APS and the Global Warming Scam

[moralist]

Here's quite a good (and lengthy) piece from "lukewarmist" Matt Ridley:

http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/06/climate-wars-done-science/

It's always nice when you can fit in a Feynman quote:

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

I like that one. A favorite of mine that's similar...

"Studies either confirm what you already know by your own common sense...

...or they're wrong."

-- Dennis Prager

dead wrong. Our best physical theory quantum electrodynamics is contrary to common sense. But it predicts correctly to 12 decimal places.

Ba'al Chatzaf

And how many times have the liberal funding whores been proven to be wrong, Bob?

For 40 years the liberal whores told you cholesterol is bad... now it isn't.

You're a sucker to have believed them instead of your own common sense.

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

At least the Pope is on board with man-made climate change.

In with both feet, too: How climate-change doubters lost a papal fight.

Finally, this issue is landing right where it belongs: religion.

When scientists decide to stop acting like idiots and doormats for the politically powerful, maybe the serious ones among them can take a look at this thing for real.

But for now, I'm perfectly happy to let the Pope tell the general public about the end of times. I think he is the perfect face for the climate change movement.

He can tell folks to tithe so we can all save the planet.

Michael

[moralist]

How funny... a Catholic Pope who has completely bought into the secular political religion of leftism.

Makes you wonder who is going to get out of the clown car next!

[Brant Gaede]

He's from Argentina. That explains a lot about a lot.

--Brant

bad ideas seem to become physiologically part of people's brains, which is part of the reason--not the most important--I was a poor student, for I tried to keep them out and those that got in I had to jack hammer out over many years

[BaalChatzaf]

He's from Argentina. That explains a lot about a lot.

--Brant

bad ideas seem to become physiologically part of people's brains, which is part of the reason--not the most important--I was a poor student, for I tried to keep them out and those that got in I had to jack hammer out over many years

Jumping on the AGW bandwagon is a further assertion of Original Sin. The basic premise of Original Sin is the Mankind is No Fucking Good. So it is natural to blame a process which has some natural driving force exclusively on humans because we are No Fucking Good.

The Pope is the Head of the Church which is predicated on the proposition that humanity is No Fucking Good which is why we need their brand of salvation.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Jonathan]

The pope also just claimed that weapons manufacturers, and those who invest in weapons manufacturing companies, can't call themselves Christians. He says they're hypocrites. So, the Swiss Guard, who protect the pope, and who carry weapons, can't call themselves Christians? Does the Vatican not pay for the Guard and its weapons?

And previous Warrior Popes, who not only manufactured but also used weapons to kill many people in wars, can no longer be considered Christian? But weren't those popes also considered infallible? So when there's an infallibility showdown between past popes and the current one, whose infallibility is more infallible?

J

[Selene]

He's from Argentina. That explains a lot about a lot.

--Brant

bad ideas seem to become physiologically part of people's brains, which is part of the reason--not the most important--I was a poor student, for I tried to keep them out and those that got in I had to jack hammer out over many years

Jumping on the AGW bandwagon is a further assertion of Original Sin. The basic premise of Original Sin is the Mankind is No Fucking Good. So it is natural to blame a process which has some natural driving force exclusively on humans because we are No Fucking Good.

The Pope is the Head of the Church which is predicated on the proposition that humanity is No Fucking Good which is why we need their brand of salvation.

Ba'al Chatzaf

FYI:

http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Original_Sin

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

[william.scherk]

Stephen Pinker and Lawrence Krauss have each weighed in on the encyclical. Krauss wrote an invited article at the Scientific American blog -- "Ideology Subsumes Empiricism in Pope's Climate Encyclical," and also an article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "The Pope’s encyclical on the environment: Not even close?"

Jerry Coyne, at his blog, Why Evolution is True, reports on Krauss's response, and also cites email exchanges with Pinker: Krauss and Pinker on the Pope’s misguided climate-change bicycle. Here are some highlights from the various commentaries:

Krauss:

Whenever religious figures enter into a debate on policy issues that have a strong scientific basis there is a slippery interplay between the desire to do good by addressing real problems, and the constraints that ideology and dogma impose upon the ability to do so objectively. Pope Francis’s encyclical follows this pattern.

[...]

The problem with basing a public policy framework on outmoded ideas that predate modern science and medicine is that one inevitably proposes bad policies.

No one can fault Pope Francis’s intentions, which are clearly praiseworthy, but his call for action on climate change is compromised by his adherence to doctrines that are based on revelation and not evidence. The Catholic Church and its leaders can never be truly objective and useful arbiters of human behavior until they are willing to dispense with doctrine that can thwart real progress. In this sense, the latest encyclical took several steps forward, and then a leap back.

Pinker:

I’d say several steps back, actually. It’s not just reproductive rights. The pontiff continues in the millennia-long Catholic tradition of vilifying technology, commerce, and ordinary people enjoying the fruits of material progress. So he puts the blame on economics and consumerism. But the solution to climate change is not to moralize from on high and implore people—particularly the poor people who he claims to sympathize with—to learn to be abstemious for the common good and do without central heating, electric lights, and efficient transport. Billions of people aren’t going to do that. Not even the Pope—especially not the Pope—is going to do that. The solution is economic and technological: a global carbon tax, and investment in the development of new energy technologies. The Pope shows no signs of acknowledging this, because it leaves him and his church no special role.

Krauss:

Thus, while I cannot fault the pope’s intentions, which are presumably praiseworthy, his proposals are inevitably compromised if they adhere to doctrines that can thwart real progress, and that attempt to use prior theological arguments to address issues that need to be dealt with by focusing on not only real problems but also on real solutions.

Krauss is employed at Arizona State U, Pinker is employed at Harvard.

WHORES!

Edited June 22, 2015 by william.scherk

[Selene]

Full encyclical in the link:

188. There are certain environmental issues where it is not easy to achieve a broad consensus. Here I would state once more that the Church does not presume to settle scientific questions or to replace politics. But I am concerned to encourage an honest and open debate so that particular interests or ideologies will not prejudice the common good.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

[moralist]

He's from Argentina. That explains a lot about a lot.

You hit the nail on the head, Brant.

South America is predominantly leftist

so it's no mystery why he's completely steeped in it.

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

He's from Argentina. That explains a lot about a lot.

You hit the nail on the head, Brant.

South America is predominantly leftist

so it's no mystery why he's completely steeped in it.

Greg

That is a denial of Free Will. you assume -where- a person was brought up -determines- his outlook. Shame on you!

[moralist]

He's from Argentina. That explains a lot about a lot.

You hit the nail on the head, Brant.

South America is predominantly leftist

so it's no mystery why he's completely steeped in it.

Greg

That is a denial of Free Will. you assume -where- a person was brought up -determines- his outlook. Shame on you!

Just because you're steeped in leftism doesn't mean you don't have the free choice to not belong to it, Bob. The Pope is just a weak spineless male who followed the herd. And remember a majority of Cardinals freely chose to elect him, because they share his leftist values.

Where I live it's 84% liberal Democrats... and I'm not one!

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

He's from Argentina. That explains a lot about a lot.

You hit the nail on the head, Brant.

South America is predominantly leftist

so it's no mystery why he's completely steeped in it.

Greg

That is a denial of Free Will. you assume -where- a person was brought up -determines- his outlook. Shame on you!

As an Aspie your response is as rational as it can be. You are not, however, qualified to respond. Ayn Rand, too. It's obvious she thought that out with the old ideas and in with the new--free will in glorious action--the world would be a substantially better place REAL SOON!

The environment you live in, are brought up in, has a substantial effect on your outlook, but not the only effect. In the context of nature vs nurture we are only talking about nurture and influence of evaluative thought which we can call "free will." This reflects a variable ratio in each person and the influence of an evaluative consciousness. If we have two people--identical twins--each suffering the same trauma--how that trauma is dealt with--evaluated--will determine to a great extent its long term effect which will likely be different therefore for each of the twins. For free will to be something it has to be used and how it's used affects that something to that something's effect, both in the using and the result(s). (Trauma can be replaced by something positive and the preceding statement repeated.)

Shame on you too--for being silly with the shaming. I don't mess around inside mathematics the way you can. I'm not qualified. I'm modest. You keep messing around, however, in areas you are not qualified to, ironically proving your point about the impotence of philosophy--it's much more than philosophy, but philosophy will do since you keep trying to dump on it--FOR YOU AND OTHER ASPIES who haven't found their modesty and correctly applied it to themselves.

--Brant

get modest; everybody has reason to be modest about many things and that modesty will in turn inform your areas of competence with grace

[Brant Gaede]

Where I live it's 84% liberal Democrats... and I'm not one!

Greg

So, you have neighbors in multiples of 25? (Did I get that right, Bob?)

--Brant

and you only work for 16% of them including yourself?

you get public assistance? (It's okay, for you pay taxes--right? [with what?])

million dollar home poverty--only in America

~sob~ (there oughta be a law) ~sobby sob, sob~

somebody stop me; I can't help myself (so much for free will!)

[william.scherk]

He's from Argentina. That explains a lot about a lot.

You hit the nail on the head, Brant.

South America is predominantly leftist

so it's no mystery why he's completely steeped in it.

That is a denial of Free Will. you assume -where- a person was brought up -determines- his outlook. Shame on you!

As an Aspie your response is as rational as it can be. You are not, however, qualified to respond.

[...]

Shame on you too--for being silly with the shaming. I don't mess around inside mathematics the way you can. I'm not qualified. I'm modest. You keep messing around, however, in areas you are not qualified to, ironically proving your point about the impotence of philosophy--it's much more than philosophy, but philosophy will do since you keep trying to dump on it--FOR YOU AND OTHER ASPIES who haven't found their modesty and correctly applied it to themselves.

--Brant

get modest; everybody has reason to be modest about many things and that modesty will in turn inform your areas of competence with grace

I hope you are kidding, Brant, since you rarely avoid commenting on a given thread subject -- be it art, politics, psychology, history, bad science (eg, AGW/Climate Change), medicine, war, economics, physics, cosmology ... I don't think it matters -- 'qualifications' -- since there is no body able to issue you your 'qualifications' to comment. I think you would rather have an open gate for all opinion, and then have reasonable, reasoned responses engaged thereafter.

Anyway, I think Bob was twitting Greg for making a sweeping generalization. As if one's birth-place (in South America) determines one's politico-religious stance. That kind of generalization is more like a magic fairy wand.

As for the Pope's new bicycle, his fat letter to the faithful is getting criticized from all sides ... I noted above only a couple of published reactions (from a cosmologist and a cognitive scientist). Here, for example, some reaction from the hoi polloi at Watts Up With That (the world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change):

Menicholas: If there is anything worse than the politicization of science, and the hijacking and corruption of the scientific process to further political views, then it would probably have to be doing the same in the name of religion.

I think the world has ample examples of what becomes of making anything related to science a religious issue.

The incredible irony, of the left now supporting the re-entry of religion into matters of sciencein effect to condone religious leaders telling people what the truth is and what to think and how to behave and manage their livesyou could not make this crap up!

cassidy421: The Church today is following popular scientific opinion; Pope Francis is following a political agenda thats not supported by most scientists and is based on lies and fraud and hate character asssassination of scientists that oppose it and censorship and professional retaliation against them; a violation of the second great commandment ; love your neighbor as yourself. Pope Francis is following an atheistic poitical agenda thats closer to Baal worship than Christianity, and that violates, among others, the 5th commandment.

justsayn: The apocalyptic environmentalists and socialist politicians, instead of celebrating and embracing the Catholics, should be wary. The churchs long imperial history of attaching themselves to other religions, blending the symbols and taking over the pulpit has been pretty successful. Their concern is souls not science. The Warmists doom might be strong enough that the Catholics feel threatened and they see a way to coop the movement and dip into the river of money currently flowing into the Gaia priesthood.

Allan MacRae: The last time the Catholic Church tried to control the climate, they did so by burning witches during the Little ice Age. It has been estimated that 40,000 to 50,000 innocents were tortured to death for witchcraft in Europe and the American colonies over several hundred years. This huge addition to the planets carbon footprint did little to alter the natural global cooling that destroyed crops and caused widespread starvation, disease and death.

Willis Eschenbach: I am deeply sorry to see the Pope so ill-advised, particularly because he seemed to start out his Papacy so well, and my guess is that he is a caring and decent human being but I guess you dont wear the funny hat and the ruby slippers for too long before hubris raises its ugly head and you start thinking that because you are Pope youre suddenly competent to advise the total and complete demolition and re-design of the worlds energy system.

Alec Rawls: This pope is an EVIL man. He looks at the world and calls it an immense pile of filth. And what is he talking about? Atmospheric CO2! The beginning of the food chain for all life on earth, which is at close to the lowest level in the history of the planet and hovers near the minimum necessary for life to exist.

A vile and ignorant COMMUNIST, a liberty-hating piece of moral trash. At a time when Christians are facing genocide throughout the Islamic world this pathetic far-left moron goes all in for thoroughly falsified phony-science because it offers him a chance to express his inner Fidel Castro and hate on liberty!

Edited June 23, 2015 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

William (#540)

When it comes to science I know basic principles but I'm not much good for discussing particulars scientifically, so I try to avoid that.

When it comes to higher math I might as well be the village idiot so I keep my lips zipped. I might say so an so was a great mathematician (Euler) but that's off someone else's evaluation and I acknowledge that it's not mine.

Aside from the fact that Bob's an Aspie and I'm not, that's his territory not mine. As for climate change, that's not science in the popular press--that's politics. You came with a very good rejoinder to what I said and I'm still trying to find time to get my head around that. If I don't reply you can consider it a concession.

As for all my opinions on all those other subjects, who else here on OL does as good a job of acknowledging being wrong when being demonstrably wrong? (On art, I say little about actual esthetics beyond personal taste.) Not saying it happens all the time or enough, but I try. I'm entitled to my opinions for I'm smart, I've lived a lot, I usually well know what I'm talking about. I'm neither a Jack of all trades nor the master of one, but, oh boy! You'll find me solidly inbetween. So, here's the basic test, you of any here are qualified to answer this question and are honest enough to do it: How much less or more valuable would this forum (OL) be if Brant stopped posting? One more thing: don't tell anybody your answer. (I'm not interested in the afterlife experience of hearing people standing over my open grave crying and saying, "He was such a good boy!," which was a 5-minute fantasy Nathaniel Branden had as a kid and laughed at as an adult telling the story.)

I know I'd miss Bob.

--Brant

BTW, I'm not threatening to stop posting for my ego-driven mind has it's own answer (but your ego is not involved that way), and I only--I sure do hope--threaten bad people or good people wanting to do bad things, mistakenly or not (Any way, I'm happy as I am here and when it comes to me I wanna be free to be me--right here in River City!)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I would miss you Brant.

That is, answering the question, of value to whom?

Michael

[Selene]

[Brant Gaede]

"Whom" is Michael? Anybody got a clue?

--Brant

fighting off dementia (I intend to win)

[moralist]

As if one's birth-place (in South America) determines one's politico-religious stance.

The Catholic church is presently leftist, so it stands to reason they'd elect a leftist as Pope to represent their values. Choosing Pope Francis is no surprise. He comes from an area with predominantly leftist parishioners so it's logical that he would represent their leftist values.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

As if one's birth-place (in South America) determines one's politico-religious stance.

The Catholic church is presently leftist, so it stands to reason they'd elect a leftist as Pope to represent their values. Choosing Pope Francis is no surprise. He comes from an area with predominantly leftist parishioners so it's logical that he would represent their leftist values.

Greg

After William wiped the floor with me--did he?--on greenhouse gasses--I expected nuance and sophistication, not mere devolvement into free will like Bob did. Ayn Rand in the Soviet Union--became an American. But what happened to most Russians? It's not just free will but what you do with it; and that only goes so far. Culturally I'm a WASP, but I don't believe in a Supreme Being. If I did I could convert to Catholicism, maybe any other monotheistic religion, even Islam. Culturally that would change me somewhat but I could never completely transcend my WASPist background, just as Rand couldn't give up all her Europeanism. Since I have no belief in a SB, I couldn't honestly "convert". My SB is reality. Period.

--Brant

a much better word than "determines" here is "influences"--or can--and matching up the Pope's position with the culture he came from is strong though not absolute correlation that implies, but does not prove, causation for true causation is more likely to be thinking than mere being out there with the cows (I just ended up not really understanding what I just said, but it seems good so it must be good enough for government work [or as my Dad once said, "Motel quality."])

[william.scherk]

As for all my opinions on all those other subjects, who else here on OL does as good a job of acknowledging being wrong when being demonstrably wrong? (On art, I say little about actual esthetics beyond personal taste.) Not saying it happens all the time or enough, but I try. I'm entitled to my opinions for I'm smart, I've lived a lot, I usually well know what I'm talking about. I'm neither a Jack of all trades nor the master of one, but, oh boy! You'll find me solidly inbetween. So, here's the basic test, you of any here are qualified to answer this question and are honest enough to do it: How much less or more valuable would this forum (OL) be if Brant stopped posting? One more thing: don't tell anybody your answer. (I'm not interested in the afterlife experience of hearing people standing over my open grave crying and saying, "He was such a good boy!," which was a 5-minute fantasy Nathaniel Branden had as a kid and laughed at as an adult telling the story.)

All good points, Brant, especially the bit about acknowledging 'wrong.' It's a mark of a righteous man that he knows how to be wrong -- gracefully -- and it's the mark of a rational man that he can go into a discussion appreciating not only that he might be wrong, but also appreciating just how he might be wrong. There are so many ways to arrive at wrong conclusions, it's a hell of a job to figure out biases that one holds, let alone correct for bias. (I do a lot of reading in this area ... cognitive biases abound, cultural biases abound) It is a struggle, but a good one, and one which always bears good fruit.

In some ways, I agree with the pith of Greg's remarks, and yet disagree with his determinism. I think it quite likely, once I understood the biography of the Pope, the influences of living in Argentina, under the Peronists and the neo-Peronists, and under the Justicialists, and knowing of his pastoral traditions as a young and middle-aged man -- once I understood his education and intellectual journey -- I would likely come to a similar conclusion: the Pope is a Catholic ...

But, at the same time, we (oops) have seen just how stupid is Greg's determinism in the matter of sexual orientation. It is senseless, contrary to fact, the equivalent of a magic fairy wand. So, I think he simplifies to the point of stupidity. Bitter fruit.

I value your contributions to OL, Brant, about sixty-five million times more than I do Greg's. I find him to be morally retarded, intellectually handicapped in this venue, and mostly a degrading influence on almost every discussion he enters -- because of his incorrigibility.

Most folks here are armed with reason and its adjuncts and tools, and understand that applied reason can lead to conclusions which one might not hold going in. Degenerates like Greg are none too willing to give up cherished incorrect assumptions. This is the mark of a mentally weak man, in my opinion.

I shall properly apologize to you backstage, should you need it. I was wrong to write something that could be taken as a personal attack or slight. I need to keep my eye on the ball ... may your lifespan reach beyond your family mean, and may you post until you are bored and sick of us all (and then still post some more!).

Edited June 24, 2015 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

Oh, I wasn't so offended needing an apology. I mean, you were nice about it.

I value Greg for his incorrigibility. It's a rock of a reference point. He actually says a lot of good stuff to go with the bad (and mediocre). Take the good; leave the rest.

At first he got under my skin too much, especially his telling me about me in ways he could not know. He toned that down a little, especially about me.

There's no more value to me from him save for entertainment--that counts for a lot--for he's gone into continuous repetition mode. You have to call him out on some things, though, or implicitly sanction them. I admit he's like a college prof teaching his view of being human 101 and you have to repeat his class every semester until you graduate.

You'd be amazed at the increase in the three-year graduation rate. Either the grads would want to get away from him or go right out and use what he taught them. There'd be an increase in dropouts too. Same reasons. Most in college today are wasting their time and money. It costs way too much, too, thanks to all that "student aid" designed to foister debt slavery on the "educated" for the betterment of the institution and its administrators, who get fat salaries and retirement checks thanks to the kids they exploit and "educate."

--Brant

[Selene]

At first he got under my skin too much, especially his telling me about me in ways he could not know. He toned that down a little, especially about me.

He actually says a lot of good stuff to go with the bad (and mediocre). Take the good; leave the rest.

Yep...

Mathew 3:12...

"His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

[moralist]

I value Greg for his incorrigibility. It's a rock of a reference point.

...and I use that very same rock as my own reference point.

it is not an intellectual rock. it is not an emotional rock. Although it affects both thought and emotion. I've tested it many times in my own life, and by my own direct personal experience it works every time. That point of reference has shown the way to live in the midst of evil of this world... and yet not to be a part of it. It has shown me how to work to earn the right to enjoy all of the freedoms of being an American... right here and right now... regardless of what anyone else does. This point of reference has side effects. One is that it sets me free from blaming others... because freedom is not dependent upon what others do.

It cannot fail me.

I can only fail it.

Greg