Have you seen an Atheist who doesn't believe in Global Warming?
ComandanteBanana
EVOLUTION, which is why they are Atheists. And so science is also
telling us of a clear and unequivocal connection between HUMAN
POLLUTION and GLOBAL WARMING.
It is then the case that those who do NOT believe in Global Warming
(yeah, there are many out there) are the same sheep who happen to
believe in God. Of course, this belief comes quite handy for their
polluting SUVs. Why have any moral qualms about it if there's no
Global Warming?
Well, this is, like science, only a THEORY, so it remains true until
we find many Atheists who do not believe in Global Warming. If they do
is because they are trying to blend in with the sheep. ;)
WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
(beware of the Christians!)
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
Ken
wrote:
I've noticed that most republicans don't beileve in it either.
Wasn't it Bill Crosby who used the line: "How long can you tread
water, Noah?"
Jack
> This is what my logic tells me: Atheists believe in
> SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION, which is why they are Atheists.
> And so science is also telling us of a clear and
> unequivocal connection between HUMAN POLLUTION and GLOBAL
> WARMING.
I've never seen any data to indicate that burning carbon fuels contributes
to global warming.
Shrik...@gmail.com
> EVOLUTION, which is why they are Atheists.
Some, on the other hand, believe in envirofundamentalism.
> And so science is also
> telling us of a clear and unequivocal connection between HUMAN
> POLLUTION and GLOBAL WARMING.
Actually, only software climate models are telling
us much of anything. Either that or post hoc,
ergo propter hoc. Take your pick. But as Richard
Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric
Science at MIT puts it: software climate models
are like Ouija boards.
> It is then the case that those who do NOT believe in Global Warming
> (yeah, there are many out there) are the same sheep who happen to
> believe in God.
Did you determine this scientifically? Or is it just some
foregone conclusion that you hold on faith?
> Of course, this belief comes quite handy for their
> polluting SUVs. Why have any moral qualms
Moral qualms? Kind of a religious concept, don't you
think? I'm reporting you to atheist central, as a
probable religious worm.
> about it if there's no
> Global Warming?
Well, empirically, there has been global warming. The
cause is not so easy to be so certain about.
> Well, this is, like science, only a THEORY,
It isn't even a theory. I suppose you could say it's
a hypothesis. In the same sense that any other
conjecture you pull out of your ass is a conjecture.
> so it remains true until
Interesting understanding of the philosophy of science
you have here.
> we find many Atheists who do not believe in Global Warming.
Actually, it seems that envirofundamentalists have
just replaced one for of apocalyptic faith for another
one. It's always the end of the world, and the sinners
(in their SUVs) are to blame. What would Jesus
drive? A Panzer V.
> If they do
> is because they are trying to blend in with the sheep. ;)
Not a single True Scotsman.
ComandanteBanana
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah, but the Republicans ARE the Christians except for a few
exceptions (those at the top).
Jack
At the top of what?
I know lots of Garrison Kellior-style Christians.
ComandanteBanana
> On Sep 11, 8:43 am, ComandanteBanana <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > This is what my logic tells me: Atheists believe in SCIENCE AND
> > EVOLUTION, which is why they are Atheists.
>
> Some, on the other hand, believe in envirofundamentalism.
What's that, I don't think we should run the world based on ignorance.
However I believe it should the PRIORITY #1 of the world. Not the
world against terror, exploring Mars, etc.
>
> > And so science is also
> > telling us of a clear and unequivocal connection between HUMAN
> > POLLUTION and GLOBAL WARMING.
>
> Actually, only software climate models are telling
> us much of anything. Either that or post hoc,
> ergo propter hoc. Take your pick. But as Richard
> Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric
> Science at MIT puts it: software climate models
> are like Ouija boards.
Something like 90% of scientists agree with the connection. The
remaining 10% must be part of the Republican Party. (I don't have the
exact numbers).
>
> > It is then the case that those who do NOT believe in Global Warming
> > (yeah, there are many out there) are the same sheep who happen to
> > believe in God.
>
> Did you determine this scientifically? Or is it just some
> foregone conclusion that you hold on faith?
It seems like a pretty accurate prediction that people that vote for
the Republican Party, don't agree with Global Warming --or don't want
to make it a priority anyway.
>
> > Of course, this belief comes quite handy for their
> > polluting SUVs. Why have any moral qualms
>
> Moral qualms? Kind of a religious concept, don't you
> think? I'm reporting you to atheist central, as a
> probable religious worm.
There's ethics outside of religion, but you find no relief in going to
church to confess.
>
> > about it if there's no
> > Global Warming?
>
> Well, empirically, there has been global warming. The
> cause is not so easy to be so certain about.
Sure. How about if Global Warming is set by God to punish humankind
one more time...
Just kidding. ;)
>
> > Well, this is, like science, only a THEORY,
>
> It isn't even a theory. I suppose you could say it's
> a hypothesis. In the same sense that any other
> conjecture you pull out of your ass is a conjecture.
Less or more realistic than the idea of God? That sounds like wishful
thinking.
>
> > so it remains true until
>
> Interesting understanding of the philosophy of science
> you have here.
Less than the selective use of science Christians do. Like, how do we
know there's been climate change before if it isn't mentioned in the
Bible?
>
> > we find many Atheists who do not believe in Global Warming.
>
> Actually, it seems that envirofundamentalists have
> just replaced one for of apocalyptic faith for another
> one. It's always the end of the world, and the sinners
> (in their SUVs) are to blame. What would Jesus
> drive? A Panzer V.
This is based on CAUSE AND EFFECT (the garbage you put in is the
garbage you get), not the insignificant act of eating the forbidden
fruit.
>
> > If they do
> > is because they are trying to blend in with the sheep. ;)
>
> Not a single True Scotsman.
Wasn't the cloned sheep from Scotland?
Mark K. Bilbo
Then you've gone to a great deal of effort to avoid science publications...
Reverend Dave
4c21-b5b2-5...@73g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
> This is what my logic tells me: Atheists believe in SCIENCE AND
> EVOLUTION, which is why they are Atheists.
Wrong. Atheists may well believe in science and evolution but that is not
necessarily the reason they are atheists although most atheists
understand science to a greater degree than the general public. I would
hardly call science a belief - it's a search for verifiable truth.
> And so science is also
> telling us of a clear and unequivocal connection between HUMAN
> POLLUTION and GLOBAL WARMING.
>
> It is then the case that those who do NOT believe in Global Warming
> (yeah, there are many out there) are the same sheep who happen to
> believe in God. Of course, this belief comes quite handy for their
> polluting SUVs. Why have any moral qualms about it if there's no
> Global Warming?
Dude, this ain't news.
>
> Well, this is, like science, only a THEORY, so it remains true until
> we find many Atheists who do not believe in Global Warming. If they do
> is because they are trying to blend in with the sheep. ;)
So what's your theory on the huge ice shelves that are sloughing off in
the Arctic?
http://current.com/items/89269994_4_500_year_old_ice_shelf_breaks_away
>
>
> WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
> (beware of the Christians!)
> http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
--
Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to believe,
but in proportion to their readiness to doubt - Ambrose Bierce
http://www.apatheticagnostic.com/
Thommy M.
> This is what my logic tells me: Atheists believe in SCIENCE AND
> EVOLUTION, which is why they are Atheists.
Nope, an atheist just don't believe in any god. That's all there's to it.
Jack
No I haven't. I've heard plenty of conclusions but I'd be interested in
some numbers.
Errol
For once, i agree with you completely. i promise not to make a habit
out of it:-)
JohnN
wrote:
There are evangelicals who accept global worming and are trying to
stop it. They see it as part of their stewardship of the earth
mission. This has caused them grief from less enlightened christians.
JohnN
Mark K. Bilbo
So read the journals...
ComandanteBanana
I wonder if they know about the particle collider. How the Big Bang
fits into Genesis?
Well, I think they are more interested in another big bang, the power
of the atom --to keep other nations under control.
ComandanteBanana
> ComandanteBanana <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:33628006-2677-
> 4c21-b5b2-5abf458a5...@73g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
>
> > This is what my logic tells me: Atheists believe in SCIENCE AND
> > EVOLUTION, which is why they are Atheists.
>
> Wrong. Atheists may well believe in science and evolution but that is not
> necessarily the reason they are atheists although most atheists
> understand science to a greater degree than the general public. I would
> hardly call science a belief - it's a search for verifiable truth.
Many of us choose to "believe" all the time. But you can choose to
believe the "prophets" or the scientists. You can't possibly follow up
all the details, say, of evolution. Common sense helps you a lot too,
of course.
>
> > And so science is also
> > telling us of a clear and unequivocal connection between HUMAN
> > POLLUTION and GLOBAL WARMING.
>
> > It is then the case that those who do NOT believe in Global Warming
> > (yeah, there are many out there) are the same sheep who happen to
> > believe in God. Of course, this belief comes quite handy for their
> > polluting SUVs. Why have any moral qualms about it if there's no
> > Global Warming?
>
> Dude, this ain't news.
The news is WHY they choose to ignore it.
>
>
>
> > Well, this is, like science, only a THEORY, so it remains true until
> > we find many Atheists who do not believe in Global Warming. If they do
> > is because they are trying to blend in with the sheep. ;)
>
> So what's your theory on the huge ice shelves that are sloughing off in
> the Arctic?
>
> http://current.com/items/89269994_4_500_year_old_ice_shelf_breaks_away
I only know a name for it: MANMADE CLIMATE CHANGE.
Jack
Well, I was looking for some leads.
ComandanteBanana
So that believe is not connected to reason.
I'm skeptical of god (not the biblical god, any god) because science
seems to indicate that there's only natural causes to the whole story.
For example, men and chimps share 99% of the genes, and that's strong
indication that we have a monkey somewhere in the family tree.
ComandanteBanana
I don't know why Christians hide under the table when the see a
science publication. ;)
Jack
Nobody in this thread is hiding from science publications.
Shrik...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Sep 11, 4:42 pm, Shrikeb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Sep 11, 8:43 am, ComandanteBanana <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > This is what my logic tells me: Atheists believe in SCIENCE AND
> > > EVOLUTION, which is why they are Atheists.
>
> > Some, on the other hand, believe in envirofundamentalism.
>
> What's that,
It's faith-based environmentalism.
> I don't think we should run the world based on ignorance.
So does that mean that you oppose scientifically
illiterat leftards making hysterical claims based
on their own misapprehension of AGW in the
press?
> However I believe it should the PRIORITY #1 of the world. Not the
> world against terror, exploring Mars, etc.
"Belief" is the key word in the above.
> > > And so science is also
> > > telling us of a clear and unequivocal connection between HUMAN
> > > POLLUTION and GLOBAL WARMING.
>
> > Actually, only software climate models are telling
> > us much of anything. Either that or post hoc,
> > ergo propter hoc. Take your pick. But as Richard
> > Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric
> > Science at MIT puts it: software climate models
> > are like Ouija boards.
>
> Something like 90% of scientists agree with the connection. The
> remaining 10% must be part of the Republican Party. (I don't have the
> exact numbers).
Yes, of course you don't. I don't think those
exact numbers exist. Where is that poll?
You want to give a link? Or is this another
faith-based foregone conclusion?
> > > It is then the case that those who do NOT believe in Global Warming
> > > (yeah, there are many out there) are the same sheep who happen to
> > > believe in God.
>
> > Did you determine this scientifically? Or is it just some
> > foregone conclusion that you hold on faith?
>
> It seems like a pretty accurate prediction that people that vote for
> the Republican Party, don't agree with Global Warming --or don't want
> to make it a priority anyway.
Again, your lack of any commitment to empiricism
is daunting. Also, it makes no difference who the
skeptics are. The only question is, who has the
more scientific attitude: the skeptics or the true
believers.
> > > Of course, this belief comes quite handy for their
> > > polluting SUVs. Why have any moral qualms
>
> > Moral qualms? Kind of a religious concept, don't you
> > think? I'm reporting you to atheist central, as a
> > probable religious worm.
>
> There's ethics outside of religion, but you find no relief in going to
> church to confess.
Actually, Hume observed a while back that Ought
is orthogonal to Is. Never the twain shall meet.
Normative Oughts are always metaphysical. I
guess it all depends on what you definition of
"religion" is. But belief systems are at the root
of all ethics and morality. Maybe you just don't
want your belief system to be tainted by the epithet
"religion."
> > > about it if there's no
> > > Global Warming?
>
> > Well, empirically, there has been global warming. The
> > cause is not so easy to be so certain about.
>
> Sure. How about if Global Warming is set by God to punish humankind
> one more time...
>
> Just kidding. ;)
In environmentalist circles, She is called Gaia.
> > > Well, this is, like science, only a THEORY,
>
> > It isn't even a theory. I suppose you could say it's
> > a hypothesis. In the same sense that any other
> > conjecture you pull out of your ass is a conjecture.
>
> Less or more realistic than the idea of God? That sounds like wishful
> thinking.
Did I make any comparison to the idea of God?
Actually, though, it is about equally as faith-based
as the God conjecture.
> > > so it remains true until
>
> > Interesting understanding of the philosophy of science
> > you have here.
>
> Less than the selective use of science Christians do. Like, how do we
> know there's been climate change before if it isn't mentioned in the
> Bible?
Now, you seem to be operating under the faith-based
premise that I am an Xtian instead of an atheist.
> > > we find many Atheists who do not believe in Global Warming.
>
> > Actually, it seems that envirofundamentalists have
> > just replaced one for of apocalyptic faith for another
> > one. It's always the end of the world, and the sinners
> > (in their SUVs) are to blame. What would Jesus
> > drive? A Panzer V.
>
> This is based on CAUSE AND EFFECT (the garbage you put in is the
> garbage you get), not the insignificant act of eating the forbidden
> fruit.
Well, Xtians have their own version of CAUSE AND
EFFECT. The problem is that the outcome of even
a deterministic chaotic system does not lend itself
to prediction through simplification. Hence software
climate models really are like Ouija boards. You can't
assume they are accurate unless your faith is strong.
> > > If they do
> > > is because they are trying to blend in with the sheep. ;)
>
> > Not a single True Scotsman.
>
> Wasn't the cloned sheep from Scotland?
And Allah will smite all the Scots for their
vanity, until there are no True Scotsmen
left. For only Allah is allowed to mess with
sheep's reproduction that way. And She is
a jealous god.
Jack
> On Sep 11, 4:42 pm, Shrikeb...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sep 11, 8:43 am, ComandanteBanana
>> <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This is what my logic tells me: Atheists believe in
>>> SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION, which is why they are Atheists.
>>
>> Some, on the other hand, believe in envirofundamentalism.
>
> What's that, I don't think we should run the world based
> on ignorance. However I believe it should the PRIORITY #1
> of the world. Not the world against terror, exploring
> Mars, etc.
>
>>
>>> And so science is also
>>> telling us of a clear and unequivocal connection
>>> between HUMAN POLLUTION and GLOBAL WARMING.
>>
>> Actually, only software climate models are telling
>> us much of anything. Either that or post hoc,
>> ergo propter hoc. Take your pick. But as Richard
>> Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric
>> Science at MIT puts it: software climate models
>> are like Ouija boards.
>
> Something like 90% of scientists agree with the
> connection. The remaining 10% must be part of the
> Republican Party. (I don't have the exact numbers).
Polls? Who cares? How about get down to basics--numbers for concentrations
of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at various locations worldwide going
back, say, 150 years or so.
Paul
wrote:
The world had the most carbon in the air millions of years ago when
life evolved.
so maybe by polluting we'll actually create new life forms, or evolve
ourselves.
Shrik...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Sep 12, 5:41 am, "Thommy M." <eclipse9876543...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ComandanteBanana wrote:
> > > This is what my logic tells me: Atheists believe in SCIENCE AND
> > > EVOLUTION, which is why they are Atheists.
>
> > Nope, an atheist just don't believe in any god. That's all there's to it.
>
> So that believe is not connected to reason.
Actually it is. The assumption that there is a
god cannot be falsified. A proposition is only
scientific if it can be falsified. The assumption
that there is no god can be falsified; all that is
required is for Him, Her, or It to show up. Hence
atheism is a more scientific assumption.
> I'm skeptical of god (not the biblical god, any god) because science
> seems to indicate that there's only natural causes to the whole story.
Science can't indicate this. In any case, you are
falling into the creationist's trap. They will just
ask you to explain the Big Bang naturally. It
can't be done. Why is there something instead
of nothing?
> For example, men and chimps share 99% of the genes, and that's strong
> indication that we have a monkey somewhere in the family tree.
This is another part of the creationist's trap. They
seem to believe that the theory of evolution is their
only enemy, and if they could quash that one, a
6000-year-old Earth would naturally plop into the
self-evident category. Anyway, perhaps God
believes in software reuse, and He, She, or It
re-uses the same genetic code when it suits.
For he is a Slothful God and isn't into reinventing
the wheel over and over again.
James Beck
8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, mea...@gmail.com says...
It has been warming up ever since the last ice age.
It has been warmer in the past, it will be warmer in the future.
There has been more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past, there will be
more there in the future.
We should reduce our burning of "fossil" fuels because, by definition,
they are a limited resource.
Al Gore and his ilk mean that you and I should do everything to reduce
our carbon foot print, while he is allowed to burn through resources
faster than 600 people because HE is privileged. The same goes for most
of the Green Elite. Sting says we need to reduce the number of children
born while he pops out 6 of them, and so on, and so on.
The ULTIMATE fact is, people will use the energy sources that are cheap.
Oil and coal are already there as stored solar energy and they are easy
to exploit and make a profit doing so.
I choose to use CF lighting and high efficiency appliances because in
the long run it is cheaper for me and easier on resources. I don't do
it because anyone TOLD me to, or out of any guilt over what "we" have
done to the planet. In the end it all comes down to $$$.
YOU may choose to do what you see fit to do.
Jack
Really? Wasn't there a "little ice age" in the 17th century?
.
James Beck
furgfu...@yahoo.com says...
Yeah, but that was "The Little Ice Age", not the last ice age.
Kind of answered yourself there, didn't ya'?
Jack
If there was little ice age since the last ice age then temperatures haven't
James Beck
You keep talking, but all I hear is BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
James Beck
The trend has been upwards since the ice age, if you can't wrap your
head around that and want to dwell on the little ice age, I suggest we
offset that little burp with the Medieval Warm Period.
Jack
I guess it depends on how long a time period you use to establish a trend.
James Beck
Ummm, the period of time since THE LAST ICE AGE.
I thought I was pretty clear on that.
Anyway, I'm done with this, good day.
Mark K. Bilbo
Well, the last ice age was 12K+ ago. How's that for a time period?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"You know, I'd get it if people were just looking for a
way to fill the holes. But they want the holes. They wanna
live in the holes. And they go nuts when someone else
pours dirt in their holes.
"Climb out of your holes people!"
- Dr. House, on faith