Those terrible twins of climate change, CO2 and H2O

One of the most commonly held misconceptions about the man-made global warming hypothesis is that temperatures must increase every year and evenly over the world. No one knowledgable about climate issues would seriously claim that, so it’s an obvious strawman.  The question is, why do temperatures fluctuate so much and does global warming explain this? Indeed it does!

Misdefining terms for purposes of propaganda

This is the direct sequel to http://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2010/06/24/atheism-is-a-dogma-get-over-it/

Prior to the 1990s, it was clear to me what atheism, atheists,  agnosticism,  agnostics, dogma, and fanaticism were. That’s because we had clear and logically consistent definitions of those words. They were found in reliable dictionaries like Webster’s New World Dictionary. Here are the definitions I found in the 1975 edition, which I still own and use.

atheism: “the belief that there is no God”. (That’s the ONLY definition in the book.)

agnostic: “a person who beleives that one cannot know whether or not there is a God or an ultimate cause, or anything beyond material phenomena.” (The ONLY definition in the book.)

dogma: “a positive, arrogant assertion of opinion.” (One of several definitions, and it is not implied that dogmas must always be religious in nature.)

fanaticism: “excessive and unreasonable zeal” (Again, it is not specified that only religion can produce fanatics.)

Why more people should join the Unitarian Universalists

A symbol of the Unitarian Universalist Association

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First, take a look at this video:

For more details, see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

Over 30,000 divisions?! Remember this warning from Jesus himself: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.” (Matthew 12:25) If his word is true, then the Church is useless. It has been divided against itself since at least 1054 AD, when there was a schism between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. The leaders of the two factions actually excommunicated each other!

A question of incest

I just got a comment from someone named Sally. Rather than approve it where it was placed, I will copy and paste it here, along with the identifying information on it, and attempt to respond to its  points in red.

Sally
sallyfancy@hotmail.com
200.127.106.252

I have a question for you, please don’t consider that I’m attacking you.

Usually when someone opens with something like that, he is about to make a statement that really IS an attack. 

I like how you expose ignorants and bigots in this blog, but I fail to notice something important now you’re bringing up the subject of homophobia. As a bisexual woman myself in a same-sex long term relationship, I am definitely against homophobia, and as a liberal person I condemn any kind of discrimination. I’m also agnostic, so I don’t refrain from critizing religions. So far I guess we pretty much agree in our views, but I haven’t seen you (maybe you did and I’m not aware) critizing the criminalization of consensual incest between adults.

Of course, she would equate the prohibition of incest with the prohibition of homosexuality, since both were condemned in the Bible and in all Abrahamic religions. But just because the Bible condemns something doesn’t make that thing good for atheists to accept. Unless you also think atheists should also accept stealing and murder.

Please note that I’m not talking about incestuous rape or incestuous abuse of minors, only consensual incest and between consenting adults. I’m sure you’re aware that consenting adults involved in consensual incestuous relationships are going to jail, punished by archaic laws because of a victimless crime like this.

I wonder if she saw my blog entries about prostitution. But even prostitution is not the same as incest, just as homosexuality is not the same as incest.

I’m not incestuous myself nor planning to ever be, but seeing how a good number of people is threatened with a long imprisonment (until 14 years in Canada, for example) only for loving a person of their family causes me too much indignation, even more noting that almost none of these self-avowed liberal activists seem to care or speak in their favour.

Loving a family member? Sorry, but in fact I do not equate “love” with having sex. If you do, I think you have some serious issues.

Please, if you really hate hypocrisy and bigotry this much, I encourage you to show support to consenting incestuous adults, they deserve to live and love in freedom.

Hypocrisy is when you profess a system of values that you fail to live up to in practice. Since I have never professed support for legalizing incest, I would not be a hypocrite. As for bigotry, that charge would make sense only if it could be proven that incest was something as fundamental to human nature as skin color. All the evidence indicates just the opposite. Unlike homosexuals, who are compelled by their nature to engage in sexual relations with members of their own gender, there is no evidence that people who practice incest are obeying some natural instinct. In most cases, there are plenty of other possible mates for the incestuous partners to avoid having sex with each other.

And I beg you not to perpetuate the offensive “deformed offspring” myth, deformed is NEVER an aceptable [sic] word to qualify a human being. 

Why not? It’s only descriptive of the person’s physical nature. It’s not a racial slur like the N-word is for black people of African descent.

Yes, disabled children may be born from incestuous couples, but most of consenting incestuous couples are NOT interested in having offspring and even if they can’t help loving a relative they’re consciously against inbreeding, besides sex is not longer only for procreation purposes (my partner and I are both women and still have sex, that’s pretty much self-explanatory), and contraceptives and sterilization exist for a good reason.

You earlier called the issue of “deformed offspring” a myth, then admitted it is not so. It seems interesting that you try to make incest more palatable by claiming that incestuous couples need not have children, but in fact there are cases of such couples who do, and often those children ARE deformed. Indeed, ONE such child resulting from such a union would be one too many!

Consensual incest between adults cause no harm to anybody, people shouldn’t be punished for loving or having sex with another consenting adult. Please, help us end the hatred and spread the tolerance, it’s very much appreciated.

Incest is harmful because it limits genetic diversity in the offspring that result from it, and thus it negates the most obvious evolutionary benefits of sexual reproduction, indeed making it pointless.  The accumulation of recessive genetic mutations results in a inbred line being weakened over time. Consider this sad case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding#Royalty_and_nobility

• One of the most famous example of a genetic disorder aggravated by royal family intermarriage was the House of Habsburg, which inmarried particularly often. Famous in this case is the Habsburger (Unter) Lippe (Habsburg jaw/Habsburg lip/”Austrian lip”) (mandibular prognathism), typical for many Habsburg relatives over a period of six centuries.^[24] The condition progressed through the generations to the point that the last of the Spanish Habsburgs, Charles II of Spain, could not properly chew his food.^[25]
• Besides the jaw deformity, Charles II also had a huge number of other genetic physical, intellectual, sexual, and emotional problems. It is speculated that the simultaneous occurrence in Charles II of two different genetic disorders: combined pituitary hormone deficiency and distal renal tubular acidosis could explain most of the complex clinical profile of this king, including his impotence/infertility which in the last instance led to the extinction of the dynasty.

 

And it’s not just humans that are affected badly by inbreeding. Animals like dogs in Japan have also suffered as well!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/28/business/28dogs.html?pagewanted=all

Rare dogs are highly prized here, and can set buyers back more than $10,000. But the real problem is what often arrives in the same litter: genetically defective sister and brother puppies born with missing paws or faces lacking eyes and a nose.

There have been dogs with brain disorders so severe that they spent all day running in circles, and others with bones so frail they dissolved in their bodies. Many carry hidden diseases that crop up years later, veterinarians and breeders say.

Kiyomi Miyauchi was heartbroken to discover this after one of two Boston terriers she bought years ago suddenly collapsed last year into spasms on the living room floor and died. In March, one of its puppies died the same way; another went blind.

Ms. Miyauchi stumbled across a widespread problem here that is only starting to get attention. Rampant inbreeding has given Japanese dogs some of the highest rates of genetic defects in the world, sometimes four times higher than in the United States and Europe. 

<snip>

Hirofumi Sasaki, a pet store owner in the western city of Hiroshima, has seen so many defective dogs that last year he converted an old bar into a hospice to care for them. So far he has taken in 32 dogs, though only 12 have survived.

One is Keika, a deaf 1-year-old female dachshund with eyes that wander aimlessly. Her breeder was originally selling her for about $7,500 because she is half-white, a rare trait in dachshunds.

“That is an unnatural color, like a person with blue skin,” Mr. Sasaki said.

The breeder told Mr. Sasaki that he had bred a dog with three generations of offspring — in human terms, first with its daughter, then a granddaughter and then a great-granddaughter — until Keika was born. The other four puppies in the litter were so hideously deformed that they were killed right after birth. 

So, no, I will NOT support legalizing incest. I don’t want to see any more people like Charles II or those unfortunate puppies in the future.

What goes around comes around to climate denialists

The Heartland Institute (HI), a think tank devoted to “pro-business” policies and climate change denialism, has suffered its own embarrassing data breach, simular to what happened with Climategate to some climatologists. The results have been most amusing and show clearly the hypocritical nature of the HI.

http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute-exposed-internal-documents-unmask-heart-climate-denial-machine

http://www.desmogblog.com/mashey-report-confirms-heartland-s-manipulation-exposes-singer-s-deception

http://www.desmogblog.com/climategate-victims-chide-heartland-double-standard

http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-demands-desmogblog-remove-climate-strategy-document

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html

BTW, we never did find out who leaked the stolen e-mails that started the Climategate uproar, did we?

Related articles

• Heartland Institute takes money from Kochs, gives it to deniers (grist.org)
• Heartland Mystery Donor to be Unmasked? (climatecrocks.com)
• Breaking news: A look behind the curtain of the Heartland Institute’s climate change spin (blogs.discovermagazine.com)
• Peter Gleick: The Origin of the Heartland Documents (littlegreenfootballs.com)

Pete Hoekstra, a bigoted idiot!

During the television broadcast of this years SuperBowl, former Congressman Pete Hoekstra had the gall to put out a ridiculous commercial attacking his opponent in the 2012 U. S. Senate race, Debbie Stabenow. It has since been removed from Hoekstra’s YouTube account.

Fortunately, another person made a copy of that video with an explanation for how stupid it really was:

Feel free to comment there.

Indeed, Republicans have actually been the biggest “spend it now” lunatics since Reagan was President. We had a chance to start paying off the U. S. public debt under Clinton, but Bush Jr ruined it with his absurd tax cuts for the rich! Pete Hoekstra is a LIAR!

Oh, and when he was a Congressman, and even Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, he committed some blunders which should have got him removed from that Committee, if not expelled from Congress outright!

Don’t allow this bastard to come anywhere near the U. S. Senate! We already had a disgusting racist, Jesse Helms, in the Senate for decades. We don’t need another!

Some children should not post on Facebook…

…..or own a laptop, or even have any fancy electronics at all, not if they tend to libel their own parents the way the girl did in this video!

However, I would not have shot out the girl’s laptop; that’s a waste of resources. What I would have done was to simply take it away from her and send her hundreds or even thousands of miles away to a boarding school with nothing electronic, not even a cell phone, to enable her to have any contact with her friends. Because without the support of her peers back home, her rebellious phase would probably be snuffed out quickly.

Reform the U N Security Council!

UN Resolutions vetoed by permenant members of the Security Council

The structure of the United Nations (UN) reflects the political realities shortly after World War II. Since that war ended nearly three generations ago, it’s time for a change in the UN, starting with its Security Council. Until such reforms are made, it will only be a laughingstock for decades to come.

There are five permanent members of that Council: The United States, Russia, France, Great Britain, and China. These have veto power over all Council decisions. I would recommend that the veto power within the Council be done away with; it only makes paralysis of the Council more likely than not. I would also recommend that Germany, Japan, India, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and Brazil be made permanent members of the Council, with at least 20 others subject to election. The number of nations on the Security Council must always be a prime number to prevent tie votes. Only the UN Secretary-General could veto a UN resolution, but his veto could still be overridden by a two-thirds majority vote of the Security Council. In any case, no single nation should have the power to veto a resolution, because as the chart above shows, the Soviet Union abused that power more than any other nation in the early years of the UN. One wonders how many innocent people died in wars or armed uprisings of one kind or another because of this.

Related articles

• Reforming the UN Security Council? ¡Ay Dios Mio! (diplomaticscrutiny.com)
• Russia to veto Western-backed SC resolution on Syria (laaska.wordpress.com)

Liberty and Socialism, keeping it simple

Liberty means nothing if you are starving, homeless and in rags. Remember that when some right-wing bigot shrieks about socialists taking away your rights. Since socialism is an ECONOMIC policy, it cannot take away ANY rights as defined in the U S Consitution. But a government under FASCISM will! Fascists WILL leave you to starve so you will give up your liberty; socialists will not!

A stupid way to protest (NSFW)

As much as I support the Occupy Wall Street protests and similar movements in America and even around the world, I do have my limits of tolerance to the tactics of protesters. I thought, for example, that Jane Fonda should have been charged with treason for her meeting with the North Vietnamese as a way of protesting America’s involvement in the Vietnam War.

But at least she was classy about it. These women in Ukraine were not!

A Mormon for President?

Mitt Romney is shaping up to be the Republican front-runner for President. By all accounts and

Mitt Romney

appearances, he should be the ideal President candidate for conservatives: he is a successful businessman, he managed the state of  Massachusetts as governor according to consistent conservative principles, and he even managed the Salt Lake City winter Olympics, making it a huge success.

There’s just one problem: he is a Mormon. And for members of the Religious Right, which is dominated by orthodox Christians, that can be a stumbling block. Of course, it would have been better for the credibility of the conservatives if they had never included the Religious Right; using religious matters to judge people and policies in our government violates the spirit if not the letter of church-state separation.

When I was a Baptist, there was a film shown at my church titled “The God Makers” which depicted Mormonism as a cult infested with pagan elements. This is ironic; Jews could say similar things about Christianity itself. Today, having rejected Christianity, I find those arguments about Mormonism pointless, but I do have my own reasons to oppose any political influence the Church of  Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints may have:

http://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/the-book-of-mormon-is-a-p-o-s/

http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-10-27/bay-area/17137948_1_mormons-salt-lake-city-based-church-ballot-measure

Racism, homophobia, and whatever other forms of bigotry the Mormon Church may endorse should be eradicated from secular politics in America.  Nobody who would take the Book of Mormon seriously as scripture should be trusted to run the world’s most powerful democracy. We should have some standards for truth, logic, and ethics from our leaders. Thus, I will never vote for a Mormon for President, even if he was not a Republican.

2011 in review

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2011 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

The concert hall at the Syndey Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 20,000 times in 2011. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 7 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.

Click here to see the complete report.

Some thoughts on World of Warcraft

Image via Wikipedia

In August of this year, I was looking into Facebook like I did almost every day, and I saw this ad that said “World of Warcraft – Free to play up to level 20″. Up until this time, I’d had no interest in any MMO games, thinking they were just for teens. I’d read about Everquest, but my reluctance to pay for games like that made me miss out on what could have been some great experiences.

Prior to seeing that ad, I saw these videos:

Even though World of Warcraft was never mentioned, they sparked my interest in the game. The Facebook ad only pushed me to take the plunge I otherwise never would have.

Once I was in the game, I proceeded to experiment with different races and classes of characters, but the one I came to love playing with the most was a Gnome warrior I named Bichorak.

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/character/lothar/Bichorak/simple

Then in October, I paid for an upgrade to the game and played it more than ever. The limited exposure to the game from the trial account had only made me eagar to get more from it.

Some critical thoughts on the game and concepts related to it:

1. This game IS addictive, but so can anything be that triggers pleasure to the body and mind, so to be consistent we would have to ban literally everything, including things that are essential to life, like sex and food. The “Drug Wars” waged by law enforcement over several decades has been a total waste of time, money, and lives and should be ended. Possession and use of a substance shouldn’t be banned; only if its use actually leads to harm of another person should legal action be taken.
2. At first glance, the game seems to be all about violence and hatred between races. But in fact the actual theme of the World of Warcraft storylines is redemption from the mistakes of the past. ALL races have potential for both good and evil.
3. Likewise, there is no point to stereotyping game players. I met some sweet people there who were very helpful to me, often asking nothing in return. And I also met some real jerks too. Inspired by the help I got as a new player, I in turn began helping others that were of lower levels once I reached the higher levels with my main character.
4. Children who play the game soon learn the value of discipline, cooperation, and following orders. While playing solo is perfectly doable, the greatest rewards are for those who are willing to join groups and fight in dungeons, which provide richer loot and experience.
5. Nothing lasts forever. A decade ago, Everquest was the greatest MMO ever. But it was overthrown by World of Warcraft, which is very simular in concept to Everquest. Perhaps a decade from now, something will overthrow WoW.
6. The storylines of WoW are as rich and compelling as those of any other mythology….including those of the ancient Greeks and of modern religions like Judaism and Christianity. I can’t help but wonder if most of the stories in the Bible began merely as tales told for entertaiment, but hundreds of years later were mistaken for literal truth.

Related articles

• Why do you have to pay in World of Warcraft (wiki.answers.com)

Fisherman robbed by our own government!

Imagine my shock when I read this:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/man-catches-881-pound-tuna-seized-feds-194650751.html

Man catches 881-pound tuna, seized by feds

A Massachusetts fisherman pulled in an 881-pound tuna this week only to have the federal authorities take it away. It sounds like a libertarian twist on the classic novella by Ernest Hemingway, The Old Man and the Sea, but for Carlos Rafael, the saga is completely true.

Rafael and his crew were using nets to catch bottom-dwellers when they inadvertently snagged the giant tuna. However, federal fishery enforcement agents took control of the behemoth when the boat returned to port. The reason for the seizure was procedural: While Rafael had the appropriate permits, fishermen are only allowed to catch tuna with a rod and reel.

It would seem that unlike the fictional New England shark hunters in Jaws, Rafael didn’t need a bigger boat, just a better permit.

In an interview with the Standard-Times of New Bedford, Rafael disputes the claims from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA)  enforcement division that the humungous tuna was trawled from the bottom of the Atlantic. “They didn’t catch that fish on the bottom,” he said. “They probably got it in the mid-water when they were setting out and it just got corralled in the net. That only happens once in a blue moon.”

And while Rafael is denied the mother of all fish stories, the federal impoundment of his catch also means he’s probably losing out on a giant payday. A 754-pound tuna recently sold for nearly $396,000. NOAA regulators do not share any of the proceeds from the fish’s eventual sale with a fisherman found in violation of federal rules.

“They said it had to be caught with rod and reel,” a frustrated Rafael said. “We didn’t try to hide anything. We did everything by the book. Nobody ever told me we couldn’t catch it with a net.”

Rafael says he has meticulously prepared for a giant catch like this, purchasing 15 tuna permits over the past four years for his groundfish boats. He even immediately called a “bluefin tuna hot line” (yes, such things exist) to report his catch. “I wanted to sell the fish while it was fresh instead of letting it age on the boat,” he said. “It was a beautiful fish.”

Proceeds of the sale from the fish will be held in an account until the case is resolved, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Law Enforcement. “The matter is still under investigation,” said Monica Allen, deputy director with NOAA Fisheries public affairs. “If it’s determined that there has been a violation, the money will go into the asset forfeiture fund.”

This is insane! The only reason to restrict fishing procedures is if they are making fish or other water organisms in danger of extinction. Is there ANY evidence that tuna is endangered? That wasn’t even mentioned in the article above.

Give the man back his fish, NOAA, and don’t ever pull such a despicable stunt again!

Herman Cain, God, and black Republicans

I’ve not been blogging much lately, mainly because I’ve been spending much of my free time since April (1) looking for a job and (2) playing World of Warcraft. A blog entry about World of Warcraft will be produced later, but other issues must be dealt with first.

First, read this article:

http://news.yahoo.com/cain-says-god-persuaded-him-run-president-204548374.html

 

Cain says God persuaded him to run for president

ATLANTA (AP) — Republican Herman Cain said God convinced him to enter the race for president, comparing himself to Moses: “‘You’ve got the wrong man, Lord. Are you sure?’”

The Georgia business executive played up his faith Saturday after battling sexual harassment allegations for two weeks, trying to shift the conversation to religion, an issue vital to conservative Republicans, especially in the South.

In a speech Saturday to a national meeting of young Republicans, Cain said the Lord persuaded him after much prayer.

“That’s when I prayed and prayed and prayed. I’m a man of faith — I had to do a lot of praying for this one, more praying than I’ve ever done before in my life,” Cain said. “And when I finally realized that it was God saying that this is what I needed to do, I was like Moses. ‘You’ve got the wrong man, Lord. Are you sure?’”

Once he made the decision, Cain said, he did not look back.

Four women have now accused Cain of sexually harassing them when he led the National Restaurant Association more than a decade ago. Cain, who has denied wrongdoing, was silent about the allegations and did not take reporters’ questions.

Cain isn’t the first to say God prodded him toward a campaign. Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s wife, Anita, has said she felt God was speaking to her about the race, adding that her husband needed to see a “burning bush,” a Biblical reference to God’s first appearance to Moses.

During his speech, Cain also criticized President Barack Obama for canceling the space shuttle program — a decision actually made by President George W. Bush — as NASA shifts its focus on travel farther from Earth’s orbit.

“I can tell you that as president of the United States, we are not going to bum a ride to outer space with Russia,” Cain said to loud applause. “We’re going to regain our rightful place in terms of technology, space technology.”

Cain was talking about U.S. plans, now that the space shuttle is retired, to use Russian rockets to send astronauts to the International Space Station. In the meantime, NASA is focused on explorations deeper in space.

It was Bush who decided in 2004 to retire the space shuttle program. The Republican president still supported sending astronauts to the moon and Mars.

Obama, once in office, dropped the goal of a moon mission. Instead, NASA has plans to build a giant rocket capable of sending astronauts to an asteroid and eventually Mars. It wants to outsource to private companies the task of ferrying astronauts and cargo to the space station — a job previously performed by the space shuttle.

Until private companies are ready, NASA will keep buying seats on Russian Soyuz capsules to get astronauts to the space station. The cost per person to fly on a Soyuz is expected to rise from $56 million to $63 million, which is still cheaper than flying on the shuttle.

Cain spoke in advance of a Republican debate Saturday in South Carolina focused on foreign policy.

Cain is an idiot! If he thinks dragging God into his campaign is going to save it after being accused of sexual misconduct, he should talk to some Catholic priests who have been convicted of sexually abusing children. Not to mention getting a basic fact about the Space Shuttle cancellation wrong!

And while you can criticize those women for not revealing their claims until after Cain began running for President, the simple fact that Cain took such desperate measures to do damage control shows he is losing credibility with all but the most delusional religious bigots.

And why is there so much media hype about Herman Cain anyway? I think just because he is a Black Republican. Indeed, it seems the Republicans have been struggling ever since Obama became President to project the image of rejecting racism. But combating racism is more than just having a few token black people in your party; it’s  about really doing what’s best for both black and while people in general. That the Republicans have not been doing.

I remember when George Bush Sr was President and he said he was against racial quotas for helping more black people get jobs and education. But he proved to be a total hypocrite when the venerable Thurgood Marshall, who had been a prominent civil rights activist in the 1960s and later a Supreme Court Justice, retired from the bench. Bush Sr then appointed to replace Marshall with…..another black man, Clarence Thomas. And then there was the uproar over Anita Hill and her accusations of sexual harassment against Thomas. Despite this, Thomas got on the court and has been a consistently conservative justice ever since, just as the Republicans wanted.

Being black means absolutely nothing if you are selling out and backstabbing most of your own race to get yourself ahead, that’s for sure!

With Barack Obama, the first black man to become President of the USA, the Republicans countered by electing Micheal Steele, another black man, as Republican National Committee Chairperson. But Steele proved to be so incompetent and controversial that he was replaced this year by a white man, Reince Priebus. Steele later made appearances on the Rachel Maddow Show of MSNBC as a political commentator. Poor fellow!

This nonsense has to stop. It is only tolerated because so many people are too ignorant to understand how stupid it is.

Climate “skeptic” attempting damage control after being discredited

It should have been obvious from the 1990s onward that global warming was indeed real and that human activities were chiefly to blame, but many who were entrenched in conservative or libertarian political positions found those conclusions offensive and a threat to their interests, hence the ever-present attacks by climate change “skeptics” who would do everything they could to cast doubt on the evidence regarding the issue. They did that instead of examining their political positions, which a true skeptic should have done!

Now one of them, Richard Muller, has changed sides, but is still trying to justify his earlier attitude. That’s an example of a “notpology“, which is dishonest.

http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-real-142616605.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.

The study of the world’s surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of “Climategate,” a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.

<snip>

“The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago,” Muller said in a telephone interview. “And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias.”

Muller said that he came into the study “with a proper skepticism,” something scientists “should always have. I was somewhat bothered by the fact that there was not enough skepticism” before.  (Emphasis mine)

That is bullcrap. If Muller was wrong before, he was certainly wrong a decade ago, so why not just say that and leave his ego out of it? Scientists, including proponents of the man-made global warming hypothesis, have to be responsible skeptics to do their work at all and prove it by subjecting their findings to peer review, and it was the peer review process that made that hypothesis credible in the first place. Saying otherwise as Muller is doing is slander.

http://www.dictionaryslang.com/notpology

An apology that doesnt ACTUALLY apologise, but is simply given to make the evil person LOOK/feel better.

Science as a genuine source of spirituality

Science and religion are so often considered rivals that it doesn’t occur to many people that the deepest form of spirituality can be formed from modern scientific knowledge. This video by Symphony of Science illustrates that idea brilliantly:

Enough said! Just watch and enjoy this, then follow the link above to see more videos!

Related articles

• A quantum Symphony of Science | Bad Astronomy (blogs.discovermagazine.com)
• Symphony of Science: the Quantum World! (geeksaresexy.net)
• Science and religion do mix (personspiritresearch.wordpress.com)
• Symphony of Science Video of the Day (geeks.thedailywh.at)
• How scientists settle conflict between religion and science (news.bioscholar.com)

Angie Jackson on a tirade

The following are screenshots of a woman who clearly was going off the deep end of drama queendom. Since she made this a public matter on her own Facebook wall, I feel no shame in exposing her here.

After seeing all this, I unfriended and blocked her.  Research then led me to an explanation for Angie’s strange behavior:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histrionic_personality_disorder

Reviving the spirit of civil disobedience

Image via Wikipedia

Unitarian Universalists have recently started an effort to engage in the sort of civil disobedience that civil rights activists like Martin Luther King Jr and his followers did in the 1950s and 60s, and Mohandas Ghandi did in India a generation earlier.

http://www.uuworld.org/news/articles/178994.shtml

Utah UU convicted for environmental activism

Federal jury faults Tim DeChristopher for blocking auction of oil and gases leases.
By Donald E. Skinner
3.7.11

Environmental activist Tim DeChristopher, a member of First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City, Utah, was convicted Thursday of two felony counts of disrupting a federal auction of oil and gas leases more than two years ago. He faces up to ten years in prison.

DeChristopher made false bids of close to $1.8 million for more than a dozen properties in Utah during a Dec. 19, 2008, Bureau of Land Management auction, in an effort to block development near Arches and Canyonlands National Parks and bring attention to the global climate crisis.

The jury deliberated nearly five hours after the four-day trial. Sentencing is scheduled for June. Prosecutors said in a news conference they would not seek the maximum penalty.

DeChristopher’s supporters on Thursday worked to put the best possible face on the verdict. “This is a beginning, not the end,” said Joan Gregory, First Unitarian’s Environmental Ministry coordinator. “We are looking at this as a turning point in the fight for climate justice. This verdict will not stop us.”

<snip>

After the verdict, DeChristopher told his supporters, “We know that now I’ll have to go to prison. We know now that’s the reality, but that’s just the job I have to do. And many before me have gone to jail . . . If we’re going to achieve our vision, many after me will have to join me as well.”

Said Gregory, “What Tim wants, what we all want, is for everyone, wherever they live, to feel the urgency and be empowered by Tim’s actions and take actions in their own communities. This may have been a guilty verdict, but we have a very positive message to send out into the world. We need to take responsibility for change.”

And it’s not just a few of the rank and file members doing this!

http://www.uua.org/news/pressroom/pressreleases/186880.shtml

UUA President Responds to Sentence in Arizona Protest Trial

August 23, 2011

(Boston, MA) The Rev. Peter Morales, president of the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA), was convicted August 5, 2011, on misdemeanor charges stemming from his nonviolent civil disobedience in Phoenix, Ariz., in July 2011.

Rev. Morales was arrested while protesting Arizona’s anti-immigrant legislation, SB 1070. Today, August 23, 2011, his sentence was announced in Maricopa County court. For his act of conscience, he received a sentence of one day in jail, with credit for the one day already served.

Rev. Morales released the following statement upon hearing of his sentence:

“While my trial has finally ended, my determination to oppose Arizona’s SB 1070 and the inhumane practices of Sheriff Joe Arpaio is stronger than ever.

“As people of faith, we are called to oppose injustice and help protect the most vulnerable among us. We cannot turn a blind eye to the inhumane immigration enforcement practices of Sheriff Arpaio, nor should we accept similar policies in other parts of our country.

“We Unitarian Universalists will continue to stand on the side of love against such legislation and the anti-immigrant sentiment it represents. We look forward to an opportunity to witness publicly against such injustices at our Justice General Assembly in Phoenix in 2012.”

The UUA is a faith community of more than 1,000 congregations that bring to the world a vision of religious freedom, tolerance and social justice. For more information, please visit our online press room.

And the movement is spreading like a virus!

http://www.uuworld.org/news/articles/186523.shtml

Tar Sands Action inspired by a UU’s civil disobedience

A proposed pipeline could be ‘game over’ for climate change, say environmentalists.
By Donald E. Skinner
8.15.11

In late August, Barbara Ford will cross the country from her home in Portland, Ore., with several other members of that city’s First Unitarian Church. They’re headed for Washington, D.C., to participate in a large public witness event calling attention to the threat of global climate change.

Religious activists and organizations are gathering August 29 outside the White House as part of a two-week protest called Tar Sands Action, which is aimed at pressuring President Obama to reject a proposed oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf Coast. The proposed Keystone XL pipeline would carry oil extracted from clay and other materials in the tar sands region of Alberta. Environmental groups describe tar sands oil as one of the dirtiest fuels on earth, resulting in higher emissions during the refining process. Investing in tar sands oil will delay investment in clean and safe alternatives, environmentalists add.

Construction of the pipeline requires the signature of President Obama. The Tar Sands Action, which will extend from August 20 through September 3, is aimed at convincing him to not approve it.

“I’ve been feeling for the past five years that civil disobedience was going to be necessary in the climate movement,” said Ford, a former chair of the Unitarian Universalist Ministry for Earth, an independent organization that works closely with the Unitarian Universalist Association on environmental justice issues. “It seems clear we can’t count on our government to do the right thing without our influence. To me, we’re at a similar crossroads as the civil rights movement was in the 1960s. There is no choice but to step forth and work for justice. We all need to do something besides recycling. This is my opportunity.”

The Tar Sands Action is the latest in a series of public witness events that have grown, at least in part, out of the arrest and conviction of Unitarian Universalist Tim DeChristopher, a 29-year-old climate activist, for disrupting a Bureau of Land Management oil and gas lease auction in 2008 in Salt Lake City. Last month he was sentenced to two years in prison. DeChristopher’s actions have inspired UUs and many others across the country, and have caused them to take to the streets in pursuit of climate justice.

Five members of his congregation, First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City, were arrested in Washington in April in a protest against energy policies as part of the Power Shift 2011 energy and climate conference. They went as part of a group DeChristopher formed, Peaceful Uprising. Other UUs took part in a march across West Virginia in June to raise awareness of mountaintop removal mining. They cited DeChristopher’s actions as a reason for their own. When DeChristopher was sentenced, 26 people were arrested outside the courthouse.

Tar Sands Action was organized by Peaceful Uprising. DeChristopher is in prison, but his impact is still being felt.

What’s going on? Why are UUs doing these things now? The answer, quite simply, is that in the face of the almost total corporate domination of our politics made possible by that contemptible Citizens United decision by the U S Supreme Court, rejecting and physically fighting back against unjust and dishonorable governmental and corporate policies that are not in the best interests of the people have become fashionable once more, just as they were 40 to 50 years ago. And a possible side effect of these efforts will be more  people seeing the Unitarian Universalist Association and its churches as the organization to join for finding more progressive social and environmental activists. After all, if it had not been for those stupid Jim Crow racist policies of the southern states, would most of us even know who Martin Luther King Jr was? UUs marched alongside him too.

Related articles

• Tim DeChristopher’s Court Speech: ‘This Is What Patriotism Looks Like’ (via Food Freedom) (wilderside.wordpress.com)
• Tim DeChristopher supporters issue oil protest ‘call to action’ (revolutionwithoutborder.org)
• The Sentencing of Tim DeChristopher Highlights the Conflict Between the People and Corporate-Government (susansayler.wordpress.com)
• Tim DeChristopher supporters issue oil protest ‘call to action’ (guardian.co.uk)
• 1 day in jail for Arizona immigration protesters (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

The Earth’s core irony of anti-Muslim bigotry in Europe

Take a look at this video:

There are several issues here that the video does not address.

First, Islamic immigrants who come to a Western nation tend to be more moderate in their views even upon arrival, and their children and grandchildren may become even more liberal in turn. The only reason why some Muslims may become radicalized later is because they are treated as second-class citizens in a country they were born in even though they are Muslim.

Second, immigrants are allowed into a European country because its native population is falling or not growing fast enough already, and such a situation results in workers becoming more valued for their labor, thus labor movements become stronger and workers’ wages will increase, making it harder for business owners to get extremely rich. To counter this, corporations that dominate an industry will seek to increase the workers’ population through encouraging immigration. But doing this means introducing new people with different cultures. And this is a problem? Only for bigots.

Third, European nations seemed to have no problem invading and taking over Islamic parts of the world in the past. In particular, France not only conquered areas like Algeria and Tunisia, it legally made Algeria a part of France, not just a colony, and the Algerians had to fight long and hard to throw off French rule.

Note that immigration of Latinos to the United States is also mentioned in the video. Bigotry against Hispanic culture also fuels immigration restrictions in the USA. Also, the USA conquered and still holds land once controlled by Mexico.

You cannot take in millions of people to lower workers’ value, then turn around and scream about those workers being different from you. That sort of crock needs to be put down.

If you expel the Muslims from Europe, then the workers remaining will demand greater wages because there are fewer of them. Are you prepared to pay them more?

If you keep the Muslims in Europe, then treat them as equals, and accept that your demographics will change.

Also, people raised in Muslim families do not necessarily stay Muslim forever. There are plenty of former Muslims:

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/

http://formermuslimsunited.org/

Need I also mention that the idea that a culture will die out because its population growth drops and reverses itself is bull$#it? You can have a culture evolving and prospering no matter what the size of the families that make it up. You just pass on that culture to the fewer children you have, period.

The Universal House of the International Teaching Center of Justice

Image by Adib Roy via Flickr

This ironic title above refers to the incestuous relationship that has recently been established between two major bodies of the Baha’i Administrative Order (BAO) : The Universal House of Justice (UHJ) and the International Teaching Center (ITC).  The former is the supreme governing body of the BAO, while the latter’s membership is appointed by the UHJ. The bureaucratic nature of this system is illustrated by the “alphabet soup” I used here, much like that of American governmental institutions. Note also that the buildings of the Baha’i World Center look a lot like the governmental buildings in Washington, D. C. Would you call this spiritual?

When the UHJ was first established in 1963, its membership included former members of the International Baha’i Council (these had been appointed by Shoghi Effendi) and members of various National Spiritual Assemblies.  Later, the UHJ established the ITC, intended to take the place of the dwindling Hands of the Cause of God. Over several decades, however, more and more members of the UHJ have tended to come from the ITC, until today, ALL the UHJ members were elected from the ITC’s membership, which was appointed by the UHJ previously. This is known as a “feedback loop”. The result is a system that is by nature extremely conservative and not open to new ideas that could allow it to adapt to changing circumstances.

This is truly no better than the Roman Catholic Church, in which the Popes are elected by the College of Cardinals, and these Cardinals are themselves appointed by the previous Popes!

The law is closing in on David Mabus!

David Mabus aka Dennis Markuze, is a Canadian lunatic who for years has been attacking atheists and scientists in every public forum he could reach, and getting banned for it. His first target was James Randi and he has expanded his list of targets over the years to anyone who appears to reject theism. He even attacked me on my blog a couple of times. He is able to get around the banning by morphing his screen name and using internet cafes. His messages, which often include death threats, are always rambling and totally disjointed screeds that a twelve-year old in his mother’s basement might send, if the kid had no sense of shame.

And now it looks like he is about to get busted!

This bastard needs to be jailed for life! Sign this petition to help put him away!

http://www.change.org/petitions/montreal-police-take-mabus-death-threats-seriously

Related articles

• The Mabus Affair (evolutionguide.blogspot.com)
• A Small Victory – Montreal Menace in the News (martinspribble.com)
• Death Threats From One Sad Man (aafwaterloo.wordpress.com)
• Mabus Threats Finally Being Investigated (fledgelingskeptic.com)

Contradictions of orthodox Islam

For the sake of argument, I define “orthodox” in Islam as including the beliefs common to both the Sunni and Shi’a Muslims, though the Sunnis themselves say only they are orthodox (much like orthodox Christians may be defined as including much more than the denominations called “Orthodox”, including Catholics and most Protestants).

There are several issues in Islam I find contradictory and thus I would never become a Muslim, even if I were to ever believe in a god again.

1. Islam is said to be a world religion, appropriate for all peoples of the world to follow. This is absurd because Islam also makes Mecca the city that all Muslims must pray to five times a day and to make a pilgrimage to at least once in their lives. Islam also makes Arabic the default language for the Quran and for Muslim prayers and calls to prayer. Even Roman Catholicism no longer makes Latin the default language for Mass around the world. A truly worldly religion would have NO default language, no one city as the center of prayer and pilgrimage, and would see holiness in all places. We Unitarian Universalists might regard Boston as a place of historical significance to us, but we don’t pray to it!
2. Islam is said to be the final religion, the Quran is Allah’s final revelation and Muhammad the last of the Prophets.   This contradicts the idea of Allah as an all-knowing, all-powerful, and thus totally sovereign deity. If Allah wills another revelation by a new Prophet, as Baha’is have claimed, it is not for anyone to deny this. The argument that past revelations have been corrupted is pointless, since Islam is still divided into various sects. A truly pure and uncorrupted revelation from Allah would never have allowed this.
3. Islam condemns idolatry. Really? Then Muslims should stop regarding the Quran as the Word of Allah. Even official histories of Islam admit that it wasn’t put together until some years after Muhammad’s death. Why didn’t Muhammad himself do this? Also, walking seven times around the Kaaba in Mecca during pilgrimage looks too much like idolatry to me! It’s just a building! Also, see point 1 above.
4. Islam teaches that men can have no more than four wives at a time. Then why did Muhammad have nine or ten wives at the time of his death? Muslims should make up their minds; you cannot hold Muhammad as a supreme example of Muslims to follow and then ignore that he himself broke a basic rule of marriage!

Theocracies by nature are evil

Religions as tools for social cohesion are indeed valid reasons for having them, since people are by nature social beings. However, using any religion that has demonstratively false dogmas as that tool is by nature unethical because you are encouraging people to lie to others about reality. It is even worse when you have a government take that religion and use force to make everyone follow it. All this does is make many people into hypocrites who act a certain way in public while privately doubting or denying the religion. This results in greater corruption. It is no coincidence that the ones who often come across as the most moral and are also deeply religious also turn out to be the most hypocritical. I think the reason for this is because their moral values are simply not based on anything real and things that are not based on reality are themselves not real. If you need to believe in the Bible, the Quran, or some other scripture to believe in God, to be moral or function in a social order, then you are actually a dangerous person because you will resort to all sorts of dishonest arguments, claims and assertions to keep your faith. Likewise, getting a government to enforce your religion on everyone merely makes the government dishonest. We shouldn’t tolerate this any more than we should tolerate mob bosses taking over a government.

Thus, Islamic states like those of Saudi Arabia and Iran are contemptible and should be condemned and opposed at every turn, and the concept of Sharia (Islamic law) should be completely thrown out in all societies. They are simply phony by nature!

The ultimate blow to global warming denialism

Denialists are not interested in truth or consistency of any kind. Instead, they have a dogma and an agenda and will take advantage of any arguments that serve these things, even if those arguments don’t really fit together. Nowhere does this become more obvious than in the issue of global warming.

John Cook, who runs the website Skeptical Science, has assembled a long list of contradictions made by global warming denialists. With this, he and other contributers totally wreck what little credibility these political and pseudoscientific hacks ever had!

http://www.skepticalscience.com/contradictions.php

 

William Aura

William Aura is a New Age musician that has been putting out great music since the 1970s. Most of his solo works, spanning from the late 1970s to the early 1990s, ranged from slow ambient to upbeat jazz. He was one of the first artists signed to Higher Octave Music and later became a staff producer for that lable.  In 1994 he formed a trio called 3rd Force which became a leader in the smooth jazz genre. A devoted Buddhist, his spiritual vision is reflected in both his music and in his social activism.

Several months ago, I made this video featuring one of his early songs:

He noticed it and commented thusly:

Thank you for the kind words. Great to hear this track again. Beautiful graphics. You have brought joy to my heart. Take good care.

auraimports

Here’s another video of an even greater song, “Dreamer”. The visuals of this video are even more impressive!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiaqH0qXb2s

Here is his Facebook account:

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/profile.php?id=1047547092

And here is Aura appealing for aid to people in Nepal:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUjLEkM76OU

Thank YOU, Aura, for your works, both of art and of charity. The world is an oyster and you are a pearl the size of a human heart.

Rebecca Watson vs Stef McGraw

The controversy over “Elevatorgate” just keeps getting more riotous. Now Rebecca Watson has gotten into a catfight with another “freethinking” blogger and student named Stef McGraw.

First, McGraw attacked Rebecca for her supposed hypocrisy:

http://www.unifreethought.com/2011/06/fursdays-wif-stef-32.html

Someone who truly abides by feminist principles would, in my view, have to react in the same manner were the situation reversed; if a woman were to engage a man in the same way, she would probably be creeping him out and making him uncomfortable and unfairly sexualizing him, right? But of course no one ever makes that claim, which is why I see Watson’s comment as so hypocritical.

If you really want social equality for women, which is what feminism is, why not apply the same standards to men and women, and stop demonizing men for being sexual beings?

I found the ignorance of McGraw’s criticism appalling. Several years ago, I was at a gas station when I was approached by a woman I soon realized was a prostitute. She asked me if I wanted to go on “dates” with her and then asked for money. After figuring out that she was propositioning me for sex, I was so repulsed that I immediately went into station and told the employees about the woman, and the promised me that they would get rid of her, even as she was proceeding to hit on other men at the station!

Rebecca certainly did not say that men shouldn’t object to women hitting on men in an elevator at 4 AM, did she? No, and that made McGraw’s rebuke of her pointless, if not flat out stupid!

Rebecca then dealt with the attack by taking it right to McGraw’s own territory. No, not her blog, but at the CFI Student Leadership Conference, in Amherst, New York, on June 26, 2011.

That video is almost 50 minutes long. To focus on the part relevant to the dispute referred to here, look at this:

http://aratina.blogspot.com/2011/07/talk-by-watson-at-cfi.html

[12:04] There’s another comment I found on a blog from actually one of your own. And, I wanted to use it as an example, not to embarrass this person, but to point out that we have a serious problem when young women [quoted part of McGraw's blog post shows up under previous YouTube comment] are this ignorant about feminism. So let me read it to you. This is from the UNI Freethought blog. Stef McGraw, she posts a transcript of the story I just told you, the elevator story, and she writes:

[12:37] “My concern is that she takes issue with a man showing interest in her. What’s wrong with that? How on Earth does that justify him as ‘creepy’? Are we not sexual beings? Let’s review. It’s not as if he touched her or made an unsolicited sexual comment. He merely asked if she’d like to come back to his room. She easily could have said–and I’m assuming did say, ‘No thanks. I’m tired and would like to go to my room to sleep.’”

[13:00] So, there are many things wrong with this paragraph; I won’t really go into them all. I’ll mention that asking someone back to your hotel room at four in the morning who you’ve never spoken to is the definition of ‘unsolicited sexual comment’. And in the transcript that Stef posted, she conveniently edited it to begin after I told everyone at the bar that I was exhausted and going back to my room–kind of an important point in which I state exactly what my desire is because later this man in the elevator specifically tried to talk me out of doing that. So I did actually make it quite clear that I was tired and going to my room to sleep.

[13:45] But the real problem is actually in the first sentence, and it’s sort of the same problem that the other commenter has [note that McGraw's quote is still shown below the YouTube comment ending with "Congratulations" on the screen]. “My concern is that she takes issue with a man showing interest in her.” This is unfortunately a pretty standard parroting of misogynistic thought. And it’s not new; it’s something that feminists have been dealing with for ages. In fact, it’s Feminism 101. [Slide changes to a page taken from some website.] In fact, it’s covered on a blog called Feminism 101 [laughs] which you should definitely check out because it’s great. They go over a lot of concepts that may be new to many of you. But in this case,

what we’re talking about is the difference between sexual interest/sexual attraction versus sexual objectification.

McGraw responded with this:

http://www.unifreethought.com/2011/06/fursdays-wif-stef-33.html

Then, a day later at the conference, Watson delivered a keynote speech on the religious right’s war against women. Before she got to her main content, though, she decided to address sexism in the secular movement, which she views as a rampant problem. I shared her disgust as she showed screenshots of people online calling her demeaning names, making comments about her appearance, and, worst of all, making rape comments.

Then, switching gears, Watson made a remark to the extent that there are people in our own community who would not stand up for her in these sorts of situations; my name, organization, and a few sentences from my blog post then flashed on the screen before my eyes. She went on to explain how I didn’t understand what objectification meant and was espousing anti-woman sentiment.

My first reaction was complete shock. I wasn’t surprised that she had seen my post, but I didn’t think she would choose to address it during her keynote, let alone place it in a category with people advocating for her to be raped. In fact, I was excited to possibly speak with her afterward in order to discuss the matter face-to-face. Instead, all I could do was just sit there and watch myself being berated for supposedly espousing anti-woman views and told that I wouldn’t stand up for women in sticky situations with men, as one hundred of my peers watched on. I found both of those accusations to be completely and utterly incorrect, as anyone who actually knows me could tell you I care deeply about fighting sexist thought. I started thinking, how can I respond? It didn’t feel right to have to endure a widely respected keynote speaker’s accusations that I was a living example of what was wrong with our movement while I sat there unable to defend my position.

There was no time at the conference where I, as a student attendee, could appropriately make any sort of public statement addressing what Watson claimed about my argument and me. She has said over Twitter that “An attendee has every right to counter during Q&A or by publicly blogging again later,” but there are issues with both of these approaches. First, the Q&A was not an option in my mind, as I wasn’t going to get up after her great talk and argue with her about something unrelated; I have more respect for a speaker than that. And second, yes, I currently am blogging about the issue, but this won’t reach everyone who went to the conference; I write for a successful student blog, not one like Skepchick that a large percentage of the secular community reads.

The real issue, of course, was that Rebecca used McGraw’s own words against her, right in front of her no less, in such a way as to make her look clueless before her peers. That would never have happened if McGraw had not actually made a complete idiot of herself on her blog in the first place!

And for that, Rebecca has been called a bully, and her critics have said what she did was unprofessional and inappropriate. Oh, and Richard Dawkins’ sarcastic response to Rebecca several weeks ago wasn’t?!

So who’s the damned hypocrite now?

Related articles

• Rebecca Watson at CFI (scienceblogs.com)
• There’s No Hiding in Public (Or More on Rebecca Watson, CFI, UNI) (aafwaterloo.wordpress.com)
• New Point of Inquiry: Rebecca Watson – Skepticism and Feminism | The Intersection (blogs.discovermagazine.com)

The ultimate take down of Intelligent Design

Image via Wikipedia

At the Panda’s Thumb blog, a commenter asked a simple question:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2011/07/design-and-fals.html#comment-265729

TomS | July 30, 2011 4:36 AM

Does anyone have an example of something which is not “intelligently designed”? In Paley’s exposition of the “watchmaker” argument, he contrasts a watch with a stone. But the problem for a traditional theist is that God is the Creator of all things, including rocks. So, to be fair, I suppose that the request should include also unreal, hypothetical things. But the only unreal things that I can think of – centaurs, for example – are intelligently designed. (Which, by the way, shows that intelligent design is not sufficient to explain existence.)

So, what is the difference that intelligent design makes?

He got this reply:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2011/07/design-and-fals.html#comment-265730

rossum replied to comment from TomS | July 30, 2011 4:53 AM

The designer herself is, presumably, not intelligently designed. Hence her existence disproves ID because a non-designed living thing exists. Of course, conversely, her non-existence would show that all living things are designed and hence that ID is true.

rossum

Later, my seeing that hit me like a truck going 100 MPH. I then said:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2011/07/design-and-fals.html#comment-265838

circleh replied to comment from rossum | July 31, 2011 12:38 AM 

Amazing! If I weren’t already a non-theist, such a simple but profound argument would have probably converted me from any God-centered religion you could name! You show that Intelligent Design, already impossible to support empirically, can’t even be supported by reason. It is simply WORTHLESS!

Related articles

• Who Designed the Designer? (borne.wordpress.com)

Roy Spencer pulls another misleading stunt

Check out this story:

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

By James Taylor | Forbes – Wed, Jul 27, 2011

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is “not much”). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA’s ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth’s atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth’s atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a “huge discrepancy” between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

The Heartland Institute is NOT a scientific organization affiliated with NASA at all, but a right-wing think tank.

{{{NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing.}}}

The greenhouse effect is NOT about how much heat is being released by the atmosphere into space, because that would be the same no matter what the composition of the atmosphere! It’s about how long the heat that is in the Earth’s atmosphere remains BEFORE it is released. If LESS heat was being released, the atmosphere would soon grow so hot that life would be impossible and then the oceans would completely boil away, and the temperature would just keep rising to infinity! No “alarmist” climate scientist has ever claimed that would happen. This article is one long strawman type fallacy!

Roy Spencer is a FRAUD! Not only is he a climate change denialist, he is also a CREATIONIST. He has NO business doing science if he doesn’t even support the theory of evolution, a basic concept of modern biology!

Not to mention that last year he was caught doing this to his own data presentations:

Another phony global warming denialist busted!

Good riddance to Prussian Blue!

A few years ago, I learned about a set of twin girls named Lynx and Lamb Gaede who had formed a music duo named Prussian Blue while they were still nine or ten years old . They played songs championing racism, anti-Semitism, and other evil dogmas. They recorded albums, toured at white supremacist functions, and otherwise made idiots of themselves, all to please their  bigoted mother.

Not any more!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Blue

As of early 2009, the band’s Web site and MySpace page are no longer operational.

They do still have a blog up, but no entries have been made to it  since 2008.

So what happened? THEY GREW UP, and not just physically!

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/07/17/071711-news-nazi-twins-1-6/

Lamb and Lynx Gaede, the dimpled tween rockers whose Nazi-themed pop band, Prussian Blue, sparked an exuberant media firestorm several years back have grown up — and had a change of heart.

“I’m not a white nationalist anymore,” Lamb told The Daily in an exclusive interview, the twins’ first in five years. “My sister and I are pretty liberal now.”

“Personally, I love diversity,” Lynx seconded. “I’m stoked that we have so many different cultures. I think it’s amazing and it makes me proud of humanity every day that we have so many different places and people.”

And now that they are 19 and legally adults, they need never follow their mother and her views again. But at the same time, the damage the mother did to them may never be entirely undone; no matter where they go or what they do in the future, the legacy of “Prussian Blue” will probably follow them for the rest of their lives.

April Gaede, unless you have yourself changed and become enlightened as well, you can go to hell for what you did to your daughters!

Make up your minds, atheists!

One of the most militant atheists on YouTube is a lesbian who calls herself BionicDance. Here is one of her recent videos:

I questioned her position about atheism in order to get her to defend it in an empirical and non-dogmatic manner. She failed to do that.

@BionicDanceNeutrality is an issue in any conflict between two sides. Atheism and theism are by nature in conflict, and a person can freely choose not to take either side or even criticize both sides. Or do you think countries like Switzerland and Sweden were pro-Nazi because they were not with the Allies in World War II? Black-white thinking like that is an enemy of objective truth.Newborn babies cannot be atheists because atheism is a product of choice, which the baby has not yet made.

DaleHusband

@DaleHusband Not choosing a side means not being a theist…and if you’re not a theist, there is only ONE possibility: atheist.

That’s how this works; you cannot BE neutral, you can only be passive. The only way to NOT be an atheist is to believe in god. Period. Atheism is NOT the product of choice, only theism is; atheism is the position of NOT BEING A THEIST…and that’s it; no choice required.

BionicDance

@BionicDance Who told you that? That was certainly not the case only a few decades ago, when I understood “lacking belief in God” to be NON-THEISM, not atheism. Atheism was defined as “DENIAL of belief in God”. Not the same thing, though they are related. For definitions to work, they must be logically consistent. When someone is defining a newborn baby as atheist, he is not being logical, but expressing a dogma.

DaleHusband

@DaleHusband atheist (ˈeɪθɪˌɪst)

— n

1. a person who does not believe in God or gods

Collins English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition

Wikipedia: Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply THE ABSENCE OF BELIEF THAT ANY DEITIES EXIST.[3]

You’ll find most atheists these days use these definitions. Theists HATE ‘em.

BionicDance

@BionicDance So if a child has never heard the term atheist, yet is called an atheist by actual atheists, that is logical? No. Many Muslims claim that all children are born Muslim, which is also absurd. Babies seem to be blank slates; they CANNOT be empirically confirmed as having any belief, or lack of belief. Children must DECIDE first what they believe. Even if they reject Christianity and declare themselves non-theist, that is still a choice, but they MUST make it first.

DaleHusband

@DaleHusband A blank slate IS an atheist; the only way to NOT be an atheist is to be a theist. Period.

You act like calling a child an atheist is to give them an alignment, an affiliation, to force them into a movement or a group…and you’re completely wrong. It’s JUST a description.

Being an atheist CAN be a deliberate choice, but it is not required. The only thing that is required is NOT BEING A THEIST. That’s it, 100%. Please get on board here, kiddo, cuz I’m sick of this argument.

BionicDance

“the only way to NOT be an atheist is to be a theist. Period…The only thing that is required is NOT BEING A THEIST. That’s it, 100%.” Thomas Huxley didn’t think so, which is why he invented the term “agnostic” and did not call himself an atheist. And you don’t prove anything by mere assertion, as atheists themselves love to tell religious people. And if you are sick of the argument, you never should have made it, because you will always face opposition from people who disagree.

DaleHusband

@DaleHusband Thomas Huxley? So NOW you’re making an argument from authority? *raised eyebrow* Surely you can do better than THAT.

And I don’t CARE if Tommy-boy wants some sort of neutral ground; he can’t have it because that’s NOT what these words mean, not if you break ‘em down into their linguistic components

But why am I bothering to explain this to you? You’ve OBVIOUSLY decided to be unconvince-able. And I’m NOT saying I’m sick of the argument, just that I’m sick of having it with YOU.

BionicDance

@DaleHusband Good for you… Your decades-old definitions are WRONG. And they were wrong back then, too. But you’re going to stick with them. That makes you WRONG!

indignant99

@BionicDance, I just gave you a historical example of someone who didn’t define atheism as you do. I could give you many others, up until the 1990s. From my point of view, you are the one who is not convincable. Nothing wrong with that, unless you assert that you are not dogmatic about anything. @indignant99, it’s not an empirical matter, is it? So you are merely asserting, which is pointless.

DaleHusband

@BionicDance nah that would make you agnostic.

Agnostic: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

irishbull777

@irishbull777 Agnostic is a separate issue; gnosticism is about knowledge, while theism is about belief.

Whether you are agnostic or not has NOTHING TO DO with whether you’re atheist or theist.

So, again, without active, positive belief in religion, you’re an atheist, whether you’re an agnostic or not.

BionicDance

Later, BionicDance made another video in response to her critics.

Considering that she, along with many other  atheists, make so many videos, blog entries, and even entire books slamming religion and even the basic concept of theism itself, WHAT ELSE ARE PEOPLE SUPPOSED TO THINK BUT THAT TO BE AN ATHEIST IS TO BE MILITANTLY ANTI-RELIGIOUS?! They caused the preception that BionicDance is now arguing against!

You cannot have it both ways. If BionicDance wants to be consistent, she should clarify her position by calling herself an anti-theist, not just an atheist. But that would only make it MORE difficult for her to be listened to, because the term anti-theist (opposition to all theist concepts and people) is even less accepted by the general public than atheist.

Look at this bit from P Z Myers’ Pharyngula blog:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/04/the_bcse_blows_up.php

How often do we have to repeat ourselves? There is no goal of turning the NCSE or the BCSE into an atheist organization; we think having an organization that is honestly neutral on the religious issue is extremely useful in advancing the cause of good science education for all. We want the NCSE/BCSE to support neither atheism nor religion.

You know what? The atheists in this argument have a crystal-clear understanding of the difference between atheism and secularism, and are saying that the science education organizations should be secular. It’s these sloppy accommodationists who have allowed liberal christianity to become their default position who have violated the distinction.

So P Z is arguing that it is indeed possible for an organization to take a neutral position on religion. But if that is true of organizations, why not individuals? Looks like he and BionicDance need to compare notes! I’d love to see them argue!

As for me, I am quite happy to reject and stay far away from ANY dogmatic black-white dichotomous thinking, even among atheists. Shades of gray that I can see in the empirical reality I live in are what I know to be true, with no double standards whatsoever!

Related articles

• Are Atheists Smarter Than Theists? (traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com)
• Atheism, agnosticism and theism 6: Conclusion (evolvingthoughts.net)
• Atheism, agnosticism and theism 5: Scope and indexing (evolvingthoughts.net)
• Every Atheist vs Theist Debate in a Nutshell (patheos.com)

Grades in school should be eliminated

It has occurred to me that giving letter grades to students in school is a form of rating some better than others that has nothing to do with whether they are successful or not. If the lowest passing grade is a D-, then a student who gets that grade will still pass, just as much as one who gets an A+. So why bother with such grades at all?

I would propose instead that all students be allowed only TWO levels of achievement: P (pass) or F (fail) and that in order to pass, they must score at least 90% on all tests in a certain subject. That’s right; the grade you end up with will be the LOWEST score you make on a test in a six week period. So if you score an 89 on one test, you still fail for that whole period. At the end of a school year, if you fail in a single six week period, you fail the entire course.

Another reform I would make would be to stop graduating students from high school after they complete 12th grade. Instead, I think the various levels in school should be:

Elementary school:  Level I through Level V (I’m using Roman numerals for the various levels),

Middle school:  Level VI though X,

High school: Level XI though Level XV.

with “college” or “university” levels eliminated because they will be integrated with the high school levels.

For example, in math, basic arithmetic could be Levels I and II, algebra could be Level III or IV, and calculus could be Level X or XI. Similar designations would be made for other subjects.

A student who fails a level would be forced in the next year to retake the course(s) he failed, without exception. Thus if he was at Level II, he would remain at that level until he passes all his Level II courses. Thus, there might be children well past puberty that would still be in elementary school. Students who have finished elementary school but not yet reached middle school may leave school, though their job prospects would be limited. The same is true for students that have finished middle school but not yet reached high school.

ROTE LEARNING MUST BE BANNED! Instead, children of all ages should be expected to express creativity and critical thinking by writing the answers to their tests in essay form, not merely marking “true” or “false” to a question or answering a multiple choice question in which it is possible to get the right answer by accident or by cheating! By causing children to take controversial positions and defend them before their peers, they may soon learn that many things they assumed were absolutely true from their parents and others are not necessarily so.

The Credibility Effect

There is a website, stuffmadesimple.com, that claims to take complex subjects and make  them easy for the average person to understand. But in doing so, it seems to have some underhanded agendas.

First, note that it puts out some videos that are actually very useful and full of valid information, like these two about diabetes and swine flu:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGL6km1NBWE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGWOAL1PTl4

It soon becomes obvious that the people running that website are Mormons and are using it, and a sister site, to teach the Mormon religion:

http://mormonsmadesimple.com/index.html

Certainly, the other videos made by this group are consistent with Mormon attitudes. It is common knowledge that Mormons are overwhelmingly conservative in politics, are heavily involved in genealogical research, and are hostile to the idea of same-sex marriage.

I have dealt with Mormonism earlier. For that reason, I don’t respect the makers of the Made Simple video series. It seems they are trying to take advantage of what I call the Credibility Effect.

The Credibility Effect is when someone or some institution that puts out valid or useful information at an earlier time tries to use the reputation built up from that to entice people to accept information that is actually dubious, even downright false or nonsensical, for ideological or religious purposes.

Here is another example of that effect in action:  http://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2010/06/10/shane-killian-sells-out/

No matter how noble or right you appear to be at certain times, that doesn’t mean your claims should EVER be taken at face value. ALL claims from ALL people should be tested and when those claims fail the test, the claims should be discarded.

Related articles

• Mormonism, a failed religion (dalehusband.wordpress.com)