Pages

 

Recent Pages by Thanos (Randall Gross):
Nevada Republicans' Caucus Adds Chaos and Confusion to the State's Presidential Primary Why Are Builders Putting Gas Stoves in New Homes? Could It Be Fossil Fuel Subsidies? Was the Climate 'Better' During the Age of the Dinosaurs? (More Climate "Facts" Bite the dust.) 2023 Golden Crocoduck Award Ceremony and WINNER!! Where Environmentalists Get It Wrong (ALL OPINION)

Jump to bottom

7 comments

1 nines09  Nov 17, 2014 2:57:59pm

So the thing that you think could lend strength and balance to ones life can and will make you ignorant if followed blindly? Nothing new here. “We just want you to know before we hang you, that God is love and you haven’t loved him enough or the right way.”

2 EiMitch  Nov 17, 2014 7:17:36pm

This article, and the study they’re talking about, are pretty biased. Granted, conservatives don’t hide their contempt for science. But talking like they’re the only ones who disbelieve science, by cherry-picking three topics as if they were the only ones “contested,” is simply not honest.

I know republicans deny climate-change and evolution, and oppose stem-cell research. But what about anti-vaccination? Or the panic over using agricultural chemicals and GMOs? (not that I think they should be unregulated, nor deny that corporations have ever gone too far. But some people cry like the sky is falling if these things get used at all) And who can forget the “chem-trails” nuts?

Just because conservatives are proudly anti-science, that doesn’t mean science denial is only a right-wing phenomenon. Any honest study on science denialism needs to look at more than three topics. There is certainly no shortage of topics to choose from.

3 Souliren  Nov 18, 2014 1:05:53pm

I think religion is hard-wired. It was useful to have ummm… advice from God advising against eating pigs or shagging your sister. It had a positive evolutionary benefit.

When you remove religion, going to church on Sunday, Sunday school, grace before meals, etc. It leaves a void that is often replaced with something else. Global warming alarm-ism, peta, communism or even Pastafarianism and atheism.

So, I suggest that the left hand side of those graphs do have high religiosity. Most civilian alarmists operate from faith. (as do most denialists, I presume)

4 EiMitch  Nov 18, 2014 4:09:44pm

re: #3 Souliren

When you remove religion, going to church on Sunday, Sunday school, grace before meals, etc. It leaves a void that is often replaced with something else. Global warming alarm-ism, peta, communism or even Pastafarianism and atheism.

So, I suggest that the left hand side of those graphs do have high religiosity. Most civilian alarmists operate from faith. (as do most denialists, I presume)

There are a number of things wrong with this.

First, you’re implicitly equating belief in something, i.e. religion, with rituals, i.e. church and saying grace. Not your main point, nor mine. But it is a very important distinction to keep in mind for later conversations.

Second, are you seriously equating climate-change alarmism with denialism? Because if you are, you need to back-up that claim with something good.

Third, calling climate-change alarmism a religion when there is overwhelming proof that climate-change is happening is rather disingenuous to say the least. Its one thing to argue that alarmists sometimes go too far or something like that, like I said of GMO/chemical alarmists. But to say they “operate from faith”? Do you even know what the word “faith” means? Because “believing in a conclusion which an abundance of evidence points to” isn’t it.

Fourth, atheism isn’t a religion. Its a lack of religion. Another technicality, I know. But it matters.

Fifth, Pastafarianism is a joke. I’m going to assume you know this already, and point out that not naming it last can make it seem like you don’t.

And finally, what the eff is a “civilian alarmist”? As opposed to a “military alarmist?” It sounds like two words randomly thrown together. Did you mean “layman alarmists” by any chance?

5 Souliren  Nov 18, 2014 5:12:39pm

The religion thing was kind-of my point because it was a major factor in the graphs in the post. I was thinking that the behavior - believing in god or following rituals were a factor in our survival. Up until recently religion, including the feeling of faith aided by rituals and chants was almost universal.

When I was a kid everyone I knew believed in god or at least said they did. I did. Almost everyone went to church. I don’t think that is common today.

Where I work I think perhaps 3-5 people out of about 100 are religious. i.e True believer - Christian, Muslim,Buddhist, etc. I presume this is happening elsewhere.

My badly made point, probably further badlyfied by this follow up is that lack of any religion makes it more likely a person will follow another cause with the same fervor or behavior circuits firing.

Yes I am equating alarmism with religion and suggesting it may be a factor in the graphs. I do see and talk to folks who “believe” we must take drastic action now to reduce our CO2 production. It is not based on their own research. Their peers believe it so they either do or pretend to like the folks who go to church every week but don’t believe in god. So some of the difference in the graphs are due to the vacuum left by the exit of traditional religions.

There is “solid evidence” of recent global warming activity due “mostly” to human activity such as the burning of fossil fuels.”

I don’t see the “solid evidence” and the “mostly” Why are there quotes around them?

I do not believe there is overwhelming proof that we need to take drastic action to avoid disaster. Maybe after everyone has enough to eat and a warm dry place to sleep we can put it on a list of things to consider.

As for the pastifarianism and atheists reversing the order wouldn’t change my unfunny joke. I hear they both now have rituals and some even have a Sunday service.

sorry for bad grammar and twisted logic.

6 EiMitch  Nov 19, 2014 2:12:19pm

re: #5 Souliren

Up until recently religion, including the feeling of faith aided by rituals and chants was almost universal.

When I was a kid everyone I knew believed in god or at least said they did. I did. Almost everyone went to church. I don’t think that is common today.

Where I work I think perhaps 3-5 people out of about 100 are religious. i.e True believer - Christian, Muslim,Buddhist, etc. I presume this is happening elsewhere.

Wrong. Most people are religious. Most people believe in god or gods or some other form of spiritualism. They just aren’t as ritualistic as before. Thats why the distinction between beliefs and rituals matter. But you seem to think otherwise. You seem to think that ritual is what defines a “true” Scotsman believer. I don’t think so. To me, beliefs are ideas, whereas rituals are just symbols. To paraphrase George Carlin, I prefer to leave symbols to the symbol-minded.

My badly made point, probably further badlyfied by this follow up is that lack of any religion makes it more likely a person will follow another cause with the same fervor or behavior circuits firing.

Wrong again, because religious people are just as likely to follow another cause. Take for example, and I’m just drawing this out of a hat, how faux-libertarian capitalism is popular amongst republicans. Not only is “socialism” a dirty word to them, but now so is “welfare”. And they dismiss with a hand-wave anybody who points out that Jesus said pretty much the exact opposite whenever the topics of money, wealth, and class were mentioned in the gospels.

Yes I am equating alarmism with religion and suggesting it may be a factor in the graphs. I do see and talk to folks who “believe” we must take drastic action now to reduce our CO2 production. It is not based on their own research. Their peers believe it so they either do or pretend to

First of all, you’re speculating on what goes in peoples heads solely to fit your preconceptions. This is practically the definition of prejudice.

And second, you’re equating all second-hand knowledge, including the sum of all evidence on the subject, with faith. This is so wrong because you’re redefining knowledge and faith to suit your argument.

You’re defining knowledge as “first-hand only,” which I’m sure you fully realize is an impossible standard. Nobody lives long enough to possibly rediscover all human knowledge by themselves, let alone find time to live their lives while they’re at it.

I’ve always defined faith as “believing in something despite the evidence or lack thereof.” But you’ve broadly defined faith as “believing in anything you don’t know first-hand.” That pretentious crap rubbed me the wrong way when I first heard it decades ago to equate young-earth creationism with science. And I have not become more forgiving of this fallacy with age.

But what bothers me the most about you defining words to suit your argument…

like the folks who go to church every week but don’t believe in god.

…is that you change them on the fly, seemingly without giving a thought about it. I thought ritual defined a “true believer” to you. But a few paragraphs later its the other way around?

There is “solid evidence” of recent global warming activity due “mostly” to human activity such as the burning of fossil fuels.”

I don’t see the “solid evidence” and the “mostly” Why are there quotes around them?

And the other shoe drops. You’re trying to rationalize that alarmism is a religion because you are a denialist. Young-earth creationists also tell themselves that science is a religion, therefore their faith in a literal interpretation of genesis is equally valid. But I digress.

You justified equating alarmism with religion because the linked story was talking about a study, based in part on polling. Now you drop that polling context to make it seem like they don’t mean what they say?

Grasp at straws much?

As for the evidence of climate change, try to google it sometime. Its easy to find if you’re serious.

Maybe after everyone has enough to eat and a warm dry place to sleep we can put it on a list of things to consider.

Its all connected. Its not a separate consideration. Climate change is already making it harder for people to around the world to produce food. And sea levels are already rising, putting many peoples homes in jeopardy. And not just rich people who can afford to move to someplace drier.

As for the pastifarianism and atheists reversing the order wouldn’t change my unfunny joke. I hear they both now have rituals and some even have a Sunday service.

You heard it from whom? Rush Limbaugh? Fox News? Glenn Beck?

Again, pastifarianism itself is a joke. I meant that literally. Its a satire of religion. Nobody believes it. Nobody means it. IMO, it played out its laughs many years ago.

Food for thought. (nyuk, nyuk, nyuk)

7 Souliren  Nov 22, 2014 9:50:25am

First of all, I’ve enjoyed our conversation even though you are kicking my ass.
Hopefully you will find a lot of meat for your fisking skill below.
*filtered by four fingers of Jim Beam*

The graph that started this post implies that religious people are less likely to believe that global warming is a serious issue. My point is that the data has to consider the possibility that people without a religion are more likely to fill that gap with another cause like global warming. (Communism, Libertarianism, PETA, Bronies…)

Religion has likely been a part of our behavior for maybe hundreds of thousands of years. (ok maybe a tad less) Without it we would not have advanced this far, this fast. It is as hard wired into our behavior as the appreciation of the shape of a lady’s bum.

I think the flying spaghetti monster was a non-joke (I’ll admit to laughing when I first heard of it) .. a non-joke refutation to a Christian fella who offered a million dollars to prove that god did not exist. An Atheist (I think) countered with an offer of a million dollars to prove that the flying spaghetti monster was not god. Yes it was funny and its disciples provide excellent comedy but it was not a joke to some. I doubt that anyone truly believes in the FGM but how could you tell the difference? And maybe, the Atheist who pretends to be a Pastafarian and knows all the hilarious rituals and is a riot when debating a fundamentalist at a party is filling his religion need with it much like a diabetic on insulin even though he knows it’s a bullshit joke.

Some Australian city council guy (or some such) insisted on being sworn in wearing a colander. I’m sure there is a high school yearbook picture somewhere with someone wearing the religious headgear of a Pastafarian.

There are people who believe that God is a woman with many arms or an elephant or humanoid Caucasian with a long white beard. I respect their belief. I think it is a Good Thing.

I find it useful to use his noodley whatever they call him as a control group in any attempt to intellectualize religion.

My views on Global warming…

I am a denialist. (I’d say skeptic but they both mean the same thing here. Neither of us should be allowed to use the term “realist” :) )

I don’t think the science is settled as far as making government policy is concerned.

We should continue to produce more energy, build more coal-fired power plants, frack, build pipelines and we shouldn’t spend a dime on any known technology that cannot produce electricity cheaper than a ton of coal can.

Am I equating believing that mankind’s production of C02 is a serious threat with religion?

Yes.

There are some priests/scientists who understand the issue but it is a hypothesis and not even a theory.

The 3-10% (depending on who you talk to) of CO2 put into the atmosphere by fossil fuels is swamped by the amount produced by natural causes. Cutting it in half would make a teensy difference. There are other factors that may affect the complicated climate system.

In the 90’s I believed global warming was a threat because the models produced by 30 (or is it 50?) different teams using different methods and different vectors all had virtually the same slope. When the deniers talked about the temperature curve leading the CO2, I spent enough time to understand feedback. I’ve since changed my view.

Today none of them are even close to the actual measurements. All of the estimated or missing values are adjusted upwards. The explanations of the reasons for this smell like bullshit to me.

The “missing heat” is maybe in the deep ocean or maybe being eaten up by melting ice. The papers and explanations of why most the alarmist’s predictions have been wrong all seem to me to have an air of ‘perhaps’ to them.

It’s worthy of further study but It is not “settled science”

Making incandescent light bulbs illegal or subsidizing solar farms to five times the cost of fossil fuel energy is mean, selfish and silly.

We’ve lifted more people out of poverty than ever in history but now, those of us who are rich beyond the wildest dreams of millions want to raise the cost of energy and to hell with the folks who don’t have electricity and die early because they burn dung to heat their home.

Many economists agree that the cost of adapting to climate change is cheaper than trying to alter it. Humans used to move when there was not enough or too much water or it was too cold. That or they built different houses, viaducts, etc.

Where I am typing this now used to be under about a mile of ice.

There are millions of people who live in abject poverty. We are wasting resources and preventing the creation of wealth that could improve everyone’s life by passing laws and creating regulations based on a hypotheses. (Fossil fuel is the primary driver of climate change)

The Climate Change Issue provides excellent opportunities for graft. An immense amount of wealth is wasted and even more not created due to purely ceremonial policies by governments that have a teensy effect, if any on the climate.

Google recently sharply reduced their effort on alternate energy because they realized its futility. Is that going to stop some politician from arranging a subsidy for his brother-in-law (or contributor’s) solar company when the C02 required to smelt the aluminum for the project exceeds its lifetime savings? No.

We should continue to study our climate and our effect on it but we shouldn’t DO anything about it until we understand and can reasonably predict the cost/benefit.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 weeks ago
Views: 469 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1