|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 7, 2015 7:19:45 GMT 10
"Only god can change the climate” – US chief of Environment & Public Works CommitteeWhen the US Senate finally agreed that global warming is real, I thought we’re finally going to get some progress. The leaders of the US were finally starting to acknowledge the environmental damage we’re causing and maybe even start taking measures against it… it was too good to be true. While the senate agreed that climate change is happening (because hey, that’s not even a debate), many senators are now claiming that humans aren’t causing it. James Inhofe, the veteran climate denier in the Senate and incoming chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee went as far as to say that only God can cause climate change. Several Republicans have repeatedly stated that climate change is a hoax, but when they actually had to vote for that, they agreed that it was very much real. But when they had to vote whether or not humans are causing it, the page turned. The bad thing is that unless senators are actually prepared to accept the scientific consensus and take responsibility, it’s gonna be extremely hard to make any progress against climate change. In case you’re wondering, here are just a few of the studies we covered related to humans causing global warming: •IPCC 95% sure climate change is caused by humans •Study confirms IPCC’s 95% certainty on man made climate change •Almost unanimous: climate change 95% caused by man, according to U.N. •Study concludes there is a 99.999% chance of global warming being caused by humans •Man responsible for three quarters of climate change •The top 7 countries responsible for global warming •Just 90 companies are responsible for 60% of all man made global warming emissions – Exxon, Chevron and BP lead the way Of course, there are many more studies documenting how humans are causing climate change – these are just some of the ones we wrote about. Unfortunately, US senators choose to follow their own interests, and/or simply ignore the scientific truth and cling on to the idea that it’s not our fault. “Climate is changing and climate has always changed and always will,” Inhofe told the Senate. “The hoax is that there are some people who are so arrogant to think they are so powerful they can change climate. Man can’t change climate.” What makes this even more saddening is the fact that Inhofe is the incoming chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. He will get to decide how a huge sum of money will be spent on environment and public works – what can possibly go wrong? “We are worse off than 2005,” said Robert Brulle, a sociologist at Drexel University who writes about the climate denial movement. “The resolution saying that anthropogenic climate change is real and we need to act passed in 2005, and failed in 2015,” he said in an email. “A similar resolution failed today. 10 years, more certain science, less political will.” If you want to call and ask Senator Inhofe about this, you actually can. His office’s publically listed number is (202) 224-4721. Don’t be mean, make a civil comment and recommend that he quits from the U.S. Environment & Public Works Committee if he is unable to accept scientific consensus on the topic. www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate/climate-change-us-senate-29012015/Just another reason why Religion has no place in society if the decision makers can't see reason if their God tells them otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 7, 2015 13:37:28 GMT 10
Sorry... Other than a casual comment about God, I don't see how your article has anything to do with religion.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 7, 2015 14:51:26 GMT 10
Ok, so when he states that man can't change the climate, only God can, that is just a throw away line then.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 7, 2015 19:26:58 GMT 10
No, it's a political line and shows how these fruitcake Tea Party Republicans (and their Australian acolytes who currently run the Liberal Party) blur the line between religion and politics. Sorry, Occam , but I think Slarti has a point.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 8, 2015 2:02:52 GMT 10
Ok, so when he states that man can't change the climate, only God can, that is just a throw away line then. Not saying you are wrong necessarily, but it could be overstated for the misguided sake of controversy. Suppose an atheist says, "Oh my God", or "God only knows" would that then be indicative of some conversion experience? Not really. My point is: Just because God is mentioned, doesn't ipso facto make it a religious statement. God isn't a name only religious people use. And I disagree with your conclusion slarti, if anything religion teaches compassion, justice and integrity. That's EXACTLY what society needs in this situation.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 12, 2015 6:52:33 GMT 10
So how do you account for this from James "Mountain Man" Inhofe, a Senator:
The reason I'm not impressed with science or scientists is because the Lord Almighty can overcome those so called facts in the blink of an eye.
This numbscull has been elected by even bigger numbsculls to pass or not pass legislation.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 12, 2015 10:51:59 GMT 10
That's "numbskull", unless you're referring to the practice of rowing with oars that don't feel a thing.
I don't dispute that Inhofe's a numbskull, or even that the people who voted for him are numbskulls. I will go to my grave an advocate for democracy in which lawmakers are elected by secret ballot, by universal franchise, and in elections that are free and fair. I'll always argue that the fundamental democratic imperative is that the people are always right - even when they're wrong!, i.e. when the vote results in people getting elected who are truly appalling. So even numbskulls get the right to vote in that paradigm.
James Inhofe stretches that particular principle almost to breaking point.
So while I defend the right of numbskulls to vote for numbskulls, what gets up my nose is the people who by NOT voting leave the field open for the "numbskull whisperers" to get out the numbskull vote so that these numbskulls get elected!
There's a lot to be said for the system we have in Australia of compulsory voting, because we believe that people don't just have the right to vote, damnit, they have a duty to vote!
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 17, 2015 10:08:29 GMT 10
So how do you account for this from James "Mountain Man" Inhofe, a Senator: I'm Canadian; I don't have to.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 20, 2015 6:14:10 GMT 10
So how do you account for this from James "Mountain Man" Inhofe, a Senator: I'm Canadian; I don't have to. Did I claim he was Canadian? He's a religious nutter.
|
|
|
Post by openeyes on Feb 20, 2017 5:41:21 GMT 10
Ok, so when he states that man can't change the climate, only God can, that is just a throw away line then. And I disagree with your conclusion slarti, if anything religion teaches compassion, justice and integrity. That's EXACTLY what society needs in this situation. Religion teaches compassion, justice and integrity? I hope you're not referring to christianity. Because the bible endorses slavery, says that you should stone your wife to death on her father's doorstep if she's not a virgin on her wedding night and all manner of similarly compassionate stuff.
For a more complete list see: skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
Sure there is some stuff about compassion in there, but let's not pretend that's all it is. Both the bible and the Quran are full of cruelty and violence.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 20, 2017 13:55:49 GMT 10
And I disagree with your conclusion slarti, if anything religion teaches compassion, justice and integrity. That's EXACTLY what society needs in this situation. Religion teaches compassion, justice and integrity? I hope you're not referring to christianity. Because the bible endorses slavery, says that you should stone your wife to death on her father's doorstep if she's not a virgin on her wedding night and all manner of similarly compassionate stuff.
For a more complete list see: skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
Sure there is some stuff about compassion in there, but let's not pretend that's all it is. Both the bible and the Quran are full of cruelty and violence.
The Bible in no way endorses this, it merely reports on situations that were necessary for the conditions they were under. A little historical context goes a long way. P.S. The SAB isn't an accademic reference, and shouldn't be regarded as such.
|
|
|
Post by openeyes on Feb 21, 2017 2:44:37 GMT 10
Religion teaches compassion, justice and integrity? I hope you're not referring to christianity. Because the bible endorses slavery, says that you should stone your wife to death on her father's doorstep if she's not a virgin on her wedding night and all manner of similarly compassionate stuff.
For a more complete list see: skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
Sure there is some stuff about compassion in there, but let's not pretend that's all it is. Both the bible and the Quran are full of cruelty and violence.
The Bible in no way endorses this, it merely reports on situations that were necessary for the conditions they were under. A little historical context goes a long way. P.S. The SAB isn't an accademic reference, and shouldn't be regarded as such. So the good stuff in the bible - the "do unto others" etc - that stuff we should pay attention to and adopt. But the bad stuff we should write off as "it was a different time"? And who decides what we should and shouldn't heed? And the bible absolutely endorses slavery. it even gives instructions on how slaves should be treated. If god is such a nice guy I would think there's be something in there about slavery being, you know, evil. But no, not a word against it. And "historical context" is no excuse. The bible is the only christian holy book. Either it is a worthy text to live by or it's not, you can't have it both ways. The bible and, most other "holy" texts for that matter, are fairy tales full of violence, misogyny, incest and genocide. It's the last thing we need more of in this world.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 21, 2017 7:16:25 GMT 10
And the bible absolutely endorses slavery. it even gives instructions on how slaves should be treated. If god is such a nice guy I would think there's be something in there about slavery being, you know, evil. But no, not a word against it. And "historical context" is no excuse. The bible is the only christian holy book. Either it is a worthy text to live by or it's not, you can't have it both ways. What does it say in John 8:32? "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free". Condemned death row prisoner Matthew Poncelet (played by Sean Penn in Dead Man Walking) would take that text one way and Sister Helen Prejean (played by Susan Sarandon) intended an entirely different and deeper meaning for Poncelet. It's kinda what makes it such a bloody good movie, all these different layers of meaning around the biblical "message" and all in the grimmest of physical contexts. Another thing I like about that movie is the way it doesn't gloss over or shy away from the "bad stuff" in the bible while presenting the "good stuff". I'm referring in particular to the scene in the movie when Poncelet has been transferred from the general prison to the "death house" as the date of his death becomes imminent. Y'know, the part of the jail where they kill people and fatten 'em up beforehand with this ghoulish ritual of "dead man eating" whatever he wants before he becomes a "dead man walking". The character Sister Prejean is having a short break from all the heavy duty spiritual counselling and is sitting on a verandah chatting to one of the death row screws. Y'know just shootin' the breeze chatting about this 'n' that like what part of the body do you deal with when the condemned prisoner is strapped on the gurney (the screw says his body part is the left leg ... or was it the right leg? ... I dunno) and he starts justifying the death penalty from the bible : the part about an eye for an eye and all that (actually that doesn't come from the bible at all, it's a lot more ancient, but I digress ...). And Prejean shoots right back with all the other "bad stuff" which doesn’t invalidate the "good stuff". You seem like a cluey guy openeyes, I bet you know this movie well. I can't find the clip otherwise I'd post it. The bible didn't invent slavery but slavery in the ancient world was as necessary back then as fossil fuels are claimed to be today by conservative politicians and Big Coal and Big Oil. In fact the Roman legions back then were the Caltex and BP of the ancient world. Their business model was pretty straightforward: you conquered a new territory, enslaved the locals and settled the conquered territory with veterans. Those enslaved locals would now be "livestock" and as such be part of the slave economy which was the economic lifeblood of the Roman Empire. In this way the Roman legions generated a cash flow and a revenue stream by which they financed themselves, created wealth and stimulated economic activity. I'd never thought of Roman legions as anything other than an ancient army until I started reading economic historians. They were the energy companies of their day. Slavery had always existed in the ancient world. Hell, it still exists! What do you think the modern "people trafficking" industry is all about - and I'm not just talking about asylum seeking boat people, but even there ... Apparently you could even sell yourself into slavery. If modern economies run on fossil fuels, economies in the ancient world ran on human muscles much more than wind power or beasts of burden. Ancient Rome at its height grew to a million people. Imagine that. A city that size in the ancient world with all the infrastructure (plumbing, waste disposal, food distribution networks, roads etc etc) that a city that size needs. I live in a city of a million people and experience the gridlocks regularly. Imagine what it would have taken in ancient times just to service a city of a million people on a daily basis. Wouldn't have been possible without slaves to do the hack work just as its modern equivalent wouldn't function without fossil fuels. I know, I know, Ponto will come in at this point rabbiting pious platitudes about the "green economy". But I'm talking about now and back then, and I'm comparing now with back then. Ponto says that the fossil fuel economy is evil and he may well be right. Maybe you even agree with him. Are we going to reject the bible or any other sacred text on the grounds that it fails to take a moral stand on the modern fossil fuel economy? And the secular experiments that attempted to bring about the post religion millennium in fulfilment of Nietzsche's famous and often misquoted "God is dead", and I'm referring to the secular ideologies of the 20th century fascism and communism, were also marked by violence, misogyny and genocide. Maybe the problem isn't religious faith per se.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Feb 21, 2017 10:03:23 GMT 10
I'm still waiting for somebody to come up with REAL PROOF that there is even a single god that exists, let alone the many gods of the many religions humans have invented.
|
|
|
Post by openeyes on Feb 22, 2017 2:30:47 GMT 10
And the secular experiments that attempted to bring about the post religion millennium in fulfilment of Nietzsche's famous and often misquoted "God is dead", and I'm referring to the secular ideologies of the 20th century fascism and communism, were also marked by violence, misogyny and genocide. Maybe the problem isn't religious faith per se. It is a classic theist fallacy when speaking about "secular ideologies of 20th century fascism". First off, Hitler was not an atheist. But those who were - Pol Pot, Stalin and folks like that did not use atheism as justification for violence misogyny and genocide. They were just dangerous, power-hungry nutcases. They would have still been dangerous, power-hungry nutcases (possibly even moreso) had they believed in one of the invisible, all-powerful, imaginary deities. Atheism was not what drove them. Also back to climate change. A biblical universe with a biblical timeline would not have any fossil fuels to cause global warming. Fossil fuels take millions of years to form (of course that's just science talking) so in a world that's only a few thousand years old, they wouldn't exist. Unless it's mentioned somewhere is Genesis. Something like "And lo God did create and bury fossil fuels that would look like they took millions of years to form. Just to mess with Adam's descendants"
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 22, 2017 7:00:49 GMT 10
And the secular experiments that attempted to bring about the post religion millennium in fulfilment of Nietzsche's famous and often misquoted "God is dead", and I'm referring to the secular ideologies of the 20th century fascism and communism, were also marked by violence, misogyny and genocide. Maybe the problem isn't religious faith per se. It is a classic theist fallacy when speaking about "secular ideologies of 20th century fascism". First off, Hitler was not an atheist. But those who were - Pol Pot, Stalin and folks like that did not use atheism as justification for violence misogyny and genocide. They were just dangerous, power-hungry nutcases. They would have still been dangerous, power-hungry nutcases (possibly even moreso) had they believed in one of the invisible, all-powerful, imaginary deities. Atheism was not what drove them. Also back to climate change. A biblical universe with a biblical timeline would not have any fossil fuels to cause global warming. Fossil fuels take millions of years to form (of course that's just science talking) so in a world that's only a few thousand years old, they wouldn't exist. Unless it's mentioned somewhere is Genesis. Something like "And lo God did create and bury fossil fuels that would look like they took millions of years to form. Just to mess with Adam's descendants" What I like about your post is that you don't shy away from complexity and it'll take time to deal with everything so bear with me. 1. "Hitler was not an atheist" - no I guess he wasn't any more than I am. But I'm no fascist or Nazi either. To be honest I don't really know if Hitler subscribed to any of the official religions. He was Austrian and since Austria is culturally and historically Catholic I guess Hitler would at least have been christened a Catholic as a baby. But then so was I and that's neither here nor there. You're going to get a few neanderthals here with all sorts of agendas spamming the board with claims that I'm this or that religion, but take no notice of them. I'm an agnostic who nevertheless doesn't deny his upbringing and in fact sees some value in it. But back to Hitler. Whatever he was, a nominal Catholic or whatever, I fail to see how Catholicism informs Nazi ideology. If anything with its glorification of the "Führerprinzip", its hysteria over racial purity and its maudlin sentimentality over the Wagnerian myths of Germany's ancient origins, it seems to me that Nazism owes more to Wotan and Thor than it does to the Old and New Testament. I'm sure you were exposed to Grimm's Fairy Tales as a kid - as we all were. What do they all have in common? I mean the brothers Grimm and not Hans Christian Anderson. In Grimm's fairy tales there's always a forest in which there's some danger and enchantment through which the main character has to travel. And of course we get the usual stuff about good defeating evil etc etc which makes them great stories to read to kids. But the forest as a place of enchantment and danger? Very German! The pre-Christian Germanic tribes worshipped forest gods and this is what Hitler tried to delve into. Apparently forest treks were a vital part of being in the Hitler Youth or "Hitler Jugend". In German the letter "H" is pronounced "Ha" and "J" is pronounced "yot". So "Hitler Jugend" was commonly referred to as "Ha Yot". Not a lot of Christianity there. Certainly no Catholicism. Whatever he was, Hitler had kicked over those traces. I have to go but I'd like to come back to this ...
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 23, 2017 6:55:39 GMT 10
It is a classic theist fallacy when speaking about "secular ideologies of 20th century fascism". First off, Hitler was not an atheist. But those who were - Pol Pot, Stalin and folks like that did not use atheism as justification for violence misogyny and genocide. They were just dangerous, power-hungry nutcases. They would have still been dangerous, power-hungry nutcases (possibly even moreso) had they believed in one of the invisible, all-powerful, imaginary deities. Atheism was not what drove them. Also back to climate change. A biblical universe with a biblical timeline would not have any fossil fuels to cause global warming. Fossil fuels take millions of years to form (of course that's just science talking) so in a world that's only a few thousand years old, they wouldn't exist. Unless it's mentioned somewhere is Genesis. Something like "And lo God did create and bury fossil fuels that would look like they took millions of years to form. Just to mess with Adam's descendants" What I like about your post is that you don't shy away from complexity and it'll take time to deal with everything so bear with me. 1. "Hitler was not an atheist" - no I guess he wasn't any more than I am. But I'm no fascist or Nazi either. To be honest I don't really know if Hitler subscribed to any of the official religions. He was Austrian and since Austria is culturally and historically Catholic I guess Hitler would at least have been christened a Catholic as a baby. But then so was I and that's neither here nor there. You're going to get a few neanderthals here with all sorts of agendas spamming the board with claims that I'm this or that religion, but take no notice of them. I'm an agnostic who nevertheless doesn't deny his upbringing and in fact sees some value in it. But back to Hitler. Whatever he was, a nominal Catholic or whatever, I fail to see how Catholicism informs Nazi ideology. If anything with its glorification of the "Führerprinzip", its hysteria over racial purity and its maudlin sentimentality over the Wagnerian myths of Germany's ancient origins, it seems to me that Nazism owes more to Wotan and Thor than it does to the Old and New Testament. I'm sure you were exposed to Grimm's Fairy Tales as a kid - as we all were. What do they all have in common? I mean the brothers Grimm and not Hans Christian Anderson. In Grimm's fairy tales there's always a forest in which there's some danger and enchantment through which the main character has to travel. And of course we get the usual stuff about good defeating evil etc etc which makes them great stories to read to kids. But the forest as a place of enchantment and danger? Very German! The pre-Christian Germanic tribes worshipped forest gods and this is what Hitler tried to delve into. Apparently forest treks were a vital part of being in the Hitler Youth or "Hitler Jugend". In German the letter "H" is pronounced "Ha" and "J" is pronounced "yot". So "Hitler Jugend" was commonly referred to as "Ha Yot". Not a lot of Christianity there. Certainly no Catholicism. Whatever he was, Hitler had kicked over those traces. I have to go but I'd like to come back to this ... Moving to your next point: Correct. These are givens and are not in dispute. So let me get this straight: your problem is with science-denying biblical literalist fundamentalists? If so, as the Dad of a science PhD and as the uncle of a couple of science PhDs you're not going to get an argument from me on that one. Or does your problem go even deeper? Are you saying that to profess any religious faith is ipso facto to be an obscurantist science-denying god-bothering fundamentalist? Is that your position? If so I don't share it. I parted company with Catholicism as an intense young man not over anything to do with science but because I wanted to get laid and the Catholic church said I'd go to hell if I did. Who's that cranky British evolutionary biologist who wrote "The Selfish Gene"? Richard Dawkins, that's him (thank you Mr Google)! Brilliant guy. Member of Britain's Royal Society and all that. Are you American? Americans don't really understand outfits like the Royal Society but they are the crème de la crème of the British scientific establishment. When Captain James Cook sailed up the east coast of Australia in 1770 on board he had a guy called Joseph Banks who was a member of the Royal Society. It was fortunate that he was on that voyage because the examples of Australian flora that Banks collected - hitherto totally unknown to science - are still in the British Museum in London and are a wonder to behold. So the Royal Society goes back a long way. Back to King Charles 2 in the late 1600s in fact. It's a venerable institution and for Richard Dawkins to be admitted as a Fellow of the Royal Society is seriously heavy stuff if you're a scientist. So as a scientist I'm in awe of the guy and I've read enough of his stuff ("The Selfish Gene" and "The Blind Watchmaker") to convince me that for the average lay reader like me guys like Richard Dawkins have placed the fact of evolution beyond doubt. It's as much a no-brainer as human-induced climate change. My problem with Richard Dawkins is his crankiness. I've heard him on God and the bible and, fine, he rejects both. That's OK, no problem with that. But he goes on from there and attributes all sorts of motives to people who profess a religious belief and appears to be arguing that there's no such thing as a religious "moderate" and it's at that point where I think "Whoa!" and this is where I part company from him. None of this in any way diminshes the man's scientific achievements and insights in the field of evolutionary biology. But maybe he should leave theology alone.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 23, 2017 8:05:43 GMT 10
Troll One at work. Don't feed him.
|
|
|
Post by jody on Feb 27, 2017 12:39:27 GMT 10
Phil...enough of this stupid shit or you will get a holiday.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 27, 2017 12:57:04 GMT 10
]So the good stuff in the bible - the "do unto others" etc - that stuff we should pay attention to and adopt. But the bad stuff we should write off as "it was a different time"? And who decides what we should and shouldn't heed? That depends on how it is being represented, and what other moral obligations it is being weighed against. For instance, is slavery worse than leaving defeated individuals in the desert to die alone? Isreal had strict rules pertaining to slavery, and every slave was released after 7 years. Essentially, it was the wilderness version of prison. How much do you really know about the conditions to make such a unilateral moral call from your westernized Ivory tower? Now that's an interesting position... By calling these stories "fairy tales" you are suggesting that these things never actually happened. As such, I assume you'd place such Holy books as the Bible in the same category as modern fiction. These same elements exist in most classical and modern literature. Are you endorsing book burning? Or is your prejudice directed against religion only?
|
|
|
Post by jody on Feb 27, 2017 17:23:36 GMT 10
Both of you are behaving like children...just grow the hell up.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Feb 27, 2017 17:42:26 GMT 10
Bend over and take your punishment!!
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 27, 2017 22:49:40 GMT 10
Phil...enough of this stupid shit or you will get a holiday. Hi Jody, I've been watching the Oscars ... Well, you probably know my response to this, but I'll write it anyway. To punish me with a "holiday" for fighting against a person who persistently posts abusive sneers in a contemptuous manner would be an injustice. Even if this were so...(it isn't. ) Your way to remedy the situation is to behave in the exact same manner? When did two stupids ever make a smart? Stop playing the victim hero; your black hat, cloak, and twisted mustache, betray your true nature.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 27, 2017 23:04:44 GMT 10
No Occam's, my new and improved strategy is to re-post his sneer laced contributions with ones devoid of sneers. Positive reinforcement and educational too. Very effective, because it got him to react as no other strategy had so far.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 27, 2017 23:25:10 GMT 10
You must be new.
|
|