backtop


Print 107 comment(s) - last by lagomorpha.. on Nov 8 at 10:05 AM


Mr Nicholson, 42, from Oxford, smiles after he emerges victorious from the court room. A court ruled that it was wrong for Mr. Nicholson's employer to fire him for his belief in global warming, as it was a philosophy afforded equal protections to religion. Mr. Nicholson refuses to fly for fear of carbon pollution.  (Source: Telegraph UK)
When it comes to climate change, just have a little faith!

In an unusual case in the United Kingdom, it has been ruled that climate change beliefs should be afforded the same legal protections as religious freedoms. The bizarre ruling sets a landmark legal precedent and could have broad implications both in Britain and abroad.

The case began when Tim Nicholson, former head of sustainability at property firm Grainger PLC was laid off in July 2008 for his criticism of management on the basis of climate change beliefs. Mr. Nicholson, who renovated his house to be greener and refuses to fly by air, was upset that Rupert Dickinson, the firm's chief executive, had an employee fly to him in Ireland to deliver his Blackberry.

When Mr. Nicholson began to gripe and express his environmental sentiments, he was later dismissed. He took his former employers to court, contending that the same laws that protect religious freedoms protected his “philosophical belief about climate change and the environment.”

His employers contended that climate change was a scientific, not a religious or philosophical belief, and thus not legally protected. Mr. Nicholson, however, insisted that climate change was a philosophical belief as “philosophy deals with matters that are not capable of scientific proof.” His lawyer, Shah Qureshi, head of employment law at Bindmans LLP, added that to not grant AGW beliefs the same protections as religion would mean “that the more evidence there is to support your views, the less likely it would be for you to enjoy protection against discrimination.”

That theory was put to the test in an unusual court case and in the end Mr. Nicholson prevailed. Justice Michael Burton who delivered the ruling, ironically had used the same logic to hand a victory to climate skeptics over advocates of anthropogenic global warming theory seeking to show school children An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore.  The court, which Justice Burton served on, ruled that the move was a political, not a scientific work, and was unfit for the classroom. 

Mr Nicholson lauded the verdict, stating, “I believe man-made climate change is the most important issue of our time and nothing should stand in the way of diverting this catastrophe. This philosophical belief that is based on scientific evidence has now been given the same protection in law as faith-based religious belief. Belief in man-made climate change is not a new religion, it is a philosophical belief that reflects my moral and ethical values and is underlined by the overwhelming scientific evidence." 

His employers have vowed to appeal the decision. If it stands, however, it could have major legal affects in Britain and beyond. Affording environmental beliefs the same status as religion opens companies to suits from employees complaining about lack of recycling facilities or offering low-carbon travel. It also prevents employers from dismissing employees from their environmental beliefs, even if they seem radical. 

In the U.S., similar protections exist for employment and religion/philosophy. The laws are certainly worded differently, but the British decision could embolden those seeking similar protections in the U.S. At the end of the day, the ruling forces society to be accept and cater to a variety of opinions on climate change and environmentalism, while at the same time making it harder for organizations, particularly government funded ones, to voice views on such topics.



Comments     Threshold


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

By mdogs444 on 11/4/2009 6:55:00 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
“philosophy deals with matters that are not capable of scientific proof.”

Good, case settled. Now, can all the AGW people admit that its nothing more than blind faith and religion? I mean, its already gone from Global Warming to Climate Change because those theories and models didn't work.

If you want to save the planet, then hey go be Captain Planet for all I care. But don't start preaching your crap on my lawn, and messing with my financial well being to expand your congregation.




By nuarbnellaffej on 11/4/2009 7:31:05 PM , Rating: 4
I think you mean a consensus among politicians.


By Arramol on 11/4/2009 7:57:22 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, scientists: http://people-press.org/report/528/

You'll either have to do some scrolling or hit Ctrl+F, but in the middle of the article, you'll find this: "While 84% of scientists say the earth is getting warmer because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels, just 49% of the public agrees."

And yes, I'm aware of the problems with arguing from consensus. I post this only as a response to the claim that there is no consensus, not as a misguided attempt at settling the entire dispute in a single sentence.


By Nfarce on 11/4/2009 8:09:25 PM , Rating: 3
Ah, but how many of those "scientists" are specialists in climatology and atmospheric science? Dunno about you, but I wouldn't take an ear nose & throat doctor's opinion on my chest pain.

Here's another link:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scan...


By chrisld on 11/4/2009 9:47:40 PM , Rating: 4
Something else in common too. There is no god and there is no Global warming, man made or otherwise. I don't know any decent scientist that believes in warming. Look at the data, it's like looking at the stock market chart, all over the place and saying whether it's going up or down. Too much scatter, no way to tell. The current theory, and it makes sense, is that the temperature follows sun activity. That's right, imagine that that big hot glowing thing is controlling our temperature. What a surprise.


By Nfarce on 11/4/2009 10:06:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The current theory


And thereupon lay the crux of the issue. All of this GW or AGW nonsense is just that: a theory . Only a mindless idiot would support punishing productive and successful nations with higher taxes (given to some credible, non-corrupt entity like the UN), destroying companies, forcing people on what to drive, eat, and what to live in (let alone forcing them how to live), and last but certainly not least, supporting politicians that support all of the above solely based on theory .


By Nfarce on 11/4/2009 11:23:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A theory like quantum theory or the theory of relativity?


We're not talking physics with so called man-induced global warming (AWG). But don't make fun of my phrase of "theory" here.

http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html

quote:
You seem opposed to the idea that we should change our behavior based on the evidence we do have. So according to you, if nobody did anymore climate research


And funny, the more "research" is done, the more flaws are found. Case in point I posted elsewhere with a link - flawed tree ring counting. That, and things like placing temperature sensors to monitor temp patterns near air conditioning units.

quote:
And to the guy that said you wouldn't listen to a throat doctor about a lung infection, that is easily the dumbest fucking analogy I've ever heard.


Actually that was me. It was based upon a post someone posted about thousands of "scientists" who all agreed that global warming caused by man was/is real, but didn't mention what the expertise of each "scientist" was. You tell me what a plate tectonic geologist knows about the sun's influence on atmospheric weather patterns any more than an ear, nose, & throat doctor knows how to read a 3D cardiology scan (my analogy was a cardiologist to an ear, nose, & throat doctor, oh Mr. attention master).


By nilepez on 11/5/2009 8:58:00 AM , Rating: 2
Most of the time, when I see surveys of scientists don't buy into GW, it's filled with people who aren't climate specialists.

In some cases, that doesn't matter, but in others it does. One of the most commonly quoted AGW people on the web was Michael Crichton. He's certainly not a climate researcher. He was just a former doctor and a writer.

There are researchers that are reputable on the AGW side, but most of the time, they're not the guys I see referenced.

Personally, I don't think this is religion, but I do think that for guys like the person involved in this suit, it is religion.


By UNHchabo on 11/5/2009 12:53:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A theory like quantum theory or the theory of relativity? Emphasizing the word theory doesn't make you any more right. A theory is something that has extensive evidence showing it to be true. It's just one step below a natural law. A hypothesis is something that may or may not be right.


Here's an example my physics teacher used regarding scientific theory:

Before Newton, the prevailing theory was that gravity was a force that pulled downwards at a certain rate (9.8m/s^2). Then Newton came along and gave a better explanation; gravity is the force between two objects, which changes based on mass and distance. If you're on the Earth's surface, the old calculations still work, so Newton just brought the theory into a larger scope.

Years later Einstein came along, and found that Newton was wrong; you need to take speed into account as well. However, if you're going less than 10% the speed of light, Newton's formula still works just fine.

A theory is the best available explanation we have at the time for the way the universe works. Even if a part of the theory is wrong, that doesn't make the whole thing invalid. Gravity still pulls straight down at 9.8m/s^2 if you're on the Earth's surface.


By Bryf50 on 11/4/2009 10:25:01 PM , Rating: 2
While I do agree with you sort off. You need to look up the definition of a scientific theory as opposed to what the word means in the dictionary.


By Nfarce on 11/4/2009 11:43:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You need to look up the definition of a scientific theory as opposed to what the word means in the dictionary.


Okay, pick your poison ( fact : the earth has warmed - and cooled - throughout history. We at least know THAT much):

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Main Entry: the·o·ry

Pronunciation: \'the-?-re, 'thir-e\

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural the·o·ries

Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theoria, from theorein

1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

2: abstract thought : speculation

3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact , a science, or an art <music theory>

4a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>

4b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts , principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>

5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

6a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

6b: an unproved assumption : conjecture

6c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


By callmeroy on 11/5/2009 2:54:50 PM , Rating: 2
There is none of either unless you believe in them.

That's kind of the whole point to "belief".....putz.


By CollegeTechGuy on 11/6/2009 9:47:22 AM , Rating: 2
While I think you are going to receive criticism from claiming there is no God, I do believe you are correct about "Global Warming".

There is scientific proof that the Earth's temperature varies based off Sun activity. Mainly Sun-Spots, the more there are, the more radiation there is put out from the sun. In turn, increasing our temperature, and vice-versa when there are fewer Sun-Spots. All this happens on an 11 year cycle, and has been documented for several decades.


By AEvangel on 11/5/2009 12:30:29 PM , Rating: 3
Then why has it gotten cooler over the last 10yrs?

An really when you think about it I would rather have global warming then the alternative global cooling. Cause last I checked if the Polar Ice Caps melted you would have a rise in sea levels billions would be displaced and would have to move but they would live. Were as if you had a Global cooling like we did just 20k years ago where half North America was covered in Glaciers, most of Humanity would die.

I mean seriously this a Religion not a SOUND scientific Theory.


By nuarbnellaffej on 11/4/2009 8:22:31 PM , Rating: 2
I'd say with the amount of government money going into climate research, there is certainly going to be distortions and biases. And as the poster above noted, that article only specifies "scientists", I'd like to know how many of those actually specialize in climatology.


By Boze on 11/5/2009 7:02:17 AM , Rating: 2
You don't need to be a climatologist to perform good science. Good science only requires a good experiment and strict adherence to the Scientific Method.

I get so sick of people in the media, politicians, and general fools trying to debunk a study based on someone's credentials. An 11-year old girl named Emily Rosa had her research on Therapeutic Touch published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, all because it was good, simple, science.

Now I know something as massively complex and varied as the environment can't always be tackled with simplistic research, but its also foolish to throw away good science just because it wasn't performed by someone with 20 years experience as a climatologist.

Imagine, if you can, the world as it would exist today if Gregor Mendel's research had been ignored all because he was a priest and not a trained scientist. He died in 1884 by the way, and his work was almost completely ignored until 1900. It would be a shame if we ignored good science in other fields all because someone doesn't have the right title.


By vanka on 11/5/2009 11:57:48 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
You don't need to be a climatologist to perform good science. Good science only requires a good experiment and strict adherence to the Scientific Method.

quote:
Imagine, if you can, the world as it would exist today if Gregor Mendel's research had been ignored all because he was a priest and not a trained scientist. He died in 1884 by the way, and his work was almost completely ignored until 1900. It would be a shame if we ignored good science in other fields all because someone doesn't have the right title.

Excellent point, many people tend to forget that the fathers of most major branches of science were not trained in those branches. I agree that in general "good science" only requires that the researcher(s) faithfully follow the scientific method; but the interpretation of the collected data requires someone who can understand what the data is saying and can formulate a testable hypothesis based on it. With the current trend of scientific research going more in depth in an ever narrower area of expertise, the person who is most qualified/capable of doing this is usually a specialist in that field.

Your example of Gregor Mendel is an excellent example of this. Mendel pioneered the science of genetics with his experiments on pea plants. The greatest barrier to the acceptance of Mendel's theory/conclusion was that neither Mendel nor anyone else at that time were able to grasp how his work with the genetic inheritance of a single physical trait in pea plants applied to the genetic inheritance of all traits in all organisms. Mendel himself believed that his conclusions applied only to certain categories of species or traits. It was not until much later after more specialized research in this area that his research was validated.

quote:
but its also foolish to throw away good science just because it wasn't performed by someone with 20 years experience as a climatologist.

This is where things get interesting; how many of the scientists that have jumped on the "New Ice Age" (70's)/"Global Warming" (90's)/"Climate Change" (2000's) bandwagons based on sound research that they performed? How many of them even took the time to at least glance over the research papers (not even asking them to conduct their own research in this area) supporting "Climate Change" to make sure the figures are correct and the conclusions are supported by the data? How much of the "consensus" is based on an organic chemist specializing in alcohols taking the word of an astrophysicist specializing in red dwarfs who took the word of an paleoanthropologist specializing in the study of Australopithecus africanus who had a roommate in college that was studying to be a meteorologist? Should I then trust what they have to say on the subject?

Much of the "consensus" on "Climate Change" in the scientific community is based on individual scientists believing their to be a "consensus" and jumping on the bandwagon. I understand no one is capable of reading every single research paper that is published, but if you're endorsing something that has such far reaching social and economic consequences - you'd better have done your homework. The fact that the scientific community encourages vigorous debate in something as inconsequential to society at large as the rate of mutations in mitochondrial DNA yet debate over anthropogenic climate change is stifled with claims of "consensus" and those who would engage in it are ridiculed, censored, and denied research grants. This leads me to believe that the so called "consensus" is nothing but political and that those in power have a vested interest in not having their "theory" challenged.


By kattanna on 11/5/2009 1:22:21 PM , Rating: 2
very nice post.

one thing it seems that many forget, like you have pointed out, is that in the 70's there was a global consensus of scientists that we were headed for another ice age with global cooling. funny, that didnt happen.

now we hear the same thing with global warming.. which is now climate change. and really now, who can argue that the climate isnt changing, it has since the planet has had one.

but the one thing that is constant is that there is the, in my opinion, false belief WE can actually overpower the earths natural systems enough to effect change. in effect make earths weather system a static non changing thing.

tell me that that is not the height of folly.


By HueyD on 11/5/2009 9:12:28 AM , Rating: 3
How about several thousand actual scientists....
http://www.nipccreport.org/index.html


By hr824 on 11/5/2009 10:08:20 AM , Rating: 1
Ahhh climate reports by The Heartland Institute who's board members include an Exxon executive may not be unbiased I'm thinking.


By HueyD on 11/5/2009 12:22:35 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I suppose one Exxon executive outweighs the signatures of the several thousand scientists that signed the report.

And I'm sure Al Gore has nothing to benefit by Carbon emissions legislation being passed....rrrriiigghhtt


By hr824 on 11/5/2009 1:54:34 PM , Rating: 2
You go ahead and look up The Heartland Group and see who funds and runs it and come back here and tell me that anything that comes out of there is unbiased.

Assuming that I trust Al gore because I distrust The Heartland Group is expected but wrong.


By Ristogod on 11/5/2009 9:33:32 AM , Rating: 4
Correct. The idea that man is causing global warming through production of green house gases is a political driven agenda.

The actual truth is that not as many scientists actually believe the causes to be man made as many reports would like to indicate. Those figures saying so are politically coerced and manipulated.


By Low Key on 11/4/2009 8:01:59 PM , Rating: 3
Most scientists probably believe in religion to, but that doesn't lend religion any scientific weight.


By LRonaldHubbs on 11/4/2009 10:47:03 PM , Rating: 1
No, most scientists are either agnostic or atheist. Here are the results of one study, and more can be found if you search.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm


By rbuszka on 11/4/2009 10:50:45 PM , Rating: 2
Appeals to Authority don't work regardless of whether the scientists believe in a religious philosophy or believe in some other philosophy.


By Kaleid on 11/5/2009 10:18:59 AM , Rating: 1
You're right. But it would be wise for academics not to support something which lacks evidence, which is true for every religion so far.
Plus, education usually shatters myths so its easy to understand why there is more doubt among the highly educated.


By callmeroy on 11/5/2009 3:00:54 PM , Rating: 1
Those who believe in [insert religion's name here] neither care about proving anything scientifically to anyone nor care what the scientific community cares to state about it. In most religion's its not about the tangible or visible -- which is both what makes some mock it so badly and laugh, and yet at the same time makes it feel so empowering to those who do believe in it.


By rbuszka on 11/4/2009 10:41:20 PM , Rating: 1
To say that we should believe in global warming because it is a 'consensus among scientists' simply means that it has become a tenet of Scientism, which is a religion in itself. (Not to be confused with Scientology, Scientism is the belief that the only way to discern the 'truth' is to apply the test of the Scientific Method. However, the validity of Scientism cannot be proven through scientific means, just as naturalism cannot prove itself. Look it up - it's in Wikipedia, for starters.) We should be looking for scientists who are bold enough to question long-held beliefs of the scientific establishment to determine whether they are still true, rather than simply accept every conclusion of the scientific establishment as indisputable truth. If the conclusion continues to stand up to scrutiny, then it is likely to be the truth. However, if new information leads to rejecting that conclusion, then that conclusion is not as unshakable as it was believed to be. In the end, however, we will likely go forward believing as we choose to believe, unless some subjective experience comes along that changes our minds, person by person. I'm convinced that a subjective experience is the only thing that can truly dismantle someone's belief system.


By yxalitis on 11/4/2009 11:34:04 PM , Rating: 4
Hear hear~!
This is my long held belief, scientists themselves are now basing theory on the back of theory on the back of...well, you get my point.
I firmly believe, as a matter of philosophy, that the Big Bang is bunk...but mention that, and you get lynched...
The Big Bang is creationism in disguise, the only major scientific theory (there's that word again) that starts with: "In the beginning..."
It fails to even attempt to explain the nature of this "singularity," fails to show mechanisms as to how it changed state from that infinitesimal, and yet all encompassing "point" to a cosmic explosion without time (the state of change) to allow this change.

Science is about mathematics, and what has happened over the past few decades, is that the understanding that maths is a tool to extrapolate and model real-world scenarios has slipped, and now maths IS the real world, no longer a model, but the absolute underlying fact behind all observed reality, look at Schrodinger's cat as en example, the mathematical equations are now being postulated as the very essence of the universe.
Maths failed to explain the flight of a bumblebee, or turbulent airflow, but in these cases, the patent inacuracy of teh mathematics was observable by all, no-one created "Dark gravity" to account for the fact that bumblebees do, in fact, fly. It was simply accepted that the maths was incapable of modelling such a complex physical reality...

And yet, maths is ALL we have to explain the very origins of the universe, it pains em whenever a creationist counters his theories with "yeah, well, YOU think the universe all started with a magic point of nothing-yet-everything that suddenly for no apparent reason exploded one day"
When the Pope agrees with a scientific theory about teh origins of the universe, it's time to start worrying...

And BEFORE you go citing all the evidence supporting the big bang, PLEASE tell em you actually understand the mathematics involved in coming to these conclusions PERSONALLY, and not just parroting the "widely held belief"
I doubt VERY much that more then 1 in 10,000 people understand the maths of the Big Bang, Anisotropies, and other such terms...

I do, I studied these at Uni, and spent many long nights discussing these exact thoughts with mathematics professors, who, by the way, are the best party animals you'll ever meet....(well, some of them, the ones that don't study matrices...)
Maths is a tool that if understood in all its glory, can produce phenomenal results, but if accepted carte blanche as de facto, is dangerous...

Look up why the Germans failed to develop the Atomic bomb, failed even to give it a serious attempt...their brilliant, talented physicists used mathematics to prove it wasn't possible without an absurd amount of plutonium...because the assumptions underlying their maths were flawed...but the maths was RIGHT!


By Reclaimer77 on 11/5/2009 3:28:55 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The Big Bang is creationism in disguise, the only major scientific theory (there's that word again) that starts with: "In the beginning..." It fails to even attempt to explain the nature of this "singularity," fails to show mechanisms as to how it changed state from that infinitesimal, and yet all encompassing "point" to a cosmic explosion without time (the state of change) to allow this change.


Man's reach exceeds it's grasp.

The Big Bang theory is an attempt by our pitifully short lived and small minded race, to answer the unanswerable. Nobody knows and could ever claim to know how the Universe came to be. Or if it ever was "created" in the fist place...

Some things just aren't meant to be, or able to be, answered. The creation of the Universe is one of those. In fact, who says it was ever created at all ? Once again, Man is applying the logical birth to death, beginning and end, cycle to it because that's what our lives revolve around. But that doesn't mean the Universe applies to those same rules and systems of logic.

Perhaps in time, much later than now, we will be matured and better equipped to answer such questions. We will have explored and conquered and expanded our minds. Maybe we will even be able to look into the past and know for a fact. Perhaps we'll travel far and wide and discover it has no end. And if something has no end and no beginning, then how do we quantify and make something tangible ?

I, however, believe we simply aren't meant to know. And even if we were, the truth would probably defy all levels of our understanding and comprehension. We either wouldn't accept it because it wouldn't fit within our tight framework of logic and science, or it would simply blow our minds somehow.


By Kaleid on 11/5/2009 10:20:52 AM , Rating: 2
"The Big Bang is creationism in disguise"

I personally don't agree:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo


By Mint on 11/5/2009 1:03:01 PM , Rating: 2
You have a terrible understanding of what the Big Bang represents.

It is not an explanation for the origin of time. It is not something that needs an explanation for how it came about, so for you to say it "fails" is just ignorant.

The big bang is an event . Nothing more, nothing less. It is an event that denies access to evidence of everything that occurred before it or outside it, and hence is the earliest event that we can be relatively sure of (through a crapload of indirect evidence).

It is the origin of the infinitesimal subset of 'everything' that is observable, whether directly or indirectly. Some people call this subset 'the universe', because for all intents and purposes it is, and some don't. The mechanism for how the Big Bang came about is not part of the theory, just like the origin of life is not a part of evolution. That's a part of cosmology.

Nobody with any knowledge of the matter says that the Big Bang theory starts with, "In the beginning", so ironically your whole post is based on a flawed assumption.


By yxalitis on 11/5/2009 9:12:40 PM , Rating: 2
"You have a terrible understanding of what the Big Bang represents."
OK, so explain:
"It is not an explanation for the origin of time. It is not something that needs an explanation for how it came about..."
really? OK, if you say so...but that's kind of my point...
"The big bang is an event . Nothing more, nothing less. It is an event that denies access to evidence of everything that occurred before it or outside it, and hence is the earliest event that we can be relatively sure of (through a crapload of indirect evidence)."
Umm, what>? I totally fail to understand you point. You say that BECAUSE we can't even attempt to understand something, that makes it something that we are "relatively sure of" interesting premise, but one that fails to convince me of the merit of your argument.


By wolrah on 11/5/2009 1:22:11 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Maths failed to explain the flight of a bumblebee, or turbulent airflow, but in these cases, the patent inacuracy of teh mathematics was observable by all, no-one created "Dark gravity" to account for the fact that bumblebees do, in fact, fly. It was simply accepted that the maths was incapable of modelling such a complex physical reality...


Uh, what the hell are you smoking? We know how bees fly. The aerodynamics are more like that of a helicopter rather than the more airplane-like aerodynamics of birds, so if you look at them expecting bird-like behavior you'll be confused but it's pretty well known and fits with our understanding of physics quite nicely. The idea that we don't understand how they fly is entirely made up by a bunch of new-age fucks who don't like the fact that science is explaining away all the "spiritual" shit they want to believe in.


By yxalitis on 11/5/2009 9:05:59 PM , Rating: 2
I said the MATHS explainign flight fails to account for bees:

Deciphering The Mystery Of Bee Flight

Although the issue is not as profound as how the universe began or what kick-started life on earth, the physics of bee flight has perplexed scientists for more than 70 years. In 1934, in fact, French entomologist August Magnan and his assistant André Sainte-Lague calculated that bee flight was aerodynamically impossible. The haphazard flapping of their wings simply shouldn't keep the hefty bugs aloft.

And yet, bees most certainly fly, and the dichotomy between prediction and reality has been used for decades to needle scientists and engineers about their inability to explain complex biological processes.

Maybe do some research yourself before posting next time


By TheSpaniard on 11/5/2009 12:24:44 AM , Rating: 2
there is no such thing as "consensous among scientists"

in science there is the guy who shows , undeniably, how something works, and no one can prove him wrong


By invidious on 11/5/2009 10:19:25 AM , Rating: 2
you should try reading scientific reports instead of political reports.


By Shining Arcanine on 11/5/2009 5:28:36 PM , Rating: 2
There is no physical evidence for global warming. The only evidence we have suggests that the planet is becoming colder. :/


By Zandros on 11/4/2009 7:25:13 PM , Rating: 2
You're wrong. While philosophy might not offer scientific proof, ie. repeatable empirical testing, logic, and by extension mathematics, is surely more than blind faith and religion?


By drunkenmastermind on 11/4/2009 7:49:00 PM , Rating: 1
I second that!


By RandallMoore on 11/4/2009 8:29:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now, can all the AGW people admit that its nothing more than blind faith and religion?


They will admit it when the evolutionists also admit the same thing. Don't hold your breath waiting.


By Flunk on 11/4/2009 8:53:13 PM , Rating: 1
What's an evolutionist? Evolution's not a religion. You don't need blind faith to understand evolution, just a lot of time to read a lot of books.


By Sozo on 11/4/2009 10:07:41 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, but you do. Nobody has ever observed evolution, and observation is an important part of the scientific method.

"Ah, but people have observed evolution," you say. But you're wrong, they've seen natural selection, a very different, and very normal development of life. And no, predictions and theorizations about the fossil record don't count either. You need faith (or belief, since faith isn't a very palatable word for scientists) to make the leap and fill in the millions of years worth of missing evidence.

Why are we even arguing about this? We should be complaining about making Al Gore a billionaire through global warming alarmism. Blast Al Gore, he's cleverer than we thought! o_O


By daInvincibleGama on 11/4/2009 10:27:30 PM , Rating: 2
Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria.

And don't give me any of that microevolution-macroevolution crap.


By Sozo on 11/4/2009 10:38:43 PM , Rating: 1
Antibiotic resistant bacteria develop via natural selection as well, or they can be engineered. In either case, they don't become a new species, just a new strain of the same species. Swine flu is one example.


By rbuszka on 11/4/2009 10:58:40 PM , Rating: 2
Correct - the Swine Flu didn't morph into something that was not the flu virus, and MRSA (Methycillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus) is just a drug-resistant population of Staphylococcus Aureus - the Staphylococcus bacterium found in your nose. It didn't morph into something that was not Staphylococcus Aureus.

Tame foxes are still foxes. Different breeds of dog are still dogs. They can still interbreed. Breeding for a specific physical trait is still breeding for a specific type of gene expression. And I would posit that selective breeding by humans is a form of intelligent design - in this case, an intelligent agent (a human handler) is determining the genes that are expressed by choosing individuals that display a desired trait. There are many ways that an intelligent agent could have influenced the development of diverse living species, even if evolution that produces speciation is one day proven to occur.


By rbuszka on 11/4/2009 10:49:00 PM , Rating: 2
Microevolution = Variation within a particular species that produces adaptations to changes in the population's habitat, but does not produce speciation.

Macroevolution = Variation which produces speciation.

The former has been observed in nature. The latter has not. Extrapolation from the former to the latter is not supported by any of the evidence I've encountered for 'evolution'. In fact, no evolutionary process has ever been demonstrated to produce variation beyond the phylum class. Telling us not to give you any of "that Macroevolution/Microevolution crap" is not making a counterargument. It is insulting the opponent and then sticking your fingers in your ears. And it looks just as silly to anyone who is skilled in debate. (Not that there are many on the Internet. Just plenty of intellectualist poseurs.)


By LRonaldHubbs on 11/4/2009 11:10:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Telling us not to give you any of "that Macroevolution/Microevolution crap" is not making a counterargument. It is insulting the opponent and then sticking your fingers in your ears.

In this case the opponent deserves the insult because their argument is tired and baseless. Macroevolution is nothing more than microevolution compounded over time.


By Jyrioffinland on 11/5/2009 4:56:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The former has been observed in nature. The latter has not.


Wrong. There is a new algae species in the Baltic Sea that has come about during the last 300-400 years.


By Jyrioffinland on 11/5/2009 5:06:36 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry. 'Algae' is a mistranslation. It should say 'seaweed'.


By marvdmartian on 11/5/2009 9:48:34 AM , Rating: 3
Add the atheists while you're at it. Their beliefs are strong enough that it might as well be considered the religion of non-believers.

Besides which, once we name atheism as a religion, they won't be able to sue to remove God from the government, since then they'd be pushing their religious beliefs on other people. Catch-22. ;)


By superPC on 11/4/2009 8:40:53 PM , Rating: 2
Even if AGW were real, we have more than enough technology at our disposal to stop the earth from getting warmer. these are just a few example : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_earth all technology shown in that page (engineer/create a more reflective cloud so the earth get 1-3 degrees cooler, churn up nutrient rich deep ocean so we can create man made algae bloom to soak up to 1/5 all man made CO2 since the beginning of the industrial revolution, extract CO2 in the air and stored it as a carbon compound underground or deep ocean) is within our reach all we need is money to implement those technology (predicted at less than 1 trillion US$). sure nobody wants to discuss that, we all prefer to strive economic and engineering growth to reduce carbon emission. go figure!


By Flunk on 11/4/2009 8:51:33 PM , Rating: 4
Actually, if you knew anything about Captain Planet you would know... "THE POWER IS YOURS!"


By FITCamaro on 11/4/2009 9:37:43 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed. While I don't agree with the legal outcome of this, I agree it pretty much is a religion. A bunch of people who believe in something they cannot prove exists (not knocking religion, just saying there's no "proof" god exists. i believe in one too).

Still absurd that this guy won. His employer dismissed him because he was openly critical of management. Regardless of the reason, that's grounds for being fired. And I'm sorry but in my mind, an employer can fire you for whatever reason they want. You are not entitled to your job (of course with our current government you're entitled to everything apparently).

And yes I've been let go because of a bullshit reason before too. Still doesn't change the fact that an employer doesn't not HAVE to employ you. They choose to employ you. And at any time, for any reason, they should be able to change their mind.


By thurston on 11/4/2009 10:00:36 PM , Rating: 1
Is your current place of employment at a business your family owns? Just curious.


By VaultDweller on 11/5/2009 9:06:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And I'm sorry but in my mind, an employer can fire you for whatever reason they want.


I disagree very, very strongly. Your employer cannot and should not be able to fire you because, say, you're Russian, or you're married to a black woman (or you're black yourself), or because you're a Protestant, etc.

However, I do agree to disagree with the legal outcome of this trial. A person should not be fired for their beliefs, whether they're religious, political, or scientific. However, being fired for openly complaining and 'griping' about the actions of your employer is not the same as being fired for your beliefs.


By VaultDweller on 11/5/2009 9:13:14 AM , Rating: 2
Wait a second, I (maybe) take that back.

I didn't notice in the article that this guy was the 'head of sustainability' at the company.

That sounds to me like complaining about such wasteful actions was his freaking job and he was fired for doing his job.

Further, I'd speculate that he was hired only for the PR benefits of being able to claim that they're a 'green' company. Sounds like they expected him to sit in his office with his thumb up his butt, looking pretty to appease hippies, but then they decided to back down on that plan when they realized he was actually going to do what he was allegedly hired for.


By corduroygt on 11/5/2009 12:44:42 PM , Rating: 2
I'm curious to why you don't believe in climate change but believe in a God? A sensible person wouldn't believe in lies and fairy tales. (I believe in neither btw)


By Steve1981 on 11/5/2009 1:20:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A sensible person wouldn't believe in lies and fairy tales.


A sensible person wouldn't needlessly antagonize others based on their religious beliefs either. In any case, one doesn't need to believe in lies and fairy tales to believe in a God. I simply look at the wonders of the world around me and can have faith in some manner of God all of my own accord.


By FITCamaro on 11/6/2009 1:10:19 PM , Rating: 2
Because I think everything had to come from somewhere. Otherwise you're saying the universe just popped into existence out of nothing purely by chance. I don't follow any particular faith anymore, but I believe that at some point in time, something, somewhere had to have started everything.

What "that" was is a question that, if we ever know the answer to, we'll never be able to tell anyone because we'll be dead (heaven and all that if it exists).


By TSS on 11/4/2009 9:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
philosophy deals with matters that are not capable of scientific proof.

quote:
Belief in man-made climate change is not a new religion, it is a philosophical belief that reflects my moral and ethical values and is underlined by the overwhelming scientific evidence."

Mr. Nicholson contradicts himself. If philosophy deals with matters not capable of scientific proof, in that matter, there cannot be any scientific proof. If there is scientific evidence, then it cannot be philosophy.

I think the word Mr. Nicholson was looking for is "Ideology".


By borowki2 on 11/5/2009 6:44:57 AM , Rating: 2
Hey, just because it's a religion doesn't mean it isn't true. The wrath of both God and Gaia are real! Repent now, people! Or else you'll burn here on earth and in hell thereafter!


By callmeroy on 11/5/2009 2:53:28 PM , Rating: 2
Amen brother.


"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki