Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Isn't religion just a theory? Belief must be based on faith, as there is no hard evidence to support the existence of a god.
No, religion is not a theory. A theory is subject to testing, and only remains a viable theory as long as it continues to pass every experimental test.
Religion is the acceptance of authority beyond any testing.
I guess the 31,000 scientists (including 9,000 PhDs) who signed a petition rejecting the notion of man-made global warming must be "anti-science" scientists. Check it out:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2053842/Scientists-sign-petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html
Also, aren't global temps now on a downward trend? Did you think we wouldn't notice that you leftists changed the name from "global warming" to "climate change" to sidestep this little "inconvenient truth"? (See http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2008/040408_cools_off.htm)
Have a great day.
Of course religion is testable! All one has to do is die, and all will be revealed. ;)
Well then, if you don't want to take the word of 'some elite scientist,' why don't you take it from other conservative, Biblically orthodox Christians? Ever heard of Creation Care? It'll give you your biblical reasons for conservation and environmentalism: http://www.creationcare.org/ or http://christiansandclimate.org/.
Or are you one of these religious ostriches also known as dominionists that get their climate information from phony scientists raking in the way-above-grant-money big bucks from their oil corporation masters? http://www.cornwallalliance.org/. I myself prefer to think of dominionists as modern day Pharisees. But hey, don't take it from me. Look it up yourself. You do remember how to think for yourself, don't you?
John Wesley reported on Albert Einstein's "Theory of Religion".
Perhaps Albert would disagree with you?
Go ahead Romm, call people names, stomp your feet and say everyone who denies your myth is an idiot, but guess what, it's still a myth. You are probably part of the same crowd that bemoans any politician using the "politics of fear", right? Oh but wait, what you are saying is true. It's true, it's true, it's true. There, I said it three times in a row, so it must be true. So bring out your labels and one-sided arguments and convince yourself some more, because thankfully, the likes of you have been losing massive amounts of support over the last five years and thank goodness!
You might think I'm kidding, but sadly I'm not. The long term solution of the conservatives will be to invade Canada. Some parts of Canada are likely to benefit from global warming. Isn't it rational to believe that the US has a right to Canadian land that might become more hospitable due to our carbon emissions? What defense could a nation mount that has virtually no military to speak of and a population 1/30 that of the US? We invaded Iraq for their oil. Given the penchant for Americans to find a quick and easy solution for all of our problems, why not?
I guess the 31,000 scientists (including 9,000 PhDs) who signed a petition rejecting the notion of man-made global warming must be "anti-science" scientists. Check it out:
No, they are just loudmouthed fools mouthing off on something they know nothing about. And the 22,000 "scientists" without Ph.D.s are mostly putting on airs. Having a bachelors degree in biology (or, for that matter, environmental "science" which is generally more accurately described as environmental policy) does not make you a scientist. Having an MD does not make you necessarily a scientist and certainly doesn't qualify you to comment on climate change. The only relevant question is what fraction of working research climatologists/atmospheric scientists/oceanologists consider climate change to have a high probability of being a real, man-made problem.
And from what I hear from scientists who actually work in the field, the consensus is pretty broad that there is a significant effect upon climate by human activity.
Did you read the scientist signature link you posted? The signatures were from 1998. Read the whole article.
It is clear that the scientific evidence--along with scientific thinking--has changed.
Are you a troll for James Inhofe or something?
Oh, we happy humans, we band of viruses that have thrived under peak conditions for a minuscule amount of geologic time are so enamored with ourselves that we have no problem admitting our genius has changed the landscape but steadfastly refuse to believe we can alter the atmosphere.
With apologies to Tool, I hope I live long enough to see things start to go down, with millions of dumbfounded dipshits wondering how this every happened. (Of course, no one will admit to being wrong, so the glee would be extraordinarily short.) If only we could tap into the endless energy that is our arrogant denial....
It's already too late; we are all far too lazy to change ourselves. We have to wait for thousands of people to die to make even the slightest connection, and even then, the socioeconomic level must be donor-level high, not Katrina level catastrophe. (A disaster with hundreds of thousands is victims is preferable, because that will ensure at least a full minute of attention, increasing the odds that it will register that Something is Very Wrong.)
I take it from the article that the best we can do is to soften the blow...but only by a small amount. And even then, the deniers spring forth....
I'd like to see you "experts" explain where all those toxins go after they enter the atmosphere. Since you all seem to think they magically disappear. I also wonder what your precious Jesus would say to the fact that you are destroying his creation. You all seem to think that you can do whatever you want and there will be no consquences, and you call us liberals irresponsible.
The price of oil is now beyond the control of US policymakers or the Saudis. The only way to avoid catastrophic economic impacts over the next two decades from peak oil is an aggressive strategy to accelerate the introduction of plug-in hybrids, since electricity is the only alternative fuel that is substantially cheaper than gasoline and whose price is not linked to the price of gasoline.
The good news is that this is not some elitist solution. The goal is vehicles that everyone can afford, since the battery can be owned by an energy company and leased to the consumer, so these vehicles need not have a significant extra first cost. They will however have a substantially lower 5-year cost, especially with gasoline headed beyond six dollars a gallon over the next few years.
Indeed, given that high gasoline prices hit the middle class and lower middle class the hardest (but not the very poor), I dare say that finally breaking our addiction to oil with plug-ins is the only strategy that offers any hope.
The Bush administration's own energy analysts project that even successful drilling in Alaska would reduce gasoline prices by a mere two cents in two decades -- and drilling offshore would have no significant impact on gasoline prices EVER. You can find all of the links on ClimateProgress.org. You will also find detailed discussion of the other solutions. The International Energy Agency and McKinsey and many others may clear the economic impact of action is low -- maybe 0.1% of GDP a year, especially compared to the cost of inaction.
But the deniers and delayers who have written comments here don't have to worry about us suffering the consequences from trying too hard to avoid catastrophe. I don't think conservatives will allow the nation to adopt sufficiently aggressive policies on plug ins -- or any other clean energy technology. So my guess is we are in fact going to go through some pretty rough times over the next two decades, which, of course, is one of the points of the article.
As for the next 50 generations, if we hit 1000 ppm of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, which we are headed toward (see article link at "The science has already moved") then we are certainly going to ruin the planet's livability for centuries. So yes, this is a fight we can't afford to lose, and even if the odds are against us, I'm certainly not going to give up when it certainly isn't too late to avoid the worst.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
