Thomsen is the Republican representative in Oklahoma who proposed several resolutions that would censure the OU zoology department and Richard Dawkins for not being nice to creationism. You really must see his justification for condemning views he finds religiously disagreeable.
I am trying to promote free thinking. I strongly oppose the Department of Zoology for their unwillingness to lead our state in this discussion and not have opposing views in this matter.
I do not believe Todd Thomsen even knows what free thinking is. The zoology department is not leading the state in the discussion of creationism because the members of the zoology department, as is true for biologists everywhere, have examined the claims of creationists and discovered that even under the most superficial scrutiny, they are transparently nothing but collections of incoherent, fragmentary superstitions clumsily tied together with a glue of lies, spit, and bile. As I’ve said before, you could ask biologists to speak out more about creation “theory”, but the results would not bring much joy to your local churches.
But do go read that article in the OU Daily, and in particular note the laudable comment from Michael J. Davis. Davis obligingly includes Todd Thomsen’s email, and I think that since Representative Thomsen places such importance on the communication of diverse views, everyone ought to take a moment and let him know exactly what his standing in the wider universe might be.
And remember, next election cycle, Mr Thomsen deserves to be unemployed.
Looks like he’s trying to use his resolution as revenge against the loss of the “academic freedom” bills in Oklahoma.
Perhaps he needs to learn that “free thinking” doesn’t involve shoving pseudoscientific (religiously-inspired) lies down the throats of children.
So far, ressentiment feeds the whine machine.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Todd Thomsen ought to pay the Department of Zoology a hefty some of money if he wants them to waste their time talking about how creationism is stupid.
I think you (by you I mean biology teachers/Profs) really should consider teaching Creationism/ID just for a day or two. Show that it isn’t science, has produced no research and should not be taken seriously.
Don’t forget to send people into the churches to do the same.
If the churches complain, just say you are teaching the controversy as they asked.
Okay how can we explain this to these people, creationism is theology, ID is creationism passed through the brain of a lawyer, the dishonesty institute do not do any real science. I am sure these creotards do not expect lectures on particle physics or cold dark matter instead of sermons when they go to their churches. Why do they want sermons in the science classes?
The creo-führers are probably howling with laughter every time Thomsen opens his mouth on this issue. He bought their spiel hook-line-sinker, apparently being the easiest of targets for not having gotten around to, or not been willing to, get acknowledged with Kitzmiller./.Dover, Wedge, cdesign proponentsists, OPaP etc.
He’s like an infant having just taken his first few staggering steps into a room where a horde of lollipop peddlers are arguing with dentistry experts who are just trying to get on with their research. Thomsen takes a look around, the lollipop men turn around and rush for him, and he bawls that the bad men in the clean white coats are trying to stop them from stuffing him with candy.
His mind isn’t developed enough to understand that tooth decay is well established as connected to sugar consumption, and that candy does not get healthier with more colors. Needless to talk about diabetes etc. He hasn’t even begun to get it.
@#4 Ray Mills
“I am sure these creotards do not expect lectures on particle physics or cold dark matter instead of sermons when they go to their churches.”
I wonder how such an idea could turn out…
You have to admire their tenacious commitment to being opposed to learning.
Not only do they refuse to learn what the theory of evolution is, they refuse to read any news, legal opinions, etc. on the expense and repercussion on Dover.
I like the attempt to ‘science’ up the language with phrases like “hypothetical construction”. Whatever gay prostitute supplies Thomsen with his meth is very erudite indeed.
One hopes that people are generally waking up to the fact that politicians who believe the earth is a mere 6000 years young simply aren’t smart enough to be in office. They don’t have the mechanical aptitude to be in charge of complicated systems, like our country.
One hopes.
We need to emphasize that creationism isn’t being rejected because scientists haven’t considered it, but because they have.
“I am trying to promote free thinking. I strongly oppose the Department of Zoology for their unwillingness to lead our state in this discussion and not have opposing views in this matter.”
… that hurts… brain so… so much.
10ch, perhaps PZ could offer an olive branch, invite a local creotard to give a lecture on creationism, then see if he could get a volunteer from the uni, or himself to stand up infront of a bunch of believers (bullet proof vest rated for 7.62 ammo required) could give a proper science lecture from the pulpet in place of the sermon. With a lexicon of scientific terms supplied. They get to feel smug that they have someone give a lecture on creationism before a biology dept, then possibly realise that science is a lot more complicated than they realise. Would it work, probably not.
OT, but … might somebody over at The Daily Grail be pitching pebbles for attention? See –
Free thinking? Discussion? Okay, Mr. Thomsen, let’s open up the schools to speakers advocating Islam and homosexuality.
Yay! Akbar & Jeff for representatives!
“I don’t believe it was a good idea for Dawkins to speak and I don’t think he represents anything of scientific value or anything Oklahoma represents,” he said.
This more than anything shows that Thomsen is an idiot.
I’m sure that study showing the decline in religiosity in America has them getting more and more desperate. Expect more and more grandstanding like this as the political bigots start feeling increasingly fenced in.
It occurred to me that if you could teach ID along with evolution you could also teach modern jazz along with evolution. You could also teach cooking or auto repair along with ID.
Lots of combinations we haven’t thought of yet.
Jeez…and I thought my own state senator here in Florida, the not-so-wise Stephen Wise, to be a moron…but I see Oklahoma has us beat! *nya nya*
In some weird way I feel like this is him actually getting ready for a re-election campaign. And by some weird way, I mean an effective way to get re-elected by a mass numbers of ignoramuses.
Felix @ #5:
Fastest. Godwin. Ever.
My lack of god! Representative Todd Thomsen is on the Appropriations & Budget – Education committee, and is the fracking CHAIR of the Higher Education & Career Tech committee.
A clean-cut, square-jawed young lunk, too.
I heartily endorse the idea of teaching cooking along with anything at all.
*headdesk*
This is exactly how organized religion has survivied this long. I mean, other than the oppression and the torture and the inquisitions and such. People just get tired of fighting the stupid.
#3. I do teach creationism for a day in my non-majors biology class.
I use a high school biology text developed by Bob Jones University for homeschoolers. It speaks for itself:
“revealed truth – that which is revealed in scripture, whether or not man has scientifically proved it. If it is in the bible, it is already true.
fallacy – that which contradicts god’s revealed truth, no matter how scientific, how commonly believed, or how apparently workable or logical it may seem.”
I point out that people who hold this viewpoint cannot be swayed by evidence, period. Most students who are unsure about evolution seem to “get the controversy” instantly.
Have some go where he goes to “present the opposing (liberal democrat) view”. I suspect he would quickly withdraw the resolution if he was being opposed every time he spoke.
You have to consult your Fundie to English dictionary.
“Teaching both sides” means in English, “We would love to herd you into concentration camps and stone you to death as it says to in Leviticus or Deuteronomy but the federal government has all the soldiers and weapons and won’t let us.”
Thomsen undoubtedly thinks the “Dark Ages” also means “The Good Old Days” in Fundie Speak.
It is pretty obvious how to be elected a representative in Oklahoma. Find the dumbest monkey you can, and try to outstupid it. There is an outside chance he is bright enough to know he is sounding dumb. There is no chance that he cares one bit.
IIRC, the state of Oklahoma subsidizes the public universities for 20% of its instate tuition. Tells you what they think of higher education. On the West Coast up until a while it ago, it was the opposite, 80% subsidy.
Tom,
Are those definitions of “revealed truth” and “fallacy” from the Bob Jones biology textbook?
As bad as they are, I find it hard to believe they would actually put that in a textbook.
Creationists aren’t cultural relativists, so they really should stop pretending to be. All scientific inquiry points to the conclusion that their holy book is wrong, the sooner they just accept that and work within the confines of science to revise their theological constructs, the better it will be for all. Instead we get this inane rhetoric on a field where this time of academic investigation does not apply. Opposing view my arse, it’s just fundie morons wanting to proclaim “God made me out of dirt” without the big bad scientific establishment showing evidence they are wrong.
Another reason to be glad I moved out of that place! (I went OU, now live in Seattle, which, in spite of the Disco ’tute being here, is a whole lot more sane)
You misspelt ‘bible’
Crap! Messed up the tags, so nothing happened apparently… :(
Look, I can’t be the first person to point this out: why do these people expect creationism to be taught in university — is evolution in taught in church?
I sent Thomsen an email expressing sorrow about how a supposedly intelligent, hopefully educated man would prefer teaching a 2,500 year old creation myth over teaching actual science. However, since I’m not an Oklahoma voter, I doubt he’ll pay attention.
The following was just emailed by yours truly to Rep. Thompsen:
Dear Sir:
Being a public servant, it may have escaped your attention that the scientific community is not a lap dog for lawyers, public interest groups or houses of worship.
I am a sincere Christian. But I am also well-versed enough in biology to know that evolution is all-but-universally supported by the scientific community, and that your complaint regarding OU’s alleged bias essentially panders to ideologues who wish to see their personal religious view privileged in the public square.
I am therefore putting you on notice that you are not serving the people of Oklahoma as you should. You can expect that people who care about science will feel that it is their civic duty to work against your reelection
Sincerely,
Scott Hatfield
Biology Instructor
Then you don’t know Bob Jones University.
“According to HR 1015, Dawkins’ “published theories about evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma.”
I’m just wondering how many of the regulars here are from the “enlightened” State of Oklahoma. It’s okay to admit it; PZ won’t put you in the dungeon.
What’s your point, SF? Or are you just being an ass for general principles?
You’re point SF?
Is it just my imagination, or are these guys (you know who I mean) starting to use this “free thinking” label more and more? Now that atheists/agnostics/humanists are calling ourselves freethinkers (which I like), it seems that the creationist mouthpieces are trying to claim that they are the ones with open minds.
They don’t realize that ID/creationism is theology because they don’t know a damn thing about their own theology. Expecting a Zoology Dept to teach religion is beyond stupid. He deserves to be voted out of office.
I {heart} Scott Hatfield. That is all.
If it were up to Darwin, biology wouldn’t be done any other way.
SF, again without a point. But then, you are an idiotic godbot, so that is expected. You really need to leave, as you are laughed at by us. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa. And you deserve it.
Heather, the use of free thinking has a very specific term for godbots. They mean it to mean that we are close minded to their agenda. But, I think most of us are open minded in the traditional (skeptic) sense. They show use the evidence, and we will change our minds. But the evidence never comes. They are not open minded, in that whatever evidence we present is dismissed before it is examined.
I have sent the following letter:
Greetings Mr. Thomsen,
I am aggrieved to learn of your medieval understanding of biology and of your complete misunderstanding of science. In a single letter, I cannot provide you with remedial education in these areas I would however, suggest that both the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University are excellent centers of higher learning and it is a shame that you have no appreciation for the intellectual resources within your state.
Sorry to inform you that regardless as to your likes or dislikes, or, the likes or dislikes of your constituency, evolution is an observed and observable fact. The theory of natural selection proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, is the leading explanation of this fact. Other explanations, and also backed up with evidence, include: vicariance, genetic drift, founder principle, adaptive radiation, hybridization, Wolbochia infection, meiotic drive etc. These mechanisms account for many specific cases and also include elements of natural selection in elucidating particular evolutionary events. All of these explanations of evolution are taught in your universities. Creationism is not taught just as flat earthism is left out of geology or astrology is not an integral part of modern astronomy. Perhaps you would wish your students take a semester of advanced alchemy as part of a chemistry degree? Of course, you have no clue as to anything I have said as yours is a medieval mind.
Feel free to continue promoting your hackneyed concepts of science if it makes your days happier (if not brighter). Do not, however, expect other states to join you in the Dark Ages. And, over time (if your ignorance prevails) as fewer and fewer world class scientists and discoveries come out of Oklahoma colleges, we in other states will cheerfully continue participating in that greatest of adventure of humankind which is science. We will happily garner the health, welfare, technological and economic benefits therefrom for our fellow human beings, and certainly we will send relief workers to share such benefits with Oklahomans. Finally, if you are so faithless as to insist upon physical demonstrations of your theology (beliefs)- you have lost both worlds.
Cheerfully
Bionic [26], this is from a description of Association of Christian Schools International et al. v. Roman Stearns et al., quoting from the judgement:
—which one of the reasons why Michael Behe is an evolutionist’s favorite expert witness.
One of the turning points in Kitzmiller vs. Dover was when Michael Behe declared that a stack of textbooks and peer-reviewed papers explaining the evolution of the immune system were not enough evidence for him, although he had not read them.
“Free thinking” in fundie-speak means “You should move closer to my position”.
Oh, see, this is just because theocratic Republicans use a very different dictionary from other people. I’ve looked up a few things in their dictionary, and while they use the same words other people do, they don’t quite mean the same things.
Here are some examples:
Free Thinking – forming empirical beliefs in any way one pleases, including but not limited to gut-checks, personal preferences and faith, without being forced to believe certain things merely because they can be proven and/or backed by evidence.
Open Minded – characterized by the willingness to believe absolutely anything so long as it does not conflict with basic tenets of Christianity. see Free Thinking
Mandate – an evening on the town to be enjoyed by Republicans like Larry Craig and Ted Haggard, but illegal, heinous sin for everyone else.
Just ask Thomsen to put your name on the resolution along with Thomsen. That’s what I did.
http://luckyatheist.blogspot.com/search?q=thomsen
His email is [email protected] .
I still haven’t got over the Sooners beating Penn State in the 86 Orange Bowl. I now live in California but I’ve been to Oklahoma. I once drove up from Dallas one afternoon to go for a run just to say I get a “point” for being in OK. I’d love to see more of the state, especially the western half. I was amazed how many dead armadillos and rattlesnakes there were along the side of the road where I was running. Also it was in August and deadly hot and humid, so now I know why American Indians from Oklahoma did so well in early twentieth century marathons. If you can run in that, you can run in anything.
I suspect that Mr Thomsen will bitterly regret sticking his pompous head over the parapet on this one. I imagine that he thought he’d just put forward a little motion just to get his name in the official record and show the voters that he was doing his duty in speaking up for God. Instead, I very much hope, he’s made a public fool of himself. He will also have the full weight of internet mockery (much more than just us of course), his e-mail crashed, and even, worse, titters as he walks into the debating chamber.
I think he thought it was a no-lose popularity gambit; I think and hope that it turns into a stupidity meme that wrecks his career and retirement.
“several resolutions that would censure the OU zoology department and Richard Dawkins for not being nice to creationism.”
I think Dawkins should be censured but not because he is not nice to creationism. Rather, he should be censured because his religious views are chicken shit. Thomsen finds his views “religiously disagreeable”. I wonder how he came to that conclusion. What is Dawkins’ view of religion? Here it is: As a scientist I have no reason to believe in a God; there may be a God but I have no reason to believe that there is one. Does that mean that since he has no reason to believe, he does not believe, or, does it mean that although as a scientist he has no reason to believe but he believes anyway. Well, Richard doesn’t tell us that. He heads for the Cartesian manhole: “I doubt everything that my interior reflections do not give me a clear and distinct idea”. At the very foundation of his philosophy, if he has one, is the position that God should be denounced because he, Richard the Cartesian, doubts that there is any such being. Now, Richard needs to stop hiding behind the mantle of “scientist” and either “do it” or “get off the pot”. His most recent work is not a scientific text and his public appearances do not attract those wanting to listen to a “scientist”. Richard has worn that charade a little too thin.
Silver Fox the village idiot, you need to either put up the physical evidence for you imaginary deity, that make you look like the village idiot, or shut the fuck up yourself. The evidence must be able to pass a panel of scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural, origin. Until you present the evidence your are a liar and bullshitter, and nothing you say of of any interest to anybody but yourself. PUT U̦P OR SHUT UP YOURSELF.
SF:
All religious views are chicken shit.
Dawkins doesn’t have religious views. That requires fantasy. He has views based on evidence. Theology is nothing more than the longest bout of mental diarrhea ever spewed forth from ignorant asses. Your theology is little more than the equivalent of leprechaunologists arguing about what shade of green leprechauns wear.
Cough some up, you moron. That’s the only deal in town. You can make up all the shit you want about something, you can make it as elaborate as you want, and use the fanciest terms for it, but that does not make it real.
Mention of the creationist, “God did it, I believe it, that settles it” philosophy behind the biology textbook published by Bob Jones University (also in their physics and chemistry texts as well) sent me on a search for said publisher and bible school. I invite all those who can’t believe all this is being taught to visit this URL:
http://www.bju.edu/academics/arts-and-science/natural-science/creation/
“BJU Scientists Speak” is a series of “propositions” made by “unregenerate” scientists and anti-theists with replies by staff toadies and apologists.
WARNING: it may cause both cranial and digestive distress!!!
Silver Fox @49, your opinion is noted. I judge it wrong.
You don’t seem to get that some of us hold beliefs as provisional, subject to further evidence, and don’t consider that to be chickenshit (as you charmingly put it).
You also don’t seem to get is that RD is not just a scientist, but an author, a celebrity and a public speaker.
And for the record, SF, Richard Dawkins doesn’t have to have every book be a scientific text. Why, he can write books about other things, and a publisher who finds it worthwhile can make it available to readers all over the world.
Nothing has stopped a bunch of lying asswipes leeching off Dawkins’s book with outright lies, chief among them that Dawkins is lying.
But then, hypocrisy is their stock in trade. If he’s lying, cough up evidence for your sky fairy.
Otherwise, fuck off, SF. You’re too fucking stupid to live.
Yes SF, it’s him and not you who is wrong on religion… talk about projection. Got any evidence for the existence of God yet?
PZ: Thanks for your coverage supporting our efforts here in Oklahoma. The resolutions by the ignorant Representative is his alone, but supported by a few of similar ilk like Sally Kern. The resolutions have no basis in law and only expresses an opinion. If the Speaker of the House does his job, it may not even receive a floor vote. However, the publicity received does the State real harm. We have one victory so far in this legislative session, the defeat in a Senate committee of the ‘Academic Freedom Act.’
Messages to Rep. Thompsen will do little good. Messages to the Speaker may:
[email protected]
BTW, the generous donation of $5000 from Dawkins’ Foundation to Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education (OESE) will be used for such activities as continuing our teachers’ workshops on how to teach evolution (see the OESE website for an example (http://www.oklascience.org). As in some other states, we continue to combat the creationist nonsense.
Silver Fox, you are, without a doubt, one of the most annoying fucktwit godbots I’ve had the displeasure of encountering on this blog. Why don’t you do the world a favor and wander off into the desert and live like Jebus did for forty days (or some such garbage).
Please don’t take this the wrong way, Silver Fox, but your writing style is rather poor and, in my opinion, is masking the clarity of your thought.
On a first read through @49 appears garbled and confused. Rene Decartes and a manhole are put in close proximity, benefitting neither, while the uniparagraphal structure of part of you post fails to clarify other points within. It could thus lead one to suppose that the thoughts in it are incoherent and the logical links, so necessary for the cration of a believable argument, are thin at best, missing at worst.
I wish you would make it a rule, when you post here, to post only fully coherent thoughts.
A little wit, and a great deal more humility, would also be appreciated.
Failing that, silence would be good.
SF
“Does that mean that since he (Dawkins) has no reason to believe, he does not believe, or, does it mean that although as a scientist he has no reason to believe but he believes anyway.”
What stuck on stupid godbots like SF will never understand no matter how many times it smacks them right between the eyes is that being an atheist is not a belief, it’s a lack of belief. What SF calls chickenshit is simply negated because there is no there there.
God and religion has no part in my life and there is no void to fill. I don’t go around thinking “Did I remember to tell myself there is no god today?” I never question my lack of belief because I just don’t think about it. Life is amazing and fulfilling as it is. I call myself an atheist because that is the term given in our language to those who have no belief in a higher power or powers. it is not something I choose to be.
The only reason I ever even think about religion and gods is because it is pervasive in our culture and impossible to avoid. And when the wingnuts try to force it down mine and my child’s throat through laws, schools and intimidation I am compelled to denounce them and speak out against the child abuse of fear programming, warmongering, hate and intolerance in which religious indoctrination excels.
OT but 1)why do breaks in the comments box sometimes paragraph, sometimes not and 2)what’s that Firefox html addon again?
See SF? BITSOW.
In #56 I forgot to mention that those who wish to weigh in on the Oklahoma resolutions against Dawkins and the OU Zoology Department by sending a message to the Speaker of the House ([email protected])should mention how bad this makes the State appear to others in the country, especially if you are from out of state!
At the risk of being contrarian….
All religious views are chicken shit.
If you mean that they are cowardly, I disagree. Not all religious views are cowardly. If you mean that they are so much excrement, well, I try to avoid debating aesthetics. Religion of some kind could be a pretty shitty experience, and yet embody something that is true.
Dawkins doesn’t have religious views.
Probably not strictly religious, no. But I have a feeling that he would admit that he might well now and then believe or feel things which can’t be independently and objectively confirmed. Why do I think that? Because I think Richard Dawkins is an honest man.
That (religion) requires fantasy.
I agree wholeheartedly. But then, so does a lot of human activity, even (from time to time) science.
He (Dawkins) has views based on evidence.
Among other things.
Theology is nothing more than the longest bout of mental diarrhea ever spewed forth from ignorant asses.
Actually, theology is an attempt to use reason to harmonize personal experience with claims derived from tradition and scripture. Many of the people who did it were among the great intellects in the Western tradition. It is not a terrible successful enterprise. But then, you could say the same about metaphysics in general. I’m not ready to consign Thomas Aquinas or Augustine to the flames just yet; I think there is value in a great deal of literature whose primary interest in theological. I just don’t think it has scientific value.
Your theology is little more than the equivalent of leprechaunologists arguing about what shade of green leprechauns wear.
Since I have no interest in defending Silver Fox’s views, I’ll sign off. I certainly do agree that evidence trumps hand-waving, and that there is plenty of hand-waving to go around, especially in the pews. But I think a more nuanced view of theology would abet, rather than hinder, the brief that Dr. Dawkins would have us bring against religion.
@36, yeah, from OKC, What is your point, Asswipe?
#37, from OKC, what is your point, asswipe?
@#37, from OKC, yeah, what is your point butt Wipe?
Scott – I’ve read several times on here the view that you are the only regular (openly) Christian poster on here whose views are respected – you’re an OM, indeed. I wanted to ask – would you say that that is because you are secure enough in yourself to contribute only when you think fit, or because people here are (a frequent complaint) too arrogant and intolerant, and scare off “moderate” theistic views?
I’m just wondering how many of the regulars here are from the “enlightened” State of Oklahoma. It’s okay to admit it; PZ won’t put you in the dungeon.
can’t we plz put SF in the dungeon, just for being an endlessly tedious git?
hasn’t said anything interesting in weeks now.
Scott, with all due respect, you can dress up the pig, but it’s still a pig. Theology is the attempt to rationalize the irrational. Everything in it is based on the essential premise that a deity exists. So again, it’s the equivalent of debating the shade of green that leprechauns wear. I’m sure a lot of people have thought they personally experienced a leprechaun, but endless speculations about it, and any possible meanings of it, or so-called details about it, put into words does not make it so. Perhaps its an interesting intellectual exercise, just like Star Wars fanfics are interesting intellectual exercises for their writers.
Argh. Hit the tab and enter by mistake before finishing.
To continue the point about Star Trek fanfics, they may be interesting intellectual exercises for their writers, but that does not mean Star Trek is true. The words are just intellectual exercises, not to be taken seriously.
Theology is no different. Yeah, it’s interesting. But when it’s based on a fictional premise, it’s a fictional enterprise.
Fixed
As a journalism teacher, I’m especially happy about the clear, precise, well-sourced OUDaily story. Like all good stories about such issues, it takes careful pains to balance sources, but doesn’t fall into the “simple balance” trap in which sources are given equal time regardless of the stupidity of their views. The quotes are sharp-edged, spicy, which is appropriate to the punch of the story but also defines the paper as unintimidated. She lets Thomsen have the key quote, because he initiated the story, also proper. And also, like a good journalist, the writer takes one small but tasty liberty with the language, the one privilege she’s entitled to: the verb “claim” in the attribution phrase about the bill. Zing! Cadie, nice work.
ice
I can’t believe it. Following the link, two different people (once in the article and once in the comments) try to explain the scientific meaning of the word “theory” and in the process, screw up the scientific meaning of the word “law”. A scientific law is an observation about the consistent behavior of something, without any explanation. In other words, it is about the weakest thing you can have in science. And a theory is the strongest. So why do people keep saying that “the theory of evolution is so well established, it is almost a law”?
I would like to say it was a good try Nerd, but it really wasn’t. It’s an old saw that has failed many times. You can’t challenge the argument so you try to denigrate the messenger in the vain hope that some of the invectives will rub off on the message. It won’t. Richard’s view on God is still chicken shit, his philosophy is virtually non-existent and he’s still out there grubbing for bucks.
I’m just wondering how many of the regulars here have tended chickens. It’s okay to admit it; PZ won’t put you in the dungeon.
Dawkins view is that there’s no reason to believe in God, but he’s open to anyone showing evidence for God. What’s your evidence SF? What evidence do you have that shows that Dawkins’ view is “chicken shit”?
Go here for some of his PR bullshit:
http://www.fotizo.net/rshc_images/78_1161182013.pdf
“A husband, father and representative of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Todd Thomsen teaches our youth that traditional values are important. He also believes these values must be modeled in the way we live our lives and in the laws we make.”
He’s got a picture of himself after a hunt holding up the animals he has shot. The words below:
Support Second Amendment Rights
Todd Thomsen strongly believes in the Second Amendment rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. He will safeguard those rights.
And underneath that there’s a family photo with this:
Sanctity of Life
Todd Thomsen will be a determined voice for the sanctity of life – from beginning to natural end.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Obviously a total asshole.
Ray Mills | March 11, 2009 6:34 PM
I thought ID came out of the other end of the lawyer?
No Silver Fox, every time you fail to provide evidence for your delusions when challenged, you shrink in integrity and honesty. At the moment, nobody believes anything you say, because you have shown yourself to a habitual liar who cannot back up his delusions. So, your only chance to redeem yourself is to stop posting. Also, you have said nothing of substance for ages, and I am not the only one to say that. So, either put up or shut up. If you can’t do either, you are showing both us and yourself that you are a man without integrity, honesty, and confirming that you are a liar and bullshitter who should be ignored.
OT, demi-fanboy post: I am glad to see SH posting more lately. As entertaining as some of the firebrands here can be, I enjoy seeing a truly thoughtful reply from someone with an opposing viewpoint even more. (What can I say, JS Mill, On Liberty. Read it. Know it. Live it.) Keeping in mind that all knowledge is provisional is not always easy.
As I often point out to some theistically inclined friends, the thoughtful religious types are forced to keep two sets of books, so to speak. When they talk to people like me after dinner on a Saturday night, they keep their god very vague and unobtrusive. But come Sunday morning that ineffable feeling of love and acceptance seems to acquire a name and an agenda.
Certainty is a seductive siren, and while it is easy to concede over a tumbler of scotch during a metaphysical bull session with friends after a tasty dinner, it does tend to creep back in during the day to day life. This can happen to us all.
To steal the analogy of a previous poster, we can become so enamored of our certainty that Star Trek fan fiction is fiction is fiction, that we fail to see that the storyline does deal with real issues of interpersonal relationships as well as how we deal with the world beyond our control.
So, thanks Scott, for demonstrating the humility that I often espouse, and seeking out (the best? Here? I blush just to be a lurker.) arguments to test your own against.
Anthony @58
“the logical links, so necessary for the cration of a believable argument, are thin at best, missing at worst”
Do you mean construction of a believable argument or creation of a believable argument? Try spell check next time.
Kel,
Clearly, Silver Fox is saying that it’s cowardly to withhold belief in irrational suppositions. True intellectual bravery, to SF, is to believe despite evidence to the contrary.
SF don’t need no stinkin’ evidence for his beliefs!
As SF continues his down hill slide in honesty and integrity. And toward utter bullshit. Keep your waders handy folks.
I guess I should also thank Silver Fox, for providing real time feedback to confirm my worldview is, if not correct, at least not as obviously wrong as it could be…
Dawkins opens himself up for a revision on the idea of God: evidence. What makes Dawkins’ belief “chicken shit” in the eyes of SF? I don’t know. Perhaps SF can enlighten us as to what is so chicken shit about Dawkins point of view:
Didn’t read the preceding posts, in case this was already suggested: create a 1-day syllabus to illustrate what modern life would be like if creation science were true and evolutionary theory false. Ask for volunteers to live under these precepts for some time and report on the experience. Hilarity ensues!
Analogs for vaccine deniers, intelligent falling, geocentrism.
In the church of the FSM, is the eucharist a piece of raw spaghetti chased with marinara?
Silver Fox,
You’re right about Nerd, but, still wrong about Dawkins. As one who has been around chicken ranches (really barns), I more closely relate them to churches. They smell worse than crap.
I really don’t get it. Dawkins says that on a scale of religious belief, 1 being an absolute certainty in the existence of a god and 7 being an absolute certainty in the nonexistence of any god, he is probably a 6 or a 6.5. Because he intelligently and logically reasons that no one can/has been able to prove either the absolute existence or nonexistence of any such creature. Sadly, you crazy Christians seem not to understand this subtlety. We are very, very sorry, but you CANNOT prove the existence of your invisible friend. I understand that you WANT to be able to prove it, but if wishes were horses and all that…
So explain to me how Dawkins’ view is chickenshit?
SF – once again, your writing is dull, humourless, and lacking content.
May I suggest that instead of posting here, you consider addressing your concerns to God? After all, He spent literally billions of years creating with no one at all to talk to. Now that Earth if fully up and running, loneliness is unlikely to be his major problem, so might I propose that you take advantage of his dedicated consolation and advice service? I guarantee we atheists are not clogging up the lines! I understand that this personally designed feedback system can be very effective – so why not that a try?
The alternative is to continue posting here. The main difference is that whereas God clearly has your welfare and interests at heart, we don’t a fuck.
Just Pray. Don’t Post.
Because Silver Fox doesn’t agree with Dawkins and SF’s opinions are as sweet as roses, it necessarily follows that any opinions which contradict SF are chickenshit. At least that’s what I understand from SF’s semi-coherent rants.
So I followed Mike Caton’s lead (#47). This just in (I don’t know how to use style tags):
We’d love to have you in Oklahoma. I don’t mind Richard Dawkins visiting Oklahoma. My resolution didn’t attempt, nor could it, ban him from coming. It simply said that I don’t agree with the University bringing him in. I’m not arguing with the Universities right to bring him in. I just exercised my free speech to say that I disagree with them doing so. Thank You.
Todd T
So an alternate view should be sought, okay lets start with sex education.Contraception….
SF – I am certain that skewered by your rapier wit @80, Anthony will withdraw, humiliated.
Dawkins argues that there is almost certainly no god. You clearly are abso-fuckin-lutely certain he/she/it exists. Please clarify which version of deity is real – there have been thousands over the years. It would be helpful if, in 25 words or less, you could state why your choice is the best of the lot. Once we know that, then we can start to explore the observable reality that prompts your stand.
Ohhhh. Thanks for the clarification. Poor Prof. Dawkins. If only SF had spoken to him about this before he wrote The God Delusion. Dawkins could have saved himself so much time and effort.
Ouch – silver fox got me on spelling.
*hangs head, gazes sorrowfully at revolver, sighs, places it to his temple and fires*
Not really!
“I am trying to promote free thinking,” Thomsen said. “I strongly oppose the Department of Zoology for their unwillingness to lead our state in this discussion and not have opposing views in this matter.”
I assume he is proposing that atheists must be allowed to do presentations at every church service in the stste so the congregations can discuss opposing views!
As usual the only chickenshit here is SF.
He ran away from my comment #59 because he cannot possibly refute my statements as 1) he doesn’t understand them and 2) even if he did, they are irrefutable.
Aquaria #69
aaarrrr but Star Trek will be true.
one day
Dawkins is honest and keeps an open mind,in the eyes of people like SF that makes his view chickenshit.
Really says it all,doesnt it.
SF,google “narcissistic personality disorder”.You might learn something.Then again,probably not.
Is this an example of that sophisticated, intellectually challenging theology that none of us understand?
I am quite prepared to accept the idea that Dawkin’s theological views are analogous to chickenshit.
You should see my tomato plant, it’s huge. And as for the zucchini, man, it is clearly aiming to take over the entire garden. And I have far more rhubarb than I can eat. I attribute this entirely to the chickenshit that I dug in to the soil.
Choose chickenshit. It’s good stuff.
Ack, tyops. Yes, I know, should have been “Dawkins'” It’s all the Rev’s fault.
I CC’d PZ the email I sent to Representative Thomsen (although I did spell his name wrong on accident). I’m not a biologist, but I think I got the main concepts right.
Anthony:@88
“I understand that this personally designed feedback system can be very effective – so why not that a try?”
Do you mean why not GIVE that a try?
“God clearly has your welfare and interests at heart, we don’t a fuck.
Do you mean we don’t GIVE a fuck?
Is your keyboard having trouble with the word GIVE?
Spell Check won’t help you there.
Sadly, I’m pretty sure he’ll win. And his nonsense resolutions will help him even.
You know when the pathetic godbots have hit bottom is when they claim victory by changing the topic to vociferous quibbling over typos.
I teach my science students all about creationism… I show them Nova’s “Judgment Day” about the Dover Trial. I also expose them to the “top ten creation myths” from LiveScience and ask them to pick their favorite. http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_intelligent_designs.html
I tell them that humans have been making up creation stories for eons, because they couldn’t figure out how humans came to be. Now, thanks to science, we finally know and don’t have to make up stories. And the evidence doesn’t really support any of the many creation myths humans have invented over the eons.
See how “fair and balanced” I am? I “teach the controversy”– I teach my students that the controversy is between assorted religions who think they have some “inspired truth about earth’s history” and the evidence which says life evolved. Science is about dealing with the truth that is the same for everybody no matter what they believe.
I would be glad to exercise this freethinking in Mr. Thomsen’s church. :)
Did you just complain that Richard Dawkins is not sufficiently clear on whether he believes in God?
That may be the most unique objection to Dawkins I’ve ever encountered. Kudos!
SF:
Only in the same sense in which your brain is apparently having trouble with the concept of logic – namely, he just forgot to include it in his statements.
I think Silver Fox may have unwittingly stumbled on what it means to be an atheist. When there’s no reason to believe in something, why believe in it? There you go, atheism in a nutshell.
I envy you guys in the States.
It is soooo boring here in Canada.
The two biggest religions in Canada are the Roman Catholics who at least pay lip service to Evolution and the United Church of Canada that actually sponsored a Darwin Exhibit at the Royal Ontario Museum. (Big place just like New York’s Natural History Museum)
Yawn ! No creationist politicians to email and laugh at. Of course our politicians regularly appear on Canadian comedy shows. Could you imagine George Bush having Jon Stewart over to the Whitehouse for a sleep over. Rick Mercer (who is openly Gay) has done it twice with two different Prime Ministers.
Follow that up with “Dunning-Kruger Effect”.
Anthony (#66) writes:
Scott – I’ve read several times on here the view that you are the only regular (openly) Christian poster on here whose views are respected – you’re an OM, indeed.
That’s kind of flattering, but I doubt that it’s true.
I know of other theists who have posted here, and I suspect post as often as me. I may be better known for my beliefs in part because I cite them, especially in dealing with the more obtuse creationists who presume (incorrectly) that they have a monopoly on belief.
As for respect, I would say this: the greatest respect that anyone can pay my views is not that they agree with me, but that they take my views seriously enough to merit a thoughtful response. And I do find that there are many here that do that, and often take me to task in very strong terms. And that, really, is often the greatest flattery, because there really are some terribly bright people who post here. TL (Torjborn Larson) and Blake Stacey, in particular, are just all kinds of smart.
Anthony also writes:
I wanted to ask – would you say that that is because you are secure enough in yourself to contribute only when you think fit, or because people here are (a frequent complaint) too arrogant and intolerant, and scare off “moderate” theistic views?
Mmmm. It would be great to report that I’m so mature I never fly off the handle and only write when I think it apropos, but I can get mad just like the next fellow.
I will say this: I believe (and have said this here many times) that Pharyngula is a haven where non-belief is accepted, and that it is vulgar for a believer to pop in here and start bagging on people for non-belief, as if it was a moral failing. I start with the premise that non-believers deserve a forum for their ideas, that I am a ‘guest’ in this forum and that I only deserve their consideration to the extent that I show good manners. If that counts as being ‘secure’, I plead guilty!
Now, Pharyngula is not a good forum for most theists, moderate or otherwise, but it’s an especially bad forum for anyone who comes here unprepared to defend claims. Arrogance? That’s a two-way street. I think (sadly) of the smug theist who pops in with a tired, easily-refuted argument that they clearly believe is a jewel of logic. Clearly, such folk can not be said to be either well-informed, or arguing modestly.
In fact, there is often a presumption of privilege to such folk, in that they feel that they have a right to criticize atheism, yet hold that their beliefs should be automatically excluded from mockery out of ‘respect’.
I say, if you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. I for one am not all that interested in any worldview, theistic or otherwise, that insists up-front that its views should be privileged or gets the vapors when challenged. My faith doesn’t require it, so why should I expect people who don’t share my faith to give it? That kind of ‘respect’ is not worth having, in my opinion.
Kel,
“When there’s no reason to believe in something, why believe in it? There you go, atheism in a nutshell.”
Not quite, what you described is nihilism. Atheists are particularly focused on the supernatural and not necessarily commited to empiricism. While one may not want to believe in things that are not empirically supported, there might be reasons to want others to believe in things aren’t true. You might think that society is better if the people have the opiate of religion. You might want people to believe in AGW so you can scare them into a centrally planned economy that you think will be run in a way that you prefer. You might want people to believe you are a good singer for possible personal gain. Would we all better off if everyone was committed to empiricism? Obviously some wouldn’t be.
Silver Fox,
“You can’t challenge the argument so you try to denigrate the messenger in the vain hope that some of the invectives will rub off on the message. It won’t. Richard’s view on God is still chicken shit, his philosophy is virtually non-existent and he’s still out there grubbing for bucks.”
If you are going to be critical of others use of ad hominem attacks, it is best not to engage in them yourself.
Scott Hatfield, OM:
Well said, Scott. Well said, indeed.
The little app they have on the site to read the legislation is pretty cool.
It made my head hurt from what was written though.
It blows my mind that people like Thomsen are in government.
No wonder the world is in the state it is. It makes me tired. Politics are bad enough, but when religion gets thrown in with it, it makes me sick.
Of course there are reasons to believe in things, which is why so many of us demand evidence of God’s existence. Though if you want, I’ll rephrase my statement: “When there’s no reason to believe in a supernatural entity, why believe in it? There you go, atheism in a nutshell”
That better?
Posted by: Africangenesis | March 12, 2009 1:15 AM
Not to split hairs, but I think nihilism would be better defined by the question, “When there’s no reason to believe in something, why believe in anything?
I think Kel’s statement was of a more specific intent, as in, “If there’s no reason to beleve in ‘X,’ why believe in ‘X?'”
Kel@109
“When there’s no reason to believe in something, why believe in it? There you go, atheism in a nutshell.”
That’s fine and good but that is not Richard’s position. Richard does not NOT BELIEVE. He does not believe PROVISIONALLY because as a scientist he has no reason to believe so he elects to not believe. He could just as easily elect to believe PROVISIONALLY. Richard’s’ position is more aligned with agnosticism than atheism although he would deny that. He confused SCIENTIFIC ATHEISM with ATHEISM. The former does not believe because he has no scientific evidence that there is a God. Like Richard he does not rule out that there could be a God. That is a provisional disbelief. An atheist is one who DENIES a belief in God. He says “there is no God – there never was and never will be one. There is no evidence in any sky fairy or Big Daddy in the clouds and there never will be any evidence of the sort. That is atheism in a nutshell.
Jesus. Am I that transparent?!
Or you might want people to believe in AGW because all the current science points to it. And since the consequences for such an event are quite dire, having public awareness may be a lot more with you know saving the planet than having the economy go in a certain way.
Not everything is about the economy you know.
“When there’s no reason to believe in something, why believe in it?”
Are you smoking crack right now? That exactly what I said.
Cute shirt at woot today http://shirt.woot.com/
It’s titled: “Playing God”
Not as cute as the red one I got for Darwin’s b-day tho:
“Dinosaurs who are communist for some Reason”
AG @113
1. I disagree. Nihilism relates to values or telos. What Kel described is rationalism in general, Occam’s razor in specific.
2. Only inasfar gods are claimed to be supernatural. Some atheists believe in the supernatural, even in dualism.
Atheists just don’t believe in gods.
3. Indeed.
4. Maybe, but that’s dishonest and arrogant.
SF:
FAIL. And if you actually read any Dawkins, you’d find that he has spoken to his beliefs with the tone of agnosticism, yet denied being an agnostic, because if you’re only reason to believe in something is that you have no evidence for it not existing, then there is no sound reason to believe in it. Do you believe in fairies, Ba’al, or Thor? There is no way to prove they do not exist, so you must be agnostic about them if you cannot disprove them, by your line of thinking.
FAIL again. An atheist is one who believes in no gods. And don’t get me wrong, I don’t really expect you to catch the difference in those two, I apparently just really like typing.
Aquaria (#68-69) thinks that I am putting the proverbial lipstick on a pig where theology is concerned.
You may be right, sir/madam, but the analogy to fanfic is a bit strained. I kind of doubt that the folk who moon over Spock and Kirk’s sublimated desire believe that Spock and Kirk actually exist.
(distant cry of pain)
I mean, if that were true, then D.C. Fontana would be the last century’s answer to Aquinas.
Wow. First I see an intelligent rap son, next I see a theist who does not act like their beliefs require undeserved respect. I feel like I’m losing my mind. :(
SF, actually try to understand Dawkins’ position before calling it “chicken shit”
“It is often said, mainly by the “no-contests”, that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal’s wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can’t prove that there aren’t any, so shouldn’t we be agnostic with respect to fairies?” – Richard Dawkins
SF:
Empiricism and atheism, not SCIENTIFIC ATHEISM and ATHEISM.
You don’t seem to know the terminology relating to the concepts you attempt to pontificate upon.
I think you’ll have to explain the difference between not believing and NOT BELIEVING, as well as why any of us should prefer the capitalized version.
Anton, the capitalized version is more earnest.
Silver Fox:
It seems to me that atheists should decide what they mean by atheism, and theists should agree to meet individual non-believers where they are at rather than argue definitions with them.
After all, some people use it to mean the absence of belief in gods, others use to assert that gods do not exist. I think thoughtful atheists admit that the former definition is simple and easy to defend, while the latter is more problematic. Practically speaking, there is a continuum of non-belief between the suspended judgments of agnosticism and the ‘7’ on the Dawkins scale. Dawkins does not argue to the absolute necessity of a strong atheism, but merely to the probability of that position being true.
I don’t agree with his conclusion, but I think his formulation is useful and a good starting point for discussion and I’m more than a little weary of listening to others (often believers) misrepresent his views on that point.
Kseniya, maybe it’s acronymic, and SF will astound us with a pithy backronym.
I just emailed him and demanded academic freedom in all our state’s tax-exempt churches. If they are going to enjoy those benefits, I want them to present a balanced view with equal time given to all religious beliefs and opposing views. I’ll even be generous and let them ignore “dead” religions. I want all church goers to get an even, unbiased exposure to all beliefs so that we can be assured of academic freedom in this most important area. I guess if they cut out all the singing, begging for money, and conversations with their imaginary friend, they might get a couple of seconds per religion. That should be enough, shouldn’t it?
Kel, Dawkins was borrowing from Douglas Adams for that.
Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
Just have to give credit to a wonderful, smart and funny author.
I’m aware of that Janine, ’tis a great quote.
You really do not want to play this game with the silly old goat. It has been done and it is tedious. In essence, all manifestations of any deity is, by default, the christian god. He slips into new age territory.
In annual celebrations of Christ’s birth, do Christians invite opposing views?
Why then, should a celebration of Darwin’s anniversary invite contrary views (quite apart from the fact that they are unscientific, and unsupported by observation)?
Hahaha. The first defense of the imbecile: “I’m trying to promote free thinking. Leave your brain at the door and believe my less-than-third-rate fairytales. My imbecilic fairy tales deserve just as much attention as facts which have taken inquisitive minds many decades or even centirues to put together.”
SF
“An atheist is one who DENIES a belief in God.”
Don’t you just love how fanatics like SF want to define who we are but don’t understand the concept of atheism because they cannot rationally conceive of it, let alone begin to understand it? They start with the belief that the existence of god is a fundamental given and always conclude that a lack of belief is a denial of belief. It is a closed circular loop belief system with the only escape an acceptance of rational thinking.
Dawkins has no belief in a god or gods and points to the complete absence of any provable evidence as leading directly to that rational conclusion. If there was provable of evidence of a god then it would not be atheism, it would be denialism of provable fact. Because Dawkins is honest and intellectually consistent, he admits that his lack of belief and the absence of any proof does not mean that you can irrevocably prove that a god doesn’t exist, but as Kel pointed out, Dawkins puts that into clear perspective by stating that, “There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can’t prove that there aren’t any, so shouldn’t we be agnostic with respect to fairies?”
Be kind of silly to deny a believe in god. That is real enough. The real question is if what is believed in is real. Believe does not make an object real.
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 12, 2009 1:59 AM
“Kel, Dawkins was borrowing from Douglas Adams for that.”
Damn you Janine!
That mean even though I’m an atheist,
I still have things to learn.
Kel, Kel, Kel,
“Or you might want people to believe in AGW because all the current science points to it.”
I think you are using the form of the word “all” that doesn’t include the science pointing to solar activity being usually high during the 20th century, or that attributes a significant part of the recent warming in Europe to the a reduction in aerosols, or the science that shows there hasn’t been warming in the last decade or the science that shows that the feedback to GHGs and other forcings are poorly understood and poorly represented in the models.
Perhaps using the word “all” makes you feel more confident, or lets others here know that you share their beliefs?
Or perhaps I’m referring to all because recently I was looking through some of my Dad’s old Scientific American magazines and a perpetual message 20 years ago was about the phenomenon occurring. Perhaps I say it because I find the points you and other deniers bring up to be the equivalent of creationist attacks on evolution. Perhaps that the scientific community has been studying this phenomenon for decade and might actually be aware of the factors that you proclaim that tens of thousands of scientists are neglecting.
Perhaps all that, but if you can write it off as me wanting to change the economy, I suppose that’s slightly less absurd than writing it off as gross incompetence on a wide scale or a quasi-conspiracy theory.
John Morales#123,
Obviously there isn’t just one definition of nihilism, but in western philosophy it can be seen as where Decartes left philosophy when he manged to convincingly question and doubt everything, but his attempts at reconstruction were found flawed and wanting. The Hegelian branch seemed to have its own fictions, the dialectic and historical determinism, etc, and it was Max Stirner that left any positive constructs there also in ruins.
When it comes to values, we can’t justify them metaphysically or logically, but we can perhaps study them and explain them scientifically. If we agree on some values, facts and methodologies, we can perhaps then use reason to reach more extensive agreement or at least understanding, even when we don’t agree.
Kel,
“Perhaps I say it because I find the points you and other deniers bring up to be the equivalent of creationist attacks on evolution.”
Keep in mind that I am not a denier, according the polling questions, since I believe there was warming during the 20th century and that the human contribution was “significant”. Unlike creationists, those unconvinced by the IPCC report resulting in the “very likely” statement have evidence based alternative and confounding explanations. The sun, aerosols and natural variation actually exist. So your analogy appears weak on the face of it. Creationists do use some reasoning, and discuss some of the evidence, perhaps that is the part of the analogy you were hoping would be informative, but it breaks down when you try to go beyond that.
Then what’s the problem? I don’t get your initial statement to begin with. Do you honestly think that anyone on here is pushing for change to do with global warming with the economy as their primary motivation? If not, why bring it up at all?
Kel,
Yes, I do think the anti-globalization, anti-corporation, anti-capitalist elements have latched onto the AGW hypothesis and hope to use it to justify more central control of the economy and also to demonize the US. They are well represented at this site and at moveon.org and internationally and in the media.
It is disgusting how much of the content of the history and discovery channels are fearmongering about it, completely misrepresenting the science and the risks. I can’t call it insidious because it is obvious. Just tonight there was a show on History International called “Super Swarms” about swarms of locusts. The first 45 minutes or so was informative, but then came the obligatory link to “climate change”. It mentioned evidence that ecological zones in Canada had been shown to have moved northward. It then implied that the risk of locusts swarms currently plaguing the Yucatan Penninsula could move north along the gulf coast into Texas and plague the US. There wouldn’t be enough spraying equipment to battle them even in cities like Houston. They’d be so thick they’d be bouncing against you, they’d make the roads slick with their crushed bodies and cause auto accidents, and they would lay their eggs and destroy our food crops.
I had to point out to my son, that most of the warming is at higher lattitudes like Canada, and that the tropics had barely warmed at all, so there would be no reason for central American locusts to move north. Like the Africanized honey bees they would probably be limited by the temperature. The gulf coast cities have all the spraying equipment they need because they regularly spray for mosquitoes and that even as far north as St. Louis and New York there is anti-mosquitoe equipment due to the risks of West Nile virus and St. Louis encephalitis. Futhermore, the plowing that is thought to have caused the extinction of the Rocky Mountain locusts would be damaging to these alien invaders as well. Even those that have adopted low till techniques could probably rotate to tilling every couple years to keep any locust problems down. I guess it is a bit insidious to lull the audience with the credibility of fairly reasonable and informative science and then to slip in the pseudoscience and fearmongering at the end.
I agree that those types have latched onto the movement. But I contend you can be anti-(all those things) and still base your stance on global warming on the science. Just ask how many of those anti-corporate types on here how they feel about alternative medicine given how “big pharmacy” is tightly coupled to the pseudo-science movement.
The global warming problem has been sounded for decades, and you can hardly complain about how the media has handled it. it may show the alarmists, but it’s put them on equal footing with the deniers – just as we see in the creation vs evolution debate. Point is, ignore the bullshit that surrounds sensationalism. Get caught up in that and you’re likely to miss the point. The climate is changing, we are having an affect, and if we fail to act when we could have been working to prevent it, it will constitute a great moral failure on account of this generation. There’s money to be made in everything, you aren’t going to buck the system by this scare – it just means that we should be looking towards a more ecologically sustainable future. Forward planning and counting the true cost of using environmental resources. Supply and demand has grossly undervalued the environment, and regardless of who is profiting off it it’s a hard fact to deny. If we have the ability to have foresight into the consequences of our actions and fail to act, then we are damning future generations.
Let’s send emails to Rep Thomsen and tell him we are atheists and evolutionists and we are coming to Olkahoma to promote our lack of religion and science.
See if we can all get some legislative ban on crossing the state line.
And so now the thread will spend 150 comments on AGW.
Please don’t. Between Texas passing creationist BS legislation and our recent defeat of similar BS, I’m hoping some of them will decide to pack up and head south over the river into the promised land.
Once again, a barb to the heart.
Ny posts with words missing or letters reversed still make sense amd try to add to the debate; yours, even if they did function fully as English, do not.
Is your brain having trouble with the word THINK?
(Yes – I’m aware that sentence is ambiguous – the terms are undefined)
Once again: you are witless, and your posts add nothing to any debate – except possibly that on euthanasia, or the best treatment of the feeble-minded.
As regards your posts, in both cases you have made me a Nazi.
Congratulations.
Cordially ;)
Kel,
“But I contend you can be anti-(all those things) and still base your stance on global warming on the science. … The climate is changing, we are having an affect, and if we fail to act when we could have been working to prevent it, it will constitute a great moral failure on account of this generation.”
You can’t base THAT stance on the science. Currently the science can only support attributing about 30% of the recent warming to AGW. Anything more will require net positive climate feedbacks. Given the current state of the science, the possibility that the net feedbacks are negative is still wide open. We await better models and/or a better understanding of solar coupling to the climate and climate feedbacks, especially tropical clouds. The the AGW attribution is only in the 30% range, then it will be swamped by natural variation and we certainly don’t “have to act” and we can certainly delay any expensive economically unjustified measures, and work on technology advances. There is no scientific excuse yet to drink the economic koolaid that is being proposed.
@ Scott Hatfield: I <3 you! Both here in comments and on your blog. Your steadfast belief in the truths of the sciences is wonderful.
@Kseniya: Haven’t seen you commenting for a while (but I’ve missed some of the longer comment threads due to work so may have just missed you). I’m glad to see your wonderful comments again. Your ability to skewer stupidity is as great as ever.
@Silver Fox: Not from OK. But all of my family, believers and nonbelievers alike, find creationism a joke.
Correction: “The the AGW” should read “If the AGW”
I suspect I’ll regret this, but:
What are the citations that support your 30% figure?
Please define “recent.”
Josh#150,
“And so now the thread will spend 150 comments on AGW”
Not unless you’ve got some new published results. This has already been hashed out.
I have noticed that my own surroundings frequently grow warmer and colder on a roughly 24-hour cycle. Am I causing this? I sleep for part of the cold cycle – is it my fault for being inattentive or is the government behind it all?
Will I be silenced for speaking out?
And most concerning of all, will this phenomenon inspire endless shite posts at Pharyngula and derail every thread?
Because if so, I just won’t sleep at all.
Oops. Sorry, Scott. Somehow most of my comment got messed up. I tried to type I (heart) you, but must have accidently deleted it when I corrected a typo and didn’t catch it since I don’t use preview. (mutters to self, must learn to preview.)
@157 Since when does that stop things here from getting “rehashed?”
Suspicion is 9/10 of the law.
Josh,
The 30% is the model based result for the direct radiative effects of the AGW forcing. Anything more or less is due to net positive or negative feedbacks. I don’t have a cite handy, but it is a generally accepted relatively uncontroversial estimate, despite being model based. The modeling of the feedbacks is where the controversy lies.
If it’s generally accepted, then it should be very easy to produce citations where it’s talked about.
Given that, though, what does “recent” mean in this context?
Did I say anything about the amount we are having an effect? No. I just said we are having an effect, and if we know the course of action to take but fail to then we have failed future generations. Where did I go against the science?
I’ve been waiting for European diesel technology for years. Are California environmentalists REALLY helping the environment?
” At present, the engine will not meet California’s stringent air emissions regulations. “We would only introduce the car in the U.S. if it was legal in every state,” says Yamamoto. “Meeting the California legislation is very hard and very expensive. We are researching it, but there is no timetable.” Subaru estimates that fitting the particulate filter needed to make the engine fully compliant would add around $1,500 to the price of the car.”
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=124553
I know, it is really the greedy corporations fault.
YAWN, AG and his tired and rebutted anti AGW themes. What a bore.
Nerd of Redhead,
“rebutted anti AGW themes”
Sorry, I didn’t know. Are you sure you understood the discussion?
Kel,
I don’t know if you have any of the science wrong. But any “if we fail to act” is premature and ahead of the science, unless you have some reason other than the science for wanting to act. If there isn’t net positive feedback to the GHG forcing, then most of the cause of the recent warming is something else, and likely uncorrelated with the increasing GHGs.
The science is telling us we are having an effect, the science is telling us how we are having an effect, we have a moral imperative to act in order to preserve our society based on that knowledge. I’m not saying to what percent we are responsible, or to what certainty of the problems that will be caused, rather I’m saying that we have knowledge and based on that we should act. Quibbling about the percentage of which we are having an effect is missing the point by a long way.
Yawn, another thread being hijacked by a morally bankrupt libertard for their petty agenda. Yawn. BORING
I do not believe Todd Thomsen even knows what free thinking is.
Of course, it all depends upon what you mean by ‘knows’ & ‘free-thinking’. Mr Thomsen certainly does know what free-thinking is, in the sense that he knows his own thoughts, which sometimes are free from constraint by rationality.
What an idiot Mr Thomsen is.
Kel,
Quantity also matters, why do we have to act in “order to preserve our society based on that knowledge” if the AGW perturbation is smaller than the natural variation? Humans are probably going to stop using fossil fuels in a few centuries anyway, and natural variation will continue on, and likely have variations greater than what we have yet to experience during this interglacial.
Yawn, the libertard won’t give up. What a stupid idiot.
I don’t really know the guy but he does seem to have
a magician’s ability to conjure up a foot in his
mouth at will.
I am something of a self-proclaimed expert in both the science of stork-delivery and the cabbage-patch genesis theory of humans.
I’m willing to share my knowledge with the students at OU in return for travel and accommodation expenses plus a little for basic living costs. I am also more than willing to make my information sound a bit “sciencey” if I really must.
Let me know if you’re interested.
Scientists are currently pointing to our factoring as enough of a problem, that even if we completely stopped fossil fuel usage we’d still have a problem. Each day of inaction is contributing to the problem, in that sense whether we are 30% or 50% or 70% is largely irrelevant. What’s important is we are contributing to the problem, any amount that is preventable becomes a moral failure once the ramifications kick in. Instead what it seems is that by quibbling over to what extent we are to blame for our own demise, we prolong the current toxic system we have now.
So instead of looking towards making achievable goals in order to maintain societal standards, we get people crying “what about the economy?” at every step of the way, present jobs and profits being more important than building an ecologically sustainable future. it’s so irrelevant that it serves as nothing more than a distraction – a means to keep a broken system running as long as possible until it’s abso-fucking-lutely necessary in order to act. No setting achievable targets, no gradual weaning off fossil fuels; all this is nothing more than a distraction to prevent any real change from happening.
Crying about the economy at a time like this reeks of nothing more than gross hypocrisy, as the fucking economy is based on these systems. We have to keep people mining coal, using coal power plants. We have to keep drilling for oil and making sure the consumer is buying. The system is rigged towards pollution and depletion of natural resources, so there’s never going to be a good time because no matter when we make the change we are going to burn a good portion of the system in place. It’s only when those resources are depleted when society will have the imperative to change, until then the only thing that matters is $$$
I am from Oklahoma, and; oh, my, god, this is embarrassing. This is so stereotypical: Oklahoma pretending to want to be open minded about science so they can sneak god back in; is like a representative from Arkansas introducing legislation to legalize incest.
Sorry everyone, I apologize for my ignorant neighbors.
Nihilism relates to values or telos.
Only if you’re not a True Nihilist. :D
Seriously – nihilism was used as a red herring/strawman and has taken a bad rap ever since. Personally, I always conceptualized it as sort of the infinity of nonbelief. Whatever you believe, it’s less belief than that.
Past experience suggests that africangenesis’ 30% figure is obtained by ignoring, say, the effect of warmer air holding more water vapour; when this is pointed out he’ll scream about how the feedbacks could totally be net negative, even though he has no evidence for net negative feedback; and then we will circle around the point endlessly because he won’t go away. Let’s just assume that this has already happened, shall we? No need for any further posts by ag.
Kel writes:
The science is telling us we are having an effect, the science is telling us how we are having an effect, we have a moral imperative to act in order to preserve our society based on that knowledge.
We don’t have a “moral imperative” – it’s a “survival imperative.” Don’t take humanity so seriously; we’re just a bunch of dumbasses who are shitting in our own beds. Nothing gives a rat’s ass about our planet, except us, and if we’re not smart enough to catch onto that until it’s too late – tough shit for us and all the other species we take down with us. It’s all going to end in tears, anyway: what are we gonna do, transport 1 trillion-plus pounds of human flesh to someplace else? There are built-in upper limits to how long this is going to last, and there won’t be anyone around shedding tears for humanity if we pull that upper limit in by a few million years. (shrug) Don’t take it so seriously.
I’d disagree. By being able to know, we rise above that. And by being able to know and not acting, we are letting down our future descendants. If we truly were as the chimpanzees and unable to have the foresight to do anything about our actions, I would agree with you. But we can know better, and we do know better, and that in itself holds our actions morally accountable.
Stephen Wells#178,
I basically agree, with the proviso that we also have no evidence for a net positive feedback either. Lots of positive and negative feedbacks and we don’t know what the “net” is.
#26
Yup, the “Biology for Christian Schools” book.
I’d believe in Nihilism, but what’s the point?
Kel writes:
I’d disagree. By being able to know, we rise above that.
Yeah, we’re doing great. Just great. Yep.
Wishful thinking isn’t a substitute for survival behaviors.
It occurred to me that if you could teach ID along with evolution you could also teach modern jazz along with evolution. You could also teach cooking or auto repair along with ID.
Well, yeah, you could, but modern jazz has artistic merit, and cooking and auto repair are both practical life skills.
Astrology is still a better analogy. Or maybe reading the entrails of freshly slaughtered poultry.
Notice how ag always argues from the perspective that nothing must be done unless warming is certain, whereas common sense indicates that action should be taken unless warming is massively unlikely.
Just saw “Watchmen”.
Im Rorschach.
Being an Oklahoman, I just wrote representative Thomsen what I think of his bill and what he is doing to the perception of Oklahomans. He is a disgrace. Between him and Sally Kern’s rhetoric, it makes me want to leave this great state I was born in. It is a damn shame.
AG shat on the lawn again. PZ, when will this be collected and placed in the waste bin, aka dungeon?
Come on. Find me in Google Scholar, drop me an e-mail, and I’ll send you a paper on what’s projected to happen in the next 100,000 years climate-wise. Stop making up scenarios from thin air and then hoping they’re true instead of looking whether they actually are.
Also, AG, you evacuate Bangladesh and the Nile Delta and so on. Not me.
Scott Hatfield @ 33
Excellent post, excellent letter to Todd Thomsen. And a belated “thanks” for posts in previous threads. Keep this up and you’ll end up with a Molly Award despite your faith-headedness.
I suggest that for the next Texas-Oklahoma football game that the principles of free thinking be applied.
Lynna, Scott Hatfield already has an Order Of Molly.
Too late, he already has one (2/07, sharing the first award). He’s working on a (so far fictional) tentacle cluster though.
I think PZ should give a lecture on evolution vs. creationism, probably once a year, preferable either during Mardi Gras, on April 1st or around Halloween. I’m sure the creation museum and AIG will have plenty of material for the lecture. Present it like it’s true, and then give the homework assignment to verify the claims. Teach the controversy, and make them all apply the scientific method about it. It’s a bit like shooting fish in a barrel without water, but as in introduction for critical thinking it would be great.
Almost.
It really means ‘Feel free to think what I think if you want me to listen to what you think.’
Stephen Wells#186,
“Notice how ag always argues from the perspective that nothing must be done unless warming is certain, whereas common sense indicates that action should be taken unless warming is massively unlikely.”
Some attribution of warming to AGW is certain. Common sense argues that action should only be taken of the likely future warming is more important than other uses of the resources. The amount of projected warming probably factors into this. If there isn’t significant net positive feedback then all the AR4 model projections are too high and there is a lot of significant model problems documented by the diagnostic literature that make that plausible.
David Marjanovic, OM,
I assume by 100,000 year projection you are referring to literature that suggests that this interglacial will be different and much longer than recent ones with much a much longer time to the next ice age. I found the argument plausible. That result is still controversial with others arguing that the next ice age could occur anytime in the next 5000 years. We don’t understand these interglacials and climate modes well enough. Better models might help shed light on this also. If that isn’t the work you are referring to, can you be more specific?
The natural variation I am referring to doesn’t require another ice age, just a return to more normal levels of solar activity after the recent unusually high level of activity.
There is already a swamp culture in parts of Bangladesh, given a century modern humans should be able to adapt to a the meter or so of sea level rise which is likely to be the upper limit based on estimates that a 2 meter rise would require that all of Greenlands glaciers be advancing at rates that have only been seen for a few hours or days at a time in individual glaciers.
AG @142
Since you brought it up… you need some more accurate info on solar activity.
From Thomas Karl, director of NOAA National Climate Center:
“Since the 1970’s the global temperature increase has been pretty constant. Since then, we’ve seen very little overall change in the energy from the sun, based on direct satellite measurements.” The temperature has been increasing at about 0.2 C degrees per decade, based on land and sea monitors.
Just thought you’d like a bit of real science to ponder.
AG@ 198
If we can only convince the existing biomes to adapt as quickly as people do, all will be fine. If not, things may not be so good.
Eidolon#199,
You are the first to mention that, NOT. You might want to read the climate commitment studies of Meehl, et al, and Wigley, et al, and the work on Global Dimming and Global Brightening. You will find even find discussions here on pharyngula.
#200, Human’s are already a major extinction event for biomes just through land use and habitat destruction. Even with the worst projections, AGW barely adds to what is already going on. Mitigating AGW would not even be at the top of the list of priorities for preserving Biomes.
Eidolon,
Apologies for being so flip. That was impolite. There is an easy way to find previous discussions of the issue you raised. Use the site search facility at the top left of these pages. Search on:
“Posted by: Africangenesis” solar tung meehl
You might want to try a search for my posts on dimming also. You will find references to the literature every so often.
Let me know if you have any questions,
Regards
Broken at 124
“An atheist is one who believes in no gods.”
Your statement clearly states that an atheist is a believer. An atheist denies any belief in God. He denies BELIEF in god; he is not a BELIEVER in no gods.
But lets look at your statement from the point of Logic 101.
To believe in no gods is to believe in nothing; to believe in nothing is simply not to believe. Again, the atheist is not a believer. At has been pointed out many times on this site that atheism is not a belief.
Silver Fox. EPIC FAIL.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5015557
You’re such a fool.
SF fails again. What were the odds? :-)
It is a wonder that the silly old goat’s body has not been sucked into the black hole that is his brain.
John @ 128
“Empiricism and atheism, not SCIENTIFIC ATHEISM and ATHEISM.You don’t seem to know the terminology relating to the concepts you attempt to pontificate upon”
You must certainly no be suggesting that Richard would resemble Locke, Hume or Berkeley (although the latter should more appropriately be classified an an idealist) as an empiricist. All of them, including Berkeley found their proof of God through their “empiricism”). No, I think if you are going to try to classify Richard philosophically, and I don’t think he should be classified that way, it would be materialistic naturalism. Now I think that corresponds to scientific atheism. Today you find many determinists who enlist the empirical method to view human behavior and the natural order. Ergo, nothing that is not observable,quantifiable, measurable and statistical should be considered authentic. In some respect Richard appears to be a determinist but I am reasonable sure that he would not accept that designation with some modification of the term.
I’ve heard that both are true. Does that mean that a lawyer’s brain is at the other end of the lawyer? Is this a testable hypothesis?
I just sent this e-mail to Mr. Thomsen, ccing it to a few others, including Abbie Smith:
Dear Mr. Thomsen:
As both a fellow Republican and a former evolutionary biologist, I find these remarks of yours most objectionable:
“I strongly oppose the Department of Zoology for their unwillingness to lead our state in this discussion and not have opposing views in this matter.”
I strongly object to your blatant effort at academic censorship by criticizing the University of Oklahoma’s Department of Zoology and eminent evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins for holding valid scientific and religious views which are contrary to yours. While I do not subscribe to Professor Dawkins’s religious views – and strongly differ with them since I consider myself a Deist – I nonetheless defend his right – and those of his fellow Atheists – to hold such views. As an elected official who is sworn to uphold both the constitutions of your state and the United States, you have no business period in attacking those whose religious views you find quite distasteful.
I also strongly object to your inane assertion that there are indeed “opposing views” with regards to whether or not evolution is indeed valid science. As I have noted in my Amazon.com review of eminent University of Chicago evolutionary geneticist Jerry Coyne’s “Why Evolution is True”:
“Thousands of scientists around the globe are using the principles of evolution towards understanding phenomena as simple as bacterial population growth to those as complex as the origin and spread of such virulent diseases as malaria and HIV/AIDS, and the conservation of many endangered plant and animal species. There is no other scientific theory I know of that has withstood such rigorous, and repeated, testing as the modern synthetic theory of evolution. The overwhelming proof of biological evolution is so robust, that entire books have been written describing pertinent evidence from sciences that, at first glance, seem as dissimilar from each other as paleobiology, molecular biology and ecology. But alas this hasn’t convinced many in the court of public opinion, especially here, in the United States, who remain skeptical of evolution as both a scientific fact and a scientific theory, and who are too often persuaded by those who insist that there are such compelling ‘weaknesses’ in evolution, that instead of it, better, still ‘scientific’, alternatives exist, most notably, Intelligent Design creationism.”
Incidentally, it was due in part, to the overall quality of similar reviews I have been writing for years at Amazon.com, that I was contacted by a University of Oklahoma writing instructor who objected vehemently to a campus visit made by noted Intelligent Design advocate William Dembski in September 2007. The slight, but important, assistance that I rendered helped ensure that Mr. Dembski received an appropriate “reception” from a predominantly unsympathetic campus audience when he spoke there on the evening of September 17th.
I strongly encourage you to cease wasting yours and your fellow legislators’ time in criticizing both the University of Oklahoma’s Department of Zoology and Professor Dawkins. Instead, you should read Federal Judge John Jones’s still relevant decision at the close of the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial, which recognized Intelligent Design creationism as unscientific and thus, a subject not worthy of study in a science classroom.
Sincerely yours,
John Kwok
Thomsen speaks out of both sides of his mouth through the hole in his head.
Head like a hole
Black as your soul
I’d rather die than give you control
Gallstones, you have to learn how to do it right.
@ PZ –
I strongly disagree with your favorable assessment of Mr. Davis’s e-mail to Mr. Thomsen. Including foul language in such a missive – no matter how emotionally sensible it may be – is inappropriate conduct for anyone trying to influence his or her local, state or Federal legislator. That is why I decided to post a copy of my e-mail to Mr. Thomsen and hope others will take a more diplomatic tack.
Silver Fox,
No, it clearly doesn’t state that. That’s not how the English language works.
If I have driven no cars, am I a driver? If I read no books, am I a reader?
“One who believes in no gods” is equivalent to “one who does not believe in any god.” Neither of these is equivalent to “one who believes that there are no gods.”
My email to Thomsen:
Mr. Thomsen,
You demand equal time in the science classroom for Intelligent Design and evolutionary theory. Do you not understand the difference between a scientific theory and religious faith?
Religion is a belief system based wholly on faith, its only “evidence” the sharing of personal experience. These personal experiences can’t be repeated nor tested. Evidence such as this — little more than hearsay — would be tossed out of our modern courts. Ask the majority of Christians how they would prove God created the world and they would tell you because it’s in the Bible.
The modern synthesis of the many ideas and theories that comprise our current understanding of biological development over the history of our earth have been sharpened for the past 150 years by rigorous, contentious debate by scientists steeped in their particular areas of expertise. They base their (sometimes grudging) acceptance of these modern theories on observable, testable and provable data, the kind of data not biased by personal perception.
While some details of Darwin’s original ideas have changed as human understanding exceeded the knowledge of his day, the vast majority of observable data gathered by scientists for a century and a half neatly fits within the overall framework of evolutionary development and common descent. There is a reason 99.854% of modern scientists agree the theory represents the most likely explanation for how life developed on earth, because (so far) it is scientifically inarguable.
If you wish to expose Oklahomans to the religious theory of Intelligent Design, do it in the proper venue: a philosophy or theology class. There is no place in the science classroom for such nontestable, unprovable ideas.
Regards,
Mark Sletten
P.S. It’s a bit nonsensical for you to say you’re trying to promote free thinking by censuring OU for inviting speakers such as Richard Dawkins — arguably one of the world’s greatest free thinkers.
Dear Representative Thomsen,
It is important to have freedom to think about the unknown and consider all possibilities, even if the result is contrary to popular thinking. Basically that is how it was discovered that our planet is a globe, not flat. There are many examples in our human history where popular opinion has been shown to be very wrong, once it became possible to examine the underlying causes for our universe. I can imagine that many people of past generations have suffered great remorse as their deeply held beliefs have not survived our quest for knowledge. The great suffering could have been avoided if each person had known about the, then new, facts as they were being investigated. As an example from our recent past, it was once held that life just poofed into existence, aided only by the hand of some magic from the sky. That idea became clearly wrong as humans began selecting and arranging which specific individual plants and animals would be mated within our selection of domesticated farm animals, plants and pets. Who would have guessed that in such a short time the wolf could produce such a varied assortment of shapes and sizes just by selecting which animals would breed. As you of course know, it is now known that all life and all varieties are the result of very small changes that have accumulated over time in a process now known as evolution.
Also, during our very recent times and even today, there has been much suffering due to conflict among those that hold various god ideas. It is disconcerting that individuals within our relatively advanced societies could be wedded so tightly to such different and unsubstantiated religious ideas that they declare war and murder hundreds of thousands in the hope that their brand of god idea will be victorious. If you have studied all the various god ideas, you will note that none can be verified or shown to be correct. It would seem that if all those that wanted to believe in any of these god ideas were taught, all the god ideas equally, the adherents would understand more clearly and perhaps hold their own claims less tightly. Thus, reducing the great conflicts and hopefully eliminating murders for god ideas. If only there was a way to get all the various religions to teach the controversy of the god ideas, the adherents would appreciate their commonality in mythology.
There is a way to make this dream come true. We can give an economic incentive to those religions that will teach the controversy. We can allow only those churches that teach the controversy to be granted charitable organization status. Those churches that freely wish to teach only their own god idea brand, could do so but, would lack the requirements to be considered tax exempt. This simple beginning could go a long way toward reducing the tension between the various god ideas.
Can I count on you to write a bill that would united the religious in teaching the controversy between them? I would be happy to help and consult with you in getting this important legislation enacted very soon.
Sincerely and with anticipation of a positive response,
Africangenesis,
Kindly, if you will, disabuse me of my admittedly simple-minded interpretation of the AGW question, as I find that many times thinking simplemindedly avoids the frequent red herrings that bedevil overly-educated interpretations.
It seems to me that the Earth acts much like a well-composed buffer solution as it mitigates various influences on global temperatures and climate change. Nonlinear effects would be expected. And that therefore, concentrating on lack of linear contributions from feedback loops or on cooling factors as you have, I think, misses the forest for the trees.
There is a smoking gun evidence for global warming, easily attributable to mankind’s actions. And that smoking gun is atmospheric CO2 levels. Which have risen exponentially very recently to levels unseen in at least the last 400,000 years. Anthropogenically produced CO2 appears to account for this rise – or is this truly in dispute?.
Please see: http://upload.pbase.com/image/110133316/medium
It appears to this amateur that unless the laws of physics are somehow suspended, and as anthropogenically-produced CO2 levels continue to increase, the Earth MUST warm to levels predicted by the IPCC.
Additionally, as I understand it we are now seeing positive feedback loops developing to our dismay, are we not? Are not the global recession of coral reefs and the bubbling of methane from northern seas and landmasses are examples of the positive feedback loops of which you spoke?
I can not see how AGW can be disputed, even from these simple evidences. But I am open to further education on the subject.
AG:
the fact remains that the Earth continues to warm and it is not the sun causing it. Global brightening/dimming has nada to do with the fact that solar output has been pretty much constant but the temp. just keeps going up. Check out this abstract from the Royal Society:
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1387.abstract
In checking on the work by Wigley, I find that the conclusions on sea level change are equal to or greater than the IPCC predictions.
For the effect on biomes, you fail to take into account the issue of timing within a biome as well as changes in species distribution. The effects are similar to the “for the want of a horseshoe…”. The fact that humans are already disrupting environments does not imply that more would make no difference.
No reply req’d, no sense in contributing any more than needed to the hijacking of yet another thread.
AGW barely adds to what is already going on.
this is one of the most ignorant statements I’ve seen you utter to date.
what warming does is shift the entire way we have to look at conserving entire ecosystems altogether! We will still have to deal with direct human impacts, but how these are mitigated will entirely depend on what is happening with the overall environment any particular species exists in.
Moreover, warming will effect entire biomes, not just individual species, and not just through temperature changes (which indeed might seem minor), but via primary weather shifts, which are and will be even more major; through oceanic current shifts, and major habitat loss (flooding, melting, etc.). On top of that, as weather patterns shift, primary production areas for humans will need to shift as well, further increasing the direct impact humans will have on overall habitat.
yikes. You really haven’t thought this through much, have you?
You just don’t get it, do you? Atheists lack a belief in God. Whether it’s the weak simply absence of belief or the strong positive denial, it’s still atheism. Dawkins like most people here subscribes to the former definition. Have you even read The God Delusion?
#212 John Kwok; John, thank you for your letter to the legislator and for your remarks about how such letters should be written. Those of us out here on the front lines of this battle recognize that pragmatic politics are essential in accomplishing our goals. Those who blog have the right to express themselves as they wish, but communications with legislators must be couched in appropriate language. Otherwise they will only take a harder stand. Those experienced in direct lobbying with legislators will certainly agree.
SF:
You’re an idiot. I believe in no gods. I believe the Christian god is one of the more horrible divinities man ever concocted. In no way are those two statements incompatible, and that I ‘believe in nothing’ does not follow from the statement I wrote.
Wrong again. If one “believes in nothing,” there are two possible conclusions that follow from that statement. If taken in the active form, it means that one actively believes in nothing – as in “I believe that nothing supernatural exists.” If taken in the passive, it means that of the current deities worshipped by the faithful, I do not believe any of them exist, as in “I believe in nothing that has been presented.” You really should take a logic course. It would help you a lot. Just make sure you don’t tell the instructor I was the one who sent you there…
You have absolutely no base of knowledge from which to proclaim what an atheist is or is not. You may have a decent idea, definition-wise (though you’ve shown that you really don’t), but to enumerate what an atheist is or is not, to try to list what one would believe or deny, you’d have to have been one at some point in time. Otherwise, you’re just (quite incorrectly) speculating.
I have no idea why you chose to write those words, but I’ll fix them for you. Atheism is not a belief system. I do hope you’ll remember them though, because the next time the stupid ‘atheism takes more faith than my religion’ bullshit flies out of your mouth, I shall have even more fun at your expense.
Calmly, now.
The argument about atheists and belief up there came from a disagreement over word order. The first statement was along the lines of “atheists believe in no gods”.
The trouble there is that the words “atheists” and “believe” were side by side, leading some to read it as “atheists believe”, an action that atheists perform. The author may have meant to say that atheists do not perform an action–believing–but it reads as if atheists actively and passionately believe, with all their heart and soul, that there are no gods, and believe so for no damn reason in particular.
What probably was intended was “atheists do not believe in any gods”. Which is the case for most.
Calm.
Posted by: Menyambal | March 12, 2009 6:27 PM
I probably would, and definitely could, be a little calmer, but:
A) SF has shown repeated insistence on ignoring valid arguments presented, and…
B) This is waaay more fun.
Thomsen: “I am trying to promote free thinking.”
Of course, he solicited the services of the Discovery Institute to help free Oklahoman’s thinking.
I sent the following to Rep. Thomsen last night:
Mr. Thomsen:
With all due respect, you clearly do not have an understanding of how science works. Unlike religion, there is nothing in science that is dogmatic. Science is all about making observations, forming hypotheses, and then testing those hypotheses. If there is even one single example which doesn’t fit the hypothesis, then it is wrong.
Evolution has been overwhelmingly supported by evidence from vastly different areas, including physiology, embryology, biogeography, molecular biology, DNA sequencing, and geology to name a few. With millions of observations, and probably hundreds of thousands of scientists studying the subject around the world, there is not a single piece of evidence that contradicts evolutionary biology.
Evolution is absolutely not a “hypothetical construction,” but is instead the grand unifying principal of biology which explains the vast diversity of life on earth. In fact, biology is the study of evolution.
Please find something constructive to do with your time, and withdraw your silly proposals. You are doing nothing more than making a laughingstock out of the people of Oklahoma.
Very truly yours,
Mark …
This morning I received this reply:
“I appreciate your great faith.
Todd T”
Mark Slettern, #214: “…Richard Dawkins — arguably one of the world’s greatest free thinkers.”
No “arguably”.
I can’t see how anyone can pose a decent argument that Dawkins isn’t “ONE of the world’s greatest freethinkers.”
There are presumably many greats, and he is indisputably “one” of them.
Of course, EVERYTHING may be considered “arguable”. But that isn’t a metric for illumination.
No need to offer them a fake handhold, unless you like arguing with stubborn lunkheads as they slip and fall just to see them screaming.
Beautiful letter otherwise!
[#225]: …Very truly yours, Mark …This morning I received this reply: “I appreciate your great faith. Todd T”
Man. To paraphrase Bette Davis, “What-a-shmuck!”
Calmly, now.
concern troll much?
you haven’t seen enough of SF’s “arguments” (scare quotes very deliberate) for you to remotely be able to conclude that calm is what is needed.
your concern is noted.
Ichthyic, I’m not concern trolling, thanks. I just skimmed through and saw two people arguing over what seemed like a needless misunderstanding of word order.
If I had noticed that one participant was Silver Fox, I’d have understood. To brokenSoldier, my apologies–go to it.
If I had noticed that one participant was Silver Fox, I’d have understood.
fair enough. We just commonly get the “can’t we all get along” trolls in here a bit too often.
True enough.
Coolio.
Eidolon#217,
The publication you link to is a linear analysis and since solar activity did not increase over the last half of the century, it won’t attribute any of the increase in temperature to it. This is like analyzing a pot water on a flame after the flame has already been turned on. You conduct a statistical analysis of hypothetical contributers to the increasing in water temperature, the flame has not changed over the course of the period analyzed, so it is not found to be a contributer to the temperature in crease. Solar activity did increase from lower 19th century levels until about 1940. Your takaway from the climate commitment studies should be that the climate system would take centuries to adjust to the new level solar forcing due to the thermal capacity of the oceans. Of course the unusual plateau in solar forcing is not going to last long enough for the climate to reach equilibrium.
What the global dimming and subsequent brightening adds, is that this aerosol event was reflecting solar radiation and further preventing and delay the response of the climate system to the new level of solar forcing.
You should read the full text of the paper you cite. Note:
“The reduction in aerosol emissions has also caused a rise in radiative forcing (Andreae et al. 2005). It is advantageous to consider the effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases and aerosols in one term as their net effect is not a simple combination of the two.”
That “rise in radiative forcing” from the “reduction in aerosol emissions” is from the sun. Think of it as an unmasking of the high levels of solar forcing. Note also that they analyze the reduction in aerosols and the increase in GHGs in combination. So their linear analysis doesn’t attribute the recent warming to GHGs, but to the combination that effectively includes the solar component.
Gingerbaker#216,
“Nonlinear effects would be expected. And that therefore, concentrating on lack of linear contributions from feedback loops or on cooling factors as you have, I think, misses the forest for the trees.”
I don’t know what gives you the impression that I have thought of any of this linearly. I’m acutely aware on the nonlinear nature of the climate system. By being impressed by the recent CO2 rise it is you that are thinking linearly as the contribution of CO2 is proportional to the logrithm of the levels.
Without significant net positive feedbacks the actual climate sensitivity to CO2 is much less than represented in the IPCC models even if solar activity is assumed to continue at the high plateau of the 20th century, which is unlikely. You can’t jump from a warming effect from increasing CO2 to the assumption that the IPCC model projections are credible. They aren’t.
Yes, any increase in methane releases would be a positive feedback and should be included in any assessment of what the net effects will be. I’m not sure what your point is about the corals, why effects on them have been hypothesized, I don’t think they have significant feedbacks back on the climate, positivie or negative. What did you have in mind? regards.
Yesterday, I too sent an email to Mr. Thomsen:
Dear Representative Thomsen,
Thank you for making our fair state the laughingstock of the rational world. House Resolutions 1014 and 1015, as introduced by yourself, will long be remembered as examples of what happens when ignorance and superstition take the place of common sense.
We live in the 21st century. Mankind faces complex problems which require bold, innovative solutions and forward thinking. As long as “politicians” like yourself continue to pander to constituents’ Bronze Age beliefs (i.e. HR 1014 & 1015), you impede progress and worsen the problem.
As fellow Oklahomans, we encourage you to leave your beliefs at home and the church, and quit wasting the state’s time and money on what amounts to covert religious dogma–need we remind you of the Federal Constitution’s separation of church and state (re: the 1st Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”)
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely yours,
Today, I received a two word reply from Representative Thomsen (I have to assume the response was from Mr. Thomsen as the message was not signed, although it did have his return email address). And his reply?
“You’re wrong.” (quotes mine)
Fuck,I agree with John Kwok.
Thats our Johnnie…
And this had to be mentioned why??
Africangenesis
Corals sequester roughly 2% of anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 when healthy, but become sources of Co2 equal to about 8% of anthropogenic CO2 when unhealthy. The death and bleaching of corals world-wide then, becomes another positive feedback loop.
Again, I would urge you to consider that the doubling of CO2 levels is estimated by most climatologists to result in a warming of 2 degrees C. Now, you can dispute that figure if you wish – good luck with that, BTW – but that still leaves you with an explanation of where the heat from the increase of atmospheric CO2 is going to go. Currently, if I understand correctly, the rise in ocean levels is accelerating.
Just what do you think is going to happen as atmospheric CO2, methane, NO2 levels, and ocean temps continue to rise – global cooling? Your solar irradiation forcing is equivalent to that seen with black carbon on snow – small potatos.
Above you said:
“You can’t base THAT stance on the science. Currently the science can only support attributing about 30% of the recent warming to AGW. Anything more will require net positive climate feedbacks. Given the current state of the science, the possibility that the net feedbacks are negative is still wide open.”
Your statements do not seem to me to square with the information in this graph from the IPCC -= could you explain to me where I am off-base?:
http://upload.pbase.com/image/110153444/original
AG, still trying to hijack threads with anti-AGW propagands? PZ has asked you repeatedly to stop doing that.
Perhaps it’s time to fight fire with fire regarding these I.D.-iots who are demanding college science depts. to include “creationist theory” in their curriculum. I’m thinking there should be a demand for evolution (what they would call “darwinism”) to be given equal time in all religious study or theology courses. After all, we want every subject to be “free thinking” and offer “opposing views” don’t we?
Wonder how the Sooner state schools would react to legislation adding evolution studies to theology departments, ha-ha.
Nerd of Redhead,OM,
“AG, still trying to hijack threads with anti-AGW propagands? PZ has asked you repeatedly to stop doing that.”
You have just proven yourself a liar again. You must have been voted for a Molly as a joke. Show me even ONCE where PZ asked me to stop discussing AGW. And where do you get off calling my AGW postings “propaganda”, I back up what I post with peer review literature, not with some denialist site. You are an embarassment.
Oh shit !
What kind of day is this,is god testing me or something??
First I agree with John Kwok,then I dont disagree with Alan Kellogg,and now I find myself in not complete disagreement with Africangenesis !!!
*Slaps self repeatedly*
Gingerbaker#236,
Do you have any references for the coral. I didn’t they did that much of the carbon sequestration, because I didn’t think they covered that much area. thanx.
On the chart you linked to. The radiative forcings are being compared linearly, but they are coupled nonlinearly to different components of the climate system. Note that the uncertainty in the solar is more than a factor of two, and that chart uses the previously published work of Lean I believe. That work was published before much of the results on the UV component of the spectrum which has been shown to vary by several percent and has significant effects on statrospheric and troposphere. This is a radiative effect mediated through nonlinearly through the effects chemistry effects of UV. Note that some of the chart includes feedbacks, the cloud albedo effect for instance, notice the large uncertainties there.
So the forcings are coupled nonlinearly and quite differently to the climate and cannot be directly compared. The solar is most strongly coupled to the stratosphere, land surface and 10s of meters of penetration into the ocean. CO2 is chiefly coupled to the troposphere. The climate sensitivities to each cannot be assumed to be the same, it would be an amazing coincidence if they were the same. The sensitivities calculated for the models include feedbacks, the sensitivity is only one third to one forth of what they report if only the direct effects are considered. I’ve previously discussed correlated errors in the models several times larger than the energy imbalance of about 0.75W/m^2 Hansen reported as responsible for the sea level rise for the year 1998. That is only a fraction of the documented issues with the models. Search on
“Posted by: Africangenesis” Roesch
for those dicussions.
AG, again with your lies. PZ asked you to stop hijacking threads, lying, to promote your libertard philosophy. Which you are doing here. And part of your libertard philosophy is anti-AGW lies. Since you acknowledge PZ has asked you to go, why haven’t you? Too stupid to understand his words? Or too arrogant to think they apply to you? Go.
Nerd of Redhead,OM#242,
So that is the best you can come up with to justify your lies and personal attacks. My AGW opinions are science based. Spin away. You’d make a great politician. You are an embarrassment.
@ clinteas –
Thanks for agreeing with me. I hope you realized that I posted my e-mail to Mr. Thomsen as an example of a more dignified response that should be sent to him (Incidentally, I haven’t heard back, and I hope he realizes that there are many conservatives and Republicans like yours truly and Federal Judge John Jones, among others, who recognize that evolution is valid science and that creationism – including Intelligent Design creationism – should never be taught in science classrooms since it is pseudoscientific religious nonsense.).
To M. A. at 238:
“Perhaps it’s time to fight fire with fire regarding these I.D.-iots who are demanding college science depts. to include “creationist theory” in their curriculum.”
You suggest requiring Evolution in all religious studies courses. How about the opposite approach? From this day forward there will be a required course on Creationist Theory for all college students, taught by the Biology department. I think PZ could do a very effective job teaching it at UMM, and I’ll bet there would be fewer creationists graduating from college.
Mark,
Hope you are joking. There is simply precious little time to teach “creationist theory” in a valid science course and still cover the ample material of REAL SCIENCE that has to be covered in such a course. As for “creationist theory”, which one(s) should we cover: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Intelligent Design Creationism, Hindu Creationism, etc. etc.?
John
My AGW opinions are
science based.Spinaway.fixed.
go flail yourself elsewhere, eh?
nobody here gives a shit about your repeat performances.
…other than being irritated by them being just that, repeat performances.
your understanding of climatology, ecology, and conservation are grossly overestimated in your own mind.
Amen Brother. Tell it like it is.
I got the following response from Thomsen:
WTF?
‘Tis Himself @249, clearly Thomsen thinks he’s making a jocular rhetorical point, and doesn’t care he’s endorsing mythology over science or that he’s evading the issue.
To think this guy is an elected politician… wow.
lol, you serious?
In the race to see whose ideas are outdated, this gem of an elected official most certainly is winning.
I knew there was a reason why I had AG killfiled.
Ichthyic,
“your understanding of climatology, ecology, and conservation are grossly overestimated in your own mind.”
I’ve made no such estimates. My skepticism is based upon how little we know, and the lack of evidence that anyone else knows more, although some would like to claim quantitative model based knowledge that isn’t credible for this recent warming.