Comments for Rationally Thinking Out Loud http://rationallythinkingoutloud.wordpress.com Just one guy thinking out loud on a the issues in religion, atheism, politics & science Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:33:26 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Debunking Global Warming Mythology by euandus2 http://rationallythinkingoutloud.wordpress.com/2007/07/10/debunking-global-warming-mythology/#comment-221 euandus2 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:33:26 +0000 http://rationallythinkingoutloud.wordpress.com/2007/07/10/debunking-global-warming-mythology/#comment-221 Even letting the debate continue, when our species may hang in the balance, says something about us. I argue that there is a certain presumptuousness surrounding our approach to how we are addressing global warming that goes well beyond simply having a short-term perspective. What if the cockroach has a more sustainable position? I recommend the following post: http://euandus3.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/climatic-presumption-what-is-the-forecast/ Even letting the debate continue, when our species may hang in the balance, says something about us. I argue that there is a certain presumptuousness surrounding our approach to how we are addressing global warming that goes well beyond simply having a short-term perspective. What if the cockroach has a more sustainable position? I recommend the following post: http://euandus3.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/climatic-presumption-what-is-the-forecast/

]]> Comment on References for Debating Science Deniers by Climate change Deniers are NOT from Mars « Greenfyre’s http://rationallythinkingoutloud.wordpress.com/references-for-debating-climate-change-skeptics/#comment-217 Climate change Deniers are NOT from Mars « Greenfyre’s Tue, 15 Sep 2009 03:50:58 +0000 http://rationallythinkingoutloud.wordpress.com/references-for-debating-climate-change-skeptics/#comment-217 [...] logic: Tens of thousands of studies and an unbelievable mountain of evidence across many disciplines is “just a [...] [...] logic: Tens of thousands of studies and an unbelievable mountain of evidence across many disciplines is “just a [...]

]]> Comment on Firing Line 1997: a Creationism vs. Evolution Debate by MonkeyMan http://rationallythinkingoutloud.wordpress.com/2007/11/14/firing-line-1997-a-creationism-vs-evolution-debate/#comment-215 MonkeyMan Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:54:16 +0000 http://rationallythinkingoutloud.wordpress.com/2007/11/14/firing-line-1997-a-creationism-vs-evolution-debate/#comment-215 The ID side won because they have nothing to lose. The Science defenders where all excellent, especially Ken Miller. But even though none of the ID side had anything substantive to say (Behe stammered and sweated when asked to explain his "revolutionary" "theory"),... well, they proved that it's not what you say, it's how you say it. Basically Phillip Johnson and Berlinski had nothing to offer, but looked confident nonetheless. Berlinski repeatedly could not and would not answer any questions, but when he asked the ridiculous question of how many genetic changes it would take for a land mammal to become a whale (It'd be like trying to debunk astronomy by demanding on-the-spot the distance between two random stars). Eugenie Scott was unprepared while Ken Miller gave a perfectly good answer. But Berlinski acted all tired and annoyed as if he was struggling to maintain his patience as the pro-evolutionists kept dodging his "legitimate" questions. In the end, to the public, it looked like both sides were debating opposite but equal points of view. That's why I have to say that ID won. Twelve years later and people still think there's a scientific debate. Look forward to the next "Dark Age." The ID side won because they have nothing to lose.

The Science defenders where all excellent, especially Ken Miller. But even though none of the ID side had anything substantive to say (Behe stammered and sweated when asked to explain his “revolutionary” “theory”),… well, they proved that it’s not what you say, it’s how you say it. Basically Phillip Johnson and Berlinski had nothing to offer, but looked confident nonetheless. Berlinski repeatedly could not and would not answer any questions, but when he asked the ridiculous question of how many genetic changes it would take for a land mammal to become a whale (It’d be like trying to debunk astronomy by demanding on-the-spot the distance between two random stars). Eugenie Scott was unprepared while Ken Miller gave a perfectly good answer. But Berlinski acted all tired and annoyed as if he was struggling to maintain his patience as the pro-evolutionists kept dodging his “legitimate” questions.

In the end, to the public, it looked like both sides were debating opposite but equal points of view. That’s why I have to say that ID won. Twelve years later and people still think there’s a scientific debate.

Look forward to the next “Dark Age.”

]]> Comment on Debunking Global Warming Mythology by jossel http://rationallythinkingoutloud.wordpress.com/2007/07/10/debunking-global-warming-mythology/#comment-214 jossel Sun, 06 Sep 2009 08:20:55 +0000 http://rationallythinkingoutloud.wordpress.com/2007/07/10/debunking-global-warming-mythology/#comment-214 why is it we need to study about global warming? what is the rationally about global warming? why is it we need to study about global warming?
what is the rationally about global warming?

]]> Comment on References for Debating Science Deniers by greenfyre http://rationallythinkingoutloud.wordpress.com/references-for-debating-climate-change-skeptics/#comment-213 greenfyre Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:48:47 +0000 http://rationallythinkingoutloud.wordpress.com/references-for-debating-climate-change-skeptics/#comment-213 What Hank said ... What Hank said …

]]> Comment on References for Debating Science Deniers by Hank Roberts http://rationallythinkingoutloud.wordpress.com/references-for-debating-climate-change-skeptics/#comment-201 Hank Roberts Fri, 24 Jul 2009 01:23:51 +0000 http://rationallythinkingoutloud.wordpress.com/references-for-debating-climate-change-skeptics/#comment-201 Why did it take me this long to find your page? Are you setting the "linkedin" pointer and letting these bloggers know you've cited them? It'd be helpful! You do a thorough and detailed job. Maybe I just haven't been paying close enough attention. Why did it take me this long to find your page?
Are you setting the “linkedin” pointer and letting these bloggers know you’ve cited them? It’d be helpful! You do a thorough and detailed job.

Maybe I just haven’t been paying close enough attention.

]]> Comment on “The Great Global Warming Swindle”? Shams & Lies by climate criminal http://rationallythinkingoutloud.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/loooking-for-the-material-that-debunks-and-discriedits-the-great-global-warming-swindle/#comment-196 climate criminal Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:54:25 +0000 http://rationallythinkingoutloud.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/loooking-for-the-material-that-debunks-and-discriedits-the-great-global-warming-swindle/#comment-196 Sorry if I missed it, but you may have missed http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/ which is a point-by-point analysis and rebuttal of TGGWS. Also a search of realclimate.org for swindle turns up the following links. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/ http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/ http://www.realclimate.org/?s=hornswoggled&langswitch_lang=cz Doubtless there will be a degree of overlap. Excellent debunking resource. Many of which I had not encountered before. Sorry if I missed it, but you may have missed http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/ which is a point-by-point analysis and rebuttal of TGGWS.

Also a search of realclimate.org for swindle turns up the following links.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/
http://www.realclimate.org/?s=hornswoggled&langswitch_lang=cz

Doubtless there will be a degree of overlap.

Excellent debunking resource. Many of which I had not encountered before.

]]> Comment on “The Great Global Warming Swindle”? Shams & Lies by From: Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The Big Swindle Movie « Rationally Thinking Out Loud http://rationallythinkingoutloud.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/loooking-for-the-material-that-debunks-and-discriedits-the-great-global-warming-swindle/#comment-195 From: Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The Big Swindle Movie « Rationally Thinking Out Loud Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:03:19 +0000 http://rationallythinkingoutloud.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/loooking-for-the-material-that-debunks-and-discriedits-the-great-global-warming-swindle/#comment-195 [...] Thanks Peter (and Tim). I added this great video essay to my own list of debunking references : “The Great Global Warming Swindle”? Shams & Lies [...] [...] Thanks Peter (and Tim). I added this great video essay to my own list of debunking references : “The Great Global Warming Swindle”? Shams & Lies [...]

]]> Comment on ABC Australia’s Tony Jones and the “Great Global Warming Swindle” debate by Michael Petersen http://rationallythinkingoutloud.wordpress.com/2007/07/17/abc-australias-tony-jones-and-the-great-global-warming-swindle-debate/#comment-193 Michael Petersen Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:35:50 +0000 http://rationallythinkingoutloud.wordpress.com/2007/07/17/abc-australias-tony-jones-and-the-great-global-warming-swindle-debate/#comment-193 Really good show, and I agree: Tony Jones did a good job. It was so funny to see the climate-sceptics on the board rambling on about how all the theories was refuted and its all the about the sun. Daft punks. Funny that they didn't want to use new data available. No, "new data is not accurate enough" - well obviously because it ruins their credibility as sceptics, surely they have to refute the data. The old geezer from the enron-think tank was though the most hilarious. He was way out of his league - what a joke. And where did they find this audience. I thought that america was the place for conspiracy-loons - but apparently its Australia. Good fun though. Muddle-guy-in-brown-hat takes the crown. Really good show, and I agree: Tony Jones did a good job. It was so funny to see the climate-sceptics on the board rambling on about how all the theories was refuted and its all the about the sun. Daft punks. Funny that they didn’t want to use new data available. No, “new data is not accurate enough” – well obviously because it ruins their credibility as sceptics, surely they have to refute the data. The old geezer from the enron-think tank was though the most hilarious. He was way out of his league – what a joke. And where did they find this audience. I thought that america was the place for conspiracy-loons – but apparently its Australia. Good fun though. Muddle-guy-in-brown-hat takes the crown.

]]> Comment on Whose Deficit Is It? by J. Jerrald Hayes http://rationallythinkingoutloud.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/whose-deficit-is-it/#comment-185 J. Jerrald Hayes Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:02:53 +0000 http://rationallythinkingoutloud.wordpress.com/?p=128#comment-185 Dave with regard to the Washington Post graph showing deficits I think it is incredibly misleading. It a comparison of Apples on the left Bushes side against Apples & Oranges on the right Obama's side. Back in February Obama and his administration said they weren't going to play any of the budget accounting tricks that the previous administration employed to make the deficit appear smaller that it really was and they put the costs of the Iraq War (a war of his choosing) and the cost of natural disasters (which he (bush) had no control over) on the books.   Obama and his administration very clearly stood up and took responsibility by making them part of the deficit figure for spending and costs that the Bush administration ran up, hid, and hoped the American public would think were covered. With that move Obama and his administration are taking accountability for the dollars the Bush administration tried to ignore and hid.   As for analyzing Bush’s deficit to see how much of his deficits he “inherited” I am wondering did you not read the Times reporting or look at the chart? When Bush took over he inherited a surplus.   As for Obama choosing to increase spending yes he has but that is part of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics" rel="nofollow"><strong>Keynesian economics</strong></a>. There are three things that drive an economy; spending by business, spending by individual consumers and government spending.   Our economy, the worlds economy, stalled in 2008-2009 and spending from the business and individual sectors all but dried up. It takes a priming and a push to get the economy rolling and started again. The 7 percent of the deficit that comes from the 145 billion dollar stimulus bill in my mind is money well spent. We aren't going to dig ourselves out of this hole with (Republican) tax cuts and reduced government spending (less stimulus) and hoping things (the market) will just take care of themselves. The economy needs a push and enough fuel in the tank to hold things together and get things started to a point where we (American business and markets) can get to our feet and provide the energy and momentum to carry the load again.   If Obama and his administration had cut government spending we would have even greater unemployment, frozen markets, and still be headed downhill in a depression and people would be screaming for action.   Obama's "willfull" spending both by extending some Bush era policies (like the war in Iraq and the patch for the altenative minimum tax) and supporting the Wall Street Bailouts and his own stimulus package make up only around a third of the deficit that the extreme talking heads on the right are ranting about. Dave with regard to the Washington Post graph showing deficits I think it is incredibly misleading. It a comparison of Apples on the left Bushes side against Apples & Oranges on the right Obama’s side. Back in February Obama and his administration said they weren’t going to play any of the budget accounting tricks that the previous administration employed to make the deficit appear smaller that it really was and they put the costs of the Iraq War (a war of his choosing) and the cost of natural disasters (which he (bush) had no control over) on the books.
 
Obama and his administration very clearly stood up and took responsibility by making them part of the deficit figure for spending and costs that the Bush administration ran up, hid, and hoped the American public would think were covered. With that move Obama and his administration are taking accountability for the dollars the Bush administration tried to ignore and hid.
 
As for analyzing Bush’s deficit to see how much of his deficits he “inherited” I am wondering did you not read the Times reporting or look at the chart? When Bush took over he inherited a surplus.
 
As for Obama choosing to increase spending yes he has but that is part of Keynesian economics. There are three things that drive an economy; spending by business, spending by individual consumers and government spending.
 
Our economy, the worlds economy, stalled in 2008-2009 and spending from the business and individual sectors all but dried up. It takes a priming and a push to get the economy rolling and started again. The 7 percent of the deficit that comes from the 145 billion dollar stimulus bill in my mind is money well spent. We aren’t going to dig ourselves out of this hole with (Republican) tax cuts and reduced government spending (less stimulus) and hoping things (the market) will just take care of themselves. The economy needs a push and enough fuel in the tank to hold things together and get things started to a point where we (American business and markets) can get to our feet and provide the energy and momentum to carry the load again.
 
If Obama and his administration had cut government spending we would have even greater unemployment, frozen markets, and still be headed downhill in a depression and people would be screaming for action.
 
Obama’s "willfull" spending both by extending some Bush era policies (like the war in Iraq and the patch for the altenative minimum tax) and supporting the Wall Street Bailouts and his own stimulus package make up only around a third of the deficit that the extreme talking heads on the right are ranting about.

]]>