Violence is Inherent in Atheist Politics

_{Barry Arrington

October 10, 2017

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Progressive hero Ta-Nehisi Coates (an atheist) is conflicted about whether to bring on the guillotines. From a recent interview with Vox:

When he tries to describe the events that would erase America’s wealth gap, that would see the end of white supremacy, his thoughts flicker to the French Revolution, to the executions and the terror. ‘It’s very easy for me to see myself being contemporary with processes that might make for an equal world, more equality, and maybe the complete abolition of race as a construct, and being horrified by the process, maybe even attacking the process. I think these things don’t tend to happen peacefully.’

Materialist ideas have entailments, including (1) God does not exist; (2) good and evil do not exist as objective transcendent ontological categories; (3) God, who does not exist, cannot endow men with inalienable rights; and (4) men are not image bearers of a non-existent God; they are jumped up hairless apes.

If there is no good and evil and no God-endowed rights, by what standard does the progressive define the eponymous “progress” they claim to want to achieve? Certainly, there is no transcendent standard. The answer is that progressives want what that want. Theirs is a political philosophy bound by nothing and defined by their unbounded will to power.

Coates rejects the ideas of the Declaration of Independence. A non-existent God does not endow men with the right to life and liberty. Jumped up hairless apes have no inherent rights. So why not lop their heads off if they get in the way of Ta-Nehisi Coates’ pursuit of the greater good – i.e., Ta-Nehisi Coates’ idiosyncratic take on economic and racial justice. After all, as every tyrant from Robespierre to Pol Pot knew, you’ve got to crack a few eggs if you’re going to make an omelet.

Comments

Too bad you didn’t provide an example of a mistake made in an IPCC report.
Yeah, too bad. It would have made for a vigorously meaningless discussion. Andrewasauber_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

asauber - Of course I am. You admittedly don’t understand them. Too bad you didn't provide an example of a mistake made in an IPCC report.JVL_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

You are calling into question my ability to judge the reports.
Of course I am. You admittedly don't understand them. Andrewasauber_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

On this topic, I encourage everyone to read the book Atrocities, by Matthew White (2013). The book is organized chronologically, beginning with the Second Persian War (480 BC) and ending with the Second Congo War (2002). This book should put an end to the a/mat lie that theism is the predominant cause of death and destruction in this world. The truth is much different. A/mats are the predominant cause of death and destruction...and it's not even a close competition.Truth Will Set You Free_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

ET- OK, say CO2 doubles, from 280 PPM to 560 PPM, that will only cause an increase in temperature of 0.6 degrees Celsius. That’s it, 0.6 degrees C. That’s about 1 degree F. And that is only if everything else stays the same, which we know doesn’t happen. Let's just take your numbers as a base line. How much extra land previously covered in ice or snow would be exposed and thereby become warmer? How would the exposure of that land contribute to further warming? When is a irreversible warming triggered? Regardless, these issue have been addressed in the IPCC reports. Can you specify a particular error in the reports?JVL_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT}

ET - I can track down the math that refutes the IPCC That's good then! I wasn't looking forward to it. CO2 isn’t the issue. The other stuff that comes from animal agriculture- the clear cutting for grazing; the clear cutting to plant for food for livestock- that’s just the tip. But those things don't contribute to the data which strongly implies that average global temperatures are increasing. Excepting that there is less plant cover. That doesn’t make any sense. Of course melting goes on above freezing. My point is that dirty ice caps and glaciers melt when the temps are BELOW freezing. And there is plenty of research to back that up. Melting goes on in specific locations when the temperatures at those specific locations are below freezing? That should be easy to back up if you're right. So what? You haven’t shown that the subunits provide any other function. You haven’t shown that unguided evolution can produce the subunits. Yes but the point is you haven't proven that the subunits don't have some function. You claimed that ATP synthase is irreducibly complex. I just want to see what evidence you have for that. All I can say is that life was intelligently designed. You might be right! But I am still interested in: where are the labs, the tools, the support technologies that would support such an effort. And, you haven't said if the design was 'front loaded' or if there was/is more frequent interventions. Those models are much different andrequire much different evaluation methods. I'm sure you'd agree. The stator is what connects the two subunits. It isn’t the protein gradient. Well, please elucidate. The 'stator' might be essential to the current function of the molecule ATP synthase but a) could it have been present but other bits not and there would still be some function and b) are you sure that the two sub-units (as you designate them) had no function whatsoever?JVL_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

OK, say CO2 doubles, from 280 PPM to 560 PPM, that will only cause an increase in temperature of 0.6 degrees Celsius. That's it, 0.6 degrees C. That's about 1 degree F. And that is only if everything else stays the same, which we know doesn't happen. The Mathematics of Carbon Dioxide, Part 1 The Mathematics of Carbon Dioxide Part 2 The Mathematics of Carbon Dioxide Part 3 The Mathematics of Carbon Dioxide Part 4 ET_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

JVL:
Well, I guess I can try and track down the research . . . I gather you won’t.
I can track down the math that refutes the IPCC
No, because other man-made processes are dumping a lot more greenhouse gases into the environment. The paper you cited said the issue you were highlighting could only account for about 18% of the extra carbon dioxide.
CO2 isn't the issue. The other stuff that comes from animal agriculture- the clear cutting for grazing; the clear cutting to plant for food for livestock- that's just the tip.
No one is saying melting is going on above or at freezing temperature!
That doesn't make any sense. Of course melting goes on above freezing. My point is that dirty ice caps and glaciers melt when the temps are BELOW freezing. And there is plenty of research to back that up.
Yes but you haven’t proved that the removal of that part removes all possible functions. Who says that the precursors to ATP synthase fulfilled the same function?
So what? You haven't shown that the subunits provide any other function. You haven't shown that unguided evolution can produce the subunits.
Are you sure?
Yes
And, I’m guessing you might find this significant, can you say exactly how life arose?
All I can say is that life was intelligently designed. The stator is what connects the two subunits. It isn't the protein gradient.ET_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

asauber - Well let’s start with this error: assuming the IPCC reports must have scientific value. Do you assume they have scientific value, in light of the fact you don’t understand them anyway? That is not an error in the IPCC reports. You are calling into question my ability to judge the reports. Which is a different issue. If you can't point to a specific error in the IPCC reports then fair enough.JVL_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

Well, if you can’t or won’t point to a specific error made in the IPCC reports
Well let's start with this error: assuming the IPCC reports must have scientific value. Do you assume they have scientific value, in light of the fact you don't understand them anyway? Andrewasauber_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

asauber - But we can judge yours. It’s based on a report you admit you don’t understand. Well, if you can't or won't point to a specific error made in the IPCC reports then it's hard for us to evaluate your complaint. I don't understand why your perceived ability of me to discern the science should have anything to do with a valid point you have to make. In fact, if you can point out a problem and then capitalise on my inability then surely that is a double win for you.JVL_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

ET - It isn’t science at all. There are many factors. And again I will point out that no one has shown that such a small increase can have the effects stated. Well, I guess I can try and track down the research . . . I gather you won't. If it only slows down climate change then we are not the problem No, because other man-made processes are dumping a lot more greenhouse gases into the environment. The paper you cited said the issue you were highlighting could only account for about 18% of the extra carbon dioxide. Show us the white snow that melts when the temps are below freezing. What? No one is saying melting is going on above or at freezing temperature! That's the problem! The global average temperature is rising so that certain areas at certain times are no longer below freezing. Actually it does as the removal of that part and you don’t have ATP synthase. Then you add in all of the other parts and it is easily IC. Yes but you haven't proved that the removal of that part removes all possible functions. Who says that the precursors to ATP synthase fulfilled the same function? Umm if you don’t have ATP synthase then you don’t have life. You could only have proto-life tethered to an energy source. Are you sure? Have you checked all the research? And, I'm guessing you might find this significant, can you say exactly how life arose? It is outside of the machine. see stator I saw a reference to a protein gradient . . .JVL_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

But unless you point out specific mistakes made in an IPCC report we can’t judge your stance.
But we can judge yours. It's based on a report you admit you don't understand. Andrewasauber_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

JVL:
I think that increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere causing atmospheric warming is old science.
It isn't science at all. There are many factors. And again I will point out that no one has shown that such a small increase can have the effects stated.
Some problems would ‘get better’ but it would only slow down climate change.
If it only slows down climate change then we are not the problem
Uh . . . melting is occurring regardless of how dirty the ice and glaciers are.
Show us the white snow that melts when the temps are below freezing.
That’s one particular ‘fault line’ but that doesn’t make ATP synthase irreducibly complex.
Actually it does as the removal of that part and you don't have ATP synthase. Then you add in all of the other parts and it is easily IC.
The question is: are all bits and parts of ATP synthase required for it to have any function at all.
Umm if you don't have ATP synthase then you don't have life. You could only have proto-life tethered to an energy source.
Also, why do you say ‘external protein beam’ implying it comes from outside ‘the machine’?
It is outside of the machine. see statorET_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

KF - notice how you have ducked the history challenge on the focal issue of the roots of modern liberty and democracy I was merely pointing out some clear and obvious historical facts. Which are not contradictory to your points. But you seem to not want to acknowledge some of the atrocities perpetrated by Christians and the Catholic and Protestant churches. Why is that?JVL_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

KF - JVL, you need to understand the power of inference on empirically tested, reliable signs. On trillions of observed cases of the cause of FSCO/I for short, we know it to be reliably caused by intelligently directed configuration. Trillions of cases? But seriously, your argument sounds like saying: I've observed thousands of white swans so there can be no black swans. There are precisely nil cases of observed cause by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity, and the search challenge in configuration spaces under constraint of observed cosmos scope atomic resources and time leads to utter implausibility once we have 500 – 1,000 bits of information The assertion that there are 'nil' cases is merely an assertion. Also, Evolutionary processes do not do a complete and undirected search through all the sample space. They take an existing 'form' and test out minor variations. Just on genome scale, a first cell based life form required 100 – 1,000 k bases, vastly beyond the threshold. So, we can safely conclude on sign that life from first cells to us, was designed Not really. The first cell didn't just arise without precursors. I really think you need to point out a specific mistake made in an IPCC report. This in turn highlights the issues of the crooked yardstick and the need to take a serious second look at the dominant narratives of a day that has institutions utterly tainted and warped by the manipulation required to build up and sustain a global holocaust on the scale of 800+ millions, mounting further at a million per week. Such a case instantly exposes the utter bankruptcy of the leading institutions of our day, and directly underscores the point of the OP As I've already noted: you think Democracy is a great idea until your view is in the minority. In fact, you imply the electorate is deluded or brain washed which means you don't, in fact, trust democracy as a political process. The smears in just the visible opening words at Wikipedia were enough to inadvertently highlight the point. Watts et al do not “deny” climate change, they challenge the presented consensus on substantial grounds. Fine, then it should be easy to point to a specific mistake made in an IPCC report. And hinting of holocaust denial is little more than a cheap slander by loaded terminology. BTW, that is part of why I started with how trivially true climate change is, given the moving average. As for reckoning successfully with various drivers, and producing models that stand the test of sound prediction, the answer is, such models are yet far off and face issues of sensitive dependence on initial conditions, just as one point. I don't remember introducing Holocaust denial (I certainly did note the Pogroms levied against the Jews in Europe during the Middle Ages which are factual) but I will review my comments. You may find the predictions of the IPCC non-compelling but they were developed by thousands of knowledgeable scientists working all over the planet. I'm sorry but unless you can provide a clear and solid mistake made by the IPCC . . .JVL_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

JVL, notice how you have ducked the history challenge on the focal issue of the roots of modern liberty and democracy? KF PS: Just to back some points from 66, here is Plato in his Republic on the ship of state parable:
It is not too hard to figure out that our civilisation is in deep trouble and is most likely headed for shipwreck. (And of course, that sort of concern is dismissed as “apocalyptic,” or neurotic pessimism that refuses to pause and smell the roses.) Plato’s Socrates spoke to this sort of situation, long since, in the ship of state parable in The Republic, Bk VI:
>>[Soc.] I perceive, I said, that you are vastly amused at having plunged me into such a hopeless discussion; but now hear the parable, and then you will be still more amused at the meagreness of my imagination: for the manner in which the best men are treated in their own States is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it; and therefore, if I am to plead their cause, I must have recourse to fiction, and put together a figure made up of many things, like the fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures. Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain [–> often interpreted, ship’s owner] who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. [= The people own the community and in the mass are overwhelmingly strong, but are ill equipped on the whole to guide, guard and lead it] The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering – every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer [= selfish ambition to rule and dominate], though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them [–> kubernetes, steersman, from which both cybernetics and government come in English]; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard [ = ruthless contest for domination of the community], and having first chained up the noble captain’s senses with drink or some narcotic drug [ = manipulation and befuddlement, cf. the parable of the cave], they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them [–> Cf here Luke’s subtle case study in Ac 27]. Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain’s hands into their own whether by force or persuasion [–> Nihilistic will to power on the premise of might and manipulation making ‘right’ ‘truth’ ‘justice’ ‘rights’ etc], they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer’s art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling. Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing? [Ad.] Of course, said Adeimantus. [Soc.] Then you will hardly need, I said, to hear the interpretation of the figure, which describes the true philosopher in his relation to the State[ --> here we see Plato's philosoppher-king emerging]; for you understand already. [Ad.] Certainly. [Soc.] Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised at finding that philosophers have no honour in their cities; explain it to him and try to convince him that their having honour would be far more extraordinary. [Ad.] I will. [Soc.] Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, he is right; but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, and not to themselves. The pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him –that is not the order of nature; neither are ‘the wise to go to the doors of the rich’ –the ingenious author of this saying told a lie –but the truth is, that, when a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him [ --> down this road lies the modern solution: a sound, well informed people will seek sound leaders, who will not need to manipulate or bribe or worse, and such a ruler will in turn be checked by the soundness of the people, cf. US DoI, 1776]; although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and star-gazers. [Ad.] Precisely so, he said. [Soc] For these reasons, and among men like these, philosophy, the noblest pursuit of all, is not likely to be much esteemed by those of the opposite faction; not that the greatest and most lasting injury is done to her by her opponents, but by her own professing followers, the same of whom you suppose the accuser to say, that the greater number of them are arrant rogues, and the best are useless; in which opinion I agreed [--> even among the students of the sound state (here, political philosophy and likely history etc.), many are of unsound motivation and intent, so mere education is not enough, character transformation is critical]. [Ad.] Yes. [Soc.] And the reason why the good are useless has now been explained? [Ad.] True. [Soc.] Then shall we proceed to show that the corruption of the majority is also unavoidable, and that this is not to be laid to the charge of philosophy any more than the other? [Ad.] By all means. [Soc.] And let us ask and answer in turn, first going back to the description of the gentle and noble nature.[ -- > note the character issue] Truth, as you will remember, was his leader, whom he followed always and in all things [ --> The spirit of truth as a marker]; failing in this, he was an impostor, and had no part or lot in true philosophy [--> the spirit of truth is a marker, for good or ill] . . . >>
(There is more than an echo of this in Acts 27, a real world case study. [Luke, a physician, was an educated Greek with a taste for subtle references.] This blog post, on soundness in policy, will also help)
kairosfocus_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

asauber - JVL, I suspect you aren’t compentent to analyse most aspects of the IPCC reports. You might be right. But unless you point out specific mistakes made in an IPCC report we can't judge your stance. You are the guy who made claims about scientific truths. I think you are confused and have little of value to add to any scientific discussion. Well, you don't know my background or areas of expertise. You don't like my responses so you choose to disparage my knowledge without any basis for doing so. Unless you are willing to point out specific errors in an IPCC report we can't judge your stance.JVL_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

ET - They seem to focus on CO2 without demonstrating that an increase of 120 parts per million could cause the less than 2 degrees F increase. Also there really isn’t a global temperature. I think that increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere causing atmospheric warming is old science. Do you have a specific mistake to point out? It seems to me that the IPCC reports do have projections which are 'bounded' based on different assumptions. There are global and regional averages which is what is used. And they are defined in the reports. If we cut our animal agriculture in half most of the problems would go away. Some problems would 'get better' but it would only slow down climate change. Ice caps and glaciers melt because they are dirty. And anyone who lives in the great white north knows that dirty snow melts faster than pristine white snow. Dirty snow melts even when the temps are below freezing. Uh . . . melting is occurring regardless of how dirty the ice and glaciers are. To hold the two very different subunits together so the machine can operate is an external protein beam that connects the motor to the membrane just the right distance above the subunit that provides the power for the motor. And without that connection you can produce all of the two ATP synthase subunits you want but you could never get them to produce ATP synthase. That's one particular 'fault line' but that doesn't make ATP synthase irreducibly complex. The question is: are all bits and parts of ATP synthase required for it to have any function at all. Also, why do you say 'external protein beam' implying it comes from outside 'the machine'?JVL_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

JVL, you need to understand the power of inference on empirically tested, reliable signs. On trillions of observed cases of the cause of FSCO/I for short, we know it to be reliably caused by intelligently directed configuration. Indeed, to object, you produced yet more cases in point. There are precisely nil cases of observed cause by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity, and the search challenge in configuration spaces under constraint of observed cosmos scope atomic resources and time leads to utter implausibility once we have 500 - 1,000 bits of information. Just on genome scale, a first cell based life form required 100 - 1,000 k bases, vastly beyond the threshold. So, we can safely conclude on sign that life from first cells to us, was designed. Next, while I have no intent to delve on long exchanges, you have skirted the issues that undermine the confident manner assertions on "consensus" relevant to climate claims. On that, I simply point you to meteorologist Watts and his site for long exploration of the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC's claims, their summaries for policy-makers and more. All of this is tangential to the focal issue from the OP, but goes to how too many have come to repose unwarranted confidence in the new magisterium and its publicists. This in turn highlights the issues of the crooked yardstick and the need to take a serious second look at the dominant narratives of a day that has institutions utterly tainted and warped by the manipulation required to build up and sustain a global holocaust on the scale of 800+ millions, mounting further at a million per week. Such a case instantly exposes the utter bankruptcy of the leading institutions of our day, and directly underscores the point of the OP. KF PS: Just now, to dig up WUWT, I used a search. The smears in just the visible opening words at Wikipedia were enough to inadvertently highlight the point. Watts et al do not "deny" climate change, they challenge the presented consensus on substantial grounds. And hinting of holocaust denial is little more than a cheap slander by loaded terminology. BTW, that is part of why I started with how trivially true climate change is, given the moving average. As for reckoning successfully with various drivers, and producing models that stand the test of sound prediction, the answer is, such models are yet far off and face issues of sensitive dependence on initial conditions, just as one point. Here is a link: https://wattsupwiththat.com/kairosfocus_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

It would be incredibly difficult to find someone who was competent to analyse every aspect of the IPCC reports!
JVL, I suspect you aren't compentent to analyse most aspects of the IPCC reports.
If the truths you want to point out
You are the guy who made claims about scientific truths. I think you are confused and have little of value to add to any scientific discussion. Andrewasauber_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

JVL:
Well, can you point to some specific mistakes in the IPCC reports?
They seem to focus on CO2 without demonstrating that an increase of 120 parts per million could cause the less than 2 degrees F increase. Also there really isn't a global temperature. If we cut our animal agriculture in half most of the problems would go away. Ice caps and glaciers melt because they are dirty. And anyone who lives in the great white north knows that dirty snow melts faster than pristine white snow. Dirty snow melts even when the temps are below freezing. Back to ATP synthase: To hold the two very different subunits together so the machine can operate is an external protein beam that connects the motor to the membrane just the right distance above the subunit that provides the power for the motor. And without that connection you can produce all of the two ATP synthase subunits you want but you could never get them to produce ATP synthase.ET_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

asauber - So your argument isn’t really about basic scientific truths, it’s about parsing a report for mistakes you may or may not understand. What? It would be incredibly difficult to find someone who was competent to analyse every aspect of the IPCC reports! That's the whole point of having a lot of people contribute to them and collate the information! If the truths you want to point out are basic then I suspect I'd have a better chance of understanding your objections.JVL_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

If you point out a mistake that I can’t grasp then I would try and look up some of the background.
So your argument isn't really about basic scientific truths, it's about parsing a report for mistakes you may or may not understand. Andrewasauber_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

asauber - Before I do that, lemme ask you a question: If there was a mistake in an IPCC report, would you be able to detect it? It would depend on the mistake. If you point out a mistake that I can't grasp then I would try and look up some of the background.JVL_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

mistakes in the IPCC reports?
Before I do that, lemme ask you a question: If there was a mistake in an IPCC report, would you be able to detect it? Andrewasauber_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

ET From the article you linked to:
A 2006 report from the Food and Agriculture Organization estimated that livestock were responsible for about 18% of human-caused greenhouse gases — a figure that has been criticized by the meat industry as too high and by some environmentalists as far too low. But what’s clear is that American levels of meat consumption can’t be sustainably adopted by the rest of the world, even if livestock management becomes more efficient globally.
18% is substantial and I do agree that livestock production certainly contributes to climate change and environmental degradation. A friend of mine used to say: if we had meat as a treat instead of a staple the environment would be better off which is hard to disagree with. But there is that other 82% . . .JVL_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

asauber - You declaring that climate change is a basic scientific truth. It doesn’t get much stupider, in fact, it’s a pretty big lie. Well, can you point to some specific mistakes in the IPCC reports? ET - By seeing if all the parts have to be in place before ATP can be created. Has anyone done that then? Daily weather sets the climate. And climate alarmists use daily weather to try to bolster their claims all of the time. I suppose some 'alarmists' do point to particular days and say 'See! Global warming!' But I don't think any scientists do that. It's all about long term trends isn't it? My claim is based on science whereas the IPCC’s is not. Well, if you can point out mistakes made by the iPCC that would be interesting to say the least.JVL_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

JVL:
Well, that doesn’t exactly provide an alternative to unguided evolution but okay, how do you test the claim that ATP synthase is irreducibly complex?
By seeing if all the parts have to be in place before ATP can be created.
Well, daily weather is not the same thing as long term climate trends.
Daily weather sets the climate. And climate alarmists use daily weather to try to bolster their claims all of the time.
Well, as I said, I’m sure it’s a contributing factor but the IPCC reports disagree with you.
My claim is based on science whereas the IPCC's is not. The Triple Whopper Environmental Impact of Global Meat ProductionET_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

Which part of climate change is basic stupidity?
You declaring that climate change is a basic scientific truth. It doesn't get much stupider, in fact, it's a pretty big lie. Andrewasauber_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply