601. U.S. a theocratic state, says former Canadian ambassador

Comment #46933 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on June 2, 2007 at 9:46 am

Sam Harris has noted that France is Moslem Majority in twenty-five years even if immigration stops tomorrow.

Really? Has he? I'd love to see that quote, because it sounds like utter bullshit to me and I just don't think he could possibly delude himself so completely, even in this area where he does wax occasionally hysterical.

So back that up, I want to see chapter and verse.

602. U.S. a theocratic state, says former Canadian ambassador

Comment #46916 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on June 2, 2007 at 7:40 am

33. Comment #46908 by scot on June 2, 2007 at 7:03 am

I never said the US was to blame for everything that's wrong with the planet. When did I say anything even approaching that?

If this is the level misinterpretation we can expect from you while reading a comment on a blog, a few hundred words long, what possible store can we put by the rest of your utterances?

The number of times, I've had people "like you" tell me how Sweden (where I live!!!) had become a theocratic state, overun by sharia law. Pure madness.

And for goodness check where you are getting your news from!!!

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=NewsMax.com

The worst atheist haters, religious right suckups on the planet you utter, credulous moron!!! FUCK I HAVE NO PATIENCE FOR THIS SHIT FROM ATHEISTS. NONE. YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE SOME CRITICAL FUCKING FACULTIES!!!

*pant, pant, spittle dribble*

Yes there are some utterly insane religious freaks, with no capacity and less sense, who would like nothing better than to kill a bunch of americans, even detonate a nuclear weapon in an american city.

So what now? Slaughter every muslim, americans included, to the last man, woman and child? Well?

603. U.S. a theocratic state, says former Canadian ambassador

Comment #46894 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on June 2, 2007 at 5:22 am

Reality-check anyone? Iran is a theocracy. Saudi Arabia is a theocracy. Large areas of Western Europe will be soon if we don't pull our heads out of the sand. America. is. not.

This really is delusional, dangerous tripe and it corrals the weak minded into supporting actions like the invasion of Iraq, or the bombing of Iran, when these countries aren't remotely a threat, let alone an existential threat, to us.

I live in Sweden, which has a relativley high proportion of migrants compared to most EU countries. Roughly, 10% of the population are migrants most of them from the middle east. The problems this raises are already being soberly debated, and considered. Certainly several honour killing cases have been prosecuted, and won by the state, resulting in custodial sentences for those involved.

Yet, it would take about 100 years of the same immigration levels, plus muslim births outstripping "Christian" ones by orders of magnitude, as well as a complete failure of swedish culture to make any inroads whatever on the migrants for them to become a "threat".

It would also require them to vote as a monolithic uniform block, to acheive the 50% of parlimentary seats required to even begin to contemplate changing the law.

For fucks sake, get a grip!!! The kind of tirade you've launched here convinces stupid, biddable people to vote for fascist and repressive parties, and out of fear and ignorance, to endorse the killing of innocent people for no other actual reason than the geographic lottery of their birth.

All it takes is a little mature and calm reflection to conclude that the "islamic scare" is pure hysteria.

604. U.S. a theocratic state, says former Canadian ambassador

Comment #46889 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on June 2, 2007 at 4:46 am

Stephan Harper is a good man doing a good job as Prime Minister of Canada and as an Atheist I am proud to support him, just like many an Atheist voted for Tony Blair in the UK.

I'll think you'll find most of them regretting that now:-)

605. U.S. a theocratic state, says former Canadian ambassador

Comment #46888 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on June 2, 2007 at 4:44 am

16. Comment #46859 by Shuggy on June 2, 2007 at 1:29 am

Comment #46830 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on June 1, 2007 at 9:45 pm


But I don't think you can ignore the US's castiron grip on world popular culture. Wherever bellies are full, I fear you'll find people care more about "Friends" and MTV and wearing Nikes than global warming or nuclear threats.

Oh I'm sure you are right. Each world power leaves an indelible imprint on global culture, I suspect that the American imprint will be that much deeper.

Nonetheless, as english becomes more pervasive (100s of millions speak it in India), and language is eventually eliminated as a barrier to communication (surely not more than 15 - 20 years away), the grip of the americans even on culture will weaken. The point is, if you can do business with A or B, and there is little economic difference, you are going to choose based on trust, and after Bush no one trusts the americans. Certainly people are scared of them, but trust? No.

That is a serious problem in a turbulent changing world.

606. U.S. a theocratic state, says former Canadian ambassador

Comment #46830 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on June 1, 2007 at 9:45 pm

Regardless of the crap that is going on right now the U.S. is a country that everyone else looks to period.

I think this is serious wishful thinking. The US has about 300 million citizens, the EU roughly 500 and an inbuilt capacity for potentially limitless (other than the population of the planet) expansion that the US simply lacks. With China 1 billion and India 1.3 billion coming onstream economically, the US is gradually loosing it's capacity to simply dictate and make sure the game is played to it's advantage.

The US is now broadly loathed and in many circles considered dangerous, not just because of the Iraq business but because of how it has, and continues to, drag it's heels on action on Global Warming.

Nope, the US is doomed to insignificance, and justly deserved, Bush has genuinely destroyed and undercut the US's future. At the very least it's future lies in clubbing together with the EU, probably as a reluctant junior partner in the next 50 years or so, to ensure the Chinese and Indians don't simply ride rough shod over us economically.

I such an idea seems shocking, consider that less than a hundred years ago, in 1910, the British Empire was the unquestioned leader of the world. Where is Britian now? A reluctant province of the EU, and a sometimes semi state of the US. As for the Soviet Union, well. My daughter goes to school with people who have never even heard of it.

The scope for economic improvement lies now in political expansion by absorbing new countries into agreed partnership, and economic expansion, by improving the lot of billions of already integrated citizens.

The US lost this game in the longterm the day George Bush took office.

607. The Dawkins delusion

Comment #45851 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 29, 2007 at 11:46 am

I'm convinced that the books by Dawkins, Hitchens and the others will eventually be seen as the line that was drawn in the sand, even if takes decaeds for most people to cross that line into enlightenment.

Here's hoping:-)

608. Sam Harris Strikes Back

Comment #45814 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 29, 2007 at 10:42 am

Harris, on the other hand seems upset that Hedges isn't one of the millions (probably billions) of people who practice religion in the naïve, anthropomorphic, and superstitious forms he would rather attack. He wasn't debating the millions and billions. He was debating Chris Hedges.

Most atheists could care less about vague emphemeral stuff like Hedges "God". Except in so much as it provides cover for the really dangerous stuff.

If everybody believed what Hedges believes we'd probably be fine, but they don't. In fact I'd hazard that almost no one believes that pap, probably not even Hedges himself. What would be the point?

The mass of theists really believe stuff like Jesus died and rose from the dead, that when you pray he hears, and sometimes Allah speaks and you should listen. Thats the problem, and Harris always nails it.

609. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45579 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 28, 2007 at 9:38 am

As for your posting. I merely checked the main forum itself, not the .net website to test my theory that you were a troll blown to defend Gore.

This is certainly nonsense. I was just reminded of an exchange with Steve on another thread about 10 days ago, were we differed on an issue. Long before this Gore thing was posted. I'll be happy to point you to that thread if it will help:-)

610. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45524 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 28, 2007 at 4:11 am

Since we are conciliating, "fringe cultists" was over the top:-) Poetic licence?

Should I read the PM, or would we both be happier if I just delete it? Your call, things can get so heated ... it's how wars start isn't it?

611. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45511 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 28, 2007 at 3:35 am

156. Comment #45508 by pewkatchoo on May 28, 2007 at 3:23 am

So now I am a 'crank' 'not particularly well informed' a 'fringe cultist (wow)' all because I have some (very small) concerns about your ideology.

If thats your genuine position then my criticism is certainly overly harsh. However, we've locked horns on this subject a few times, on more than one thread and you didn't strike me as someone with "very small" concerns about the science.

I'm going to spare myself (and you) a trawl back through this or other threads to unearth relevant posts.

Talk to you on a thread sometime where we agree, ciao:-)

612. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45502 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 28, 2007 at 3:13 am

Thanks for answering my question Steve. I am sorry I don't measure up to your supreme intellects. Have a nice life.

Oh come on, now you feel sorry for yourself? Besides, my claims are almost the exact opposite. It's my very ignorance on a complex subject that makes me wary of drawing conclusions based on single issue minority science, and instead informing myself about the consensus among relevant experts, not any claims about a "supreme" intellect.

Supreme intellects are not the issue anyway. If Steve, who clearly has the advantage of both of us, were to start posting personal research showing AGW is utter nonsense, my stance would be unchanged.

He's just some random, apparently informed guy, posting on a forum. As for you, you don't even sound particularly well informed, so forgive me for putting the boot in, but it would be nuts for me to listen to anything you have to say. Especially after your performance on this thread.

The whole attitude of you and others like you serves to undermine trust in science and the scientific method. Which while certainly not perfect, is the most powerful method of enquiry humans have developed to date. There are enough real ethical breaches (the cloning debacle comes to mind) without making stuff up.

Fringe cultists like yourself merely embolden the flying monkeys of ignorance that foist religion, creationism, astrology and similar lunacy on the world.

They make the same flawed arguments and charges that AGW deniers do, and it does the same damage. That just pisses me off, especially coming from "rational" atheists. I guess I hold atheists to a higher standard:-(

Still it's your right to make whatever wild claims you like, but it's our right to call you on it.

613. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45489 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 28, 2007 at 2:30 am

Oh, by the way. I fully admit that I got some of my facts and figures wrong in my debates with Steve, but I have been relying on my own imperfect memory or impressions of events that I lived through in many cases. But Steve of course uses that to dismiss me for lack of knowledge. I know the type of person that does that. Steve and Brian lay claim to being men of reason, by their actions I submit that they are anything but.

*sigh*

As you note, you only have Steves word that he knows what he knows. Of course, you have little else for the people informing whatever fringe conclusions you've drawn, has that simply escaped your notice?

Myself, I usually avoid cut n paste ping pong matches, preferring as a non expert to point to the overwhelming consensus among the relevant experts. Supported and butteressed from multiple sources and accredited organisations. This, for the forseeable future, is how I will continue to assess complex issues I know little about.

This strikes you as unreasonable. Yet, it also strikes you as pedantic, when Steve calls your reliability into question, "Just because you got some of the information wrong". What a meany!!

Neither you nor I have anything like the relevant skills to draw conclusions from the raw science, so we look to experts and consensus. Thats what rational people do.

You can certainly say what you like, but I submit that you are nothing more than a crank sniping from the sidelines for holding the views you do.

If it was any other area, quantum physics, evolution or the theory of gravity you would whole heartedly agree with me. If you don't, perhaps you need to investigate creationism, crunch the numbers, read the papers ... maybe you've missed something!! Maybe the minority is on the cusp of some amazing breakthrough!!!

We are not the unreasonable ones here, and it's blindingly obvious to any objective observer.

614. It came like yesterday

Comment #45462 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 27, 2007 at 11:02 pm

Then science came along and said "Hey, we're not special. We aren't the center of everything. Everything doesn't revolve around us." And some people were humbled.

Then along come the environmentalists and say "Hey! We're special. We can change the climate of an entire planet as a byproduct of some of our activities. We alone do more to the climate than the energy output of a star hitting us for billions of years. Solar Flares? Comets? Volcanoes? Meteors? Plate Tectonics? Nah. We got all of those beat."

Actually science is paradoxically responsible for both conclusions. Your post sounds a little like you think some wacky hippies just made the environmental stuff up.

Some people actually are deluded about these problems, so it's important for atheists, being supporters of science to get our story straight. I'm sure you understand:-)

615. It came like yesterday

Comment #45461 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 27, 2007 at 10:57 pm

21. Comment #45455 by FVThinker on May 27, 2007 at 9:22 pm

As I say to some when engaged in "meaning of life" discussions, I tell them that we (as a species) are meaningless, insignificant specs in this universe . . . by my son, most assuredly, is not.


It's clear enough, to clear thinkers:-)

In the greater scheme of things, a tiny planet, sorrounding a modest star in an unfashionable (nod to hitch hikers guide) spiral arm of an obscure galaxy, is insignificant. If the entire solar system were vaporised tomorrow, it would have as much effect on the universe as me brushing a speck of dust off my clothes.

That said, everyone of us is vitally important to us, and a few other individuals, and thats enough. Or it had better be, it's all there is:-)

616. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45459 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 27, 2007 at 10:12 pm

144. Comment #45431 by ratio on May 27, 2007 at 6:00 pm

steve(118), Going with the consensus is definitely not the way science progresses. Progress in science is always a process of challenging the consensus.

You are missing the point. Steve is not claiming that science progresses by slavish acceptance of the consensus. That would of course be absurd.

However a lay person would be foolish to accept a fringe position such as AGW denial, over the consensus of the rest of the relevant experts. On what basis and with what criteria would a lay person make such a jugdement?

Anecdotes such as the one you offer are of little help:-(

617. It came like yesterday

Comment #45388 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 27, 2007 at 2:13 pm

OTOH, I can also imagine killing off entire extraterrestrial ecosystems by such a project. We seem rather adept at that enterprise, locally.


I am absolutely a species purist, terra for the terrans!!! Our galaxy first!!! Kind of guy:-) The universe is a big place, lets even up the odds before we get too hung up on the what ifs and maybes.

We may be the only sentient animal in the universe, and we might not be. I say lets assume we are and proceed from there.

618. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45378 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 27, 2007 at 1:15 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6694227.stm

Read it and weep.

619. It came like yesterday

Comment #45372 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 27, 2007 at 12:45 pm

True, but with those two most things in the solar system would be pretty much screwed.

Exactly my point, here we are muddling about, killing each other, arguing about religion! When we should be busting our ass to get out THERE.

Eggs in one basket indeed. More like a single egg, the only egg ever laid, being brought to market on the back of an enraged blind bull with parkinsons and three peg legs. We need to get our shit together.

620. It came like yesterday

Comment #45368 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 27, 2007 at 12:11 pm

Now if we can just come up with something to survive the sun imploding ....

Don't forget black holes, or a local star going supernova. Asteroid comet impacts are childs play in comparison.

621. It came like yesterday

Comment #45361 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 27, 2007 at 11:27 am

Every time I read something like this, I think of the trillion dollars that are collectivley spent on arms to point at each other. When the real danger is barrelling in from the enveloping darkness of space.

Somewhere out there is comet with "Destination : Terra" stamped on it. I just hope to Christ, or indeed any God who'll listen, that we are ready when that fucker hoves into view:-(

622. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45359 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 27, 2007 at 11:19 am

126. Comment #45325 by pewkatchoo on May 27, 2007 at 7:20 am


Now you have completely lost me with that! What are you trying to say here? Please stop talking in riddles!

I'm horrified to hear you say this. The post is absolutely clear, that is to anyone remotely familiar with the subject. I took your enthusiasm for knowledge, I know see my error:-)

Let me make it simpler. In developed world countries, we don't dump our rubbish in the street. We pay someone to take it away, and dispose of it safely.

We don't allow companies to dump effluent, chemicals or scrap metal into the environment. They must pay to ensure these materials are dealt with safely, and that the general public is not put at risk, merely to keep the companies costs down. Sometimes this means companies go bust, or certain products are not produced. The market can be unkind.

Similarly, we have legislation that governs the release and production of CFC's, sulphur and other dangerous gases.

The science is clear, to the relevant experts anyway, that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. Thus the companies, and individuals responsible for producing it, must pay to clean it up. Capitalism. Geddit?

623. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45305 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 27, 2007 at 6:16 am

116. Comment #45295 by windweaver on May 27, 2007 at 5:51 am

Steve99, I think you're wasting your time debating pewkatchow. Right-wingers are often notoriously impermeable to scientific evidence and logic when it comes to AGW. Doing something about AGW, in their minds, hinders the workings of their holiest of holies- free market capitalism.

Yet, it is the failure to reflect the fully worked cost of energy that is such a part of the problem. The same problem we've solved with a dozen previous types of pollution.

Capitalism, "true" capitalism takes all costs into account, dumping them on some unsuspecting 3rd party is surely a kind of theft?

624. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45304 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 27, 2007 at 6:12 am

118. Comment #45299 by steve99 on May 27, 2007 at 5:59 am

The only honest approach for the layman is to go with the scientific consensus.

Absolutely, I should have been clearer. That is my exact position, I've edited my original comment to reflect that.

Good work on this thread by the way, what you are saying simply cannot be said often enough:-)

625. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45294 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 27, 2007 at 5:47 am

Wow dejavu:-)

I must have posted this 30 times in a range of constructions in the course of the recent AGW argument.

If you are not an expert on a subject, you use the consensus among those experts to form your views. It's a complex technical world, thats what rational people do. All the time.

There is something deeply paranoid about assuming thousands of scientists are in cahoots to dupe the general public, and a breathtaking arrogance in dismissing whole areas of science, about which one knows functionally nothing.

If your views are at odds with the vast majority of relevant experts in a given field, you may be a lone genius challenging an entrenched elite, but how likely is that? For every lone crusader who changes the direction of science, there are a million nutjobs who die in obscurity.

Why on earth should the conviction of an amateur (at best) in climatology make even the slightest impression on anyone?

The approach of AGW deniers is identical to that of creationists, repeat the same tired talking points, demonise, the majority of hard working scientists doing real investigations and scream "conspiracy" as the science relentlessly stacks up against your minority position.

I for one will be taking the word of the actual experts in the IPCC and similar bodies over self appointed "experts" for the foreseeable future.

If you want to make a contribution, get a phd in the relevant discipline, do the research and publish the relevant papers.

626. Comic in US 'hate speech' row

Comment #44807 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 25, 2007 at 10:20 am

What are you disputing exactly?

That mohammed wasn't a nomadic nutjob? That repression of women by men is not an intrinsic part of some islamic societies?

That covering up your face isn't peculiar and anti social?

The suicide bombings are not strongly associated with Islam, where the links to any other religious thinking are tenuous at best?

That "honour" killings are not an all to frequent feature of life for women in repressive societies?

It is by calling these things what they are that we can combat them, saying nothing is too close to respect for my tastes, and although I will engage in respectful dialouge one on one (most recently here :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nijlQ1O3do8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFrNyltdyTI) I absolutely reserve the right to denigrate, defame and blaspheme anything I like.

627. Comic in US 'hate speech' row

Comment #44778 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 25, 2007 at 9:22 am

19. Comment #44773 by cassdenata on May 25, 2007 at 9:13 am

Man, it takes some kind of cognitive dissonance to be a liberal, which usually means you value feminism and more important the unique rights of the individuals and then defend women wearing veils. It is most assuredly an oppression of women.

Indeed. Islam frequently calls for the death of those that critique it. We need to furnish such a "target rich" environment that functional paralysis ensues. Fuck Islam, Allah and that child rapist Mohammed.

Wether I genuinely hold these extreme views is not the issue, my right to say them without fear of death threats has to be paramount.

Don't like it? Make a youtube video, start a website or ignore it. Death threats and infantile rage need to countered head on.

628. Comic in US 'hate speech' row

Comment #44770 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 25, 2007 at 9:11 am

There's too much of this kind of nonsense in the UK, He comes across as bigoted and small minded, atheists would be well advised to distance themselves from prats like this

Bollocks. Really. Freedom of speech cannot be negotiated.

629. I'm Sure God is Scared

Comment #44765 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 25, 2007 at 9:05 am

Thank goodness it's a lie. But please do the thought experiment and follow through on the implications if god DOES exist. They are terrifying.

The more I hear of this tack the more I like it. The idea of rejecting tyranny is cultural bedrock for americans. Make the connection between God as defined in all the monotheistic texts and tyranny (not a significant challenge, lets face it) and you've got a meme that has some serious legs.

God is a tyrant can't be said often enough.

630. Importing a slave class

Comment #44729 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 25, 2007 at 8:30 am

7. Comment #44698 by CJ22 on May 25, 2007 at 7:34 am

"We fought a civil war to force Democrats to give up on slavery 150 years ago."

wtf??

Actually ... technically correct. Lincoln was a republican, and Jefferson Davis was a Democrat.

That said, a lot has changed in the intervening 150 years and it's classic coulter. Technically true, but bullshit in principle. What a disingenous opportunist that woman is.

*shudder*

631. Comic in US 'hate speech' row

Comment #44714 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 25, 2007 at 8:05 am

I'm a big fan. You should check out the rest of his videos on youtube. He doesn't pull any punches, and it is absurd to call his comments "racist". Islam is not a race, it's a religion.

Anyone claiming this is racism is projecting their own prejudices onto Pats Comments. At the moment, amongst atheists on youtube, its "Bash Islam Week", so rather a lot of controversial stuff being said and done.

Check it out, join the conversation:-)

632. Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine

Comment #44644 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 25, 2007 at 6:13 am

Masterful satire, so subtle, that I imagine that some fundies will take this up. It's meme warfare:-) Seed an idea only marginally more ludicrous than many others already in circulation in the enemy camp, then watch them self destruct.

Lovely:-)

633. Angry atheists are hot authors

Comment #44478 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 24, 2007 at 11:01 pm

21. Comment #44475 by MelM on May 24, 2007 at 10:47 pm

And, if Falwell wasn't enough to make one angry, try Fred Phelps--actually, I think this video is hilarious: Jerry Falwell Split Hell Wide Open. (Select a player on the lower right.)

The conclusive and objective evidence ..... damn. That guy is some joke, and a graphic lesson of everything wrong with religion.

634. Angry atheists are hot authors

Comment #44473 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 24, 2007 at 10:32 pm

Therefore, 'richarddawkins.net' = 666. Can't any of you fools see it? We are all doomed. AAAARRRRGGGHHHHH!!!!!!! We'll all burn in hell forever! AAAAARRRRGGGHHHHH!

As it happens, it's looking increasingly likely that the number was 616.

Thus invalidating about 1500 years of occult numerology. Nice:-)

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44169

635. Angry atheists are hot authors

Comment #44465 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 24, 2007 at 9:56 pm

Truth be told, lots of folks just haven't thought about it that hard, and are more comfortable in saying "yeah, there is some sort of god" to explain what they don't know rather than saying "I don't know the answer to that".

Other than a fairly hard core minority this is absolutely the case. Atheism, simply hasn't been given enough profile as a genuine "option".

Myself and my wife just spent an interesting week helping a fellow previous missionary complete her deconversion.

She still has tremendous fear of hell, inculcated at a very young age, but she is working through that.

Conversations online and off, are what are going to change the world. Getting religion on the agenda and subject to vigorous debate is all that is needed for the change to begin to take.

On youtube we are having a "Bash Islam" week at the moment, generating lots of controversy. Come and have a look!!

636. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #44160 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 23, 2007 at 1:45 pm

And here's me thinking, this guy can't possibly find sources dumber and more biased than the shite he's already trotted out.

Well consider me corrected.

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.

I invite everyone to have a look, pick an article at random and let the vibrating lunacy wash over you.

You've outdone yourself this time chbg21808. Your rebuttals are invaluable as evidence of the wierd ideological holes you must dig in to find supporting "evidence" for your ... ah ... "position".

Keep up the good work, I hardly need do anything except invite people to read the links you've posted.

637. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #44132 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 23, 2007 at 11:19 am

There is a huge industry now behind AGW, scientific, business and political, that is now geared towards keeping the public convinced of the merits of AGW.

Yeah the money these climatologists earn is incredible. Thats why they do it. Say AGW it's true. Tens of thousands of scientists in hundreds of nations. For the money.

That just makes an amazing amount of sense, all the science is just a front.

Though (other than the money) it does make you wonder, why these scientists even bother, I mean, when some guy on a blog can just "debunk" them? Seems to me they've got the short end of the stick.

You do all the work, you put in the hours and the peer review process is working for you. Then along comes some guy, functionally a know nothing in your complex discipline, and "debunks" you. Thats got to suck.

But hey keep up the good work there!! Religions everywhere thank you for the invaluable contribution you are making to undermine public trust in mainstream science in particular, and the scientific method in general.

638. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #44082 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 23, 2007 at 9:36 am

240. Comment #44079 by Fedler on May 23, 2007 at 9:29 am

Thanks Fedler. I appreciate the vote of confidence:-)

639. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #44054 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 23, 2007 at 8:25 am

Brian, you are also the numpty who will continue debating just to make sure that no solution is put in place unless it is in accordance with your precise viewpoint.

I think the video speaks for itself on this point. To clarify, I'll take what I can get, but "it's not happening", "it's happening but we can't do anything about it" or "lets hope for the best" are positions that I justifiably hold in contempt, yes.

640. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #44048 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 23, 2007 at 8:21 am

Majority rules right!

As regards the majority view in a specific scientific discipline, yes, for bizarre and completely unaccountable reasons, this is what people tend to put their "faith" in. Crazy I know!

New Scientist is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Oh dear. The papers are linked from the article.

*sighs*

641. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #44034 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 23, 2007 at 7:59 am

I think chbg21808 has done well in showing that humans are not the ONLY cause (especially the bit about the sun burning brighter. That's a no-brainer.). Brian, I also think you have done well in reminding us of the view of the scientific community.

No. This is just another dusty, poorly supported debunked point. It sounds like a no brainer, and I suppose it is but not the way you mean. Given my recent reading this was immediatley obvious to me, and I have the peer reviewed science to hand.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650

So why do the guys keep tiresomely bringing up the same debunked points? There really is little difference between this asocial behaviour and for example a creationist claiming "there are no transitional fossils". Both points roundly debunked, but they bobble endlessly to the top of the discussion like a turd in a swimming pool.

Slartibartfast appreciate your comments.

Fedler, we should at a minimum all be taking modest sensible action, which I detail at the end of video. It is asocial and irresponsible to simply ignore an entire science community.

I really am done with this, but for a final "low heat" flame.

There is something hilariously unselfconscious about one atheist tagging another atheist as "religious" because they are skeptical about a position very poorly supported by the relevant scientific community.

I'm the fucking skeptic.

642. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #43749 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 22, 2007 at 12:25 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):

I don't believe I ever mentioned links to exxon, not in this entire thread. I did however claim Ball was a fraud. The post below, in response to the blog article I referenced, covers it.

The guy says he's a professor in climatology. He's not. He's a professor of geography. The guy says he's been a professor for 28 years. He hasn't been. He's been a professor of geography for 8 years and is already retired.

The guy misleads and says he got a PhD in London. He neglects to say it's a PhD in philosophy and instead calls it a PhD in Science. The guy has never published a paper in scholarly peer reviewed journals on what is essentially global warming.

The guy's whole argument centers upon him being an expert in the field. He's not. He was never really in the field. That's not an ad hominem attack. It's the substance of his argument. He says look at me, I'm a world leading expert on climatology. Therefore listen to me when I say global warming is political and not scientific. He's the one not giving substance. Therefore the argument goes to whether or not he's suited to make such claims. He is not. Pointing out someone is lying is not an ad hominem attack.

643. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #43735 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 22, 2007 at 11:43 am

217. Comment #43734 by kaiserkriss on May 22, 2007 at 11:41 am

My, my we are getting vicious children...

Well he started it. Oh wait ....

644. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #43731 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 22, 2007 at 11:32 am

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

There go those ad hominems again.

Come now. "You are a fat person" is an ad hominem because it has no bearing on knowledge of climate change.

"You are a fraud" when repeated instances of such have been documented may technically qualify as an ad hominem, but it is certainly relevant fact.

Fling around all the desperate accusations you like, but try and make them coherent at least:-)

Please don't bother responding. I've had enough, your faith in retired geographers, astrophysicists, Fox News hacks and (quite good) novelists is clearly unshakeable.

Yes I'm being a prick, but you're making it so easy, and frankly I've settled this discussion to my own satisfaction, now I'm just bored with it.

645. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #43723 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 22, 2007 at 11:07 am

So, now what are you saying... anyone who disagrees with AGW has pathological problems?

No ....

pathology
One entry found for pathology.


Main Entry: pa·thol·o·gy
Pronunciation: -jE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
Etymology: New Latin pathologia & Middle French pathologie, from Greek pathologia study of the emotions, from path- + -logia -logy
1 : the study of the essential nature of diseases and especially of the structural and functional changes produced by them
2 : something abnormal: a : the structural and functional deviations from the normal that constitute disease or characterize a particular disease b : deviation from propriety or from an assumed normal state of something nonliving or nonmaterial c : deviation giving rise to social ills

I use it in the sense of the 2nd option. Denial, in the very clear case of Steve Milloy for example, as a pathology of behaviour observable over decades on a range of different issues. CFC's, Asbestos and most recently global warming.

Come now, Tim Ball is truly scraping the bottom of the barrel. He is a completely discredited and tainted individual, a serial (is that easier to understand?) denier (CFC's and global warming) I happen to believe what I've read about him, because there are mutually reinforcing sources itemising his history, plus an ongoing court case as regards his academic claims.

It would the equivalent of using someone employed by Fox News as a representative for .... Oh wait, you've actually got that covered with Milloy. My bad.

I mean COME ON. These are the leading lights on AGW denial. Statement, not a question. Chaucerian frauds as Hitch would say:-)

I rarely reference blogs (something of a staple with you), but this was such a juicy attack I felt compelled.

http://www.desmogblog.com/dr-tim-ball-the-lie-that-just-wont-die

Look I understand. You're emotionally invested in this minority position, and it will take a lot to change your faith. I have trouble respecting a faith position, but thats me. Freaky science guy, looking to the scientists for my lead.

I will remain skeptical of your position along with the majority of the relevant science community.

And yes, I am just being an annoying asshole now, but then so are you. You're just not as good at it:-)

646. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #43699 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 22, 2007 at 10:17 am

209. Comment #43688 by chbg21808 on May 22, 2007 at 9:47 am

Oh come now that last post was almost pure hysteria, and apocalyptic visions of doom.

So logic, repeated rebuttal (oh you'll deny it no doubt) of the many (frequently rather dusty) points you raised is not enough?

The presentation of mutually reinforcing sources that show clear denial pathologies (or worse!) in most of the "experts" used to support your minority position, very few of whom are climatologists, just won't cut it?

You leave me no choice, but to reach for the Dickens.

"Surely there never was such fragile china-ware as that of which the millers of Coketown were made. Handle them never so lightly, and they fell to pieces with such ease that you might suspect them of having been flawed before. They were ruined, when they were required to send labouring children to school; they were ruined when inspectors were appointed to look into their works; they were ruined, when such inspectors considered it doubtful whether they were quite justified in chopping people up with their machinery; they were utterly undone, when it was hinted that perhaps they need not always make quite so much smoke."

Charles Dickens, Hard Times.

Same shit, different century.

647. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #43635 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 22, 2007 at 6:52 am

204. Comment #43625 by Quetzalcoatl on May 22, 2007 at 6:23 am

Apologies as this doesn't really relate to what's specifically being discussed, but have any of you (Brian in particular) read Michael Crichton's book State of Fear?

No, I must confess to having not read it. I have however read a number of articles fairly critical of it.

At the risk of flogging a dead horse into bloody strips, when a significant majority of the relevant scientific community are convinced by his work (or indeed anyone elses), then it might be worth while having a look. In the meantime, I have about a zillion other things I'd prefer to be doing then constantly reviewing debunked minority positions within the scientific community.

Nothing I have reviewed in this iteration of the argument has been compelling. I'm afraid I must remain .. ah ... skeptical of your minority claims.

And guys ... please Tim Ball!!

What I am increasingly hearing is that you guys are clear that global warming is happening and that it may possibly be caused by humans.

However, you have terrified yourselves with horror stories about economic meltdown if any attempt is made to do anything about it. This seems to be the mainspring of your resistance, a kind of economic "yellow peril" fear.

You guys need to take a step back, take a deep breath and get out of denial. Then objectivley inform yourselves about the options available to rebalance economic activity away from current inefficient energy usage.

A couple of you also need a smidgen of empathy, or failing that a little enlightened self interest. The people most affected by any impact, will be the poor in the developing world. Christ knows these people have enough reasons (both real and imagined) to hate the developed world, lets not provide a global "Irish Famine" class catastrophe for them to whine about as well.

648. The Paradoxical Hatred of Christopher Hitchens

Comment #43437 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 21, 2007 at 12:01 pm

Someone please remind me why the entire current US administration isn't in handcuffs at the Hague right now?

Because of the nation state. There is no global authority that can knock on your door and say "X has been accused of crimes, he must present himself for trial."

This is the way we do it within our cities, our states and within the EU. Time to kick it up a level. Anyone in authority involved in a war should be tried afterward by the global community. If they refuse to present themselves for trial, they should have sanctions applied relentlessly on their private person.

Apply that fairly for 20 years and you'd see a sharp drop off in war. The real hypocrisy is we already do this, but only to everyone else. Yet someone will be along shortly to say it's naive, and impossible and can't be done. Oh poppycock I say, fiddlesticks.

If Bush and Blair went down, it would be a pivotal moment in global history.

649. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #43436 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 21, 2007 at 11:48 am

Of course the climate changes... Nobody has denied that it does. The planets temperature has never been static, the argument has never been, is global warming happening? (remember the global cooling scare stories in the 70's) - the argument is... is it man-made and is it harmful? - On both counts I am skeptical. Global warming and cooling are perfectly normal.

Yes ... that is true. Of course all previous periods of warming and cooling occurred without the assistance of 6.5 Billion humans, or about 3.3 billion flatulent, domesticated herd animals.

The idea that we (and they) are having little or no effect is the real religion, such touching faith in the planets capacity to cope, and in the teeth of the relevant scientific community! Jerry Falwell would be proud.

650. Scientists Draw Link Between Morality And Brain's Wiring

Comment #43433 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 21, 2007 at 11:39 am

41. Comment #43427 by Henri Bergson on May 21, 2007 at 11:18 am

Sorry if I sound arrogant, but the argument I make (and it is not mine) is important and seldomly addressed. Possibly because it is not understood.


Henry, I think we probably have a good grasp of the argument, it's something of a Christian staple.

It goes a bit like this. Without a foundational moral bedrock, a lawgiver, a platonic perfect moral guide, who can argue that what we subjectivley refer to as good and bad are in fact objectively good and bad. Feel free to correct me if thats not it.