1051. How Many Scientists?

Comment #29000 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 1, 2007 at 6:00 am

Anyone with a reasonably large forebrain ...

This I cannot let stand. The issue here is not about intelligence per se. Scooter is, as far as I can tell, articulate, informed and pretty intelligent. As are many people who beleive in gods.

This is something else, maybe emotional attachment, compartmentalisation, wishful thinking or self deception. Religion co-opts all of the above, but it's not the only institution that does it, and yes ... people on both sides of the GW debate succumb to it.

My point is, and has always been, not that Scooter or anyone else who denies GW are stupid, but that they are not allowing the consensus to sway them as much as they ought, and as much as they allow in dozens of other scientific disciplines.

When 90% of the worlds climatologists are sounding the alarm, it's time to talk action, not accuse them of conspiracy or groupthink.

1052. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #28980 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 1, 2007 at 2:29 am

Of course what Blackburn, Dawkins, yourself and others object to, is the God who will hold you to account for your own sin and will judge you accordingly. God has provided the means by which you can be forgiven and saved but you want none of it

Wow. Long post, which spends most of it's time building a house of cards upon which to base a reply.

Here is a response from my most recent reading :

For the generality of men nothing renders an argument more convincing than fear. In consequence of this fact, theologians tell us that the safest side must be taken; that nothing is more criminal than incredulity; that God will punish without mercy all those who have the temerity to doubt His existence; that His severity is just; since it is only madness or perversity which questions the existence of an angry monarch who revenges himself cruelly upon atheists.

If we examine these menaces calmly, we shall find that they assume always the thing in question. They must commence by proving to our satisfaction the existence of a God, before telling us that it is safer to believe, and that it is horrible to doubt or to deny it. Then they must prove that it is possible for a just God to punish men cruelly for having been in a state of madness, which prevented them from believing in the existence of a being whom their enlightened reason could not comprehend. In a word, they must prove that a God that is said to be full of equity, could punish beyond measure the invincible and necessary ignorance of man, caused by his relation to the divine essence.

Is not the theologians' manner of reasoning very singular? They create phantoms, they fill them with contradictions, and finally assure us that the safest way is not to doubt the existence of those phantoms, which they have themselves invented. By following out this method, there is no absurdity which it would not be safer to believe than not to believe.

All children are atheists—they have no idea of God; are they, then, criminal on account of this ignorance? At what age do they begin to be obliged to believe in God? It is, you say, at the age of reason. At what time does this age begin? Besides, if the most profound theologians lose themselves in the divine essence, which they boast of not comprehending, what ideas can common people have?—women, mechanics, and, in short, those who compose the mass of the human race?

Thank you Helian for introducing me to Jean Meslier, and GG, consider every square inch of your ass kicked.

1053. A History of Violence

Comment #28976 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 1, 2007 at 2:13 am

It is simply perverse to say that religion was a major cause of war in the twentieth century. Religion crosses national barriers it says that human beings are equal under God. As war is conducted between states is it not nationalist attitudes that are responsible for war? Too many people still think its got to be My country right or wrong?

Interesting thread. I agree with you CC, nationalism is a major problem. It falls under my "unreasoning dogma" umbrella. It is patent nonsense to maintain that you are superior merely because of an accident of geography and birth. Yet people do it all the time without thinking.

I've lived in ... let me see now ... 5 countries on 2 continents, and it has left me devoid of even a residual national impulse. Although,maybe I'm a bit too pro EU? Global Parliament, the sooner the better!!!

1054. A History of Violence

Comment #28974 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 1, 2007 at 2:00 am

Humans will use whatever they can to justify whatever they will. History has shown that people will continue to commit detestable acts, regardless of what they have at their moral disposure to justify them.

This is not an unfair comment. The critical difference is that no one, to my knowledge has ever slaughtered the infidel in the name of Atheism.

Religion, belongs under an umbrella with all the other 'ism's. Including certainly an Atheism that would suggest the genocide, mass incarceration or prohibition of the religious as a solution.

Although I do think it's disingenous to hold a purely human idea to the same standard as a system imbued with the breath of the Divine, the Almighty. Surely a "True" religion would exhibit a standard and behaviour that excels anything mere humans could devise? This is a standard piece of sophistry which always pisses me off I have to say.

Anyway I digress, the umbrella under which all this claptrap resides is unreasoning dogma. This comes with all the trappings of the religious impulse, true faith, heretics, pogroms and the like. Religion is just a subset of the larger problem, but it is a subset that is uniquely protected. Until we can call christians, muslims, hindus etc. on their bullshit as easily as we can neo-nazis, insane acts will continue to be justified in the name of religion.

1055. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28972 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 1, 2007 at 1:13 am

Solar Panels, either to generate electricity directly, or heat water or your home. That would indeed be a good deed. JCW

I'm keeping my eye on solar panels. However the current technology is too expensive, too buggy and chock full of stuff basically lethal to the environment. Home wind power isn't much better, expensive and buggy as well.

Still I agree that medium term, solar is a good way to go. However, we need more research, tax subsidies probably and massive promotion before home solar or wind can get off the ground.

That said, these guys have me very excited .... : http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/nanosolar_print.php

1056. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28969 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 1, 2007 at 1:04 am

One comment for brian-world-citizen : Instead of spending your money on a polluting wood burning stove.....

I was going to leave this alone, but you have impugned my honour sir!!! You have kindly illustrated why these kind of online debates, between poorly informed amatuers are dangerous.

http://www.nibe.com/stoves/produkter/braskaminer/contura660T.htm
http://www.nibe.com/stoves/pdf/IAV%20GB%20C%20600%20-%20611482.pdf
http://www.woodheat.org/

So you see. You spouted off without having access to any of the key variables. What kind of stove, what kind of fuel? What kind of house? How well insulated? Urban? Rural? Is someone available in the house fulltime? If this is the level of your "research" on this fairly simply subject, what are we to make of your comments on more complex disciplines? Alas this kind of shotgun debate is all too common.

Luckily I did research all of this stuff carefully before my purchase. I am secure in the knowledge that I am saving 6000 KwH a year while using a carbon neutral renewable (it's Sweden!!) energy source to heat the house. In five years it will have paid itself off, and I'll still be saving 6000 KwH a year. Smog? Nah ... Smug, and with good reason:-)

1057. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28842 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 31, 2007 at 7:59 am

OK Brian, you've managed to take this to such lengths that even I can't agree with you anymore, and I'm usually quite sympathetic to complaints about the US.

It merely further illustrates your good sense. There are statements in there I don't agree with either:-) I was just curious to see if what would and wouldn't be acceptable to Helian.

1058. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28828 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 31, 2007 at 5:29 am

if there were no difference between criticism, to which I have no objection, and slanted, hate-mongering propaganda.

I'm genuinely curious. Which of the following statements would you consider hate mongering.

1) The invasion of Iraq was in breach of international law.
2) George Bush went to war on a pretext in violation of international law and is thus a war criminal and should be arrested and tried.
3) The US position on the kyoto protocol and the environment generally is selfish and short sighted.
4) All americans are responsible equally for the disaster of Iraq.
5) Someone must be held accountable for the hundreds of thousands of dead in Iraq.
6) I hate George Bush because he is a right wing lunatic who has endangered the world, caused directly and indirectly the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and pitched millions more into hell on earth.

1059. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28823 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 31, 2007 at 4:56 am

Scooter your comments are just the opinion of a single random guy with no standing. The "trump" card of "experts that dissent" is endlessly played in the evolution debate, and I dismiss it as readily as I dismiss you. I'm sure you do much the same thing. Why there but not here? Sigh ....

I consider it grossly irresponsible of people like yourself and whathisname to wander round the internet pronouncing on subjects you have barely scratched the surface of, especially given your comments fly in the teeth of the prevailing scientific consensus. You might just as well tell us about your minority views on gravitons, particle physics or genetics. We should pay about as much notice.

It's great that you want to conserve the environment, but until you get a PhD in climatology, produce a raft of peer reviewed studies and convince at least 50% of your peers that the current understanding is wrong, I'd suggest, that on balance, you're not helping.

This is what annoys me about this debate, it is full to overflowing of people commenting about a complex subject that they manifestly have no formal expertise in. This started in the republican right wing with evolution, now it's spilled over into climatology and has infected otherwise intelligent people who aren't even republicans. We should be doing everything in our power to point out the incongruity, and pointlessness of this behaviour.

A rationalist doesn't get to pick and choose their science like a god botherer!! Thats exactly what you guys are doing, and it really pisses me off that you don't see it. Nuff said:-(

1060. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28808 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 31, 2007 at 3:13 am

Other than to point you out as a data point in support of my contentions regarding Dawkins' book, I have no further comment regarding your, no doubt, irrefutable remarks.

Well as long as you realise the error of your ways, embrace true atheism and renounce allegiance to America, we can let you off the hook with a short burning at the stake:-)

Nothwithstanding your peculiar views on the US and it's relationship with the rest of the world, that book you suggested really is a corker!!!

Half way through it now. Confirms many conclusions I'd drawn on my own, or run across in similar publications, but introduces a few radical thoughts I'd never come upon. He really was a genius.

1061. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28790 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 30, 2007 at 10:05 pm

When I see the incredible ideologically conditioned uniformity of negative propaganda about the US in the German media, countered only by a few little blogs and, occasionally, a token column in Spiegel or the FAZ, I can only thank my lucky stars that we have Foxnews, Rush Limbaugh, and powerful and influential blogs on the right in the US.

I must say that as a European who has lived in the UK, Germany, Ireland and Sweden, I find your assertions unsupportable.

Europeans are namby pamby when it comes to war, certainly. Been there, done that and it sucked. Since the Americans are almost the only developed world country resorting to war with regularity, and demonising anyone who disagrees with them (old Europe indeed) they come in for a lot of justifiable flack.

What else could a nation that spurns international law, sparking a conflagration that has killed a half million people expect? In Vietnam some 2 million where killed against 60K American soldiers. What are we to make of this, and a list of similar but less bloody conflicts in the last 40 years?

Calling the most violent, self absorbed, deluded bully in the schoolyard on their appalling behaviour and grandiose pretentions is not "oppression". The Americans are not the jews in this scenario, but they are fast becoming the Israelis.

1062. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28730 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 30, 2007 at 2:23 pm

Funny stuff Chesire Cat:-)

1063. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28728 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 30, 2007 at 2:20 pm

Since we are comparing "good deeds" I've recently spent €6,000 installing a wood burning stove (renewable resource) that knocks 6000 KwH off the annual electricity bill:-)

I'm disappointed. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Of all the places where I would have expected some rational discourse, this is what I get?

I had to laugh at this:-) You are getting plenty of rational discourse, more than you can handle it seems. The disappointment is all on the side of those of us with the evidence.

I do the same thing you do, except in your case, you're willing to repeatedly appeal to holy consensus, whereas I base my opinion on the rhetoric used by both sides, and on the details of the research published.

These are not equally valid positions. I readily acknowledge my amature status in a complex subject, you have the bizarre notion your musings are more meaningful than tens of thousands of people who have spent decades researching the relevant subject. That us exchanging statistics and research papers written by others will somehow be productive. I mean ... come on ... it's obvious nonsense surely?

Now if we were talking about a non-subject like theology then it'd be all "hail fellow well met", but this is a real subject, with tons of empirical data and complex climate models that take weeks to run on supercomputers, so if you'll forgive me, I do think you are deluding yourself as regards your knowledge of the subject.

I'm sorry of this annoys you, but the bottom line is that on your side of the balance sheet you've got nothing but your own dubious speculations, a few high profile dissenters, and an inexplicable emotional compulsion to deny that AGW is happening. On my side, I've got the other 90% of the relevant experts. You lose. As rational people this is an equation you cannot simply deny, to do so is pure theism.

All those crazy scientists are wrong, or evil or both, but I (and these GODLY minority scientists) have the TRUTH!!! Listen to yourselves, its pure creationism.

This is why I harp on about evolution. There are hundreds of experts, and even some PhD's that dissent from the mainstream and claim that intelligent design explains the origin of life far better than current evolutionary theory, why do we all find this unconvincing? You know why, but you cannot answer this question in any detail, because it would unravel your rationalisation for AGW denial.

Thats ok, we all do it, but at least have the self awareness to know what you are at in this particular case.

1064. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28709 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 30, 2007 at 12:58 pm

The fact remains that the variables are too vast and different to be able to make an educated decision at this point.

You simply don't have the expertise or the knowledge to make that statement, and 90% of climatologists say YOU are the one that is wrong, and shouldn't they have a clue? I know whose advice I'll be taking ... Thats me ... crazy and reckless, heeding the advice of the world's climatologists over a confused and random amature:-)

Scooter there is no such thing as "incontrovertible and undeniable", only probabilities. If that is what you are looking for, you are never going to get it ... in any discipline. Maybe you should dust off your compass and prayer mat after all.

Thanks for answering the question though:-)

1065. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28697 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 30, 2007 at 12:23 pm

Slightly off topic, my totally favourite video, from americans to americans:-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe-er9FqhYA

1066. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28695 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 30, 2007 at 12:15 pm

I don't know Helian. You sound like some kind of american wannabe. American administrations in the last 40 years have inflicted untold misery on the world in the name of their national security, this is hardly controversial? This is a real, palpable, global problem and you are seriously understating the case.

The global "masses" will continue to chaff against the "system" of global governance we currently have until something gives, and white middle class guys typing at computers are probably on the wrong side of the revolution:-)

Enlightened self interest suggests that we should continue to badger americans until they subject themselves to the same norms as the rest of us, it's also the right thing to do. I don't see why an Irishman should have any less influence globally than an American, or an African or any global citizen. Yet here we are. Something sucks.

1067. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28679 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 30, 2007 at 11:31 am

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

I completely agree. If the consensus is that of the mob, or the uninformed, but thats not what we rationalists are talking about here is it?

Fine, don't answer the substantive questions, I have to say this has been pretty disappointing:-( You need to do some serious self reflection Scooter my rational buddy. What is it about AGW that brings out the squirming theist in you?

1068. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28650 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 30, 2007 at 8:47 am

Helian may be off base about Richard but the book he recommended is a doozy!!!! Suggest you all have a look : http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/17607

1069. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28642 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 30, 2007 at 8:15 am

52. Comment #28640 by Helian on March 30, 2007 at 8:03 am

I like Jean Meslier's book the best. Voltaire said it was "written in the style of a carriage horse," but I find it very clear, and a devastating refutation of belief in a deity

I've just downloaded it and am having a look. Sounds super, thanks for the tip:-)

1070. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28639 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 30, 2007 at 8:00 am

However, by uncritically buying into anti-American propaganda, one does not counter them. One simply enhances their power.

I've heard this line before, and been frequently accused of anti-americanism. I'd be interested to hear you define what you consider to be "anti-American propaganda", citing some examples.

1071. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28638 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 30, 2007 at 7:53 am

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.

LOL, the only people suggesting that are the Bush Junta. Kyoto lets the developing countries (temporarily) off the hook for this exact reason, and was unhappily a major stumbling block for the US. I consider it an appalling example of short sighted selfishness myself. So thats hardly an issue.

As regards the rest of your last post, you appear to be in favour of everything I'm in favour of, including mature reflection. Great:-) I just think the mature reflection phase has been had, and it's time to decide on action, of course in the EU thats already happened, so the US needs to play catch up now.

Does the US want to be left behind technologically, and economically? Sidelined from what will arguably be a major planetary industry in 10 - 20 years? C'mon get on board the capitalist green train, time is short and we are leaving the station:-)

How about that question?

1072. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28634 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 30, 2007 at 7:37 am

This is interesting, but largely pointless as I've explained at length. Neither you, nor I are experts, but you seem to want us to rehash the work a 100,000 climatologists over 5 decades on this blog.

I have neither the time, nor sufficient knowledge to engage you in this way, and I think it unlikely that you are exponentially better informed on the subject than I:-) So lets save ourselves the trouble, eh?

Does this strike you as uncritical, lazy, reckless? I can only refer you AGAIN to the overwelming consensus of the relevant experts, if there was significant doubt that AGW was real, or it was 50/50, I would of course act differently.

Easy question, and you can ignore all the others to date (you have anyway!!). How do you, personally decide if a particular scientific theory, trend or hypothesis is true? I've given you my reasoning on the subject, now I want to hear yours.

1073. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28627 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 30, 2007 at 7:11 am

As an atheist, I have been very sensitive to manifestations of religious zealotry in America, both now and in the past. I find Dawkins' observations on religion in America uniformly slanted, biased, ill-informed and, occasionally, outright lies.

Well you must have something of a tin ear. I spend a fair bit of time talking to these people, and a casual glance at Bush and his record must surely disabuse of your illusions?

These people are a minority sure, but they are a virulent cancer in the global body that is wreaking some serious damage. Just ask half a million iraqis ... oh wait, you can't, THEY'RE DEAD.

1074. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28624 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 30, 2007 at 7:03 am

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=5244&R=EDF54E1

Huh, looks like Richard did let one through here. Why don't you take it up with him, see if you can get a retraction?

It must be clear to you that Richard would have delegated the bulk of this kind of research to lackeys? Such a loss of "faith" in the first pope of atheisim is hardly warranted for such a pecadillo.

If the theists can maintain their faith in the face of thousands of years of disappointment, slaughter and hypocrisy, surely you brave brother can forgive his Richardness a modest error of research?

Can you find it in your heart brother, can you? I'm sure Richard will be suitably pleased if you point it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Watt
Besides. James Watt is a religious nut, who couldn't give a toss about the environment, that part was certainly correct. In fact, I can't imagine why you found the quote so "bogus" given his many other bizarre utterings.

1075. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28621 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 30, 2007 at 6:47 am

Dawkins is really a very religious man.

BURN THE BLASPHEMER .... DISEMBOWEL THE HERETIC!!! Inchoherent yowlings ......

You DARE to impugn the glorious name of DAWKINS. Why yie oughta .....

1076. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28612 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 30, 2007 at 5:41 am

Wow. You can drop the question mark, Brian -- this is a powerful statement that stands on its own.

Lets hope so:-)

I'm consistently amazed at how otherwise intelligent people compartmentalize their minds. The religion thing is a classic example, but the GW and evolution denial is so similar that it is startling. People simply refusing to accept mountains and mountains of evidence from experts.

I expect this from republican theists, but not from fellow rationalists. How do they justify it?

I just don't get it. When you have 90% of the worlds climatologists in agreement for 15 years, it's time to get the finger out.

Fishpeddler, you contributed a cool quote yourself earlier : If a dozen electricians tell me my house is dangerously miswired and may burn down, but only a couple tell me my house is probably fine, I'm gonna fix the wiring.

Anyone ignoring that sort of advice from one electrician would be considered reckless, but to ignore so many voices in agreement is simply criminal stupidity.

1077. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28587 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 30, 2007 at 2:14 am

Just can't leave it alone:-)

Do you honestly believe that weather predictions can be made from such an unreliable source as Mother Nature?
It's not about belief!! It's about evidence, and 90% of the relevant experts are convinced.

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?
Oh come on:-) Next you'll be referencing victorians with slide rules and their concern about horseshit levels in 21st century London. These predictions where based on computer models running in about 64KB of RAM!!! They also had nothing like the level of agreement that AGW does today, in fact most of the scientists signing the IPCC declaration would have had trouble finding each others phone numbers in the 1970's. The level of co-operation and communication amongst climatologists today is unprecedented, and the computer models they use are literally millions of times more powerful, and reviewed by thousands of peers intent on finding something wrong with them. Another reason (do we need another!!!) why non-climatologists, even other scientists discussing the trend of one or two variables is simply laughable.

These are not irrational questions. The sky is falling attitude is.
The questions are not irrational, but refusing to acknowledge a massive majority of relevant experts in agreement is. There is also nothing irrational about pointing out that the sky is falling, if the sky is in fact falling. Although I hasten to add this characterisation is an hysterical strawman, there are serious odds that bad stuff could happen if we don't cut back energy use soon. The majority of climatologists agree on the trend and direction, just not magnitude.

In the teeth of such consensus, to do nothing, to champion doing nothing, to activley restrain and obstruct the people intent on doing something is surely irrational?

1078. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28584 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 30, 2007 at 1:35 am

Finally Scooter : http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/

These guys have answers to all your questions, I've have read up on some of them in the past, and they can answer you more completely than I can. Rest assured though, that not a thing you have said in this entire thread is unfamiliar. I'm afraid the word "carnard" springs very readily to mind.

The key point I guess, is neither you nor I are climatologists, thus to debate this issue in the detail is largely pointless, because neither of us really have a clue. At least I confess, to only a vague notion of the details, hence my reliance on a critical mass of the relevant eggheads to agree.

However, debating the motivations for taking a given position are meaningful, and you have yet to demonstrate why you are "agnostic" :-) on this issue. I have 9 out of 10 climatologists on board my band wagon, and I think thats a pretty compelling case for action. Do me a favour research all your objections on the site I've supplied and then lets see if that moves you:-) If we can't convince rational atheists of the case, then we are in serious trouble:-)

1079. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28582 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 30, 2007 at 1:14 am

Well I think we are getting to the nub of the issue.

I base my decision making on issues like this on the prevailing view in the relevant community (in this case climatologists). I don't have a hard figure where my skepticisim blurs into acceptance, but it's probably at the 75-85% mark, and we are well past that on AGW.

You seem to have formed the bizarre notion that since scientists, in some cases a majority, were wrong in the past, therefore we cannot trust scientists, not even a majority in a given discipline today. You don't see that a majority of scientists in the past are always wrong, in varying degrees about almost everything?

This is the same smokescreen the creationists blow all the time, with the peculiar exception that you seem to have bought it in this isolated case.

If thats your view, and it seems to be, then I don't see how you can form a view on anything (gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution ... the list is literally endless) short of doing all the research yourself. If a single dissenting voice is raised you're on the fence.

1080. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28571 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 29, 2007 at 9:48 pm

This is why there are people like scooter, and people like me, folks. We smell the stink of marketing, with no alternative product. No amount of allegedly scientific consensus can cover it up. We refuse to back down from First World civilization at the behest of a bad marketing campaign.

It is ironic to hear you go on about hysteria and brain washing, and PT Barnum, when it's clear you've bought the alternative view hook line and sinker.

No one (well no one who'll ever be elected) is suggesting the insane strawman you are terrified of. A two decade focus on renewables and efficiency (which is the most radical proposal to date) can only be broadly beneficial, some individual companies may go bust, but boo-hoo that happens every day. It's how capitalism works!!! Regardless of your sense that the information stinks, you are simply wrong because the majority of experts disagree with you. Both on your intuitions and the detail, so why on earth should we care what YOU think? You get that right? What your "gut" or your "common sense" is telling you is of no benefit in assessing a complex, convoluted and involved area such as climatology, evolution or quantum physics. What you "feel" has no bearing whatever on the evidence.

You are like some crazy flat earther marching around yelling, "I don't feel the earth movin' do you feel the earth movin'? Gosh durn uppity sciencey types and their so called "consensus" that the earth moves!!!"

Quantum physics is counter intuitive too, apply your or my common sense and it's bullshit, but we know we are both wrong. Why can you accept that, evolution and a thousand other counter intuitive observations of science but not this?

I really don't get how a modestly intelligent person can know that the IPCC have raised the alarm on this issue 4 times in the past 15 years, that the vast majority of scientists in the relative discipline agree on the substance and trends of the issue, and still simply shrug their shoulders and maintain that the "Jury is out". The jury is not out, ok? The jury has delivered their verdict, gone home, had dinner and been living their lives for the last 15 years, secure in the knowledge they have done their duty. The "jury is out" is simply not a position that is remotely tenable for a rational person. I don't how many different ways I can say that:-(

1081. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28497 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 29, 2007 at 12:01 pm

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?

No, I'm reacting the way I reacte when a theist says they don't "beleive" in evolution. It's not a question of beleiving, it's a question of the evidence.

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

Actually thats exactly what I think happens. Even objective reality has it's detractors, we frequently debate them in these forums. People can draw different conclusions from the same data. This is why creationists beat up science for its "theories" and being "equivocal", it's because it's true!! Everything is provisional.

As a lay person, and I'm guessing you are neither a climatologist or an evolutionary biologist, what on earth can one do but accept the consensus, the prevailing view, theory, hypothesis etc. especially where a given camp represents the overwhelming majority of a given discipline?

I really don't see how you can claim the "jury is out" on GW, but be utterly convinced of evolution. You have perfect knowledge about neither, yet the consensus in the relevant communities on the basic's is very similar. Whats different? I really want to hear this.

1082. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28494 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 29, 2007 at 11:48 am

Frankly, I don't know much about Gore. My conclusions re GW have little to do with him, so I can't meaningfully comment.

Oil companies will not go bust if we migrate to renewables and the like, energy demand is growing everywhere and oil has plenty of other uses. I would consider those sound investments. That said, none of us should be in the business of bailing out bad investments, or protecting technologies that have outlived their usefulness.

Yes people are hypocritical, complex and conflicted. So what? You need to make up your own mind about these issues, with the best information available. On this issue, the overwhelming consensus points in a single direction.

Now to my specific questions.

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?

1083. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28483 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 29, 2007 at 11:08 am

The cost of doing nothing and GW being true is far greater than the cost of doing something and GW being false.

Not only that, the cost of doing something has been vastly overstated. A gradual two decade migration to renewables and energy efficiency will put no more strain on the global economy than the move from horses to cars, typewriters to computers, TV to internet, or any of a 100 technology generational shifts that have occurred in the last century.

The real hysteria and fear mongering is on the other side.

1084. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28477 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 29, 2007 at 10:32 am

scooter, please do try and respond specifically to my questions, I genuinley want us to understand each other, and I'll try and do the same for you. So here goes:-)

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?

Here is how I operate. I know the consensus, so that biases me towards being skeptical of GW dissenters. This is I think reasonable. I dismiss out of hand evolution deniers, flat earthers, UFO buffs and the like using much the same process.

OK so I'm skeptical of GW deniers, but I do not (always) dismiss them out of hand. In the last 18 months or so, I've frequently checked out reports and people. I use a site called source watch to do this, and I'd recommend you use it too. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch. If they have a bad rep with references, that is red flag.

I have already read the article you reference,here is what source watch has to say about Tim Ball.

Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science. [4] Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations. [5]

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

I'd recommend you reference the following list, most of your dissenters will be on it.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_controversy

Short of redoing every bit of climate research, reading every damn paper, on every damn subject from GW to quantum physics, what can a sensible lay person do due diligence on important subjects and go with the consensus, at least where it is overwhelming?

There is nothing hysterical about insisting on the current evidence that governments take action, this is just good sense. Is your position that given he current evidence we should do nothing at all?

1085. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28457 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 29, 2007 at 8:57 am

Scooter have a read through this, it does a good job of answering the questions you raise : http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

I'm not sure what disaster to occur in 2 years you refer to, perhaps we are arguing at cross purposes? My own convictions relate to the timeframes outlined in the recent IPCC report, and they range fairly widely. Can we agree that this is something to be taken notice of?

Let me also take another tack. Why do you dismiss creationists out of hand? Have you read everything written by the hundreds of engineers, doctors and lawyers that promote it? Have you parsed all the arguments of the dissenters? Why is your stance different here versus GW?

What about stem cell research, can we be certain that the blastocyst is not ensouled? Why are you convinced (if you are) that destroying a blastocyst for research harms no one?

1086. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28415 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 29, 2007 at 5:52 am

Yet today's fishery scientists are just as sure as the generation before them that they have all the answers to the problems created by their forebearers.


Guys don't you see you are playing the same game as the evolution deniers? Holding up the ability of sceince to correct itself as some kind of flaw, when this is it's greatest strength!!! Sceince is an uncertain enterprise, as is life. There are no absolute certainties to be had, if you are looking for that, try a church.

Unless you yourself are a climatologist, with a peer reviewed study of your own, what could your speculations possibly have to add to the discussion?

Besides what is the downside to action? Using less oil, improving energy efficiency? The only people that loose are a few corporations, for the rest of us we see an improved environment, and a surge in high quality employment opportunities. In effect it's like a major war without all the unpleasent screaming and being shot at.

The consensus among sceintists is clear and dissenters are almost without exception oil industry stooges or republican hacks. If that is not enough for us to take some limited action on, we are truly screwed.

1087. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28165 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 28, 2007 at 7:29 am

Scooter, please don't be naive enough to play the role these people are desperate for you to embrace.

Think about the many conversations you'd had with Theists, and apply the same standards. Do we have evidence that GW is occurring, yes, mountains and mountains of it. Do we have perfect knowledge? No. Is there room for doubt? Yes, but only about timings and scale, not the overall principle. Just replace GW with evolution and you'll get what I'm saying.

Use source watch to review every source that engages in GW denial, they are a small, incestous notorious group, exactly like the engineers and biologists that promote "intelligent design", this is really more of the same.

In summary, we are rational lay people, we go with the evidence and advice we get from experts in the relevant fields. This is now overwhelmingly in one direction, and we have a responsibility to the planet, our children and or own intellectual integrity to act on the sceintific consensus as it is now. No argument that it might change, and kudos to people who convince their peers to change their minds, that is how sceince operates. However we are where we are NOW, and need to act accordingly.

1088. Hell is real and eternal: Pope

Comment #27968 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 27, 2007 at 1:07 pm

This is really good news. Let them shout this stuff from the roof tops, God is a monstrous tyrant who will punish you in eternal fire for your honestly held opinions.

Even the most deranged tyrant eventually lets their victims die, but not God, because he loves you!! He loved you so much he's willing to roast you on a spit for eternity. Although love may not be quite the right word we're after here ...

1089. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27695 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 26, 2007 at 7:05 am

Brian, I love you. You must have spent so much time calculating all that but it was all a waste of time. Why? Because, as Jesus said to the Sadducees, "HAVE YOU NOT READ THE SCRIPTURES?"

No actually, I was merely curious, having a bit of fun at your expense I confess:-) and it took me all of a minute to make the calculations. I take it arithmetic isn't your strong suit, LOL:-) If only the original scribe had taken the time to do the same, you wouldn't be in this fix.

As to your capitalised "HAVE YOU NOT READ THE SCRIPTURES?", sure I have. This is the superficial retelling of a brothers Grimm class fairytale, nothing more. It's immoral, logistically impossible, and essentially useless as a guide to anything. At least the brothers Grimm stories generally had a point, not to mention better dramatic tension.

I note you fail to explain any of the scriptures I raised earlier, although you make a half hearted attempt at the bear one, incredibly enough to try and justify the logistics rather than the morals. Wierd. Mind you, I do sympathise, but not enough to let you off the hook, especially as you inadvertently and deliciously illustrate the translation problems that plague the bible so dreadfully. Thanks for that:-)But, lets hear it now, what was God's motivation? Why kill even one kid, why maul 42? If the passage is simply metaphorical, what is it telling us?

I look forward to your speedy and holy ghost inspired response, but I won't be holding my breath:-)

1090. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27495 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 25, 2007 at 3:04 am

Ex smokers are said to be the most likely to be anti-smoking. It seems to be the same with ex-fundamentalists.

You have me pegged, and I freely admit it. Nonetheless, smoking is objectivley bad for your health, and although I recognise the wellspring of my anger, I still consider it fully justified.

If I come on to strong, you can talk me down with a little good sense, and a quiet word as you have done, kudos. As the psalm says, a quiet word turns away wrath:-)

You are welcome to hang around, and will I think, find most people a lot less combative and angry than I am. I genuinely hope you divest yourself of faith as a result, all the best:-)

1091. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27418 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 24, 2007 at 1:20 pm

Virtually every Christian I personally know accepts evolution as a sound theory and will agree that the evidence clearly supports it.

Thats super, but you still believe, that Jesus died for your sins, rose from the dead and listens to your prayers. You insist that God is three yet one. If you're catholic, you believe that the wafer turns into the literal flesh of Christ in the mass. Can you motivate these extreme beliefs? Do you have evidence for them? If you reject some, and accept others, on what basis do you do that?

C'mon Blacknad, if this is not impaired cognition, what is?

Look, I accept that we are all irrational from time to time, that we beleive things without evidence, and occasionally operate on faith. The critical difference is that the atheist/agnostic does not claim that their belief systems are endorsed by the creator of the universe. My irrationality must stand on its own, but the religious shore theirs up with "God", and there the conversation must end.

For the record, I was a fundamentalist, so I've got a really good idea what it's like in the inside. Now that I'm out, I can really see the whole mechanisim of obfuscation and doublespeak used to enslave me. A relentlessly honest analysis of the foundations of your faith is beneficial, read some (previously) banned books, Thomas Paine is a good place to start. Good luck.

1092. Gimme That Old Time Religion (Bashing)

Comment #27393 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 24, 2007 at 11:08 am

As someone who is increasingly finding it hard to be tolerant of religion, would me being "militant" in my atheism actually hurt the "movement"? That is the only idea in the article that got my interest

I think the right way to proceed is to be tolerant but persistent with people in your life, and especially with loved ones. Remember a person embracing religion should (almost) never is be a relationship deal breaker, if it is you've become a fundamentalist yourself!!! As always some exceptions will prove the rule.

However in general conversation online and with people at work, a robust conversational intolerance is in order, not ranting and raving, but relentlessly hammering home the key points, and not letting people get away with fluffy metaphysics. When it gets too heated then lighten the tone, but if maintaining a relationship is not a priority, then ruffling feathers is a great idea especially if it convinces the "audience". Until recently, religious people got a free ride to peddle their bullshit, that has to stop.

1093. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27376 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 24, 2007 at 9:27 am

You may have the good grace to recognize that the problem is with humanity - not just religion.

I think this is rather obvious frankly. If there is no God, no Devil etc., clearly our problems are self inflicted. In that context though, religion is not part of the solution, but part of the problem.

The relentless self deception required to believe the absurdities of religion, corrode and undermine cognition generally, and does nothing to assist the critical process of self analysis required to plumb the worst excesses of human nature.

The sooner we divest a significant proportion of the populace of the delusion of religious faith, the sooner we'll make faster progress.

1094. Gimme That Old Time Religion (Bashing)

Comment #27356 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 24, 2007 at 8:02 am

I think this quote proves the danger of apparently liberal christianity. Sam Harris is right. If you are a liberal christian like Hitler you are basically supporting the terrorists.

Actually there is some dispute as to wether Hitler was religious or not, what is certain is that the German people were, and much of what was done was justified through religion especially the medievial demonisation of the jews.

That said, all totalitarian systems are in effect based on irrational dogma. Religion sit in among stalinism, nazism and communism under the umbrella of irrational dogma.

1095. Gimme That Old Time Religion (Bashing)

Comment #27346 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 24, 2007 at 7:18 am

I have read both of Sams books, and found them absolutely compelling, and although I disagree with his demonisation of Islam (I think it dangerous, and that it has the potential to grease the rails to war), I find little I can disagree with in principle, except the capacity he attributes to Islamic terrorists to do real harm.

That quibble aside, he really does cut to the chase. Either people beleive things or they don't. Either things are real or the aren't, and while the charge of bigotry is real, it is a rational and justifiable bigotry that appears poorly motivated because of the uniquely protected place religion has attained in society.

As Sam often puts it, those who profess that Odin, Zeus or Thor speak to them, or that they speak to these Gods for guidance, wouldn't get a job as a car wash attendant, let alone ascend to the most powerful political position on the planet.

Is it bigotry to wonder about the faculties and capacities of someone that professes certainty about things they cannot possible be certain about? No,I don't think so. Religious people should keep their beliefs to themselves, one way to ensure this happens is to have a conversational intolerance for obvious religious mumbo jumbo, and I really think thats ok.

1096. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27293 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 23, 2007 at 6:52 pm

Earth, Mars, Venus -- which is the fourth ? Surely Mercury is too hot? I am not sure `thrive' is the right word for Mars.

Certainly Mercury is quite hopeless. Mars is pretty good though, caves, weather and liquid water in the recent past.

The satellites of the gas giants provide a range of possible habitats. Europa probably has a liquid ocean beneath a thick crust of ice, and if this is the case it would be a brilliant environment for life. Titan, looks a lot like the primordial Earth.

Venus I'd have written off 5 years ago, but the discovery of organisims living in sulphur and boiling water next to deep sea vents here on Earth makes one wonder. This probably means we ought to give Io a shot as well.

So actually 4 mainstream, and 2 marginal life supporting environments in our solar system alone.

1097. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27291 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 23, 2007 at 6:42 pm

I have heard that testicles need to be at a slightly cooler temperature to keep sperm alive, than they would be were they inside the body. I'm not sure if that is correct, but just what I've heard.

I've heard that too ... still dreadful planning. An air cooled cavity, would have made for more sense, or dispensing with sexual reproduction altogether. Imagine a world without religion? Imagine a world without hormones!!!

1098. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27284 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 23, 2007 at 5:54 pm

I find it so incredibly odd, though, that they seek comfort in knowing that their god is no longer like this. Hey, sure... in the OLD Testament he was a disgusting personality. But he's different now

Exactly. It is an indefensible position. Either God is all powerful and all loving, or he's not, and the Old Testament is proof positive that he's not. Hence the whole thing evaporates.

1099. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27278 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 23, 2007 at 5:41 pm

Let me close with this particularly senseless piece of drivel.

2 Kings
2:22 So the waters were healed unto this day, according to the saying of Elisha which he spake.
2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

Wow!!! Mr. Grumpy, sensitive or what?

How can this possibly square with a loving God? Would 40 children really have hung about while the bears ate the first 2 kids? I mean really, would you?

Logistically how would this work? Lets assume the kids scatter in all directions, and it takes each bear 30 seconds to kill one child, and each running child can cover 100 metres in 30 seconds. Given the motivation, I consider this a modest understatement of their likely speed.

Then 90 seconds in we have 6 dead kids, and the bears in the middle (or perhaps off the centre) of a rapidly expanding circle of children at least 600 metres in diameter, and growing by 200 metres every 30 seconds. For goodness sake after 5 minutes, some of these kids will be 2 kilometres away from the damn bears, and surely the bears would stop and eat some of the kids whole? Which brings me on to my next question, how many 40 kilogram children can a bear actually eat?

Lets assume each bear weighs 500 kilos. Once again, 24 kids in, each bear has eaten their own body weight in kids ... likely?

Unless it was another of Gods miracles.

1100. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27277 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 23, 2007 at 5:20 pm

And now, after reading your latest post, I see that you're a creationist, which makes me very sorry I wasted my time replying to you. Ah well.

Me too:-( GG let me refer you to http://www.talkorigins.org/ where all your bullshit (there really is no kinder way to describe this stuff) questions have long been answered and in excruciating detail.

Still, though I'd be happy to hear your defence of Gods behaviour in the scriptures I've pointed you to in His awesome majesties holy word. You certainly deserve every square inch of your ass kicked for using the utterly discredited macro/micro evolution distinction. It's just dishonest, tsk, tsk and you a Christian!!!