451. Religion

Comment #26963 by BaronOchs on March 22, 2007 at 4:38 pm

Veronique I was just watching it over supper lol!

452. Britain Proposes Allowing Schools to Forbid Full-Face Muslim Veils

Comment #26961 by BaronOchs on March 22, 2007 at 4:13 pm

Luthien It is only the tip of an iceberg as well. Teachers who work in schools with a large number of asian students will know some children have their education significantly disrupted by long visits to Pakistan or other places. It is in no way uncommon for even quite young female students to be married off on these visits and not return.

453. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26925 by BaronOchs on March 22, 2007 at 10:22 am

I agree with you anyhow about "benign lie" religion being bad though.

454. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26924 by BaronOchs on March 22, 2007 at 10:20 am

squinky If a Dr says "take these pills and you'll recover" and it is correct, you will recover because of the placebo effect he isn't really deceiving you at all, merely concealing the mechanism by which the remedy works.

The reason why using the placebo effect like that is a bad idea is because the placebo effect doesn't always work, or only works well with some people. And if you then give people an expectation that a remedy won't work you can even have a reverse placebo effect which hinders the effectiveness of an actual remedy!

455. Episcopal Church Rejects Demand for a 2nd Leadership

Comment #26915 by BaronOchs on March 22, 2007 at 9:15 am

The Oxford English Dictionary also says:

"[= OF. primat (15th c. in Godef.), ad. L. prmtus (u-stem) the first place, preference, pre-eminence, primacy.]

1. Chief place, primacy."

Perhaps Primates were seen as having chief place in god's creation(sic)? Archbishops occupy a chief place in the church and as for the pears I'm guessing they were just first rate also?!

456. Episcopal Church Rejects Demand for a 2nd Leadership

Comment #26912 by BaronOchs on March 22, 2007 at 9:09 am

gibodean


primate, n.1 (a.)

A. n.

" 1. One who is first in rank or importance; a chief, head, superior, leader. Now rare.

2. Eccl. An archbishop, or formerly sometimes a bishop, holding the first place among the bishops of a province; also applied to a patriarch or exarch of the Eastern Church.(OED)"

As well as being a zoological order!

Not only that but:

"3. Name of a variety of pear. ? Obs."

Anyone well versed in the history of the English Language who can explain these different uses of the word?

457. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26905 by BaronOchs on March 22, 2007 at 8:31 am

I've been struggling to make up my mind whether I agree with Tom Day (Post 433/434)or not.

If Sam had made this move instead I just don't think it very likely that Andrew -grateful at being let off the hook perhaps- would accept this secular vision. More likely he would raise a lot of criticism which being a political commentator he would be adept at and use this to portray himself as having come off better in the whole argument.

As it is Sam seems to have opted for the Jeremy Paxman approach, press the same points until they are answered no matter how long it takes.

458. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26805 by BaronOchs on March 21, 2007 at 6:45 pm

Thanks for checking that fonex_86. It's most probable the image file isn't prepared for my very old monitor (built by John Logie Baird himself probably . . .or perhaps Galileo even . . .) which can only handle low screen resolutions.

459. Why creationism is wrong and evolution is right

Comment #26794 by BaronOchs on March 21, 2007 at 5:22 pm

Classical physics did not collapse. It is still very much true in most circumstances.

Indeed, if you'd asked someone in the C19th they no doubt have said the classical model is so well grounded in experiment it couldn't be proved wrong and really they were right. What was discovered in the C20th was that it is only part of a much bigger picture, but it's still a perfectly workable model when you're not travelling close to the speed of light or whatever.

In which case it might be reasonable to say evolution is not going to be replaced, even if the way we view it may be revolutionised.

460. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26793 by BaronOchs on March 21, 2007 at 5:13 pm

These tabletops are exactly the same size and shape. Once you have used a ruler or tracing paper to satisfy yourself that this is true, they will still look different to you, based upon the way your brain has been hard-wired to interpret spatial cues.

Well I pressed a ruler to the screen and I got different measurements, though perhaps that isn't the most accurate way to measure them?

Has anyone else measured the tables?

461. Why creationism is wrong and evolution is right

Comment #26785 by BaronOchs on March 21, 2007 at 4:28 pm

"We want as diverse an education system as possible..."

No Tony Blair we want one that actually gives kids a proper education!

Well when he talked in the Q and A about how creationism is the thin end of the wedge for a new theocracy in america I think he was right and it is very worrying. Not least that with the help of our current prime minister the same thing is creeping in here.

Anyhow this was a really good talk, I didn't know the stuff about how HIV has evolved which was really interesting. Also I'd forgotten about the numerous other creation stories. Evidently my western brain thought creation must have happened the judeo-christian way, how chauvinist! *punches self in face*

462. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village

Comment #26702 by BaronOchs on March 21, 2007 at 7:54 am

Actually I'd be interested to see a response to this piece from either Dennett or Harris or Dawkins.

463. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village

Comment #26682 by BaronOchs on March 21, 2007 at 5:34 am

Just imagine going back in time to tell Galileo that in the C21st a catholic apologist will berate him for doing what the church says!

Now there's an absurdity . . .

464. Saving believers: Former Christian finds calling to preach the good news of atheism

Comment #26668 by BaronOchs on March 21, 2007 at 3:39 am

Of course the Tech bubble burst because God was punishing someone who didn't go into the ministry it seems so obvious now . . .

If God exists then God help economics!

465. Polish woman wins abortion case

Comment #26589 by BaronOchs on March 20, 2007 at 4:32 pm

Well I suppose the EU has its benefits.

466. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26584 by BaronOchs on March 20, 2007 at 3:40 pm

I don't get it, Terry Eagleton and John Cornwell are hardly frontmen for orthodoxy so why are they so eager to jump on Dawkins?

Well Cornwell is a clever bloke, he's also written a few books critical of the Catholic Church. I hope someone reads this and shares it's wonders with us at any rate.

467. 'They Tried To Teach My Baby Science'

Comment #26546 by BaronOchs on March 20, 2007 at 8:37 am

http://www.nmsr.org/alabama.htm

Yes go ahead and laugh, I only just discovered the whole "pi equals 3? it does in alabama!" was a hoax . . .I think . . .

468. US TV Commercial for The God Delusion during Countdown with Keith Olbermann

Comment #26517 by BaronOchs on March 20, 2007 at 4:22 am

"Why not go with John Lennon's song instead of just a couple lyrics from it?!

Imagine how much Yoko Ono would charge for you to have it in an advert!

469. Yanoconodon, a transitional fossil

Comment #26482 by BaronOchs on March 19, 2007 at 4:21 pm

"I want more money and sex"

Go for it mate. No one is denying you the right to pursue your own wellbeing. What I'm saying is we should do so in a way not detrimental to others, or to society as a whole.

If everyone pursued their own interests with no concern for society pretty soon it would become very difficult for anyone to acheive a state of wellbeing. That's why I think your position is inconsistent.

Besides if you were a victim of violence or injustice you'd feel wronged, but what would you have left to appeal to after you've rejected the values at the heart of society?

You do say however:

If by nihilism you mean: total rejection of established laws and institutions. I do not think that atheism promotes or should promote this definition. I accept the laws of society and institutions that have put them forth. I am well aware of the consequences of my actions.

But of course any civilisation wishes to ensure its own survival (a desire shared by the majority of the adult population who have children), so this is inconsistent with your I-don't-give-a-crap-about-the-future-of-the-world line.

The fact is there are grounds on which common values can be founded. Everyone wishes to pursue pleasure and avoid pain for instance. You have said on this thread you find the world beautiful so why would you want to behave indifferently towards it?

I'm not sure I can see where you're coming from.

470. Yanoconodon, a transitional fossil

Comment #26456 by BaronOchs on March 19, 2007 at 12:36 pm

My comment about evolution was unguarded perhaps. All i meant is that in a universe where life has evolved complex life is still relatively improbable. And where complex life has evolved intelligent life is also still improbable. I think that is uncontroversial.

Now I don't think I have more value than a Eggplant. I wouldn't do anything to jeopardise the continued existence of eggplants either. A universe with eggplants and people is preferable to one with only one or the other.

Of course an eggplant is never going to comprehend the intricacy that allows it to exist and it's good we can do so on their behalf so to speak.

So I'm delusional? Perhaps I'm also a little thick so you'll have to spell out to me why.

471. Yanoconodon, a transitional fossil

Comment #26445 by BaronOchs on March 19, 2007 at 10:59 am

Spaghetti Monster I don't hold any idealistic pretences about the human race. Nevertheless it is possible we are the most intelligent creatures in existence, even that have ever existed. I don't know if that is the case, of course oneday someone might find out, although they won't if humankind passes from existence through it's own negligence.

I'm just saying evolution has managed against the odds to create animals capable of high art and advanced mathematics and it would be stupid to throw it away. Now I don't think that's delusional really?

472. Yanoconodon, a transitional fossil

Comment #26437 by BaronOchs on March 19, 2007 at 10:22 am

Spagmo sure you can be amoral. You don't need to feel there is some kind of moral imperative imposed upon you to want to act responsibly towards the earth. I simply feel the world is beautiful, and human life is of great worth. For which reason I don't want to jeopardise either of those. I think this view of the world is rational as well as being more fulfilling than a narrow and irresponsible hedonism.

473. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village

Comment #26421 by BaronOchs on March 19, 2007 at 7:41 am

This book offers a critique of thinkers like Michael Novak but more specifically Richard Neuhaus who is also part of the AEI. I haven't read it though so I can't recommend it. Also I don't know where the author is coming from since he used to be an editor of first things with Neuhaus(!?) Has anyone here read it?

474. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village

Comment #26394 by BaronOchs on March 19, 2007 at 5:09 am

33. Comment #26371 by Gordon Brown

Worse still, Sam Harris is alleged to have "written a love letter to himself,"

Ironic really since that is precisely what Novak does in this review.

475. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village

Comment #26357 by BaronOchs on March 18, 2007 at 9:39 pm

fig-leafed creationist. . .the irony wasn't apparent, well never mind.

476. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village

Comment #26356 by BaronOchs on March 18, 2007 at 9:36 pm

Just as I post that someone on another thread points out the AEI of which Novak is a member support the teaching of creationism in schools. Which pretty much cements my claim he is a fig-leafed creationist.

477. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village

Comment #26344 by BaronOchs on March 18, 2007 at 7:35 pm

From a Roman Catholic point of view, at least, there is no difficulty in accepting all the findings of evolutionary biology, while not accepting evolutionary biology as more than an empirical science--that is to say, not as a philosophy of existence, a metaphysics, a full vision of human life.

Some on reading that might take issue with my calling Novak a closet creationist. He might not be a six-dayer but I'm not recanting, so let me sum up how I see Novak's position, outlined above:

"We've got our worldview already, solidly based on a bronze-age text and the diktats of that man in the white cloak with the funny hat. However Science insists we accept facts about the actual real world if we want to maintain a shred of intellectual credibility. So fine we will so long as this is twisted and contorted to whatever extent necessary to fit with our pre-existing beliefs"

There is no doubt the Catholic Church would be more openly creationist if it could get away with it. Equally the reluctant acceptance of science whilst attempting to completely castrate it's wider implications that Novak engages in gives cover for the more open creationists, which is precisely what he wants.

If you don't believe me please read Archbishop Schonborn's abominable NYTimes piece.

Evolution really explains facts about the natural world. For which reason it is a more appropriate starting point for wider philosophical conclusions about reality than pre-conceived religious ideas.

Novak is more upfront about morality,

To be sure, some individual atheists "of a peculiar character" and academic distinction, brought up in habits inculcated by the religious cultures of the past, can go on for two or three generations living in ways hard to distinguish from those of unassuming Christians and Jews. These individuals continue to be honest, compassionate, committed to the equality of all, and firm believers in "progress" and "brotherhood," long after they repudiate the original religious justification for this particular list of virtues.

In fact fair play to him for really nailing his colours to the mast. So what is moral according to Novak? wait for it: We should follow all the teachings of the Catholic Church(!) Not even a great deal of Nuns Priests and lay Catholics buy that one.

Atheism is in the main for comfortable men, in a reasonable world.

I suppose he thinks the trusty Rhythm'n'Blues contraception method is a practical proposition for women in economically deprived countries who are in significant risk of contracting aids?

He blames atheism for moral relativism. I only admit to the obvious fact moral relativism was all we ever had. Except in times and places particular groups of people have been able to represent their own particular beliefs as absolute, going so far as to claim themselves mouthpieces of the Holy Spirit or inspired by God in order to substantiate their claims.

Christianity sat allright for centuries with the oppresion of Women and Homosexuals and Jews and with Slavery. If Christianity is a good source of morality tell that to the masses of Jews slaughtered throughout the centuries of Christianity's ascendance. Or all the Women burnt as witches, or all the Cathars persecuted at Innocent III behest just because they subscribed to a different strain of the god delusion.

Novak can't escape the fact societies have become more not less civil as secularism has advanced and that is that.

478. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village

Comment #26302 by BaronOchs on March 18, 2007 at 3:11 pm

I liked his little story about Anatoly Sharansky. What came across to me however was Sharansky's moral vigour and his ability to survive in the gulag situation. Unfortunately for Novak this doesn't illustrate an inadequacy of Science. The fact that Science is probably the best means we have of gaining knowledge about our world does not mean it will necessarily provide a means of mental survival in subhuman conditions. So Sharansky kept himself going through some ancient texts (the psalms) which focus very much on suffering, and through some time-tested jewish rituals like lighting the Menora. That's all very well, but what of all that is at all inconsistent with God's non-existence? My conviction religion is a human creation is untouched. Besides, plenty of people have survived terrible conditions without religious faith. There are people who lost faith through these experiences and plenty who failed to believe before during and after such ordeals. Nice story but not an argument I'm
afraid.

Next:

The claim Dawkins' et al are too wooden in their reading of the bible is not going to let the bible off their criticisms. Novak doesn't even address the attrocious view of God prevalent throughout the Old Testament. I wonder why not?

Their natural habit of mind is anthropomorphic. They tend to think of God as if He were a human being, bound to human limitations.

Novak nevertheless knows that God is a Him which is a fairly specific anthropomorphic attribute. Is the ubertranscendent god Novak argues for the one who right now is being cudgeled to help so and so get better or to find someone somewhere a parking space? Does Novak address this? No.

His [Dennett's] main thesis, that religion is a "natural phenomenon," was already hoary by the time St. Augustine was discerning what novelties Christianity introduced to classical Roman religion.

Dennett is shamefully disposed of in a paragraph of ad hominem. Won't do Novak, Dennett's ideas are old hat? So you're saying Augustine came up with the theory of Natural Selection? Sadly Not. Novak offers not one single argument against Dennett's proposal we do proper scientific research to ascertain how religions emerge and develop. Merely ad hominem like I say.

Yet it didn't take my daughter long to see through the pretenses of atheism. In the first place, the fundamental doctrine seemed to be that everything that is, came to be through chance and natural selection. In other words, at bottom, everything is irrational, chancy, without purpose or ultimate intelligibility.

Now we see your true colours, why don't you just wheel your creationism out of the closet like your spiritual leader Cardinal Schonborn?

The Point of the Cosmos Is Friendship.

Friendship is good of course, but that is a ludicrous claim, for which you offer no evidence.

If morality were left to reason alone, common agreement would never be reached, since philosophers vehemently--and endlessly--disagree, and large majorities would waver without clear moral signals. Moreover, in times of stress distinguished intellectuals such as Heidegger and various precursors of postmodernism (notably deconstructionist Paul de Man) displayed a shameless adaptation to Nazi or Communist imperatives.

Countered by a simple fact, the most moral societies have been democracies, the least moral have been theocracies. As for Heidegger he inherited a strong anti-semitic strain from his catholic heritage which like Hitler he never renounced.

Another point he made was that the medieval assumption that the world is intelligible provided a confident ground for science to proceed. This isn't going to save god. On the contrary the very fact that this was a basis for Science's revealing a world without god is a contradiction he needs to deal with.

I couldn't make sense of his argument about faith prevailing on US Campuses. Of course we all know most american students attend daily mass, spurn alcohol and wouldn't dream of having pre-marital sex *cough cough*. Besides this is the old McGrath Twilight of Atheism line, "people are still buying it, so it must be credible!" No, I'm afraid.

Well that'll do for now. As he went on he started getting orgies off his sado-masochist catholic spirituality and it was too much for me to bear. His last paragraph sounded like someone on cracking ice in the middle of a frozen lake telling a person on the bank "can't we move to a middle position"

479. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village

Comment #26299 by BaronOchs on March 18, 2007 at 2:30 pm

Michael Novak is the George Frederick Jewett Scholar in Religion, Philosophy, and Public Policy at AEI.

Pantore?

Also I'm about 2/3 the way through this monster and I will post my breakdown of it for anyone who's interested once I've finished it.

480. The Atheist

Comment #26265 by BaronOchs on March 18, 2007 at 6:33 am

"You are working on a new book tentatively called "The God Delusion." Can you explain it?"

I see did anyone hear about tha . . .oh

481. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26215 by BaronOchs on March 17, 2007 at 5:40 pm

Evolution has no answer eddie.river, this is clear evidence of a Gay Designer!

482. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26194 by BaronOchs on March 17, 2007 at 3:46 pm

freestateofmind I completely agree, I'm totally against this pre-natal gene selction thing. If we started selecting for various personality traits according to trends it would just be a horrible step towards a nightmare boring world where everyone was the same and our culture was drastically poorer. Not to mention if people consistently selected for certain genes, and a virus hits town that particularly affects people with those genes we'd be fucked.

Now if anyone thinks I've been posting a hell of a lot lately and have no other life just go on thinking that damn you!!!!!

483. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26182 by BaronOchs on March 17, 2007 at 2:10 pm

steve99 Yes Those inadequacies were apparent to me as I made the post. I think you may well be on the right lines. The problem Roll indicated is that gay individuals would presumably have less or no descendants to propagate their genes. But another way to look at it is if an individual has genes that mean at least some of their offspring might be gay, and those gay offspring help the survival of their siblings for example then individuals would be rewarded for carrying those genes. This article

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,705,Economics-and-human-evolution,The-Economist-print-edition

indeed suggests humans may have benefited from adopting specialised roles and that would be consistent with this.

Wikipedia has this to say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathogenic_hypothesis_of_homosexuality

though I wasn't convinced.

484. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26177 by BaronOchs on March 17, 2007 at 1:33 pm

Roll, it's an interesting question and there are various theories. One theory is the so-called "sneaky male theory" In a species where a few males do all the breeding, Elephant Seals are a good example, and fight to keep the other males away from the females, if another male is gay at least some of the time the dominant male will worry less about turning his back on the harem, allowing the sneaky male a chance to breed! I'm sure there is more to it than that, and indeed better explanations of that theory but it is interesting to consider.

[Edit:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB403.html

offers some explanation also. for instance:

Genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men apparently boost fertility in women. Female relatives of gay men, on their mother's side of the family, had more children than female relatives of heterosexual men. (Corna et al. 2004)]

485. Stephen interviews Ayaan Hirsi Ali author of Infidel

Comment #26162 by BaronOchs on March 17, 2007 at 10:17 am

Comment #26140 by mr gollo

"For apes to come out of the trees, and change in the direction of being able to write down Maxwell's equations, I don't think you can explain that by natural selection at all. It's just a miracle." (Freeman Dyson)

Freeman Dyson is of course a respected physicist and mathematician. And according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson
a "non-dogmatic christian". evidently we can file him next to Fred "747 Junkyard" Hoyle and any other physicists who make outlandish statements about evolution.

But of course yes the AEI are a bunch of fruitcakes, so what did Ayaan Hirsi Ali have to do with them? I'll have to see some hard evidence before I accept she had any truck with their lunatic views. So maybe she was a sane voice in a thinktank of lunatics? answers anyone?

486. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26133 by BaronOchs on March 17, 2007 at 6:19 am

Comment #26125 by Will S
In the same way, I recall, as a lad, seeing a TV film of some pyschologists trying to 'cure' a homosexual (who had volunteered for the treatment), using aversion therapy. If (repeat, if) you accept the premise that homosexuality is wrong and ought to be cured, then I can't see any way of faulting what they were doing.

There is at least one way to fault it, by pointing out there's no evidence aversion therapy works at all! According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aversion_therapy

"conversion therapy had a failure rate in excess of 99.5% in each study."

Peter Cook's aversion therapy sketch is worth watching:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLcLQXMIzPM

Aversion therapy is worthy of ridicule, someone recalled to me once the use of aversion therapy for homosexuals at a psychiatric hospital where they worked in the 70's, using the NHS official pornographic slide collection(!)

This article made me sick, how they can try to come across all pro-life when they're willing to tamper with an unborn child just because she/he might be gay and they have a problem with it.

487. Did You Know? Shift Happens - Globalization, Information Age

Comment #26095 by BaronOchs on March 16, 2007 at 6:49 pm

I remember someone worrying that oneday they'll ask a supercomputer if the Riemann hypothesis is true and it will say: "yes but you'll never understand the proof"!

488. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #26064 by BaronOchs on March 16, 2007 at 11:55 am

skyhook87 the debate with Dennett is linked on this page:

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mcgrath/lectures.html

About the 9th item down.

489. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #26034 by BaronOchs on March 16, 2007 at 7:15 am

Thanks for your comments Quetzalcoatl. I'd need a bit more evidence that erruptions like Krakatoa put out more carbon dioxide than we have since the industrial revolution.

I'd be interested to know if anyone has looked into whether, after a big eruption, there was a global warming effect.

Get this, after Mt Pinatubo errupted global warming seemed to halt for a few years! That was because although it put a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere it also put a lot more heavy ash and particles that (although small) would only remain in the atmosphere for a few years. The thing I linked to about the temperature rise after 9/11 is because of the same effect. Planes have been churning out CO2 which causes global warming, but they also release particulates which block out sunlight and slow down global warming. But when the planes were grounded the heavy soot they put out soon settled but the CO2 remained much longer, raising the temperature. The two effects counteract each other but the CO2 effect is more far reaching.

All I think is we should use our remaining fossil fuels reserves as sparingly as possible and resultingly keep our CO2 output to a minimum. regardless of the controversies over global warming that isn't too controversial is it?

490. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

Comment #25946 by BaronOchs on March 15, 2007 at 6:47 pm

scottishgeologist That fertility/prayer study might have caused problems for the Catholic Church who don't allow IVF treatment, they would have to explain why God didn't mind lending a helping hand in the process!? Also the slot machine thing is interesting, how do you know I'm not in fact the Bishop of Durham? You see the church causes me a lot of angst and atheist websites are just a way of letting off steam . . .uhh i'm not, i don't know where that came from . . .

491. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

Comment #25941 by BaronOchs on March 15, 2007 at 6:15 pm

We should start holding Prayerathons where devout contestants from different faiths compete to save the most patients . . . place your bets people!

492. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #25938 by BaronOchs on March 15, 2007 at 6:06 pm

Quetzalcoatl You're right that the extent to which global warming might have happened without our efforts is unclear. But I think our effects can't be played down. If you think about it we are releasing a quantity of carbon that took many millions of years to become fossil fuels back into the atmosphere in a few centuries. That is certain to have some effect. People sometimes point out the earth has been from global warming to ice ages and back more than once throughout prehistory. But we are seeing a significant effect in a short amount of time. 0.6 degrees in a century. A century isn't the blink of an eye in geological time, the eyelid has just moved a few micrometers morelike.

Also the result discussed here is very worth considering:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml

We found that the change in temperature range during those three days[after 9/11 when the planes were grounded] was just over one degrees C. And you have to realise that from a layman's perspective that doesn't sound like much, but from a climate perspective that is huge.

The implication of it is we are having a very real affect on climate change.

493. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #25933 by BaronOchs on March 15, 2007 at 5:55 pm

Thanks Seti, I remembered hearing about this also:

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html

The Royal Society doesn't say anything unless it's absolutely sure about it so that is quite momentous.

494. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

Comment #25929 by BaronOchs on March 15, 2007 at 5:36 pm

I recall in some of the prayer experiments the patients knew they were being prayed for. Which means the placebo affect could lead to some result showing up. The article doesn't specify whether all the data used were from experiments where people had no knowledge they were being prayed for.

Even if a real positive result showed up (it wouldn't prove much) Even if you accepted that divine action is the answer it doesn't reflect well on God. If God is Love as Andrew Sullivan keeps insisting, and he really could save heart patients at will why would he only help those being prayed for? God comes across more as a slot machine, insert the prayer and collect your miracle.

495. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #25868 by BaronOchs on March 15, 2007 at 1:58 pm

Quick question for the "brighty brights"….

Kudos to you my bright friend.

Why do you use "Bright" in a flippant manner? Some answers suggest themselves but I'll avoid the necessary assumptions for now.

496. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #25862 by BaronOchs on March 15, 2007 at 1:41 pm

"what else can we do but "react"….?"

Spaghetti Monster react that is in a way conducive to the continued existence and/or continued existence with the highest possible quality of life for the most people possible.

Your reaction to this is simply "I don't give a fuck" unless I've misread you. I respect your right to not give a fuck and am pleased that most people I think would agree it's reprehensible.

So you don't care, why are you here telling us?

497. A 'Sad First' in the History of the Congress

Comment #25854 by BaronOchs on March 15, 2007 at 1:22 pm

If several U.S. politicians came out as atheists it might not be as harmful for them as you might think. John Kerry went to pains to come across as a good catholic and it just got him a sustained attack from orthodox catholics over his acceptance of Roe v Wade.

498. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #25848 by BaronOchs on March 15, 2007 at 12:47 pm

Also:

wouldn't it be logical to conclude that nature has selected us (humans) as the vehicle to bring about climate change?

Don't forget evolution has no foresight, so when it "selected us" it didn't know we'd start the industrial revolution. You could equally argue we're selecting ourselves out of existence if we don't look after our future.

499. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #25846 by BaronOchs on March 15, 2007 at 12:36 pm

Spaghetti Monster so if someone told you life will go extinct in 100 years but by acting now you could prevent it (not the case I'm speaking hypothetically) you wouldn't be bothered to do anything?

well . . .i suppose that's fair enough . . .

500. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #25843 by BaronOchs on March 15, 2007 at 12:23 pm

brian coughlan and kniggit whats with the knives at each others throats, chill out!

But kniggit 0.6 degrees in one century is a lot. Enough to make make things uncomfortable for a lot of species in not many centuries if it continued at that rate. What do you make of the significant acceleration in the melting of arctic ice. The effects of which are already worryingly noticeable such as when the Gulf Stream stopped in 2004:

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1932761,00.html

I don't know what you're advocating kniggit? do you really think our current actions will cause no problems for the future of the human race?