patrick.net

Interesting (but pathetic ) job by editors of this.

thunderlips11 says

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion

The title says "Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear."

But then later they say.

"His position on God has been widely misrepresented by people on both sides of the atheism/religion divide but he always resisted easy stereotyping on the subject."

""Like other great scientists he does not fit the boxes in which popular polemicists like to pigeonhole him," said Brooke. "It is clear for example that he had respect for the religious values enshrined within Judaic and Christian traditions ... but what he understood by religion was something far more subtle than what is usually meant by the word in popular discussion."

"Despite his categorical rejection of conventional religion, Brooke said that Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism. He was offended by their lack of humility and once wrote. "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."

In other words people like Dan and Thunderlips pissed him off.

Brooke's interpretation of his beliefs. Einstein's direct quotes lead me to believe he had an underlying respect for the mysteries of the universe, some regard for the occasional better angels of religious tradition, AND NO MORE.

There are plenty of atheists who are either not interested in pushing their views or too wimpy to assert them, hiding behind a vague protestation of respect for religulous institutions.

Our numbers are legion, Marcus. It's time for the US to join the rest of the Western World and advance beyond superstition.

thunderlips11 says

Are numbers are legion, Marcus

okay...ewe can say that...

I would agree, but one form that might take would be having spiritual beliefs that aren't basically just superstition. Apparently this is what Einstein did.

If experiencing awe in the face of the universe is a spiritual belief, then I too am spiritual. I mean that without sarcasm.

I belief those who believe in equities and chuck their earnings into they 401K are a prime example of religious thinking,

I am learning from Patrick.net and forming a possible hypothesis about religious logic. I think a recurring syllogism goes something like this:
1) An omnipotent god somehow needs my help (this is an obvious impossibility, logically, but hold that thought);
2) The omnipotent deity will reward me if I help (virgins, goats, whatever);
3) The omnipotent deity is omniscient, too, and watching ME all the time, paying attention to ME;
4) I am a sinner, and the omnipotent deity knows this, so I must atone somehow, make feverish penance to avoid being punished for my sins;
5) I (or my parents, or my fellow cult members) know what the omnipotent deity most wants, which is to eradicate/persecute/otherwise discriminate against those other people who do not believe in Him/Her/It, or at least disagree about what he/she/it wants, and therefore are a threat to us, so we must protect our omnipotent god by persecuting them;
6) Therefore I will work at this endlessly, in my bubble of fact-proof armor, because every time I ignore facts and repeat nonsense and strike a blow against against those other people who must surely be worse than I am, the omnipotent deity sees me and pays attention to me and is pleased with me, and will store up more points in my favor to outweigh my sins.

marcus says

Okay well, of course I ignored you again the other day because of your obnoxious personality (again).

If I'm obnoxious to you it's because you warrant it.

marcus says

I predicted correcltly that it would be #2, #3 or a combination of both.

You're welcome to your opinion, but that doesn't make it a fact. Nor does it mean that anyone agrees with you. Plenty of people like my posts -- see the user stats -- so I sure as hell don't need affirmation from you.

marcus says

For the record, you are wrong, rational numbers are countably infinite.

No shit Sherlock. I mistyped, but it was obvious I meant "irrational" as they are the same order of infinity as the real numbers. You should have been able to figure out what I meant, but that would mean not jumping up an down with joy as you discovered a mistake. Granted, the mistake was in typing, not thought, but don't let that ruin your joy.

A trivial proof that the rational numbers are countably finite is to arrange them in a two-dimensional array with denominators for the rows and numerators for the columns. Then count them off diagonally from the top-left corner of the grid. You see, I do remember my abstract algebra.

marcus says

Dan8267 says

the "comes right before" question applies only to countably infinite

This is also wrong. Even for any two rational number you give me, it's simple to come up with one that is between them (actually an infinite number of rational numbers between them).

And your analysis would actually apply had I said the rational numbers aren't an ordinal set. But as you quoted, I said "applies only to countably infinite", which is exactly what you stated.

Sets of the second order of infinity may be scalar, but not ordinal.

Yep, I remember a lot of abstract algebra. You want to have a mathletes contest?

Anyway, I hope I didn't terribly ruin your fun of pointing out a typo. I know how much it means for you to find any flaw in me no matter how minor. So to make up for it, I'll let you know one of my personal flaws. I have little tolerance for stupidity.

OK, that flaw was obvious by the way I respond to all your postings, so let me give you another flaw. How about a physical one? My dick is too large for many women. There, run with it. Run with the idea, that is, not my dick. You probably wouldn't be able to run while carrying it.

marcus says

Even if the first sentence is true,

I'd actually point you to some good reading material if I thought you were even capable of sincerity and actually wanted to know more about physics. It's an area I've always been interested in and have read a lot about. However, you are probably just being your usual snarky ass, so fuck it.

If anyone else wants some reading recommendations, I'd be happy to offer them.

marcus says

What's that? THat there are are assholes out there that that are still doing what most people get over at the age of 15 or 16 ?

That is, challenging the logic of religious belief.

Over the past two thousand years, countless people have been murdered, raped, tortured, burned alive, and imprisoned because of religious beliefs. Anyone who says that challenging religious beliefs and using reason as an alternative to superstition is just plain retarded.

G.W. Bush said "God told me to invade Iraq" and after a million deaths we're not allowed to question the logic of religious beliefs?

Marcus,
http://www.youtube.com/embed/EwT4Rl2uGJY

marcus says

Fundamentalists are another story.

What fools like Marcus can't realize is that the term Fundamentalist is meaningless. It's just a marketing term.

There is no line between so-called fundamentalist beliefs and non-fundamentalist beliefs. It's a continuous spectrum of behavior from causal and infrequent crazy to constant and severe crazy.

Talking to fictional beings and having delusions of immortality is a mental disorder no matter how you label it.

Randy H says

I'm neither a mathematician nor a physicist. But Dan captured pretty much what I was trying to convey, and which marcus sort of jokingly hinted at: the physical universe is granular (or digital, if you will). Continuity is a wonderfully useful mathematical concept that helps figure out all sort'a'stuff. But at the quantum level, empirically observable things are not infinite. And somewhere I do recall that even adding lots and lots of zero-order things together are still zero-order sums.

Thankfully, another rationalist in this conversation to offset the b.s. spouted by Marcus.

Randy H says

I was originally responding to Bap33, who believes in a very fundamentalist, classical interpretation of god from the king james bible.

Does that include the mistranslations like

And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/ISaiah-34-7/

I'm pretty sure the unicorn was a Medieval myth, not a Bronze Age one.

Randy H says

But I can see some history obviously exists

Yeah, a long while back Marcus started making childish personal attacks on me on several threads. I ignored the first dozen, but then responded. Having a sharper wit than Marcus, I showed the community what an idiot he was and why.

Of course, that just made him even more belligerent to me. I did give him quite a few opportunities to save face by just agreeing to start talking like a rational adult, but he just kept flinging mud. After that went on for a while, Marcus pretended to offer an olive branch so he could back-stab me, but he doesn't quite have the intellect to be subtle. So I countered by responding in such a way that if he didn't make good on his peace-offering, he would look like a dumb ass. And of course he immediately went back to his childish ravings.

The thing is I'd be willing to bury the hatchet with Marcus, but he lacks the emotional maturity to do so. Still, I will admit to having a bit of fun making him look the fool. As I've admitted above, one of my personality flaws is that I have little tolerance for idiots and stupidity always brings out the asshole in me.

thunderlips11 says

If experiencing awe in the face of the universe is a spiritual belief, then I too am spiritual. I mean that without sarcasm.

Homo Economicus. A Legendary Creature, like Bigfoot, claimed to exist by Pseudoscientists.

I would argue that is an emotional experience. And yes, we atheists have such moments of awe frequently when looking at the universe or thinking about how it works. However, emotional experience do not imply the existence of anything supernatural. The mind itself is a wondrous work of nature. Well, maybe not Marcus's mind, but you get the idea.

thunderlips11 says

If experiencing awe in the face of the universe is a spiritual belief, then I too am spiritual. I mean that without sarcasm.

When you have the kind of intellect that allows you to boil down and summarize all of Einstein's thinking on religion and his actual spirituality to such a simplicity it must be hard to maintain your humility.

http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/

OF course those aren't all of his quotes on spirituality.

One thing for sure, Einstein was bothered by being pigeonholed as an atheist and he was tolerant of religious belief in others. He probably was the kind of person who had had many engaging conversations with rabbis and priests and understood that by and large, even many of them don't buy in to the superstition, or personal god nonsense, or literal interpretation of scripture that so many atheists love to ascribe to the typically religious adult.

Whether or not Einstein was an atheist is irrelevant. The whole discussion rests on the logical fallacy Appeal to Authority.

We don't accept The Theory of Relativity as correct because it came from Einstein. We consider it correct because the predictions it made such as gravitational lensing and time dilation have been confirmed.

Isaac Newton is admired for his successes in laws of motion, the laws of gravity, Calculus, and the application of mathematics to model the cosmos. Newton also believed in astrology and other hocus pocus. He is not admired for that.

Appealing to authority is bullshit, and it's one of the many fundamental problems with both religion and faith. Appealing to a god as a moral authority is the ultimate fallacy.

The messenger is irrelevant. All that matters is the message itself and the evidence to support that message.

Dan8267 says

He is not admired for that.

ummm. no. YOU do not admire him for that. SOME others, that are not you, may admire him as much for this as for how he dressed. Right?

Dan8267 says

pealing to authority is bullshit, and it's one of the many fundamental problems with both religion and faith.

... and human caused global warmingests

Bap33 says

... and human caused global warmingests

Yes, and the evidence backs that up. Only people who profit from destroying the future and fools who listen to them believe otherwise. How much money will you make by turning America's farmland into desert? Will it be enough to buy food when 2/3rds of America's population will have to starve to death? How much money does it cost to get a person to sacrifice his life for yours by giving you what little food he has?

Do the cost benefit analysis. Even if you don't give a shit about the immorality of destroying the environment for future generations, at least realize that it is highly unprofitable in the long run.

The costs of terraform the Earth so that it is once more suitable to sustain billions of humans far exceeds the slight increase in profits reaped by companies in the short term for dumping massive amounts of pollution into the air, land, and ocean.

Or think of it this way, every carbon-dioxide molecule released by burning fossil fuels is like a Mexican illegally sneaking into America's atmosphere driving up costs of everything for you.

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

He is not admired for that.

ummm. no. YOU do not admire him for that. SOME others, that are not you, may admire him as much for this as for how he dressed. Right?

Yes, there are masses of people who re-create Newton's astrological charts and biorhythms. This is one of the first things any university teaches you.

Dan8267 says

Yes, and the evidence backs that up. Only people who profit from destroying the future and fools who listen to them believe otherwise. How much money will you make by turning America's farmland into desert?

It was probably always baked in, though, Dan. Self-destruction is a fundamental part of our human ecology. Not to say that it is a blank check for trashing the place up, but jsut to say that it was inevitable that us homosaps would wrack up our habitat and ourselves, thus, paving the way and providing some fossil fuel for the next bunch of bi-pedal wack-a-nuts to have a go at whatever it is we're supposed to be having a go at...happiness? propagation? I have no idea. I am just looking for my next rental property!

Dan8267 says

marcus says

Dan8267 says

the "comes right before" question applies only to countably infinite

This is also wrong. Even for any two rational number you give me, it's simple to come up with one that is between them (actually an infinite number of rational numbers between them).

And your analysis would actually apply had I said the rational numbers aren't an ordinal set. But as you quoted, I said "applies only to countably infinite", which is exactly what you stated.

Sets of the second order of infinity may be scalar, but not ordinal.

Re: "But as you quoted, I said "applies only to countably infinite", which is exactly what you stated."

It doesn't apply to countably infinite. It's okay Dan. I don't care if you and I are the only ones who know the degree to which you know what you're talking about here. You still may sound impressive to the few people reading this. I don't care.

You make my arguments for me. THanks for adding the part about your dick, just in case anyone intelligent readers had any doubts.

And oh, I almost forgot.

You're welcome.

Yes, back to ignore.

marcus says

Yes, back to ignore.

if we was sitting at a table together and you started in like this, I'd smack the hell out of you both. Having dorky Carl Sagan-ish arguments is cool til you get your panties all wadded up. My oldest is a serious nerd and he get's all pissy like this with his uncle who was in R&D at Ampex back in teh day. Makes me crazy. Nobody drags pecker talk into the mix tho.

marcus says

I don't care.

You obviously do care given you obsession to make a mountain out of a typo. Maybe someday you'll gain the emotional maturity to have an adult conversation about real issues instead of

http://www.youtube.com/embed/_BMT6BfxR7w

marcus says

Yes, back to ignore.

Let's see how long Marcus can pretend to keep me on ignore. Bets anyone?

JodyChunder says

Having dorky Carl Sagan-ish arguments is cool til you get your panties all wadded up.

A conversation with Marcus is hardly a Lincoln-Douglas debate.

It would be nice if it were like that, but it's not. It all comes down to having the emotional maturity to discuss the issues rather than attacking your opponent. On the other hand, some people are just asking for a smack down.

marcus says

http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/

OF course those aren't all of his quotes on spirituality.

They sure aren't. They're the only a selected few, and some of those are taken out of context.

However, it's fair to say that Einstein exhibited the signs of "Scared/Wimpy Atheist posing as an Agnostic" as discussed in other threads here.

Dan8267 says

How much money will you make by turning America's farmland into desert?

more damns, and the irrigation and power they provide, are blocked by a particular side of the political isle. Ask them.

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

How much money will you make by turning America's farmland into desert?

more damns, and the irrigation and power they provide, are blocked by a particular side of the political isle. Ask them.

Once again, I have no clue what point, if any, you are trying to make. Please be clearer.

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

Appealing to authority is bullshit, and it's one of the many fundamental problems with both religion and faith.

... and human caused global warmingests

this was me making the point that Green Science needs money and gets it by keeping their lips on Feinstein, Boxer, and Pelosi's collective asses. The Green Science piles of shit are suggesting the Earth's climate is changing due to you not driving a Prius. It's bullshit, and you know it.

continuing:
Dan8267 says

Bap33 says

... and human caused global warmingests
Yes, and the evidence backs that up. Only people who profit from destroying the future and fools who listen to them believe otherwise. How much money will you make by turning America's farmland into desert? Will it be enough to buy food when 2/3rds of America's population will have to starve to death?

SOme internal emails about that "evidence" showed it was trumped up bullshit by the guys wanting to stay funded by the AlGores of the world. I don't blame them for wanting to get paid, but they must stay off of their moral highchair once they start worshiping at the progressive movements pork barrel. And, those pointing at paid-off fact-finders need to realize that their twisted liberal thought process is not replicated by us all.

continued:Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

How much money will you make by turning America's farmland into desert?

more damns, and the irrigation and power they provide, are blocked by a particular side of the political isle. Ask them.

my point here was this: The answer to the issues you point out are also blocked by progressive liberal green freak activists. More water retention is a very good idea. More power production is a very good idea. Both are blocked by progressive liberal green freaks.

This was to answer:
Dan8267 says

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

How much money will you make by turning America's farmland into desert?

more damns, and the irrigation and power they provide, are blocked by a particular side of the political isle. Ask them.

Once again, I have no clue what point, if any, you are trying to make. Please be clearer.

My entry just above was to answer this question. Your original post was to suggest that global warming is man-made and me not agreeing ment we would have deserts where farms are. I live in the central valley. If not for irrigation, this entire area was desert that flooded twice per year. No good production farming came before irrigation in the valley between Stockton and Bakerfield. And irrigation came from dams.

LosAngles and SanFrancisco both rely 100% on water transported in from huge water projects. Those low valley areas that the water was diverted from to keep Frisco alive have been desert for 100 years now.

Today, we need more retention, plus we need more power production. You agree, I know you do. Dams do both. I was pointing out who it is that blocks the building of dams. The Greenies do. They are liberal. They are leftists. They are D's. They are also selfish, ignorant, "I got mine" - NIMBY, rotten turd, dope smoking, hippy pukes.

Bap33 says

this was me making the point that Green Science needs money and gets it by keeping their lips on Feinstein, Boxer, and Pelosi's collective asses. The Green Science piles of shit are suggesting the Earth's climate is changing due to you not driving a Prius. It's bullshit, and you know it.

This is simply a lie told by Fox News. People who enter science don't do so to make big bucks. There are no big bucks in being a scientist. An engineer, yes, but not a scientist. The entire scientific community has confirm and precisely measured the temperature all around the Earth over the past 65,000 years. Scientists with no financial interests have confirmed the rise in temperature.

Furthermore, chemistry and thermodynamics are very well-established and proven sciences. There have been thousands of experiments and papers that have shown that carbon-dioxide causes global warming. There has never, ever been one experiment to show that it hasn't. We are as sure that carbon dioxide causes global warming as we are that water is made up of molecules composed of two hydrogen each sharing a bond with an oxygen atom. There is absolutely no uncertainty about the factual basis of global warming.

Fuck, you could do that damn experiments yourself. Take a large air-tight class container and fill it with pure nitrogen and leave it out in the sunlight. Do the same with another container of regular air from outside. Do the same with a third container filled with 5% carbon dioxide. Another with 10%, and another with 50%, and another with 100%.

After a long hot day, measure the temperature of each container. Guess what, the ones with carbon dioxide are hotter. And the more CO2, the hotter.

Science, unlike religion, requires no faith. It provides proof. However, a lying scumbag who is profits from lies will always say the proof is false simply to fool idiots who will vote to keep policy changes from taking away his profits even though his profits are made at the expense of others. This is the only reason anyone denies man's obvious alteration of the climate. Deniers are either greedy corporatists or idiots fooled by greedy corporatists. Stop being a fool. It's not profitable to you, and those fooling you don't give a rat's ass about your life.

Bap33 says

SOme internal emails about that "evidence" showed it was trumped up bullshit by the guys wanting to stay funded by the AlGores of the world. I don't blame them for wanting to get paid, but they must stay off of their moral highchair once they start worshiping at the progressive movements pork barrel. And, those pointing at paid-off fact-finders need to realize that their twisted liberal thought process is not replicated by us all.

This is more outright lies told by Fox News and conservative radio. I want you to read the entire page on Climategate at FactCheck.org and then tell me what you think. Read everything on the page. Read it three times so that it settles in your head. Then think about. Really think about it like you're on a jury. Then respond.

Oh, and one thing to add to FactCheck's analysis. All science is confirmed repeatedly by various independent scientists and organizations around the world. Any fraud by one or even dozens of individuals or organizations would quickly be exposed and refuted. This is why science is awesome and government and religion suck ass. Science is transparent.

Bap33 says

my point here was this: The answer to the issues you point out are also blocked by progressive liberal green freak activists. More water retention is a very good idea. More power production is a very good idea. Both are blocked by progressive liberal green freaks.

Dams have advantages and disadvantages. In some situations the benefits outweigh the costs and in others the costs outweigh the benefits. Only careful analysis of each particular situations can determine which.

Power production can be great or terrible depending on how it's done. Coal burning causes methylmercury poisoning of seafood and is responsible for birth defects in children and abortions. Yes, that's right, abortions, although they are called "miscarriages" since they are not intentional.

So coal power plants are literally aborting children and causes birth defects in children. Does that in any way dampen your support for coal power suppliers?

And that's just one example of the very real harm done to people against their will by those who pollute. There are about 8 billion other ways in which pollution harms you and your family. And all those ways add up. They also cause an increase in health care costs, which in turn gave us Obamacare.

The financial benefits to companies that pollute are short-lived. The disastrous consequences for the rest of us lasts for centuries. Even if you don't give a rat's ass about the immorality of pollution, just realize that the number of dollars lost exceeds the number of dollars gained. It's bad economics. Even aside the deaths, birth defects, and health problems caused by pollution, and forgetting that pollution kills far more people than terrorists, pollution doesn't make financial sense. It lowers the net GDP.

I have the lowest opinion of hippies in the world. The 1960s sucked ass. But this isn't about hippies and the peace movement and Nancy Pelosi and gay San Francisco. This is about hard-core engineering. The science and engineering says that pollution costs us more than it makes in dollars. And the longer the time horizon you examine, the worse that trade-off is. It doesn't matter how much you hate hippies, it doesn't make sense to pollute the atmosphere. You literally breathe that shit.

Bap33 says

My entry just above was to answer this question. Your original post was to suggest that global warming is man-made and me not agreeing ment we would have deserts where farms are.

Stop watching Fox News and start watching PBS, the Discovery Channel, and the Science Channel.

From Newsweek,

[G] lobal warming's effects on agriculture would actually be quite complicated—and mostly not for the better.

What will make a difference are all the other things we'll have more of as temperatures rise—namely droughts, bugs and big storms. More droughts mean lower crop yields—especially for Southern states. Researchers at the University of Oregon found that in New Mexico alone, reduced stream flow could cost farmers $21 million in crop losses. Meanwhile, melting snow in the Western U.S. will increase water availability in spring but decrease it in summer, forcing farmers to change cropping practices.

Farmers Say Climate Change Already Affecting Crops with video showing the problems already occurring due to climate change. It's not fiction when you already see the bad effects happening right now. It's like denying the existence of lions while one pride eats your insides.

Here's the video from that website.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/g3r_uaY1LFY

Every year that we don't address the issue, the issue getting bigger and more costly to address later.

And that's another reason not to delay. All delays in dealing with pollution and climate change costs us real money because the problem gets bigger and harder to fix. So even if money is the only damn thing you care about, it makes sense to stop pollution right now. Ironic, since there is never a single argument against stopping pollution other than money.

Penny wise, pound foolish.

Bap33 says

Today, we need more retention, plus we need more power production. You agree, I know you do. Dams do both.

I'm all in favor of hydroelectric power including dams provided that they are done right and in the right area. For example, China recently built a massive damn, but it threatens to cause water shortages for millions of Indians.

China has admitted that it is building a dam on the Yarlung Zangbo River. The river originates in Tibet, but then flows into India where it is called Brahmaputra and is a major water source for millions of people. Moreover, the dam will be built in the area near the border disputed between the two countries.

However, hydro-electric, solar, and wind energy are still just stop-gaps. Eventually, we need to move to nuclear fusion, matter/anti-matter, dark energy, or a Dyson's Ring to generate the world's energy. And we definitely need to get off fossil fuels and adopt zero-pollution policies.

Pollution is simply a form a theft. It steals wealth from future generations and the masses of people today in order to increase the wealth of the few. It is fundamentally no different than breaking into a bank and stealing all the money there.

Bap33 says

The Greenies do. They are liberal. They are leftists.

You use these terms as if they all mean the same thing. They don't. Pollution isn't a liberal issue at all. It's not about liberty. It's about health, the environment, and economics, all of which favor outlawing profiteering by vandalizing the environment. Environmentalism is an engineering and economic issue. Polluting is like going up to the statue of David and breaking it into pieces so you can sell the marble on Ebay. Yeah, you make a little profit and society losses much more wealth.

Bap33 says

NIMBY, rotten turd, dope smoking, hippy pukes.

I'm as anti-hippy as they come. I've never smoked dope or cigarettes in my life. I rarely consume alcohol. And I think the Beatles were just another over-hyped boy band. Sure, some of their songs are nice, but they are no Guns and Roses. So I'm pretty much the exact oppose of what you described. Yet, I'm for outlawing all pollution -- granted not all at once because it has to be phased out -- and that's because I'm an engineer and I understand how the world works. The dangers described by climate change papers are not fantasies. They are already happening, and they are getting worse.

Islands disappear under rising seas
New Moore Island DISAPPEARS Into The Sea
For the first time, an inhabited island has disappeared beneath rising seas

Tropical disease epidemic cause by climate change
Malaria cases increase due to climate change

Many cities are built where they are because they are just above the mosquito line. Those cities are now vulnerable to deadly diseases which kill men, women, and children.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/gEhLVi9iveM

http://www.youtube.com/embed/jkZD5qOL_D4

Make no mistake. Climate change isn't about politics just because politicians are trying to protect the illegal activities of corporations. Climate change is about hard-core science and engineering that will affect you life and the lives of your children and theirs.

The only argument against ending pollution is short-term corporate profits. Weigh that against society's massive loss of wealth and land, increase in deadly infectious diseases, birth defects, miscarriages, rising health care costs, disruptions to farming, and a myriad of other problems. It's not hard to see that there are not two sides to this argument. Those arguing in favor of pollution are simply short-sighted, greedy, and foolish. Even those idiots will be worse off. They just lack the intelligence to realize it.

wait, wait, dude, you write too much!

I agree the climate is changing. I do not think man has any part in it - good or bad.

I did not suggest any coal power, I was saying that a dam does two things in one, retention for irrigation(and soon consumption) and power plant. And, from my first hand experience with "The raptor society" and "the Merced River group", I can tell you that these people are 1) greeny, 2) liberal, 3) hippy, and 4) all have "got theirs".

I did read the factcheck thing. I also read Rush's details from his "stack of stuff". I will say this, it is not as clearly pointed out by fact check, BUT, would you say there was no "polling" going on between a few key players on the green science side?

I am 100% for nukes until we figure out how to get Tesla's system working.

I watched a deal on youtube about some "ice cores" that shows that the earth is supposed to be warming right now. Has to do with sun activity and our position with the sun. It was pretty cool.

I am not into pollution, but on a global scale we are just jacking off. We are not the global police for anything else the other countries do. We cant make them conserve anything. Ham-strining us so Fuckitastan can sell more oil to CHina and Russia may not be the best idea ... maybe.?

I will not Fox News for 5 days. My word.

Bap33 says

wait, wait, dude, you write too much!

No, you read too little. Read more.

Bap33 says

I agree the climate is changing. I do not think man has any part in it - good or bad.

Even if it weren't for climate change, pollution is wrong. It's a form of vandalism, theft, and assault. To damage public property, including the environment, is vandalism. To pollute in order to increase profit margins is theft, no different than stealing your neighbor's jewelry to increase the profits of your gold forge. To release toxins in the air, land, and sea where people will breath air, drink water, or eat food contaminated with those toxins is to assault a person as surely as if you poisoned their food yourself.

Furthermore, pollution is responsible for miscarriages -- you know, abortions without the consent of the mother -- so surely as a pro-lifer, you'd be against pollution on that basis alone.

Nevertheless, climate change has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt to exist and to be caused by humans. It makes no sense to deny this unless you are a parasite making a profit at the expense of everyone else, and clearly bap, you are not one of those parasites making obscene amounts of money by destroying the environment. So there is no rational reason for you to refuse to accept the truth.

It is a hard fact that carbon dioxide, and some other gases, are global warmers. Heck, as I stated above, you can do the damn experiment yourself. It is also a fact that mankind has been releasing huge amounts of CO2 since the Industrial Revolution and particularly over the past century.

In fact, CO2 has increased from about 300 ppm to 370 ppm over the past 100 years. That's a 23% increase in a single century.

To put that in perspective, if we followed the trend backwards assuming that this change is purely due to nature, then there must have been no CO2 in the atmosphere in the 1500s. Clearly this isn't true. Similarly, if we followed the trend forward assuming this is a natural, linear phenomenon, then in 1.4 million years, a blink of the eye in evolutionary terms, 100% of the atmosphere will be CO2. This is an equally ridiculous scenario.

As such, the 23% increase in CO2 in the past 100 years is either the mother of all coincidences and nature right now is really acting in an extreme manner never before witnessed, or these emissions are largely man-made. It's not hard to do the math.

100 years may seem like a long time to a human, but it's a fraction of a moment in geographical and ecological processes. There simply is no way short of a cataclysmic event that nature can produce a 23% increase in CO2 in such a miniscule amount of time. Man is responsible.

Bap33 says

I am not into pollution, but on a global scale we are just jacking off. We are not the global police for anything else the other countries do. We cant make them conserve anything. Ham-strining us so Fuckitastan can sell more oil to CHina and Russia may not be the best idea ... maybe.?

There were solutions to the problem of global cooperation on climate control. For example, the Kyoto Accord and cap-and-trade. These solutions would have succeeded if only America lead the way. Instead, America was one of the few to not ratify the Kyoto Accord.

And why? Supposedly because the economy would be hurt by the clean air standards. Yeah, we've left future generations with a far bigger and more expensive problem to solve, but at the economy has been great since we've abandoned Kyoto. Oh wait, the economy has been complete crap anyway. So what was the point of crapping all over the atmosphere?

Bap33 says

I watched a deal on youtube about some "ice cores" that shows that the earth is supposed to be warming right now. Has to do with sun activity and our position with the sun. It was pretty cool.

Sunspots do not cause climate change, say scientists. Key claim of global warming sceptics debunked.

Notice the clear correlation

Notice the lack of correlation between sunspots and long-term temperature change

The bottom line on climate change is that it should not be a left-right issue. The only reason the right opposes doing anything about climate change is that there are short-term profits to be made by ignoring the problem and continuing to cause it. However, in the long run, it is entirely wasteful in economic terms to pollute the Earth and cause uncontrolled climate change. It's simply bad economics that will result in wealth destruction.

But since the Republican Party is ruled by parasites who suck up enormous wealth at the expense of others including through polluting the Earth, the Republican Party always votes against anything that would solve or even mitigate the problem.

And the rank-in-file poor republicans keep falling for the lies told by the ruling class republicans. This causes rank-in-file poor republicans to keep voting for policies that will ultimately harm those very republicans.

All environmental issues are economic issues. It is far more costly to repair the damage than it is to avoid the damage. Furthermore, all environmental questions are only addressable in terms of engineering, not politics or financial philosophy. Politics should be put aside and engineering should take precedent when talking about environmental change.

Dan8267 says

the only reason the right opposes doing anything about climate change is that there are short-term profits to be made by ignoring the problem and continuing to cause it.

hey hey, what are you talking about?
Corporations are people, my friend...

uomo_senza_nome says

hey hey, what are you talking about?
Corporations are people, my friend...

Then why hasn't Texas executed one?

Dan8267 says

uomo_senza_nome says

hey hey, what are you talking about?

Corporations are people, my friend...

Then why hasn't Texas executed one?

I believe in Texas executing a corporation is considered to be regicide.

This morning I stumbled across two funny links that might amuse Canadians and most Americans, though alas they may annoy certain posters who insist that Constitutional law must be subordinate to their particular version of Biblical law. The question is, "Why can't I own a Canadian?" Links follow:

http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100306170007AAPF7vT

My favorite answer has to do with corporations. If corporations are people, how can anybody own one? And how is it that corporations seem to own us? As in, we are required to pay them and submit to contracts with them as long as we live (ObamneyCare), and they can use our money to buy our elections and install their lackeys as our government (Citizens United). It seems to be the one thing Democrats and Republicans can agree on: corporations are the best people of all, and they own us, nevermind what you may have read in the 13th Amendment. Yet, Leviticus says you can only own people from neighboring countries, not your own; by that logic, Canadian and Mexican corporations might be able to own us, but the American corporations that evidently do own us shouldn't be allowed to.

If God is a perky South African sea otter, then that IS what he or she is. Whether I can prove it or not won't change that. The same goes for France, actually.

The issue is whether or not it matters. To say there is no place for "morality" in modern society is ludicrous. It is like delineating a difference between "church and state" and "morality and law". Even atheists have a hard time arguing that morality has no place in the rule of law. The question becomes..which moral treatise is it on which we should base our common beliefs? "Religion" clearly does NOT agree on what is moral. Does atheism? Is it whatever doesn't hurt the other guy is ok? The definition of "hurt" is a bitch.

deepcgi says

"Religion" clearly does NOT agree on what is moral. Does atheism?

You may be interested in this article about science and morality:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-science-of-morality_b_567185.html

deepcgi says

To say there is no place for "morality" in modern society is ludicrous.

Strawman. Morality in General vs. Religious Morality != Morality vs. No Morality

You HAVE to draw a line somewhere. And it elludes science entirely. 89 days...abortion ok. 91 days...abortion not ok. 8 months 29 days...sometimes OK to some people (partial birth, baby half-way out). Baby all the way out but the chord is still uncut...not OK at all. Science couldn't care less. If it is anything but dispassionate, it isn't science anymore. Any Science of Morality is just a mixture of science with philosophy.

Actually, I personally believe that Quantum physics hints at the future of science and morality. Quantum Physics is the death of determinism and cause-and-effect, but the rise of evidence of consciousness preceeding chemistry. That is the skeleton in the closet of science right there. The damn Delayed-Choice Quantum Eraser experiment has actually been confirmed! My old high school physics teacher suddenly becomes the monkey covering his ears. All of a sudden atheist scientists are dragged kicking-and-screaming into the realm of philosophy. Their only defence against the "logical" conclusions are semantical arguments. I love it.

Oh boy, looks like God found another place to hide, temporarily.

First he was in the trees, then the bees, then in clouds, then in the dome above the earth, then in the aether, then in another dimension, or sometimes in human consciousness (but not Ape or Dolphin consciousness, and certainly not rat or tse-tse fly consciousness). Now he's reduced to guiding particles, but only in specific circumstances.

The more direct explanation with less multiplying entities:
We don't know why this happens, yet. But since thunder and lightening was not caused by thor, and mental disease is not demon possession, let's hold off assigning this one to Yahweh.