-
Posts
4,786 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by -1=e^ipi
-
The new religious order of climate change.Believe or Deny!
-1=e^ipi replied to WWWTT's topic in Religion & Politics
It isn't impossible. Stupid, yes. Impossible, no. -
Request from York University male student not to intermingle with wome
-1=e^ipi replied to RB's topic in Religion & Politics
Interestingly enough both the CPC and the NDP have condemned the student's request and supported the professor while the supposedly centrist LPC has been supported the actions of the York University administration. Guess Trudeau and the liberals really like cultural relativism and want the islamist vote next election. -
The new religious order of climate change.Believe or Deny!
-1=e^ipi replied to WWWTT's topic in Religion & Politics
Why not just admit your comparison was ridiculous rather than try to redefine what you meant? -
The new religious order of climate change.Believe or Deny!
-1=e^ipi replied to WWWTT's topic in Religion & Politics
For the record, turning the moon into a giant disco ball would be pretty cool. -
The new religious order of climate change.Believe or Deny!
-1=e^ipi replied to WWWTT's topic in Religion & Politics
Did you really just try to imply that stopping CFC emissions is comparable with stopping CO2 emissions? No they are not equal at all. To change the rotation of the Earth, you would either have to violate conservation of angular momentum or somehow magically transfer all that angular momentum to somewhere else. It would be far easier to start a new ice age, create a nuclear global holocaust, send space colonies to colonize other star systems or turn the moon into a giant disco ball than what you propose. I'll show you how impossibly hard it would be. -The solar irradiance from the sun at the distance the earth is from the sun is 1366 W/m^2. -The radius of the earth is 6371 km. This means that if we caught 100% of the solar power that falls on the earth from the sun we would absorb 1.74 x 10^17 W of energy. -Let us suppose that we converted this energy into photons and emitted photons at the earth's equator in a direction opposite of the rotation of the earth in an effort to reverse the rotation. The momentum of a photon is simply it's energy divided by the speed of light, so at the earth's equator this means that we would cause the earth's angular momentum to change at a rate of 3.70 x 10^15 kg m^2/s^2. -The Earth's moment of inertia is roughly 8 x 10^37 kg*m^2. Given an orbital period of 24 hours (so angular frequency of 7.3 x 10^-5 s^-1), this means that the Earth's angular momentum around it's axis is 5.84 x 10^33 kg*m^2/s. -This means that it would take 1.58 x 10^18 s or 5.00 x 10^10 years = 50 billion years. Congrats! Even if we magically take all the sun's solar output and convert it into photons that we emit at the Earth's equator to try to reverse the location it would take nearly 4 times the age of the universe. Of course the Sun's solar out put would rise, the Sun would go red giant and devour the Earth, and then get super nova and die long before then. The lack of scientific understanding here is painful. -
The new religious order of climate change.Believe or Deny!
-1=e^ipi replied to WWWTT's topic in Religion & Politics
This is correct. A religion. Unless you are Bill O'Reily in which case Christianity is a philosophy, not a religion. You are a climate change denier and a climate alarmist infidel, but not a climate change infidel. Does that satisfy you? Yay, now I get to argue with climate change deniers in this thread in addition to the climate alarmists in the other threads. False dichotomy. Some people think decisions related to what we should do with respect to climate change should be based on evidence, science and reasoning and do not take a dogmatic approach. If atheism is a religion then not playing hockey is a sport. -
Death-related Rituals Comforting and Positive Part of Religion
-1=e^ipi replied to jbg's topic in Religion & Politics
Yeah cause Thomas Jefferson was so totally religions and its not like there were deists involved in founding the country. The first amendment? What's that? *sarcasm* I never brought up America as an example, you did. And rather than focus on one country and one factor involved in determining technological progress (religion), wouldn't something like a cross-section multi-regression analysis that considers many factors that affect the rate of technological progress (or generation of new technology) be better? What part of 'there are many factors that affect technological progress and advancement' is hard for you to understand? -
The new religious order of climate change.Believe or Deny!
-1=e^ipi replied to WWWTT's topic in Religion & Politics
Climate change isn't a religion. If you want to argue that climate alarmism or eco-radicalism is a religion the fine, but please use a different term than what you are using. So any discussion of the science related to climate change must now be considered religious discussion? Well if you don't believe that increasing atmospheric CO2 in the atmosphere (by a few hundred ppm) from burning fossil fuels increases global temperatures (since CO2's absorption spectra is more opaque to black body radiation from then earth than the black body radiation from the sun) then you are a denier. -
Death-related Rituals Comforting and Positive Part of Religion
-1=e^ipi replied to jbg's topic in Religion & Politics
1. America isn't as religious as some people exaggerate. And for most of the past 200 years has been less religious than most of the rest of the world (conservative religious people outbreeding liberal secular people is the dominant reason why religion is so prevalent in America today; it is also one of the reasons why conservative evangelical religions are so strong today where as in the past more moderate versions of Protestantism were dominant). 2. There are other factors that affect technological progress and advancement. Freedom, peace, order, property rights, etc. are all very important. -
Death-related Rituals Comforting and Positive Part of Religion
-1=e^ipi replied to jbg's topic in Religion & Politics
To be fair, the past 100 years have been fairly globalized, so religious societies can leech off of the technological advancements of non-religious societies, meaning that they can have similar rates of technological progress even if their societies create cultures that have negative impacts on technological progress. -
Death-related Rituals Comforting and Positive Part of Religion
-1=e^ipi replied to jbg's topic in Religion & Politics
Look it depends. You need to be more specific. All I'm saying is I don't think people who have religious beliefs that go against the scientific fact that humans and chimpanzees have common ancestors should be employed in any scientific field that involves the theory of evolution. Also, I wouldn't hire, want to work with, shake hands with or want to associate myself with anyone who has a religious belief that requires them to separate themselves from people of the opposite sex like this York student: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/york-university-student-s-request-not-to-work-with-women-stirs-controversy-1.2490514 I would prefer you more clearly define the set of religious people, but to answer your question I do not think that all religious people are intellectually below me (some religious people maybe, but that would apply to non-religious people as well). -
Death-related Rituals Comforting and Positive Part of Religion
-1=e^ipi replied to jbg's topic in Religion & Politics
Or the causation goes both ways. Religion can cause poverty and poverty can cause religion. So for you faith in religion isn't the problem, the problem is some of the religious beliefs in which people can have faith in? Do I understand you correctly? I don't really see the purpose in such a distinction. Look, I don't think it is helpful to lump all religions together. Can we at least agree that some religious beliefs are harmful, some religious beliefs are harmless and some religious beliefs might be beneficial for society and that each religion should be examined on a case by case basis? Then your dad is not a Christian, he is a deist. If you do not believe in the divinity of Christ you are not a Christian. So some religious beliefs (deism or pantheism) are no more harmful to society than some political beliefs (liberalism, conservatism and libertarianism)? Fine I can agree with that. Actually you could have gone further and compared them with political beliefs like marxism, facism or eco-radicalism. But some religious beliefs are not all religious beliefs (not necessarily the majority). -
Death-related Rituals Comforting and Positive Part of Religion
-1=e^ipi replied to jbg's topic in Religion & Politics
Useful in what sense? Useful in the sense that you should discriminate and base decisions entirely around whether or not a person believes in fairy tales? Or useful in the sense that it is but one of many characteristics that you can use to judge a person? Weaker relative to who? And who are these people making the judgments? How are you defining 'weaker mind'? I cannot say I am or am not that 'kind of person' because I would need a clearer definition of what you mean to answer that. Definition of prejudice (first result from google search): preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. Religious people believe in delusional fairy tales. It is not prejudice to take into account their delusional fairy tale beliefs when making decisions in life. IMO exempts people from burden of proof now? A belief in a god similar to deism or pantheism isn't harmful to human progress. A belief in gods... well it depends on which gods and what beliefs are associated with those gods. Belief in religion on the other hand includes many more beliefs and whether it is harmful or not depends on the set of beliefs contained within the religion; the major religions are certainly harmful to human progress. -
Death-related Rituals Comforting and Positive Part of Religion
-1=e^ipi replied to jbg's topic in Religion & Politics
So now you admit that there may be statistically significant differences between groups of religious and non-religious people? But statistically significant != practically significant? What is your definition of practically significant? Studies have found statistically significant differences between the IQs of different groups of humans, be it by race (East Asians have a higher average IQ than white people who have a higher average IQ than black people), gender (males have a statistically significant higher average IQ than females), political affiliation (democrats in the US have a higher average IQ than republicans) and other ways of grouping people (such as sexual orientation, introversion/extroversion & autism). Other forms of intelligence testing have found differences as well. Why you would think religion is exempt from this does not make sense to me. Anyway, you brought up this topic, not me. Just do not make false claims like there is no statistically significant difference in intelligence between religious and non-religious people if you cannot back it up. That said, obviously you should treat people as individuals, but that doesn't somehow make statistically significant differences in IQs between groups of humans as non-existent. -
Someday reason will prevail over organized religion
-1=e^ipi replied to nwontariohunter's topic in Religion & Politics
Not to mention atheism has also existed throughout this time. There has been nonsense and people who reject that nonsense. -
Death-related Rituals Comforting and Positive Part of Religion
-1=e^ipi replied to jbg's topic in Religion & Politics
There are quite a few studies that account for this, but most of these require that you pay or have a description to read them. I'll see if I can find a free study that is accessible to all. http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=religiosity+iq Slightly related, I have seen studies which suggests that atheists do have a higher suicide rate and depression rate that theists. Edit: There is also a positive correlation between religosity and emotional intelligence (EI), as well a s a positive correlation between autism and atheism. -
Death-related Rituals Comforting and Positive Part of Religion
-1=e^ipi replied to jbg's topic in Religion & Politics
Fair enough. The poor wife won't be able to compete with all those 72 virgins. Ah, so you want IQ results? Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence Here, pat condell can refute this for me: -
Yes, I did not bother reading the video cause I'm very aware of the geological history of the planet and its climate and the fact that climate alarmists manipulate graphs and choose time periods that exaggerate support for their claims. Though I have now watched the video and verified that I was correct. Pretty much all organizations that study climate science have been contaminated by climate alarmism to an extent. It's sad how appreciation for scientific methodology has fallen. As a result, I suggest that you rely less on appeal to authority and instead examine the scientific results on its own merit, Again, you fail my request to provide me with theoretical models or equations which explain your claims (not that your claims are coherent or anything). Reduction in global temperature gradient and Arctic amplification is the same thing... The video doesn't provide theoretical models or scientific explanations for why a reduction in the global temperature gradient leads to a stalling of the jet stream. It merely states an empirically observed correlation between sea ice extent and jet stream amplitude between the 1980s and today. Anyway, I guess if I want things done I have to do them myself. I have spent several hours examining scientific papers and websites to find the theoretical model that explains anything relating to your claims. I believe that I have found sufficiently good information to present a cause, effect and explanation that we can both hopefully agree upon. But right now I have to go to a new years party, so I'll write it in my next post. Please do not respond to this post until I write my next post (cause this one is incomplete).
-
Conservation of a finite resource isn't sufficient to justify a pigovian tax on fossil fuels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax You would need a lot more information such as the cost of implementation, the efficiency of the credit market (i.e. does it make sense for a person or corporation that owns an oil field to set a certain amount aside to sell to future generations), the cost of extraction (particularly as a function of time and/or of amount of resource extracted), the cost (as a function of time and other parameters) of alternative energy sources, the viability of alternatives to fossil fuels (such as synthetic fuels created from plants), etc. I meant it makes more sense to directly tax the problem than to indirection tax it through a CO2 tax (can we please stop calling it a carbon tax? it sounds dumb). If you want to tax smog then tax smog. Taxing CO2 instead of smog won't take things into account such as burning fossil fuels outside of cities has less negative effects than burning fossil fuels inside of cities. Anyway, I have yet to respond to the rest of your earlier post: Yay, Australia and Canada #1! Reminds me of this video: Expecting the entire world, especially Australia or Canada, to become like Europe is unreasonable. You need to take into account that some countries are far more sparsely populated than other countries (so more transportation costs and less economies of scale), some countries have far more harsh climates than others (so more heating / air conditioning costs, more costs associated with snow plows, more irrigation costs, etc.; not everywhere is moderate Europe which has a very moderate climate thanks to the gulf stream), some countries have growing populations (like Canada, Australia, & the developing world, unlike Europe), some countries are still developing economically, etc. Europe is densely populated, has a moderate climate, has a declining population and is economically developed (except eastern Europe); how many other countries fit this description? (maybe japan, South Korea, and Singapore but that is about it).
-
Death-related Rituals Comforting and Positive Part of Religion
-1=e^ipi replied to jbg's topic in Religion & Politics
So you are saying that if I did a survey of say 18-25 year old males living in say Tennessee that have a bachelor's degree and come from middle income parents, that there would be no statistically significant difference in the belief in evolution between atheists and religious people? Maybe I can find a study on google scholar to disprove this. It's a conditional question. Because often public education or other secular options are no good and the teachers there will try to brainwash kids with socialist or eco-radicalist propaganda. Yes, Europe was very Christian in the 17th century. Yes, Europe went through the industrial revolution first and was the first to modernize. What is your point? Are you trying to argue that Christianity is the cause of the industrial revolution and renaissance, cause then why didn't these non-Christian countries develop first? If you want me to answer this then you should probably make a new thread, cause it would be going too off-topic. Religion is and has always been a hindrance to science and human progress. This is true both during the scientific revolution and today. -
Religions are also really good at destroying art and sculptures that they don't agree with.
-
There is merit to this (assuming the creation of synthetic fossil fuels won't be more cost effective in the future). CO2 doesn't cause smog, it's the nitrogen and sulfur oxides that give you smog. If you want to have laws/regulations against sulfur/nitrogen oxide emissions then fine, but targeting smog indirectly by limiting CO2 emissions makes no sense. I don't think the 'well we could be completely wrong and the climate change may be far more catastrophic than we think' argument is convincing. Let alone the fact that I've argued that warming is overall good, not bad.
-
Police and Natives protest Fracking, New Brunswick
-1=e^ipi replied to Argus's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
Methane isn't poisonous... The land was taken by the British & French via force. Also, the concept that a group of people can or cannot give up their LEGAL rights doesn't make sense in a time period and location where a legal system did not exist. Furthermore, how did the Mikmaq acquire legal right to this land in the first place? -
I like how you continue with your 'CO2 is plant food' strawman argument even now. All of your statements here have been refuted many times on page 29 and earlier. But because you have run out of logical fallacies to use, you would prefer not to go back there. Could someone please translate this waldo-speak into English? Does waldo think that if he makes his sentences difficult to understand it makes him sound smarter? You just used 79 as a base year and wrote a thread trying to justify it. Now you are trying to pretend that climate alarmists done use 1970s as a base line? Yes and I read that article and other articles in the references to find the theoretical model that explains the relationship between a decrease in global temperature gradient and an increase in the 'stalling' of the jetstream and/or increase in the frequency of pressure resonance effects. Just provide me with equations and/or the theoretical models used because I could not find them. I've said that increasing CO2 concentrations leads to a decrease in global temperature gradient from the beginning. But given that your alarmist brain tries to strawman opposing positions, I guess you forgot that... again. And that still doesn't make up for the fact that you implied the paper suggested something different from what it does in its post.