WIP

You seem to have totally missed the point! Gwynn Dyer writes about world affairs issues, not climate change. As I mentioned previously, he says the reason he was drawn into this issue was because five years ago, the U.S. government officials that he talks to regularly, were giving him a much different story off the record, than the official Bush Administration talking points. They seemed to take climate change seriously, and were trying to map out how it would impact U.S. foreign policy over the coming decades.

I got to go to work now. I think there comes a point where you end up learning more about an issue than you wished for. But if there's bad stuff on the horizon, I'd rather know about it now than be caught completely by surprise five or ten years from now.

It's a name that has been applied by others to describe them. I think it started five years ago when Wired Magazine wrote a long piece about Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris. It's not exactly new, since Madelyn Murray O'Haire - the creator of American Atheists was every bit as strident and insulting as any new atheist writer. The main difference is that most secular humanists over the years have collaborated with liberal religionists on issues. Some of the new atheists, like Sam Harris, argue against this sort of fellowship -- and he even goes so far as to call religious moderates worse than fundamentalists, by claiming that they are the vehicle for providing legitimacy for the extremists. In Harris's ideal world, there should be no moderates blurring the lines between warring groups of fundamentalists!

Unfortunately.....Planting trees to save planet is pointless, say ecologists. I don't think this is a problem that can be solved with a quick fix so that we can merrily continue on our way. Real solutions will require changes in the way we live, and that's not likely to happen until there is a total collapse and change is forced upon us by factors out of our control.

And that is all that needs to be said! Religion...and we should break it down to religious dogma, specifically the belief in God, and all sorts of supernatural entities like immortal souls -- are not things that I would consider more than magical answers. They don't really answer any questions for me, and I prefer dealing with things that have some basis in reality. Nevertheless, the New Atheist claims that no one needs that sort of religion, and everyone should be a naturalist, presumes that everyone should think the same, and find value in the same things. And that is definitely fundamentalist thinking.

I have to call it the way I see it! I am convinced that some of our leaders are well aware that increasing droughts, loss of topsoil, and dwindling supplies of fresh water are going to cause the green revolution agribusiness to break down during this decade....and that will be just the beginning of our problems! Most people are just living for today, and put little or no thought into the implications of how we are living -- increasing the population, using more and more natural resources, and things are supposed to somehow just keep on going the way they are.....only problem is we are living in a finite world that cannot grow larger to meet the increasing wants and desires of an increasing population!

I'm not a fan of any varieties of fundamentalism. The New Atheists are just one more niche group proclaiming that they have the answers and everyone else is wrong! It's not the kind of development I would have expected from people who are supposed to be motivated by reason rather than faith.

If human-caused increases in atmospheric CO2 are not causing global temperatures to rise, and oceans to acidify, what are the causes of this: 1.Scientists may have found the most devastating impact yet of human-caused global warming — a 40% decline in phytoplankton since 1950 linked to the rise in ocean sea surface temperatures. If confirmed, it may represent the single most important finding of the year in climate science. 2.Methane release from the not-so-perma-frost is the most dangerous amplifying feedback in the entire carbon cycle. Research published in Friday’s journal Science finds a key “lid” on “the large sub-sea permafrost carbon reservoir” near Eastern Siberia “is clearly perforated, and sedimentary CH4 [methane] is escaping to the atmosphere.” 3.Global Warming: Future Temperatures Could Exceed Livable Limits, Researchers Find ScienceDaily (May 5, 2010) — Reasonable worst-case scenarios for global warming could lead to deadly temperatures for humans in coming centuries, according to research findings from Purdue University and the University of New South Wales, Australia. 4.Royal Society: “There are very strong indications that the current rate of species extinctions far exceeds anything in the fossil record.” 5.Nature Geoscience study: Oceans are acidifying 10 times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred Unrestricted burning of fossil fuels threatens a new wave of die-offs I don't see any sensible reason why there are people still following the oil company-financed propaganda to prevent real action to stop rising greenhouse gas emissions! We already know from the conduct of BP executives management of offshore drilling, that these people are psychopaths, who are just on a reckless quest for more money and power, and have no regard for the consequences of their business practices! Anyone who has children, or has any interest in how future generations will manage, should be aware that global mean temperature will rise between 4 C and 8 C by the end of this century. The minimum figure will be catastrophic for the majority of Earth's inhabitants -- especially in the tropics. The high number means extinction for the human race in less than 200 years! A book I picked up recently is Climate Wars by Gwynn Dyer. Since his expertise is in foreign policy and military intrigues, it was a little surprising to see him venturing into this territory two years ago. But apparently Dyer decided to explore the human side of climate policy when he became aware that Pentagon, CIA, and Bush Administration officials took the climate change issue very seriously, and were secretly trying to map out strategies for dealing with climate-caused droughts, famines, wars and massive refugee crises that they see occurring in the near future, despite Bush's official policy of global warming denialism. The one big unanswered question I was left with after reading the book is what does this tell us about the motives of the Pentagon planners? It struck me that -- rather than forcefully lobby for action to save the planet, these people had signaled that they view most of Earth's inhabitants as expendable! Some sort of collateral damage of the climate wars I suppose; since a do-nothing strategy of saying nothing and allowing our present course to continue spells doom for the large populations living in the tropical regions closer to the equator. Looking ahead towards the end of this century, our children and grandchildren are likely to be crowded out by waves of Americans, Chinese, and whoever else is trying to push their way north to try to stay alive in a desperate post-apocalyptic world......have a nice day!

I don't know if anyone else here is, or has in the past been a member of C.F.I., but for myself, it was when they changed focus from promoting secular humanism to aggressive publicity stunts like "Blasphemy Day" or these stupid bus ads, that I decided to cancel my membership. These strategies, and the popularity of so called "new atheist" writers like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens -- tells me that secular humanists also have a zealous, fundamentalist wing, that has no more tolerance for different worldviews than the average religious fundamentalist. For what it's worth, I'm surprised to read in that article that Justin Trottier is now the head of C.F.I. Canada! When he was in charge of C.F.I. Ontario it might just as well have been called CFI Toronto...because he, and his small staff in their little headquarters were no help to freethought meetup groups outside of Toronto!

Yes, it was only a matter of time before you played the victim card! I challenged your attacks against Catholicism and blanket condemnation of religion in general also, on the basis that a religion's doctrines does not inform about how the adherents understand the teachings....but unfortunately that was probably on a post that 'you read no further.' As for your friends DOP and Bonam, they won't or cannot back up what they say, and just carry on hurling abuse...so there is nowhere to go with them either. And, for the record, I wasn't happy that some who I generally agree with like Bloodyminded, also joined in on this stupid, immature "all religions suck" meme, but I'm going to drop out of this thread anyway, because I don't see anything to gain by discussing religion and belief systems on this board.

Don't bother! You make broad, sweeping, insulting statements from a position of ignorance, and without bothering to learn anything about the religions you criticize, so why stop now?

In that book I referenced (and I'll do it again since it's free online): "The Authoritarians" Bob Altemeyer outlines some of the factors that lead to highly authoritarian thinking, and a big one is fundamentalist religious teaching from an early age. Other factors included discipline in the home -- children who are subjected to corporal punishment from an early age, are being molded by their parents to follow rules without questioning them. This sort of upbringing does not lead to creative, unconventional thinkers. They want rules to follow, and will trend towards authoritarian religious and political movements when they reach adulthood. In other words, that's where conservatives come from! More than likely, if they've got idiots like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman as their leaders. But a lot of the people at these rallies are upper middle class business-owners, who avoid anything connected with religious issues (like abortion), and concentrate on cutting taxes and government spending.....except for military spending of course. One point from Altemeyer's book was that although there is an authoritarian core group, and a liberal non-conformist group at the other end of the scale, most people can move either direction depending on external circumstances. For example, if times are good, and the majority of people do not feel fearful, they will reject attempts by authoritarian leaders to put constraints on their freedoms. But, a majority of Americans supported the Invasion of Iraq, even though there was information early on that the WMD story was a hoax, all because the invasion came so close after 9/11. Fear of further terrorist attacks caused many people in the middle to drop their guard and support the "Patriot Act" and a war based on false pretenses. Many people who later changed their minds, would have never gone along with these schemes if they hadn't temporarily become authoritarians out of fear and uncertainty. And the Bush Administration took full advantage of the situation and tried to ramp up fear of terrorism when it was strategically useful to them.

Did you actually read this somewhere? Or did you get it from watching Glenn Beck? The real story in a nutshell is that the Quran displays varying degrees of acceptance of Christians,Jews and Sabians( an ancient monotheistic Arab religion) depending on whether it comes from the Meccan or Medinan verses. Some verses like Quran 22:17 say that anyone who has been informed about Allah and the Prophet, but refuses to say the Shahada, is cast into judgment along with infidels; other verses like Quran 2:62 and 5:69 say that any righteous monotheist may go to heaven -- and the definition of monotheism was even expanded by some Islamic scholars in India to include Hinduism...so at its most liberal, Islam was far more cosmopolitan than anything that came out of the Christian West. On the other hand, does whatever particular brand of Christianity you buy at the store teach universal salvation? Not likely, because the vast majority of Christian creeds have follow exclusive doctrines for salvation. Christianity, aside from Universalism, never got around to letting anyone into heaven if they didn't believe Jesus was God. Now, the point I tried to get through previously is that people who belong to a religion do not necessarily follow the exact interpretations of dogma; so we have a lot of Christians today who either are universalists, or believe in something pretty damn close to universal salvation, even though it is exactly the opposite of what their churches have taught them. Even supposedly rigid fundamentalist church members are more apt to let everyone into heaven than would be expected. The reason is because in modern society, we don't live in exclusive religious communities, where everyone believes the same thing. A basic sense of fairness makes it difficult to condemn a friend to hell for belonging to the wrong church...or no church at all. It's worth noting here also, that although Christianity and Islam are the largest of the world's religions, most other religions have little to say about immortality, and who gets to go up, and who goes down! Whenever religious dogma fully matures, it will have to incorporate the latest findings from brain research, which shows conclusively that our minds are not an immaterial soul, that lives on after we die. The mind is what the brain does, and a lot of anxiety over heaven and hell can be avoided with the realization that neither exists, and we have to do our living in this life, instead of worrying about the next one. Most of the religious conflicts could be avoided if a chosen religion was about having a guide to leading a meaningful life and having a community with shared interests, rather than looking for the stairway to heaven. My eye doctor is a Muslim woman; besides wearing a hijab I suppose, how exactly is she oppressed by her religion? Point being that there are as many facets to how Islam is practiced, as their are to the various strains of Christianity, and you shouldn't use misogynistic cultural traditions to use as blanket condemnation for the whole religion! No, and that's why you have two contradictory statements in the same sentence.

There is a stupid, ignorant analysis of religion that comes out of New Atheist books by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens in particular. Even most people who belong to fundamentalist churches do not internalize all the things they are taught at church. It goes in one ear and out the other. Take a look at surveys on doctrines of salvation for example. Many who belong to churches teaching exclusive salvation for an elect, still believe in something close to universal salvation. A survey on U.S. Catholics several years back not only found a majority believing that a good non-Christian can go to heaven, but about 15% also believed that animals, favourite pets in particular, could also go to heaven. It's likely because a natural sense of fairness leads most to at least feel uncomfortable about the prospect that people they like, who belong to different religions, or no religion, might have to go to hell. Anyway, point being that you can't just read off a list of doctrines and assume that it's what the church members believe -- as Sam Harris does in his stupid "Letter To A Christian Nation" where he uses poll data on the numbers who believe Armageddon and the 2nd Coming will come soon, to extrapolate that 44% of the U.S. population is looking forward to an all out nuclear war. I can vouch for that, since I live in a neighbourhood with a large number of immigrants, many of whom are Muslims. They go to work, send their kids to school, go shopping, look after their houses....pretty much the same things that everyone else is doing. It's mainly people who live in little all-white enclaves and suburbs who are falling for the modern version of the Red Terror. I'm waiting for some New Atheist writer to show us some evidence that the people with this predisposition towards becoming movement followers would act any differently if their energies were redirected away from religion and supernatural beliefs. My suspicions are that "social dominators" and "authoritarian followers" are always in the population, and social upheavals bring them to the forefront....like the Tea Party Patriots for example.

There is this unsettling coincidence that the War On Terror came along just in time to save the Military Industrial Complex, which was threatened with base closures and cutbacks on new arms procurements after the end of the Cold War (that was actually a large part of Bill Clinton's success in balancing the budget). The Cold War forced the U.S. into building a large permanent armed forces for the first time in its history, and if the build-up was justified, it still created an economy dependent on new weapons and continual wars...at least small wars, to use and test the weapons. The corporations who build heatseeking missiles can't afford to have peace break out everywhere. Back when the "war on terror" started, that was one of the few objections said out loud to Bush & Co.: who are we at war with, and how do we know when this war will be over? Dick Cheney's answer was that it was essentially endless war without end....and that from a chickenhawk, who got deferments when he was young, and it was his turn to do the fighting.

I don't believe in blasphemy laws, but I also don't believe people should just say stupid things from a position of ignorance and belligerence. I was hoping you would have something more of substance to offer since you, and many other idiots here, go about trashing religion without having any understanding of why people turn to religion in the first place. Many people have turned to various religions for some form of guidance to living and feel a duty to something other than their own selfish interests and pleasures....but, apparently you do not! It's one thing to find meaning in your life without religion, but that also takes some study and developing self-awareness. Anyone who has waded into philosophy and ethical debates is not as likely to be so condescending and insulting to those who believe in a supernatural realm, and use some form of religion as a guide.

Final note, could one of the agitators tell us what building an Islamic cultural center in N.Y. by a Sufi cleric has to do with terrorism?

Do you happen to have a list of instigators of foreign wars for the purpose of occupation and/or control of natural resources? How do the Muslim/Christian numbers stack up for that list?

Well, here's what I know about terrorism -- most people have an illogical approach to risk assessment, so the fear of a terrorist attack can stampede them into doing stupid things like: supporting inflammatory rightwing xenophobes for leadership, and making the whole world a more dangerous place; freely giving away their civil rights to state authorities; dismissing war crimes of their own governments; and let's not forget, doing the wrong thing to protect themselves from terrorist attack i.e. driving to a faraway destination instead of flying -- two separate studies after 9/11 showed that highway accident deaths in the months after 9/11 made a dramatic spike, indicating that there were likely twice as many people died on U.S. highways as were killed in the 9/11 hijackings.

Talk about bullshit! You can't tell somebody that you respect them while saying that their religion sucks. Even if they don't believe religious dogma, they may still view their religion as part of their identity. If they have been part of a religious community for any length of time, especially if it is part of family tradition, the doctrines are not the primary reason they choose to be there.

These grand schemes of exploiting asteroids and massive desalination projects to irrigate the deserts of the world have been around for more than 50 years. But how practical are they? They are still in the realm of science fiction. In the meantime we have the real world problems of overpopulation and overconsumption. The "rational realist" is just another name for scientific triumphalism -- your religion apparently, and one that is based on blind faith that future technological innovations will come along just in time to save our ass and allow us to continue on a course of endless expansion.

This not just a matter of energy, even if it was possible for us to hog all of the solar energy reaching the earth.......how much of that are you planning to set aside for plant-based photosynthesis? Or do you think that humans can exist separate and apart from any other living organisms? I would argue that we still don't have any idea how much we are dependent on the biosphere for our continued survival, so it is reckless and stupid to just go ahead and plunder it to keep adding to our already oversized population and increasing waste of natural resources. Besides all that, this planet isn't growing any larger, so the resources that come out of the ground are a finite resource.

Now, this is an ominous sign because plankton feeds everything that's in the oceans. Less plankton = lower oxygen levels. Factor in increasing ocean acidification and it looks like we could have the anoxic ocean conditions that killed off 95% of sea life during the Permian/Triassic Extinction. Paleontologist Peter Ward, predicts in his book "Under A Green Sky" that if present trends continue, CO2 levels will be at 1000 ppm by the end of this century -- equaling carbon levels at the height of the PT extinction, and occurring at at least one hundred times as fast. Our grandchildren may witness dying oceans and have to contemplate human extinction also, if nothing is done to stop this lemming march now!

Idiot alarmists are invariably chickenhawks. It often takes more courage to trust outsiders and take moderates at their word, than to assume the worst and start calling for war. The aggressive, hostile approach that you advocate for eliminates any opportunities of compromise and peaceful resolution of problems. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when people on the other side of the conflict lose confidence in a moderate approach also. At a time when the world is faced with ecological disaster, a new cold war is the last thing we need.

We make up .5% of the Earth's biomass (which is significant -- only thing greater is bacteria) and consume almost 25% of the planet's photosynthesis, including sunlight stored as carbon-based fuels -- and our voracious growth in population and energy use has come about in the last two centuries of our existence here on Earth. And yet so many who consider themselves rational realists can't seem to grasp that there are natural limits to our growth imposed by the constraints of the size and available resources of our environment. We are facing a near future of resource wars over oil, precious metals such as lithium, and available fresh water....and then things will start to get worse! And this is where you need a deeper appreciation of philosophy if you are going to toss religion aside. Religious ethics may be clumsy and ill-fitting, but they do try to give people an appreciation that they need to strive for things other than their personal wants and desires. An average impulsive hedonist will never feel they have achieved enough materially to reach their goals in life, because we are always focusing on those just above us on the economic ladder. If you live in suburbia, there is always someone on the block with a bigger home and newer cars in the driveway; and then if you move to an older neighbourhood where people have less, then you may realize that you were working overtime for a lot of crap you didn't need anyway....and that's how a consumer-based economy becomes addicted to growth. No, he was talking about the entire century; there were some nations that have risen and fallen, and a few outliers like tiny Persian Gulf states that are sitting on oil, but overall America has been the wealthiest nation up till now.