http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/26/northern-ireland-ulster-museum-creationism
The minister said he wrote a "very balanced letter" to the museum because he wanted to "reflect the views of all the people in Northern Ireland in all its richness and diversity".
Mmmm. Yes. Good man Nelson. Went to Canada once to see a GAA match.
To be fair he has a point.
Quote from: Zapatista on May 27, 2010, 11:40:57 PM
To be fair he has a point.
Only about spiders though. Those webs would nearly suggest intelligent design.
FFS I really did believe that dinosaurs died out in the late creataceous period, what fecking muppets these idiots are :D :D :D :D
His call was condemned by the evolutionary biologist Professor Richard Dawkins, who said: "If the museum was to go down that road then perhaps they should bring in the stork theory of where babies come from. Or perhaps the museum should introduce the flat earth theory."
Dawkins said it was irrelevant if a large number of people in Northern Ireland refused to believe in evolution. "Scientific evidence can't be democratically decided," Dawkins said.
A large number of people in NI vote for the DUP Richard, nuff said ;)
Quote from: tyssam5 on May 27, 2010, 11:43:37 PM
Only about spiders though. Those webs would nearly suggest intelligent design.
Beavers too ;)
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on May 27, 2010, 11:48:55 PM
FFS I really did believe that dinosaurs died out in the late creataceous period, what fecking muppets these idiots are :D :D :D :D
His call was condemned by the evolutionary biologist Professor Richard Dawkins, who said: "If the museum was to go down that road then perhaps they should bring in the stork theory of where babies come from. Or perhaps the museum should introduce the flat earth theory."
Dawkins said it was irrelevant if a large number of people in Northern Ireland refused to believe in evolution. "Scientific evidence can't be democratically decided," Dawkins said.
A large number of people in NI vote for the DUP Richard, nuff said ;)
Muppets all right but 'I think therefore I am'. If they believe it in big enough numbers then he has a point. I doubt there are very many people believe it though.
Do catholics not believe in creationism as well?
Quote from: Main Street on May 28, 2010, 12:06:59 AM
Do catholics not believe in creationism as well?
Doubtless, muppets all.
That's one thing, establishing and running a party (and owc) on that basis is another.
There is no escape from the wrath.
Quote from: Main Street on May 28, 2010, 12:06:59 AM
Do catholics not believe in creationism as well?
Not the version below.
The belief that the Earth was divinely created in 4004 BC originates with the writings of another Ulster-based Protestant, Archbishop of Armagh James Ussher, in 1654. Ussher calculated the date based on textual clues in the Old Testament, even settling on a date and time for the moment of creation: in the early hours of 23 October
Quote from: tyssam5 on May 28, 2010, 02:33:07 AM
Quote from: Main Street on May 28, 2010, 12:06:59 AM
Do catholics not believe in creationism as well?
Not the version below.
The belief that the Earth was divinely created in 4004 BC originates with the writings of another Ulster-based Protestant, Archbishop of Armagh James Ussher, in 1654. Ussher calculated the date based on textual clues in the Old Testament, even settling on a date and time for the moment of creation: in the early hours of 23 October
No, I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church embraces evolution and therefore doesn't take quite a lot of the bible seriously. You know, the bits that make their modern day theory look stupid. At least the creationists are consistent in that they reckon that everything in the bible is true. But I reckon that I'm God so I'd like a small corner to myself. I have two other followers. Enough?
Quote from: Lawrence of Knockbride on May 28, 2010, 08:34:05 AM
No, I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church embraces evolution and therefore doesn't take quite a lot of the bible seriously. You know, the bits that make their modern day theory look stupid. At least the creationists are consistent in that they reckon that everything in the bible is true. But I reckon that I'm God so I'd like a small corner to myself. I have two other followers. Enough?
Strange run of thought there. Catholism get's a dig for modernising in line with new knowledge while creationists get applauded for being consitantly wrong?
All running hand in hand with Sammy's revelations a while ago that there was no such thing as Global Warming, etc. while he was the minister for the environment. If this was any other country, these balloons would be laughed out of their positions. You have to wonder what goes through these people's heads bar hot air and the odd occasional tumble weed... :'(
Quote from: screenmachine on May 28, 2010, 08:51:08 AM
All running hand in hand with Sammy's revelations a while ago that there was no such thing as Global Warming, etc. while he was the minister for the environment. If this was any other country, these balloons would be laughed out of their positions. You have to wonder what goes through these people's heads bar hot air and the odd occasional tumble weed... :'(
Not really. This is common in many countries from the US to Iran.
Quote from: Lawrence of Knockbride on May 28, 2010, 08:34:05 AM
Quote from: tyssam5 on May 28, 2010, 02:33:07 AM
Quote from: Main Street on May 28, 2010, 12:06:59 AM
Do catholics not believe in creationism as well?
Not the version below.
The belief that the Earth was divinely created in 4004 BC originates with the writings of another Ulster-based Protestant, Archbishop of Armagh James Ussher, in 1654. Ussher calculated the date based on textual clues in the Old Testament, even settling on a date and time for the moment of creation: in the early hours of 23 October
No, I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church embraces evolution and therefore doesn't take quite a lot of the bible seriously. You know, the bits that make their modern day theory look stupid. At least the creationists are consistent in that they reckon that everything in the bible is true. But I reckon that I'm God so I'd like a small corner to myself. I have two other followers. Enough?
The same Catholic Church that believes chowing down on bread and wine is ~ to the body and blood of Christ...
As for Sammy Wilson, he's not exactly alone in his beliefs.
Quote from: screenmachine on May 28, 2010, 08:51:08 AM
All running hand in hand with Sammy's revelations a while ago that there was no such thing as Global Warming, etc. while he was the minister for the environment. If this was any other country, these balloons would be laughed out of their positions. You have to wonder what goes through these people's heads bar hot air and the odd occasional tumble weed... :'(
To be fair to him he's not dening global warming he's questioning the importance of the anthropological role in global warming, he's certainly not alone in that.
Personally i think hes wrong but I would actually agree with his stance (the ends justifies the means), its nonsensical to think we can hold hold back the tide of global warming like some modern day king canoute with a few windfarms and the odd tax on plastic bags etc :-\
Even if the rabid greenies got their dream wish list it would hold back the inexorable march of temperture rise by a mere few years. Any money thrown at the problem is wasted money so in that respect i agree with sammy.
Now if the government was raising revenues to fund research into long term 'affordable' alternative energy sources in order to ensure the lights don't go out in the future then i'd be happy to see my tax go to that, as it is they don't and any money generated is going to be squandered paying/subsidising people to make very very expensive energy (which is often useless anyway because of the way the grid works) via windfarms and the like.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on May 28, 2010, 09:02:34 AM
The same Catholic Church that believes chowing down on bread and wine is ~ to the body and blood of Christ...
It's symbolic ::). The CC think cannibalism is a sin.
The CC is riddled with symbolism.
Quote from: delboy on May 28, 2010, 09:20:40 AM
Quote from: screenmachine on May 28, 2010, 08:51:08 AM
All running hand in hand with Sammy's revelations a while ago that there was no such thing as Global Warming, etc. while he was the minister for the environment. If this was any other country, these balloons would be laughed out of their positions. You have to wonder what goes through these people's heads bar hot air and the odd occasional tumble weed... :'(
To be fair to him he's not dening global warming he's questioning the importance of the anthropological role in global warming, he's certainly not alone in that.
Personally i think hes wrong but I would actually agree with his stance (the ends justifies the means), its nonsensical to think we can hold hold back the tide of global warming like some modern day king canoute with a few windfarms and the odd tax on plastic bags etc :-\
Even if the rabid greenies got their dream wish list it would hold back the inexorable march of temperture rise by a mere few years. Any money thrown at the problem is wasted money so in that respect i agree with sammy.
And tell me, how has Sammy, or yourself for that matter, reached this conclusion given his apparent disregard for scientific opinion? Irrespective of climate change, are wind farms, or anything else that diminishes our dependence on fossil fuels, really a waste of money?
Quote from: tyssam5 on May 28, 2010, 02:33:07 AM
The belief that the Earth was divinely created in 4004 BC originates with the writings of another Ulster-based Protestant, Archbishop of Armagh James Ussher, in 1654. Ussher calculated the date based on textual clues in the Old Testament, even settling on a date and time for the moment of creation: in the early hours of 23 October
Even if you accept that particular date, what relevance has it to an exhibition on from "Plantation to Powersharing"?
Did the Plantations not occur around 1600, long after Adam & Eve/Dinosaurs (choose your preference) dissappeared from the scene?
/Jim
Quote from: Zapatista on May 28, 2010, 09:45:06 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on May 28, 2010, 09:02:34 AM
The same Catholic Church that believes chowing down on bread and wine is ~ to the body and blood of Christ...
It's symbolic ::). The CC think cannibalism is a sin.
The CC is riddled with symbolism.
It's symbolic in other churches, in the Catholic church it is apparently the real deal, transubstantiation means you get the actual body and blood of JC.
Quote from: tyssam5 on May 28, 2010, 09:55:56 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on May 28, 2010, 09:45:06 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on May 28, 2010, 09:02:34 AM
The same Catholic Church that believes chowing down on bread and wine is ~ to the body and blood of Christ...
It's symbolic ::). The CC think cannibalism is a sin.
The CC is riddled with symbolism.
It's symbolic in other churches, in the Catholic church it is apparently the real deal, transubstantiation means you get the actual body and blood of JC.
So when Jesus did it at the last supper he was handing out his own body and blood? If you actually believe that catholics think they are dirnking and eating Jesus you are as mad as they would be.
Quote from: tyssam5 on May 28, 2010, 09:55:56 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on May 28, 2010, 09:45:06 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on May 28, 2010, 09:02:34 AM
The same Catholic Church that believes chowing down on bread and wine is ~ to the body and blood of Christ...
It's symbolic ::). The CC think cannibalism is a sin.
The CC is riddled with symbolism.
It's symbolic in other churches, in the Catholic church it is apparently the real deal, transubstantiation means you get the actual body and blood of JC.
At my pre-marriage course nigh on 10 years ago the priest pleaded with folk to finish the wine at communion. He stipulated it had to be all drank since it was blessed and if he had drank it all he would be over the limit for driving home, hardly the real deal now!!!
Quote from: Zapatista on May 28, 2010, 09:57:56 AM
Quote from: tyssam5 on May 28, 2010, 09:55:56 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on May 28, 2010, 09:45:06 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on May 28, 2010, 09:02:34 AM
The same Catholic Church that believes chowing down on bread and wine is ~ to the body and blood of Christ...
It's symbolic ::). The CC think cannibalism is a sin.
The CC is riddled with symbolism.
It's symbolic in other churches, in the Catholic church it is apparently the real deal, transubstantiation means you get the actual body and blood of JC.
So when Jesus did it at the last supper he was handing out his own body and blood? If you actually believe that catholics think they are dirnking and eating Jesus you are as mad as they would be.
Don't believe it myself but that's the teaching. We never got the blood anyway, only the body.
Quote from: AFS on May 28, 2010, 09:53:50 AM
Quote from: delboy on May 28, 2010, 09:20:40 AM
Quote from: screenmachine on May 28, 2010, 08:51:08 AM
All running hand in hand with Sammy's revelations a while ago that there was no such thing as Global Warming, etc. while he was the minister for the environment. If this was any other country, these balloons would be laughed out of their positions. You have to wonder what goes through these people's heads bar hot air and the odd occasional tumble weed... :'(
To be fair to him he's not dening global warming he's questioning the importance of the anthropological role in global warming, he's certainly not alone in that.
Personally i think hes wrong but I would actually agree with his stance (the ends justifies the means), its nonsensical to think we can hold hold back the tide of global warming like some modern day king canoute with a few windfarms and the odd tax on plastic bags etc :-\
Even if the rabid greenies got their dream wish list it would hold back the inexorable march of temperture rise by a mere few years. Any money thrown at the problem is wasted money so in that respect i agree with sammy.
And tell me, how has Sammy, or yourself for that matter, reached this conclusion given his apparent disregard for scientific opinion? Irrespective of climate change, are wind farms, or anything else that diminishes our dependence on fossil fuels, really a waste of money?
Thats common knowledge i thought, you don't really think we can stop it do you :D one small volcano in iceland can virtually bring europe to a halt such is our impunity against the forces of nature and you think we can 'fix' something as big and as complex as the planets climate system :D
Ok wind farms, generally speaking waste of time, the grid has to run at slightly over capacity, electicity isn't stored its generated as its needed, that means the guys that run it have to know when the electricty is being generated and how much, wind farms don't do predictabilty so they have to call upon the coal, gas and nuclear stations to be sure of the energy, the wind farms electricity will of course be fed into the grid as but it'll just be used to top up spare capacity (the bit that doesn't get used) as it can't be relied upon.
It adds insult to injury that we have to pay a premium for this less useful form of electricty generation, its a funny old world right enough.
Quote from: delboy on May 28, 2010, 10:09:58 AM
Thats common knowledge i thought, you don't really think we can stop it do you :D one small volcano in iceland can virtually bring europe to a halt such is our impunity against the forces of nature and you think we can 'fix' something as big and as complex as the planets climate system :D
Ok wind farms, generally speaking waste of time, the grid has to run at slightly over capacity, electicity isn't stored its generated as its needed, that means the guys that run it have to know when the electricty is being generated and how much, wind farms don't do predictabilty so they have to call upon the coal, gas and nuclear stations to be sure of the energy, the wind farms electricity will of course be fed into the grid as but it'll just be used to top up spare capacity as it can't be relied upon.
It adds insult to injury that we have to pay a premium for this less useful form of electricty generation, its a funny old world right enough.
What's the relevance of the effect of volcanic ash on aeroplane engines?
How do you figure that humans were capable of causing the problem, but are not capable of at least attempting to lessen its impacts? Either we're too insignificant, or we're not.
Never said wind farms were the holy grail. They're one part of a very big jigsaw.
Quote from: delboy on May 28, 2010, 10:09:58 AM
Even if the rabid greenies got their dream wish list it would hold back the inexorable march of temperture rise by a mere few years.
Very sensible summation of the theoretical phenomenon that is
man made global warming.
Quote from: eggy bread on May 28, 2010, 10:00:34 AM
At my pre-marriage course nigh on 10 years ago the priest pleaded with folk to finish the wine at communion. He stipulated it had to be all drank since it was blessed and if he had drank it all he would be over the limit for driving home, hardly the real deal now!!!
As Peter Griffin in Family Guy said on taking the communion wine at church said :
QuoteWhoa! Is that really the blood of Christ? ... Man, that guy must've been wasted 24/7
/Jim
Quote from: Zapatista on May 28, 2010, 08:45:16 AM
Quote from: Lawrence of Knockbride on May 28, 2010, 08:34:05 AM
No, I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church embraces evolution and therefore doesn't take quite a lot of the bible seriously. You know, the bits that make their modern day theory look stupid. At least the creationists are consistent in that they reckon that everything in the bible is true. But I reckon that I'm God so I'd like a small corner to myself. I have two other followers. Enough?
Strange run of thought there. Catholism get's a dig for modernising in line with new knowledge while creationists get applauded for being consitantly wrong?
I'm not applauding anybody. Hopefully they'll keep modernising and in years to come they'll decide it was all a big turd all along.
You could imagine the guide showing all the Creationists round the museum.
Err this would be a dinosaur skeleton from 65 million years ago if they existed, which of course they didn't because as we know the world is only 4000 years old. It's actually just a few pieces of joined together rock that is sort of dinosaur shaped.
Anything else in here which claims be over 4000 years old we can just ignore.
Quote from: Maiden1 on May 28, 2010, 12:25:50 PM
You could imagine the guide showing all the Creationists round the museum.
Err this would be a dinosaur bone from 65 million years ago if they existed, which of course they don't because as we know the world is only 4000 years old. It's actually just a big rock that is sort of dinosaur shaped.
Anything else in here which claims be over 4000 years old we can just ignore.
http://creationmuseum.org/whats-here/exhibits/#dinosaur-den (http://creationmuseum.org/whats-here/exhibits/#dinosaur-den)
It exists - I watched a documentary about it - some guy with a PhD in natural science said men and dinosaurs lived together, when questioned about scientific evidence he said all scientific evidence is correct unless it contradicts the bible!!
Did God not bury dinosaurs in in the earth to test our faith?
(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2007/jesus_dinosaur.jpg)
Quote from: AFS on May 28, 2010, 10:23:44 AM
Quote from: delboy on May 28, 2010, 10:09:58 AM
Thats common knowledge i thought, you don't really think we can stop it do you :D one small volcano in iceland can virtually bring europe to a halt such is our impunity against the forces of nature and you think we can 'fix' something as big and as complex as the planets climate system :D
Ok wind farms, generally speaking waste of time, the grid has to run at slightly over capacity, electicity isn't stored its generated as its needed, that means the guys that run it have to know when the electricty is being generated and how much, wind farms don't do predictabilty so they have to call upon the coal, gas and nuclear stations to be sure of the energy, the wind farms electricity will of course be fed into the grid as but it'll just be used to top up spare capacity as it can't be relied upon.
It adds insult to injury that we have to pay a premium for this less useful form of electricty generation, its a funny old world right enough.
What's the relevance of the effect of volcanic ash on aeroplane engines?
How do you figure that humans were capable of causing the problem, but are not capable of at least attempting to lessen its impacts? Either we're too insignificant, or we're not.
Never said wind farms were the holy grail. They're one part of a very big jigsaw.
That is an example of our impotence in the face of mother nature, its not about aeroplane engines but you knew that anyway, you might think we can 'fix' the climate i most certainly don't!
Have you ever heard of a little thing called the industrial revolution, kicked off in the 18th century, we've been burning fossil fuels ever since. Reducing our fossil fuel use at this point is just slowing the enevitable, you can't undo hundreds of years of C02 production simply by sticking green taxes on things and reducing (slightly) fossil fuel use. You can of course lose any ability to compete with others such as the US, china and india who are quite happy to keep burning it until there isn't a lump of coal or thimble of oil left.
Wind farms aren't even a peice of the jigsaw for the reasons i've explained. It needs to be dependable otherwise its next to useless. I'll reiterate my previous point, im all for the government raising revenue if its earmarked for research on 'affordable' energy production for the security of our future energy needs so that we can't in the future be held to ransom by the russians or some other state.
Its patently absurd to feed us the line thats it to save the world or reduce global warming etc, none of the money even goes towards trying to mitigate global warming its just an easy tax take, end off.
Quote from: delboy on May 28, 2010, 01:04:14 PM
Quote from: AFS on May 28, 2010, 10:23:44 AM
Quote from: delboy on May 28, 2010, 10:09:58 AM
Thats common knowledge i thought, you don't really think we can stop it do you :D one small volcano in iceland can virtually bring europe to a halt such is our impunity against the forces of nature and you think we can 'fix' something as big and as complex as the planets climate system :D
Ok wind farms, generally speaking waste of time, the grid has to run at slightly over capacity, electicity isn't stored its generated as its needed, that means the guys that run it have to know when the electricty is being generated and how much, wind farms don't do predictabilty so they have to call upon the coal, gas and nuclear stations to be sure of the energy, the wind farms electricity will of course be fed into the grid as but it'll just be used to top up spare capacity as it can't be relied upon.
It adds insult to injury that we have to pay a premium for this less useful form of electricty generation, its a funny old world right enough.
What's the relevance of the effect of volcanic ash on aeroplane engines?
How do you figure that humans were capable of causing the problem, but are not capable of at least attempting to lessen its impacts? Either we're too insignificant, or we're not.
Never said wind farms were the holy grail. They're one part of a very big jigsaw.
That is an example of our impotence in the face of mother nature, its not about aeroplane engines but you knew that anyway, you might think we can 'fix' the climate i most certainly don't!
Have you ever heard of a little thing called the industrial revolution, kicked off in the 18th century, we've been burning fossil fuels ever since. Reducing our fossil fuel use at this point is just slowing the enevitable, you can't undo hundreds of years of C02 production simply by sticking green taxes on things and reducing (slightly) fossil fuel use. You can of course lose any ability to compete with others such as the US, china and india who are quite happy to keep burning it until there isn't a lump of coal or thimble of oil left.
Wind farms aren't even a peice of the jigsaw for the reasons i've explained. It needs to be dependable otherwise its next to useless. I'll reiterate my previous point, im all for the government raising revenue if its earmarked for research on 'affordable' energy production for the security of our future energy needs so that we can't in the future be held to ransom by the russians or some other state.
Its patently absurd to feed us the line thats it to save the world or reduce global warming etc, none of the money even goes towards trying to mitigate global warmings its just an easy tax take, end off.
So we do nothing just stick our heads in the sand pretend it isn't happening or that we can't (even in a small way) do something about it!
Sort of like what the unionists have been doing for decades.
The earth has also cooled and warmed umpteen times throughout it's history without man burning fossil fuels and doubtless will again in the future.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on May 28, 2010, 01:08:10 PM
So we do nothing just stick our heads in the sand pretend it isn't happening or that we can't (even in a small way) do something about it!
Sort of like what the unionists have been doing for decades.
Earthquakes happen, volcanoes, hurricanes, meteorites - shit happens, no politician is thinking of the future generations with these bullshit green taxes, they are thinking of their own jobs.
Quote from: delboy on May 28, 2010, 01:04:14 PM
That is an example of our impotence in the face of mother nature, its not about aeroplane engines but you knew that anyway, you might think we can 'fix' the climate i most certainly don't!
Have you ever heard of a little thing called the industrial revolution, kicked off in the 18th century, we've been burning fossil fuels ever since. Reducing our fossil fuel use at this point is just slowing the enevitable, you can't undo hundreds of years of C02 production simply by sticking green taxes on things and reducing (slightly) fossil fuel use. You can of course lose any ability to compete with others such as the US, china and india who are quite happy to keep burning it until there isn't a lump of coal or thimble of oil left.
Wind farms aren't even a peice of the jigsaw for the reasons i've explained. It needs to be dependable otherwise its next to useless. I'll reiterate my previous point, im all for the government raising revenue if its earmarked for research on 'affordable' energy production for the security of our future energy needs so that we can't in the future be held to ransom by the russians or some other state.
Its patently absurd to feed us the line thats it to save the world or reduce global warming etc, none of the money even goes towards trying to mitigate global warming its just an easy tax take, end off.
QuoteHumanity already possesses the fundamental scientific, technical, and industrial know-how to solve the carbon and climate problem for the next half-century. A portfolio of technologies now exists to meet the world's energy needs over the next 50 years and limit atmospheric CO2 to a trajectory that avoids a doubling of the preindustrial concentration. Every element in this portfolio has passed beyond the laboratory bench and demonstration project; many are already implemented somewhere at full industrial scale. Although no element is a credible candidate for doing the entire job (or even half the job) by itself, the portfolio as a whole is large enough that not every element has to be used.
Pacala & Socolow 2004 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/305/5686/968) - These lads seem fairly intelligent and they seem to reckon we can have a good go at doing something about the problem. They even reckon wind power might be worth a look at. Seems a fair few agree with them too.
Quote from: eggy bread on May 28, 2010, 01:11:39 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on May 28, 2010, 01:08:10 PM
So we do nothing just stick our heads in the sand pretend it isn't happening or that we can't (even in a small way) do something about it!
Sort of like what the unionists have been doing for decades.
Earthquakes happen, volcanoes, hurricanes, meteorites - shit happens, no politician is thinking of the future generations with these bullshit green taxes, they are thinking of their own jobs.
Sorry can you tell me where I mentioned anything about green taxes or politicans?
Btw "shit happens" great response to a global problem.
Quote from: Zapatista on May 28, 2010, 12:33:54 PM
Did God not bury dinosaurs in in the earth to test our faith?
Ah Mr.Hicks, as relevant today as he ever was.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on May 28, 2010, 01:18:51 PM
Quote from: eggy bread on May 28, 2010, 01:11:39 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on May 28, 2010, 01:08:10 PM
So we do nothing just stick our heads in the sand pretend it isn't happening or that we can't (even in a small way) do something about it!
Sort of like what the unionists have been doing for decades.
Earthquakes happen, volcanoes, hurricanes, meteorites - shit happens, no politician is thinking of the future generations with these bullshit green taxes, they are thinking of their own jobs.
Sorry can you tell me where I mentioned anything about green taxes or politicans?
Btw "shit happens" great response to a global problem.
Sorry Delboy mentioned taxes somewhere, and there is as much scientific evidence to say that global warming incited by man is complete bollocks, as stated the earth has cooled and warmed umpteen times through its history and will do again - there just wasn't agenda driven scientists and politicians to cause mass hysteria on the issue.
Quote from: Zapatista on May 28, 2010, 09:57:56 AM
Quote from: tyssam5 on May 28, 2010, 09:55:56 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on May 28, 2010, 09:45:06 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on May 28, 2010, 09:02:34 AM
The same Catholic Church that believes chowing down on bread and wine is ~ to the body and blood of Christ...
It's symbolic ::). The CC think cannibalism is a sin.
The CC is riddled with symbolism.
It's symbolic in other churches, in the Catholic church it is apparently the real deal, transubstantiation means you get the actual body and blood of JC.
So when Jesus did it at the last supper he was handing out his own body and blood? If you actually believe that catholics think they are dirnking and eating Jesus you are as mad as they would be.
Individuals might not believe it, but that's the doctrine.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on May 28, 2010, 01:08:10 PM
Quote from: delboy on May 28, 2010, 01:04:14 PM
Quote from: AFS on May 28, 2010, 10:23:44 AM
Quote from: delboy on May 28, 2010, 10:09:58 AM
Thats common knowledge i thought, you don't really think we can stop it do you :D one small volcano in iceland can virtually bring europe to a halt such is our impunity against the forces of nature and you think we can 'fix' something as big and as complex as the planets climate system :D
Ok wind farms, generally speaking waste of time, the grid has to run at slightly over capacity, electicity isn't stored its generated as its needed, that means the guys that run it have to know when the electricty is being generated and how much, wind farms don't do predictabilty so they have to call upon the coal, gas and nuclear stations to be sure of the energy, the wind farms electricity will of course be fed into the grid as but it'll just be used to top up spare capacity as it can't be relied upon.
It adds insult to injury that we have to pay a premium for this less useful form of electricty generation, its a funny old world right enough.
What's the relevance of the effect of volcanic ash on aeroplane engines?
How do you figure that humans were capable of causing the problem, but are not capable of at least attempting to lessen its impacts? Either we're too insignificant, or we're not.
Never said wind farms were the holy grail. They're one part of a very big jigsaw.
That is an example of our impotence in the face of mother nature, its not about aeroplane engines but you knew that anyway, you might think we can 'fix' the climate i most certainly don't!
Have you ever heard of a little thing called the industrial revolution, kicked off in the 18th century, we've been burning fossil fuels ever since. Reducing our fossil fuel use at this point is just slowing the enevitable, you can't undo hundreds of years of C02 production simply by sticking green taxes on things and reducing (slightly) fossil fuel use. You can of course lose any ability to compete with others such as the US, china and india who are quite happy to keep burning it until there isn't a lump of coal or thimble of oil left.
Wind farms aren't even a peice of the jigsaw for the reasons i've explained. It needs to be dependable otherwise its next to useless. I'll reiterate my previous point, im all for the government raising revenue if its earmarked for research on 'affordable' energy production for the security of our future energy needs so that we can't in the future be held to ransom by the russians or some other state.
Its patently absurd to feed us the line thats it to save the world or reduce global warming etc, none of the money even goes towards trying to mitigate global warmings its just an easy tax take, end off.
So we do nothing just stick our heads in the sand pretend it isn't happening or that we can't (even in a small way) do something about it!
Sort of like what the unionists have been doing for decades.
No we could shout at the moon and waste trillions of dollars on something thats enevitable anyway, or we could as i suggest spend the money on looking to provide new sources of alternative energy not to 'save the world' but instead to secure our future enegy needs when the cheap oil/gas and coal has gone.
From a huminatarian perspective if we didn't squander trillions of dollars (thats the estimates of what its going to take) trying to hold back the temperature rises by a decade or so at most and instead spent even a fraction of that money reducing human misery around the world right here and now the world would be an infinitely better place IMO, i know which way i would choose to spend the money.
Quote from: eggy bread on May 28, 2010, 01:28:49 PM
there is as much scientific evidence to say that global warming incited by man is complete bollocks,
This is simply not true.
Quote from: eggy bread on May 28, 2010, 01:28:49 PMas stated the earth has cooled and warmed umpteen times through its history and will do again
And what? No one disputes this. Well I suppose if jumping at massive, baseless assumptions is your thing, then I can see why you might think this proves something.
Quote from: eggy bread on May 28, 2010, 01:28:49 PMthere just wasn't agenda driven scientists and politicians to cause mass hysteria on the issue.
Heading into mental conspiracy theory nut job territory now.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7347658/Climategate-professor-admits-to-withholding-information.html
How did this thread end up being about Global Warming anyhow?
Quote from: AFS on May 28, 2010, 01:36:24 PM
Quote from: eggy bread on May 28, 2010, 01:28:49 PM
there is as much scientific evidence to say that global warming incited by man is complete bollocks,
This is simply not true.
Quote from: eggy bread on May 28, 2010, 01:28:49 PMas stated the earth has cooled and warmed umpteen times through its history and will do again
And what? No one disputes this. Well I suppose if jumping at massive, baseless assumptions is your thing, then I can see why you might think this proves something.
Quote from: eggy bread on May 28, 2010, 01:28:49 PMthere just wasn't agenda driven scientists and politicians to cause mass hysteria on the issue.
Heading into mental conspiracy theory nut job territory now.
There is plenty of evidence from reputable scientists to stipulate that CO2 isn't the cause for the Earth warming but due to the mass hysteria of the media on this most are referred to as skeptics and ignored.
Quote from: Maiden1 on May 28, 2010, 01:53:26 PM
How did this thread end up being about Global Warming anyhow?
Climate change denial, evolution denial. Same shit, different debate.
Quote from: Zapatista on May 28, 2010, 12:33:54 PM
Did God not bury dinosaurs in in the earth to test our faith?
No fool, all fossils were laid down as a result of the great flood. Only Noah's family, mates and the 2x2s survived.
Quote from: AFS on May 28, 2010, 01:59:32 PM
Quote from: Maiden1 on May 28, 2010, 01:53:26 PM
How did this thread end up being about Global Warming anyhow?
Climate change denial, evolution denial. Same shit, different debate.
You can write (well type), so you must be able to read, who denied climate change?
Quote from: eggy bread on May 28, 2010, 01:57:18 PM
There is plenty of evidence from reputable scientists to stipulate that CO2 isn't the cause for the Earth warming but due to the mass hysteria of the media on this most are referred to as skeptics and ignored.
Go and throw some up here then. Even serious climate change deniers don't use that line anymore.
And there's nothing wrong with scepticism. It's healthy to question things. All good scientists are sceptics. It's nonsense to suggest that any 'reputable' scientist with evidence 'to stipulate that CO2 isn't the cause for the Earth warming' would be ignored. More likely they'd have funding coming out of their ears from all types of parties with vested interests in killing this issue.
Quote from: eggy bread on May 28, 2010, 02:04:36 PM
Quote from: AFS on May 28, 2010, 01:59:32 PM
Quote from: Maiden1 on May 28, 2010, 01:53:26 PM
How did this thread end up being about Global Warming anyhow?
Climate change denial, evolution denial. Same shit, different debate.
You can write (well type), so you must be able to read, who denied climate change?
Pedantry. Denial that climate change is caused by humans. Happy now?
Quote from: eggy bread on May 28, 2010, 01:28:49 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on May 28, 2010, 01:18:51 PM
Quote from: eggy bread on May 28, 2010, 01:11:39 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on May 28, 2010, 01:08:10 PM
So we do nothing just stick our heads in the sand pretend it isn't happening or that we can't (even in a small way) do something about it!
Sort of like what the unionists have been doing for decades.
Earthquakes happen, volcanoes, hurricanes, meteorites - shit happens, no politician is thinking of the future generations with these bullshit green taxes, they are thinking of their own jobs.
Sorry can you tell me where I mentioned anything about green taxes or politicans?
Btw "shit happens" great response to a global problem.
Sorry Delboy mentioned taxes somewhere, and there is as much scientific evidence to say that global warming incited by man is complete bollocks, as stated the earth has cooled and warmed umpteen times through its history and will do again - there just wasn't agenda driven scientists and politicians to cause mass hysteria on the issue.
Of course none of the current doubts are based on the agendas of business interests and politicians beholden to those interests, are they? Just like none of the "doubts" about lung cancer and smoking weren't based on the "research" and misinformation campaigns of the tobacco companies and their lobbyists for fifty years. Or the similar one against evolutionary biology and science in general still ongoing in the states and many parts of the world by religiously-motivated frauds.
If an equal proportion of scientists are unconvinced of the role of greenhouse gas emissions in causing the current warming, you'll have no problem pointing us in the direction of some of that research. Even relative heroes of the anti-global warming movement such as Bjorn Lomborg concede that man is responsible for the current warming; he just thinks the money would be better spent on mitigation and dealing with other problems.
And in case you hadn't noticed, those earlier periods of cooling and warming were accompanied by habitat changes and extinctions, just like this current one. The big problem this time is that there isn't a huge, wide planet available to species to shift their ranges and serve as a source of the variation that drives adaptation and evolution. To use a rough hypothetical example... if east Africa succumbs to extreme drought for a long period, well the lions and migrating wildebeest may well be in a spot of bother, because they've been squeezed out of most of their former ranges already.
Quote from: AFS on May 28, 2010, 02:10:40 PM
Quote from: eggy bread on May 28, 2010, 01:57:18 PM
There is plenty of evidence from reputable scientists to stipulate that CO2 isn't the cause for the Earth warming but due to the mass hysteria of the media on this most are referred to as skeptics and ignored.
Go and thrown some up here then. Even serious climate change deniers don't use that line anymore.
And there's nothing wrong with scepticism. It's healthy to question things. All good scientists are sceptics. It's nonsense to suggest that any 'reputable' scientist with evidence 'to stipulate that CO2 isn't the cause for the Earth warming' would be ignored. More likely they'd have funding coming out of their ears from all types of parties with vested interests in killing this issue.
Do you want me to wash your car as well ;), you can obviously use the internet - because it doesn't make the news at 10, man made climate change the myth, must be .. well a myth. It's one hell of a net though to catch big taxes by governments.
Quote from: Zapatista on May 28, 2010, 09:57:56 AM
So when Jesus did it at the last supper he was handing out his own body and blood? If you actually believe that catholics think they are dirnking and eating Jesus you are as mad as they would be.
The people taking it may not believe it, but transubstantiation is the catholic churches view. (though the fact that they consider the "substance" changed gives some wiggle room on the meening)
Quote from: nifan on May 28, 2010, 02:26:58 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on May 28, 2010, 09:57:56 AM
So when Jesus did it at the last supper he was handing out his own body and blood? If you actually believe that catholics think they are dirnking and eating Jesus you are as mad as they would be.
The people taking it may not believe it, but transubstantiation is the catholic churches view.
Yeah but if you go into a Catholic church you know what you are getting, it's a Catholic church after all, with a big cross at the top to advertise what it is. A museum should be based on scientific fact Dinosaurs, flint stones, native american tepees etc. It is not a place for one person or one group of peoples faith based beliefs.
Quote from: nifan on May 28, 2010, 02:26:58 PM
The people taking it may not believe it, but transubstantiation is the catholic churches view. (though the fact that they consider the "substance" changed gives some wiggle room on the meening)
It's always fascinating how those of other faith's no more about the in and outs of Catholicism than those that purport to practice it.
I believe you are correct nifan.
Isn't that why pioneers can take the wine at mass?
Do Free P's take communion wine (obviously in it's unaltered form) and is that not a sin for them?
/Jim
Quote from: AFS on May 28, 2010, 02:12:50 PM
Quote from: eggy bread on May 28, 2010, 02:04:36 PM
Quote from: AFS on May 28, 2010, 01:59:32 PM
Quote from: Maiden1 on May 28, 2010, 01:53:26 PM
How did this thread end up being about Global Warming anyhow?
Climate change denial, evolution denial. Same shit, different debate.
You can write (well type), so you must be able to read, who denied climate change?
Pedantry. Denial that climate change is caused by humans. Happy now?
The thing is, up until a couple of years ago, it was outright denial. There was no climate change occurring at all!! But now they've made the switch to conceding that change is in fact occurring (there are still some holdouts I'm sure!). The line in the sand now is that it is not caused by humans. A few more years and they will reconvene around Lomborg's position which is that perhaps we are causing it, but spending large sums to combat it would be a pointless waste of money and an economic disaster! (That may well be a serious argument worth having i.e. mitigation may make more sense - but it is a completely separate argument).
And related to the point of the thread, its a bit like creationists conceding, after more than a century of denial, that natural selection (is there a more bleeding obvious process in biology?!) does in fact occur, but it only accounts for small scale adaptation (as if that didn't matter in the process of evolution, leaving aside their bogus limits!).
I think the free p's, and in fact other presbys take non alcoholic wine or grape juice or the like, and i think the may only take it a couple of times a year. The say it is symbolic generally.
Quote from: AFS on May 28, 2010, 01:15:51 PM
Pacala & Socolow 2004 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/305/5686/968) - These lads seem fairly intelligent and they seem to reckon we can have a good go at doing something about the problem. They even reckon wind power might be worth a look at. Seems a fair few agree with them too.
Thats a review, its basically a finger in the air (best guesses and opinions), no mention of the economic costs (which would be astronomical) and even if all their best guesses are right and they manage to get every single ounce of those projected 7 billions tonnes of CO2 cuts a year the CO2 would still rise to 500ppm by 2054 which could lead to a 5C increase in temperature, if the predictions are right we're fupped anyway even with that level of effort and expense.
I see also to get a billion tonne cut from windpower we would need to have 100 times more wind farms than we have presently :o
A quick question do you believe that the US, china and india etc will stop using and burning fossil fuels even one second before it becomes economical unviable to do so?
Quote from: Maiden1 on May 28, 2010, 02:31:35 PM
Quote from: nifan on May 28, 2010, 02:26:58 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on May 28, 2010, 09:57:56 AM
So when Jesus did it at the last supper he was handing out his own body and blood? If you actually believe that catholics think they are dirnking and eating Jesus you are as mad as they would be.
The people taking it may not believe it, but transubstantiation is the catholic churches view.
Yeah but if you go into a Catholic church you know what you are getting, it's a Catholic church after all, with a big cross at the top to advertise what it is. A museum should be based on scientific fact Dinosaurs, flint stones, native american tepees etc. It is not a place for one person or one group of peoples faith based beliefs.
Unless it's a wax musuem, then it's about bees and maybe ears.
Quote from: delboy on May 28, 2010, 02:59:27 PM
Quote from: AFS on May 28, 2010, 01:15:51 PM
Pacala & Socolow 2004 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/305/5686/968) - These lads seem fairly intelligent and they seem to reckon we can have a good go at doing something about the problem. They even reckon wind power might be worth a look at. Seems a fair few agree with them too.
Thats a review, its basically a finger in the air (best guesses and opinions), no mention of the economic costs (which would be astronomical) and even if all their best guesses are right and they manage to get every single ounce of those projected 7 billions tonnes of CO2 cuts a year the CO2 would still rise to 500ppm by 2054 which could lead to a 5C increase in temperature, if the predictions are right we're fupped anyway even with that level of effort and expense.
I see also to get a billion tonne cut from windpower we would need to have 100 times more wind farms than we have presently :o
A quick question do you believe that the US, china and india etc will stop using and burning fossil fuels even one second before it becomes economical unviable to do so?
Fossil fuels have had a very rough year in the US so far. The deluded conspiracies of the likes of Rush Limbaugh notwithstanding, what is happening in the Gulf and the mine disaster in West Virginia (as if the awful environmental destruction there wasn't argument enough!) may be good in the long run for alternative fuel advocates. That includes nuclear power. Personally, I don't see any other way at this point if you want to end reliance on fossil fuels and dammed rivers, especially with the new mini reactors which are coming.
I wouldn't be too disturbed about the
100 times ( :o) as many wind power facilities!! 100 times a small number is not that big! But there are pros and cons for all of these things. In terms of the steadily increasing per capita demand for energy, nuclear will have to involved if nations want to get away from fossil fuels, at least in the short term.
Quote from: J70 on May 28, 2010, 03:24:53 PM
Quote from: delboy on May 28, 2010, 02:59:27 PM
Quote from: AFS on May 28, 2010, 01:15:51 PM
Pacala & Socolow 2004 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/305/5686/968) - These lads seem fairly intelligent and they seem to reckon we can have a good go at doing something about the problem. They even reckon wind power might be worth a look at. Seems a fair few agree with them too.
Thats a review, its basically a finger in the air (best guesses and opinions), no mention of the economic costs (which would be astronomical) and even if all their best guesses are right and they manage to get every single ounce of those projected 7 billions tonnes of CO2 cuts a year the CO2 would still rise to 500ppm by 2054 which could lead to a 5C increase in temperature, if the predictions are right we're fupped anyway even with that level of effort and expense.
I see also to get a billion tonne cut from windpower we would need to have 100 times more wind farms than we have presently :o
A quick question do you believe that the US, china and india etc will stop using and burning fossil fuels even one second before it becomes economical unviable to do so?
Fossil fuels have had a very rough year in the US so far. The deluded conspiracies of the likes of Rush Limbaugh notwithstanding, what is happening in the Gulf and the mine disaster in West Virginia (as if the awful environmental destruction there wasn't argument enough!) may be good in the long run for alternative fuel advocates. That includes nuclear power. Personally, I don't see any other way at this point if you want to end reliance on fossil fuels and dammed rivers, especially with the new mini reactors which are coming.
I wouldn't be too disturbed about the 100 times ( :o) as many wind power facilities!! 100 times a small number is not that big! But there are pros and cons for all of these things. In terms of the steadily increasing per capita demand for energy, nuclear will have to involved if nations want to get away from fossil fuels, at least in the short term.
I know what you are saying but that paper puts the land usage for that many wind farms at 3 % of the US, thats a lot of wind farms :o
I agree with you that nuclear power is the best option available to us presently, unfortunately the greenies are not having it despite previous mentors like jim lovelock come out in favour of them as the only viable option.
Quote from: nifan on May 28, 2010, 02:54:37 PM
I think the free p's, and in fact other presbys take non alcoholic wine or grape juice or the like, and i think the may only take it a couple of times a year. The say it is symbolic generally.
Herself is doing a bit of fish for us tonight (Catholics, Friday and all of that.........). I think I will open a bottle of Riesling as white goes better with fish and won't remind me of blood.
/Jim