backtop


Print 143 comment(s) - last by giant781.. on Sep 19 at 4:19 PM


Good news -- new research shows that glacial ice is melting far slower than previously estimated.  (Source: Ned Rozell)

The revised figures are critical as governments worldwide are considering spending trillions to push developing technologies like EVs into premature production to "fight" warming.  (Source: GM-Volt)
Global warming proponents are forced to revise their predictions in the face of mounting evidence

Is the Earth warming? Recent studies have shown that the some scientists believe that the Earth is experiencing climate change of the warming variety.  And the body of collected evidence seems to support the hypothesis that the Earth is undergoing warming.  The more interesting questions are "how much warming is occurring?" and "are humans causing it?"

On those issues there's still much debate and rancor, as illustrated by the recent embarrassing leak of emails from the University of East Anglia. The emails indicated a couple of particularly zealous advocates of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory suggesting a concerted effort to suppress publication and funding of studies that offered alternative or skeptical perspectives.

Now the premise that warming is posing an immediate threat has been dealt another setback, with top climatologists forced to yet again revise estimates of glacial ice loss after lower than expected melting.

According to the new study, over the last several years Greenland shed roughly 104±23 gigatons (billions tons) annually, and 64±32 gigatonnes from West Antarctica, according to an international team of climatologist led by Bert Vermeersen of Delft Technical University, in the Netherlands.  Those estimates are less than half of previously published estimates of ice loss.

It goes on to state that each year sea levels are rising by approximately three-millimeters (0.2 inch), up substantially from 1.8mm (0.07 inches) per year in the 1970s.

The team says that past estimates badly missed the target as they failed to account for a phenomena called glacial isostatic adjustment.  Glacial isostatic adjustment is a term for the rebounding of the Earth's crust that occurs at the end of an Ice Age.  When the weight of the ice on the land is released, the land pushes minutely upwards changing the amount of sea level rise, and even the amount of ice loss itself.

The problem is that the rebound effect is sporadic and hard to predict.  Professor Vermeersen comments, "A good analogy is that it's like a mattress after someone has been sleeping on it all night."

The previously overlooked effect explains why the amount of ice loss shown by satellites since 2002 was dramatically less than previously published figures --230 gigatons of ice per year for Greenland and 132 gigatons per year for West Antarctica.

Professor Vermeersen cooperated with a team of researchers at NASA's Jet Propulsation Laboratory and the Netherlands Institute for Space Research.  He states, "The corrections for deformations of the Earth's crust have a considerable effect on the amount of ice that is estimated to be melting each year.  We have concluded that the Greenland and West Antarctica ice caps are melting at approximately half the speed originally predicted."

With the revisions, ice cover loss is expected to only be contributing a third of sea level rise, rather than half, as previously published.  The rest of the sea level rise comes from thermal expansion of the water.

The research was published in climatology's most prestigious journal, 
Nature Geoscience.

Most are not advocating scrapping research on global warming, ice loss, and potential human contributions to forcing.  It is critical, however, to accurately assess the pace of climate change in order to formulate an economically feasibly response.

Some have criticized the carbon emissions reduction plan proposed by President Obama at Copenhagen late last year as being too economically damaging, particularly to developing nations.  They point out that much of the talks were based on inaccurate figures submitted by the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change, figures which have since been revised.

Ultimately the depletion of oil stockpiles will lead to increasing prices, which in turn will lead to the adoption of emissions-free or reduced emissions modes of transportation like electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles.  Likewise, new technologies like clean nuclear fissionnuclear fusion, and solar power stand to eventually offer inexpensive, emissions-free power as they refine.

The critical question for policy makers in governments worldwide is whether they have to push for the early adoption of these technologies before they become economically feasible.  A major premature push could have a serious deleterious impact on their citizens' standard of living.  But failure to respond to an impending crisis could be equally dangerous.  Thus the new figures of reduced ice loss from NASA and the Netherlands university researchers offer critical insight, which politicians will hopefully heed when considering how much taxpayer money to devote to funding new technology to "fight" warming.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

goes to show...
By knutjb on 9/8/2010 4:22:13 PM , Rating: 4
What this really shows is that we posses far less knowledge on the subject than many believe we do.

With that assumption, jumping to conclusion has potentially greater negative impacts than the possible problem we ponder.

As to the oil reference none of us here today will see the end of the oil supply, nor will their great, great, grand children.

Chicken little strikes again.




RE: goes to show...
By tng on 9/8/2010 4:50:38 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, many of the public out there really don't know just how much there is yet to discover and how much the people who make these statements about GW/AGW really don't know yet.

On the oil, I know there are many theories, but has science really found out where it comes from, how it is/was formed? Without that you really can't predict how long it will last.


RE: goes to show...
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/8/2010 5:08:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

Yes, many of the public out there really don't know just how much there is yet to discover and how much the people who make these statements about GW/AGW really don't know yet.


Absolutely. The fact that scientists jumped to so many conclusions so early is troublesome and definitely warrants reexamining many of the widely assumed "facts" about global warming.

After all, Al Gore and his ilk are no scientists.

Not to say there may be some shred of scientific accuracy in his profit-driven speaking tours and film career, but people are certainly getting a lot of their info from pseudo-authorities out to make a quick buck, while the real experts appear to be perplexed by discovering how many factors they failed to consider.

Simply the effects of water in all its forms -- ground water (irrigation), water vapor, etc. and how it might dampen warming, I feel hasn't been properly considered/assessed.

quote:
comes from, how it is/was formed?


For the most part, yes. Crude oil is the byproduct of the large amount of
biomass produced by a carbon-rich, nutrient rich prehistoric environment.
Basically, in other words, it was formed from dead prehistoric algae
subjected to intense undersea pressures.

The process takes millions of year to occur naturally.

On the other hand you could produce biofuels from fast-growing plants like
switchgrass in months or years. And that process would be virtually carbon
neutral, if your mechanical economy was powered by it.


RE: goes to show...
By Hyperion1400 on 9/8/2010 5:19:19 PM , Rating: 5
Did your account get hacked by Michael Asher dude?


RE: goes to show...
By ekv on 9/9/2010 1:59:16 AM , Rating: 2
5+1!


RE: goes to show...
By kyleb2112 on 9/9/2010 4:54:40 AM , Rating: 2
The part of JasonMick will now be played by a small, unapologetic man.
Just admit you were wrong. Once. You'll feel better.


RE: goes to show...
By angryplayer on 9/10/2010 3:03:56 AM , Rating: 2
At least he learns. I guess he started reading the actual source papers instead of just repeating articles.


RE: goes to show...
By bfellow on 9/8/2010 5:32:38 PM , Rating: 1
Al Gore himself triggered global warming and now wants us to stop it for him! His mansion had generated so much greenhouse gases over the years that might have powered my house for a 100 years.


RE: goes to show...
By Ormand on 9/8/2010 6:10:49 PM , Rating: 5
There are (at least) two theories of oil creation. In Eastern Europe/Russia, scientists believe that oil is constantly created deep in the earth. This "abiogenic" theory would support an almost endless supply of oil, but it requires very deep wells, in most cases. (some as deep as 30,000 feet) The supporters of the competing theories are almost as emotional about their work as the scientists who study climate changes.


RE: goes to show...
By TheSteelGeneral on 9/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: goes to show...
By Reclaimer77 on 9/8/10, Rating: -1
RE: goes to show...
By Quadrillity on 9/8/2010 6:33:52 PM , Rating: 1
I like the global flood theory, where unfathomable amounts of biological organisms were tossed around for a while before settling and being buried and compressed under layers of earth.


RE: goes to show...
By ClownPuncher on 9/8/2010 7:35:53 PM , Rating: 2
Must have been an awful big boat to contain those millions and millions of animals.


RE: goes to show...
By Quadrillity on 9/8/2010 9:45:10 PM , Rating: 1
Why? Only land creatures that couldn't survive in water. Ever heard of baby animals? Plus it says "kinds", not species; kinda like how a dog and a wolf are the same kind... There is plenty of evidence to support it. Sure some of it requires faith, but I worship a limitless God.

Plus, the people of that time were depicted as giants since they lived to be several hundred years old. So their cubit would have been more than twice as big as today's. It's unfortunate that you only scoff at the bible.


RE: goes to show...
By darkfalz on 9/8/2010 11:50:51 PM , Rating: 2
They're letting you use the internet in prison, Kent Hovind?


RE: goes to show...
By SPOOFE on 9/9/2010 12:00:53 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Only land creatures that couldn't survive in water. Ever heard of baby animals?

Even so, that still leaves only a couple cubic feet of space for each animal, its food, and necessary living space.

quote:
There is plenty of evidence to support it. Sure some of it requires faith

If it requires faith, it's not evidence. Faith and evidence are mutually contradictory, at least according to any significant definitions of either term.

quote:
Plus, the people of that time were depicted as giants since they lived to be several hundred years old. So their cubit would have been more than twice as big as today's.

Okay, so you've gone from "not nearly enough space to be physically possible" to "just slightly less than not nearly enough space to be physically possible". Let's face it, if the flood happened as described in the Bible, it required God's magic Gandalf-powers to bend time and space to allow it. And frankly, God seems loathe to violate his laws that govern the universe.


RE: goes to show...
By ekv on 9/9/2010 2:19:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If it requires faith, it's not evidence.
Preponderance of the evidence, then.

[A side question, do you know who created Gandalf?]
quote:
God seems loathe to violate his laws that govern the universe.
I'd agree with you to some extent, but there are numerous counter-examples: Moses holding his arms up and the Israelites winning their battle, manna on the ground, Lazarus risen from the dead, blind man from birth cured, etc. Too many anomalous data points, so most atheists just throw the Bible out.

I take it your more "agnostic" however, no?


RE: goes to show...
By darkfalz on 9/9/2010 2:59:58 AM , Rating: 3
I think he means things which have been observed in recorded history, not "events" from story books.


RE: goes to show...
By ekv on 9/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: goes to show...
By SPOOFE on 9/9/2010 8:32:19 PM , Rating: 3
"Lack of personal experience" is not a significant reason to doubt the accuracy of events as described in the Bible. Much closer to the top of the list are odd anomalies such as The Almighty's insistence that Pi equals exactly 3. And even that is a minor quibble, relatively.

But hey, if you want to act contrarily to the words of Our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ and make a whole bunch of assumptions about people in order to attack them, have at it. He will understand. He will forgive you.


RE: goes to show...
By Quadrillity on 9/9/2010 11:17:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Almighty's insistence that Pi equals exactly 3.

Either you are ignorant of what the Bible actually says, or you are lying. The Bible does talk about pi; And it got it perfectly correct (3.14).


RE: goes to show...
By ekv on 9/10/2010 12:07:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Almighty's insistence that Pi equals exactly 3.
and
quote:
God seems loathe to violate his laws that govern the universe.
So let me get this straight, you're saying that the Bible has "odd anomalies" and therefore its accuracy is to be doubted. Yet, your two statements are in contradiction. So does the Bible contradict itself? or, more likely, do you?

The Bible has been around for awhile and has withstood attacks by atheists and so forth for, what, a couple thousand years. But yet, you know better? Really?

As far as making assumptions, you lost me there, but I know you've made a couple whoppers above. And let me say this, not out of condescension, but simply to save you some grief, don't use "Our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ" unless you belong to the class "our." For starters it's just bad English. Do you ... understand?


RE: goes to show...
By Hyperion1400 on 9/9/2010 6:41:31 AM , Rating: 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk0K1zgCDtE

Penn and Teller, Bullsh*t!: The Bible Part 1

It's 3 parts, but you should be able to find the other two parts in the side bar on YT. It's about a half hour and a really good watch.

ELVIS DIDN'T DO NO DRUGS!


RE: goes to show...
By ekv on 9/9/2010 2:01:32 PM , Rating: 1
RE: goes to show...
By PlasmaBomb on 9/9/2010 9:23:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
By ekv

[A side question, do you know who created Gandalf?]


J. R. R. Tolkien...


RE: goes to show...
By ekv on 9/9/2010 1:53:36 PM , Rating: 2
And we're using Tolkien to make what point? 8)


RE: goes to show...
By SPOOFE on 9/9/2010 8:48:23 PM , Rating: 2
"We" aren't "using" Tolkien for anything.


RE: goes to show...
By ekv on 9/9/2010 11:44:40 PM , Rating: 1
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you were "using" Gandalf to make a point. I was using Tolkien, the creator of Gandalf, to make the following point. Tolkien was a Christian.

Yes, you and I do not comprise "we." However, I was answering the other poster, and hence "we" are using Tolkien. Have I answered you sufficiently?


RE: goes to show...
By DarthKaos on 9/9/2010 9:51:59 AM , Rating: 3
Why won't god heal amputees? Why won't god take the time and put forth the effort to heal a child born without a limb? Why hasn't this happened in the modern era? Why hasn't a blind man been given site any time in resent history? We have stories from thousands of years ago but now that we have cameras to take pictures and videos nothing happens except Jesus appearing on toast. These stories are not proof any more than stories of sacrificing virgins and having a good harvest are proof that sacrificing a virgin will guarantee a good harvest.


RE: goes to show...
By Quadrillity on 9/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: goes to show...
By Dorkyman on 9/9/2010 11:20:51 AM , Rating: 1
To Each His Own and all that, but putting stock in faith means you can get to all kinds of dead ends. Saying one sincerely believes the back side of the moon has a McDonalds and is made of green cheese does not make it so.

I am mystified that some folks believe the Bible is literal truth. It was NEVER meant to be taken that way. It was written by inspired people trying to teach basic truths to largely illiterate people. A person does not literally turn into a block of salt; the point of the story is that evil is eventually punished. That's a good thing to teach, and the salt idea is a good way of getting the point across to people who knew all about salt. But to take it literally is to put on blinders to the way the world works.

I believe very much in a God that goes by the name of E=mc2, or 2+2=4, or the Periodic Table and the miraculous way the various elements interact. God IS science, science IS God.


RE: goes to show...
By Quadrillity on 9/9/2010 12:47:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I am mystified that some folks believe the Bible is literal truth. It was NEVER meant to be taken that way.

Do you understand that this is only your opinion? Can you give any examples of why it can't be literal truth?

quote:
But to take it literally is to put on blinders to the way the world works.

Maybe in your world it would, but the Bible makes perfect sense for everything in my life. Are you arrogant enough to say that you are better than everyone else?
quote:
God IS science, science IS God.

So why don't you take the scientific method and figure out what happens after you die. It will suck majorly for you if you find out one day that God does exist, and that you will be separated from him forever because of your blatant mockery. So what does it hurt to follow God's laws? It doesn't, you just refuse to submit to authority because you are the God of your own universe.

I sure that you also believe that the Bible and science have to mutually exclusive right?


RE: goes to show...
By floydian101 on 9/9/2010 1:32:40 PM , Rating: 2
I love that threat of how, if you don't believe in God, you will be damned forever. It makes no sense whatsoever. First off, people can't just make themselves "believe" something. I can say I believe something, but it doesn't mean that I do. Why would God reward such a disingenuous attitude? Especially compared to honest confusion and wonderment over the nature of the universe? Simply doubting religious claims is a crime that claims for eternal punishment? Not just punishment for a little while, but for all time? Meanwhile, the ten commandments say nothing about rape. Besides, if God made us in his image, then skepticism is a trait he imbued us with, so to punish us for it is indicative of a sadistic mind.


RE: goes to show...
By Quadrillity on 9/9/2010 2:49:22 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I love that threat of how, if you don't believe in God, you will be damned forever.

That's my interpretation of it. I am NOT the judge here. God is.
quote:
Why would God reward such a disingenuous attitude? Especially compared to honest confusion and wonderment over the nature of the universe?

God specifically says that an open heart and mind is all you need to love. He loves you enough to give you the choice whether or not to worship him.
quote:
Meanwhile, the ten commandments say nothing about rape.

I do believe that the 8th commandment says not to seal, sir.
quote:
Besides, if God made us in his image, then skepticism is a trait he imbued us with, so to punish us for it is indicative of a sadistic mind.

That's the beautiful thing about our maker. He tells us that we are like him. He is also humorous, sarcastic, loving, and at times vengeful. As I said earlier, there is ample reason to believe that everything around us, including ourselves, was created and designed. The maker has ALL EXCLUSIVE rights to judge us how he sees fit.

I just think it's odd that some people have faith in nothing. Just nothing? So if you live and die by science alone, that means nothing to look forward to after this life? That is very narrow minded and selfish if you ask me. I believe that this life is only a testament to how you (your soul, heart, and mind) treat others and your maker. Can you imagine how unlivable a Godless world would be? A world without any guides to being a good and just person?


RE: goes to show...
By floydian101 on 9/9/2010 3:47:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I just think it's odd that some people have faith in nothing. Just nothing? So if you live and die by science alone, that means nothing to look forward to after this life?


Faith in nothing? That's what you people have. I have a few ideas about how the world seems to work, but the universe is too vast for me to expect to understand a large portion of it. Religious people claim to have all the answers to the biggest questions of our existence. Without evidence, no less. I'm not "looking forward" to anything after this life because I've never seen anything to suggest that there is anything after this life. There might be, but I can not claim that I know for a fact what happens. Believe it or not, some of us think we'd be a bit less apt to shed each other's blood if we all took that to heart.

Do you know what science is? At it's most basic level, science involves hypothesizing, experimenting, and attempting to explain based on evidence. That's it. It's not a belief system; it's a method of discovery. In other words, I don't believe or claim to understand something without some measure of objective evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Oh, and the commandments say not to covet someone's wife, but they do not forbid raping a single woman or molesting a child. Makes sense considering how many societies viewed women as property in those days.

And finally -
quote:
Can you imagine how unlivable a Godless world would be? A world without any guides to being a good and just person?


Are you saying that the only thing holding you back from doing all sorts of terrible things to your fellows is your belief in God? Because I highly doubt the existence of any supernatural God, yet I have no issue with not doing terrible things to my neighbor. Read up on the Crusades sometime and consider the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity and reclaiming the "holy" land. It includes cannibalism. Should I even start on that noble experiment to root out heretics known as the Inquisition?


RE: goes to show...
By Quadrillity on 9/9/2010 8:33:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Religious people claim to have all the answers to the biggest questions of our existence.

That's a really nice straw man you man there.
quote:
but I can not claim that I know for a fact what happens.

Neither can I; I have good guesses, but I have never uttered the phrase "I know for fact" when it comes to talking about things that we can't possibly know. Another nice straw man.
quote:
Believe it or not, some of us think we'd be a bit less apt to shed each other's blood if we all took that to heart.

If you are alluding that people kill in the name of religion, then I would like to point out that Christians are SPECIFICALLY commanded NOT to murder.
quote:
In other words, I don't believe or claim to understand something without some measure of objective evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

So let me ask you this. After having said the above, what do you feel about the claims in science that "we know how life first emerged". There is NO WAY anyone can know that. Not even a good theory. Abiogenesis has NEVER been observed, yet it is in every single major biology textbook. I have a problem with calling that crap "science"; because it is not observable. If you believe life came from non-life on its own, then you certainly have "faith" in that occurrence.
quote:
Oh, and the commandments say not to covet someone's wife, but they do not forbid raping a single woman or molesting a child. Makes sense considering how many societies viewed women as property in those days.

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL. How clear can that be? The ten commandments were forged as a general guide to being a good person. The entirety instruction for Christians is NOT only located in that one sector. How to live a honest life is from front to cover.
quote:
Are you saying that the only thing holding you back from doing all sorts of terrible things to your fellows is your belief in God? Because I highly doubt the existence of any supernatural God, yet I have no issue with not doing terrible things to my neighbor.

No; I am most certainly a sinner just like everyone else. My sins are no great, nor smaller than yours. If God doesn't exist, and evolution is true, then we are merely animals and we should act as such. Animals don't have morals or values, so why should we?
quote:
Read up on the Crusades sometime and consider the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity and reclaiming the "holy" land. It includes cannibalism. Should I even start on that noble experiment to root out heretics known as the Inquisition?

And yet again; a third straw man! Everything about the crusades what 100% against what it means to be a good Christian. You setup a common logical fallacy by claiming that Christians upheld these ideals as instructed by their faith. NO, WRONG. Actually read the bible, and you will see thousands of examples of how they BROKE the laws of God. I can do the same thing by mentioning that the shooters at the columbine were atheistic believers in evolution. Therefor, all evolutionists and atheists are monstrous murderers. See what I did there? See what you did there?


RE: goes to show...
By floydian101 on 9/9/2010 10:19:16 PM , Rating: 2
Uhhhh.... so religious people don't claim to have the answers to the biggest questions of our existence? Dude, have you even read the book you're religion is based on? It even claims childbirth is painful for women because of the sin in the garden of eden, like that sort of logic makes any sense anyway.

quote:
I can do the same thing by mentioning that the shooters at the columbine were atheistic believers in evolution. Therefor, all evolutionists and atheists are monstrous murderers. See what I did there? See what you did there?


However, the Colombine shooters didn't murder in the name of atheism. That argument is empty. The Crusaders did, however, commit murders in the name of Christianity. Additionally, Pope Urban told them they'd get a free ride to heaven for killing Muslims. Which leads to my next point...

quote:
If you are alluding that people kill in the name of religion, then I would like to point out that Christians are SPECIFICALLY commanded NOT to murder.


I think we all know that they've been quite willing to bend on this one over the years.

quote:
Neither can I; I have good guesses, but I have never uttered the phrase "I know for fact" when it comes to talking about things that we can't possibly know. Another nice straw man.


quote:
So if you live and die by science alone, that means nothing to look forward to after this life?


quote:
It will suck majorly for you if you find out one day that God does exist, and that you will be separated from him forever because of your blatant mockery.


Correct, you didn't use the phrase "I know for a fact." You said you have good guesses. You seemed sure enough to leave the idea hanging as a threat of eternal damnation :) (I don't know how often anyone ever puts a smiley after the phrase eternal damnation, so I wanted to try it)

As far as as the life from nothing bit goes, I honestly don't know what you are talking about. I've never heard a scientist claim to fully understand the process. Not saying they haven't, just saying that I haven't heard them. I have heard them say that there must have been a starting point, otherwise we wouldn't be hear talking about it

However, unexplained mysteries in biology do nothing to advance your argument, which is that God started it. If you use God to explain the origin of life on the basis of complexity or improbability, wouldn't the creator have to be at least as unlikely and complex? That's what I find so detestable about Creationism - unexplained bits of biology are inexcusable. Unexplained bits of creationism are just... what, off limits? You see, that's the key difference here... I don't "believe" in how life came about. I don't pretend to "know." I'm mystified by the fact that it has. All I do know is that creationism explains nothing because it refuses to explain the creator.

quote:
THOU SHALT NOT STEAL. How clear can that be?


If that means you're cool with women being treated as property, because, after all I was refering to rape not being forbidden in the ten commandments. I'm not cool with it.

quote:
No; I am most certainly a sinner just like everyone else. My sins are no great, nor smaller than yours. If God doesn't exist, and evolution is true, then we are merely animals and we should act as such. Animals don't have morals or values, so why should we?


The question I had asked you was "Are you saying that the only thing holding you back from doing all sorts of terrible things to your fellows is your belief in God?" So, you answered no, so your belief is not what's holding you back? That undermines your argument. If that wasn't what you meant, then what did you mean?

Lastly we are not the only species to live in communities. Even insects have communities. Our ethical systems, however, are certainly more complex, which makes sense considering we have much larger brains than other animals.

It makes more sense that our morals have developed over time as our societies have changed. Christianity's been around for 2000 years. Slavery was only abolished in the US 150 years ago. How on earth was it even still around when the Columbus sailed across the ocean? What took so long? Our morals develop independent of religion, thus suggesting that religion is not the key variable.


RE: goes to show...
By Quadrillity on 9/10/2010 11:11:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, the Colombine shooters didn't murder in the name of atheism.

Um, yes the did. The did so in the proclaimation that there is no God and also in the name of Evolution. Look it up. They said something to the effect of, "I killed him because he doesn't deserve what evolution gave him".
quote:
The Crusaders did, however, commit murders in the name of Christianity. Additionally, Pope Urban told them they'd get a free ride to heaven for killing Muslims. Which leads to my next point...

I am completely convinced that you cant comprehend simple language speech. THE CRUSADERS DID NOT FOLLOW THE LAWS THAT THEY SO VIOLENTLY PREACHED. THEY WERE GIANT HYPOCRITES. As for the Pope; I don't give one rats ass about the pope. He is just another human being just like me. I worship God, not the Pope. Good straw man.
quote:
I think we all know that they've been quite willing to bend on this one over the years.

STRAW MAN ARGUMENT.

quote:
As far as as the life from nothing bit goes, I honestly don't know what you are talking about.

http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/5...
There are thousands of examples of this kind of crap that's pushed off as legit science.
quote:
If you use God to explain the origin of life on the basis of complexity or improbability, wouldn't the creator have to be at least as unlikely and complex?

Yes, I do believe he is incredibly complex; but unlikely? No. I see overwhelming evidence for a creator and designer. Take a look at the flagellum motor and tell me what you think. Does that not look like a masterpiece of design?
quote:
Unexplained bits of creationism are just... what, off limits? You see, that's the key difference here... I don't "believe" in how life came about. I don't pretend to "know." I'm mystified by the fact that it has. All I do know is that creationism explains nothing because it refuses to explain the creator.

No, you just have a vast misunderstanding of FAITH. Arrogant people like you will never seem to understand that WE WILL NEVER BE GODS. You really have this notion that we have the capacity to know/learn everything. Are we smart? Yeah! We certainly are a crafty kind, but to say we can know everything? No, that just makes to look stupid yet again when you build up a straw man as you try to point out that I can't "explain the creator/know where HE came from". Its a moot point, and you are just grasping at straws. If you don't understand that our minds are limited, then simply try this: Think of a new color. Brain hurt yet?
quote:
If that means you're cool with women being treated as property, because, after all I was refering to rape not being forbidden in the ten commandments. I'm not cool with it.

You are an idiot. Thou shalt not steal, means do not steal. Period. ANY KIND OF THEFT. Rape is theft. Maybe you are too ignorant to understand why, but nevertheless, it is stealing. As far as women being treated as property, refer to my "laws of the land" bit somewhere else in this article.
quote:
The question I had asked you was "Are you saying that the only thing holding you back from doing all sorts of terrible things to your fellows is your belief in God?"

My belief in God and understanding of the Bible (his written laws) HELPS to define me as a moral person. I study and practice his laws so that I can be a better person. I say PRACTICE because everyone has faults, and I certainly point mine out. I at least admit that I can do some pretty nasty things sometimes, but I am constantly trying to shape myself into a better person.

What you failed to answer is, "Without instruction, how to we come to a unified understanding of what the rules are?" Do we just make them up as we go? Should people like Al Gore, Stalin, and Sadam be the ones to guide us in making moral decision? Do you understand what happens in the world when people trust in themselves to be their own guide to moral decisions? You get events like genocide. In their own right, they thought they were doing the right thing by eliminating an inferior "race". Who to say that they are wrong for doing that? (I have an answer. God said it was wrong).

quote:
Lastly we are not the only species to live in communities. Even insects have communities. Our ethical systems, however, are certainly more complex, which makes sense considering we have much larger brains than other animals.

Evolution teaches that were are animals. So, why bother with morality? Why do we love? Why do we "feel". It doesn't answer any of these fundamental concepts that we (as humans) revolve around. God does answer these questions. Science does not.

quote:
Our morals develop independent of religion, thus suggesting that religion is not the key variable.

Morals are a derivative of religion; and you have no counter to that other than straw man arguments. I wish you could understand this...


RE: goes to show...
By floydian101 on 9/11/2010 4:39:14 AM , Rating: 2
I was always under the impression the Colombine shooters were troubled kids subject to the experiments of the pharmaceutical industry. Perhaps they did say those things, but, regardless of what they said, you'd have say something pretty extraordinary to convince me that the killings were inspired by something they didn't believe. Do you realize that atheism is not belief? It's a lack of belief, or, if you will, a rejection of someone else's belief.

True, there are some will actively say there is no God. I simply don't believe that there is, or I highly doubt it, if you prefer. Sort of like how I highly doubt that I'll win the lottery. Could happen, probably won't. Sort of like not believing in Zeus, Apollo, Poseiden, Odin, Thor, which I'm sure you do quite well. Isn't it amazing that you just so happened to be born into the correct religion, and all the Greeks and Romans of antiquity were not? You are so lucky.

quote:
You are an idiot. Thou shalt not steal, means do not steal. Period. ANY KIND OF THEFT. Rape is theft.


Well, perhaps, but I wasn't the first to resort to name calling. This may satisfy you in a metaphorical sense, but then why is there a separate commandment for murder? After all that is taking another's life. If this were a law on our books today, it would not be sufficient to make rape illegal.

There were three commandments concerning worship - no false gods, not taking the name in vain, keeping the sabbath. Crystal clear on those - no room for misunderstanding or loopholes. But you're saying rape and molestation would be ambiguously listed under stealing? Are you joking?

On the crusades - the printing press would not be invented until after they were over. Regular people did not own Bibles. The most literate members of western Europe were the monks. The regular people, well, where did they learn of God? From their preachers, who told them that the all powerful creator of the universe wants them to kill infidels. I personally think, that if I truly believed the creator of the universe wanted me to kill "infidels," it would probably be in my best interest to do it. That's why religion is dangerous!

I would agree with you 100% on the basis that what they did had no relation to anything Jesus said. But the crusader soldiers were not hypocrites; on the contrary, since they were mostly illiterate peasants who trusted their preachers, they believed they were serving a high calling. They thought they were doing the right thing. They wouldn't have done it for any other reason. The preachers, though, were beyond mere hypocrisy into the land shockingly evil.

quote:
No, you just have a vast misunderstanding of FAITH. Arrogant people like you will never seem to understand that WE WILL NEVER BE GODS.


No that's not what I'm saying. I would totally have to believe in gods first. All kidding aside, thank you for making my point for me. If you criticize scientific approaches for having gaps and not being able to explain everything, then why doesn't God require an explanation? I just believe both approaches should be held to the same standard.

When did I say that we are capable of understanding everything? I just don't think we should declare some things as off limits because "it's God." I think we should attempt to understand as much as possible, and I don't know what the limits are.

I also believe any religious "hypothesis," creation story, or suggestion of intelligent design ought to be subject to the same standards as a hypothesis of, say, why the north pole is colder than the equator.

Or, perhaps, why my car air conditioner will only ever quit in late spring and why it's never cheap to fix. Can I apply faith to that? I have faith that there is a shortage of freon but no mechanical damage. I know it in my heart, as my parents have instilled this notion in me. It brings me deep personal comfort. Therefore it could not be terribly expensive to fix.

That's what religion sounds like to an atheist.

Oh, and on the belittling statement about my head hurting trying to think of a new color, well, how's this - there are known and studied wavelengths that the human eye can't detect - x-rays, ultraviolet, infra-red. I can't image the "color" of an x-ray but because detecting it was never advantageous to the survival of my ancestors.

To say that our morals derive from religion is nonsense. Religion derives from us.

Why bother with morality? Because living together in communities has helped us survive. Traits that help us survive are more likely to be passed on. I would think that we could be agree on that concept. Now, over immense spans of time these develop into something more complex. What began as a simple "You scratch my back, I scratch yours" attitude developed into something more complex.

quote:
What you failed to answer is, "Without instruction, how to we come to a unified understanding of what the rules are?"


Where on earth did you get the idea that we have this unified understanding? It's changed dramatically over the ages. It was common in Rome for emperors to seize power through murder, while presidential candidates merely badmouth each other. You didn't answer my question on why it took so long after Christianity came about to abolish slavery, which you should be able to do if you claim that religion is the source of our morals.

The civil war is a good example on this. Just 150 years ago, in our Christian nation, a brutal war costing over 600,000 lives was fought over the question of whether man can own other men and whip them when they misbehave. Now, I'm not saying this happened because of Christianity. In this argument, I'm saying Christianity did not stop it.

Today, it's taboo for the "n" to be used by anyone who isn't black, because the word is far too loaded. But only 50 years ago, segregation was alive, well, and accepted. Unless they rewrote the Bible when I wasn't looking, it wasn't the source of our advancing collective attitude on race.

Secondly, we have instruction. We have parents; we have teachers; we have literature. It developed over time. Can I prove that? Do I need to? Did you learn your morals from God himself or did you learn them from people? Do you really think that we would never had someone stand up and say "hey, let's not kill each other" without "God"?

Ranking Al Gore with Stalin and Saddam? Really? Whether you take him seriously or not, it's hardly appropriate to compare him to men who have actually committed genocidal acts. That's baseless jumping to extremes, and it's disrespectful to the memory of those who lived under the real tyrants.

If you can meet the task laid out in this link, feel free to keep debating. Otherwise, I see no reason to debate with someone who simply calls my arguments invalid without explanation.
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/theistguide.htm...

The link you posted? Research on protein molecules? What in the F is wrong with that? They didn't claim to have a complete answer in that article. Like I said before, I've never heard a scientist claim to have a complete answer. The headline is misleading, but that's the reporter's fault, not the scientists. Besides, their lack a complete explanation does nothing advance yours.

On a side note, if I left any typos, forgive me, it's getting late where I live, and I'm calling it a night without proofreading.


RE: goes to show...
By floydian101 on 9/11/2010 4:39:40 AM , Rating: 2
Back to this whole straw man business

I understood straw man arguments to be a deflective tactic, and I don't believe I've committed them. I'd like a clear definition as to precisely what you mean by "straw man," because all I'm seeing is "I don't have to answer that." If you think the argument is baseless or not pertinent, explain why.

You said
quote:
So if you live and die by science alone, that means nothing to look forward to after this life?


To which I responded
quote:
I'm not "looking forward" to anything after this life because I've never seen anything to suggest that there is anything after this life. There might be, but I can not claim that I know for a fact what happens.


and you responded
quote:
Neither can I; I have good guesses, but I have never uttered the phrase "I know for fact" when it comes to talking about things that we can't possibly know. Another nice straw man.


I responded to your claim directly, and I didn't say that you didn't utter the phrase "looking forward to anything after this life." I gave my reasoning for my response, which was also quite direct. You've accused me many times of making straw man arguments to avoid direct rebuttals.

If you can meet the task laid out in this link, feel free to keep debating. Otherwise, I see no reason to debate with someone who simply calls my arguments invalid without explanation.
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/theistguide.htm...

The link you posted? Research on protein molecules? What in the F is wrong with that? They didn't claim to have a complete answer in that article. Like I said before, I've never heard a scientist claim to have a complete answer. The headline is misleading, but that's the reporter's fault, not the scientists. Besides, their lack a complete explanation does nothing advance yours.

On a side note, if I left any typos, forgive me, it's getting late where I live, and I'm calling it a night without proofreading.


RE: goes to show...
By floydian101 on 9/9/2010 10:21:10 PM , Rating: 2
This has been kind of fun, actually. I doubt either of us will walk away with any different beliefs.


RE: goes to show...
By Calindar on 9/9/2010 7:15:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can you imagine how unlivable a Godless world would be? A world without any guides to being a good and just person?


I don't know, the God filled world we live in now seems pretty crappy to me, I can't imagine it could be any worse. I can't imagine what it would be like to live in a world where people aren't flying airplanes into buildings, setting off car bombs in crowded places, chanting for the death of an entire country because someone in that country burned a book they like, denying clear evidence and scientific advancement because a two thousand year old fairy tale says something different... My goodness what a terrible world that would be indeed.


RE: goes to show...
By Quadrillity on 9/9/2010 8:41:47 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I can't imagine what it would be like to live in a world where people aren't flying airplanes into buildings, setting off car bombs in crowded places, chanting for the death of an entire country because someone in that country burned a book they like

All purely examples of what most fundamental religious terrorism leads to ... which is Islam. Go out and read the koran and see that they worship an ideal which is nothing but violence, death, and objectifying women. That's what their religion is BASED on. The Bible does have some instances where those things come into play, but every single one that I have seen is explained in a different tone then what at face value. In other words, if you don't look into it, you will probably see violence/etc.

Islam is purely based off of an evil and hateful God. Not my style..

quote:
denying clear evidence and scientific advancement because a two thousand year old fairy tale says something different...

Other than trying to play God, which "advancements" are held back by religion? FUD.


RE: goes to show...
By Hyperion1400 on 9/9/2010 1:58:04 PM , Rating: 2
Exodus 21:7 says its ok to sell your daughter into slavery. I take it you support that since the Bible is the literal word of God and God is infallible.

Exodus 35:2 says that anyone working on the Sabbath is to be put to death. I take it you support that since the Bible is the literal word of God and God is infallible.

Corinthians 11:14 says long hair is a sin. Wait, didn't Jesus have long hair? Well, I guess Jesus is a sinner since the Bible is the literal word of God and God is infallible.

Corinthians 11:19-24 states that it is a sin to go near a woman while she is on her period. I take it you stay at a Motel 6 when ever your wife/GF is on the rag because the Bible is the literal word of God and God is infallible.

Hmmm... makes you think don't it?


RE: goes to show...
By Quadrillity on 9/9/2010 2:37:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Exodus 21:7 says its ok to sell your daughter into slavery. I take it you support that since the Bible is the literal word of God and God is infallible.


You are willfully trying to deceive people, and there are several points in the Bible that describe what happen to people that do this. You take one sentence out of an entire chapter and skew it to fit your wild assumptions of something that you are not willing to honestly read and try to understand. For that reason, you refuse to read with an open heart and mind.

If I'm not mistaken, you are the same one who has posted quotes completely out of context to try and prove your malicious agenda. The truth is, you want others to be cold hearted and dead in spirit just like yourself.

quote:
1Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.
2If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
3If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
4If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
5And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
6Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
7And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
8If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.


What the passage describes is some of the typical laws/rules/customs on treating servants. People have butlers and maids still today, why is this such an evil concept? And hey, check this out: Back then, most people forced criminals to serve as slaves for a time period if they committed a crime! How ingenious is that?!

I will only respond to the first one, because (correct me in I am wrong) you never responded back the last time we did this back and forth. So, in summation, stop being disingenuous to all readers by only posting one sentence and morphing it to fit your delusions of a sad pathethic world. Because if there is no God behind the curtains running the show, then I give up and no longer want to live in this ever crapifying world.


RE: goes to show...
By Hyperion1400 on 9/9/2010 5:52:40 PM , Rating: 3
Hmm, even IN context, it still says its ok to SELL your daughter into servitude. Where I come from, that is SLAVERY! Not only does it say it is ok to do so, it also prescribes an indefinite period of time for women to remain in "servitude" where as men are let go after 6 years. Well, at least the master can't force marriage on her :\ My GOD, did you even read what you just posted?

Also, I don't even recall having had a back and forth with you. The only back and forth I recall having with anyone is with pirks about why Macs do indeed have BIOSes.


RE: goes to show...
By Hyperion1400 on 9/9/2010 7:16:43 PM , Rating: 1
Oh, and just so you dont pull that "out of context" bull crap with the other 3 verses I posted:

Exodus 35:1-4

"And Moses gathered all of the congregation of the children of Israel together, and said unto them, These ARE the words which the Lord hath commanded, that YE should do them.

Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord; whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.

Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day.

And Moses spake unto all the congregation pf the children of Israel, saying, This IS the thing which that Lord commanded"

--That's pretty clear? Not much room for interpretation there.

Corinthians 11:1-23

"Be ye followers of me, even as I am of Christ.

Mow I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of every woman is a man; and the head of Christ is God."

--You heard it right here folks, women are subservient to men. There is no way to argue that, this being the literal word of the infallible God and all.

"Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven."

--Wait.... that sounds strangely familiar...

"For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of man"

--Again with the subservience?

"For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man.

Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."

--Man, this guy rambles more than Nietzsche!

"For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angles.

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without that man, in the Lord.

For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman: but all things in God.

Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him"

--Right there in plain English, but wait, there's more!

"But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her is given her for a covering.

But if any man seem to be cintentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.

For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you: and I partly believe it.

For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are aproved may be made manifest among you.

When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to east the Lord's supper.

For in easting every one taketh before other his own supper" and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

What? have ye not houses to eat and drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not."

--Holy F&^%, its a sin to have an after service Sunday dinner! I am SOOOO going to hell for disgracing God.

Whoops wrong Book, the period thing is from Leviticus; my bad:

Leviticus 15: 19-24

"And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.

And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: everything also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.

And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water. and be unclean until the even.

And if it be on her bed, or on anything whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even.

And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he be unclean seven days: all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean."

--Now, I know women can be a bitch on their period, but I think chastising them for something they can't control is a bit extreme don't you?


RE: goes to show...
By Quadrillity on 9/9/2010 8:47:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
8If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

If you would like, I can break that down further for you. Did you not read the part about maids and butlers? God commanded to obey the laws of the land unless it conflicted with his laws. Sure many lands had strange laws, (some of which, by today's standards, were unfair to certain demographics) but what is to stop them from MOVING if they don't like those laws? Nothing! That what that last paragraph is about. No-one is to stop her(the maidservent) from leaving if she doesn't want to be there.

You see what you want to see, and I can only offer you different views on the subject. I am not saying that I am all knowing/arrogant about it, but come on man; you gotta see where you aren't being open to this.


RE: goes to show...
By Hyperion1400 on 9/9/2010 10:35:23 PM , Rating: 2
"7And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

SELL! What part of being SOLD to someone is voluntary! She is not a maidservant; she is a slave. Verses 1-3 are what we would refer to as indentured servitude today. However, to argue that verses 4-7 are anything other than slavery is just asinine.

Verse 8 is a bit awkwardly arranged; bare with me whilst I reconstruct it a bit...

"If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed. He shall have no power to sell her unto a strange nation, seeing [as] he hath dealt deceitfully with her."

In other words, he may not force marriage upon her, i.e. the female slave, nor purchase her with the intent to force marriage on her. Should he attempt to, and she reject, he will sacrifice all claim to her ownership.

"If you would like, I can break that down further for you. Did you not read the part about maids and butlers? God commanded to obey the laws of the land unless it conflicted with his laws. Sure many lands had strange laws, (some of which, by today's standards, were unfair to certain demographics) but what is to stop them from MOVING if they don't like those laws? Nothing! That what that last paragraph is about. No-one is to stop her(the maidservent) from leaving if she doesn't want to be there."

Your reading comprehension is just aweful.


RE: goes to show...
By Quadrillity on 9/10/2010 11:23:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
SELL! What part of being SOLD to someone is voluntary! She is not a maidservant; she is a slave.

It says maidservant. MAIDSERVANT. You blatantly dodged my explained of this because you absolutely refuse to look at it any other angle. You came into this debate with a completely close off mind.

quote:
Your reading comprehension is just aweful.

We disagree on a subject, so that automatically makes you the one that right? LoL. Truly arrogant.
So basically you ignore my explanation of "laws of the land" and responded with a revised version of "NUH-UH!". How elaborate of you. I think this converstation is pretty much over when you do everything to ignore the points that I make while continuing to try and convince me that I am wrong. Learn how a debate works, then get back to me.


RE: goes to show...
By JoshTX84 on 9/10/2010 4:53:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Corinthians 11:14 says long hair is a sin. Wait, didn't Jesus have long hair? Well, I guess Jesus is a sinner since the Bible is the literal word of God and God is infallible.


As far as I know there is no mention in the Bible of Jesus having long hair and I have no idea why he is portrayed that way.


RE: goes to show...
By Quadrillity on 9/10/2010 11:15:30 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I don't understand either how someone wants to talk about a subject, but they know nothing more than talking points of biased sources. I'm about 99.99% sure that before typing anything in this article he went to google and typed in "how to disprove the bible" or something of the like.

The Bible clearly has parts of it that seem really weird on the surface. It is truly unfortunate that some people can not realize that you can't skim through it and pick out clips and phrases.


RE: goes to show...
By eggman on 9/9/2010 4:02:55 PM , Rating: 2
Do you understand that this is only your opinion? Can you give any examples of why it can't be literal truth?


Because it is just too convenient for man made religions.


RE: goes to show...
By PaterPelligrino on 9/10/2010 6:07:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you understand that this is only your opinion? Can you give any examples of why it can't be literal truth?

The universe is demonstrably vastly older than stated in the Bible. If the Bible is literally true, then much of modern science must be wrong.

As someone has already pointed out, the whole Noah's Ark thing is physically impossible. And where did all that extra water come form and where did it go after the flood. Biblical literalists deal with all these absurdities by either twisting common sense beyond all reason - 600 year old people - or by the old deus-ex-machina miraculous intervention of god. To an objective observer it's all circular reasoning.
quote:
but the Bible makes perfect sense for everything in my life

No one doubts that biblical litreralism makes perfect sense in YOUR life. People believe all sorts of irrational things that make perfectly good sense to them. You think all the other religions are fairy tales but claim an exception for your own. Don't you see how bogus that appears to a skeptic?
quote:
So why don't you take the scientific method and figure out what happens after you die.

Nothing happens after you die. In fact, you cannot be dead. Only something that exists can have any attributes. Saying something like Shakespeare is dead makes no more sense than saying he is in Miami on vacation. Either you are alive or you don't exist. You cannot be (=) dead, if death is understood as the property of an existing entity.
quote:
It will suck majorly for you if you find out one day that God does exist, and that you will be separated from him forever because of your blatant mockery.

If god exists (which god by the way?) and he asks me why I didn't believe, I will ask (to paraphrase Bertrand Russell) why did he give me a brain if he didn't want me to make proper use of it.
quote:
So what does it hurt to follow God's laws?

Which god's laws. Why chose one god over another. The difference between believers and atheists is not intelligence, it's personality. Some see god everywhere, others don't. If you had been born in Saudi Arabia, you would today be a Muslim; if you had been born in New Delhi, you'd be a devout Hindu. And morality doesn't derive from god, it comes from man. The Bible was written by men. I'm no less moral than you even tho I don't buy into the Bronze Age creation myths of middle-eastern goat herders. Don't confuse Christian morality with Jehovah's laws.
quote:
you just refuse to submit to authority because you are the God of your own universe.

This is the same mistake all true believers make when trying to account for why atheists don't subscribe to some religion. Atheists don't believe because not only isn't there any evidence for god, the whole religious explanation is highly improbable. There are a great many brilliant atheists; do you think they are all too proud to accept your god. How dumb is that? Anybody, especially an intelligent person, would accept god if he thought he existed. I would be overjoyed to know that there was a god and that paradise awaited me. We don't believe in god for the same reason we don't believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

If we have one duty in the few years we have of existence, it is to face life as it is, not delude ourselves with feel-good fairy stories to make it through the night.


RE: goes to show...
By Quadrillity on 9/10/2010 11:31:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nothing happens after you die.

LOL! never thought I'd actually see you make an arrogant enough statement to make me fall out of my chair. There we have it folks! PaterPelligrino knows what happens after death! Just ask him! Obviously he is a God, and knows everything about everything.

The conversation ends here, because you are just waaaay to advanced for our tiny and feeble little brains.


RE: goes to show...
By PaterPelligrino on 9/10/2010 12:27:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd actually see you make an arrogant enough statement to make me fall out of my chair.

One can't say with 100% certainty that there don't exist transcendental beings not subject to the physical laws of this universe and not apparent to the senses. But that statement could be made about any of an infinite number of possible, tho highly unlikely, beings. You can't prove there is no Shiva, but you have no problem denying his existence.

I say there exist no gods at all. And I say that with the same conviction that characterizes your belief in the Old-Testament Jehovah. And if there is no god, it follows that there is no immortal soul, and therefore no life after death. So stating that nothing happens after you die is no more unreasonable, no more arrogant, than denying the existence of Shiva.

I find immense comfort in the idea that we end - that nothing remains - when we die.

In any case, if you're right, you will have your god and I will not - tho I find it odd that god would punish me for merely applying my reason to everything I encounter in life. After all, Homo Sap believes in all sorts of ridiculous supernatural beings; how am I to know that Jehovah isn't just another?

If I'm right, neither of us will ever know it.


RE: goes to show...
By Quadrillity on 9/10/2010 1:14:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If I'm right, neither of us will ever know it.

In summation: You are correct in saying that. If you are right, we will never know. However, If I am right; you will be judged one day(Not by me, I should add).

I guess lets just leave it at that.


RE: goes to show...
By floydian101 on 9/9/2010 1:21:39 PM , Rating: 2
People pick and choose which parts of the Bible to take literally based on the norms of the society they live in and the level of their own indoctrination. If the Bible was clear about what to take literally and what not to, then I'd give it another hearing. Where, exactly, does the Bible claim that it's not literal? On the contrary, on the giving of laws in Deuteronomy, the "Lord" clearly says not to add or take anything away from his words.

I view the Bible the same way I view the Iliad. It has some fascinating ancient stories that were written by people who didn't know that the earth goes around the sun, among many many other things. Had it not been for Constantine's convernsion, this conversation would probably be about the Iliad. It's just a book. No secret of the universe, nothing like that at all.


RE: goes to show...
By Quadrillity on 9/9/2010 2:15:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
fascinating ancient stories that were written by people who didn't know that the earth goes around the sun,

The bible certainly does teach that the earth is round, and there is not place where it says that the sun revolves around the earth.

Why does the bible teach that you should wash your hands in running water? How about when it describes microscopic particles?

I'm sick and tired of this misconception that people of ancient cultures were retarded.


RE: goes to show...
By PaterPelligrino on 9/10/2010 2:44:07 AM , Rating: 2
Embracing the moral code embodied in the Bible is one thing, but thinking that every fanciful myth is the literal truth is so mindblowingly dumb that it should be obvious that what is at play here is not rational thought but rather unshakable emotional commitment to a comforting bedtime story.

People believe this stuff because they need to, not because it makes sense. Or rather, it only makes sense to those who believe - the usual circular reasoning that characterizes most religious belief - which should tell you what's really at stake here.

A devote Hindu, to pick one of a dozen other religions, would argue exactly the same thing, and with equal certainty, about the Bhagavad Gita. Each would say the other is wrong. The obvious conclusion is that they are both crazy monkeys howling at the moon.


RE: goes to show...
By Quadrillity on 9/10/2010 11:28:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Embracing the moral code embodied in the Bible is one thing, but thinking that every fanciful myth is the literal truth is so mindblowingly dumb that it should be obvious that what is at play here is not rational thought but rather unshakable emotional commitment to a comforting bedtime story.

Post one single instance that could not be taken literally. One. There is no reason to doubt anything in the Bible because it has never been proven wrong. You opinion is different from mine, yet you go around spreading your intolerance like wildfire. If you don't like it, then don't talk about, think about it, nor write on a forum about it. Live you bitter life the way you want to, but keep away from society, because obviously you have a problem with people that have an opinion that differs to your.

Calling people crazy monkeys does not give you any credence; it just makes you look stupid and childish.


RE: goes to show...
By PaterPelligrino on 9/10/2010 12:48:26 PM , Rating: 2
I could name any number of biblical impossibilities, but you would just come up with more 600-year-old-men sophistry.

Admit it, nothing anyone could ever say, nothing that could ever emerge from the mind of man, would ever make you change your opinion about the Old Testament.

However, even among Christians, the idea that the Old Testament is literally, word-for-word true is a minority view. Even the Catholic Church doesn't go that far.


RE: goes to show...
By Quadrillity on 9/10/2010 1:11:22 PM , Rating: 2
i asked you to produce a sample, yet you did not. I simply cannot debate empty commentary.

quote:
Admit it, nothing anyone could ever say, nothing that could ever emerge from the mind of man, would ever make you change your opinion about the Old Testament.

You are probably right; but it's not fair at all to assume that I don't enjoy sharing opinions with others. I guess you just plain out don't want to debate about it anymore? I hope you understand that this isn't a win situation, I'm just trying to share my opinions. Your opinion is just like mine; it's our perception on reality.

quote:
However, even among Christians, the idea that the Old Testament is literally, word-for-word true is a minority view. Even the Catholic Church doesn't go that far.

I don't think you have the authority to speak for the population of planet earth; I may be wrong though.


RE: goes to show...
By PaterPelligrino on 9/10/2010 1:39:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are probably right; but it's not fair at all to assume that I don't enjoy sharing opinions with others....I hope you understand that this isn't a win situation, I'm just trying to share my opinions. Your opinion is just like mine; it's our perception on reality.


I hope you don't think I'm trying to shut you up. I just like to argue, and the subject of god, and why we believe what we do, is something I've given a lot of thought to.

I'm on record pointing out that this is not an argument either side can win - if by win we mean convincing the other guy to change his mind. But given the total incompatibility of the world-views of Christian Fundamentalists and atheists, "sharing of opinions" can only mean pointing out why we think the other guy is wrong. What the two sides believe - how they even go about deciding what can be known - is so fundamentally opposed that all we can do is talk at each other. All the atheists will agree with me, and all the CFs will agree with you, and never the twain shall meet.

If it's any consolation, tho I don't agree with you, I really have no desire to change anyone's mind.


RE: goes to show...
By giant781 on 9/19/2010 4:19:50 PM , Rating: 2
I have a huge desire to change people's minds. It seems to me that if you think you will never change your mind, on the surface, that is folly, and in reality your mind will be changed without you noticing, the devil in the details you know, slightly over time, just a bit, as the preachers and politicians herd you this way and that, slowly. Only daily contact with an unmoved mover can help us against that.

QUADRILLITY! My brother wake up I command you. Literalism and indulgence in "sharing opinions" to feel good with/against these other frozen mind men is not good for any of you. You ask for an example about the folly of literalism. Remember before when that other poster just could not understand how "THOU SHALT NOT STEAL" could instruct us against rape? His materialist mind could not see that to rape a woman is to take something spiritual from her. But can you not also see that this is not a literal interpretation? Do you not believe that the laws are also written on our hearts? That so much more information is communicated when we read the words and let them resonate with our prayers and thoughts? You are not a dead man but a living one, reading not a dead and frozen book but a living one! Respond to it! Give up your literalism, please, I beg of you.

The ability to know is an awesome gift of God. I do not think you can (or should) say for sure that everything about this world is unknowable to us. Certainly the next world. But for this one, hold your tongue. May I respectfully point out that it seems to me you really thought you had one on your fellow man when you said "try to think of a new color" and that it would hurt one's head. Read about the discovery of ultraviolet by Johann Ritter, the discovery that there are patterns on flowers that bees can see and not humans with our naked eyes, leading to the (for me sometimes tear producingly) beautiful understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum, that the colors we see with our eyes and the heat we feel with our hands are not fundamentally different! An amazing, personally verifiable truth of reality! Some might say, "I guess science just isn't for you." But it is! Quadrillity, I bet you could solve an equation quadratically. It is for everyone! It is often said that the details of current science are too complicated for the public, but they are not. The stereotypical college fraternity brother who thinks science and math are too hard finds himself easily reading through complex tables of sports data; the economically minded man who can read the tables of the stock market should know that the details of physical reality are not beyond his understanding, nor would "the hard part" be different from his usual workings with finances.

I can confidently enter a debate with a mind accepting the possibility that I will be convinced or changed because of it. To not do so, to debate with the thought in the back of your head "I will never yield, I will spread my opinion" seems to me very much like public masturbation. To let your mind change, "learning" as it is called in some specific circumstances, is a wonderful thing. And I never fear of being lost because I have a rock for my foundation, not of myself, so that while I may be dashed against the rocks in looking for seashells, my safety line is secure, and I can do good for others (give them seashells I suppose? this analogy is getting too long). I am an atmospheric physicist, by the way, for context.


RE: goes to show...
By RaggedClaws on 9/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: goes to show...
By Reclaimer77 on 9/10/2010 1:27:59 AM , Rating: 2
I love how merely bringing up another theory in Daily Tech get's a -1. Seriously, what the hell lol.


RE: goes to show...
By PaterPelligrino on 9/10/2010 3:09:46 AM , Rating: 2
What governs voting in all online forums is groupthink. You even give the impression that you aren't on message and the opposite camp will vote you down.

Public forum debates are more contest than conversation. The first thing people do when reading a new post is try to establish whose side the poster is on.


RE: goes to show...
By PaterPelligrino on 9/10/2010 3:35:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Public forum debates are more contest than conversation. The first thing people do when reading a new post is try to establish whether the poster is friend or foe.

If the guy is a friend - i.e., if he appears to think as we do - we go on to read his post inclined to agree with everything he has to say; and if he does make factual errors, we'll bend over backwards to give the guy the benefit of the doubt.

If the guy is a foe, we immediately go into hyper-critical attack mode, where everything is examined for weaknesses and flaws. We skip over - willfully don't see whatever truth might be there - and zero in on any errors no matter how trivial or tangential to the whole argument.

This is what people on both sides of any debate do, usually without even being aware of doing it.


RE: goes to show...
By Reclaimer77 on 9/10/2010 12:56:06 PM , Rating: 2
Oh I'm aware of that. But I mean, I could understand if it was a heated debate, or even a debate at all. But another poster asked about the origin of oil, and I merely answered his question by offering someone's theory.


RE: goes to show...
By PaterPelligrino on 9/10/2010 1:13:14 PM , Rating: 3
Going back and reading your post again, I have to agree; I can't see anything in what you wrote that would convince 3 guys to vote you down. Maybe you're being punished for something done in a previous life. :)


RE: goes to show...
By Quadrillity on 9/10/2010 2:27:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe you're being punished for something done in a previous life. :)

lol


RE: goes to show...
By ppardee on 9/8/2010 6:17:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
On the other hand you could produce biofuels from fast-growing plants like
switchgrass in months or years. And that process would be virtually carbon
neutral, if your mechanical economy was powered by it.


Biofuels that do not come from waste or byproducts generally mean using arable land to create fuel. When we still have a global shortage of food, I question the wisdom of technologies like biofuels from switch grass. Unless it can be grown in areas that would not otherwise support food crops, it is going to be detrimental to the average American's food bill, and possibly fatal for people in un/underdeveloped countries who are barely making it now.


RE: goes to show...
By SPOOFE on 9/9/2010 12:12:53 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
and possibly fatal for people in un/underdeveloped countries who are barely making it now.

While your overall point is solid - using crop land to make fuel results in food shortages and higher prices - it's also important to remember that a lot of the starving people in the world aren't hungry due to not enough food available somewhere; it's the extreme difficulty involved with getting the food to some areas, what with political turmoil and warlords and other such awfulnesses.


RE: goes to show...
By clovell on 9/9/2010 1:26:51 PM , Rating: 2
What it basically does is convert one resource to another. The United States' most important natural resource is the Ogallala Aquifer. Switching to plant-based energy production merely switches us off of fossil fuels and onto water for all our energy needs.

It's a bad idea; it runs counter to the notion of energy diversification. In a strict sense, the United States is far better off depleting its oil reserves than it is depleting its water reserves.

Alternative like nuclear, tidal, wind, and solar are far less destructive to the viability of American civilization.


RE: goes to show...
By danobrega on 9/9/2010 5:01:01 AM , Rating: 2
There's another problem to consider. If we switch to biofuels our cities are going to continue to be heavily polluted. Explosion engines produce both atmospheric pollution and noise pollution at the city . That alone is a reason to try to switch to all electrics. Depending on the way we produce electricity, electrics may produce pollution but you can do it away from where people live.


RE: goes to show...
By SPOOFE on 9/9/2010 8:53:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If we switch to biofuels our cities are going to continue to be heavily polluted.

The air in our cities has predominantly improved over the past few decades, even with an increase in oil usage. They can't "continue" to be something they really aren't.


RE: goes to show...
By Lerianis on 9/14/2010 10:40:08 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, Jason, there are some people who are DISPUTING that 'made from bio-mass' argument because they are rightly stating "HEY, IDIOTS! There is no way that even in 100 million years, that the dinosaurs remains got down LOW ENOUGH to have created this oil! It's got to be some other process here!"

Personally, I am BETTING that it is a process like is used to turn COAL into oil!


RE: goes to show...
By knutjb on 9/8/2010 5:09:16 PM , Rating: 4
On the oil, the gov uses the lowest of the geological estimates and they end up being a fraction of what the producers pull from a well.

We have far more recoverable oil in the US than politicians, particularly left leaning ones, would like to admit to. They thrive on power and more power is usually given with little oversight during emergencies. Higher oil prices the more power they have to push pet projects in the name of the crisis.

North Dakota was the most recent recipient of new millionaires, the greatest increase in the US over the last couple years and the state is one of 2 or 3 with budget surpluses. It all came from oil. There has been a massive growth in drilling in ND, SD, MT, and WY.


RE: goes to show...
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/8/2010 5:17:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
On the oil, the gov uses the lowest of the geological estimates and they end up being a fraction of what the producers pull from a well.

We have far more recoverable oil in the US than politicians, particularly left leaning ones, would like to admit to. They thrive on power and more power is usually given with little oversight during emergencies. Higher oil prices the more power they have to push pet projects in the name of the crisis.


True it may last substantially longer than current estimates. But whether oil is affordable for 100 years or 400 years is a largely moot point given that it should be reasonably easy to transition to an EV/nuclear power driven economy perhaps supplemented by biofuels.

We shouldn't jump to that kind of economy prematurely, but the cost of oil will eventually rise when supplies grow more scarce and harder to extract, leading to a natural shift to these developing techs.

The point is that we're going to get to low emissions or carbon neutral as an economy naturally, sooner or later.

Should we panic and try to get there faster and a tremendous cost? Perhaps, if there was conclusive evidence that we're walking into a doomsday scenario. However, if anything any scraps of evidence that supported such a premise have been continually retracted and revised over the past several years.

Hopefully there's more good honest research on the topic so we can get a better grip on exactly how we're impacting the planet and how it reacts.

Only then will we be able to make an informed decision and avoid serious damage to the global economy by too zealous a "carbon neutral" push.


RE: goes to show...
By FaceMaster on 9/8/2010 7:50:04 PM , Rating: 5
Ignore the sensationalist title of the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

I reckon that if you start watching, you'll want to see it until the end, but to cut a long story short, if you increase the amount of oil you use by 3% a year, within 100 years it will be over 19 times the consumption rate it is today.

How much oil have we gotten through already? 1/4 of the world's supply? If compound growth continues, it won't take another 100 years to get through the remaining 3/4. I don't know how much oil consumption is growing, but I reckon it could be a lot higher than 3% a year, especially with China's rapid growth.

Alternatively you can just ignore all of this and assume it will carry for ever, or at least until you die. Not our problem any more then, is it?


RE: goes to show...
By ekv on 9/9/2010 2:47:08 AM , Rating: 3
1) Oil is a limited resource. 2) Compound interest is one of most powerful forces around.

I don't think anybody is ignoring "this". But I do get tired of Al Gore and his Chicken Little attitude (and his George Soros bank account), pushing a legislative agenda that would cripple our economy. That gets into the whole AGW debate.

I believe there is sufficient oil reserves and that we ought to be drilling (in the U.S.) to obtain more oil. In addition, there are around 25 applications to build nuclear reactors currently under Federal review. Congress can put pressure on the Federal bureaucracy to have those app's approved right NOW [if Congress didn't have their heads buried up there you-know-what].

Energy independence would help on several levels: create jobs, lower our hemorrhaging trade balance, cut off (or significantly curb) the flow of oil dollars to the Middle East, help our national defense, improve our global economic competitiveness, improve our ability to go green (since doing so if f'ing expensive), etc.

There are problems, and then there are problems.


RE: goes to show...
By Suntan on 9/9/2010 12:13:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Energy independence would help on several levels: create jobs, lower our hemorrhaging trade balance, cut off (or significantly curb) the flow of oil dollars to the Middle East, help our national defense, improve our global economic competitiveness, improve our ability to go green (since doing so if f'ing expensive), etc.


Do you really think everything magical will happen when we reach "energy independence?" Or is it more likely that things will just shift a little but otherwise remain the same? Haves will still have, have-nots will still complain, crimials (international or otherwise) will still break the laws, chicken-littles will still think up new things to be afraid of, etc. etc.

Oh, and if you think we have problems with the Middle East now, what do you think will happen to the attitudes over there when you take away one of their major sources of income?...

-Suntan


RE: goes to show...
By ekv on 9/9/2010 2:18:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you really think everything magical will happen...
Never said it would. But I did get in a few good jibes.

Energy independence, relatively speaking would help a lot, and is a reasonable public policy objective (which actually makes money instead of costing trillions, like Al Gore's GW crap).
quote:
what do you think will happen to the attitudes
...Keeping in mind that even bullets cost money, clearly I can't predict attitudes. However, I'd be willing to bet on US [as opposed to trying to do a Freudian psycho-analysis of the implications and counter-implications of a possible action by us that may or may not affect the legality of ... get the point?]. Are you willing to bet on US, or them?

Again, there are problems, and then there are problems. Thanks for your post.


RE: goes to show...
By Suntan on 9/9/2010 3:00:01 PM , Rating: 2
Nice dodges. But you’re not actually defending your initial points. Why would energy independence “create jobs?” There are a lot of Americans working for in the energy sector now, what a bunch of companies are going to sprout up and start making wind mills due to endless government handouts?

You say energy independence will “help a lot.” Kinda vague. Can you state some specific areas. In a global economy where oil purchased from country 1, processed into a plastic widget in country 2 and then shipped and sold to a customer in country 3 is a daily occurrence, how do you think it would really work? America just becomes completely self reliant and tells the rest of the world to shove off? I know American unions around the nation feel this to be the description of Shangri-La, but it isn’t feasible, let alone advantageous.

Can’t predict attitudes? It’s pretty simple, we pay fat loads of cash to a lot of countries in the Middle East to keep them appeased so we can go about living our lives the way we want. Take that money away and the resultant attitude change should be pretty self explanatory.

Again, there are problems, and then there are people with misguided attitudes whose overly-simplistic notions aren’t going to help us. Thanks for *your* post.

-Suntan


RE: goes to show...
By ekv on 9/9/2010 4:09:53 PM , Rating: 2
eh?

Energy independence ... as in "drill, baby, drill."

Tell me, how much money do we pay for foreign oil per year? How much, specifically goes to the Middle East? How much, specifically, goes to Venezuela? Iran? Why give bad actors, i.e. actors antagonistic towards US, money that we need not give? Again, are you for US, or them?

Bullets cost money. If we're not giving them money, where do the bullets come from?

And since when are we appeasing the Middle East? I guess you really are for them. Btw, I drive a Honda, though I'm looking at the Ford Focus keenly. Thanks.


RE: goes to show...
By tng on 9/14/2010 2:27:23 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the US has plenty of oil available now in wells that have already been drilled and capped off. However the crude that comes from the Middle East is easier to refine and still is cheaper to import, so it is more profitable to buy it overseas.

Also on the source of oil, I had read a couple of years ago that some fields in Texas that had been pumped dry decades ago are now filling back up again. Just wish I could find the article again for a link.....


RE: goes to show...
By ekv on 9/14/2010 2:59:35 PM , Rating: 2
I understand what you're saying. I understand profitability too.

It'd be really simple for the federal gov't to say, "we want to be (relatively) energy independent in 10 years," or however long. It doesn't cost much to allow companies that want to build nuclear reactors to go ahead and do that. In fact, gov't will have to hire inspectors and paper-pushers. All paid for by tax revenue and licensing fees, ad nauseum. Companies want to build. Let them do it. Result, the gov't actually makes money and the country is less dependent on foreign oil.

Gov't can also say, "due to environmental concerns, we pushed oil companies to deep water drilling. That is not quite a mature technology, so due to environmental concerns we will allow more shallow water drilling." Gov't simply has to get the message out there. Everyday. Push, push, push. It's for the environment. And btw, we become less dependent on foreign oil. What does it cost Gov't? nothing. In fact it makes money. And so on. I haven't even mentioned ANWR.

There are companies here that want to do the job. Let them make a buck. For crying out loud....


RE: goes to show...
By floydian101 on 9/9/2010 1:55:29 PM , Rating: 2
uhhhh... where is it? I've lived in SD for 27 years... Where's the drilling?


WAIT! I GET IT!
By Hyperion1400 on 9/8/2010 4:40:14 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Polar Ice Loss Estimates Shrinking Faster Than Icecaps Themselves


Jason Mick IS Michael Asher! It all makes sense now! Jason Mick created the alternate personality of Mike Asher in order to draw people to this site by creating a false War of Sensationalism! Either that or he ate Asher and is now REALLY starting to feel the effects of it.

Either way, it explains why Asher suddenly disappeared xD




RE: WAIT! I GET IT!
By adiposity on 9/8/2010 4:56:41 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking the same thing...


RE: WAIT! I GET IT!
By adiposity on 9/8/2010 4:59:47 PM , Rating: 2
MICk jASon
MICheal ASher

hehe


RE: WAIT! I GET IT!
By EglsFly on 9/8/2010 10:59:46 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously though what ever happened to Micheal Asher?


RE: WAIT! I GET IT!
By Omega215D on 9/9/2010 3:21:47 AM , Rating: 2
Al Gore had him imprisoned in order to silence him and his inconvenient truth.


RE: WAIT! I GET IT!
By adiposity on 9/9/2010 1:49:34 PM , Rating: 2
He disappeared at the same time that a new user, called Michael Andrews, showed up. The new user posted articles identical in style and subject matter to Michael Asher. A few of us ridiculed the obvious attempt to avoid the shady past of Asher's profile. A month or so later, Michael Andrews/Asher disappeared for good.


RE: WAIT! I GET IT!
By EglsFly on 9/9/2010 10:10:49 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking that since he was a Dailytech Blogger, that Jason Mick could provide some information as to his disappearance. Did he quit, did he take his blogging to another site, etc.. There was never any announcement that I recall.


RE: WAIT! I GET IT!
By Hyperion1400 on 9/9/2010 10:39:49 PM , Rating: 2
A couple of years ago, just after Asher disappeared, either Brandon or Jason mentioned in a comment that Asher had taken a sabbatical. I guess he never came back :\


RE: WAIT! I GET IT!
By just4U on 9/10/2010 9:03:30 AM , Rating: 2
Which is a damn shame. Asher's popularity with many of us wasn't so much to do with the articles he was writing but rather the interaction that followed. Hopefully he's not gone for good.

Regardless, great article by Jason here and his responses that follow are informative.


RE: WAIT! I GET IT!
By kattanna on 9/9/2010 10:56:01 AM , Rating: 3
I, for one, am enjoying this new jason. it seems he actually has done his own research into the issue and came to a logical conclusion.

now if we could just get that shrill voice of ill reason tiffany to follow.


By sleepeeg3 on 9/8/2010 7:15:28 PM , Rating: 2
Face it, GW propagandists, solar cycles are the main cause of climate change:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/07...




By roadhog1974 on 9/8/2010 9:46:21 PM , Rating: 2
So you argue atmospheric composition has no effect on
climate?


By Nfarce on 9/8/2010 9:55:56 PM , Rating: 3
Are you arguing that mankind's activities are the majority of the atmospheric composition?


By danobrega on 9/9/2010 4:52:41 AM , Rating: 2
Are you arguing that all kinds of atmospheric composition has the same effect to the climate?


By Nfarce on 9/9/2010 10:52:04 AM , Rating: 2
Show me mankind's output to CO2 vs. nature's and get back with me.


By danrien on 9/9/2010 9:42:22 AM , Rating: 2
Face it Anti-GW propagandists, we're at a Milankovitch minimum and our sunspot activity is unusually low right now, our temperature should be decreasing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles


"Global warming proponents"
By tallguywithglasseson on 9/8/2010 4:59:06 PM , Rating: 2
These are people in favor of global warming?




RE: "Global warming proponents"
By invidious on 9/8/2010 5:07:56 PM , Rating: 3
hippies hate global warming, i hate hippies. the enimy of my enimy is my friend.


RE: "Global warming proponents"
By Amiga500 on 9/9/2010 4:53:28 AM , Rating: 3
Is the dictionary your enemy too? :-P :-)


RE: "Global warming proponents"
By SPOOFE on 9/8/2010 9:27:47 PM , Rating: 2
It's not uncommon to identify a theory, hypothesis, or movement by its core tenants.

In truth, there's a huge gradient of views about our climate and/or its changes, from those that insist the climate is perfectly stagnant all the way to people cowering in fear of the planet blowing up with greenhouse gas any second now.

Most people, thankfully, are somewhere in between.


By crimson117 on 9/9/2010 4:21:15 PM , Rating: 2
Why are you bringing up those emails again?

Weren't the "climategate" scientists cleared of wrongdoing two months ago?

http://www.aolnews.com/article/climategate-scienti...




By Ormand on 9/9/2010 4:54:50 PM , Rating: 2
If you look carefully at that article, you will see that it was not an "independent" investigation. It was actually some of the accused scientists who did the investigation, and there have been rebuttals from others. So,no, the scientists were NOT cleared completely.


By TheSteelGeneral on 9/9/2010 8:48:45 PM , Rating: 2
That climate gate thing was a total fake, a hoax, created by those who ideologically refuse to accept hard science, because it conflicts with their religious believes of "market knows best" and "companies know best" and "governments are inherently evil ... because they are democratically elected. ya can't trust people"

Anyway, what happened in "climategate" was
1. Angry rightwing ideologues were sabotaging scientists by asking them the SAME pointless questions over and over again. (do you know how tiresome it can be if you're asked, over and over again to provide proof for something which is obvious?)
2. Some scientists got frustrated about that, and agreed among themselves to not answer these obvious saboteurs anymore, via email.
3. Angry rightwing ideologues acquired in a criminal way private emails about the frustration of the scientists, and explained this away as "GASP! They are dissing us! So ... they must be lying about EVERYTHING ELSE TOO! That is PROOF!" The fact that this is a classic case of non-sequitur fallacious reasoning, didn't bother these ReichWingers in the least, and neither do hard scientific facts.

Sabotage and obstruction, are the buzzwords in the Reichwing world right now, and it's working ... on a not too smart US electorate.


By SPOOFE on 9/9/2010 9:09:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That climate gate thing was a total fake, a hoax

Not according to Phil Jones, the head of the CRU at East Anglia at the time.


By Lerianis on 9/14/2010 10:44:56 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but ClimateGate was NOT a hoax, period and done with. It exposed some real problem and even some of the global warming 'true believers' have changed their tunes because of it and are saying that they were punked by other scientists who were MANIPULATING DATA!


Does it matter?
By PrinceGaz on 9/8/2010 9:39:31 PM , Rating: 2
Even if the North polar ice cap is melting slower, it is still melting and sooner or later may vanish completely in summer. We'll still have the antarctic which as a large land mass should keep a large frozen area of land.

As such, it seems obvious to me that the solution to any concerns about the environment are just to ship a few hundred polar bears and other animals which currently live only in the arctic, down to antarctica where they would be equally at home. Ideally do it whilst they are hibernating (in the case of the polar bears) and the whole melting ice problem is solved.

Why haven't the ecomentalists considered this rather obvious solution to the whole global warming problem?




RE: Does it matter?
By Camikazi on 9/9/2010 10:19:23 AM , Rating: 2
Polar Bears don't hibernate like the rest :P they stay awake just move a bit slower.


RE: Does it matter?
By SimonW on 9/9/2010 5:34:12 PM , Rating: 2
This is about the Greenland ice cap, not sea ice. The polar bears need sea ice. Sea ice is at it's 3rd lowest recorded extent (Sept 2007 being the lowest).

Note this isn't contradicting the IPCC forecasts of AGW, the correction is to models of ice melt from the GRACE satellites which were higher than the IPCC models predicted. The reduction is likely to bring it inline with the IPCC predictions.

The spin is thus completely wrong and clearly written to an agenda rather than the facts, and should read "climate change, not as bad as GRACE satellites said, but still inline with IPCC predictions", or perhaps if we want the other spin "IPCC climate models proved right again".


RE: Does it matter?
By tng on 9/14/2010 2:49:27 PM , Rating: 2
It is well known that in Southern Cal and Nevada that there were many small lakes. One in SoCal in the mid to late 1800's had regular ferry and boat traffic on it. All of these lakes have since dried up in the last 300 years or so. A boat that was hauling gold from the gold rush sunk in a storm only to be discovered by a guy in a plane in the 1920's sunk into the then dry lakebed.

Point is that the earth has been warming for thousands of years and the ice is just the most recently visible symptom. It is doubtful that all of this is AGW, more likely just GW, but it can be used by people to get rich by promoting panic and be used by politicians to increase their power over our everyday lives.


Stopped reading after....
By SpaceRanger on 9/8/10, Rating: 0
RE: Stopped reading after....
By amanojaku on 9/8/2010 4:23:56 PM , Rating: 5
Well... It could be that these are uber-scientists. You know, like a man's man? Except they're scientists' scientists. They always have the latest TI graphing calculators, their erasers' always clean, they always have the biggest beakers...


RE: Stopped reading after....
By Omega215D on 9/9/2010 6:03:55 AM , Rating: 2
Don't forget they also have the most sturdiest pocket protectors that many nerds covet.


Sooner or later the truth always comes out...
By Nfarce on 9/8/2010 9:54:07 PM , Rating: 2
The past decade or so the sensationalism of manbearpig and fellow mindless global walarmist scare mongering ilk have been chasing junk science. And attempting to make correlations in weather patterns where there are only computer models to back up data that provide no more accuracy than that of an entire annual hurricane season forecast.

Of course we all know how accurate the last four years post Katrina has been (clue: every year the "very active hurricane season" was reduced). Then we have the recent findings of temperature sensors for global climate "research" being found in such non-biased places like A/C units next to buildings, in the middle of asphalt parking lots, on top of roof tops next to A/C units, ect.

Hark? What's that? Part of an ice burg just collapsed into the Arctic? Guess I'd better stop grilling outdoors. It could have killed a baby seal or polar bear. Maybe if I drive a Prius or stick a windmill and solar panel on my roof and cancel service my coal-fired power company. The options are endless on what to do. What to do...




By Dr of crap on 9/9/2010 1:16:08 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe this is all a great plan devised to make hugh sums of cash - a kind of great speculation.
Think about it - leak out some data about the planet warming, get a bunch of people involved and they will jump on and say the warming is happening, then blame those stupid humans because they'll believe anything, then make the Ubercash buy selling those stupid humans things that they think will help the planet get through this warming thing.

It's a great plan - maybe even terrorist are involved in this as well!

We'll all be broke before we see the light!


By tng on 9/14/2010 3:11:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of course we all know how accurate the last four years post Katrina has been (clue: every year the "very active hurricane season" was reduced).


Tropical storms are caused by evaporation of seawater into colder air. Post Katrina there were many pundits and supposed experts that said that we were going to see many more mega storms with more GW. Of course what they did not realize is that as air temp goes up the effect that makes the storms in the first place lessens, leading to fewer and less intense storms.


Bias much?
By gamerk2 on 9/8/10, Rating: 0
RE: Bias much?
By Spuke on 9/8/2010 4:24:01 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Also, after taking a second look at this article, I see some clear bais on the OP's part.
You must be new here.


Just before the negationists drop in
By Da W on 9/8/2010 4:59:48 PM , Rating: 2
It all goes to show how much we know nothing.
We don't know if humans are causing global warming (although one could make a wild guess).
We don't know how fast the warming is occuring.
And we don't know by how much the sea level will rise.
We don't know yet if it will just change global average temperatures or if it will create havoc in the climates. I just know that our canadian snow all went to the US northeast last year.

But before you throw in arguments about how much Obama will damage our economy, or how much environment-friendly laws will reduce our standards of living, just bear one thing in mind:
WE KNOW EVEN A LOT LESS ABOUT ECONOMICS.




By danrien on 9/9/2010 9:46:00 AM , Rating: 3
Silly, economics is a system developed by man. We know everything about economics. What we don't know is ourselves, and our unrelenting desire to have more than we already have.


Hum...
By bernardl on 9/8/2010 11:27:05 PM , Rating: 2
One very good reason to believe in climate change is that people denying it have a lot more to win by doing so than the other camp.

Cheers,
Bernard




RE: Hum...
By JoshTX84 on 9/10/2010 4:51:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
One very good reason to believe in climate change is that people denying it have a lot more to win by doing so than the other camp.


Are you serious?


daf
By IamJedi on 9/9/2010 10:37:30 AM , Rating: 2
What I would like to know is how many conflicting reports are we to get about global warming? One month its happening, and the next month there is evidence/new information we didn't know before, that now shines towards less rapid growth, or possibly non-human intervention in global warming. Look, I believe in saving energy, to reduce our carbon footprint, but I also believe science should be held accountable for making the right steps towards finding the facts. People need to be less biased when it comes to getting the facts right. Scientist shouldn't push their own agendy, or anyone one group's agenda, no. A scientist job is to understand how our world works, not to mislead the general public. Sense when did a scientist become a politician?




RE: daf
By SimonW on 9/9/2010 5:39:09 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't a conflicting report.

The GRACE satellite data was reporting ice melt faster than the IPCC models had forecast. This study merely says that one piece of data that suggested it was worse than forecast was wrong.

The science is pretty clear cut, the politician here is the one reporting of the story, not the scientists.


Eh
By gamerk2 on 9/8/2010 4:10:54 PM , Rating: 2
Funny, I KNOW I read a report recently on GW that even made sure to account for that very same effect described here; and even then, I see some significant problems about the conclusions in this report. I'll take a read later tonight.

I also note how things went off on a tangent at the end of the article. In regards to a CO2 tax, I assume the SO2 cap-and-trade system levied under Bush created the same exact economic hardship that is otherwise predicted to take place for CO2, right?




By Grabo on 9/9/2010 4:14:10 AM , Rating: 2
I suppose this study concerns the ice caps - the land ice, and not the sea ice. The NSIDC appear not to have radically changed any statistics, anyhow.

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100907_...
The sea ice in the Arctic keeps melting, and that's not a guess or uncertain, unless you're willing to go into long arguments about the exact nature of the color blue.




This is why science is great
By danrien on 9/9/2010 9:35:36 AM , Rating: 2
You make a hypothesis, and when it's right, good job, and when it's wrong, you adjust your hypothesis and study what you failed to take into account that made your hypothesis wrong.




Shocked / Shocked
By Spamalotnot on 9/9/2010 9:35:04 PM , Rating: 2
So the debate isn't over!?!?1

We aren't all gonna die imminent hot death?!?!?!?

We don't have to starve either plants or the third world?!?!?!

This would all be just too much to believe . . . . . except for the minor fact that WE TOLD YOU GULLIBLE BOZOS SO ALL ALONG!!!!!!!

But wait - no worries! There will be another idiotic pseudo-scientific CRISIS!! along any minute that will con you dolts into handing your (our) future well being over to the next Gore-Clone, make you feel all warm inside and keep you from having to actually think for yourselves . . . and of course it will have the Seal of UN Approval all over it.

One question though - while we're waiting, WHERE DO WE GO TO GET THE BILLIONS BACK THAT YOU GUILELESS FOOLS LET THEM STEAL?




Conspiracy
By RuptureX on 9/13/2010 2:18:11 PM , Rating: 2
Some one really knows what is happening? I would like to know.... The only thing we can say is that there is lot of money on this game: the oil industry, new investiments in diferent energy sources, etc. We can almost see a conspiracy here, everybody know that something like that is possible.




What a load of warm air
By Hamish on 9/14/2010 12:23:55 AM , Rating: 2
“The team says that past estimates badly missed the target as they failed to account for a phenomena called glacial isostatic adjustment. Glacial isostatic adjustment is a term for the rebounding of the Earth's crust that occurs at the end of an Ice Age. When the weight of the ice on the land is released, the land pushes minutely upwards changing the amount of sea level rise, and even the amount of ice loss itself.”

And the fact that they are morons.

They forgot the account for the fact they are morons.

You can add to that argument with even more ancient observations proven by the rigors of existing scientific disciplines. The water is pushed minutely downwards by the extra weight of the water on top. The ocean floor is not tiled concrete. It is porous!

Great. So we can completely and utterly disregard any kind of sea level rise talk and subsequent human catastrophe and end of the world scenarios. Yes!

So, are there ANY indications that ANYTHING bad can happen as a result of this “change” in climate that “man" is supposed to be behind?

No?

What about Bush fires like in Australia? More people are being killed in those, isn’t THAT man made? Well um yes, because man makes his house in the forest now and refuses to clear trees. Due to the “changes” in the climate he is making he wont cut down trees. But grasses are actually more efficient at converting CO2 to oxygen than any tree can ever be. Surely not?

Yes. Surely.

Oh I know, Tsunami’s. THEY are caused by climate “change”, right?

Um, actually they are caused by earthquakes. That and the fact there are more humans living in those low lying coastal regions of south east asia, means more people die from them than previously did. They have always been as common. There is no link.

Oh I see.

Shark numbers are dwindling. What about that?

To the same degree as Shark Fin soup eaters are increasing perhaps?

Oh yes. Right.

But but but surely there is like some kind of actual serious result of this “change” to justify the imbecilic green house taxes and carbon schemes that will hurt economies and prevent third world countries from achieving electricity in their homes at all during their lifetimes?

What about if and when we get a cyclone down here on the eastern Victorian Coast? Only a matter of time. That will surely be a sign!

No not really. You see, hurricanes in the northern hemisphere that start in the tropical waters of the Caribbean near the equator often make it all the way up to Canada. It can happen down here too – and it will – as the natural cycle changes to the southern hemisphere for a while we will see fewer Canadian hurricanes and more Victorian cyclones.

Oh. Ok then. Thanks.

You're Welcome. Anytime you want clarify a point that those crazy Warming Lunatics are bleeping on about just let me know.




By apcguru on 9/14/2010 11:06:34 AM , Rating: 2
Greenman has a great video on the north pole ice mass. Greenland might have been a bit misjudged, but the ice mass of the north pole is still declining.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGVgrRAyQmw




Stopped reading after....
By SpaceRanger on 9/8/10, Rating: -1
RE: Stopped reading after....
By SpaceRanger on 9/8/10, Rating: -1
RE: Stopped reading after....
By RivuxGamma on 9/8/2010 4:20:13 PM , Rating: 3
It's really just punctuation. It's scientists' scientists. Those are scientists owned by other scientists. See? It makes sense now.


RE: Stopped reading after....
By MrTeal on 9/8/2010 4:23:43 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
scientists scientists?? Really?? I understand typos happen, but so early in the article, and obvious to boot?


To be fair, those kinds of double words can be very hard to pick up, especially if they were on separate lines in his original source. If a typo is enough to make you stop reading an article, the internet is not for you my friend.


"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki