651. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41300 by scooternyc on May 15, 2007 at 8:29 pm

Go celebrate Jerry's death, find a great guy and have some amazing gay sex!

Don't knock it 'til you try Jer!

652. The Official Infidel Guy Podcast Page

Comment #40843 by scooternyc on May 15, 2007 at 4:55 am

I help sponser with a $10 donation every month and encourage you to consider it.

He has a bunch of excellent podcasts with John Armstrong, Barbara Forrester, church/state issues, and others. It's a great show and Reg is doing a great job, I hope it continues.

Cheers!

653. Why Christopher Hitchens is not Great

Comment #40833 by scooternyc on May 15, 2007 at 4:32 am

These are some good sites to refute this trash writing that does happen regarding Hitchens and others, about their stupid bible(which I agree, most have probably never read).

www.godisimaginary.com

www.godvsthebible.com

If anyone knows of other good ones, I'm always wanting to add to good research.

Did anyone watch the Panorama special on scientology?

654. She's No Fundamentalist: What people get wrong about Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Comment #40193 by scooternyc on May 13, 2007 at 6:23 pm

It will be said, if not now, it will be then, when our nation in the United States is hit once again by another large terrorism act, that the media on all fronts will have been complicit in this detrimental and tragic event.

The flippant nature by which reporters, who have taken it upon themselves to self-assign the job of editorializing, creates such inflammatory rhetoric by which our enemies and politicians will and have, used at our expense for the advance of themselves.

It's tragic. It's disgusting.

655. Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens

Comment #39921 by scooternyc on May 12, 2007 at 9:39 am

How is it that the beleaguered Sharpton KNOWS ANYTHING OF GOD, it's thoughts, desires, creation, etc. if NOT to have read the bible?

How does he know that a god even exists outside of his bible teaching? It makes no sense.

You know god exists because you read it in a bible. How else would you have developed the idea that a god even EXISTS? Did you create this idea on your own Mr. Shaprton? If so, based on what?

If you developed the idea that god exists from reading the bible, the bible is the authentication, from the religious, of god's existence. Therefore the bible IS the endorsement and credential of god, which demands a subjective opinion of god, which Hitchens states: IS NOT GREAT. Hitchens then lays out WHY god is not great, endorsed by the bible rooted in the credentials of its writings.

"I'm in the wrong debate…" truer words were never spoken by Mr. Sharpton.

656. Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens

Comment #39917 by scooternyc on May 12, 2007 at 9:32 am

This rhetoric about God's existence has nothing to do with religion, is absurd.

Is it NOT the premise of god's existence rooted in the BIBLE?

How else are we to KNOW that god exists unless it was through such writings?

Do the religious NOT speak of knowing god's mind THROUGH the bible's writings?

If so, then is that NOT how the religious prove god's existence? He inspired the bible.

Is Sharpton then hypothesizing that god exists outside of the bible?

If so, then why quote the bible - EVER.

If so, how is it that the beleaguered Sharpton KNOWS ANYTHING OF GOD, it's thoughts, desires, creation, etc. if NOT to have read the bible?

His debating skills are all over the map with no direction, just emotional rhetoric rooted in victimization, embellished by racism.

Now this:

Anything of a "personal experience" is not proof of anything; it is a statement of OPINION not a FACT. If an OPINION is proven to be true then it's no longer OPINION it becomes a FACT.


Personal Experience is SUBJECTIVE OPINION rooted in one's own humanity and not on anything of factual evidence to such existence except within the person of claim's own mind.

657. The Debate: Can We Live by Reason Alone?

Comment #39910 by scooternyc on May 12, 2007 at 9:00 am

This was a fun website that I'd been using before I stumbled onto Richard and this site:

http://godisimaginary.com/

Great stuff to toss those "open your mind - break the spell" molotov cocktails on other sites! : )

658. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39476 by scooternyc on May 10, 2007 at 8:20 pm

Oh, wow, I thought this was a MadTV skit.

659. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton: A Debate God Is Not Great

Comment #38678 by scooternyc on May 8, 2007 at 11:26 pm

I had the fortunate pleasure of attending last night, meeting Mr. Hithcens and having the book signed I purchased.

Hitchens smacked Sharpton down like the bitch for jesus he is; Sharpton was no match for the intellectually superior Hitchens; when pressed to provide evidence for the existence of god, Sharpton dodged the question. Sharpton kept saying, "my experience" and such, thus taking the entire subject out of the arena of debate and into some metaphysical mumbo jumbo.

It was well worth it, tickets were a mere $15 each.

I felt like I had the chance to meet one of the most intelligent and scholarly men of our time, it was an honor, indeed.

Cheers!

660. Richard Dawkins on Canada AM

Comment #38405 by scooternyc on May 8, 2007 at 2:58 am

"Agreed! If you're going to do an interview in which you debate the author or challenge the author, you should actually know what his friggen thesis is"

So, true. This evening I attended the debate between Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton. It was quite clear that Sharpton had not read the book from Hitchens; had no grasp of the subject beyond his "personal experience" threw stupid questions and comments at Hitchens to imply Christopher wasn't addressing Sharpton's position and finally, when asked the question, "where is your evidence of this god existing?" Sharpton had no definitive answer.

Much like O'Reilly and others they don't want serious debate because they have no substance on which to stand. All the same arguments I've been hearing for months with Dawkins, Harris and Dennette, were regurgitated tonight, it's like the religious talking points.

Atheists make no supernatural claims, religious people do - the nature of debate is: you provide a premise then defend that premise using whatever is deemed appropriate. Religion has nothing but itself to rely on, self-authentication, therefore it cannot hold a reasonable debate.

The question, had there been more time, I would have asked Sharpton, "Where or how did you come to know that god existed? Where is your evidence to such a claim?".

Cheers.

661. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38224 by scooternyc on May 7, 2007 at 9:03 am

The idea that those who are religious do more charity work sounds so shallow and stupid. You mean these people wouldn't do something that was good toward their fellow citizen were it not for some god or religion to tell them to do so?

Could that behavior be any LESS religious, charitable or pious?

All the arguments are stupid to engage in, unless a religious person who makes the claim/hypothesis that god exists is able to present empirical evidence then they should be revealed for the sham that they are.

It should be our only response…repeatedly. "Where's your evidence?" No evidence? No discussion.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence – Victor Stenger, The God Hypothesis

662. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38218 by scooternyc on May 7, 2007 at 8:52 am

I find the implication of there being a "debate" so absurd it's laughable. There is no debate when you challenge the religious of our world with providing scientific evidence to their claims.

In all other areas of our world and our lives we expect the scientific method to provide us with the strongest foundation for proving of hypothesis which have created more comfort throughout the years based on these proved theories, which create products, cure illness, conserve resources, etc.

To make the claim that god exists or that the bible is the word of god is nothing more than fiction as we all know, until the accusers bring forth their evidence of fact to such a claim.

My answer to any person these days who brings up this so-called "new religion of atheism" is simply: " you have no proof of your claim, otherwise you would have presented it; the time of conscious raising is at hand and religion's time has come for extinction".

People want to continue to argue for which I simply reiterate, "Where's your proof?" A book that authenticates itself is not proof. Ignorance of science on your part in understanding the world, in which we live, is not proof. Your "personal experience is not proof.

God is a placebo – filled with nothing with nothing to offer.


Cheers!

663. Interview with Pierre Rehov

Comment #37978 by scooternyc on May 6, 2007 at 2:46 pm

"brainwashing"

This was the most honest and powerful thing he could have said.

As is all religion - brainwashing.

664. Science and fiction

Comment #37392 by scooternyc on May 4, 2007 at 11:20 am

I don't remember which intellectual said it recently but I hear it every time I read something like this artilce;


we are making our children stupid in science for which they will be unable to progress in the world and evolve new medicines, new technology, new ideas, more efficient ways of living in our society through conservation, etc. if we keep trying to stop proven scientific methods of research and continue to push this fairytale of some guy, born of a virgin, who floated to the sky after having died 3 days earlier.

I find it interesting that Bill O'Reilly and some of his ilk dislike the idea of secular progressives - given his narrow definition of the terminology. Yet, it is secular progressives that have helped move this world to a place where Mr. O and his gang are able to live freely, speak out, and not have their individual rights to freedom acquiesced by a king.

Depsite Mr. O's contentions, our country was founded by those who believed in the Rule of Law, not the rule of god. Perhaps some did believe in god, they just didn't think our country's governing documents should reflect that belief.

665. Republican candidates range from ignorant to dishonest

Comment #37388 by scooternyc on May 4, 2007 at 11:11 am

McCain's double-speak isn't a good sign.

3 actually said no; astoundingly stupid, but I'm glad they revealed themselves.

I'm saying this now, as I mentioned on other blogs before the 2006 Elections, if BOTH parties don't get off their sanctimonious-soapbox of self-righteousness they are going to continue to push voters away.

Rudy so far seems to be the one I would most favor; I'm not liking the "pro-life" attitude but I'm not sure he's so far to the right on it, either.

All the others seek to turn the U.S. into a theocracy.

666. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36451 by scooternyc on May 1, 2007 at 7:09 am

If I were to fabricate a religion to endure all the tests of time, it would include all of the following:

1. God cannot be evidenced through rational means. This will ensure that any rational argument is null and void.

2. God and man's consciousness transcend the material world. This will ensure that no scientific experiment can negate the existence of God.

3. Man will only know God if he truly asks from his soul to believe. So, it is each man's fault if they do not know God.

4. God is the sole creator and precedes all that is empirically known now and in the future. Any advancement in science will not negate God's existence, as God will precede anything that is proven.

5. Man's existence transcends this life. All future lives are affected by man's performance in this life. This way, religion can continue to control and affect the lives of men through a moral structure.

6. Faith does not require evidence and is the ultimate prerequisite for a moral life and a pleasant afterlife. Just adhere to this religion or else.

7. God is beyond the realm of man's understanding but you still must believe in God. So believe even though you have no way to understand why.

A belief in God is not required in order to value or believe in the following:

1. The power of sound and light

2. The beauty and power of nature

3. The awe of this universe and the possible multiverse

4. The existence of a collective consciousness

5. The power of the mind

6. There is much to this world which is unfathomable and presently unknowable

7. The Golden Rule

8. Social contracts

9. Life

667. Are You There, God? It's Me, Hitchens

Comment #36306 by scooternyc on April 30, 2007 at 9:51 pm

Hitchens is one of THE most intelligent men of our time. His ability to speak eloquently on subjects, regardless of political sides, make him all the more reasonable and higher integrity than any counterparts.

When one only espouses their party's politics and isn't thinking through issues aside from the "game" then they shouldn't be considered for reasonable debate or discussion.

Hitchens has made that fashionable without even knowing it.

668. Pundit Christopher Hitchens picks a fight in book, 'God is Not Great'

Comment #35875 by scooternyc on April 29, 2007 at 7:08 am

Books like this need to be written so the message continues to get louder and louder to the religious of this world:

Your scam is a sham and we're on to your game.

669. Stephen Colbert Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #35476 by scooternyc on April 27, 2007 at 9:40 am

Richard truly is a brilliant man and he's very funny, too.

Who did god? Hilarious!

670. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35327 by scooternyc on April 26, 2007 at 9:50 pm

I was raised catholic, not because I wanted to but because I was indoctrinated by my parents - no choice at that time in my life.

I will say now, I have no belief in any of this bullshit. Further, that if this jesus dude died for everyone's sins, then aren't people free to do their own thing now without remorse?

That's all we were told growing up time and again, jesus died for your sins, I thought, well shit, I might as well go out and eat, drink and be Mary since someone's already taken the fall for all my stuff to come.

It's so stupid. I'm not a Bill M. fan but he does make some interesting points; but unfortunately he shouldn't be the one debating someone like Joe, you need someone more articulate like Richard, Sam, Daniel or Christopher.

BTW - not a Rosie O. fan either, but her comment about radical christianity being just as bad as radical islam - is a very good point to throw into the debate of public opinions, it's worth talking about.

Cheers!

671. The Video: Bill O'Reilly Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34470 by scooternyc on April 24, 2007 at 6:58 am

DreaMasteR, Congratulations on your find and discovery. Check out Christopher Hitchens if you haven't already.

Regarding your posts: wise words from a young mind. It's a reminder to us to be humble and more fluid in our ideas and accepting of counter-ideas. Thanks for the post, indeed, appreciated.

Cheers!

672. One Hell of a Religious Read

Comment #34463 by scooternyc on April 24, 2007 at 6:27 am

Dax and some others who are on the fence about Hitchens, I would recommend and challenge you to research, even through a Google search of videos, and listen to him speak about the many issues for which you may have doubt.

Then do your own research, as I have, and see these things for yourself. For instance, one factoid he revealed was that there was a law on the books, created in October 1997 – Public Law 105-338, had I not researched him and then the law, certainly I would have remained ignorant to the facts.

Hitchens is not prone to side with either party, if you read and listen to him long enough, you'll realize that he's more about being responsible than anything else; making choices and being accountable for those choices.

He, himself, will take responsibility for his views on the war and enumerate the many FACTS as to why, not just some anti-war opinion. He doesn't stop there though; he criticizes the ups and downs of how it was handled, etc.

Don't dismiss Hitchens because you think he's too far left or too far right; he has so much more to offer and is really one of the more responsible and reasonable voices of this time.

If you haven't read any of his other books, I highly recommend The Missionary Position (I just finished it); Thomas Jefferson: Author of America; The Long Short War, all very good books. Also check out his website with his articles, great stuff. The man knows his facts and isn't just speaking rhetoric.

http://www.hitchensweb.com/


Cheers!

673. The Video: Bill O'Reilly Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34328 by scooternyc on April 23, 2007 at 8:11 pm

O'Reilly is a fraud. He's a coward of the worst type.

He interrupted Richard on every question before Richard had an opportunity to explain his answer fully or even elaborate. Bill typically does this along with throwing in stupid side arguments like he did about our Founding Fathers, etc.

The Declaration of Independence mentions the secular term, Creator, not god. Thankfully, the Constitution, our governing document, doesn't mention either.

This is O'Reilly's M.O. whenever anyone of Richard's intellect is on his show, he just tries to shut them up or shut them down by interrupting, blah, blah, blah.

If he really wanted a decent discussion he would've allotted more time and not interrupted Richard as often as he did.

Bill knows that his arguments are weak, at best. Anyone who says, "I have a personal experience" is no longer looking at evidence to fact. Fortunately Richard was able to say, yes, that's fine but it doesn't make it true, but could get no further.

A year ago May 2006, (May 9th I believe), Bill states on his show in response to a letter written to him that he doesn't interrupt guests if they are telling the truth; then tonight he admits that the whole Jesus thing, is HIS truth.

Therefore, what he meant last year was that he won't interrupt anyone who agrees with him (his truth) but his behavior towards those that do oppose him (perhaps factual evidence) will be to bully them, shut them up, talk over them, interrupt them or start yelling.

It's pathetic but Richard did with it what he could.

O'Reilly does make some good points on his show now and then, I've enjoyed certain editorials regarding various stories in our world, but his behavior so often gets the "override" from his distortions of life.

Just because you don't understand evolution Bill doesn't mean it didn't happen, science has plenty to say about it; plenty of evidence and if you read/listen to Massimo Pigliucci you would know that science has even created experiments by which to re-create evolution based on its theories.

674. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34222 by scooternyc on April 23, 2007 at 2:32 pm

"which he termed a mere "hypothesis."

It's ALL a hypothesis.

"We cannot know with certainty what will happen"

This is true about ALL religion.

675. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #33466 by scooternyc on April 20, 2007 at 8:47 am

You know the difference between you, Dinesh D'Souza and the rest of your god-fearing types and the atheist you attempt to insult and demean?

Atheists don't need to go around bragging about their non-belief. Atheists don't need to flaunt their compassion. Atheists don't need to flaunt their generosity of spirit towards others.

We just live our lives as we know how.

You and your god fearing types can't shut up about how great you are; anyone that has to put that much energy into telling everyone how great they are, must not be that great.

676. Dinesh D'Souza says I don't exist: an atheist at Virginia Tech

Comment #33359 by scooternyc on April 20, 2007 at 12:21 am

Professor,

Your message inspires, thank you.

This is a tragedy, a tragedy for the loss of potential of each and every victim for which words do not comfort; only the solace of time will heal this scar.

Our moments with one another are indeed fleeting, placing your desire of where to spend those moments becomes even more important as you move past this tragedy.

We support your struggle now, followed by your triumph later.

677. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #33355 by scooternyc on April 20, 2007 at 12:02 am

Perhaps the same delusions that Dinesh D'Souza seems to believe about god are the very ones that kept him and his cronies delude into thinking that Cho was really getting better, especially off his meds and would never kill anyone.

Well, now we have evidence about both subjects don't we.

678. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #31080 by scooternyc on April 10, 2007 at 11:05 pm

Shrommer #102 Comment.

I've got some "Good News" for you - GOD IS A PLACEBO. CONGRATS FOR SWALLOWING THAT PILL.

679. Prophets of the new atheism

Comment #30536 by scooternyc on April 8, 2007 at 1:13 pm

"Yes, atheism begins with a faith, namely that only material and physical (not spiritual) causes make the world run."

Please, enlighten us with the evidence to fact that you have which a spiritual characteristic to life, does indeed, exist.

We'll be waiting.

"2006 Baylor University polling data..."

I'm willing to bet that those who do believe in god are those who see life acting on them; a sense of entitlement; victims to life and victims of others behavior; lack of choice; inability to take responsibility and accountability for personal choices in life; delegation of morality toward someone or something other than the self.

"racked by despair at life's apparent meaninglessness"

If David believes this statement, and it would be true to presume based on his writing and revealing of such thoughts, then we glimpse the delegation of character to someone other than self. This makes my previous statements above with reference to assigning life to someone other the self, spot on!

Richard said it best, "The Universe doesn't owe you any meaning"

680. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30535 by scooternyc on April 8, 2007 at 12:59 pm

"…those they see as too weak-minded to give up faith in God"

Not seen as weak, but as those who feel an entitlement to delegate personal responsibility toward a god for the lousy choices made in life;

For the neglect of personal accountability;

For the self-righteousness espoused from the proverbial soapbox in which they advocate morality based on their bible, which seeks to discriminate subterfuged in piousness;

Finalized in their arrogance of thinking that simply their "belief" in something for which no evidence exists, buys them a ticket into the fantasy of heaven and places them above all others who do not spew such vitriol laced in fraudulent prose;

No, not as weak-minded, just revealed as the sham that they are in life.

681. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30352 by scooternyc on April 7, 2007 at 7:11 pm

"devoutly that Jesus died and rose, thus redeeming a fallen world from sin."

So, I don't get it, did he die for the sins prior to his coming or for the sins that happen after he was here, or both?

In any of those cases, at this point then it shouldn't matter what we all do or say, he took one for the team and we all have a free pass for enternity!

Eat, drink, have sex and be "mary" if you want!

682. The Most Hated Family in America

Comment #30019 by scooternyc on April 6, 2007 at 8:25 am

Phelps is a nutcase.

TheInfidelguy.com had an interview with one of the nutters awhile back, check out his website, he's a huge supporter of Richard Dawkins and others; has some terrific interviews with Barbara Forrester and others avaiable for your ipod(which is what I love to listen to while on the subway here in NY).

Cheers!

http://www.infidelguy.com/

683. The God Debate

Comment #29133 by scooternyc on April 1, 2007 at 7:41 pm

I see the fingerprints of God everywhere

While I read and then listened to the exchange(for inflections), this initial statement stops the conversation in rationality and reason on the spot. This man has no proof other than his own subjective opinion of what he thinks god is, he has no evidence to fact to produce any rational argument.

Stenger said, "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence".

A little boy wanted a bike and asked his mother, she told him to pray and ask god. He went into his room, sat down and started writing to god. "Dear God, if I'm good for one week…" realizing that this was an impossible task at 8 years old, he begins again. "Dear God, if I'm good for 24 hours". Again the task is too improbable.

He gets up and goes to the garden where he sees the statue of the Virgin Mary in his home's fountain. He grabs it, wraps it in a blanket, runs to his room and throws it in the back of the closet.

"Dear God, if you ever want to see your mother again…."

684. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28882 by scooternyc on March 31, 2007 at 1:05 pm

ad-hominem instead of rational debate.

Your mind has walked off the map.

Good for you.

685. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28819 by scooternyc on March 31, 2007 at 4:26 am

It occurs to me that this debate seems to be about GW and if it exists. Yes, it exists. So what?

The problem EVERYONE is having is really proving WHETHER OR NOT IT IS MAN MADE, the level of contribution humans are providing, thereby lending itself to solutions on how best to manage it.

Again, it's responsible to conserve our resources and energies; it's responsible to find alternatives as our science and technology increases; it's responsible for each person to hold him/herself accountable for the manner in which they consume goods and resources efficiently.

It is NOT, however, responsible to start blaming mankind for something that still appears to be unknown to us as to how much, for how long, to what degree mankind has been the "culprit".

With just the simple information presented that the greatest warming in the last century was between 1920's-1940's(low industrial progress) and a cooling during 1940's to 1970's,(high industrial process)then, I'm sorry, along with counter-data to the "alarmists" is still worth holding back final analysis.

AND NO ONE answered to the questions regarding the data and scientists who oppose this idea of blaming mankind.

What criteria are we holding these people toward? To whom are we saying is discredited and why? What data are we not considering because of a decision to look at other data? What is the criteria for that?

NO ONE has answered these questions, expert or otherwise. Even if you were to answer it, the answers you provide are strictly subjective, which science is not interested in.

686. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28708 by scooternyc on March 30, 2007 at 12:53 pm

It's like the man who stabs himself in the head with a knife. The hysteria crowd is screaming to remove it without regard to consquences of the variables which might very well kill the man. We shouldn't rush to judge this issue with some much still unknown.

687. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28702 by scooternyc on March 30, 2007 at 12:38 pm

What questions have I not answered?

1) Is your position that we should do nothing?
2) If yes, when should we do something?
3) Why do you not research Intelligent Design and UFO's as completely as GW, or perhaps you do?
4) What action that is being suggested to combat GW are you most fearful of, and why?"

1) Comment #28631 by scooternyc on March 30, 2007 at 7:32 am
2) Comment #28631 by scooternyc on March 30, 2007 at 7:32 am
3) Comment #28626 by scooternyc on March 30, 2007 at 7:09 am
4) All of it.

The fact remains that the variables are too vast and different to be able to make an educated decision at this point. I've stated succinctly that we should be more conservative in our use of the earth on all fronts but what we should not be doing is sounding the alarm of Armageddon from people like Al Gore and others whose agendas may not be in the best interest of our world.



I approach this subject in no less of a manner to which I apply the same criteria for understanding all science: when it is incontrovertible and undeniable, then we should start looking at ramping up, but that is not the case at this point. It's not irrational to hold science to that precept, we do it all the time. Do you assimilate that Evolution is incontrovertible at this point? I would say you do, as I do. Case closed on religion.

I'm applying the same criterion for GW, when it's a done deal, I'm on board.

688. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28678 by scooternyc on March 30, 2007 at 11:10 am

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus" - Christopher Hitchens, Hart House, University of Toronto

689. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28631 by scooternyc on March 30, 2007 at 7:32 am

In no way am I imparting that science is a "belief" system, it is not. Science proves factual theories based on evidence. I have no shares in it being otherwise.

Simply because I don't agree with what's going on right now doesn't mean I'm not concerned.

Should we be creating alternatives means of energy to have less reliance on foreign oil? Certainly. Two very important precepts are accomplished in taking such action. Creating independence (something America was founded on and you'd think we'd get it by now the usefulness of the idea) and cleaner means of energy.

Would it not be in our best interest to form new products by which we are more conscious of the environment when it comes to consumer goods? Absolutely.

However, in this quest are we to deny, for instance, Third World Countries who wish to evolve to a higher level of living standard then they are experiencing today? No we should not.

A great example of this back/forth concept and how we jump in feet first, was revealed in the notion of Organic food. When confronted with the question of whether or not Organic food was BETTER for you, Catherine DiMateo of the Organic Trade Association had this to say about the bacteria issue: "It's just as nutritious as any other product". When pressed about Organic food being MORE nutritious she once again dodges the question: "It is as nutritious as any other product on the market".

My point - look at all the years and the continued adherence to Organic food as though it will save the earth and yet even the OTA can't make the claim that it's BETTER for you or even BETTER for the environment based on the fact that they can't grow it without some form or residuals of pesticides.

It just makes sense to pull back this snowball of what appears like hysteria to be able to ask, what are we doing now, where is the science leading us, let's look at BOTH sides before we move in a direction that once done, will take decades to undo.

690. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28626 by scooternyc on March 30, 2007 at 7:09 am

Modern climate history:

1850 to 1940: warming, especially between 1920 and 1940
1940 to 1975: cooling trend
1976 to 1978: sudden warming spurt
1979 to present: a large disparity between surface thermometers, which show a fairly strong warming, and the independent temperature readings of satellites and balloons, which show little warming trend.


"A wealth of other evidence has emerged since 1984, however, corroborating Dansgaarg and Oescher's natural 1,500-year climate cycle:

An ice core from the Antarctic's Vostok Glacier – at the other end of the world from Iceland – was brought up in 1987 and showed the same 1,500-year climate cycle throughout its 400,000 – year length.

The ice-core findings correlate with known advances and retreats in the glaciers of the Arctic, Europe, Asia, North America, Latin America, New Zealand, and the Antarctic.

The 1,500-year cycle has been revealed in seabed sediment cores brought up from the floors of such far-flung waters as North Atlantic Ocean and the Sargasso Sea, the South Atlantic Ocean and the Arabian Sea.

Cave stalagmites from Ireland and Germany in the Northern Hemisphere to South Africa and New Zealand in the Southern Hemisphere show evidence of the Modern Warming, the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warming, the Dark Ages, the Roman Warming, and the unnamed cold period before the Roman Warming.

Fossilized pollen from across North America shows nine complete reorganizations of our trees and plants in the last 13,000 years, or one every
1,650 years.

In both Europe and South America, archaeologists have evidence that prehistoric humans moved their homes and farms up mountainsides during the warming centuries and retreated back down during the cold ones."

Fred Singer and Dennis Avery.


So, here I'm just getting started with information that seems logical, forthright in its ideas and evidence. Once read, does it sound like I'm not taking the matter seriously? Does it appear from reading this excerpt from Singer/Avery that they don't know what they're talking about at all? Is this evidence they present discredited?

691. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28579 by scooternyc on March 30, 2007 at 12:49 am

To your previous question, yes I am currently reading Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years. These scientists are just as credible as those that say things aren't warming. Are they not? If not, why not? What's the barometer for such a decision?

692. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28578 by scooternyc on March 30, 2007 at 12:48 am

"1) Is your position that we should do nothing?
2) If yes, when should we do something?
3) Why do you not research Intelligent Design and UFO's as completely as GW, or perhaps you do?
4) What action that is being suggested to combat GW are you most fearful of, and why?"

While I can appreciate these questions, my answering them does nothing to further the debate.

If we do not establish which scientists we are going to accept data from? Which evidence are we going to draw conclusions from? Which models are we going to glean potentials from? What criterion a scientist is being discredited? What criteria is evidence being discredited? Then what's the point of the debate? Do you not need such precepts before any debate or discussion can be had?

Much of this "predicting" is like predicting what a stock will do in 20 years. Sure, if I factor in certain variables I will net certain results. The problem is you can't factor in ALL variables or even ENOUGH variables to make the prediction valid. Is this not what Michael Crichton said? Do we think Michael is insane then, as well? Who else with reasonable voice in media, science, literature, etc. should we silence on this subject?

Do you honestly believe that weather predictions can be made from such an unreliable source as Mother Nature?

What about all the predictions from past decades about weather? Had we taken the Little Ice Age Is Coming from the 70's what might that have caused/cost us?

These are not irrational questions. The sky is falling attitude is.

693. Dawkins says religion is 'like sucking a dummy'

Comment #28493 by scooternyc on March 29, 2007 at 11:44 am

The nature of a person stating that his/her goodness comes from their religion is ignoble in his/her pursuit. Seeking the good graces of god by doing something, not to benefit others, but to seek validation from on high, which, in and of itself is either hypocrisy, as the person is stating without religion they would not do good, or he/she is fraud of the lowest kind using religion and god inpotentia of something for which they have no idea exists - paradise.

That's quite a lottery to be betting one's life on.

694. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28490 by scooternyc on March 29, 2007 at 11:36 am

WilliamP

So how does your comment specifically contribute to this dialogue? I don't wish to rehash Iraq, but I want to be clear about your assertions.

695. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28489 by scooternyc on March 29, 2007 at 11:33 am

"And I'm going to rely on the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community for my belief that global warming is a real threat."

Do you then believe all science should be decided by consenus? All medicine? All ideas relating to laws of the universe?

If not, what criterion do you eliminate those that you do?

Is anyone getting the relation of my questions to those that Richard Dawkins asks regarding religion?

The very words of his ideas relating to religion are easily related to this topic. Yet you are willing to believe a "consensus" rather than actual facts to have been proven.

Whose proven facts? Which scientists should we listen to and believe? Which evidence should we glean as perfected on this topic?

Ask yourself this question: am I reacting to scooternyc's questions and assertions in any manner that reflects the way the religious react when they feel like their ideas are being attacked, and perhaps discredited?

696. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28487 by scooternyc on March 29, 2007 at 11:28 am

"Guess how many people in my office were talking about global warming today. That's right, zero."

You wouldn't believe it were it not for your own eyes/ears since the media seems to throw hysteria-ridden headlines into their newsmedia source wherever it lays.

697. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28485 by scooternyc on March 29, 2007 at 11:25 am

briancoughlanworldcitizen


Forgive me; I didn't see a direct question to me so my apologies if I've overlooked it. I appreciate your articles of research and upon returning from work will read them diligently as I wish to be informed on both sides of this issue.

One aspect about Tim Ball that I found interesting, in contrast, it was said that those who oppose GW often don't get funding from government sources and end up doing research through private donation, in this case oil companies, perhaps others.

If shining the spotlight on oil companies is the only reason for discrediting a scientist, then should we discredit Gore for his interest in the "footprint" company he's created where he stands to make millions on this particular controversy? If that is a criterion, then where are the other scientists getting their funding from? Should we not investigate and consider they motives based on funding sources?

People often get angry with oil companies but fail to realize the many people who have their 401k funds, retirement investments, teacher's unions, labor unions, union investments from which individuals benefit, college funds for their kids; among other ideas, that are all benefiting from these investments by which to live the comfortable life they, now or will, enjoy.

An example of contradiction, which lends itself to suspicion, Barbra Streisand just announced her new album is going to have an "extra song" added to those who purchase their item from Barnes and Noble.

Many, in New York especially, spew vitriol toward B&N for their capitalistic ways in our world, seeking profits, seeking brand recognition everywhere, not giving back to the little guy; putting the small business out of business. YET, there she is benefiting and utilizing the VERY system that makes her rich. It's such hypocrisy.

You could say it's Sony making the decision, but Streisand doesn't have a say? Is she not responsible for the contracts she engages in and signs? Is she not the one who made the decision to be with Sony? Did she not have any other choices? How important is this issue to her?

It's interesting to see what people are doing; it speaks far much more than what they are actually saying.

My point in that example is what are the motives on the person; what are they doing and saying that is incongruent; are they accepting personal responsibility and being accountable for those choices; are they being transparent in their motives or are we allowing them to bring the veil of denial upon us because we have some feel-good-emotional fuzzy going on.

Again, I look at these motives and agendas behind the curtain because often times they reveal something about the "show" going on the stage. I'm not negating either side at this point, just watching the revealing of it all, which will speak more about the people, involved than the evidence itself.

698. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28470 by scooternyc on March 29, 2007 at 9:53 am

So here is an article refuting GW with a scientist of credential, does he not understand the problem just because his research doesn't agree with the "consensus"? Again, I don't want my science from consensus I want it from facts and if those facts on both sides need further investigation until something is found, so be it.

I DO want my politicians out of the mix, though. They should be nowhere until science has made the best possible hypothesis/solution oriented foundations solidified. We should ask for nothing less. We should expect nothing less.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

If we are discrediting scientists then what is the criteria for doing so? On what basis do we lend credential to those who agree or perhaps not agree with our own internal agenda?

699. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28467 by scooternyc on March 29, 2007 at 9:44 am

briancoughlanworldcitizen you make my point exactly when making reference as to what criteria do we make these decisions. I ask the same of those making the GW claims. How is it that some scientists say the ice cores are an indication of something and others say it's an indication of nothing?

I'm fine with these arguments, I want to see what comes of the evidence as it reveals itself, and I'm not willing to jump on the hysteria bandwagon until we have more information.

My position is nothing less than that of science itself and the models of its precepts. Theory. Evidence. Proof. Falsifiable. Done.

We're not at that point as of yet with regard to this subject. I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Yes, let's be cautious of our use of the world around us; yes, let's find alternatives where we can; but let's not create situations out of fear and hysteria - the very thing that religion does again and again, their hysteria is built on nothing! It should really give one pause.

I will give the article you posted a read, but I will have the questions in my mind: who are the writers of this article? What are their agendas? How do they stand to benefit? Where are they gathering their refuting data? How much do they know on their own and how much is delegated to others? How much have they read on the subject? What are their credentials? What are the credentials of those from whom they have taken their data to make the claims of refutation?

To blindly trust an article, book, review, show, etc. just because it supports our internal agenda isn't a basis for truth. As Richard often says, I care about the truth; about what is true.

700. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28453 by scooternyc on March 29, 2007 at 8:46 am

My apologies, I've been quoting the wrong authors of the book I'm reading and refer to in my posts on this issue.

Here is a link with an interesting synopsis:

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/01/30/20070130_150908_flash2.htm

Again, what will you say in 2 years or more when these catastrophes don't happen? What will we say then? What excuses will we make to justify the hysteria?

Certainly I admire and like the idea of recycling, finding new ways of utilizing energy (nuclear for example) and other ways of improving our use of consumer goods, but to jump on the religious bandwagon of political agendas regarding this issue is suspect at the very least.

I remember being in 5th grade and getting our Weekly Reader (I think that was the name of it) with the big scare of another ICE AGE is coming...it never happened. Yet, what hysteria.

Yes, we should all be considerate and conscious of our behavior in our use of that which is around us, but cautious of those whose political agenda is to create something from nothing to further themselves in the eyes of the voting public.

Lastly, someone mentioned the movie The Great Global Warming Swindle as being highly discredited. Fine. By whom. Why? What were they exactly discrediting? On what basis? What evidence did they have to make this claim of discredit?

I'm willing to look at evidence of fact, not opinion of evidence.

There is no opinon on evidence, it either is or is not a fact based on evidence.