1051. Planting the Mammalian Supertree

Comment #29242 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 2, 2007 at 7:58 am

aHAAAAAAA ..... prove positive if any were needed of the hand of divinty guiding and shaping evolution through the eons.

1052. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #29197 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 2, 2007 at 3:33 am

Well, at least you've made some effort to clarify your position as regards criticism of the US.

Still though it's very hard to come to grips with exactly what bugs you. You've not really raised any issues of substance. Your claims about Dawkins are clearly nonsense, as evidenced by the paucity of detail you bring to the table, namely a single incident of poor research on behalf of Richards staff. The "american taliban" may be hyperbole, but you couldn't possibly deny that a dangerous religious minority is sparing no effort to shred the American constituion, and you wisely don't.

All the rest, claiming that an undifferentiated European media cabal are interested in marketing hate of America is simply ludicrous, not least because such uniformity of purpose rarely occurs absent a significant effort of co-ordination, and sometimes not even then!! Try working in an organisation of any significant size, and this becomes readily apparent.

We all have our blind spots, and I'm aware that my anger with the current US regime occasionaly drifts in anti-americanism, but nothing I've stated as a personal view on the thread has been wildly controversial. Really, not even the 500K Iraqis killed as a result of the war can count as "anti-american", it's a well researched and widely supported piece of analysis. You said yourself that a mere assertion doesn't count. Surely one supported by evidence is even less likely to qualify?

Perhaps you think I'd prefer a world where the major power was China, or the former Soviet Union or a resurgent Islamic Caliphate? Of course not, we are very fortunate that the worlds most powerful nation is broadly democratic and often amenable to reason. That doesn't mean we keep our mouths shut when they do bad things, and lately they have done some very bad, and very, very stupid things. Who could possibly deny this and retain a shred of credibility?

If wanting to have a say in major decisions that affect the world, or objecting to major nation states riding roughshod over global majorities opposed to particular action is "anti-american" then I guess, I'm guilty as charged. You might just as well call me "anti-chinese/indian/german/british", you get the idea:-)

In conclusion:-) It strikes me that someone obsessing about how the most powerful nation state that the world has ever seen is being subjected to criticism (justified or otherwise), but has little of substance to say about the real deaths of tens thousands (I trust this meets with your approval?) of their fellow human beings has, at the very least, a rather singular sense of proportion.

P.S. I'm just finishing up Jean Meslier's excellent book on your recommendation, so thanks for that:-)

1053. The God Debate

Comment #29154 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 1, 2007 at 10:44 pm

Project Gutenberg's Superstition In All Ages (1732), by Jean Meslier

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org


Title: Superstition In All Ages (1732)
Common Sense

Author: Jean Meslier

Commentator: Voltaire

Translator: Anna Knoop

Release Date: January 25, 2006 [EBook #17607]

Language: English

Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SUPERSTITION IN ALL AGES (1732) ***

1054. The God Debate

Comment #29151 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 1, 2007 at 10:24 pm

Comment #29130 by jcole_15 on April 1, 2007 at 7:27 pm

"When we die, if he's right, I've lost nothing. If I'm right, he's lost everything. I'm not willing to make that gamble" That is the worst point a religious person can make. They are saying they are only religious because they are afraid of going to hell ...
--------------------------------

Here is an extract from a brilliant book I am currently reading that nails this. A wonderful fellow Atheist Helian, introduced me to it :

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?

1055. How Many Scientists?

Comment #29149 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 1, 2007 at 10:11 pm

I have seen studies that I cannot unfortunately reference, indicating the input energy costs such as fertilizers used in the creation of the ethanol itself,

Yeah I've seen those too. Yet Brazil seems to have made a very good job of building an Ethanol economy. The corn to ethanol idea does worry me, but the upside is that ethanol can be produced from almost any vegatation given the right process. What I really don't like about it, is the scale of change and redirection of funds ethanol represents. It has an "eggs in one basket" quality that disturbs me.

You are right though, wind and solar, especially private consumer versions could really knock a hole in our energy consumption. Imagine a world where every household produces all their own energy, and powers their own vehicles?

Finally nuclear. I'm not a fan for one major reason - terrorism. I don't think a reasonable case can be made that nuclear accidents could easily happen, not in modern plants, and absolutely not in those on the drawing board. However, focused malice is a whole other ball game, and a real threat:-(

We shall see what we come up with:-)

1056. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #29145 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 1, 2007 at 9:42 pm

You're enough of a caricature of a European America hater as it is.

What exactly is it that qualifies? So far it seems to be someone who disagrees with you that criticism of the US is legitimate, or that accepts for Iraqi casualties, (the low end) of numbers the British government has accepted as at least in the realm of feasible. This communicates to you the rock solid truth that the writers is an "america hater". Thats quite a leap:-)

I'm still bemused as to why anyone would devote such energy into defending the indefensible, especially when prosecuted by the powerful. It seems completely at odds with human nature, just for a start, and it does smack of obsession.

I've come across this kind of thing before of course, a relentless denial that anything done by any american ever had the taint of incompetence or self interest, but it's unusual to encounter it anywhere but the most reality free bastions of American Republican World.

As always there is an attempt to sound moderate, but this is easily exposed by demanding some detail as to what specifically could be construed as bad form. When they can't, or won't acknowledge some recent and specific act of outrage on the part of the US, then the it's clear they've retreated into a shell of denial.

Helian, my atheist buddy, thats you man. Try and snap out of it.

1057. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #29064 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 1, 2007 at 1:07 pm

You sir, are going to drive me away from this website.

Is that a bad thing? Who the fuck are you?

1058. How Many Scientists?

Comment #29059 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 1, 2007 at 12:57 pm

Interesting that you mention Sweden is trying to wean itself of Nuclear power by importing electricity from the "Ost–Block" How is that electricity made?

Coal and Nuclear. Oh yeah, thats right .... Chernobyl nuclear. Myself, I'm agnostic about modern nuclear, but 30 year old russian plants in Poland? No thanks.

Is this just moving environmental responsibility into some one else's back yard, by not caring about HOW the product is made?

Totally, but to their credit they are embarrased about it. Sweden also has a big chunk of renewables in the mix, and is planning for lots more.

I would suspect given Sweden's relatively stable society, having a domestic nuclear industry over which has complete control would make more sense than encouraging a potentially hazardous industry in a politically unstable neighboring country where it has little influence on safety standards and ultimately supply as well.

Yeah, you'd think wouldn't you? The anti nuclear bandwagon of the '80's generated a referendum which obliged the goverment to phase nuclear out. Ironic really, because with vastly improved safety it's beginning to look like an option.

Tell me though, how do you feel about ethanol. I was pro, then anti, now I'm just confused. Got any insights?

1059. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #29057 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 1, 2007 at 12:42 pm

Your uncritical acceptance of the "half million people" canard, rejected as bunk even by the pacifist www.iraqbodycount.org, is certainly revealing when it comes to assessing your own ideologically conditioned preconceptions

Oooooh own goal, this really strips away the fluff and exposes the right wing extremist, and not a terribly subtle one at that. The numbers are certainly controversial, but can hardly be considered a "carnard" given that the British Government has implicitly endorsed them. Plus, I rounded down. My goodness I'm sounding practically middle of the road!!!

You see, we have this thing called the i.n.t.e.r.n.e.t. Simply saying things are so, can be very readily exposed. Cool huh?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6495753.stm
http://www.stats.org/stories/the_science_ct_dead_oct17_06.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10276?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=dn10276

But lets not quibble over the lives of a few hundred thousand Iraqis. Lets accept the lowest figure you can possibly find. Some sixty thousand human beings are dead. What sort of critique should be tabled, and whom should it principly be directed at? Take your time.

1060. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #29042 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 1, 2007 at 10:14 am

Helian, sure there is some anti-americanism knocking around the place, they just spent the last 3 years engaged in a deeply unpopular war which has resulted in the deaths of a half million people. They were also warned that it was a really bad idea, so yeah, a lot of people are pissed.

However this frustration hardly represents an existential threat to the continued existence of the US, and the idea of a co-ordinated media effort (man, do you know anything about the EU??) across dozens of countries smacks of "9/11 was an inside job" paranoia. So in effect all your efforts amount to protecting them, from at worst, a barrage of harsh language. Don't you have more important things to devote your time to?

Yet, as you point out in an earlier post, many Americans are still utterly ignorant of how angry people in Europe and elsewhere have become because of the actions of their government. Perhaps they should be less blissfully unaware in the future. Clearly we need to up the volume not back off.

A fraction of the planets population just can't simply thumb their noses at the rest of us and expect to be given a free pass, those days are long gone.

1061. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #29031 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 1, 2007 at 8:54 am

Nothing in your laundry list of assertions can be considered hate mongering ...

Golly, and we thought you were evasive before!!!

Nuff said I think. Jonathan seems to have done a spectacular job of cooking your goose, and further commentary from me would simply detract from his eloquence.

1062. A History of Violence

Comment #29025 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 1, 2007 at 8:31 am

This article is about how and why the whole of human history testifies to a decline in the acceptability of violence. It's a good read. I recommend it.

Whats with the thought police? It is a good read, and Pinker had a bit of a go at religion himself in it, so steady on there George.

Though, I take your point. Myself, I reckon the inate empathy we have for each other is extending in ever wider circles of inclusion. Thus our willingness to visit horror and death on people half a world away is markedly reduced. Unless you're an American that is ... SORRY, sorry ok ... just joking. Ha, ha .. hah ... ha?

1063. How Many Scientists?

Comment #29022 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 1, 2007 at 8:16 am

The solar printing idea sounds quite intriguing. This would be one of the quantum leaps with regards to solar power that should sell itself, if it works as advertised. Once again, I did not mean to insult you. JCW

The honour impugned comment was purely tounge in cheek:-) and I conceed I may have underestimated your level of research on the subject, but in fairness, you didn't give me much to go on.

Sweden is trying to wean itself off nuclear and ironically imports a lot of it's electricity from the former "Ost Block", so anything done to reduce that is positive.

As regards the smog. If you burn seasoned birch in a modern contura, it produces almost no visible smoke at all, and it takes only two 60 minute firings, burning about 2.5 Kg of wood to keep the house at about 20-25 degrees between 06:00 - 22:00. Thats if it's warmer than -5 outside. From -20 to -5, you need a midday firing. A well insulated open plan house, in a semi urban area, using a modern wood stove running at about 80% efficency is very, very, very hard to beat.

I agree with you that the playing field must be levelled, which is why tax subsidies, credits or something are almost unavoidable!! Most technology is incremental and solar, wind, wave whatever are having a terrible time competing against oil, gas and coal that have spent the last 150 years building an unassailable commercial citadel of infrastructure. We must factor into the cost the damage that a given energy source does, at the moment this is simply ignored.

Before going for the wood stove, I took a very serious look at solar and wind, especially wind. Man that broke my heart, private wind is a tough nut to crack. I really wanted a wind power generator, but the reliability and ROI simply doesn't stack up:-( Of everything I saw, that company I flagged is the most exciting. I'll be watching them closely.

1064. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #29003 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 1, 2007 at 6:20 am

Helian, it just seems to me that your considerable intelligence would be better served arguing for the protection of Iraqis, or improved global governance, or any of dozen different causes where the need is acute.

Yet you seem to be so keen to protect those best able to protect themselves!! Thats sort of odd I think.

I note you studiously avoid answering my question about what you think qualifies as hate speech. That strikes me as evasive. Have you nothing critical to say about American policy, is every facet of american conduct in Iran, Iraq, Nicaragua and Vietnam without reproach? If not, what do you consider a reasonable tone to critique the americans with, and if they ride roughshod over that critique what then?

If yes, if you consider American actions are blameless in the cases I've outlined, well then surely we must dismiss your comments as hopelessly subjective. So help us out.

1065. 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.

1066. 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.

1067. 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!!!

1068. 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.

1069. 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

1070. 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:-)

1071. 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.

1072. 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.

1073. 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:-(

1074. 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.

1075. 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.

1076. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

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

Funny stuff Chesire Cat:-)

1077. 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.

1078. 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:-)

1079. 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

1080. 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.

1081. 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?

1082. 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

1083. 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:-)

1084. 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.

1085. 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?

1086. 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.

1087. 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.

1088. 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.

1089. 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 .....

1090. 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.

1091. 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?

1092. 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:-)

1093. 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.

1094. 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:-(

1095. 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.

1096. 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?

1097. 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.

1098. 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?

1099. 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?

1100. 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.