29 replies to this topic

[blackstrap]

It is an ideological motive,to redistribute wealth from the have people and nations to....well anyone else will do. It is ,to put it bluntly,somewhat racist to say that all the starving poor in Africa have to look forward to is continuing handouts from the evil  moneygrubbers instead of developing the massive coal resources and other energy reserves because there must be no more CO2 produced. Oh,I forgot,there is all that sunshine in the Sahara.

[The Nehor]

blackstrap, on 08 June 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

It is an ideological motive,to redistribute wealth from the have people and nations to....well anyone else will do.

I've never seen this motive. It seems a figment to me. I know many people who want wealth redistributed to themselves and a few who support social programs involving taxes being used to redistribute wealth but I've never met anyone that wants to take from the rich and give to just any random person. Even Dennis Moore was smarter then that and ended up trying consecration though his implementation needs a little work.

blackstrap, on 08 June 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

It is ,to put it bluntly,somewhat racist to say that all the starving poor in Africa have to look forward to is continuing handouts from the evil  moneygrubbers instead of developing the massive coal resources and other energy reserves because there must be no more CO2 produced. Oh,I forgot,there is all that sunshine in the Sahara.

And if anyone except crazy strawmen were saying this I would soundly denounce them and then beat them to death.

Edited by The Nehor, 09 June 2012 - 12:11 AM.

[Nemesis]

Stay on topic and knock of the politics.

Nemesis

[blackstrap]

The majority of biologists have rejected God in favor of Science,which they claim has all the answers ,or at least will have eventually.They are,however,constantly being suprised at the evidence and are always struggling to manipulate the candle to shed light on a problem.Such is the nature of research I suppose. Too bad the candle often produces shadows.\

As per my previous post,Nehor, just ask how the world would look if the signatories of the Kyoto accord were to fully impliment the goals.Who would be the winners and who the losers?

[thesometimesaint]

When your hand is in the fire it is a little silly to ask what it would look like holding a nice tall glass of lemonade.

[The Nehor]

blackstrap, on 09 June 2012 - 07:49 AM, said:

The majority of biologists have rejected God in favor of Science,which they claim has all the answers ,or at least will have eventually.

No, they don't claim this. Another strawman. Have you ever met a biologist like this? I also don't see this as a God vs. Science issue and I'm not sure how it can be made into one.

blackstrap, on 09 June 2012 - 07:49 AM, said:

They are,however,constantly being suprised at the evidence and are always struggling to manipulate the candle to shed light on a problem.Such is the nature of research I suppose. Too bad the candle often produces shadows.

What problem? The occurrence or non-occurrence of global warming itself is not a question for biology. If it is happening biologists would of course study the effects.

blackstrap, on 09 June 2012 - 07:49 AM, said:

As per my previous post,Nehor, just ask how the world would look if the signatories of the Kyoto accord were to fully impliment the goals.Who would be the winners and who the losers?

No one would really win right off. Prices would go up. There would probably be a surge in private and public funding searching for more cost-effective ways of harvesting renewable energy sources. I guess material science people (a scientific and engineering hybrid and not the people doing these studies on either side) might benefit slightly. Short-term effects would hurt. Long-term there is no way of being sure but I think we could expect a recovery within a decade and a better economy (and air quality) thereafter.

If climate change is real not adjusting now could of course be catastrophic later.

Edited by The Nehor, 09 June 2012 - 02:42 PM.

[blackstrap]

Was it not the point of your OP that there needs be a thread which discusses the prejudice that Mormons have against academia,and used the climate change controvery as an example? If biologists are not part of the vanguard protesting the damage being done to the environment and hence all of biology by AGW ,then I guess there really is no problem at all,and climate change IS a hoax.

What percentage of PhD level biologists self identify as atheist/agnostic? Recently I heard it was well over 80%.Does that not indicate a solid reliance in the power of the scientific method to answer the big questions as well as the material ones?

[The Nehor]

blackstrap, on 09 June 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

Was it not the point of your OP that there needs be a thread which discusses the prejudice that Mormons have against academia,and used the climate change controvery as an example?

No, the point of my thread was to satirize the 3-4 threads created to discuss/whine about an article about academia being prejudiced against Mormons. No one checked to see if there already was one. I made this thread to reverse the two terms and have some fun.

blackstrap, on 09 June 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

If biologists are not part of the vanguard protesting the damage being done to the environment and hence all of biology by AGW ,then I guess there really is no problem at all,and climate change IS a hoax.

Your premise does not support your conclusion. Also, you twisted what I said to create the premise.

blackstrap, on 09 June 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

What percentage of PhD level biologists self identify as atheist/agnostic? Recently I heard it was well over 80%.Does that not indicate a solid reliance in the power of the scientific method to answer the big questions as well as the material ones?

No, it does not. Atheism is not a statement that the study of the physical world will answer all of our questions. I do think meteorologists are qualified to tell us whether climate change is happening and biologists are qualified to tell us if the species balance is even more out of whack then usual which is what they do. I think these qualifications hold whether you believe in God or not. Some may be dishonest but I see no reason to believe most of them are dishonest.

[blackstrap]

So,in your opinion,the majority of atheists either have no materialist answers to the questions "where did we(humanity) come from,why are we here,and where are we going" or are extremely reticent to discuss such topics.

As to climate change,perhaps a geologist should also be consulted about evidence of such change in the past 1,000,000 years when supposedly there were few humans generating greenhouse gases.

True or False 1. there are more species of plants and animals existing now than at any time in the earth's past.
  2. species extinction is happening faster now than at any time in the earth's past.

[The Nehor]

blackstrap, on 09 June 2012 - 09:46 PM, said:

So,in your opinion,the majority of atheists either have no materialist answers to the questions "where did we(humanity) come from,why are we here,and where are we going" or are extremely reticent to discuss such topics.

To the former they have an answer though no explanation for how the thing got started (why the Big Bang happened). The middle question's answer varies depending on what you mean by it. Do you mean why people are here? Or what is their purpose in being here? Where we are going? Most atheists would say death.

blackstrap, on 09 June 2012 - 09:46 PM, said:

As to climate change,perhaps a geologist should also be consulted about evidence of such change in the past 1,000,000 years when supposedly there were few humans generating greenhouse gases.

Indeed they should and have been. The planet has been through many climate shifts. We seem to be heading towards a warm one. I suspect this may be the first human-caused one due to the speed and the lack of other contributing factors suspected in previous climate shifts. Even if we aren't causing it some preparation for it would be wise.

blackstrap, on 09 June 2012 - 09:46 PM, said:

True or False 1. there are more species of plants and animals existing now than at any time in the earth's past.
  2. species extinction is happening faster now than at any time in the earth's past.

1. Possibly true though we don't have an exact count now let alone at any time in the past. Species come and go regularly and diversification usually increases with time. Even if we do hit an extinction event biodiversity will probably increase afterwards. Whether the change will be to our liking or lead to a decrease in our comfort is another question. An atomic holocaust would likely lead to new species but also wipe out a lot of the current ones so I'm not going to encourage this. This is also a very vague question. If some species in Brazil or Tibet just had its last member die then we had more species before then we do now. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with this question.

2. False, in the past there were large extinction events. We might be heading for another but we aren't there yet. We'll see. Will it be worse the past ones? I doubt it If it happens will it screw up our lives even if it is not the worst? Yep.