1. Fox: 'Atheist Outrage' over holiday 'Tree of Knowledge'

Comment #94596 by chbg21808 on December 6, 2007 at 3:14 am

I think this story is lightweight and I found it utterly boring.

Why do theists believe that atheism equates with belief in nothing... lol.

2. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #94287 by chbg21808 on December 5, 2007 at 6:44 am

I never claimed it has scientific context... There is no evidence for it... It is no more than a hypothesis. But every claim has to start somewhere even scientific ones. For example, physicists talk about multi-universes... But there is no evidence for them. But if physicists were not able to develop these metaphors as models, whether true or false, they would never get anywhere.

3. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #94277 by chbg21808 on December 5, 2007 at 6:32 am

We seem to be arguing from two different places... you are talking philosophy and I am trying to look at it from a scientific perspective... I'm a bit like Atkins I'm afraid... I think philosophy just gets in the way.

Well, for me personally it was brilliant in the sense that it got me thinking about the universe in a way I had never thought before... So perhaps I should of said personally brilliant.

I certainly cannot debate with you on philosophical grounds... You seem to know a lot more than I do... Apart from the odd philosopher like Dan Dennett who is one of those rare philosophers who actually attempts the science... for the most part I find philosophers boring.

4. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #94272 by chbg21808 on December 5, 2007 at 6:19 am

"Because it tries to hand-wave away the fact that there is something to explain."

Nobody has claimed it is nothing more than a hypothesis... not even me... so what? And what about physics... How far do you think physicists would get if they did not ask these kinds of questions. Would they say such a statement is glib... Never.

5. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #94270 by chbg21808 on December 5, 2007 at 6:07 am

"I think what Atkins said was a bit glib. "Nothingness" and "stuff" may be fundamentally the same thing, but when we deal with "stuff" we are in that case dealing with structured and organised "nothingness". It is reasonable to wonder how that structure (which is not nothing) arose."

Indeed, we are dealing with structured 'stuff' ...But what did Atkins say at the start... He said "I'm a reductionist" ...Well, what could be more reductionist than 'nothing' if it really does exist as something... Surely that would be a noble scientific pursuit and I don't see in what sense that is glib.

Of course it is another thing to say we could find such 'stuff' - at our current level of technology... Probably not. But perhaps in the future we will have instruments sensitive enough to find such 'stuff' ... Perhaps there is a fundamental particle or wave or whatever it may be, that only looks like nothing to our 'big brains' it's just that we cannot directly see this small stuff... Rather analogous to the comment Dawkins makes about 'middle world' ...evolved humans having trouble grasping quantum effects.

6. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #94263 by chbg21808 on December 5, 2007 at 5:49 am

"Well, provocative, but I am not sure it is "brilliant. Following Dr Johnson's refutation of solipsism, I shall now find a brick, and kick it hard. The pain I now feel is somewhat different from the experience of kicking nothing."

Sorry your point on solipsism is really more to do with a philosophical statement... Atkins was being more scientific than that.

I meant it is brilliant as a point about universal simplicity and nothing more. Surely the point Atkins was making is that if you 'kick a brick' and kick nothing you are essentially kicking the same thing... It was a scientific statement about a possible state of the universe and not a philosophical point... In other words nothingness is really stuff. I think like Atkins I wouldn't even wish to switch to philosophy on this point... Because it doesn't really ad anything... It just complicates.

7. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #94178 by chbg21808 on December 5, 2007 at 12:54 am

Yes, the Dennett interview was amazing. Sam Harris was my favourite speaker though and his comments to Scott Atran blew me away... I suspect that will end up being the big talking point of the whole conference.

Speaking of 'Belief in Belief' ...I'm surprised how many scientists at this conference this applies to... Frustrating and annoying. I actually find that scientists are sometimes the least able to comment on the problems of religion and the philosophers often seem to talk more sense... (why is that?) Particularly Pat Churchland and Dan Dennett of course.

I'm amazed at how aggressive Shermer was toward Harold Kroto... Whatever a person thinks of the Templeton Foundation... Kroto should get his facts right before throwing such accusations around... You'd think a Nobel Prize winner would know better.

Who was the idiot who essentially said Hitchens should shut up because he's not a scientist?

I loved Peter Atkins talk too.

I'm surprised how many people failed to mention Shermer's speech... I though he made some excellent points. I think he is absolutely right... Where free trade flourishes across boarders armies don't tend to cross those boarders... That is at the very least an observable fact (of course there are exceptions to the rule as Shermer admitted)... I cannot however see how that applies to religious extremism though? ...Would economic growth actually lead to a dampening of religious extremism... I actually think it's the other way round... The change in one's psychological programming, so that one's mind is no longer indoctrinated with religious extremism, would free up societies to start on the path to economic growth. The cure is not economic growth... rather economic growth tends to come out of societies that have begun to become more reasonable minded. So the cure I think is education, rather than economics and economics will then naturally follow.

Funniest moment of the conference... The look on Pat Churchland's face when peter Atkins says we should get rid of philosophy.

The most brilliant comment at the conference: "Nothing and something are the same" Peter Atkins

8. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #93937 by chbg21808 on December 4, 2007 at 1:28 pm

What a great suggestion from Sam Harris... I would love to see a debate between Ayaan Hersi Ali and Scott Atran... Atran seems to be blinded by his own facts and figures.

Full respect to Atran for being willing to take up the challenge though.

As to the point that someone on this board mentioned on terrorism... I for one wish the media would stop saying that "it's a fight against terrorism" ...this is simply one external effect that stems from the root cause which is the ideology itself. It is the ideology that leads to terrorist acts... how can you defend yourself against something unless you identify its root cause.

9. A Matter of Faith

Comment #64867 by chbg21808 on August 22, 2007 at 5:57 am

Hitchens wasn't born in Northern Ireland, though he did live there.

Place of birth: Portsmouth, Hampshire, England, UK

... You can see the program makers really did their research.

10. God in the Military - The Pentagon and its Christian Embassy

Comment #61906 by chbg21808 on August 7, 2007 at 11:11 am

So much for seperation of Church and State... Obviously not worth the paper it's written on.

I think it was Richard Dawkins who made the point that the US could be heading toward an American style Taliban... Well looking at this, I think that may be where its heading.

11. Intelligent Design and Creationism/Evolution Controversy

Comment #53558 by chbg21808 on July 2, 2007 at 3:47 am

The only thing I don't like about The National Center for Science Education, is that their position is a bit wimpy. Though they argue well against Intelligent Design ...Their position is a bit like that of the philosopher Michael Ruse. They tend to argue that as long as the religious position is not a creationist one, there is compatibility. I'm sure this is a purely political ploy... But I still find it frustrating.

'Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design' by Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross is an excellent book on the subject. Forrest was a key expert witness for the plaintiffs in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial.

The 'Wedge Strategy' (authored by the Discovery Institute) was a frighteningly well organised attempt to get religion in science classes. Thankfully, Forrest and Gross's book and the trial, bust it wide open. In fact, the defence in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area trial were more scared of Barbara Forrest, than any other plaintiff and tried their damnedest (unsuccessfully) to stop her testimony.

12. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #53476 by chbg21808 on July 1, 2007 at 3:33 pm

" 39. Comment #53436 by troyboy on July 1, 2007 at 1:23 pm
chbg21808, i like your comment on empathy. I never hear anything about compasion and empathy molding our morals."

Thanks troyboy ...I think Richard Dawkins deserves the credit for this. I think I got this idea from his comment on "welling up of sympathy" from the 'Beyond Belief' lecture. If you haven't watched his discussion on the "shifting moral zeitgeist" ...Then I recommend you do.

13. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #53375 by chbg21808 on July 1, 2007 at 5:25 am

Moral Relativism begins with the proposition that there are no objectively definable absolutes and no absolute truths, within any moral premise. Thus, the assumption is that everything is potentially relative and can be regarded has having potential actuality, as an aspect of mankind's 'moral' character.

Moral Relativism assumes that any moral question can be judged based on socially excepted premises and even the whim of the moment, simply because it is impossible to define a universal moral framework that relates to mankind as a whole and the individual as a unit.

The main claim for Moral Relativism then, is that 'anything goes' because there is nothing to 'go at'. In other words, if Moral Relativism is a true proposition, then any action is potentially moral, because nothing is immoral relative to mankind. Indeed, if everything is considered as relative and there are no universals with regard to morality, then by definition everything becomes relative and nothing can be seen as immoral within that framework.

If it were really true that Moral Relativism was the common standard and one could not identify objective moral universals... then to stab a man with a knife or not stab a man with a knife are both relative positions, because there are no absolutes in the context of Moral Relativism.

For Moral Relativism to have even a grain of truth, one would have to start from the premise that mankind had no capable way of identifying its own individual nature - its physical, psychological and philosophical nature...

But the fact is that mankind can understand the 'atomic' nature of the individual. The individuals physical, psychological and philosophical nature can be understood and indeed is being understood as mankind's knowledge progresses. It is because we can understand our nature more and more and are able to frame that nature within a universal context of morality, that allows us to conclude the Moral Relativism is a false proposition.

If it were genuinely true that we could not identify moral universals, then it would also be true that we could not create moral standards that protect individuals from the initiation of force. It is only because individuals are beings of a certain kind and behave in a certain way; that allows us to define a moral framework based around that behavior.

Coming back to the point of 'whether to stab a man with a knife or not stab a man with a knife' - and why we can identify the moral action as apposed to the immoral one. The reason mankind as a whole can agree on such a moral standard as "the initiation of force against a fellow man is morally wrong" is exactly because of mans nature (of course there are exceptions that would not be seen as initiating force, one may stab another in self-defense for example... maybe in a war situation).

An example of just one aspect of an individuals nature, is the emotion called empathy. We know that serial killers and tyrants are able to kill and even torture because they lack empathy. Empathy is basically the internal feeling or emotion that "I would not like to do to others, that which I would not like done to myself". Thus, if we see a stabbed man or woman in the street we empathize with their predicament... We essentially vicariously put ourselves 'in their shoes' and we have a deep welling up of empathy. The very fact that we are able to identify universal moral standards is because those standards have real concrete definable attributes such as empathy (we would most likely feel sympathy in the 'stab victim' situation too).

The fact is that, the more civilized a society becomes... The closer that society is to understanding it's own nature and how to incorporate that nature within a moral framework. Indeed, some societies are more civilized than others. Thus, we know that genital mutilation and honor killings are not good strategies for human beings, but in many Muslim countries such actions are being carried out. The moral standard in such countries has not shifted to the same degree that it has in more civilized western societies.

Another real concrete definable attribute is happiness. We recognize happiness as a universally good character trait... A happy individual is a rounded individual. Indeed, above all else... The degree by which an individual is happy is the degree by which one can measure the universal standard of moral stability. The happiest societies are known to be the healthiest societies. Actions such a genital mutilation and honor killings do not lead to happiness and stability. Indeed, ask Ayaan Hirsi Ali a Somali women who escaped from her Muslim past, in which she suffered terrible beatings and genital mutilation. She escaped Somalia and a forced arranged marriage, to live in the West and has become a successful author and public speaker... Ask her if she is happier now, I have little doubt of her reply.

Once you realise that Moral Relativism is a non-concept and that morals can be universally defined, based around mankind's innate nature, then the need for a a first mover or God to fill the 'moral relativistic' void; shrinks to zero.

14. Messiah

Comment #52422 by chbg21808 on June 27, 2007 at 2:14 am

Derren Brown is a brilliant magician and illusionist. No way he would of been able to do this in th UK... Everyone knows him.

15. God Hates the World

Comment #52103 by chbg21808 on June 26, 2007 at 6:42 am

QUOTE... 124. Comment #52097 by LB on June 26, ..2007 at 6:31 am Just my two pennies worth... I feel that the 'Child Abuse' argument is Richard Dawkins' weakest by some stretch. Not only do I cringe when I hear the words 'Christian Child' or 'Muslim Child'. but also when I hear Dawkins even mention this quarrel, especially during an interview of no longer than five minutes (When they are so many more devastating arguments to be voiced). ...END QUOTE

Well LB, I disagree with you... I think it is one of his strongest arguments.

The fact that you cringe at his "Christian child" or "Muslim child" ...Have you ever considered that the fact that you do cringe may have more to do with internal issues you have yourself, rather than what Dawkins actually says. It doesn't make me cringe... It makes me applaud.

Imagine what Northern Ireland would have be like if children were never labelled protestant and catholic. It's child abuse because the labels switch the hierarchy of definition, from natural to artificial. Catholic and protestant in the minds of the religious, become higher level concepts than individual or human (this leads to in group out group)... and thus, peoples humanity gets sacrificed for the sake of religious, man invented labels... and when you do that to children, there is no better definition than child abuse.

In the very act of identifying children through subjective labels, you seperate them from their humanity and you set them up for child abuse.

16. God Hates the World

Comment #52090 by chbg21808 on June 26, 2007 at 6:03 am

Is this Fred Phelps bunch?

Child abuse is absolutely the correct definition. Are the parents even aware of the mental damage they are inflicting on their child's mind?

Absolutely disgusting. I want to say something more... But I'm too angry.

Here is the BBC2 documentry about the Phelps family, with Louie Theroux:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QRyr3_nCF4

I think Richard Dawkins should use this video as a demo at lectures... When he's describing religion indoctrenation of children as child abuse.

17. God, Dawkins, and Paris Hilton

Comment #52082 by chbg21808 on June 26, 2007 at 5:47 am

I'm not a fan of Hilton... But I thought a prison sentence was harsh.

18. The Present Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms

Comment #52073 by chbg21808 on June 26, 2007 at 5:15 am

Hello cj22

Weren't you the chap in chat last night with the "lighning hair cut".

I don't disagree with that... I think in many ways the US constitution seems to be more liable to fundies... and it can be and certainly is interpreted in different ways.

19. The Present Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms

Comment #52062 by chbg21808 on June 26, 2007 at 4:27 am

"How can unwritten and uncodified mean the same thing? They don't."

OK... This is going to be my last post on this... as I am just repeating my self and we are going round in circles.

Written and codified are not synonyms, but they are synonymous when used in the specific context of... for example US and Republic of Ireland constitution. That is why in my posts, I quite happily used codified and written as synonyms, in fact I use them interchangeably. But of course if you drop context then they are not synonymous.

If I said "the American codified constitution" and then said, "the American written constitution" nobody would misunderstand the synonymous relationship between the two definitions... Same meaning... Except that written constitution is a more general definition.

But if I simply said in general conversation "codified means written" ...then of course it doesn't... The point is context... If I drop context codified and written simply revert to dictionary definitions with no synonymous relationship.

And, indeed I most certainly did say the UK constitution is unwritten... But you are dropping context. I have already said unwritten as a codified document.

Here is the quote from earlier:

"Of all the democratic countries in the world, only Israel is comparable to Britain in having no single document codifying the way its political institutions function and setting out the basic rights and duties of its citizens. Britain does, however, have certain important constitutional documents, including the Magna Carta (1215) which protects the rights of the community against the Crown; the Bill of Rights (1689) which extended the powers of Parliament, making it impracticable for the Sovereign to ignore the wishes of the Government; and the Reform Act (1832), which reformed the system of parliamentary representation."

http://www.i-uk.com/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1079976721617

Note in the above... saying: "Britain does, however, have certain important constitutional documents" - This is not the same as saying Britain has a codified constitution. In other words, the constitution is unwritten.

And so that there is no misunderstanding... By unwritten, I mean no codified document.

20. The Present Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms

Comment #52054 by chbg21808 on June 26, 2007 at 3:47 am

QUOTE... "You kept on saying the UK constitution is unwritten when you should say uncodified." ...QUOTE

Well, if you care to read my posts again I have used both... why? - because they mean exactly the same thing. In fact you could substitute uncodified for unwritten in my posts and it would have the same meaning. Uncodified document or unwritten document... same meaning.

I have no problem using the word uncodified... again it does not alter the context of anything I have said. Codified means a specifically written code of rules. So, it makes no difference whether you say codified document or written... Codified is just a more specific definition of the same thing.

And that is also the definition in which I mean written/codified constitution. There is no contradiction.

21. The Present Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms

Comment #52041 by chbg21808 on June 26, 2007 at 2:26 am

QUOTE...

skyhook - first you quote me as follows:

"Your very first post: Damn.. I wish the UK had a constitution... But then again if it did, it might now be in the same difficulty. It seems to be a double-edge sword."

And you went on to say - "Surely a statement like the following is much clearer: I do not like the style of the UK constitution. I think it is lacking in so many areas, etc"

...END QUOTE

Is the only reason you are making a fuss, because I didn't fully define my definition in my first post?

Look at the first sentence of my second post on the subject... I do define my definition exactly as I mean it - re:

"Sorry .... you are incorrect. When I said the UK does not have a constitution, I mean a written constitution. For example, the Republic of Ireland and the United States do."

Notice I use the word written... and I have defined that as my definition over and over.

OK, I should of said written in my first post (but then I did not know someone was going to misunderstand my meaning). When I said the UK does not have a constitution, I just took it for granted that readers would understand my meaning implicitly, as written constitution - as most people do understand it to mean that... And most people certainly do implicitly understand it to mean that, when talking in terms of comparability to the US constitution.

And you said: "Surely a statement like the following is much clearer: I do not like the style of the UK constitution. I think it is lacking in so many areas, etc"

How would that work? ...I was making a comparison between the UK and the US ("no constitution" as apposed to written constitution). If I just wanted to say "I don't like the style of the UK constitution" ... I would of written a different article.

You almost seem to be saying... I should of written the article to please you, rather than to write it how I wanted to write it. You may not be happy with it, but I am... and I think I have made my meaning perfectly clear. I would not change one word.

22. The Present Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms

Comment #51814 by chbg21808 on June 25, 2007 at 5:33 am

[quote="wikipedia"]
A constitutional monarchy is a form of government established under a constitutional system which acknowledges an elected or hereditary monarch as head of state, as opposed to an absolute monarchy, where the monarch is not bound by a constitution and is the sole source of political power.
[/quote]

"Therefore, the UK has a constitution and it is meaningless to suggest otherwise."

Why would I even disagree with constitution in that context, you are now arguing against things I haven't even said... I get the impression that you have not understood anything I have wrote. I would have absolutely no problem with calling it a constitution in the context of the above, that is fine. Again this is just semantics.

My whole point is the difference between a codified document as a constitution within a Republic as apposed to a monarchy that does not have a codified constitution. I feel like I am repeating myself.

I already said previously: There is a big difference between a republic that has a constitution written round the basic principle of protecting the minority of one - the individual, from government force as against; a set of regulations melded in a hotch-potch of unintegrated and often contradictory, historical reforms. Many of which are built on historical monarchic rulings and not individual rights. And again, if you wish to call that a constitution fine... But you would be pushing it to call it a written constitution.

And I also said: Now if you wish to call that a constitution fine... But again it does not fit the definition or context of my definition of a specific single codified document. Rather, as it stands, it always has been and always will be an organic changing set of laws, rules, regulations etc.

"Since when did the definition of constitution become based on the US model?"

Again you are arguing against things I never said... where did I say that?

I simply used the US constitution as an example of a codified document... where did I say the US have the correct definition of constitution... I never said that. I simply said it had a written constitution... Which is not the same as saying a constitution must be based on the US model... otherwise its not a constitution. I'm sorry and I don't think you are doing it deliberately, I think you are just misunderstanding me... But you seem to be putting up straw men arguments against points I haven't even made.

My argument has nothing to do with the semantic definition of constitution... If it will make you happy, I will say the codified constitution of the United States as opposed to the none codified ambiguous constitution of the UK (and in that definition I would still use the word unwritten). In any case, it makes absolutely no difference to the context of my argument.

"Of all the democratic countries in the world, only Israel is comparable to Britain in having no single document codifying the way its political institutions function and setting out the basic rights and duties of its citizens. Britain does, however, have certain important constitutional documents, including the Magna Carta (1215) which protects the rights of the community against the Crown; the Bill of Rights (1689) which extended the powers of Parliament, making it impracticable for the Sovereign to ignore the wishes of the Government; and the Reform Act (1832), which reformed the system of parliamentary representation."

http://www.i-uk.com/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1079976721617

Note in the above... saying: "Britain does, however, have certain important constitutional documents" - This is not the same as saying Britain has a codified constitution. In other words, the constitution is unwritten.

Does living in a republic and having a codified constitution, guarantee individual rights and prevention of the initiation of force from government against those individuals? ...of course not. Even a codified constitution within a republic can be badly written or be written by a despot... And even when it is brilliantly written as in the United States that is still no guarantee . While their are fundamentalists in the World, whether inside or outside of government, there will always be individuals attempting to undermine and overthrow it.

But Would I like the UK to become a republic and dump the tax scrounging Royal Family... Absolutely.

Whenever the government acts as a go between to steal my money and hand it to the Royal Family, I consider it as theft, to pay for the upkeep of a family I am never likely to meet and with whom I have nothing in common:

"The Royal Family in Great Britain received £37.4m (1£ = 1.85$) from the public purse last year - an increase of 4.2 per cent from the previous year."

http://english.pravda.ru/society/stories/29-06-2006/82688-royal_family-0

Let the flag waving morons pay for their upkeep if they love them so much.

23. The Present Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms

Comment #51800 by chbg21808 on June 25, 2007 at 3:15 am

2007 at 2:46 amWell, you say yourself that there are many constitutional documents. All of which go to making up a written constitution. I think that
clears that up ;o) ...QUOTE

Notice I used the words unwritten constitution and when I used the word constitution I did so in inverted commas... Meaning that there is not a codified document.

It is simply not true... The UK does not have a (written) constitution.

Quote: "The argument of practicality - of the obvious need to evolve a secular constitution that separates church from state, replaces the hereditary principle and in other ways reflects the modern Euro-American world of human rights and civil society - ought not to be allowed to obscure the argument of principle. At bottom, the republican idea contains a different concept of citizenship itself. Not only does monarchy have a bad effect on our elite, it has a dire effect on our popular and public opinion." - Christopher Hitchens

http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,407341,00.html

End Quote

Quote: "Since there is neither entrenched constitutional law nor a formal separation of powers, Parliament has the ability to change almost any aspect of the constitution at will. The constitution is therefore often spoken of by political scientists as being "organic;" that is, it has "evolved" over time since its medieval origins." (if it was codified, by definition it could not evolve).

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

End Quote

And you are correct... Indeed, wikipedia does say: "the UK constitution is commonly mislabelled as an "unwritten constitution". For the most part it is written, but is not redacted or reduced into a single document."

And the above is exactly the definition of constitution I am making... a single codified WRITTEN document... My definition of unwritten still stands in the context that I meant it.

But unless you read further in the same Wikipedia article, you drop context... It also says:

"There is no technical difference between ordinary statutes and law considered "constitutional law." Therefore the Parliament of the United Kingdom can perform "constitutional reform" simply by passing Acts of Parliament and thus has the power to change or abolish almost any written or unwritten element of the constitution"

And that is exactly my point... There is no codified constitution as in the States and the Republic of Ireland.

Now one could argue that the UK has a written constitution (as you have) but it would have to be a very loose definition (particularly if you mean written and codified) - as I have said: "The UK at best has an unwritten constitution, that is hard to track down as in documents such as Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement and the Parliament Acts."

Now of course we can get into semantics about what we mean by constitution... and that is exactly what your argument against my definition of constitution seems to be... a semantic disagreement of the meaning of constitution. Nothing in your argument has contradicted my claim that the UK does not have a codified constitution.

Now if you wish to call that a constitution fine... But again it does not fit the definition or context of my definition of a specific single codified document. Rather, as it stands, it always has been and always will be an organic changing set of laws, rules, regulations etc.

Note: When I say a single codified document. Of course it could be a set of integrated none contradictory codified documents and not necessarily a single document.

There is a big difference between a republic that has a constitution written round the basic principle of protecting the minority of one - the individual, from government force as against; a set of regulations melded in a hotch-potch of unintegrated and often contradictory, historical reforms. Many of which are built on historical monarchic rulings and not individual rights.

You said: "The Magna Carta is a written document - perhaps Geoffrey Robertson can't read. Visit the British Library or look at their website. You will see the Magna Carta there"

This is just an example of a total misunderstanding of my meaning of written constitution. Did I say anywhere in my arguments that "The Magna Carta" is not a written document... of course I didn't. I think you need to read my article again, you have 100% misunderstood me. If the UK was to become a republic tomorrow... only a fool or perhaps a despot up to no good, would accept the Magna Carta as a modern codified document capable of protecting individual rights from government oppression.

24. The Present Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms

Comment #51736 by chbg21808 on June 24, 2007 at 12:19 pm

QUOTE... 13. Comment #51685 by skyhook on June 24, 2007 at 5:21 am
Just because the UK didn't have a constitution written at one time (like the USA and Japan) it does not mean we do not have one! I wish the untruth about the UK constitution would go away. ...QUOTE

Sorry .... you are incorrect. When I said the UK does not have a constitution, I mean a written constitution. For example, the Republic of Ireland and the United States do.

Neither does the UK have constitutional laws which can only be changed through legislative procedure.

The UK at best has an unwritten constitution, that is hard to track down as in documents such as Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement and the Parliament Acts.

But in terms of a specific constitutional document that controls and regulates government... no the UK does not... and it is that specific definition of constitution that I meant.

Quote:

"The British people have never entered into a written pact with their rulers defining the thresholds of power. Magna Carta was a squalid compromise between the King and his barons which set the seal on aristocratic privileges rather than citizens' rights."

Freedom, The Individual and the Law - by Geoffrey Robertson

End Quote

Strangely, having a specific document separating Church and State as the USA does; seems to diabolically lead to the very problem it is attempting to avoid... It seems to be an odd paradox. The very act of having a written document seems to be the catalyst for religious fundamentalism to take hold and try to tear up that document.

This fight to keep the constitution in tact is nothing new... Americans have always had to fight "tooth and claw" to keep it in tact against religious bullies, virtually from day one of it being drawn up.

Perhaps then, that is the explanation of the problem. Because UK government "constitutional decisions" are simply drawn from many different "constitutional documents" ...There is no one definable target for religious fundamentalists to aim at. There is not really an open document. Rather, there is a jumble of "constitutional" laws. It is hard to fight against something, if you cannot even see it. Indeed, because you cannot see it in the first place, then the thought would not even come up. But the very fact that the US document is so open and specific on seperation of Church and State it is like a "red rag to a bull".

Just one comment on something someone mentioned earlier: 'The Brights' ...I actually hate this expression (it makes me think of IQ tests or a brand name for light bulbs). It just sounds like a compromise and an excuse to be politically correct and avoid using the word atheist or indeed agnostic, as if it is something to hide or be ashamed of... I think Hitchens made a similar point in 'God is not Great'.

25. The Present Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms

Comment #51673 by chbg21808 on June 24, 2007 at 3:41 am

That is one of the most awesome speeches I have ever heard and absolutely frightening.

Damn.. I wish the UK had a constitution... But then again if it did, it might now be in the same difficulty. It seems to be a double-edge sword.

For anyone interested in these ideas, I highly recommend you check out Lysander Spooner (I think this man was as brilliant as Thomas Paine) - http://www.lysanderspooner.org/ - In particular, check out the letters section and Spooner's works. ... His writings on the constitution are amazing.

26. Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker

Comment #51668 by chbg21808 on June 24, 2007 at 3:19 am

Yes SHELLSHOCK:

It's a British band called Coldplay and the song is "Clocks". ...Not my kind of music really, but they are popular. Actually the musics not that bad... it's just ruined when he starts singing.

Great video... But if you think it's going to convince a hard core creationist... As Judas Priest's Rob Halford once sang... "You've got another thing coming"

27. Bill O'Reilly and Kirk Cameron on Atheism

Comment #51225 by chbg21808 on June 22, 2007 at 2:03 am

Is Bill O'Reilly the most stupid TV show host on the planet?

It is true that Bill O'Reilly does verbally beat up those he disagrees with. But it isn't because of his intellect... It's just that he shouts down his opponents, so that they cannot get a word in edgeways.

I don't think Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris did very well against O'Reilly simply because he didn't let them finish a point.

I think Christopher Hitchens would do better.

28. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #51120 by chbg21808 on June 21, 2007 at 2:35 pm

Qote... 28. Comment #51111 by mingy on June 21, 2007 at 2:00 pm Harris is, IMHO, a bit of an atheist loon - I couldn't finish 'End of Faith' because he clearly thinks through an American fundamentalist mindset, albeit an atheist one.End ...Quote

I feel the need to defend Sam Harris here.

You call him an atheist loon... But you give no explanation. I think you should elaborate... Otherwise it just sounds like a personal character assassination.

And what do you mean by fundamentalist mindset... Do you just mean he is very strident in attacking religion? ...So, you don't like Hitchens much either then?

29. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #51073 by chbg21808 on June 21, 2007 at 11:08 am

When you have been an atheist your entire life, as I have... well, at least from the age that I grasped its meaning. It is then difficult to understand how individuals can get so upset over mere words from a book.

As an atheist, why do I like reading books like "The God Delusion" - "The End of Faith" - "God is not Great"? ...It's obviously not because I need convincing ...I guess the reason I do, is because as an atheist, they simply help to concretize my view on life and give me a clearer and more rounded understanding of myself... In fact, I have found that I am getting quite addicted to these kind of books and the more I read on the subject, the more I want to read.

Anyway, after that little self-indulgence, I just want to comment on the point Richard Dawkins made about the accusations of being too strident.

From the many audio, video and radio interviews I have now heard and watched... There seems to be a pattern. Those that are the most critical of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris et al, are almost always the religious liberals, I find this really annoying. What they will do is criticize some aspect of religion... But then they seem to have an overwhelming urge to back-track and almost apologise for their own criticisms... praising another aspect of the same religion, and particularly why we need it and can't be without it.

I personally think that religion in its extreme form, is going to be around for a lot longer than it need be, because of these "liberal minded" apologists.

I think Hitchens is the most strident of the "musketeers" - but as an atheist myself, I find nothing to criticize in his comments on religion... Indeed, I think I may have had a "conversion" and become an anti-theist.

I think Ayaan Hersi Ali got it absolutely right... We not only need books that criticize religion. We also need art that appeals to the emotions.

We need to start plugging into the right hemisphere of the brain and collapse religious beliefs on an emotional level. I just don't think books that intellectualise are enough to collapse someone's deeply held beliefs.

When someone has a religious belief it is part of a complete world-view... It is like Sam Harris has said: "software running on the brain". This I think is why intellectualising on its own is not enough.

A world-view is not only intellectually held, it is emotionally held too. To wipe that faulty mind programming, requires an appeal to the intellectual and emotional sides of the brain at once and the same time. An example of that would be Stanley Kubrick's 'Clockwork Orange' (although not a religious example but more generally about morality) that manages to not only appeal to logic through language, but is deeply affecting on an emotional level too.. using extraordinary colours, music and imagery... Indeed, this film effected me deeply, so deeply, that I couldn't get it out of my head for days.

30. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #50854 by chbg21808 on June 20, 2007 at 7:57 am

I agree with Richard Dawkins on the comments about the 'but' word... There was a real idiot in the questions an answers section at the Hitchins vs Sharpton debate... He said something like:

"I'm an atheist, but I'm writing a book about why religion works".

I have the hard back edition and the ITunes Audio, I might get the softback so I have the full set :) ...Excellent preface.

Cool pair of shorts... :)

31. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46482 by chbg21808 on May 31, 2007 at 12:38 pm

One of the most pleasing interviews I have seen from Professor Dawkins... It was more like a debate, but without a moderator. I would love to see more extended interviews like this from Dawkins.

Alister McGrath was articulate and polite, but at the end of the day it was just polite waffle.

McGrath's save one child, tidal wave argument was pathetic. Dawkins stumped him brilliantly.

Richard Dawkins comments to McGrath's final question on anger towards religion, came across like a soliloquy and was very moving... almost as if McGrath wasn't in the room and Dawkins was thinking out loud, when talking about the religious programming of children's minds.

32. A Look at Regent University

Comment #46247 by chbg21808 on May 30, 2007 at 4:43 pm

The founder of the Center For Inquiry is the brilliant Paul Kurtz... Who was largely responsible for the secularization of humanism:

"Kurtz was largely responsible for the secularization of humanism. Before Kurtz embraced the term "secular humanism," which had received wide publicity through fundamentalist Christians in the 1980s, humanism was more widely perceived as a religion (or a pseudoreligion) that did not include the supernatural. This can be seen in the first article of the original Humanist Manifesto which refers to "Religious Humanists" and by Charles and Clara Potter's influential 1930 book Humanism: A New Religion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Kurtz

The Center For Inquiry also do an excellent podcast radio show called Point of Enquiry.

I also highly recommend everyone to check out the writings of Lysander Spooner
http://www.lysanderspooner.org/

33. A Look at Regent University

Comment #46236 by chbg21808 on May 30, 2007 at 4:19 pm

QUOTE... "23. Comment #46230 by steve99 on May 30, 2007 at 4:03 pm I really don't understand how this works. A lawyer is supposed to have refined analytical skills... CLOSE QUOTE

That's no guarantee of sanity steve99:

Look at ex lawyer 'Phillip E. Johnson' One of the masterminds behind the Wedge Strategy, which was developed as an attempt to overthrow (scientific) materialism - authored by the Discovery Institute ... a creationist/Intelligent Design organisation. Indeed, Johnson is the father of Intelligent Design.

34. A Look at Regent University

Comment #46207 by chbg21808 on May 30, 2007 at 2:57 pm

That is one of the most vile things I have ever watched and more scary than any horror film.

I think Richard Dawkins was more right than even he may have suspected, when he said America may be heading toward its own "Taliban".

Imagine being in a court room accused of a crime and your an atheist or gay and one of these lawyers is prosecuting or indeed defending you.

How long before sin is put on the books as an objective crime?

Watching this, left a horrible sick feeling in the pit of my stomach.

Is something being done to overthrow this garbage or what?

This does seem to be a well funded and well organised effort to "tear down the wall".

35. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45728 by chbg21808 on May 29, 2007 at 4:58 am

71. Comment #45722 by Luthien on May 29, 2007 at 4:44 am ... "Nice post chbg21808!"

Thank you for your kind comment Luthien, much appreciated.

36. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45697 by chbg21808 on May 29, 2007 at 2:11 am

I just found Robert Winston's comments completely hollow.

Like Richard Dawkins, I am completely fed up with the respect given to religion. What is the big deal about criticizing someone's religious convictions anyway and why should they even care?

It is the very fact that individuals like Robert Winston get so offended, that is part of the problem. Lord Winston is obviously not an extremist, but it is exactly the same attitude to not criticizing religion that extremists take... although of course they push it much further.

But I think it is this wishy-washy attitude by the religious majority, that gives strength to the more extreme minority.

I think this quote from A Discourse of Voluntary Servitude by Etienne de la Boétie, written in the 16th Century... sums up the point rather well:

"The oppressor has nothing more than the power you confer upon him to destroy you. Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assail you if he had not cooperation from you?"

I think the low level of criticism aimed at religion, is the very reason it is so tyrannical in much of the World today. Whenever religious extremists are criticized in the newspaper, or indeed the more moderate, it is almost always a compromise... "don't push it to far, in case we offend".

I'm trying to imagine Hitchens in this same interview. I think professor Dawkins was being a bit too polite to Robert Winston. Of course, I don't expect Dawkins to be as strident as Hitchens, that's not his style, but I was a bit disappointed. Maybe, it was that it was just too short to really get going... I suspect they are friends and that's why they were being a little to soft on each another.

Why was this debate so short? ...I was just starting to get into it and it stopped.

37. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #44762 by chbg21808 on May 25, 2007 at 9:01 am

Christopher Hitchens... fantastic as usual.

Why do Fox News only employ morons.

38. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #44199 by chbg21808 on May 23, 2007 at 3:34 pm

QUOTE... 250. Comment #44160 by 'sbriancoughlanworldcitizen on May 23, 2007 at 1:45 pm"A more dystopian, dank and deluded corner of the internet could hardly exist. This place takes the cake for Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney worship." ...CLOSE QUOTE

Oh Dear... ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem - when will it end... with your constant outbursts, you are beginning to sound like Coulter.

If the article was about Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney, discussing global warming... well then you may have had a point.

The article happens to be by Noel Sheppard who is an economist and business owner (hardly surprising as it was an article about market trends).

Again, the best you can do is attack the editorial, rather than respond to the content of the editorial.

The reason that I put this up Brian, is because I am a financial trader and I am interested in trends, I trade the markets... that's what I do for a living. Because it's what I do for a living, the article caught my eye.

I could of just as easily found the article in the Times online or the Daily Tribune or Telegraph etc... I would of put it up for exactly the same reason. Not based on any media bias, but because the article caught my eye.

And with your remark: "Keep up the good work, I hardly need do anything except invite people to read the links you've posted."

Well I guess I could equally respond... "Keep up the good work, I hardly need do anything except invite people to read the links you've posted... and see that on virtually every instant, you have gone on an emotional tirade and barely rebutted one argument."

Oh and by the way, if you'd put in the effort to read the article, you would notice that much of it contains independent business quotes, that have nothing to do with the political bias of the editorial, such as:

"By itself, I don't know that global warming is a viable investment theme,'' said Malcolm Polley, who oversees $1 billion at Stewart Capital Advisors LLC in Indiana, Pennsylvania. ``It's largely Wall Street's answer of trying to create something where there really isn't anything that exists."

Where is the bias in the above statement... He is making a business statement: "Is this worth investing in" ...In laymans terms, He's basically saying, is it worth investing in 'windmills' or is it money down the toilet... Has AGW had its day and is Wall Street just playing a political card, to keep AGW going.

This is the kind of article you could just as easily find in the Financial Times.

Perhaps this article will be more to your taste:

Global Warming: Nature or Nurture?

By Kevin Van Cott

I'm wondering if the major media outlets reported on the following item. Maybe I just happened to miss it, but I have my doubts.

The June issue of Scientific American highlighted some research results out of Columbia University. Recently, Professor Richard Wilson published a peer-reviewed article in the journal Geophysical Research Letters where he reported the results of his studies on the amount of solar energy that our sun has been producing over the last 24 years. During this time period, the amount of energy the sun is producing has increased by 0.05% every 10 years.

Now that may not sound like much to anyone, but, as Prof. Wilson points out in his article, the cumulative effects of this trend could be significant. For example, if this trend had begun even earlier, say as little as about 100 years ago, it would account for a significant amount of the global warming that has become so important to both climatologists and environmentalists.

Prof. Wilson acknowledged that the whole story is not yet known, but his discoveries have shown that the mantra that has been chanted over and over in the media about how human activities are causing global warming needs to be re-evaluated.
http://www.mises.org/story/1240


I'm sorry Brian... But I am beginning to think, that the reason that you consistently fall back on ad hominem attacks, is because your argument is hollow and you have nothing constructive to say (hope that doesn't sound too much, like an ad hominem)... Maybe you will prove me wrong and you are actually capable of rebutting an argument.

Your whole method seems to be, I put up a link and your response is.... "He's/she's dubious... end of conversation" ...I put up another link and you respond again... "He's/she's dubious... end of conversation" ..and that's basically it. In doing that, what have you rebutted, nothing and what have you proved, nothing.

For just one example of what I mean, go to your post: 29. Comment #41570 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 16, 2007 at 10:13 am ...Nothing in that post is a rebuttal of the actual article, it is just a flame.

What particularly made me angry about that post is that you said "Guys all of this stuff has been comprehensively refuted, and the sources you quote are known to be tainted."

And your proof for this tainted source? ...A link to SourceWatch. I'm wondering what you were suggesting is tainted, the actual character of the scientist who wrote the article or the article itself? ...I presume it was the scientist's character, because it was the scientist who's name you brought up in SourceWatch and not the article.

But again, you put forward no real rebuttal of why it or she is tainted. Rather, it was more like... "look here everyone, her names in SourceWatch... end of argument".

You remind me a little of Al Sharpton, in a recent debate against Christopher Hitchens. Where Sharpton's defence tactics seemed to be "issue avoidance" ...where he would avoid having to defend the God of the Bible, by ignoring a defence of the Bible and simply defending God... A very peculiar tactic from an American Pentecostal minister.

In a similar way. You seem to be involved in issue avoidance. Your tactic for avoiding the issue seems to be - emotional tirades and ad hominems. Quite why you are doing this, I am not quite sure? ...But for someone who claims to have respect for the scientific method, it is a very odd tactic.

39. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #44151 by chbg21808 on May 23, 2007 at 1:10 pm

QUOTE... Wall Street Turns Bearish on Global Warming Stocks as Hysterical Bubble Peaks

Despite Hollywood and the media's love affair with Al Gore, it seems that the smart money on Wall Street has turned cold to the concept of global warming.

As has been noted by many skeptical scientists, this current period of temperature rise that began in the '70s may actually have peaked in 1998. Yet, the real hysteria surrounding this issue reached a zenith with the cataclysm of Hurricane Katrina, and the arrival of the equally disturbing schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth." ...CLOSE QUOTE
http://newsbusters.org/node/11068

40. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #44105 by chbg21808 on May 23, 2007 at 10:19 am

Yes, you have misunderstood. Believe me... me and Brian are poles apart.

So I am not misunderstood... There is absolutely no evidence... whatsoever, that proves a causal link between man and Global Warming. I cannot put it more clearly than that.

And for those that claim there is evidence, well, the burden of proof is theirs.

41. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #44093 by chbg21808 on May 23, 2007 at 10:04 am

I do "deny" AGW... Haven't you read any of my posts? ...I am a skeptic and I will remain a skeptic, until someone produces evidence to convince me otherwise.

And thank you for your comments

42. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #44085 by chbg21808 on May 23, 2007 at 9:48 am

240. Comment #44079 by Fedler on May 23, 2007 at 9:29 am... "Brian, thanks for the link. I'm constantly amazed at how much I don't know. My main point was only to stress that all of us here are on the same side. GW is like an iridescent surface. One's perspective may be different from another's, but the surface itself remains the same."

I'm sorry Fedler, you are not speaking for me. Reality is objectively definable... As Aristotle said "A is A". If one position is correct, by definition the other one must be false. How can we all be on the same side... That presupposes everything is relative and there are not contradictions. When you say - "all of us here are on the same side". I most emphatically say, I am not.

As Francis Bacon said: "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."

How could we obey nature, if we considered that every opinion was relative and there were no absolutes?

43. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #44057 by chbg21808 on May 23, 2007 at 8:34 am

QUOTE... The sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently — in the last 100 to 150 years," Mr. Solanski said.

Average global temperatures have increased by about 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.36 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 20 years and are widely believed to be responsible for new extremes in weather patterns.

Globally, 1997, 1998 and 2002 were the hottest years since worldwide weather records were first collated in 1860.

Bill Burrows, a climatologist and a member of the Royal Meteorological Society, welcomed Mr. Solanki's research. "It shows that there is enough happening on the solar front to merit further research. Perhaps we are devoting too many resources to correcting human effects on the climate without being sure that we are the major contributor," he said. ...CLOSE QUOTE
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040718-115714-6334r.htm

And by the way, I used to buy NewScientist magazine... NewScientist went down hill after Nigel Calder left... The best editor, they ever had.

44. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #43973 by chbg21808 on May 23, 2007 at 5:34 am

In 20 years time, Brian won't have to "try again". By then, the politically driven science behind AGW, will of collapsed under the weight of its own stupidity.

45. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #43961 by chbg21808 on May 23, 2007 at 5:08 am

Either way...quotes or no quotes, your analogy is a bad one. For the reasons I have given.

46. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #43947 by chbg21808 on May 23, 2007 at 4:40 am

QUOTE... 222. Comment #43867 by Slartibartfast The position and arguments of the „AGW deniers" ...CLOSE QUOTE

I have already commented on why denial is a false representation of the scientifically skeptical position in post:

36. Comment #41779 by chbg21808 on May 17, 2007 at 12:34 am

So, I will not repeat myself here.

And the "boat appears to be very slowly filling up with water, for no immediately discernible reason." ...analogy that you use... implying that because one cannot determine the reason for the boat sinking and then if one ignores the fact that it is, despite the objectively identifiable fact that it is and then drawing a conclusion, that this is "analogous to AGW denial"

What a very weak analogy. To combine this with "denial" of AGW as you call it, instead of honestly recognising that their are scientists who are skeptical, because they have concluded that the AGW evidence does not stack up... Now, that would be a fair argument and seems to be the position you are ignoring when you drew this analogy.

I will say it again... and I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, till it sinks in. I am not an AGW denier... I am Skeptical, the reason I am skeptical is because no scientist has been able to produce a definite causal link between man and global warming.

And by the way, in terms of Global Warming... I do not think "the boat is sinking" ...There is evidence to suggest that Global Warming would be better on the whole, for mankind, than Global Cooling.

Why Global Warming Would be Good for You
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html

All you have done, is come up with an analogy, that sounds very clever on paper... but is very weak in practice. It is the kind of lawyer type language used by Phillip E. Johnson to dispute evolution, that sounds very clever on paper, but when you cut to the heart of it, it is meaningless.

47. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #43855 by chbg21808 on May 23, 2007 at 1:16 am

The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame
By Michael Leidig and Roya Nikkhah

"Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research."
Global warming has finally been explained

"Those looking for the culprit responsible for global warming have missed the obvious choice - the sun. While it may come as a newsflash to some, scientific evidence conclusively shows that the sun plays a far more important role in causing global warming and global cooling than any other factor, natural or man-made. In fact, what may very well be the ultimate ironic twist in the global warming controversy is that the same solar forces that caused 150 years of warming are on the verge of producing a prolonged period of cooling."
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA203.html

Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming
www.space.com

"Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory. Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets."
news.nationalgeographic.com

Climate change hits Mars

Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, writes Jonathan Leake.

Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.

Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.
www.timesonline.co.uk

Cosmic rays blamed for global warming
By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph
www.telegraph.co.uk

48. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #43753 by chbg21808 on May 22, 2007 at 12:44 pm

"I don't believe I ever mentioned links to exxon"

I never said you did... I said:

"By the way Brian... I have just found the root of the Tim Ball rumour that has spread across the internet."

This is a good example of how ad hominems spread. (As we're on the Dawkins site, I'll say rather like a meme).

You seem to be more interested in character than content. It seems to me that this is just a lazy way to avoid looking at the argument. By constantly attacking the man, you avoid having to tackle the argument.

But since you think Tim Ball has a tarnished character... I will present a link from another scientist who makes exactly the same argument as Ball:

(Richard Siegmund Lindzen, Ph.D., (born February 8, 1940) is an atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his research in dynamic meteorology, especially planetary waves).

"If, as the news media regularly report, global warming is the increase in temperature caused by man's emissions of CO2 that will give rise to rising sea levels, floods, droughts, weather extremes of all sorts, plagues, species elimination, and so on, then it is safe to say that global warming consists in so many aspects, that widespread agreement on all of them would be suspect ab initio. If it truly existed, it would be evidence of a thoroughly debased field. In truth, neither the full text of the IPCC documents nor even the summaries claim any such agreement. Those who insist that the science is settled should be required to state exactly what science they feel is settled."
www.john-daly.com

'Senses Brian scrambling to (his bible) SourceWatch'

Besides the above, I believe it is more open minded to evaluate on merit, in the spirit of the quote I gave in the previous post... Re: "Possibly his ideas should be evaluated on their merits, instead of on the basis of his supposed association with us?"

I openly admit that he was not a genuine professor in climatology... But my argument does not stand or fall on the "character" of one man.

If the truth of the argument stood on the merits of who had the best character... Then what about the deliberate corruption of the science, that led to the politicization of the IPCC report:

"While ostensibly an impartial collector and reporter of climate science, the IPCC has consistently promoted global warming fears in its Summary for Policymakers (SPM). In May 1996, unannounced and possibly unauthorized changes to the IPCC report touched off a firestorm of controversy within the scientific community. The draft of December 1995 was approved by national delegations. When the printed report appeared in May 1996, however, it was discovered that substantial changes and deletions had been made to the body of the report to make it "conform to the Policymakers Summary." The clandestine changes put a spin on the report's conclusions that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." Lead authors of the crucial--and doctored--Chapter 8, dealing with the detection and attribution of climate change, have since backed off from this conclusion and now admit that it may take 10 years or more before any human influence on climate can be detected. In its third report, issued in 2001, the IPCC vigorously promoted a scientific result, termed the Hockeystick. Based on an analysis of proxy data, it was used to claim that the twentieth century was the warmest in the past 1000 years. This claim was meant to suggest that the warming of the twentieth century was due to human causes, specifically the growth in atmospheric greenhouse gases. Few noticed that such a result, even if real, had no bearing on AGW. In fact, it has since been demonstrated that the hockeystick result was based on the faulty application of statistical analysis and the consequence of an incorrect procedure. Furthermore, additional proxy data that had not been considered by the hockeystick team, or by the IPCC, suggest that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was warmer than the twentieth century-- a conclusion in good accord with historic data such as settlement of Greenland."
http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/keyissue.html


It just seems rather strange to me, that someone who claims to have so much respect for the scientific method, spends most of their time in character assassination and not rebutting the arguments put forward.

I am not just talking about Tim Ball here. You seem to be obsessed with running to SourceWatch to find a bit of dirt, every time someone is put forward who is not in agreement with the consensus.

49. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #43741 by chbg21808 on May 22, 2007 at 12:04 pm

By the way Brian... I have just found the root of the Tim Ball rumour that has spread across the internet, here is an extract, (from... http://newsbusters.org/node/6940):

"With all due respect, isn't it just a bit misleading to report that "[Dr. Tim] Ball is promoted by the National Center for Public Policy Research, which has received funding from ExxonMobil"? This makes it appear as though Dr. Ball received cash from us, and by extension ExxonMobil, when in fact all we did was reprint a small amount of his writing on one of our websites.

By that standard, every newspaper that publishes an op-ed by an outside pundit is a "promoter" of the pundit, and the pundit becomes associated with the beliefs and practices of the newspaper's advertisers.

Google also reveals that Dr. Ball has had his writing published in a number of newspapers. Are they "promoters" as well? I wouldn't be surprised if some of those papers have from time-to-time run ads for the fossil fuel industry, or, perhaps, from automakers. Horrors.

As it happens, Dr. Ball has never received a penny from us, and our support from ExxonMobil amounts to less than one percent of our budget. This leaves Dr. Ball with zero percent of less than one percent. Not much! Yet, apparently, worthy of note in the press.

Even though I've never met, talked to, or otherwise communicated with Dr. Ball, I know he has extensive scientific expertise. Possibly his ideas should be evaluated on their merits, instead of on the basis of his supposed association with us?

Just a thought.

Cordially,

Amy Ridenour
President, The National Center for Public Policy Research

50. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #43727 by chbg21808 on May 22, 2007 at 11:12 am

There go those ad hominems again.

And by the way, someone made the very same point, I have been making... in a post on the link you just put up:

"If he is such a lunatic, why not attack the science rather than the man?"

Ad hominems are the weakest form of argument, because they take no effort.