Global Warming and Belief in God

[Dawkinsrocks]

I couldn't care less.

It wouldn't be the first time and it is no surprise that an American is seeking to bully me with ludicrous threats.

As with most freedoms that are claimed but not available in the USyou seek to restrict my freedom of speech.

This is exactly what your government does to those telling the truth about 9/11, about Iraq, about the countries that the US routinely subverts, about torture,, execution, imprisonment without trial.

Your Government is currently seekking the extradition of a Brit because he hacked into the pentagon from his bedroom.

Rather than acknowldge how crap the security is and offering him a job they are seeking to give him 60 years for shopwing the Pentagon up for the useless organisation it is.

BTW I won't report you ever because I am not afraid of your words.

In fact I want you to keep em coming because you are a better recruiter to my cause than I ever could be.

Like your troups when they swell the ranks of Al Qaeda by your terrorist activities in Iraq.

 

[Federal Farmer]

It is a worthless comment as it is logically impossible to prove a negative.

For most sane people the onus is on proving existence.

That's a logical fallicy that a lot of atheists fall into. Your position is based on Affirmati, non neganti incumbit probatio, or "the proof lies upon him who affirms, not on him who denies", and it is you who are attempting to AFFIRM that God does not exist, therefore the burden of proof falls to you to support your assertion.

Now, if you simply state that you have seen no evidence that God exists, then your position is rock solid and irrefutible as it is impossible for anyone to prove that you HAVE seen any such evidence, and have chosen to conceal it. You need to remember that a lack of proof of existance is NOT "proof of a lack of existance". We have no "proof" of quarks, as none of the six varieties have ever been seen, yet their existance is universally accepted based on current Theories, and overwhelming circumstantial evidence. The same can be said of God, as many firmly believe the overwhelming circumstantial evidence as "proof".

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

You should consider this.

People routinely talk about stuff not existing.

They routinely say that Father xmas does not exist.

Or that there morality does not exist in the Whitehouse.

This is routine language.

Although you cannot prove a negative you can use common parlance with every justification in saying that god does not exist because there is no more evidence for god than for fairies, father xmas, the bogeyman etc.

We are happy to tell all our children that all of those do not exist until we get to god and then everyone gets all prissy and turns into a lunatic.

By the way, the idea of god is also logically impossible so he is noty doing very well.

 

[GenSeneca]

It wouldn't be the first time and it is no surprise that an American is seeking to bully me with ludicrous threats.

You're not even an American and you think you have the right to talk about 9/11? Goodbye.

BTW, I have never reported anyone. But I think its you who wants to bully through intimidation by attacking my character rather than addressing the topic. Socialists are like that.... Its no surprise to see you following the Socialist playbook from Stalin - accuse your opponent of having mental problems - and you accuse me of McCarthyism.... Stalinist.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Lots of non-Americans are talking about 9/11. they are saying that it was self inflicetd by those nasty men in the whitehouse who rely on blind support of people like you.

Jus wait about 30 years when it is on Fox news that Bush, Rumsfeld et al did it and then you can send me a note of apology.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Oh and BTW most nations on earth have suffered much worse terrorism on their soil than the US so please try and keep the patriotic zeal n check

 

[GenSeneca]

Oh and BTW most nations on earth have suffered much worse terrorism on their soil than the US so please try and keep the patriotic zeal n check

But how could that be true!!??

You think 9/11 was an inside job.... isn't all terrorism an "Inside Job"... So aren't those countries attacking themselves.... Like the train bombing in Madrid... Certainly THAT was an inside job - it caused Spain to pull all its troops out of Iraq and stop fighting AQ. Did the US set that up, since AQ is our puppet according to you people, so that we could have ONE LESS ally to fight along side in Iraq?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Good point

But it is tsill true that most countries have suffered more terrorism.

Your acknowldgement of 9/11 as an inside job reduces your count even further.

You still have McVey et al

 

[GenSeneca]

Good point

But it is tsill true that most countries have suffered more terrorism.

Your acknowldgement of 9/11 as an inside job reduces your count even further.

You still have McVey et al

My stating that YOU believe 9/11 was an inside job reduces what count? You have ZERO credibility... Not one fact, nothing but quesitons and conjecture, backed by Movies that you've watched... WOW thats impressive.

 

[Federal Farmer]

You should consider this.

People routinely talk about stuff not existing.

And they can usually prove it.

They routinely say that Father xmas does not exist.

Even heard of Saint Nicholas of Myra?

Or that there morality does not exist in the Whitehouse.

This is routine language.

Oh sure, it's "routine" slander and libel originating from people who don't have the first clue what they're talking about, and who repeat these slanders for political purposes.

By the way, the idea of god is also logically impossible so he is noty doing very well.

Are you not at all familiar with the basic Laws of physics? Nothing can come from nothing, therefore everything came from something. If God doesn't exist, where did everything come from? If there IS a God, where did God come from? Seems to be a gaping hole in the "Laws" of physics.

 

[PLC1]

I admit, the poll was poorly written. Global Warming is real - we've been coming out of an ice age for centuries - but the big question is if you think MAN is responsible and that MAN can control the climate through their actions.

As for the premise, you have heard the saying: "People who don't believe in God will believe in Anything!" and I think The GW movement has become very much a religion to some.... Man sins and an invisible force in the heavens punishes man for his transgressions.

Whats most frustrating is that real scientists who disagree with the "Consensus" that Mankind is responsible for alterations in Climate are totally ignored as quacks... and any tom-dick-harry can claim Man is to blame and be heralded as a genius.

Now how about a question.... Which stands to get more funding:
1. A scientist that wants to study the negative effects of MMGW
OR
2. A scientist that wants to study the positive effects of MMGW

Did you know? The MMGW crowd is pushing to nearly DOUBLE their federal grant money, from 9 BILLION a year to 17 BILLION a year! Follow the money... There is money to be made if you find facts that buttress your predetermined theory - on both sides - but thats hardly objective science.

We need to remove the political aspect of this research but I really don't see that happening any time soon.... In the meantime... Since people are so worried about "Fairness" in other areas, How about we give equal money to scientists on both sides - rather than always giving the lions share to those who seek to blame man. Perhaps then the science would improve and reports about the findings would become more accurate and less biased.

There should be no sides to science. All scientists need to be on the side of applying observation, reason, fact, and logic to answer questions, not trying to prove an agenda.

Real scientists, the ones who do the above, are telling us that global climate change is quite real, that it is accelerating, and that it is likely that human activities are accelerating it. They aren't saying that it will or won't be a disaster, nor are they saying for sure that human activity is accelerating it. They certainly aren't saying that we can reverse it by buying a Prius or a little corkscrew light bulb.

Science shouldn't be funded on the basis of what the findings are, as that would encourage a particular conclusion.

What I find fascinating about the debate is listening to the moguls of rant radio going on about how global warming is a liberal myth being perpetrated in order to give more power to the government, then going to commercial where we hear that we need to buy a particular air conditioner, light bulb, car, or whatever or leave a desert to our children. Hey, I'm not making that up! I've heard it more than once. Talk about profiteering from a supposed impending disaster, that is the best example I've heard in a long time.

 

[palerider]

Real scientists, the ones who do the above, are telling us that global climate change is quite real, that it is accelerating, and that it is likely that human activities are accelerating it. They aren't saying that it will or won't be a disaster, nor are they saying for sure that human activity is accelerating it. They certainly aren't saying that we can reverse it by buying a Prius or a little corkscrew light bulb.

The interesting thing is that I don't seem to be able to find any "real" scientists; that is, scientists who go to work every day and earn a living and don't depend on grant money from one side or another who support the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

I am a real scientist and while my field is not a study of the climate, I do associate with physicists, meteorologists, etc. at the PHd level and I don't believe I have ever met one who doesn't depend on grant money for his daily bread who believes there is sufficient evidence of an anthropogenic cause for climate change to even warrant much further study, much less to support actually taking some action on the issue.

I do invite you to provide a short list of credible scientists who don't make a living off of grants or work directly for a green organization who support the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Hell, I would settle for a short list of working scientists who believe that the models upon which the theory of anthropogenic climate chage have any credibility at all. By the way, the vast vast vast vast majority of scientist do not depend on grants, green organizations, or big oil for thier paycheck.

 

[PLC1]

The interesting thing is that I don't seem to be able to find any "real" scientists; that is, scientists who go to work every day and earn a living and don't depend on grant money from one side or another who support the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

I am a real scientist and while my field is not a study of the climate, I do associate with physicists, meteorologists, etc. at the PHd level and I don't believe I have ever met one who doesn't depend on grant money for his daily bread who believes there is sufficient evidence of an anthropogenic cause for climate change to even warrant much further study, much less to support actually taking some action on the issue.

I do invite you to provide a short list of credible scientists who don't make a living off of grants or work directly for a green organization who support the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Hell, I would settle for a short list of working scientists who believe that the models upon which the theory of anthropogenic climate chage have any credibility at all. By the way, the vast vast vast vast majority of scientist do not depend on grants, green organizations, or big oil for thier paycheck.

If their paychecks don't depend on either big oil or on the "green" organizations, then one would expect their work to be unbiased on the question of global climate change, right?

 

[palerider]

If their paychecks don't depend on either big oil or on the "green" organizations, then one would expect their work to be unbiased on the question of global climate change, right?

One would suppose so. You don't seem to realize that regulation that comes out of the belief in anthropogenic climate change is going to increase the profits of "big oil" and other energy companies as well. In fact, all energy companies stand to make a great deal of money as the result of tightened environmental regulation.

For example:

Paul Anderson, CEO of Duke Energy advocates a CO2 tax. Strangley enough, his electric company is heavily reliant on coal fired electric plants. Do you believe for a second that he wants a heavy tax laid on his company for the sake of alturism? The answer is not just no, but HELL NO. Duke's coal plants are in regulated markets where his company has a government-enforced monopoly. If a CO2 tax drives up Duke's prices, there is no one to undercut his prices. His customers pay more, no less coal gets burnt, and Duke gets good PR fior being environmentally sensitive. The only ones to get burned are his customers.

You may, or may not, be interested to learn that Enron was a key lobbyist for the Kyoto Protocal. They met with Al Gore and a memo sent out in 2000 said that Kyoto would be good for Enron stock. They planned to make a killing brokering a government created industry in trading carbon credits. In fact, every environmentalist policy Washington sends our way is putting very large money into the pockets of some very large corporation that the left has traditionally had issues with. I have always said that the best and brightest can't be found in the government. They are working for the corporations who can pay them the most and they are always 5 steps ahead of the government and in this case, 4.5 steps ahead of the left. The support for enviornmental regulation is lining their pockets to a degree that I don't believe you can imagine.

Your belief, and the belief of people like you that think "big oil" is opposed to green regulation serves big oil very well. Your belief that any scientist who doesn't jump on the anthropogenic climate change bandwagon (being powered by big oil) is in the pocket of "big oil" serves the energy companys very well. As I said, they employ the best and brightest and they are way ahead of you. They stand to make more money from regulation than they could ever make without and you, my friend, both support them and are willing to pay the tab.

You would do well to listen very closely to scientists who do not depend on grant money when they say that anthropogenic climate change theory is hysterical hogwash.

 

[Not Amused]

Palerider.

One aspect that really bugs the hell out of me, is the insistence by many, that any scientist, associated with oil in any way, or form, cannot be a credible source of information.

This is complete madness in my opinion. What such people fail to realize, is that most of the peer review regarding AGW, is actually in house.

This means of course that many of the scientists who believe. I say believe (due to the huge leap of faith involved here) have their own like minded belief systems and as a result, agenda; yet one is not allowed to question their motives.

Why will the scientists involved in the AGW hypothesis not allow the data to be put into the public domain? One cannot help feeling that if the evidence supporting AGW is so completely damning (I use the term evidence lightly) why are they so afraid to do just this? Food for thought I feel.