William Connolley (and Polargeo) vs Lar, Global warming wars Options

[Cla68]

RfC time. I take it WMC did not appreciate being called on his actions.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

And the quest for drama continues.

[Cla68]

And the quest for drama continues.

That is referring to this I believe and this discussion. I've heard that at least a couple of the IDCab regulars changed user names. I do see some familiar names in action here. The global warming topic is related somewhat to the Intelligent Design episode, in that some of the involved editors apparently believe they're fighting to save civilization from anti-science religious fanatics.

By the way, Hipocrite used to be this editor, who does appear to believe in that cause. If I remember right, he wrote an anti-Wikipedia Review essay at one point, naming editors (including me) who were members here. I don't know what happened to it.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[thegoodlocust]

The global warming topic is related somewhat to the Intelligent Design episode, in that some of the involved editors apparently believe they're fighting to save civilization from anti-science religious fanatics.

I suppose they must've missed my thoughts on the subject then - oh well.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The global warming topic is related somewhat to the Intelligent Design episode, in that some of the involved editors apparently believe they're fighting to save civilization from anti-science religious fanatics.

Ironically enough, it seems that Bill Connelly and the AGW promoters may feel the same way.

I suppose they must've missed my thoughts on the subject then - oh well.

Not bad, although atheism is a rather dull persuasion. I approach it differently, from a mix of Deism and Vernadsky-ism: the universe has a purpose, and that purpose is to evolve into ever more complex and energetic systems. The emergence of humanity (and whatever other intelligent life may exist out there) plays a critical role in this process, in that it accelerates the process by making it willful and adding a new dimension of creativity. Although humans are capable of screwing up, their contribution is generally positive and in fact necessary to the well-being of nature. Plus, since eventually we will need to terraform other planets, we should be practicing on this one. The AGW promoters, when they are not hiding a neo-colonial agenda, are basically misanthropic spoilsports, and feudalist Romantics/reactionaries.

[thegoodlocust]

Not bad, although atheism is a rather dull persuasion.

I agree, non-fiction is incredibly boring, but I try to make up for it in other ways (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif).

I approach it differently, from a mix of Deism and Vernadsky-ism: the universe has a purpose, and that purpose is to evolve into ever more complex and energetic systems.

So you believe in an "eternal" universe?

The AGW promoters, when they are not hiding a neo-colonial agenda, are basically misanthropic spoilsports, and feudalist Romantics/reactionaries.

Well, it is interesting how the Malthusian excuses are all different, but the solutions are all the same - vegetarianism, population reduction, de-industrialization, etc (not that their leaders ever practice what they preach).

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I approach it differently, from a mix of Deism and Vernadsky-ism: the universe has a purpose, and that purpose is to evolve into ever more complex and energetic systems.

So you believe in an "eternal" universe?

I'm not sure. What are my other options?

[thegoodlocust]

I approach it differently, from a mix of Deism and Vernadsky-ism: the universe has a purpose, and that purpose is to evolve into ever more complex and energetic systems.

So you believe in an "eternal" universe?

I'm not sure. What are my other options?

Well, they are your beliefs, and so you can have lots of options. What I mean to say is, you say the universe has a purpose, to create more complex/energetic systems, but that seems to be at odds with the Ultimate Fate of the Universe ™.

One way of getting around that would be to modify your beliefs to include parallel universes.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

What I mean to say is, you say the universe has a purpose, to create more complex/energetic systems, but that seems to be at odds with the Ultimate Fate of the Universe ™.

Oh. I believe you are referring to entropy. No, thanks. That only holds for small, closed systems. When we are talking about the universe, quite the opposite obtains. And one universe is sufficient for me (more or less by definition.)