any of us about tact. Bundle all those together with your constant pronouncements of not caring about bettering the world unless you can make a nice profit out of it (gee Wally, maybe global warming has gotten this bad so far because The Market really doesn't deal with externalities like pollution and ecosystem services!), and I'd say that Steve C is giving you exactly the respect that you deserve. So drop the sweet and innocent act and go back to masturbating to the Forbes 500 list.
Anthropgenic global warming is a fraud. Anyonewith scientific training who looks at the IPCC report and its climate modelling nonsense, and Mann's idiotically cherry-picked and fudged data, and Jim Hansens factored and fudged temperature data, and the Profit Gore's reversed use of the temperature vs co2 graph, and comes out stil pretending that agw is real, is a complete fraud. PZ, you are a fraud.
I've wasted too much time on this religion argument. If you'll excuse me, I have to go prostrate myself in the temple of Lunch now.
Fuck off Tunder.
We don't care.
And any 3D entity which interacted Flatworld would have an observable effect on it. Any which didn't would be irrelevant. You're rendering god a) a physical entity or b) pointless. Pick one.
You really, truly need an education. A religion can be based on measured things. It is clear you simply have no clue about what a religion actually is and as such you keep blathering on and on.
None of which is necessary for a religion. Hence you lack any semblance of a point.
Saints? Are they imagined as being invisible and doing magical things? They are men, no one expects more than that from them. You are so silly.
Thats humanity dipshit not a religion.
You are clueless. Totally so.
Maybe analagous to someone who doesn't understand what a religion actually is and hence deludes themselves into a state that can only be described as stupid.
I have a religion and it's nothing like the twaddle your babbling about above.
You're still making the whopping great assumption that there's something of "Y" to be measured at all. There isn't.
I've heard of that, it's the many world's theory that has the asterisk by it that says "what can exist does exist, except that one thing that I don't like, because I said so."
I don't think you have the faintest idea what MWI actually states. Unless you want to claim that god was created by a quantum event, it's utterly irrelevant.
A religion can be based on measured things.
Hence the sarcastic "as if" in my comment. I won't stoop to your level and call you a Moron.
None of which is necessary for a religion. Hence you lack any semblance of a point.
I was giving an analogy to a specific religion. You've heard of analogy right? If one can map something analogously one-to-one to something else, then what does that say? (Don't answer that, I know the answer.)
Thats humanity dipshit not a religion.
It isn't humanity, it is part of humanity. Religion is too. I'll give a better analogy: You may strive for income equality or having everything be grown organically, or whatever it may be. Something drives you that is part of your belief system that may not be part of someone else's. You may share that similar belief system with your friends. It is not really that different from having a religion.
I don't think you have the faintest idea what MWI actually states
I do, but I take it one step further into the idea that every equation "exists," and there are some powerful enough to provide for what we refer to as "existence". We live in one of those subsets. Since every equation "exists," then an equation would exist for every quantum time advancement.
You really, truly have no idea what your talking about and as such I will end my participation in this discussion.
You really, truly have no idea what your talking about and as such I will end my participation in this discussion.
JimC, many scientists and atheists subscribe to the many world's theory as a plausible way to explain existence. I probably jumped the gun and assumed that you understood this concept. I should have just answered "because you said so, right?" It isn't like I was calling you a Moron or anything, unlike some of the others here.
I'm beginning to think you're confusing MWI with multiverse cosmologies.
I'm beginning to think you're confusing MWI with multiverse cosmologies.
Possibly. The idea came before any formal name.
Take a rest, truth machine. The skullfucked dipshit trolls will think they've won whether you argue with them or not...
Doesn't it? Which means, also, that it looks remarkably like what "The Physicist" used in that "debate" in which he attempted to use quantum physics to "prove" God.
Ok, then. David:
Ok. Ok. Ok. I believe you are sincere. I withdraw the accusation of dishonesty. However, you've still committed a logical fallacy -and- persist in misunderstanding JimC and Steve_C in a way that is consistent with the fallacy. Neither one of them said that religion is not a belief system. They each said, in slightly different ways, that not all belief systems are religions.
JimC said this (#1075)
Steve_C said this (# 1077)
If you still can't see the difference between what they said and what you claim, I really can't help you.
As for this bogus "everyone has a religion" claim, don't forget that there's a difference between metaphor and reality. Again, if you can't already see this, I doubt that I help you.
@ 1145 Rey,
Fair enough. Perhaps a more literal way to a make a point you so elegantly did previously.
"Wading into the morass gets mud on YOU too." (Look at the Sales Monkey, he can use the search function in his browser)
I have to admire your loyalty to Stevie. Forgive my inference, but it would have been more honest to say: "Stevie may be a sod, but he's our sod". Nonethless, I guarantee, you'd rather hang out with me in Vegas.
Cheers!
Stevie, the main difference between you and me is that you seem to take it so personally. You (& TM) conjure up visions of a rabid Scientologist. The Internet is rife with hydra you will inevitably have to suffer in a publicly available forum such as this; no matter how remote it is. Try not to act so shocked when it happens, no matter the intellect of your tormentor, your attitude still weighs on your credibility. Best of luck winning friends and influencing people. (I sincerely mean that brother)
&
CJO..Me...concern troll???...why....naturally..and thank for the compliment. I am sorry I just don't see the usefulness in taking a binary position on any theory. What must really piss you off is that, deep down, you know you need wretches (a-holes, if you prefer) like me.
Vaya Con Dios
Ah. Hedging your bets on the germ theory of disease, then?
#1158 "Take a rest, truth machine."
It could bring a tear to a glass eye. A rare display of true leadership ... know when you're beaten, get the guys out of there and limit your losses.
If you still can't see the difference between what they said and what you claim, I really can't help you.
I did make an error as far as #1077 goes in that I mistakenly read it as "religion is not a belief system."
That said, let's parse the definitions of religion again.
"
A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
"
So, by your logic, non-religious people in general do not have a specific fundamental set of beliefs or practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons.
Let's parse another definition:
"
Something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
"
So by your logic, non-religious people do not believe in or follow devotedly anything; no point or matter of ethics or conscience.
Let's parse another:
"The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices"
So by your logic, non religious people do not make up any body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.
While it is true that non-religious people do not subscribe to a formal religion, everyone has a religion (per se) of some form or another.
I shall not "fuck off". AGW is a fraud.
Bugger off, then.
Macheen likes to jump to big conclusions.
Abuse of him and his CA friends, means I abuse everyone. Which is far from the case.
I just abuse the guy who knocks on my door trying to sell me bibles, pees on my stoop or donate to the LaRouche campaign and won't leave.
I didn't ask them to come here with their bullshit. But I can ask them to leave. And I don't have to be nice about it. They were never going to change their mind with debate. They don't know how to debate. They have their beloved psuedoscience and Macheen has his lame ass observations.
"AGW is a fraud."
Okay. But indulge my curiosity for a second. Let's say the whole of AGW is a fraud. A deliberate fraud put on by thousands of professionals around the world. Why do they do it? What do they stand to gain? A modest living? Some tiny amount of influence over some consumers and politicians? A mansion in Tennessee? Al Gore had his wealth a long time before he became the public face of AGW. What's the scam?
OK Jordan, we're beaten. Now gather up your trolling ass (warning: may require both hands and/or deployment of a bell) and your trolling buddies and have a victory party --elsewhere.
Yeah. AGW is a fraud. So was landing on the moon and and there's Aliens housed at Area 51. Yup. It's all true.
Here's some candy. Run along and play.
David
I asked:
and you purported reply was:
which of course was entirely unresponsive to the question.
Want to try again?
@1166
You fail to recognize Stevie, I have not come to your door. You are standing on a virtual street corner Buddy. I'll say it once more, this is the Internet. Only the thickest of skulls would have a hard time understanding that. Sure you did'nt ask anyone here expressly, but if you can't see how PZ's post was a neon sign as an invitation that did, furthermore your attitude as adding wattage to the luminosity, I guess there is no hope for you.
I can't go without acknowledging that this thread, and moreover this blog, is not necessarily a pure democracy, thus not 100% public. It's content and moderation of comment is soley at the benevolent discretion of PZ (BTW plenty of science going here, as far as I can see). To PZ's credit and my deepest respect, despite, the blatant ad homs to him personally, it is clear freedom of speech ranks quite high in his personal values.
Honestly dude, WTF did you expect?
Raise your game brother.
#1163
David,
At risk of getting snarled in a mangle, maybe the key words are that religin is "specific" or "particular".
It does not seem sensible to generalise - if religion means anything which can be grouped together and called a belief system, it means everything and therefore nothing. It has no common qualities or characteristics. So why use the word?
Although a little circular, it seems more meaningful to interpret "specific" or "particular" as those belief systems that would be commonly recognised as religion. We can then get an inkling of the type and nature of the belief systems that are being referred to.
CJO
The adults in the room are having a conversation. You can throw your rattle out of the perambulator as often as you like, but there are much better ways to attract attention to yourself little sweetie pops.
Macheen. You don't understand what trolling is do you?
You're clueless and boring. Step up my game? I'm not even interested or trying.
Couldn't find it, I see. Maybe your buddies will lend a hand.
@1174
I understand trollingfar more than you would ever know. But that's a discussion would take on a nature, and be far more boring, than the circular one religion that is taking place on this thread. Pity for you.
All the best!
@TM 1123, that does not change the fact that you are a social misfit
Non sequitur. Whether I'm a "social misfit" wasn't the claim I was responding to.
you possess neither the skill nor will to be decent
You don't have adequate information to judge what skills I lack.
I am sure your at large appeal is minimal.
Being sure of things without adequate evidence makes your judgments worthless.
it is clear freedom of speech ranks quite high in his personal values
That, and he has better things to do than police these threads or to care what people say about him.
Take a rest, truth machine.
Did you fail to notice the gap between #1000 and #1123?
I do, but I take it one step further into the idea that every equation "exists," and there are some powerful enough to provide for what we refer to as "existence".
That's modal realism, not MWI.
know when you're beaten
Beaten at what? I said getting to 1000 posts would be an achievement. Not only was it achieved, but I posted #1000, a bit of gravy that netted me a drink offer from Bride of Shrek. Not that I'll collect, but it's the thought that counts -- here's to you, BoS!
which of course was entirely unresponsive to the question.
Want to try again?
I answered the question a few questions later. If a person has more than one religion (specific set of beliefs), they are like having one religion to that person. Set A Union Set B = Set C.
It does not seem sensible to generalise - if religion means anything which can be grouped together and called a belief system, it means everything and therefore nothing.
Well, words are really just a way humans try to categorize, communicate, and make sense of things (or put people in boxes). We use the word "Coupe" if it was the other guys overthrowing our government, whereas we use "Revolution" if it was us that overthrew the government. We use "Cult" when it isn't an established formal religion that we like, and "Religion" when it is. How we define and categorize words changes how we feel about things. This is why people are trying to change the lexicon to meet their agendas. For instance, did you grow up "privileged"? Well if you didn't grow up "under privileged," doesn't that mean that you grew up "privileged"? Political correctness is all about changing the lexicon to fit an agenda. Control the lexicon, control the society. The phrase "under privileged" is used to make the general populace feel like there is a certain level of income equality that everyone should have (even if the under privileged grew up with cable TV, a car, a computer, and food on the table).
What does this have to do with how Atheists feel about the word "religion"? Well, they don't want to be told that they have a religion because they want to be different from those who they despise. In reality, human nature is human nature. If we removed "religion" from the lexicon and just had the phrase "set of beliefs," then we are all human and imperfect.
Ok, then. David:
No, Steve C said that religion was not a belief system, yet every single definition started with "a set of beliefs". My logic is not flawed, nor was I being dishonest.
Ok. Ok. Ok. I believe you are sincere. I withdraw the accusation of dishonesty.
Ah, but Kseniya, surely it takes intellectual dishonesty to so radically misinterpret what people say even after it's been pointed out repeatedly. David's process is dishonest, regardless of what his exact mental state is in regard to his claims.
@1177
"You don't have adequate information to judge what skills I lack."
...but do you have will TM??
As to personal judgement, I was only imitating your facade of omniscience which seems to be fair game in this anonymous mud fight if which you so gleefully participate. Hell, for all I know, you could be my neighbor.
@1178
Glad to see you agree, but your additional comments go without saying.
So, I'll ask you, WTF did you honestly expect here?
h, but Kseniya, surely it takes intellectual dishonesty to so radically misinterpret what people say even after it's been pointed out repeatedly
This started when I said "everyone has a religion, a belief system, a value system." The replies that I got were "religion does not equal a value system" and "belief system!=religion". Who is misinterpreting whom?
But even with the misinterpretation, from dictionary.com:
"
Religion - Something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
"
If you look at my previous posts, I clearly stated that I was using a symbolic analogy anyway.
All belief systems are not religion.
Disbelief in a god is not a religion anymore than NOT stamp collecting is.
Yes religions are belief systems... but that does not translate into all belief systems are religions.
Not hard to comprehend.
but that does not translate into all belief systems are religions.
They really aren't that different. From wikipedia:
""Religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system,"[3] but is more socially defined than that of personal convictions."
Belief System is also described as basically either a religion or a "world view." In the wikipedia entry for "World View," the meaning of "world view" is basically defined by secularists who wish to separate their belief system from that of the religious.
When are you going to get it through your thick skull that the fact that religion is a belief system does not make every belief system a religion.
It is basic logic.
Are you really that stupid?
spurge: It is basic logic huh? Please explain the difference.
Good God. Holy crap! Yes, it is BASIC LOGIC. Look up "illicit conversion". (Not that you will, or even consider acknowledging your error. Nonononono. Can't have that.)
Oh yeah. Let's see... if a Catholic is an avid Notre Dame football fan - and "everyone" "knows" that "football is a religion" - then he has only one religion, Catholifightingirishism? Oh, and he believes that Eric Clapton is God. Catholifightingirishericism. One person, multiple beliefs, one religion. Got it.
T.M. you may be right on the money, here. I thought it was an honest mistake, and that I mistook his intention, but the sheer intransigence subsequently displayed makes me think otherwise.
I'm done with this. What a waste of time. You can't have a meaningful discussion of any kind with someone who thinks words are just amorphous blobs of Pla-Doh, things to be worked into whatever shape serves the needs of the moment. He has no respect for language, knowledge, the integrity of his own arguments, or his opponents. Christalmighty.
Kseniya:
1. I am very familiar with basic logic, I have a Master's degree in Computer Science and a Minor in Mathematics. Since you are an expert on Belief Systems, please provide for us a definition of "Belief System" and how it is different from Religion. I seriously would like to know how you (and spurge) define the two.
2. Having more than one religion is no different than having one religion that is called something else. Christianity + Judaism => Messianic Judaism.
3. He has no respect for language, knowledge, the integrity of his own arguments, or his opponents
Please explain why you feel this way. I've been called a lot of disrespectful things on this thread. Respect didn't seem to important to you then, why is it now? I have a lot of respect for language. Do you know what symbolic analogy means? Do you know what "per se" means? I've made efforts to clear up confusion.
David, you're being very naughty, aren't you? Now, don't you think your minister/priest/rabbi/imam would scold you for teasing the atheists so mercilessly? The only truly honest thing you've said so far was:
"What does this have to do with how Atheists feel about the word "religion"? Well, they don't want to be told that they have a religion because they want to be different from those who they despise."
ildi: :)
This is great- this could grow thousands, but I fear it is dying . Truffy returns for no apparent reason but that he can, however stevie underscore c, phucked his way through for the truffer return. Noblely done underscore.But the first 1000 was piss easy- truffer and the phucker goons wrote 600 of them and clown goons like Michael X(why is that so funny), and ChemicalBobby under whatever guise wrote a further 100. Responses only 300.(No I didn't count them but I used Mannian PC analyses to get the answer I wanted- same as he did really) Now we get into religion and crawl towards 1200.
Hey PZ, piss poor goony boy lot you got here. No stamina.
JohnS
Good point David - how can anybody write a post like that and then appeal for respect?
I too feel that this thread is dying. There has been some really good entertainment along the way.
Like the old fable about the sun and the wind, all the guff and bluster failed to cure the trolling.
Man, bit of a downer that PeeZee sold out! Never closed the thread. Obviously happy with the new custom. Have you seen the new neighbours - this joint will never be the same again.
David:
I am assuming that you believe in gravity. That being the case, how do you see the position as between classical gravitational theory and general relativity. Is Saint Einstein a heretic for daring to suggest that Saint Isaac's position was incomplete and inapplicable to high velocity/mass situations?
We could aim high. Divergence ought to be worth a couple of hundred comments. Steve is eating the Piltdown Mann alive on divergence. Mann's own methods don't show a late Twentieth Century rise in temperature in the dendro record. So what is up? As someone remarked, 'Divergence is damning'.
Don't make me light my lantern again, Who Cares.
==========================================
So Kim. You're an ID creationist?
Steve, #1040 and #1042. You are hopelessly dishonest.
============================
So you believe evolution is fact?
Against my better judgement, I will reply. Actually, no - not against my better judgement. David, your reasonable reply to my last (and admittedly impatient) post seems to deserve a response.
1a. If you understand basic logic, then why do you abuse it?
1b. Review my posts.
2. Moving the goalposts, are we?
3a. Once upon a time, you wrote:
My my. How respectful of you.
3b. Your "phrase" is not true by sole virtue of you saying so. You have otherwise failed to prove its veracity.
3c. Religion as analogy for belief is not religion.
3d. Please point out where I called you unpleasant names. Don't pin other people's name-calling on me.
Why do I say you don't respect language, knowledge, or your opponents? Because you're spinning a semantic game and broken logic into an argument that "proves" that !R = R. Comments which point out your errors apparently bounce right off your forehead. What am I to conclude? That you are right? I have already considered that, and concluded otherwise.
Kseniya: Religion is not an analogy for belief, it is an analogy for a belief system that has certain equivalent aspects. I feel that I've made my point and can move on though. Looking back at your posts, you have been one of the more civilized people on this thread.
Rey Fox said
"Okay. But indulge my curiosity for a second. Let's say the whole of AGW is a fraud. A deliberate fraud put on by thousands of professionals around the world. Why do they do it? What do they stand to gain? A modest living? Some tiny amount of influence over some consumers and politicians? A mansion in Tennessee? Al Gore had his wealth a long time before he became the public face of AGW. What's the scam?"
Simple. $30 billion has been spent on research and climate models in the last 30 years. They want to keep that gravy train going for another 30 years. If there is no AGW, then we can stop that waste of billions right now. Notice that few reserchers ever suggest that their research has found the answer, they always fail to find the answers that makes further research unnecessary. There is always a reason to continue the research and funding. Al Gore too is making millions on the issue. UN employees and activists too. Keep the issue and the funding going. Let's jet off to exotic locations every year for "conferences". Sweet deal they've got going.
We use the word "Coupe" if it was the other guys overthrowing our government
...but not if the guys overthrowing our government are driving "Sedans."
Whoever calls humans "rats" as PZ. Myers did, places himself in the category of dubious figures.
Hitler used it upon jews/gypies.
Stalin used it upon his adverseries
Meyers used it upon "denialists"
...and Cagney used it upon the guy who gave it to his fictional brother. Or was it "Cagny"?
My work here is done.
p.s.: hi,
=======================================
kim!
===================
============================
You brought this big fuss on yourself by attacking CA. I have read Bad Astronomy for years so in theory I would be neutral, but the rhetoric of the GW faithful is not science either.
I have never identified any overlap betweed creationists and those people here call "deniers". These folks labeled Deniers tend to be physicists, astronomers and veteran climate specialists. If you read what they actually say it would be a blow to ignorance and pomposity and not nearly as horrifying as you think.
Meanwhile I am freezing my butt off praying for a little warming.
A one question global warming test... Are you pro nuclear power? If the answer is no you don't really believe anthropogenic global warming is a serious threat.
Hi, Wondering Aloud. Thanks for dropping by to drop comment #1206. I'll try not to get it on my shoes.
Your li'l test is stoopid.
Which are you, a "physicist," an "astronomer," or a "veteran climate specialist"?
oh...just a comment-dropper. Go away then.
Tunder is a thumbsucking neocon.
30 billion over 30 years over an entire planet. Hmm. Still doesn't sound like it stacks up very well next to oil revenues.
"Notice that few reserchers ever suggest that their research has found the answer, they always fail to find the answers that makes further research unnecessary."
And medical science never seems to find the answers that would make cancer research unnecessary. What a bunch of greedy bastards.
The term 'denier' is unnecessarily pejorative. Most of us are just skeptical. The irony is that the rabid AGW proponents deny the validity of any data contrary to their beliefs. The truth is that we just don't know. I probably over rely on that statistically insignificant last five years of the temperature record, but I am sensitized to that signal by the hysteria, and the rhetoric of the AGW proponents.
=====================================
Wegman found the climatologists a closed circle, and he was right. You'll see soon enough.
========================
Well, get ready everybody, as soon as we have one cooler-than-normal year, the chorus of toldjasos is going to be deafening.
Naw, just cooler than predicted. Then we will jump and shout. Oh, wait.
===================================
I believe that ==k==i==m== predicted above someplace that within a year we will all be forced to admit that the planet is actually cooling.
Better than the =F=a=r=m=e=r='=s===== ==A==lman===ac=====!
=
Weather.
Climate.
spot the difference?
I believe we are cooling. I believe that at the rate the meme of AGW is failing, that by next year there will be a critical mass of skepticism.
It is possible I am wrong.
========================================
A tipping point of belief, if you will.
===================
Well 1207 in the same spirit as your total non response. You are obviously a troll who had to make up a screen name to post a comment only a child would think was witty.
Astronomy is a hobbie I work in physics. Is my test stupid to you because it's logical? Careful don't get any science on your shoes or thought in your head.
If you were an adult perhaps you could point out a way in which my proposed test is flawed. I have never found anyone who could propose a better solution, meaning biggest reduction in CO2 at and least negative environmental impact. Here there really is consensus It's been over 20 years and no one who has any idea of what they're talking about has ever made a rational counter argument to the statement you so easily dismiss.
@1209 Hey Rey,
Granting the AGW theory full validity, what realistic, i.e. enforceable, geopolitical policy would put a major dent in oil revenues or even profits, given the temporal growth in worldwide demand and diminishing supply?
My point is that I don't see AGW effecting oil companies true business outlook one bit, and perhaps their only motive to meddle in the AGW debate is to assuage collective guilt in an industry where moral turpitude is a prerequisite to for employment.
Hence, I see no substance in your response in 1209 to because the AGW (for lack of a better term) "game" is zero sum for oil and (more or less) win or lose for research thereof.
But I genuinely believe an intelligent and fair man, so please indulge me and share your thoughts.
I'm simply curious about the "scam" or "conspiracy" nature of global warming denial. So often climatologists are accused of maliciously covering up data and making false claims, and I just have to wonder what they think is in it for these scientists. You don't get rich telling people what they don't want to hear, you can get rich telling people what they do want to hear.
It sort of mirrors the great evolution conspiracy we all hear about, you know, that scientists push evolution and deny God because, well, they're evil, and apparently this is enough to convince some people. Look up SaulOhio's first comment on this thread, he seems to think that people push AGW because they're cackling demons.
"perhaps their only motive to meddle in the AGW debate is to assuage collective guilt in an industry where moral turpitude is a prerequisite to for employment."
My heart bleeds for them, truly.
ChemBob: (Quote)
"I bet none of you have ever done any actual science, e.g., come up with new and testable ideas and concepts to explain reality and then tested them to see if they or the alternative hypotheses are superior. My guess is that if you've ever done any engineering it was while playing with your toy choo choo trains as children."
So -- what you are saying is that you haven't found out how to use Google yet?
As far as I am concerned anyone lazy enough to classify GW as a "scam" or "conspiracy" is a speculator on the whim they will be able to yell to the world at some future point: "I told you so!...A-hole, moron, etc...". These poor souls follow the logic of Mencken's quip: "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong, except they turn of their brain at neat.
On the other hand labeling genuine skeptics as "deniers" is pure hyperbole, that does nothing to serve the "warmer's" cause; ego perhaps. Come on, look at the public standard bearers for the climate crisis concern. Just check out the formerveeposcarwinningnobellaureate here at TED: http://tedtv.magnify.net/item/X66HFLXJ8B6TX9QB. The guy, first asks for sympathy for no longer having access to Airforce 2, which is fine if you give him benefit if the doubt for injecting levity, but then he can't help boasting that he took a "G5" to Africa. If his motives were not so transparent, he would't have he the trouble in Florida obtaining the prize he really coveted. As you can imagine, my heart bleeds for him, truly.
As for the climate scientists, I can't imagine many are in it for the money, but that does not mean they are humble. Too many trade in a currency of pride and the squeakiest of wheels expect grace from public scrutiny in exchange for their "sacrifice" and respond to such with contempt palpable to even the lowest of mortals.
As for those who perplex you with their fire brimstone castigations of evolutionary science. The Bible expressly tells its believers (I am one in the interest of full disclosure) that God's focus on them as individuals, and judgement is solely the realm of...well,God; and to deviate from that is sin. The trick is to only remind them of that while withholding personal judgement yourself. I suggest you study the Bible, if only from an intellectual point of view; at the very least it will provide plenty of what we salesfolk call objection handling material.
Winning arguments is never purely logical.
I sure wish you would have answered my previous post in a more straight forward manner.
1222=@1220 (My Bud Rey)
I withdraw my claim; skimming through this thread a significant fraction of your posts do contain argument. My apologies.
Yes, David, everyone has some kind of belief system, and a core belief system may be analogous to religion, and anything from a core belief system to something as mundane as American football may sometimes be labeled, metaphorically, as "religion". Who would disagree?
Is that really all this was about?
You weren't conflating religion with "religion" in an attempt to reduce the difference between theism and atheism to nothing, as if a world-view that doesn't include god-belief is the same as a world-view that includes belief in a supernatural father-figure who invisibly meddles in world affairs and sends people to heaven or hell after their deaths?
Kinda seemed that way, but if you say not, then... Ok.
By the way, I disagree that the difference between "coup" and "revolution" is simply a matter of point of view. A coup d'état is typically more of an inside job executed by a relatively small group with sufficient access and influence to effect regime change. A revolution is typically more of an uprising of the governed against its own government. A coup may be a type of revolution, yes, but they are not strictly synonymous. For example, the American Revolution could not by any stretch of the imagination be called a "coup".
That sort of claim of equivalence suggests that you think language is more elastic than it really is. If you're talking about the potential for misuse of such terms, I must agree. Propagandists misuse language all the time - but calling a coup a "revolution" for reasons of public relations doesn't mean the words are truly synonymous. This claim, along with you apparent conflation of the literal and metaphorical usages of "religion", led me to doubt the integrity of your motives.
Oh? If-then? But we already are all human and imperfect. What about If-then-else? If we don't remove "religion" from the lexicon, then... what? We are not all human and imperfect? Do you really wish to erase the difference between belief in the supernatural and disbelief in the supernatural? That's an interesting idea. Removing provocative, divisive, or subversive words from the lexicon. It sounds almost Politically Correct. We are all alike! Nobody is Any Different from Anybody Else! That might solve a few problems. But good luck convincing those vocal thesists who would keenly enjoy watching the infidel minority burn in hell for eternity. If you're talking about freedom of, and freedom from, religion, I'm all for it.
Re Post #2:
The first word of the second sentence is "why." In this word, the letter "y" is a vowel, yet seems to have been inadvertently passed over during disemvoweling. Is disemvoweling done automatically? Perhaps correction is in order.
Yeah, um...
Carry on, then.
Rey Fox said
***
30 billion over 30 years over an entire planet. Hmm. Still doesn't sound like it stacks up very well next to oil revenues.
"Notice that few reserchers ever suggest that their research has found the answer, they always fail to find the answers that makes further research unnecessary."
And medical science never seems to find the answers that would make cancer research unnecessary. What a bunch of greedy bastards.
***
30 billions is a lot of perks for researchers and activists and the IPCC. And their science still is pathetically skimpy or even entirely made up crap. Jim Hansen fudged temperature data to try to show that the 1990's were the warmer than ever. Mann fudged and cherry-picked two sets of very poor proxy data to come up with the infamously bogus hockey stick graph. Al Gore used outright lies and falsehoods in his movie, all based on extremely tenuous "science". And guess what, oil revenues are completely irrelevant unless you have a leftist agenda to pursue. Do you?
Beware the scientific research industrial complex. The medical research is pharma profit motivated and the climate research is motivated by left wing activists looking to stick it to the oil industry. Neither have anything to do with real science.
AGW is a fraud. The atmosphere has 380 parts per million of co2, onlt 16 parts per million can be ascribed to manmade sources. 16 parts per milion cannot possibly cause any significant changes in the climate. There is no physical (as in physics the science) that proves that CO2 can do that in any concentration.
Yes, I have a leftist agenda to pursue.
Maronan: That post was purposely disemvowelled by the author as a joke. I can't say whether or not the disemvowelling program automatically removes "y"s or if it is smart enough to detect a "y" used as a vowell. I kind of doubt both of those notions, but I'd have to find an actual disemvowelled post to check, and they've been pretty rare lately.
@David (re: way too fucking many posts about atheism somehow being a religion)
To repeat a favorite addage, "Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
Well, you see, many theists are just so darned uncomfortable with the idea that some people don't believe in their religion, and many of them are even more uncomfortable with the idea that some people don't believe in any religion, that they just have to insist that non-belief is belief and that even a non-theistic belief system is "religion".
At least David (ostensibly) admits it's an analogy. What I don't get is the idea that by offering up such a painfully obvious analogy he is somehow "sticking it" to the atheists on this board. IKYABWAI?
Atheist: I don't have a religion.
David: Yes you do. Everyone does.
A: No, I don't.
D: Do too.
A: Do not.
D: Do too!
A: Do not!
D: Yes you do. All belief systems are religions.
A: No, they're not.
D: Are too.
A: Are not.
D: Are too!
A: Are not!
D: All belief systems are LIKE religions. In a way.
A: Yes, alright, belief systems can be analogous to religions in some instances.
D: Hah! See? You DO have a religion!
He did admit that he misunderstood Jim and Steve's objections to the illicit conversion, and yet the admission yielded nothing at all in terms of any change in his claim or the argument supporting it. "My phrase that everyone worships something is true," he said, then points out that it's an analogy, yet argues for it as if it were a literal equivalence. I have to wonder about that. If it's an analogy, then it's not literally true. Yet he claims it's true. It's a slippery and specious argument.
Furthermore, he never did acknowledge (let alone express any contrition whatsoever for) implying that those who didn't swallow it whole were either retarded or autistic, and yet went on to complain about the manners of his opponents -- and even chided me for... I'm not sure what, I think for not defending his honor hundreds of posts before I even entered the thread -- apparently not realizing that a "Fuck you, you moron" dressed up in a nice suit is still a "Fuck you, you moron."
I dunno. Maybe he really is just another smug hypocrite with an over-inflated opinion of his education and intellect. Or, maybe not. It's kinda hard to tell.
At the risk of restarting a long thread:
Kseniya: When I said that everyone has a religion, everyone worships something, I was not talking about just Atheists. That said, I've already shown that there is plausibility for a God or Deity using current scientific thought. Atheists must rely on "faith" that there is no God. Therefore, it stands to reason that Atheism is merely the religion of anti-religion.
As far as individual liberty is concerned (fear of vocal theists as you put it), the Constitution of the US attempts to balance the freedom of the individual with that of the local community, state, and Republic (i.e. the people, the majority). This is why the Congress can both have a Chaplain and the First Amendment. If the majority of the community is Christian, then the government will reflect that because the government IS supposed to be "the people." It cannot make laws establishing OR disestablishing a religion NOR should it be able to tell someone, even those in government, that they cannot be vocal about their faith (i.e. free exercise clause, free speech clause). There are a lot of people, even judges and especially Atheists, who really are misinterpreting the First Amendment IMHO. I will leave this for another discussion.
Christians believe that justice ultimately comes from God, whereas Atheists believe that justice ultimately comes from the super friends justice league (i.e. the UN or some secular bureaucratic institution somewhere). That said, one cannot remove the human nature element from either Atheism or Theism. Atheists like to take advantage of this by pointing out how hypocritical Christians are for not being able to follow their own written belief system. Christians answer that it is easy to not be a hypocrite if you follow a value system that has not been written in stone and can change on a whim.
reason: To repeat a favorite addage, "Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
Atheism is akin to having a transparent hair color but saying that you are bald.
@David
No, you wise-ass, atheism is a lack of a belief in gods, just as being bald is a lack of having hair. It is you that posits the existence of transparent hair just as you posit the existence of gods, both to try to make your fairy tale work out.
No, you wise-ass, atheism is a lack of a belief in gods,
Belief is an active thing. Atheism is the belief that there are no gods or that there is no god. That is not to say that Atheists do not have "gods" even though they don't believe in gods. Their "gods" are themselves, science, technology, money, etc. Even with that in mind, religion does not necessarily require a god. One can have a godless religion.
So just because you don't call it a duck, doesn't mean that it doesn't walk and quack like one.
Then what's disbelief?
So not believing in the tooth fairy is a belief?
Ummm. Yeah. OK. Suuuure.
Stevie_C: Disbelief is the belief that something is not the case, therefore disbelief is in itself a belief.
Disbelief is the belief that something is not the case, therefore disbelief is in itself a belief
Just like abstinence is a sex act, not collecting coins is a hobby, and ignorance is knowledge.
Maronan: That post was purposely disemvowelled by the author as a joke.
When people have to be told that, I start to wonder if we're members of the same species.
I can't say whether or not the disemvowelling program automatically removes "y"s or if it is smart enough to detect a "y" used as a vowell.
Since the former is trivial and the latter is not, and there would be no point to the added complexity, you should be able to say. (And what's a "vowell"?)
I kind of doubt both of those notions
Why? (NPI)
but I'd have to find an actual disemvowelled post to check, and they've been pretty rare lately.
It's not hard to find such, e.g.,
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/you_call_that_design_theory…
from which at least one "y" (from "certainly") has been removed. But that's the old site; at the new (current site) there's
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/yikes.php#comment-520705
which contains several "y"s.
Disbelief is the belief that something is not the case
Even if it were, that would be irrelevant -- it would simply mean that atheists aren't necessarily disbelievers in God. It takes a certain level of assholiness to try to win arguments by manipulating definitions in such a way as to define one's position to be correct. But in any case, if you use better dictionaries (than Merriam-Webster) you find that even "disbelief" is broader than that:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=disbelief
Oh, and David in #1236, if there is any task for which you are perfectly suited, I'm certain that remunerating your efforts with the vast fortune contained in my empty wallet will be an equitable wage. Your arguments are worth every penny it contains.
It cannot make laws establishing OR disestablishing a religion
That's not what the amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The theocrats love to leave out that word "respecting". http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/meaning_of_establishment.htm
discusses the meaning of the clause; specifically: the word "respecting" meant then, as it does now, concerning, touching upon, in relation to, or with regard to
and
the writings of Madison and other founders show that nonpreferential governmental support was considered "establishment of religion" in the parlance of the time.
The amendment is broad, and implies a complete separation of church and state.
the climate research is motivated by left wing activists looking to stick it to the oil industry
These sorts of comments are highly revealing of the ideological motivations of deniers and their crackpottedness.
It's really fuckin sad when they just don't get it... or choose not to.
truth machine (yeah, right!) said
***
the climate research is motivated by left wing activists looking to stick it to the oil industry
These sorts of comments are highly revealing of the ideological motivations of deniers and their crackpottedness.
***
Actually it says nothing about my ideological motivations or any such "crackpottedness" (sic).
My politics are left of center. I'm no fan of the oil industry including the oilman in the White House. I am very environmentally minded. I've carefully researched and read all I can on AGW including all the IPCC's reports. My educated opinion is that 16 ppm of co2 cannot impact the globes temperatures, period. The entire fraudulent agw construct is a waste of resources that could be used to tackle real problems like poverty, illiteracy, hunger, war, etc. While we fight trying to take down the oil industry, people are suffering from other more direct problems.
My base motivations is to put an end to the fraud and ensure that all future environmental science is independent and sound. Get the politics out of science and environmentalism. Give it back the respect that it has lost at the hands of the IPCC, climate modellers, Al Gore, Mikey Mann, Jimbo Hansen et al.
These people have a direct vested interest in keeping the agw gravy train going. Their jobs and their financial incomes are directly tied to their giving us all manner of catastrophic climate scenarios that justify their past and future funding.
It's a fraud. Plain and simple.
You brought this big fuss on yourself by attacking CA.
Are you also one of those who thinks that someone gang raped in prison brought it on, regardless of the crime that put them there?
Anyway, the "big fuss" of hordes of denialist trolls showing up here lends support to PZ's contention that CA is a "junk science blog".
I have read Bad Astronomy for years so in theory I would be neutral
That doesn't follow.
I have never identified any overlap betweed creationists and those people here call "deniers".
Then you're stupid or blind; the vast majority of creationists are also GW deniers, let alone AGW deniers.
Meanwhile I am freezing my butt off praying for a little warming.
Do you know the difference between weather and climate, or what the G stands for, moron?
A one question global warming test... Are you pro nuclear power? If the answer is no you don't really believe anthropogenic global warming is a serious threat.
That doesn't follow, cretin. There are many reasons why someone might not be pro nuclear power while believing that AGW is a serious threat. Some of those reasons might be irrational or uninformed, but having them doesn't establish the lack of other beliefs. Your "test" reveals you to be intellectually dishonest and/or very stupid.
Actually it says nothing about my ideological motivations or any such "crackpottedness" (sic).
Yes, it clearly does.
My educated opinion
It wouldn't matter how educated you are (but you clearly aren't about either CO2 or the motivations behind climate science) when you are demonstrably stupid.
These people have a direct vested interest in keeping the agw gravy train going. Their jobs and their financial incomes are directly tied to their giving us all manner of catastrophic climate scenarios that justify their past and future funding.
Gee, and I thought it was about "left wing activists looking to stick it to the oil industry". Not only are you incredibly stupid, but incredibly dishonest as well.
My educated opinion is that 16 ppm of co2 cannot impact the globes temperatures, period.
Glad you prefaced that as an opinion, since a claim like that could not ever be a scientific one, Period. (I capitalised 'Period' so you'd know my sentence is righter than yours by the force of my conviction.
These people have a direct vested interest in keeping the agw gravy train going. Their jobs and their financial incomes are directly tied to their giving us all manner of catastrophic climate scenarios that justify their past and future funding.
Yeah, I know what that's like. I'm part of the Global Cancer Cure Supression Conspiracy and I have no qualms about letting millions die just so I can keep my GIS-monkey-in-a-cubicle job.
Tunderbar, please stop telling us how you've 'researched the data' and using vague references to 'physics, the science'. Many of us actually are scientists, and can tell by your writing that you haven't a clue as to what 'science' is.
My base motivations is to put an end to the fraud and ensure that all future environmental science is independent and sound.
Oh, and nice attempt at concern-trolling. Like we've never seen that from your kind before.
It's a fraud. Plain and simple.
As a concern troll, I guess you'd be one to know one.
This started when I said "everyone has a religion, a belief system, a value system."
No, liar. You said "If that makes the term "religion" meaningless, then IT IS meaningless. That was my point. You are hypocrites and bigots. Everyone has a religion, a value system, a belief system, gods that they worship."
Who is misinterpreting whom?
You, of course. You even intentionally misinterpret your own words.
***
My educated opinion is that 16 ppm of co2 cannot impact the globes temperatures, period.
Glad you prefaced that as an opinion, since a claim like that could not ever be a scientific one, Period. (I capitalised 'Period' so you'd know my sentence is righter than yours by the force of my conviction.
(snip)
Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 16, 2007 3:57 PM
***
Can you give us an indepth explanation of the physics involved in how co2 causes warming? You can't because it does not exist. It is a *physical* impossibility. There is not one scientific paper in the world that explains the physics of exactly how co2 can cause warming or any warming. Nevermind a trifflingly tiny 16 parts per million of co2 in the atmosphere. AGW is a political and scientific fraud.
Disbelief is the belief that something is not the case, therefore disbelief is in itself a belief
Just like abstinence is a sex act, not collecting coins is a hobby, and ignorance is knowledge.
If Atheism were the lack of belief in a god, then babies would be born Atheist. One has to form a thought one way or the other to believe or disbelieve something.
The theocrats love to leave out that word "respecting".
And you are lacking emphasis on the phrase "Shall make no law". The founders permitted a Congressional Chaplain, permitted Congressional prayer, permitted States to have constitutions with references to God, used God in their own speeches, had plenty of blue laws on the books, allowed for Christian holidays as federal holidays, eventually put "in God we trust" on the money, etc., etc. Eventually, one has to come to the obvious conclusion about their original intent.
Babies are born Atheists.
You clearly don't know anything about the establishment cause.
Par for the course for you.
Even if it were, that would be irrelevant -- it would simply mean that atheists aren't necessarily disbelievers in God. ...
truth_machine: The original statement was that Atheism was the lack of belief in a god. If this were the case, then babies would be born Atheist. Babies haven't formed an opinion one way or the other. The next statement involved 'disbelief'. Babies don't disbelieve in a god either. They haven't formed an opinion one way or the other. Therefore, it stands to reason that the analogy about baldness vs. having hair doesn't hold. Abstinence vs. having sex and not collecting as a hobby don't hold as analogies either.
spurge:
Babies are not born Atheist, if anything they worship their Mother.
As far as the establishment/disestablishment clause goes, I've clearly given you evidence of precedence. (It is equally a disestablishment clause, in that one cannot disestablish either.) Please feel free to backup your claims whenever you wish, of course.
If you were saying that there's an establishment clause on babies being born Atheists, then you were just being silly.
If Atheism were the lack of belief in a god, then babies would be born Atheist.
Even by David's tortured apologetics, babies are born without theism. Atheist parents don't subject their children to theism--they raise them in an atheist household, one without religion, in order to emphasize and nurture critical thinking. Without the ability to form a thought, one cannot believe or disbelieve something. To cripple the ability to form a thought requires religion, something to which children who are not born Christian to Christian parents are routinely subjected.
When the word atheist capitalized anywhere other than at the beginning of a sentence, it is done either in error, or malice.
The founders permitted...
I have now seen it all. David employs a descriptivist argument to characterize the founders' intent as Christian prescriptivists. By such logic, since Adam and Eve ate the apple at the urging of the serpent, Wossname must've wanted them to come to the obvious conclusion about his original intent--
Hm. Perhaps I'd better rethink that rebuttal.
FSM helkp me, I am about to feed a troll.
AGW is a fraud. The atmosphere has 380 parts per million of co2, onlt 16 parts per million can be ascribed to manmade sources. 16 parts per milion cannot possibly cause any significant changes in the climate. There is no physical (as in physics the science) that proves that CO2 can do that in any concentration.
1. Where do you get your 16 ppm? Here are the data. That's an increase of at least 65 ppm since 1958 (a 20% increase!), and I am unaware of any source of increased atmospheric CO2 other than fossil-fuel burning. If you know of some, please cite your sources. But the source of the CO2 does not change the climate effect.
2. Are you denying that carbon dioxide absorbs long-wave infrared radiation? I was under the impression that the physics (yes, the science) was pretty well worked out here: CO2 absorbs an IR photon and the energy is transformed to intramolecular vibration, i.e. heat. Adding heat to the atmosphere = warming by definition. Please specify the fraud in this rather simple scenario.
No, liar. You said "If that makes the term "religion" meaningless, then IT IS meaningless.
That was in response to "The religion of non-religion, of worldly possessions, of worldly pleasure, etc." You said that this makes the term meaningless. I said that if this is the case, then the term is meaningless. This was a round about way of saying "DOES NOT!" Do you get it now?
One can create a religion out of just about anything, ask L.Ron Hubbard. Did he make the term meaningless?
Oh, Sven, I was waiting for Thunderpoot to claim that not only is there no mechanism for C02 to be a greenhouse gas, but that water vapor has an even greater effect than C02. Alas, a missed opportunity. In any event, it's time to collect our hugely extravagant pay checks for perpetrating the make-scientists-rich fraud that is AGW, *wink* I think I'll buy some Bay Area real estate with this week's stipend, how about you?
Oh dear, did I just use my outside posting voice?
Even by David's tortured apologetics, babies are born without theism.
Yes, believe it or not, babies are born without a belief system. They also cannot talk, which makes it difficult to test that theory, but I'm sure that it is correct. If a child were raised by wolves, would that child grow up atheist?
I have now seen it all. David employs a descriptivist argument to characterize the founders' intent as Christian prescriptivists
No. I simply gave you the definition of representative government. If the majority of the people are Christian, than the government will reflect that. One should have the freedom and liberty to raise one's children in a community that shares one's values. Often times these values are religious in origin. This is the very definition of representative government. If the majority were of another religion, such as Mormon or Amish, then the government would reflect that. The US is a Republic. It was not meant to have an overbearing one sized fits all, all powerful federal government.
It really is unfair to tease those who encounter failure and redouble their efforts, but since it amuses me anyway, I'll continue to taunt the David.
If a child were raised by wolves, would that child grow up atheist?
I'm sure this is meant to be a rhetorical question, because on Planet David, the wolves would be unable to teach the religion of atheism to the feral child. Fortunately, any child raised by wolves who dies before being baptized will go to heaven and Limbo no more, according to Pope Ratzi. This may or may not make David happy. Presumably, if the majority of the population turns out to be of another religion, David would be happy for the government to make him wear magic underwear or service two Mennonite, because the government should be reflective, since, as a Republic, its size should not overbearingly fit its powerful federal government boot up all it fits, unless they are in the minority.
David, you're either the stupidest asshat to ever troll, or a pretty good generic fundy Turingbot. Either way, congrats. I predict your words will sway any undecided who read them to a resounding and liberating apostasy.
Ken, you aren't making much sense, but your insults are pretty good. Keep it up, but next time maybe you should try something called polite coherent interaction.
As for your bit about being in the minority:
Everyone is in the minority in some way or another, just as everyone is in the majority in some way or another. This is called living along side other people. I know that this is a foreign concept to you, but Democracies work funny in that the majority does rule every now and then.
The sound you hear is that of irony meters shattering as David urges "polite coherent interaction." I was regurgitating your senseless argument, fool.
Run along now, little revisionist reality denying Humpty Dumptyist.
I nominate David for most egregious abuse of the phrase "it stands to reason."
David, you keep changing your story. Why? As I said earlier, on one hand you claim that the "belief system"="religion" equivalence was made as an analogy, and yet here you are - again - arguing literal equivalence. Try sticking to your original argument (which, I believe, was the analogy) for a while and see what happens. Maybe that respect to which you feel you are entitled will start to flow your way, even if people disagree with you.
Even Jordan tried to tell you that you were over-reaching with the everybody-has-a-religion "analogy" (if that's what it was) but you ignored him completely. Why? Surely you respect Jordan enough to address his concerns about your argument. Am I wrong?
Moving right along, tell me why do you think conflating "Plausibility" with "There is evidence in support of" is going to pass muster here and convince anyone of the validity of your atheism=religion claim?
It is plausible that a race from Alpha Centauri will drop by to say hello in 2022, but due to the complete lack of evidence suggesting this will happen (and of evidence that the Alphans even exist) I will not give this entirely plausible idea any creedence until the evidentiary picture changes a bit.
Most, if not virtually all, atheists would tell you that their disbelief is provisional, based on lack of evidence. It doesn't take faith to question, to doubt, and to provisionally dismiss claim for which there is no evidence whatsoever. That's just good sense.
You seem like a decent fellow, David, educated and intelligent, but... man... you are the King of the specious argument.
Kseniya, how can you accuse such a revisionist WRT the US Constitution of being educated and intelligent? David couldn't pass an eighth grade civics test, let alone construct an argument that didn't throttle itself midway through.
Mr. Cope,
Ehh... yeah. Whatever. I kinda skipped over that stuff. I don't have no energy for Constitutional arguments tonight.
I got lazy. *shrug*
It won't happen again.
[*whistles tunelessly*]
That's a hot issue for me, though. (I'm a David Barton anti-fan.) I'll look it over... some other time. Maybe. If the comment count hits 1300.
o.O
Seriously, though, whether I agree with David or not is only relevant to the topics we're discussing. His rhetorical tactics can be aggravating, but so what? It's my prerogative to allow myself a moment of grace and a time-out for an observation or two. Or three.
Honest civility is not without value. Neither is a three-digit IQ. Lastly, David (like most people here) undoubtedly has more credit-hours than I do. There. I said it! The original comments reads like a back-handed compliment anyways. Do I have to turn in my Molly now? :-p
Dear Kseniya,
My brain still hurts from the argument that the Constitution justifies the aims of those who think this is already a theocracy.
Now that I've reread your post, I can see why the two compliments stood out so, in contrast to the rest. Perhaps you had given yourself a special challenge to see if there was some way to practice the rhetorical tactic of "honest concession" amidst of the rest of your honesty. And yet...
I did try to slog up-thread and review how consistently dishonest David has been with his shoe pounding, and I can now see how pointing out his education (in more of a Salem hypothesis manner than on the internet it's always September), in contrast with his employment of it, was more likely ironic.
I also got to read more of your posts in this exchange. No worries, your Molly is well-earned. I have less patience, and less subtlety in the mockery and derision departments, figuring in the occasional troll-engagement mosh pit my role is to make sure the troll can recognize a bit of it while so much of the high quality work has been whizzing overhead unacknowledged.
My brain still hurts from the argument that the Constitution justifies the aims of those who think this is already a theocracy.
Who argued that? I was arguing representative government, last time I checked. I was also arguing that the Congress could not make a law one way or the other. I believe that the first Amendment clearly states that. How can one form a theocracy if one cannot make law one way or the other? If laws were made based on the values of the majority, then that is one thing, even if that value system stems from their religion. If all the atheists moved to New Hampshire and took over and became the majority, then that would also be legit. I believe in local government, because I understand that one size does not fit all. As far as eighth grade civics class goes, our failing socialist public school system has produced jokers like you who cannot see that we've had prayer in Congress since the beginning, then proceed to argue about how similar things are unconstitutional.
One should not be so quick to call others dishonest when your own contortions of my argument would make a circus draw a crowd.
yet here you are - again - arguing literal equivalence.
Maybe if I had used the phrase "tantamount to a religion," you would have felt more comfortable? I was using a figure of speech, not arguing literal equivalence. I just was lazy and didn't quote "religion."
Most, if not virtually all, atheists would tell you that their disbelief is provisional, based on lack of evidence.
Many atheists believe that life exists on other planets, even without any evidence. A bit hypocritical don't you think? Atheists, like other "religions," want to make things fit their value system. An atheist would think "if I can convince people that life exists elsewhere and is easily created from a mix of chemicals, then it will be a statement about how God doesn't exist. Then I can win converts." Etc.
David dishonestly conflates our democratically elected republic with what he instead advocates, majority rule. He claims that what the Founders could not successfully prohibit, i. e. tax payer funded Congressional chaplains, etc., should "lead us to the obvious conclusion about their original intent." He commits something of a post hoc, propter hoc fallacy, that what was not successfully prohibited amounts to endorsement by the founders. Revisionist twaddle.
Here is James Madison (who might be said to know something about the Constitution) on the issue of paying chaplains, explaining his (unsustained) presidential veto:
His point was recently dramatically illustrated by the reception of the first Hindu opening prayer in Congress.
For atheists to impose a regime in New Hampshire (apart from the laughable notion that any two atheists would be able to agree politically, solely on the basis of their absence of theism) informed by ideological homogeneity could be no more constitutional than Christians imposing religious principles like xenophobia and heterosexism wherever majorities clot.
We've had prayer in Congress since the beginning because even though oaths are sworn to uphold the Constitution, few have even read it, and fewer still take seriously their charge to defend it against its enemies (one of the reasons Congress has ratings below "fourth branch of government" Dick Cheney's). When the judiciary is at its best, it manages to infuriate both sides.
David should not be so hasty to attack education while flaunting his claims of advanced degrees. Attacks on public schools are usually from those who want public schools to be dismantled, either from randroidian libertarian brainrot, or because they want public schools displaced by state subsidized religious institutions.
More dishonest up is downism from the David:
Enough with the straw-atheists and how everything is a belief! Such po-mo humanities department drivel. Instead, let us discuss scientists (who may or may not be atheists) and the prevailing consensus on the possibility of life on other planets. If life somehow arose on this planet, then how is it unlikely that in similar environments it would not do so again? Nobody believes that life exists on any other planets we have been able to investigate; it has yet to be found anywhere we have looked for it, nor is it suprising, as they all have such dramatically different environments. Still, extremophiles on this planet don't eliminate the possibility in some other parts of the solar system. The question of life and the likelihood of its origin on other planets remains an open one.
It's a statistical likelyhoood. Life on other planets. Once you have a concept of how many stars and how many planets there are... Life on other planets is virtually unavoidable.
Statistically god isn't even likely... considering there's no evidence for even one godlike being or even one metaphysical act.
It's called logic. Something you seem to not be too familiar with.
***
FSM helkp me, I am about to feed a troll.
AGW is a fraud. The atmosphere has 380 parts per million of co2, onlt 16 parts per million can be ascribed to manmade sources. 16 parts per milion cannot possibly cause any significant changes in the climate. There is no physical (as in physics the science) that proves that CO2 can do that in any concentration.
1. Where do you get your 16 ppm? Here are the data. That's an increase of at least 65 ppm since 1958 (a 20% increase!), and I am unaware of any source of increased atmospheric CO2 other than fossil-fuel burning. If you know of some, please cite your sources. But the source of the CO2 does not change the climate effect.
2. Are you denying that carbon dioxide absorbs long-wave infrared radiation? I was under the impression that the physics (yes, the science) was pretty well worked out here: CO2 absorbs an IR photon and the energy is transformed to intramolecular vibration, i.e. heat. Adding heat to the atmosphere = warming by definition. Please specify the fraud in this rather simple scenario.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
***
Check the IPCC reports and its references with regards to the amounts of anthropogenic co2 in the atmposphere. And as for your grade one level oversimplification of the science, can you cite the peer reviewed study or the researcher whose findings show exactly what you said?
explaining his (unsustained) presidential veto:
Yes, Democracy is a funny thing... And how did the Supreme Court rule on that? Marsh v. Chambers (1983). Of course, you also ignore the many other examples I gave, which also have been there since the beginning.
For atheists to impose a regime in New Hampshire
They would need to compete against the Ron Paul supporters, but they could implement their version of "strict separation of representative government from its own core values."
l. Instead, let us discuss scientists (who may or may not be atheists) and the prevailing consensus on the possibility of life on other planets.
Why not hold out judgment until one can prove it? By the same token, aren't there scientists who believe in the possibility of a God? I've already given you plausibility.
It's a statistical likelyhoood. Life on other planets. Once you have a concept of how many stars and how many planets there are... Life on other planets is virtually unavoidable.
Those statistics are based on whether or not certain conditions are earth-like in other areas of the Universe. It has not been proven that earth like conditions = life. Therefore it is wishful thinking at this point.
Statistically god isn't even likely... considering there's no evidence for even one godlike being or even one metaphysical act.
God is all around you. If anything, I'd reserve judgment about the Universe being formed any other way. You will never be able to measure what is outside your sandbox anyway.
David:
Ok, I think I understand now. Atheists have "faith" which isn't faith in the religious sense, and they have "religion" which isn't religion in the religious sense. Got it. Uh, your point is... what? That everyone has a religion? Or that everyone has a "religion"? Y'know, like football?
I commend you for avoiding the tired old saw that atheists believe in "nothing".
Still, I have to second the "straw athiest" objection. To build on what Stevie said, it's plausible that the likelihood of there being life on other planets is high. Do you realize that even if the odds against a star being host to a life-bearing planet are vanishingly small - say, a billion-billion to one against - there will still be in the neighborhood of 500,000 to one million inhabited planets in the known universe? It's not unreasonable, then, to believe that the likelihood of life existing on other planets is high, though again I point out that "Plausible" isn't synonymous with "There is evidence to support it." It's hard to extrapolate from a single data point. Still, we have one data point for "life-bearing planet" and zero for "god", so insisting that the two beliefs require identical amounts of "faith" is baseless.
The Roberts Court will make even more stupid decisions than that one. The Supreme Court is famous for incredibly bad decisions, including Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, for starters. I suppose next you're going to argue that Roe v. Wade is settled law... But what has a 1983 decision to do with your specious claims about the Founders' intent? The author of the first amendment, James Madison, who as President of the United States refused to sign a bill authorizing pay for Congressional Chaplains, had this to say in 1833:
Myself, I'm holding out for the day when a Pirate can give praise before Congress to the Flying Spaghetti Monster for stripper factories and beer volcanoes, while Capitol police bear shrieking protesters away. No god is less absurd than any other.
Science doesn't do proof, or were you not present in classes where science was discussed? Judgement dictates that one investigate reasonable, fruitful hypotheses which can be investigated, for which evidence can be found. There are scientists who are theists, but their occupation doesn't make that belief scientific, nor the object of their belief plausible. You have provided no plausibility, merely claimed it. You want stories about supernatural origins to be the null hypothesis. As far as science is concerned, gods are otiose.
Since 1995, nearly 200 stars have been found with planets orbiting them. Techniques are improving such that it will be easier to detect earth sized planets in the goldilocks zone of type G stars, as the ease of detecting hot jupiters wobbling their stars skews the statistics. The rough guess these days is that one out of two stars are orbited by planets. For a universe the size of this one to have spawned life exactly once strains credulity.
Speaking of strained credulity, you should be applauded for confining your revisionist assertions, and your contentions that descriptivist definitions should be prescriptive, to threads designated for addressing the ridiculous claims of Kooks.
What in Bob's name are you talking about?
"I've already given you plausibility."
Fairies are also plausible, if you just all clap your hands
really hard and say you do believe in them, you DO!
To build on what Stevie said, it's plausible that the likelihood of there being life on other planets is high.
Based on what? If you don't know how life started, you cannot come up with statistical likelihood. Even if all the chemicals were present, same number of planets, same orbits, etc., you are basing your assumptions on your own biases as to how life formed. This particular argument wasn't about plausibility, it was about hypocrisy. In this case, you believe until proven otherwise, in the other you don't believe until proven otherwise. I have greater respect for an agnostic, at least they know that they don't know.
The Roberts Court will make even more stupid decisions than that one. ... The author of the first amendment, James Madison, who as President of the United States refused to sign a bill authorizing pay for Congressional Chaplains, had this to say in 1833:
No one person authored the first Amendment. Others would have had to agree to the wording. James Madison would not have been able to pass the Constitution without consensus. It stands to reason that others interpreted the first amendment different than James Madison, because they: 1) agreed with the wording, 2) passed the constitution, then 3) later overrode his veto. This established precedence from this point on as to what the first amendment meant to the representative majority. Skip 200 years later, and people want to change the meaning to what James Madison wanted it to mean. I respect James Madison, but that doesn't mean that he got it right. The 1983 court got closer to right, more so than the 1971 Lemon test court who thought it within their power to pass legislation called the lemon test. I hope the Roberts court gets it right.
Speaking of strained credulity, you should be applauded for confining your revisionist assertions
I've given you actual court cases and actual examples of precedence. You seem to be the revisionist.
It stands to reason
You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.
As Patrick Moynihan famously said, "Everybody's entitled to their own opinions, but the are not entitled to their own facts."
So much for your Pee Wee Herman debating style, "I know you are but what am I..."
It is hard to say, but the comments here are proof of the decline of the USA and of the us-american education system...Looks like the good times are over.
You're a pantheist?
You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.
No, my conclusions were very reasonable:
1) Majority agreed with the wording of the first amendment.
2) Shortly thereafter, the majority passed the Constitution into being.
3) Not long after that, the majority overrode veto of Madison because they didn't agree with his interpretation.
4) The supreme court didn't overturn for 200 years.
5) Therefore, it stands to reason that his interpretation was incorrect and theirs was correct.
It is hard to say, but the comments here are proof of the decline of the USA and of the us-american education system...Looks like the good times are over.
It has been happening for a long time now, but people have turned a blind eye.
Phys. Rev. 41, 291 - 303 (1932) P. E. Martin and E. F. Barker "The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide"
David disputes that James Madison is the author of the First Amendment, and takes issue with the substance of the First Amendment, calling me a revisionist.
From findlaw:
From footnote 2:
David's position is as indefensible as any of his other claims in this forum.
When it comes to issues of abiogenesis and the possibility of life on other planets, I'll take science's biases for observation, evidence, falsifiability and peer review over David's own demonstrable hypocrisy.
David, I love you you pick on one statement from my post and ignore the rest. No, actually, I'm sick of it. Contrary to the bitter end, eh? You really don't get it, do you? Pity.
"God is all around you" - absolute certainty extrapolated from zero data points.
Well, whatever. Bye!
David disputes that James Madison is the author of the First Amendment
I do not dispute that he wrote the words that were eventually accepted. My point was that it had to go through committee, who clearly viewed the meaning differently. Marsh vs. Chambers had the same opinion:
"
Clearly the men who wrote the First Amendment Religion Clauses did not view paid legislative chaplains and opening prayers as a violation of that Amendment, for the practice of opening sessions with prayer has continued without interruption ever since that early session of Congress."
David's position is as indefensible as any of his other claims in this forum.
Further "indefensible" evidence:
The chaplaincy was challenged in the 1850's by "sundry petitions praying Congress to abolish the office of chaplain," S. Rep. No. 376, 32d Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1853). After consideration by the Senate Committee on the [463 U.S. 783, 789] Judiciary, the Senate decided that the practice did not violate the Establishment Clause, reasoning that a rule permitting Congress to elect chaplains is not a law establishing a national church and that the chaplaincy was no different from Sunday Closing Laws, which the Senate thought clearly constitutional. In addition, the Senate reasoned that since prayer was said by the very Congress that adopted the Bill of Rights, the Founding Fathers could not have intended the First Amendment to forbid legislative prayer or viewed prayer as a step toward an established church. Id., at 2-4. In any event, the 35th Congress abandoned the practice of electing chaplains in favor of inviting local clergy to officiate, see Cong. Globe, 35th Cong., 1st Sess., 14, 27-28 (1857). Elected chaplains were reinstituted by the 36th Congress, Cong. Globe, 36th Cong., 1st Sess., 162 (1859); id., at 1016 (1860).
(Marsh vs. Chambers)
When it comes to issues of abiogenesis and the possibility of life on other planets, I'll take science's biases for observation, evidence, falsifiability and peer review over David's own demonstrable hypocrisy.
Science has no bias towards there being life on other planets, people do. Science is just a process for systematically acquiring knowledge about the physical world. I am not against science. I am for finding out as much as possible about the physical world. However, the Universe is most likely such that there is a limit to what science can measure. For instance:
1. Imagine a line intersecting a circle on a piece of paper.
2. Now imagine that the equation of the line represents your physical "process." In other words, what you are capable of seeing and doing.
3. It would be impossible for you to measure the circle, even though your "line" or "process" runs right through it. You would "see" two points of intersection on your line and not know what they were. You would never know what they were.
That has to be the stupidest argument ever. Draw a circle, then draw a line through the circle. Therefore, there can be no life on other planets.
Dude, what are you smoking? I want to make sure I never try it myself.
Kseniya, I did not mean to cherry pick. You have to understand that it is three or so against one here. Looking back, your data point argument is a good one, worthy of a reply:
Still, we have one data point for "life-bearing planet" and zero for "god", so insisting that the two beliefs require identical amounts of "faith" is baseless.
"Life exists" is not a data point for "how it was created." If it were, it would be a data point for all the many theories.
That has to be the stupidest argument ever. Draw a circle, then draw a line through the circle. Therefore, there can be no life on other planets.
That was not an argument about life on other planets. It was an overly simplistic analogy about the possible limits of physical measurement in a multidimensional Universe. Substitute "line" with the laws and processes that govern our physical world, and the "circle" with that of the greater Universe superset.
A theory would be completely insane if it doesn't even take into account that which it is supposed to explain.
Then why'd you bring it up when the topic was abiogenesis?
Which means what, exactly? How is this even germane?
A theory would be completely insane if it doesn't even take into account that which it is supposed to explain.
Rephrased: "The fact that life exists here on earth is not an explanation for how it was created."
Then why'd you bring it up when the topic was abiogenesis?
Follow the thread. The topic has been several things.
Which means what, exactly? How is this even germane?
That science may not be able to explain everything. I was answering a post regarding putting all of one's faith in science and peer review to explain everything about existence.
We may not know how life arose, yet we can examine life, and determine that, among other things, life is a complex self-reproducing organic chemical reaction, taking place in liquid water and largely driven by energy from the sun, with some interesting exceptions driven by energy from the earth itself.
Given what we can observe, it is indeed plausible that the precursors of life were also organic chemical reactions. Various chemical reactions can be tested to see whether they give rise to further self-sustaining and self-reproducing chemical reactions, and if so, whether these reactions become more and more complex.
And so on and so forth.
Shrug. Science and peer-review may not explain everything about existence, but they are the best tools we have to explain anything at all about those parts of existence that can be examined at all.
Those parts of existence that cannot be examined at all cannot be explained at all. But even there, the guesses of science are better than the guesses of ignorance.
Well, that looks remarkably like reheated Hugh Ross material.
Tell me, Peter, do you actually understand the material you're using, or are you just a mindless parrot?
Posted by: MartinM | November 13, 2007 8:58 AM
Probably you don't understand it due to your limited abilty to think this matter through, but my statement is only pure applied logic. Hawkings is obviously able to think consequentually, so he applied imaginative time to his personal big-bang theory formulas because without this imaginated time he suffers a big problem. Just try to think deeper and you will understand, Martin.
By the way, until somebody here posted the name of Hugh Ross I have never heard of him here in good old europe. I guess he is one of this typical us-american preachers who nerve the world on TV.
At last I guess that this kind of weird people discussing here are the neccesary collateral damage created by some guys in the US who run around and claim that the world is just 5000 years old.
I doubt that I am the only one who wants to hug Kseniya at times. (Whoops, did I just say that out loud?)
"That science may not be able to explain everything. "
Thank goodness we still have other ways of knowing, such as making shit up.
I wonder what type of car all these global warming "scientists" here drive when they go for work: a gas sucking SUV or some of the other US cars wasting gas in an exorbitant way? What's about your house? Well heat insulated or one of the typical american houses crashing each time when a little hurricane passes by? I guess it would be better instead of wasting time here in this senseless discussion to do some senseful work like driving bicycle instead of Ford, improve the public transportation, isolating your home, wear a pullover at home in winter and lower the heater. May be this way you will reduce your 20 tons/person CO2-load. If you really do that, we probably won't have to quarrel about global warming, but - I guess - this is too hard, it's much easier just to talk rubbish and do it the old way.
Most of you sound like the european luxury communists of former times who preached revolution and lived in opulence, like Gore who asks everybody to act responsible but for himself he applies another standard. Shame on you hypocrites!
We may not know how life arose, yet we can examine life, and determine that, among other things, life is a complex self-reproducing organic chemical reaction, taking place in liquid water and largely driven by energy from the sun, with some interesting exceptions driven by energy from the earth itself.
Given what we can observe, it is indeed plausible that the precursors of life were also organic chemical reactions. Various chemical reactions can be tested to see whether they give rise to further self-sustaining and self-reproducing chemical reactions, and if so, whether these reactions become more and more complex.
And so on and so forth.
I agree. Let me know how that works out.
Thank goodness we still have other ways of knowing, such as making shit up.
Yes, String theory is a wonderful thing.
I doubt that I am the only one who wants to hug Kseniya at times.
The belief in life on other planets, because of some high "plausibility" based on the fact that life exists here on earth, is a form of "faith" until one can explain how life was created here in the first place. Everyone has a "religion." Some "worship" technology as their savior. It is the only thing that can give them everlasting life, for instance. Instead of going to church, they visit Gizmodo and Physorg. Trusting only what your eyes can see is great and all, but one should recognize that it could have its limits.
David doesn't like the first amendment, thinks Madison was wrong, and that he was corrected by the Burger Court. Citing nothing more than its historical abuses to claim that the First Amendment not only does not mean what it says, but that in 1983, Marsh v. Chambers, a SCOTUS decision based entirely on extra-Constitutional considerations that overturned numerous legal precedents, repaired the First Amendment, bringing things more in line with "...the obvious conclusion about their [the Founders] original intent." (#1252) Citing historical abuses of the establishment clause as justification for its further erosion in Marsh v. Chambers is what Madison lamented early on, citing the Chaplains' pay as precisely the sort of "...danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies [that] may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history." Marsh v. Chambers, by grandfathering and endorsing abuses of the first amendment, employs a rationalization no better than those used for the perpetuation of slavery, against "miscegenation" and against universal suffrage.
When it was pointed out that there was no way that Madison, author of the first amendment, would countenance Marsh v. Chambers, David disputed Madison's authorship. "No one person authored the first Amendment. Others would have had to agree to the wording. James Madison would not have been able to pass the Constitution without consensus."
When even David could see his position on Madison's authorship was indefensible, he denied he'd disputed it, giving himself whiplash on the 180 turn he makes here:
So, instead of reflecting a consensus with wording adopted in committee, David was always saying they adopted Madison's wording exactly as written, while viewing its meaning differently, presumably crossing their fingers while signing their names.
You're right Rey, the "making shit up" approach, no matter how self-contradictory, is all he's got. I feel like Costello trying to make sense of Abbott in their Who's on First? routine.
With the Rehnquist Court lurching more theocratically into the Roberts era, we see David shiver in antici...pation. Fortunately, the Consitution is a living document, and may yet survive the depradations of those, like David, who'd rather shred than defend it.
Now, as for David's Platonist drivel about paper and lines... (it explains so much! An idealized David utters inalterable eternal verities in an unseen dimension, while this mere instantiation of David in our lowly shadow realm can only spew nonsense in competition for the title of net.kook du jour) I'd like to ask him to visualize an extended index finger, perpendicular to, and aiming at, and repeatedly inserted through a circle formed by the thumb and index finger of the opposite hand.
String theory: made up. Ancient myths of a desert tribe: totally real! I think that's all that needs to be said about David.
Peter Hunter: When I'm not engaging in senseless discussions with well-poisoning cretins, I ride my bicycle to work and other places and limit my heating/air conditioning as much as I can.
PZ, if only there was a way for commenters to use your creationist tag in blockquotes so that a Gumby and comic sans could be used to highlight little turd gems like these:
It will take more than David's dishonest contortions to Humpty Dumpty up the dictionary to append "working hypothesis and subject of research spanning multiple disciplines," to definitions of the word "faith."
That's supposed to work. Let's see:
I doubt that I am the only one who wants to hug Kseniya at times.
Certainly not. However, it is her opponents who typically find themselves in need of metaphorical medical attention, whether they realize it or not.
Strange. I had this all worked out a while back, and it was working fine. Some other day when I've got a little more free time I'll track down why Gumby doesn't show up in the comments any more.
Ah, there you are then. It was working fine, until there was a miraculous supernatural intervention. Any notion that chasing the well-hidden bug would fix the problem would clearly be an act of faith.
Hm. So you, posting here, are performing an act of faith? After all, you can't explain all how all of the layers of technology involved work.
Are you worshipping this thread? Are you sacrificing your words for the holy and powerful god "hello_stan_palmer.php"?
If all belief systems are the exact same thing as religion, then you're an idolator.
Like Christians, for instance.
David doesn't like the first amendment
A distortion. I love the first amendment. It says that government cannot make laws that limit the free exercise of religion. It also cannot make laws that respect the establishment of religion (i.e. do what the church tells them to do). What part of that do you not understand?
Citing nothing more than its historical abuses
You call them abuses, I call them correct interpretations of the first Amendment. If James Madison would have stood up and said: "Guess what my friends, I am writing an Amendment to the Constitution that says Congress cannot open with a prayer, and that any mention of one's faith in public service will be a violation. Oh, and by the way, no public display of religious symbols, including the 10 commandments." How do you think it would have went over? It wouldn't have passed. Your view of the first Amendment is dead wrong.
When it was pointed out that there was no way that Madison, author of the first amendment, would countenance Marsh v. Chambers, David disputed Madison's authorship
"No one person authored the first Amendment. Others would have had to agree to the wording"
My point was that even if he technically came up with the original wording, it was not his decision alone to make. Others quite obviously had a different idea about what those words meant. In that sense, multiple people were behind the first Amendment. Do you disagree with this or are you just trying to play gotcha?
So, instead of reflecting a consensus with wording adopted in committee, David was always saying they adopted Madison's wording exactly as written, while viewing its meaning differently, presumably crossing their fingers while signing their names.
No, the other way around: James Madison crossed his fingers and signed his name.
I feel like Costello trying to make sense of Abbott in their Who's on First? routine.
Yes, your distortions about my positions take a lot of work and probably make you dizzy.
Fortunately, the Consitution is a living document, and may yet survive the depradations of those, like David, who'd rather shred than defend it.
I do not look at the Constitution as a living document in the broad sense. Human nature is human nature and does not change much. It is an oxymoron to call a "Constitution" something that changes out from under you. It is also dangerous.
String theory: made up. Ancient myths of a desert tribe: totally real! I think that's all that needs to be said about David.
That was a joke, show some humor. Geesh.
It will take more than David's dishonest contortions to Humpty Dumpty up the dictionary to append "working hypothesis and subject of research spanning multiple disciplines," to definitions of the word "faith."
From dictionary.com:
Faith:belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
Hm. So you, posting here, are performing an act of faith? After all, you can't explain all how all of the layers of technology involved work.
Some do, yes. I happen to understand how it all works, right down to the transistors and nand gates.
What part of that do you not understand?
How you can be such a deceitful sociopath.
You call them abuses, I call them correct interpretations of the first Amendment.
your distortions about my positions take a lot of work and probably make you dizzy
Your positions (multiple and self-contradictory) are nothing but distortion.
Your distortions Constitutional
Are revis'nist, categorical
Mangling Webter's wordy book
Another theocratic crook
You are the very model of
a modern minor net dot kook
From dictionary.com:
What's the matter, was conservapedia.com down?
Faith: belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
Point the first: working hypothesis != belief
Point the second: science is not based on proof.
The belief that you understand, because of some high "plausibility" based on the fact that you know some electronics and boolean logic, is a form of "faith" until you can explain exactly what all of the components are and how they interact in the first place.
Air-conditioning is my vice; I can't stand heat. Now cold I don't mind; and I do wear fleece. I take a diesel-electric train to work, which I don't doubt spews large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, but then I do share the train with well over a thousand other riders. Just what are the admission requirements for environmental advocacy anyway?
Please be careful about your generalizations here. I'm careful generalizing about Christians. In fact I don't much mind if you call my atheism a religion. It seems a bit odd to call a mere belief in the non-existence of Gods a religion, but then scarcely more dogma is at the core of the Christian religion. (God created the universe, and most Christians believe Jeshua son of Joseph and Mary was God incarnate and was resurrected.). Now if you call my enjoyment of computer programming worship, and my computer a god, you're really missing the mark. Religious epiphanies are a bafflement to me, but it sure seems clear that they're not really the same thing as enjoying a good hack. And my computer is far less anthropomorphic than the average god.
Here I also disagree. Religion has little to do with it, but there are different types of personalities. Some of us are narcissistic psychopaths like Pat Robertson. Some of us are concerned with the welfare of the people, like Jesus. Some of us are obsessed with any hint of the carnal, and with sin, like the apostle Paul. Some of us like varity. Me, I like regularity and sameness. And just as there are different types of people, there are different types of belief systems, something you don't want to acknowledge.
Atheism - Religion?
The most senseless discussions are discussions about definitions of words when there is no mutual understanding about. Obviously you haven't something better to do but to waste a lot of precious time on this matter.
Well, I'll be the first to admit that there are things I don't know. Perhaps you could help me out. You could start by describing this 'space-time theorem,' maybe. That one's new to me.
Dear Martin,
the physics of Newton consider time as completely independent from space (three dimensional space). But Einstein's theory of relativity joined time and space to a four dimensional space-time-continuum (the latest physical theories don't restrict this time-space-continuum to four dimensions but higher-dimensional geometries = number of dimensions > 4.
The hypothesis that time and space exist in a time-space-continuum is the time-space-theorem (in German: Raum-Zeit-Theorem).
Hawkings states that "before" the big bang happened and the space-time-continuum expanded there was something with a volume (capacitiy) of Zero, hence there were neither time nor space before the big bang.
Logically any cause for any action inside a time-space-continuum needs the existence of time for to proceed. Because - that "something" "before" the big bang was neither time nor space Hawkings needs - for to argue still logically - an anchor to let the cause of the big bang happen and proceed. This anchor is Hawkings "imaginary time" which should exist 10 to 40 seconds "before" the big bang. But this imaginary time is only a crutch to save his faith in a self-creating universe, because - cited by his own words - "If I wouldn't claim this imaginary time as real the big bang theory indicates a divine creation".
To claim the existence of time before time and space ever existed and to call it "imaginary" reveals, that this time only exists in the Hawings brain as an imagination, belief, faith, notion, perfection... choose the word you like, I won't argue about definitions.
It's not easy for me to describe this matter in a foreign language but I hope you will get the point nevertheless.
"Obviously you haven't something better to do but to waste a lot of precious time on this matter. "
People, we must all now pledge only to discuss things that are approved by the Grand Arbiter, Peter Hunter. We don't want to waste our time on things unapproved by him, nor do we want to waste his time by making him point out that we're wasting our time. Time is money!
By the way, it's "HAWKING". No 's'.
:-)
thanks for correction!
Ken, your post is that of "cover ears and say marry had a little lamb, la la la la la lots of times," then distract with clever allusions.
Peter, I am just teasing them. In my experience, many atheists look down on others and are simply bigots. Their strong reaction to saying that they have a religion is just funny.
Everyone has something that is believed especially with strong conviction. Most have at least one firm belief in something for which there is no proof. These are just definitions of the word "faith" in Webster's dictionary.
Almost everyone has a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. This is a definition of religion in the Webster's dictionary.
Some of us are concerned with the welfare of the people, like Jesus
The physical welfare, but what does that matter if one is still left naked, blind, miserable, and poor.
I am just teasing them
The rest of us are conversing with each other by mocking and laughing at any kook so pathetic and unoriginal as to ply repetitive, clueless assertion via dictionary (one cut up by William S. Burroughs at that) as if it were an argument.
The rest of us are conversing with each other by mocking and laughing
Ah yes, the "Well, you have no friends!" line thrown out after one has lost an argument. Nice.
Well, at least you aren't losing your religion over it.
Ah, declaring victory eh? You'd have just as much success employing the same strategy you have here, by swanking into a bar habituated by dykes on bikes here in San Francisco, to tell them that they're all really heterosexuals and you've got what they've been secretly yearning for.
David, at last there is no proof at all. Each theory, even if its results were tested for thousands of times, is only an approach to the "truth" of the Universe. May be for 200 million times the test shows the same result, that is no proof, that it shows up the same result at the 200 million and one test. Inductiv deduction is limited because its only a comparative generality.
Some hundred years ago Emmanuel Kant already knew, that there is a surface we can examine and calculate but we never really can penetrate the "curtain" for to recognize the "real thing" (das Ding an sich) behind the curtain. Even mathematics at last is not without immanent contradictions. As Goedel mathematically demonstrated is any sufficient mighty formal system either contradictory or incomplete. Hence at last we all walk on sand and not on firm soil when we show up with theories.
But to compare convictions and religion as you do is not acceptable, I guess. If one states that there is no God and he believes only in mathematics and physics then possibly this convictions helps him to stand the problems of life because it makes the world rational and manageable. You probably will say that he makes mathematics to his God, but when you, David, believe in God, you should know the difference between convition and religion. Conviction always is internal laily but religion is always transcendent. Each religion regards the world as foreground, while the secret of Nirwana, or God, or many Gods form the basis of the universe which is accessible only to the believer. Religion comes from religio, a latin word. The ancient Romans found that to be religious means: to carefully consider the things related to the worship of gods".
But to compare convictions and religion as you do is not acceptable, I guess.
I am doing no such thing. Belief systems are made up of convictions. They are not one in the same.
but religion is always transcendent. Each religion regards the world as foreground, while the secret of Nirwana, or God, or many Gods form the basis of the universe which is accessible only to the believer.
Atheism isn't really a stand alone thing, but just one part of a larger belief system. This belief system usually involves striving to create a utopia here on earth using technology, environmentalism, and socialism. Technology is the savior because it will provide everlasting life. A one world socialist government provides justice, most importantly income equality and social justice, and also works as the provider and protector. It is responsible for raising your children and educating them towards secular world view. Science is the method to transcend the Universe by discovering its secrets. Environmentalism provides the spiritual and sacred experience. If we cannot call this a religion, then we need to redefine religion.
If we cannot call this a religion, then we need to redefine religion.
Why not redefine all the words?
In regard to your giddy little hallucination, the phrase that comes to mind is "demented fuckwit fever dream."
Why not redefine all the words?
Well, different cultures define words according to the way they view the world. We are no different.
In regard to your giddy little hallucination, the phrase that comes to mind is "demented fuckwit fever dream."
Thank you Stewey. So now tell me what part of that religion do you not subscribe to? It was easy to come up with, I simply described your favorite TV show: "Star Trek: The next generation." You know, the one where everyone works for Star Fleet Command even though they have replicators and ended poverty years ago.
David, I'm afraid you aren't going to reach enough people here. You may have better luck finding the audience that needs to know the truth (with multiple exclamation marks) by obtaining a box of crayons (red is a very good color) and distributing your deathless prose on bus benches and subways everywhere.
With your sophisticated knowledge of nand gates, I don't doubt that you'll be invited into the special room deep in the bowels of the Pentagon any day now, so your Beautiful Mind can be consulted properly, on, say, whether or not the aluminum foil deflector beanies should be worn shiny side out, or shiny side in.
Good luck, Culture Warrior!
Ken, keeper of the lexicon, please look up the word 'deflection.'
OK, lessee, ah, got it! deflection... Wow! No wonder they'll want to your expertise in the secret room inside the Pentagon, you're already ahead of the curve on the shiny side in or out problem!
There's no conspiracy theory behind it, just logic:
1. If you don't believe in a god and you want everlasting life, then you turn to technology as your savior.
2. If you don't believe in a god and you want social justice and equality, then you turn to government as your savior. You know, the super friends justice league type, something like the UN. You have high priests who sit around a big table and dictate policy for the rest of us sheep and warn the flock of any impending doom (similar to the IPCC).
3. If you don't believe in a god and you are a spiritual person, then you turn to the Creation, the environment. You follow rituals such as eating granola, wearing hemp, and riding bicycles.
4. The high priests come up with the cardinal sins, such as using the word 'poor' instead of 'underprivileged,' driving an SUV, and shopping at Wal-Mart.
5. You safeguard the failing socialist public education system at all costs, write books about how it "takes a village to raise a child," and push for socialized health care, etc.
Let me know where I'm wrong...
Let me know where I'm wrong...
Sure thing, David, you present a false polychotomy.
Translation of your blather:
"If not A, well then C or D or E or F or G or H, but not B - never B! It can never be B! My superior logic turns B into not-B! I win - God must be real!"
(B = a total absence of belief, FWIW)
You are hell-bent on classifying non-believers as somehow "religious". Whatever it takes to divert attention from the silliness of your fairy tales, I suppose...
@ David
I think reason has you there. Your last posting doesn't really address anything about whether or not (a) god(s) exist(s).
Remember, please cite your references, and preferably they must be within the last decade or so. Us agnostics are tired of hearing hoary old arguments.
What fantastic voyage did you just disembark?
1. If you don't believe in a god and you want everlasting life, then you turn to technology as your savior.
A savior? A savior of what? From what? How do you define a savior? Why is it necessary that people desire one? Much less project one into reified concepts? Do people necessarily want everlasting life? How is technology construed as a savior?
2. If you don't believe in a god and you want social justice and equality, then you turn to government as your savior. You know, the super friends justice league type, something like the UN. You have high priests who sit around a big table and dictate policy for the rest of us sheep and warn the flock of any impending doom (similar to the IPCC).
If you don't believe in a god and you want social justice and equality, why is it necessary htat you must turn to government? Why can't you go volunteer or donate to a charity? Or do pro bono work, or organize your community in ways that help alleviate problems for families in distress? I've yet in my entire lifetime to meet anyone left, right, or center who fulfills this obsequious caricature of the liberal mesmerized by the U.N., most people are extremely skeptical, as they should be, of the U.N. and it's dealings. Yet, would you please direct our attention to the other international body currently engaged mediating to any degree disputes between nations?
Again, how is a U.N. a savior? What is a savior? Why is it necessary that the U.N. behave as a savior? Why is it necessary for people to worship the U.N.? The U.N. has priests? Wow! Really? Can you name some and some of their priestly duties! Oh, while you're at it, would you please names some of these sacerdotal diktats from this unnamed portion of the U.N. that has the force of law in the U.S. supplanting constitutional rule?
3. If you don't believe in a god and you are a spiritual person, then you turn to the Creation, the environment. You follow rituals such as eating granola, wearing hemp, and riding bicycles.
Wow. What? I ride a bike to work. I ride a couple of hundred miles a week - not bragging - I just do, something has to counteract my awful diet. I sometimes find myself praying while I ride "please don't let that rig drag me under it's wheels?" or "please let that trixie get distracted from her phonecall to notice that she's about to slam into me." Other than that, it's more about the exercise counteracting my desk-job and aforementioned diet. When I bought my ride at Cozy's, no one invited me to a pyramid power seminar. I don't wear hemp, though, it's not very attractive. I saw some hemp shoes that I almost bought once, but, the weren't really quality for the price. I also own a car that I try to use in moderation. And a motorcycle that I should use in moderation. But enough about me, or rather, those facts have about as much relevance to the discussion at hand as your decrying the eating of granola and the riding of bikes as some kind of ritualistic pancretism. I... don't really know what questions to ask you about your reasoning in this particular example, because your reasoning is so, obscure that it's nearly unrecognizable as such. In fact, open question: please demonstrate how bicycle riding is pagan.
4. The high priests come up with the cardinal sins, such as using the word 'poor' instead of 'underprivileged,' driving an SUV, and shopping at Wal-Mart.
Now are these the high priests from the U.N. or is this a different college of priests? What group of people are you referring to here? I think you've got it the other way around, I think we're supposed to use underpriviledged instead of poor when we refer to those damn Greasers from East end across the tracks. As far as I can tell, if there's a cardinal sin of secular, civic life it's this:
"Don't be a dick when it's not necessary, and when it's necessary, don't be a cruel dick." I do all kinds of non-P.C. things all the time and no one's sent me letters of summoning requesting my presence at an inquest and excommunicating me from liberalia. Anybody else experienced this? Does anyone else know which paper it is I should be reading? A listserv? A subscription? Because I'm getting kind of nervous here, I'd really like to know what our atheist high-priests are labeling as halaal and haraam these days.
5. You safeguard the failing socialist public education system at all costs, write books about how it "takes a village to raise a child," and push for socialized health care, etc.
The socialist public education system. Would you care to explain exactly how the public education system is a socialist one? Because I read this, and I'm thinking is it the means of producing children that the state controls? Or is it that show-and-tell really pisses this guy off? Maybe a bad experience in 6th grade, when you had to invite everyone to your birthday party, even those dirty kids? Or is it the distributing of degrees to all those kids that gets you? Maybe it's integration, the fact that all kinds of people mingle their kids with all kinds of other people's kids? Is that threatening to you? Going back to this idea of "it takes a village" how is this different from education received at church schools, or sunday schools, or just from allowing your kids to interact with other kids around your neighborhood? Are you suggesting that it is right and proper that children should be taught at home, only by their parents, and kept insulated from all other influences until it's time to pair them off? Are you insinuating that children should be segregated and taught only in schools only with the children of parents who are economic peers capable of meeting tuition requirements? Or are you suggesting that children should have no right to education whatsoever, that a child's future should be determined by his parent's ability to pay for private schooling, or their own ability as homeschoolers? This seems to me a very foolhardy proposition, given the phenomenally bad track record countries that do not mandate education for their children or provide thereof have, well, operating and existing in the long run. Can you provide us some good solid reasoning why public education is not preferrably to no education, or, education only for the wealthy?
So, to answer your question, I would suggest that you began to be wrong, or, at least incredibly difficult to understand with the words "There's no..." Otherwise, and I really hate to say this to you, you come off kind of crankish, and, well, not making too much sense! I look forward to your reply, cheers.
Ok, the 1300 mark has been shattered, so here I am.
David:
Well, thanks for that. Sorry if some of my posts were a bit edgy. I'm not sure what all this "hugging" talk was about earlier, but I'm not really much of a fighter... maybe people sense that.
True. Where did I say it was? I said "it's hard to extrapolate from a single data point" the likelihood of life existing on other planets.
Ah, but I didn't say the plausibility is high. I said a high likelihood is plausible. I'm not trying to split hairs, here - I think the difference is significant and reveals that our points of view, though disparate, are closer together than you think.
Consider plausibility as a purely qualitative, not quantitative, concept: A thing is either plausible, or it is not. You claimed earlier that you have "proven" the plausibility of God - without saying how plausible. I'm ok with that. I think it is plausible that there's a high likelihood that life exists on other planets. That's not the same as saying, "I know with absolute certainty that there is life on other planets," or even "I believe there is a high likelihood that life exists on other planets." I stand by my earlier statement - it's not unreasonable to believe the latter - but I personally feel it's more prudent to take a more, umm, agnostic stance on the probabilities.
Regardless, the point is this: we know for sure that life does, without a doubt, exist on at least one planet.
Given the fact that we have life here, given the astronomical number of stars in the known universe, and given that even vanishingly small odds of finding a life-bearing planet orbiting any given star still suggest there may be hundreds of thousands of inhabited planets in the known universe, the idea that there might be more than one is not implausible.
As I said earlier, that doesn't require any faith at all - just good sense.
Compare and contrast with unquestioning belief in a deity for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
The two are in no meaningful way equivalent.
You say "God is all around" - well I say, "Life is all around you." The evidence for THAT is undeniable (unless it turns out that It's A Small World After All...*shudder*)
Where we agree is here: The bottom line is that we really don't know. I keep going back to this quote, even though it is getting a little long in the tooth:
Oh, by the way, nice job back there (in #1323) conflating atheism with other elements of the things-you-despise array. Not impressive. I imagine you and Christopher Hitchens could have an invigorating debate, one in which you convince him that he is a Socialist. You seem to excel at erecting straw men. Tell me, how do you sleep?
One last thing: My personal beliefs have no bearing whatsoever on whatever the truth of these matters might be, but I feel it's only fair to disclose that I'm not an atheist.
(Hmmm, it's almost 2 a.m., I must be getting cranky. I know I'll regret this in the morning. Oh well!)
*click*
It looks like your strongest conviction is that everyone has something that is believed.
Yup, you believe it strongly, and have no proof. So your belief without proof that everyone has a belief without proof is your religion.
You're making less sense than usual, here. You seem to be saying that Jesus wants people to be naked, blind, miserable, and poor.
I suppose that's another of your strong convictions; one of your firm beliefs without proof. I simply hope that you have declared yourself in opposition to Jesus. If you think that you ought to be as nasty as Jesus, well, you obviously have a firm belief and strong conviction in being evil.
Imprimis, many people who do believe in a god would agree with almost everything on the list (minus the smarminess, of course, but we know that you just put that in there for the sake of being evil), so atheism is unnecessary, et secundus, some atheists would reject most or all of the items on the list, so atheism is insufficient.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
And of course I note that (unlike wishing real hard and talking to imaginary beings), everything on the list is at least capable of being carried out in the real world.
Reason: The example that I gave was not proof of a god, merely an example of the "religion" that many atheists hold. In fact, I've never even attempted to prove the existence of a god anywhere on this thread.
Although atheist technically means "not theist," it is used mostly to mean "follows atheism." It would be silly to spell it "Atheistist," and like environmentalism is to environmentalist, atheism is to atheist. It is an active belief in no god.
Of course not. You don't believe in a god, you believe in believing (and in increasing the length of this thread).
Where atheists claim that god is nothing but a conspiracy of theologians, you're busy trying to show that everyone is a theologian, and is therefore a conspirator.
"I've frequently not believed in gods."
"No, no... What you've believed is not in gods."
Alternatively, you're trying to show that everyone is a conspirator, and is therefore a theologian. You don't really seem to care one way or the other.
I herewith promise to try to avoid to become a smart ass and to spare this blog from nerving comments. I hopy you guys will hail this with standing ovations :-))
brandon: I was giving an example, it isn't like atheists have a book that they follow or anything. I know an atheist who is Libertarian. He spends a lot of his time reading science fiction and living some imaginary person's life. Can believers also believe in some of these things? Yes, particularly when they are misguided. To answer your questions: 1. savior from death, 2. justice doesn't happen in a vacuum, 3. There is an environment junkie stereotype for a reason, and yes they do follow rituals, 4. Yes, universities contain high priests too: the elite scholars, 5. Freedom of choice is a good thing, competition leads to excellence, associate the money with the child instead of the school, and since the parent is making a free choice, the government isn't respecting the establishment of anything.
Kseniya: Welcome back. The "likely plausibility" of life on other planets highly depends on how one thinks life came into being in the first place. It could have taken 1000 improbable events in a row to happen, scientists just don't know.
Oh, by the way, nice job back there (in #1323) conflating atheism with other elements of the things-you-despise array. Not impressive
Thanks, but I was giving an example of how atheism is part of a larger belief system, just as theism is part of a larger belief system. Atheist belief systems would be in the things-I-despise array by default because mankind's ego is generally at their center.
Owlmirror:
You're making less sense than usual, here. You seem to be saying that Jesus wants people to be naked, blind, miserable, and poor.
Nope, I was alluding to spiritual bankruptcy and Revelation 3:17.
Where atheists claim that god is nothing but a conspiracy of theologians, you're busy trying to show that everyone is a theologian, and is therefore a conspirator.
Everyone is human, and humans have human traits. We aren't that different, despite trying to be different. One can say "well I believe in this and therefore I am different than you," but in reality that person probably has a similar belief system, just disguised as something else.
I herewith promise to try to avoid to become a smart ass and to spare this blog from nerving comments. I hopy you guys will hail this with standing ovations :-))
:-)
just this moment I'm listening to a piano concert of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, the divine. It's just my opinion, may be it's wrong, but how can somebody believe this is just the result of accident in a senseless evolution? What's about poetry, what's about the feeling when you love unselfish, what's about compassion? Just an advantange in the struggle for life? What's about long lasting love at all? For about 50 years my friends and me claimed to be atheists and consider ourselves as little dust particles in the endless senseless space and "believe" that human rationality, science, Hegel's "Weltgeist" and Karl Marx's analysis of capitalism leep manhood on the tracks to paradise on earth. But now, after those hecatombs of shed blood all over the world, we become humble and when we visit the gothic cathedral of Cologne, we now and then light a light before Mother Mary's image and pray for the fortune of our children. I'm 75 in between and have seen a lot that let me doubt the reliability of human rationality.
Sorry, I'm long winded and probably this is the wrong place for this posting. I'll go for bed now, wish you all a good night and close with the last lines of the "Evening Song" of Matthias Claudius (1773):
So then, my brothers,
Lie down in the name of God -
The evening breeze is cold.
Spare us punishment, God,
and grant us peaceful sleep
and also to our sick neighbour
"but how can somebody believe this is just the result of accident in a senseless evolution? "
It's not that hard once you get the hang of it.
Logic is all well and good, but it's easy to go off into the weeds if you get your premises wrong.
I want everlasting life sure. I don't expect everlasting life. I'd be surprised to make it to 100. Immortality isn't really an atheistic preoccupation, blather about the "singularity" notwithstanding.
I don't expect much from the UN. I am in favour of democratic governments shaped by the desires of the populace. It is parliaments where policy should be formed. And governments can and are doing a great deal of good. Something like the IPCC I see as an advisory body; the "high priests" with experience are the ones who can best tell us the likely consequences of our policies, but when it comes to choosing the policies, it should be democratically-elected parliaments.
I guess I'm not spiritual then.
Here's the thing; not all social structures run along authoritarian lines. The "high priests" can say shopping at Wal-Mart is a sin all they want; I'll only pay heed if they provide good reasons for what they say. There are good reasons to avoid driving SUVs and not to shop at Wal-Mart. So far I don't think I've heard any reason not to use the word 'poor'.
Yeah, pretty much. And I vote. Reducing funding to poorly performing schools doesn't seem like a good idea to me somehow... My quirk is that I am very strongly in favour of quality early childhood education and good daycares. There is some evidence that early enrichment makes an enormous difference in eventual life outcomes, even though the difference doesn't really show up until high school.
My guess is that you're getting your information about atheists from people who don't know many of us. As a "lefty" atheist I actually fit some of your caricature, but very few atheists will fit it very well.
As I told you folks yesterday: fuck the hockey stick, fuck Mann, and look. Make sure to read all the fine print.
Acting as if science had, like, somehow just stopped in 1998 is diagnostic of 1) ignorance and 2) the stupidity of believing everyone is as ignorant as oneself.
Sorry. That one is way outdated -- I should have noticed. Instead, follow the three links from here. (If I posted the 3 links again, my comment would be held for moderation again...)
--------
What do you think ", OM" means? :-) On the top of the page, click on "Commenters".
No, and I'm only starting my PhD thesis, too.
-----------
Comment 41 in other words.
Then forget the 2001 report. Two more have been issued since. :-|
------------
To be fair, few of these would be called "conservative" outside the USA. By European standards, for example, the conservative candidate in the presidential election of 2004 was Kerry.
----------
Comment 62 sounds great, except that for one of the windows, we can test if what we see through it actually exists. With the other window we can't do that. That doesn't prove the window is a wallpaper, but it fails to disprove it, too...
----------
Introductory lectures into biology have several hundred students in Vienna...
---------
Ehem. Near the top left corner of this page, there's a headline saying "Profile". Explore.
---------
To be fair, such ScienceBlogs exist. Tetrapod Zoology is one. Great posts, strictly about science... and only one post every few days. :-(
----------
Yes, against the hockey stick -- and nothing else.
Shock horror! How dare a scientist be impolite! That makes all his publications burst into flames instantly!!!1!
"Polite" and "scientific" are orthogonal.
1) Evidence, please.
2) Evidence that whatever ties they might have influence what they write.
Science is never balanced. Science is about what the evidence says. Go ahead, disprove a single post on realclimate.org, if you can.
The hockey stick is so 2nd millennium. Scroll upward a few tens of posts.
All he managed to find out was that the 1930s were not marginally cooler but marginally warmer than the 1990s in the 48 contiguous United States. The resulting correction to the global temperature curve is hardly visible.
A contribution? Yes. A microscopic one, though.
And?
That proves it, then. Darwin only used the word "evolution" once near the end of one of his later books, and the term "Big Bang" was supposed to make fun of the theory in question...
The hypothesis is that, if taxed less, corporation owners will invest their extra cash into creating more jobs. Has been tested (Reaganomics) and disproven: instead of using it to create jobs, the rich just bunker the money. Bush insists on repeating the experiment anyway... it's giving the same result again.
That would be harmless. They are sulfuric acid.
YAY. Phil (and Bad Astronomy) won. There was much rejoicing...
Mr. Palmer if I might make a suggestion if there is not enough science on this blog for you and that is what you are looking for I would suggest you find a different blog that is what I do. If I go some where that I do not like I do not go there again. Unless it is not science you are looking for? If it is just to argue and start a fight well then go right ahead. Those people who go out of their way to look for trouble usually find it but it might not be the kind they are looking for. Me I am looking for understanding and insight into things I do not have the time to per sue in depth. listening to pointless ignorant arguments that I know make no sense being taken apart be some people who are more articulate then I is very helpful besides being hilarious.
Then why did the two peer-reviews of my thesis advisor's & my soon-to-be-resubmitted article praise it for its innovative approach?
I have seen glaring failures of peer-review published, several times. But it's like how democracy is the best of all bad forms of government: there is no better way in sight for preventing mistakes from getting published. Papers that are not peer-reviewed tend to have major flaws over and over; I can think of a recent example of an invited paper that certainly wouldn't have passed peer-review in the form in which it was published.
(And there were mistakes in the math and an unclear figure caption in our paper, and the reviewers did point that out.)
Ooh. You used the word "liberal". How scary.
Ah, no. If correct, that would be the tu quoque fallacy. But it isn't. Pointing out oil ties (no idea if McIntyre has any) serves as an a posteriori explanation of why they seem to have overlooked so many important papers and why there are such large holes in their logic. It also increases the general level of skepticism... I thought that was a good thing?
Now, please go over to realclimate.org and disprove one of their articles.
----------
They are left-wing by US standards because the center in the USA is so far to the right. Remember: the conservative candidate in the presidential election of 2004, by all standards I know except the US one, was Kerry.
In comment 285, I don't see how the two quotes contradict each other. So Mann et al. were the first to establish the connection... that doesn't mean they have been the only ones ever since, and in fact they weren't, as the first quote says.
Huh?
Sulfuric acid clouds reflect light, which has the effect of not letting heat in. Very little energy from the sun reaches Venus; Venus stays hot because, due to the carbon dioxide that absorbs the IR radiation from the ground, just as little energy leaves Venus as reaches it.
Wow. Has apparently never heard of realclimate.org. :-o
ROTFL!!! :-D :-D :-D
And extra points for misspelling the good man. In Italian, double-spelled consonants are pronounced as at least twice as long as simple ones; Galileo (who, incidentally, had a surname, too: Galilei) wouldn't recognize himself.
Science! At last!
Let me just mention that, according to what I've read, there is no "natural progression of cooling in the late Holocene". The beginning of the next ice age is scheduled for 50,000 years from now, and the next glacial maximum for 100,000 years from now. (...We may be preventing the whole ice age, but that's another story.)
A. Berger & M. F. Loutre: An exceptionally long interglacial ahead?, Science 297, 1287 -- 1288 (23 August 2002)
(Talks about Milanković cycles. Right now, "the amplitude of insolation variation is too small to drive the climate system", so greenhouse gas concentrations become much more important than they would be, say, during the beginning or end of an ice age.)
You of all people! :-D Just goes to show I have a few Asperger "symptoms", too. :-)
If it ever was large enough to be a theory.
Indeed not. We're just saying those who have tried so far have exhibited a lack of knowledge of important data -- and acted as if everyone were just as ignorant as them.
Except you, I trust.
Are you alluding to the fact that the temperature changes always lead the greenhouse gas concentration changes in that core?
This is not at all surprising. We are living in the first time in the last few million years when a change in greenhouse gas concentrations happens for a reason other than a temperature change.
This doesn't mean changes in GHG concentrations can't lead to temperature changes. As I mentioned near the beginning of this thread, we've had a few cases in the last few hundred million years where GHG concentrations changed for other reasons than temperature (flood basalt eruptions, large-scale weathering of newly exposed silicates, methane burps), and in all those cases the temperature followed suit.
The effect of GHGs probably explains why glacials and interglacials are as binary as they are, as opposed to being a continuum. The GHGs dampen the influence of small changes in insolation and increase that of large changes.
Show me that, say, the IPCC agrees with this statement made by one person in 1989.
Before trolling, take note of the fact that truth machine is unique.
Argument from ignorance. Heat doesn't come in as the kind of long-wave IR that CO2 absorbs. It comes in as light and as short-wave IR, to which it's transparent.
Did you really believe the climatologists don't know that?
Yes, and? Where's your point?
By that logic, the average global temperature would have had to be completely stable for the last few billion years.
Come on, dude. The hotter the earth gets, the more evaporation happens, the water vapor is transported to cooler latitudes, condenses, which releases the heat the evaporation has taken up, and rains out.
The hotter it gets, the lower are the differences between the tropics and the poles. The tropics have always had more or less the same temperature in at least the last 90 million years; the poles have been much hotter and much colder than today.
The name is a marketing gag. It hasn't been ice-free for over 400,000 years.
That's a plain lie.
You have distorted out of the fact that wine was grown in England in the Medieval Warm Period. The quality was horrible -- nobody would have bothered if drinking water wouldn't have meant getting cholera.
Nowadays, however, growing wine in England starts getting a serious business. Here, read, if you can.
Wishful thinking.
What socialistic policies?
Undeniable.
What do you mean?
The temperatures it has caused so far are unprecedented within the last 8,000 years or so (and will soon be unprecedented in the last 120,000 years... if we run out of luck, we'll reach temperatures unsurpassed in the last 410,000 years).
The speed of the warming, which is an important factor in how fast anything can cope with it, is unprecedented in the last 11,000 years.
Solar activity hasn't increased for decades, so all warming since 1940 or so is manmade.
Mostly. There's also soot, methane, and laughing-gas.
Yes.
That's your point 4.
That's not part of the science, that's politics. Yes, if we want to stop the rise in temperature -- and the alternative is to evacuate Bangladesh --, we have to stop the emissions. The "how" is a different question. Taxation alone clearly won't work, because for a lot of uses there are currently no alternatives to burning fossil fuels; research on alternatives has to go on.
Why do you ask us evolutionary biologists? Why don't you spend a few hours reading on http://www.realclimate.org?
Spare me the lecture, what does Carter say? I bet it's not anything new.
This is precisely what we are doing. We can either try to turn the knob in the other direction or evacuate Bangladesh.
This is ridiculous. What reason does anyone have for supposing it might not absorb IR in the real world?!?
BTW, you don't need to press Enter at the end of a line. Line breaks are made automatically when you click "Post". Is this the first time you write on a computer?
I haven't read the last 100 comments... I'm just saying:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/sokald.php
Also, at the present speed of consumption (or rather at the speed of a few years ago), there's enough uranium for the next 60 years, and of course the speed of consumption is supposed to increase drastically. Either people figure out how to make a viable brood reactor, or nuclear energy won't last much longer than the oil.
We need alternatives anyway. We might as well invest real money into the research now.
Therein lies the rub. We have no idea on what the "economic hardships" would actually be.
Many of them would be an investment anyway. Better insulation for buildings means lower costs for heating and cooling, with lower CO2 emissions as a nice side effect.
What do you mean by "global mean temperature anomaly"? I'm talking about the global mean annual temperature.
For the speed of the warming, I don't have references, because that's the first time I see someone doubting it. But I'm sure a few hours in realclimate.org must find something.
Yes, but it isn't your ignorance. It is the fact that water vapor condenses and rains out. CO2 doesn't do that.
If it got so hot that it wouldn't rain anymore, we would have a runaway greenhouse effect. But making it that hot isn't easy. 55 million years ago, the poles had a subtropical climate, and there still was no runaway greenhouse effect.
(Ah, Indonesia too?)
Yes, there are lots of huge coal-seam fires in China, and their combined emissions are impressive. I agree they should be put out.
Politically it would be, of course. Technically it doesn't seem to be; many are huge. Small ones are being put out in China all the time.
On the other hand, I have yet to see evidence that putting them out alone would have a sufficiently large effect.
I also wonder where your "revamp the whole economic system" strawman comes from. We "merely" need to find a substitute for oil.
Argument form ignorance. Science consists of testing hypotheses. Against what? Against reality.
Ever seen a university from the inside?
Argument from ignorance. The mosquitos were already evolving resistance. Keeping on spraying would have killed the non-resistant ones and would have left the resistant ones to spread completely unchecked. Restricting the spraying made the competitive disadvantages of the resistant ones visible.
Also, never mind the fact that many countries have never outlawed DDT completely. It's still being used in plenty of places, even though not on such large scales. Yet again we have an ignoramus who believes there's no difference between the USA and the world (and can't even read Wikipedia, let alone the sources it cites).
Wrong. Go back to reading.
You are right on that one. You have overlooked that since the late 80s no serious climatologists believed that the next ice age would come soon. All evidence that ever existed for it was 1) the tiny cooling of the 70s and 80s, which was due to sulfur dioxide emissions, and 2) mistakes about the durations of previous interglacials.
No. If the CO2 concentration had never increased above preindustrial values, the next ice age would start in 50,000 years and have a glacial maximum in 100,000 years. I posted the reference about 100 comments above this one.
That's diplomacy for you. "Politics is the art of the feasible".
It's also hypocrisy for you. Coal fires included, the US emissions are still way above those of China.
Incidentally, a few years ago China introduced fuel economy standards for cars that were higher than those the USA had at the same time. I don't know what has changed since... I do know that by European standards a large part of US cars would have to be taken off the road, and yet we still survive on this side of the Big Pond, somehow.
Hey, look, an argument from ignorance. How unusual!
1) Much of the sun's output is in the short-wave IR range where CO2 doesn't absorb.
2) That's right: it doesn't reflect, it absorbs. In the process it heats up, and then it distributes the heat to neighboring air molecules by ordinary heat conduction.
What do you mean "overpowers and negates"? Water vapor is ephemeral. Evaporation and condensation happen all the time, and in different places. CO2 is distributed evenly in space and time -- except that it started increasing over time in the late 19th century and has been doing so at an accelerated rate lately. Water vapor concentrations depend much more on temperature than the other way around.
Water vapor doesn't reflect anything. When it condenses, giving off the heat it took up in evaporation, it forms clouds, and those reflect light and IR. That works in both directions, which means that the effect of clouds on the climate is quite complicated and depends on things like height and time of day. But it is included at apparently sufficient complexity in the latest climate models, including those used in the latest IPCC report.
If you don't know the difference between socialism and communism, go read, and then come back...
BTW, I'm not aware of any country with an "Earth Day" other than the USA. And I live in two countries where one of the two biggest parties calls itself "Social-Democratic" and is mighty proud of that.
For each temperature, air has a certain capacity of water vapor. Stay under it, and there'll be evaporation; reach it, and you'll see condensation. Don't tell me you didn't know that.
Indeed not. It's only the end of Bangladesh, if it goes far enough. (Never mind southern Florida etc. etc. etc..)
You wish. The oil is running out anyway, and its market price keeps increasing. In a few decades at the latest we'll need alternatives anyway.
Which one?
Sure there are. For the record, there are also outright communistic environmentalists (not many, though -- remember that communism was about "the primacy of the economy" and meant heavy industry by "economy"). I just don't see what that tells about the reality of AGW.
Ah yeah. That was a very nice idea. What a shame it was wrong.
(That's not the last word either. Search that blog for "cosmic rays" and you'll find more.)
So what? What do I care about Gore? I haven't seen his movie -- there's nothing new in it as far as I can tell. No suprise, because Gore isn't a climatologist.
LOL PZ,
Rats live longer are truly smarter...
I had been here several months ago as I was checking out the web awards site, and was somewhat bemused. But I must admit that with every response by PZ to those who disagreed with him, I went from chuckles to some good belly laughs.
Sorry, but your vitriol sounded exactly like my 4 year old arguing with his sister when he knew he could make no progess on the merits of the argument otherwise. It was just the visual of a "real scientist" the size of a 4 year old with his oversized white lab coat dragging on the ground and arms invisible within the almost empty sleeves as the hand waving proceeded undeterred with the "but I am a REAL scientist" just barely echoing past the stomping up and down that made the reading worth it.
Someone so emotionally invested in a particular outcome is incapable of producing good science.
Wow. That was great.
I'm surprised anyone was listening. =)