This is reassuring: I'm not the only 'militant' atheist who is softspoken in person. Welcome AC Grayling to the club!
(via Atheist Media)
- Log in to post comments
More like this
You scored as Scientific Atheist, These guys rule. I'm not one of them myself, although I play one online. They know the rules of debate, the Laws of Thermodynamics, and can explain evolution in fifty words or less. More concerned with how things ARE than how they should be, these are the people…
To be clear, my last post was not a defense of a phrase that I use. I searched my archives, and don't see any instances where I referred to atheists as "militant." Indeed, that post is the only one where I used the word "militant" without quoting someone else! I don't think it's the best term to…
I'm supposed to remind you down-under people that the 2010 Global Atheist Convention, The Rise of Atheism, is taking place on 12-14 March in Melbourne. You have to sign up soon or you won't be in the uprising, and you'll find yourself trampled beneath the iron treads of our all-conquering robot…
Jamie Kilstein is putting on a comedy show in New York on 2 July, titled No War, No God, No Nickelback. You should go if you can. He's recommended by that polite, soft-spoken gentleman AC Grayling, so you know exactly what to expect: calm, cerebral, gentle humor, quietly skewering social mores.…
I liked the last part, about happiness.
Well sure you're soft-spoken--no need to frighten the babies until you're actually eating them.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
More on Grayling happiness:
http://freethinker.co.uk/2010/02/22/the-meaning-of-life-an-interview-wi…
http://freethinker.co.uk/2010/02/23/the-meaning-of-life-an-interview-wi…
http://freethinker.co.uk/2010/02/24/the-meaning-of-life-an-interview-wi…
http://freethinker.co.uk/2010/02/25/the-meaning-of-life-an-interview-wi…
How shrill and strident! Typical fundamentalist atheist.
Jokes aside, A.C. Grayling is a good guy to have on the team. I keep meaning to read some of his books.
Considering that all one need do to be considered 'militant' by the religious and faithiest* alike is to even entertain the notion of treating religion with anything short of fawning deference it's not really all that surprising someone like Grayling isn't actually a rabid attack dog in presentation.
*Including, of course, those whose opinions can be - as we've seen recently - bought.
Brilliant!
Should be shown in all schools in the U.S. of A. Might start some of the students thinking.
I adore A.C. Grayling. My favorite Berkeley scholar!
http://acgrayling.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64%3…
I never heard of this gentlemen until now. Thanks for putting him on your blog. He seems like an smart,interesting person.
When is any atheist coming to us little states like new jersey
He also performs excellent beat-downs at secular/religious question debates.
Never breaks a bead of sweat.
Never raises his voice to any level of shrill annoyance (unlike D'Souza).
But he always gets the mental clubbing done like a prize fighter. Most of his opponents just smile, not knowing the bell rang five minutes ago.
A few other good youtube vids are out there.
Hmmph!
When I saw the title "We're all teddy bears now" I assumed it was a reference to the naming-a-teddy-bear-Mohammed incident a year ago. I thought maybe it was a metaphor for ... well, I don't know what but I was interested in reading how we are all the inadvertent subject of hysterical death threats...
Well, that was a treat.
-take care of your elderly
-solve modern problems with modern solutions
-stop with false "both sides" debates on important issues
-be happy
-help others be happy
Sounds good.
Excellent guy Grayling is. Like Matt, I really should read some of his books. But heck, his newspaper articles are generally nothing short of superb.
About a bearded atheist;
Daniel Dennett wrote The helm and the sextant
http://www.beagle.vpro.nl
for the beagle journey. He's sailing along!
Beagle = awesomeness
"Even if the climate wasn't warming....Why not be responsible anyway?" Teddy bears are sexy.
Bah! I thought PZ'd linked to one of my uploads - but this one is better, I missed the start.
Speaking of which, does anyone know if PZ's up to anything in Sydney? I've already missed out on the Dawk (unless he's doing more than Q&A and that lecture at the Opera House?),
Personally I don't want to live much past 65 or 70. Right now I am 45. I plan to do whatever it is I'm going to do before then. Once my body begins to seriously deteriorate then get the canister of nitrogen and let me die simply and painlessly.
The first part made me think of Logan's Run.
Speaking of which, does anyone know if PZ's up to anything in Sydney? I've already missed out on the Dawk (unless he's doing more than Q&A and that lecture at the Opera House?)
Maybe the atheists can recreate this now-famous photo?
http://www.good.is/post/spencer-tunick-s-latest-5-000-nude-bodies-at-th…
Having felt the same way in the past, I find I have moved the goalposts to 75, and really don't want to see 80. Get back to me when it's time to apply for social security. Yes, I am decrepit, and am beginning to circle the drain, but I have a grandbaby who brings me much joy and I look forward to any day when I can see him. You can see how irresistable he is just by going over to my name on facebook and clicking on the movie.
Personally I don't want to live much past 65 or 70.
Really? I want to live as long as existance appears more appealling then non-existance. I'm not looking forward to it, mind you...
Outstanding. Patient, rapid-fire brilliance from A.C. Grayling.
Grayling is the Jeeves to my Wooster. When they start selling robot companions, I'm ghosting my second robot's hard drive with A.C. Grayling's brain.
(The first one will be female. Sorry, that's all the time I have for questions.)
Jeanette Garcia,
"Even if the climate wasn't warming....Why not be responsible anyway?" Teddy bears are sexy.
If the level of warming that can be expected from the burning of fossil fuels is not excessively "dangerous" then there is great harm in limiting access to them.
When billions of people live without access to electricity and burn dung, wood or charcoal they have every reason to expect that they should be allowed to raise their standard of living to levels enjoyed by people living in first world countries
Currently the most cost efficient energy sources are petroleum, natural gas (methane) and coal. All of these are fossil fuels. In fact they comprise more than 90% of the energy production in the modern world.
It is immoral to require developing countries to sacrifice their economic energy development in the name of "green" western political sensibilities.
The legitimate question one should ask about climate change is do the risks of using fossil fuels out weigh the benefits.
That is why an honest and rational discussion of the science and policy issues is so critical.
Unfortunately dispassionate and reasonable discussion of the topic is quite rare. Especially on internet blogs.
Perhaps replies to this post will prove the exception.
I want to live until my mind is going.
Now please excuse me while I wipe the drool off of my chin.
In my above post I should have said that fossil fuels comprise "about 90%" instead of "more than 90%". According to Wikipedia the actual percentage is 86%.
My overall point remains in tact.
#23:
Are you done beating the stuffing out of that straw man?
Grayling said nothing about expecting the currently impoverished to do without, and it's disingenuous to imply he did.
He said "Even if CO2 is not causing warming...trying to do something about diminishing CO2 can do no harm."
If CO2 is doing "no harm" there is no reason to limit the access to fossil fuels through various restrictive government actions designed to limit their production or discourage their use.
And in fact these restrictive action could do serious harm to the over 1 billion people that could greatly benefit from access to the energy that cheap and available fossil fuels could provide.
I'm not saying that he is advocating such restrictive actions but his statement that no harm can come from diminishing CO2 is certainly debatable.
If there were no harm to the atmosphere, there'd still be the socio-cultural harm that comes from an increasingly limited resource.
I don't mean to hijack but when the never-ending thread goes over 200 it crashes this machine:
My appointment with my doctor tomorrow had to be changed to another doctor in their office. I just found out that they made my appointment not with an MD but with an Osteopath (in the US). What would you do?
Wait - where were the two or three conservatives to provide "balance" by shouting him down, not allowing him to finish a sentence?
The interviewer just asked questions and let him ramble on at length actually answering them. Answering them? WTF is THAT?
She didn't even get in any snarky zingers or insults.
Clearly you people in the non US part of the world have NO idea how to conduct a proper interview. Man... if you tried to air that sort of thing here, you would fail miserably in the ratings!
TimKO,
First, there is no benefit to artificially limiting a resource. Coal, oil and methane in the ground isn't helping anyone.
Alternative fuels should be developed for rational not political reasons.
As far as the appointment with the Osteopath, it would depend on what my reasons for seeking medical attention were.
I have known a few knowledgeable Osteopaths. They were effectively equivalent to a nurse practitioner.
They could diagnose simple conditions and knew when they were out of their depth and would then recommend a specialist.
Bo-ring!
Where's the puppy-eating? I literally saw zero blood in there, and what's the deal with no chainsaws?
@25:
Only if one disregards all the externalities, as we have done for decades.
Yawn JTK being an idjit off topic. And wrong of course.
@JamesTiberusKirk;
There is such a thing as conserving for the future. If we were not causing global warming by use of fossil fuels, then surely just saving them so that they can be used in the event of a major global disaster would be a smart idea.
With peak oil just about past, we need to move away from carbon based energy to solar, etc and keep the cheap easily produced fuels as reserves. If a global nuclear winter style event occurred then we'd have the oil and gas reserve to sustain the human species at least. Right?
Are there any topics that can't be hijacked by denalists? The topic is A.C. Grayling, not some imaginary international conspiracy of climate scientists to defraud the world.
That video shows you how thoughtful and well informed the journalists at the Australian national broadcaster (ABC) can be. None of this biased harassment of guests as seen on Fox.
Grayling is part of the more important "second wave". After the more vocal "extremists" have got their attention, people like Anthony Grayling come in to show that there is an sober intelligence behind the complaints. Look at the history of any successful movement. Grayling is precious and should be supported by all. At the moment, the rest of us are rabble-rousers and, I for one, am proud of it!
As to being off topic, I was responding to a remark made by Jeanette Garcia about a statement mad by Grayling
"Even if the climate wasn't warming....Why not be responsible anyway?"
I quoted Grayling from the video further, "Even if CO2 is not causing warming...trying to do something about diminishing CO2 can do no harm."
Clearly these remarks were on topic. Unless we are supposed to only talk about "Teddy bears".
Also I never "denied" anything. Grayling made a statement in the video and I and Jeanette Garcia responded to it. He claimed that even if CO2 wasn't causing warming that "diminishing CO2" could do "no harm".
That is clearly a false statement.
Whether the harm caused by limiting fossil fuels is offset by the potential benefits is a separate discussion.
JTK, if you want to discuss AGW, come to one of the two active threads. You've already been at one. What's the matter, afraid of the big boys?
I really hope he is right about religion being in it’s death throws. It would make my life to see that crap go down for the last count before I kick off.
Tis Himself said:
Sigh. Unfortunately, when your mind starts to go, you most likely will not be aware of it. My MIL, in the beginning and intermediate stages of Alzheimer's, thought she was just fine.
#21 "I want to live as long as existance appears more appealling then non-existance."
The big advantage to non-existence is, no pain and no problems. Would I have to worry about my bills? No, because I don't exist. Do I have to worry about the fact that I am socially inept? No, because I don't exist.
Burning those carbon fuels releases more than just carbon dioxide. There are sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and mercury compounds released as well (regardless of how well you filter it) and this cause extremely well known problems including smog, and lake acidification. Reducing the amount of burned carbon fuels used will reduce the other harmful compounds from being released as well. Furthermore, despite what you're claiming, there is no evidence he was suggesting that we force developing nations to do this either.
So, like I said, you're hijacking the thread.
So directly responding to a comment that quotes the video with a remark that also quotes the video is "hijacking"?
I don't think so.
Is it the main point of this thread? No.
Is it "a" point made by Grayling? Yes.
Get it now?
I wasn't even the one who raised the topic.
I notice nobody jumped Jeanette when she raised the topic.
ckitching,
So you feel its OK to do a drive by response to my point and them shut down a reply by calling "hijacking"?
Either I let your assertions stand or I am continuing to "hijack" the thread.
Nice.
Back "on" topic.
Grayling comes off as a rather charming, gentlemanly rationalist.
Of course I think Richard Dawkins does as well. While his opinions can be strident he always seems to say them politely and with deference.
It seems to me that Grayling would probably agree with most of Dawkin's sentiments on religious belief. It just seems that Grayling is avoiding some of the more contentious issues.
Has anyone seen a video of him confronting believers on the issues that generally get under their skin?
When asked about high longevity, I feel he errs when inferring that it will be difficult for any society to take care of the seniors. I don't agree: there is enough technology today to give every one a decent living. The problem is that technology is in the hands of a minute plutocracy that makes it impossible to distribute wealth with a decent degree of democracy. As an atheist, AC should know that better, since he is free of right-wing religious obscurantism.
What's your opinion?
C'mon folks! This looks "off topic".
"The problem is that technology is in the hands of a minute plutocracy that makes it impossible to distribute wealth with a decent degree of democracy."
(Getting popcorn to watch the snide attacks.)
Surely you guys don't just attack peripherally related posts that offend your political sensibilities?
Yeah, well if non-existence is so great, why'd you give it up to be born? Yeah, suck on that! And ... your lingua felum is short!
Yes, those are advantages to non-existence but I figure I will have/have had plenty of time to not exist.
I know he's done some debates over the years, but often in combination with others. I'm sure this debate (Intelligence² Debate, Is Atheism the New Fundamentalism?) he participated might get under their skins since he was unapologetic about his views (and I'm going to assume that the crowd watching and voting in this one was rather unrepresentative of the population -- PZ linked it here when it ran). But since I've heard about religious people get worked up over innocuous things like this sign, I'm not sure that getting under their skin is a huge difficulty.
Woozy: "Yeah, well if non-existence is so great, why'd you give it up to be born?"
You are assuming that a non-existing being would choose to give up non-existence. How can a non-existing being choose?
"Yes, those are advantages to non-existence but I figure I will have/have had plenty of time to not exist."
Yeah, as bad as things get unless you're on fire or consumed by unrelenting emotional torment existence probably beats non-existence.
Of course once your body and brain leave you stewing in your own fluids and waste, unaware of your surroundings, checking out probably doesn't look so bad.
The technology may well exist, but that's not going to be the biggest obstacle. I think the problem will be another finite resource -- skilled doctors and surgeons. Throwing money at this problem may make some of it go away, but I'm not sure it can be completely eliminated, and that money has got to come from somewhere (continuous deficit spending is bad).
If offending includes insulting our collective intelligence (read: trolling) then yes, JTK #48. Especially when you clearly didn't get anything that AC Grayling was talking about...including the use of solving problems with modern flexible solutions. Instead of your backward archaic idea of continueing to rely on carbonated dinosaur poop (read: fossil fuels) that has been well documented as a culprit in polluting our atmosphere since Karl Marx was in diapers I believe.
PS: Anyone else bothered that this man is using William Shatner's most beloved character name as a handle? :(
That interview is flipping amazing!
If Grayling and Dennett aren't careful they will give philosophy a good name. For shame.
Utakata,
I was trying to move on but...
My objection was to Grayling's assertion that "Even if CO2 is not causing warming...trying to do something about diminishing CO2 can do no harm."
Try to respond to my critique of his argument.
His premise.
CO2 is "not causing warming"
His inference.
We should "diminish CO2" emissions anyway.
His conclusions.
This "can do no harm".
Notice I didn't claim his premise was correct or incorrect for that is not a legitimate critique of his argument. One can claim a premise is incorrect but that doesn't negate the logic of the argument.
I questioned his conclusion.
I pointed out that it does not follow from his premise or his inference.
Most, if not all, of the things that are proposed to "diminish CO2" have associate costs and negative consequences.
Remember that the argument wasn't that there were off-setting benefits to these negative consequences. He only said that diminishing CO2 "can do no harm".
This is clearly a false statement.
Now review his argument and my critique there of.
If you find a logical fault in my counter argument I would be anxious to hear it.
If on the other hand you are only interested in making rude and insult laden assertions...
#57, The illustrious JTK.
reductio ad incommodum is not a very sensible position to take. No option will ever be flawless.
That said, taking steps to reduce the emissions of CO2 (And hence the reliance on fossil fuels) can only in the long run be a good thing. If as you propose we do fuck all and stick our thumbs up our collective arse the smaller 'disadvantaged' nations will indeed have access to cheap energy supplies. The only drama is the inevitable vanishing point of those supplies. At which point we are /all/ screwed.
Moving towards sustainable energy sooner rather than later is really the only sensible course of action when faced with an immovable deadline. Whilst it may not be required wrt AGW, it is most definately required wrt to the continual peaceful survival of humanity.
Bringing global warming to a halt is not the only benefit of replacing fossil fuels with superior energy sources.
The primary producer of CO2 is coal power. There are many other benefits of replacing coal power plants.
For example:
That's a 9/11 every 41 days.
See also here.
taipan leader,
Your response is not to my critique of Grayling's assertion.
You make separate assertions on the negative consequences of continued fossil fuel usage. Nowhere did I take a position on the relative merits of continued fossil fuel usage versus switching to alternative fuels.
Your claim is that a "different" sort of harm would be inevitable, that we would all be "screwed" when fossil fuels eventually run out.
This doesn't negate the fact that there would be attendant costs and negative consequences to not using cheap and available fossil fuels.
My point was solely that Grayling was incorrect in asserting that "diminishing CO2" could "do no harm".
That point stands unchallenged by your reply.
llewelly,
If your post is a reply to my critique of Grayling it misses the mark completely.
You make a list of alleged harm done by burning coal other than CO2 emisions.
Other problems with coal burning does not change the fact that switching from coal to some non-CO2 producing fuel would have enormous costs.
Even if these costs could be justified it changes not one jot the fact that the costs would still exist.
Again Grayling did not argue that there would be reasonable harm or justifiable harm he said that changing to CO2 free fuels could "do no harm".
Your post does not even address this point. It is a distraction from it.
I was going to write a more lengthy reply, but you're solid adherance to 'Can do no harm" and the implication that we should therefore do nothing has shifted you from 'possible conversation target' to 'degenerate fuckwit'. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.
Look, I'm not trying to be obtuse.
In my first post, after pointing out the error in Grayling's "no harm" argument, I said,
"The legitimate question one should ask about climate change is do the risks of using fossil fuels out weigh the benefits."
Grayling side-stepped that question entirely by asserting that there was no downside to the equation.
I didn't offer any conclusions on the relative net balance of gains and losses, but that doesn't mean there aren't any negative costs or "harm".
Grayling tried to "slide one by". As an atheist and a rationalist that did not escape my notice.
It's similar to Pascal's Wager that Christians use when they say "What's the harm in believing in God . Even if He doesn't exist I have lived a good life and it has done no harm to believe."
It doesn't wash when they use it and it doesn't wash when Grayling uses it either.
taipanleader,
"...the implication that we should therefore do nothing."
Where exactly did I imply that?
After that baseless assertion you jump to calling me a "degenerate fuckwit".
You seemed like an intelligent person worthy of dialogue. That impression has been somewhat diminished by your most recent post.
You are assuming that a non-existing being would choose to give up non-existence. How can a non-existing being choose?
Well, I know it's difficult but I figure after weighing all the options, the deciding factor would probably be that existing isn't permanent and one can always go back to non-existence if existence doesn't work out.
After all, I don't know of any non-existent being that chose not to exist. Do you?
"After all, I don't know of any non-existent being that chose not to exist. Do you?"
Interesting proposition.
Is there any such thing as a "non-existent being".
Isn't the very word an oxymoron? Doesn't the root word of being, "be" as in "to be", connote existence?
Alternatively if you propose a "being" doesn't it "exist" at least as an idea?
Does not Batman "exist" as a fictional construct just as charity and ambivalence exist as non-corporeal concepts?
Perhaps it’s just getting late.
JamesTiberiusKirk:
congratulations on your persistence: the regulars are doing what they always do when they've been caught out: pretending they're not aware of the implicit ceteris paribus in virtually every statement about the real world, and trying to change the terms of the debate. As many of them are scientists, and more than most aware of the importance of that principle when looking at things, you can put it down to disingenuousness rather than obtuseness (I exclude Utakata and taipanleader from this).
Grayling, when he is allowed to go unchallenged, seems to talk eminently sensibly, but as you pointed out, amongst all that soft-soap there was at least one statement which was incorrect, and if applied as it stood, would have very negative consequences for the poorest of the world.
Okay...first James @ #57, lock yourself in a room and pump it full of CO2. Thus you'll likely quickly determine that too much of CO2 is not a good thing. You seem to think from the way you're going about it isn't. So we got that out of the way...
...now let's look at what AC said: We need to reduce CO2 in our atmosphere, because we're likely putting too much of it to do us harm. This was asserted by his statement, that 95% of climate scientists agree with this position. So he then stated the best thing to do was reduce it. Using his arguement of a modern solution to fix it which is flexible because it'a modern problem would likely entail a proactive way reducing CO2 back down to less harmless levels...even if CO2 to begin with was not harmless (highly unlikely, from my first peragraph). Thus reducing in this way will likely do no harm.
But then, you jumped to conclusion by deducing for some inexplicable reason how that CO2 would be reduced from his position. AC never said anything about the coal, oil and gas industry in it at all. You conluded that. Thus it's your assertion that is false, not his. You assumed something that was not there. You put words into the man's mouth that where never spoken. And that's bad form in any debate...
...and you wonder peep's get pissed at you.
So that you know, I have nothing against you personally. (Other than I find your use of your handle...unsettling.) But I do strongly question your intention to facilitate debate is not wholesome by your actions. I shall leave others here who are far more knowledgible in this field to rip you a new poop tube, if my suspicions are correct (which it appears to be). In the meantime, I'll grab some popcorn...<3
Against my better judgement I return to try to make sense of this.
Having taken some time, I realised what, precisely annoys me about your position.
#23
If the level of warming that can be expected from the burning of fossil fuels is not excessively "dangerous" then there is great harm in limiting access to them.
The implication that being responsible is the same as limiting access is... misleading at best and downright false at worse. 'Being responsible' implies that one should not use more than is necessary whilst simultaneously developing methods that allow us to remove our energy dependence on fossil fuels (Reducing CO2 emissions) with all the associated knock on effects.
Outside of some of the more rabid environmentalists I do not believe that anyone seriously suggests preventing developing countries from access the energy sources available to them. Entertain the idea however that if we /are/ able to develop substantial, renewable energy (That hopefully is unable to be weaponised) the benefits spread as the technology becomes more widespread and cheaper. Liken this to the initial development of the steam engine; At first limited to the rich (for travel) and the large (for transport), later became available to all for minimal cost then finally superseded by other more efficient and cost effective forms of transport. If we are able to develop energy technologies beyond the steam engine and make them cost efficient there will be no need to 'limit' the access to fossil fuels, they will simply become a relic.
And now for something completely different. I think I luv Leigh Sales (sigh)
Look, I'm not trying to be obtuse.
We know.
you just can't help it.
*plonk*
JTK, you are arguing with a strawman. What Grayling said was that attempting to reduce our production of Carbon emissions, conserve expendable resources for our grandchildren, and use resources responsibly could do no harm. He did not advocate a specific program, which basically means that he was tautologically correct.
Using resources responsibly is good, because if you were using them in a manner that was bad, then that would be irresponsible by definition. Now, one suspects that Professor Grayling believes, as most of us do on this site, that what constitutes a responsible usage of carbon fuels involves sufficiently less carbon emissions that it could be sustainable in a roughly equilibrial state for the indefinite future - which is a lot less than what we use now. And you would be welcome to argue against that point if he had made it in this interview. But he didn't. He made the much lesser suggestion that Carbon Emissions should be curbed to the point that our grandchildren will still have access to fossil fuels. That one appears to be pretty non-controversial.
Then, you went off on a rant about fossil fuel limits on the 3rd world. Which I have no idea whether A. C. Grayling agrees with your point or not - because he never mentioned specific fuel targets, regional resource distribution, or any of that. You're basically arguing against a blank wall, because nothing remotely related to that point was raised in the video or by anyone you are attacking on this blog.
The long story short is that apparently the only real hard evidence you have that A. C. Grayling thinks you are wrong is that he said that we should pay more attention to what serious scientists think is a problem and what serious scientists think can and should be done about it. And that highly suggests to me that you're dead wrong. Because otherwise you'd have jumped on his statement that we should use resources responsibly and in accordance with sustainability by claiming that he therefore agreed with whatever your position on resource consumption is.
In short: if you self identify your own position as being one of "irresponsible resource consumption" then the chances are that your position is actually irresponsible. Most people at least pretend that their position is the sane one.
Ichthyic @71:
snide comments are so much easier than dealing with the point, which you know you would have to concede, otherwise you would have something to say on the substance.
JTK is nothing but a troll, as has been shown numerous times on other threads. Hence the antipathy by the regulars to his mewlings. To date, he has shown no evidence that AGW isn't occuring, or that lowering carbon dioxide levels would not be beneficial. I haven't watched the video, so I can't comment on what Grayling said.
I suppose that I should start by congratulating you for being impressed by someone who is persistent, even though their argument requires them to abuse the principal of charity, which is intellectually dishonest. So, congratulations, I guess.
But as I'm not like that — or, at least, I try not to be — I would rather read your words charitably and consider that you simply hadn't noticed just how unfair TJK's interpretation of Grayling actually is (which is confirmed by the fact that you also ignored the principal of charity when saying, "if applied as it stood", as if that really is the most plausible and honest interpretation).
And, of course, insisting on the most the most strict reading of Grayling still doesn't negate the fact that in an interview like that — and particularly those involving the spoken word — we often say things with less care and attention than we otherwise would, which, again, is not considered by either of you (unless I have missed it, that is).
Would you agree that it would have been fair to first consider whether Grayling actually believes the interpretation that TJK has been arguing against and to, on balance, conclude that his views are likely far more nuanced than those expressed in the interview, and that he probably meant those words in the context of the rich western nations, one of which he is part of (and another of which he was talking to), and not necessarily the emerging economies?
damianphipps @75 : thanks for your comments.
Such a closely-reasoned and non-polemical response could charm the birds from the trees, and I'd have little problem agreeing with virtually everything you say, were this not pharyngula, where every utterance which is not from the side of the angels is mercilessly dissected on its face value, and the principle of charity is far to seek.
clausentum,
You alone seem willing to admit that acknowledging that Grayling made an illogical argument does not bring the universe crashing down on our heads.
Others can only muster an argument from outrage or attempt to change the argument or make inferences that Grayling never made.
Worse are posters like Redhead, attempting to poison the well, and Itchyic and FrankT who attack my motives.
damainphipps' appeal to charity is novel and I will address it separately.
Your motives are attacked because you have shown that you are not to be taken seriously anyways. Perhaps you should have a way of telling when you have a substantial argument and when you are just tossing out questions off the top of your head.
So sorry that people have a memory about how you have conducted yourself in the past, that is highly unfair of them.
damianphipps,
Your reply is a case of special pleading.
A straightforward critique of Grayling's statement shows that he has asserted a conclusion that does not follow from his premise or inference.
You claim that charity demands that we allow for special circumstances that will rescue Grayling's failed conclusion from the jaws of logic.
That he somehow knows of unstated premises that will ensure that even if CO2 is not a danger that "trying to do something about diminishing CO2 can do no harm."
Perhaps there are ways of reducing CO2 that might be rational and reasonable but asserting that it "can" do no harm is an unsupported conclusion.
When more than a billion people live in dire poverty without even the most rudimentary of necessities, let alone affordable electricity that access to cheap fossil fuels could provide, Grayling's statement should not go unchallenged.
To do so would extend well beyond simple charity.
Ah, the aptly names Janine of Foul Mouthed Abuse tosses another dose of poison into the well.
It seems to me that since Grayling has been doing his philosophical thing for many many years now, it is more appropriate to say that you (PZ) are joining him, rather than he is joining you. Not that it is important. I'm just saying.
JTK, we heard your inane opinion the first time well upthread. No need to repeat yourself. And nobody must discuss it with you. You just make yourself look like a troll with that tddype of behavior.
Attack your motives? Well, I'm attacking them now, because you're a disingenuous ass hat.
When you claim to be "dissecting" his argument, you are in fact adding material to his argument, and then attacking the material that you added. Your righteous indignation in the face of Grayling's supposed stance on 3rd world fossil fuel consumption is laughable, because he did not take a stance on that issue!
What does he say the targets for reduction of carbon emissions should be?
He does not say!
What does he say should be done about the wildly unfair resource allocation between the West and the 3rd World?
Oh right, he doesn't say anything about that either!
And finally, what does he say about what should be done with 3rd world carbon emissions?
He does not say!
So yeah, JTK, now I'm attacking your motives. Because if you weren't such a lying coal monkey, you'd have backed off when people took you to task for bringing in a bogus argument in a suitcase. Now, the world has a lot of people in it who do think that Niger should have their carbon emissions capped at present or near present levels. You can probably find some of them here. And A. C. Grayling might even be one of those people. But he did not identify as such in the video and you have not presented any information from any other sources to indicate that this is so.
Long story short: JTK, you are a liar. Stop lying.
That was poisoning the well? Sorry, dude, but you have salted the grounds you have walked on. It is no one else's fault that they remember what you have said before.
Aptly named? Well, seeing that it was a friend who gave my my current moniker. But I did not swear at you in my last post. (Though I recall saying that one should not fuck with the captain in a prior thread. 'raspberry')
Methinks you have picked an ironic moniker. You are a delicate little hothouse flower.
ACG:: "Even if the climate wasn't warming....Why not be responsible anyway?"
JTK:: It's similar to Pascal's Wager that Christians use ...
Similar. But not exact. In Pascal's Wager there is no benefit in believing in God if there is no God, there's just "no harm". In ACG's "wager", there are (at least implicitly) lots of benefits to "being responsible" even if there is no global warming.
Suppose you knew someone who had been told he might have hypertension and if so he needs to eat a healthy diet. Suppose this guy starting fretting "But if I don't have hypertension I don't need to eat a healthy diet. Oh, woe is me! What'll I do?!?"
Just how much sympathy would you have for him?
JTK::It doesn't wash when they use it and it doesn't wash when Grayling uses it either.
Well, he does have a point that if we claim to be objective and intelligent, we can't choose to reject an argument when folks we don't like use it and accept it when folks we do use it.
Case in point::
NoRH::To date, he has shown no evidence that AGW isn't occuring, or that lowering carbon dioxide levels would not be beneficial.
Uh, replace "AGW isn't occuring" with "God doesn't exist" (or "Carnivorous 6 foot rabbits in the Chicago sewers don't exist"). Remember "can't prove a negative" and "burden of proof is on the asserter" and so on.[*]
I haven't watched the video, so I can't comment on what Grayling said.
Uh... Okay...
==================
[1] Important note: I am *only* pointing out the fallacy of accusing someone of not proving a negative and in shifting the burden of proof onto the opponent. I am *not* commenting at all on the proponents, the proponents' ample evidence, or their acceptence and response to their burden of proof.
Pascal's Wager is also not binary. You could believe in Mictlan or Vishnu in addition to YHWH or nothing. Reducing carbon emissions or not actually is binary. There are a lot ways you could go about reducing emissions (from switching to solar collectors creating hydrogen fuel cells to simply bombing the factories of other countries), but the question of whether you reduced them or not actually is answerable in binary.
The amount of CO2 pumped into the air is an amount. It's a number and it could go up or down. That makes discussions of whether to reduce it or not wholly different from discussions of believing in one or more supernatural entities.
JTK, one of the reasons we don't take you seriously is because you are blatantly putting out as a valid argument something that you clearly don't believe in yourself.
@23,
You are saying this is as if it were an argument against reducing CO2 emissions, including in developed countries.
If you really cared about access developing countries have to fossil fuels you would argue that developed countries should reduce their fossil fuel consumption, enabling developing countries to use more.
Do you understand that? To help developing countries, the developed world should be investing in alternative fuel sources.
Since you are not arguing that point. I don't believe you give a damn about developing countries.
What's the fallacy when the opponent cries, "It's for the sake of the children! Won't somebody think of the children!"? Appeal to emotion, maybe? That's the form of your argument, and it's laughable.
Ah, but it is easy for JTK to prove both items. All he needs to do is to show peer reviewed scientific papers (evidence) that the Earth is not warming, but rather that it is cooling or remaining the same temperature. Not hard to do if the evidence was there. Likewise, he can show using economic studies (certified by 'Tis) of the AGW scenario and impending depletion of fossil fuels, to show that the head in the sand approach at this point in time is the best way to handle the situation. It isn't proving a negative in either case, but it might sound like it.
Woozy @ 85, your equating the argument that "AGW isn't occuring" with "God doesn't exist" is a false equivalence, given that there is a huge amount of evidence for the contrary position of the former, but not for the latter proposition. NoRH is not asking JTK to prove a negative, but is asking him to show his work that the aggregation of data backs his claim.
he needs to do is to show peer reviewed scientific papers (evidence) that the Earth is not warming, but rather that it is cooling or remaining the same temperature.
True. But the burden of proof is still on the proponents. Once the AGW-pros present evidence (which, of course, they have in great bulk) then the burden on the AGW-cons is to refute it. Perhaps the strongest refutation is to prove cooling or temps staying the same but simply refuting it is all that is required. Now if AGW-con's tactic of refution is to stick his fingers in his ears and shout "la la la la la I can't hear you", the pros can counter that he didn't properly refute it rather than he didn't provide counter proof.
Consider my 6-foot carnivorous rabbits in the sewers of Chicago. I don't need to prove that that there are no anomalies (such as gnawed bones with six-foot rabbit tooth marks). I just need to refute whatever evidence the pros come up with. If the pros come up with samples of water containing human blood and gnawed-bones and mud cast paws of giant rabbits, my job becomes a little harder. But I don't need to prove that the sewer water is clean and that the are no mud prints. I just need to refute that the evidence is inconclussive or can be explained by other reasons.
Or I can stick my fingers in my ears and shout "la la la I can't hear you".
Whether the existence of God, AGW, carnivorous rabbits, or Iowans, the burden is on the pros, not the cons.
Pascal's Wager is also not binary. You could believe in Mictlan or Vishnu in addition to YHWH or nothing. Reducing carbon emissions or not actually is binary.
Mmmmm... maybe.
But I don't think that's really the core problem of Pascal's wager. Consider a mail order ad I once saw saw for a lucky charm bracelet-- guranteed to bring you great fortunes or your money back. The ad claimed that they were perplexed that any-one could possibly turn it down. They reasoned if it didn't work you you get your money back ("no harm"). Otherwise you get great fortune.
Now, I could claim it's not binary in that there's a possible third choice that the bracelet is actually cursed but ... c'mon...
The real thing is that a charmed bracelet is so ridiculously out of the scope of possibility it's not worth *any* consideration or trouble. (Well, actually the fact that the advertisers are almost certainly either cons or in the mailing address selling business...)"
When applied to something with concievably shorter odds and clear benefits, Pascal's Wager becomes more of a simple statement rather than a weird twist of logic:
"Hmm, your blood pressure's really high. You might have hypertension. If you have hypertension you'll have to cut down on fatty foods and eat more fresh veggies. In fact, why don't you do it any way. If you have hypertension it saves your live. If you don't... well, no harm done."
Yes, JTK is proposing (if not here, on another thread) that AGW is false. The burden of proof is upon him to show that fact. That is my point. And he has failed his duty to even attempt to do so. That is also my point.
Yes, JTK is proposing (if not here, on another thread) that AGW is false. The burden of proof is upon him to show that fact.
Sooo, if I were to propose that the belief in God (or the Easter Bunny) is false then the burden of proof would be upon me?
No, but the fact that you fail to see the difference is telling. God or the Easter bunny cannot be proven false, since absence of evidence doesn't prove non-existence. Just, if searched for a long time, say millenia, the implication of non-existence can become heavily inferred, or the null position, but never proven.
For this case of AGW, the evidence is there for one side of the argument or the other to be right. So it can be decided by scientific evidence. AGW is happening if the temperature is rising with carbon dioxide concentrations over climate periods (say last 30 year). It isn't happening, if over the same period, the temperature is staying the same or falling. So the scientific reality is made upon the evidence. Which goes against JTK. Welcome to science.
>>>For this case of AGW, the evidence is there for one side of the argument or the other to be right.
But you are sidestepping the issue of which of the three sides (up, down, or the same) have the burden. If someone claims claims, say, the frog population is declining it is not then up to the denier to prove the population is steady (although one can argue that'd if he were right he should able to). The burden would still be on the proposer to prove and provide evidence the frog population is declining (which, of course, they have).
The thing is, you didn't say "JTK hasn't properly responded or refuted adequately the vast evidence clearly indicating AGW" you said "To date, he has shown no evidence that AGW isn't occuring". True, but that just, unfortunately, is not his burden. His burden is to properly refute the AGW evidence.
Correct, by proving using peer reviewed scientific evidence that AGW is not occurring, which is the result if he was successful. That is the only way for him to refute the scientific evidence to date, with more and better science. We may be quibbling slightly over semantics, but the burden of proof is upon JTK to prove his claims. Which he has failed to do. Science has proven its case to date.
Woozy @ 85, your equating the argument that "AGW isn't occuring" with "God doesn't exist" is a false equivalence, given that there is a huge amount of evidence for the contrary position of the former, but not for the latter proposition. NoRH is not asking JTK to prove a negative, but is asking him to show his work that the aggregation of data backs his claim.
Actually, NoRH was exactly asking JTK to prove a negative. NoRH never made any reference to the huge amount of evidence for the contrary. You, on the other hand, do.
My point is only to point out use of false arguments when it suits one side over another. Initially it was the difference between Pascal's wager and ACG's "even if there is no global warming, what's the harm in being responsible". NoRH's "JTK provides no evidence" was the second. It took him 3 or 4 posts but he eventually figured it out. (You got it right away.)
Woozy @ 93, you're playing with NoRH at semantics here. The burden of proof is not being raised against JTK because of any arbitrary proposition being "false". JTK's claim is fairly specific: he has said AGW is false and he needs to justify that because it runs contrary to the scientific consensus on the evidence, which is that anthropogenic global warming has occurred. Again making an equivalence with a ridiculous proposition that is comparatively irrelevant is just continuing the thread de-rail (but it looks that no one's continuing with that anyway - the thread is dead).
Nowhere on this thread, or any other, have I asserted that "AGW is not occurring".
I have taken no position on the validity of AGW.
On the thread about Phil Jones I said that Jones should be required to provide data to back up his studies (as should any competent scientist) and he should be required to respond to Freedom of Information requests.
On this thread I refuted Grayling's assertion that even if CO2 was “not causing warming” that reducing CO2 could "do no harm".
It is absurd to claim that reducing CO2 for purposes other than climate change mitigation is a proposition that has no downside, which is just what Grayling did.
Others are intent on dragging the discussion into the completely separate issue of whether on balance reducing CO2 for the purposes of climate change mitigation is a good idea.
I don’t wish to join that discussion at this time. Inferences to my opinions on the matter have no evidence to support them in either direction because, as I said, I have steadfastly avoided any discussion of the issue.
Yawn JTK is a boring repeative idjit. Time to realize nobody cares about your inane opinions.
Woozy, you are a pedant, and I have no desire to debate your pedantry any longer. You have not convince me of anything. You can continue to talk to yourself if you wish. You might feel you will have an intelligent conversion. But I won't be responding. To killfile or not to killfile, that is the question...
Nerd of a Redhead,
"Time to realize nobody cares about your inane opinions."
You seem very interested creating straw men, labeling them as my opinions, and then raging against them.
"Yes, JTK is proposing (if not here, on another thread) that AGW is false."
Please provide evidence of this claim.
If you can't an apology seems in order.
What apology troll? Begone. You have nothing cogent to say to us.
So you admit you have no evidence to back your statement,
"Yes, JTK is proposing (if not here, on another thread) that AGW is false."
This combined, with your continued name calling speaks very poorly for your credibility and ability to engage in rational discussion.
Playing the persecution card is troll behavior. Stop being a troll, and maybe we will stop calling you one. And you posts have implied you are anti-AGW even if not explicitly said. And you aren't worth the effort looking them up. Ask any one paying attention to your mewlings if the rational conclusion is you are anti-AGW in leanings.
NoRH,
More vituperative and insulting invective I see.
You made a claim "Yes, JTK is proposing (if not here, on another thread) that AGW is false."
Stop screaming like a child caught with her hand in the cookie jar.
Put up or shut up.
You have made false claims about me and you must apologize or be revealed a liar and a fraud.
It is that simple.
Here is an example of what is required to put right the situation.
"I made false claims about the positions held by JamesTiberiousKirk. I apologize for misrepresenting his ideas."
See how easy that would be? I have apologized to many people.
No one is perfect and in the heat of argument, to which you are particularly prone, one can get carried away.
It is the failure to admit one's mistakes that constitutes reprehensible behavior. That is when the line is crossed from innocent mistake to purposeful lie.
You are perilously close to crossing that line.
A.C. Grayling concedes that AGW may not be happening, then says: but, Hey! reducing CO2 emissions is STILL a good idea because we're preserving resources for ourselves and the Planet, or some such idjit loonacy.
O.M.G. This teddy-bear is one confused whacko.
Get a hair-cut, Grayling!
Woozy @ 93, you're playing with NoRH at semantics here.
Not entirely. The only statement JTK has said that I agreed with is is statement that it is faulty to use a lazy argument when it supports your side and to counter it when it supports the other.
He brought up the similarity of ACG's argument with Pascal's wager which is why I pointed out how they are not equivalent.
I actually hadn't paid any attention to JTK's comments and missed his assertions but as written Nerd's statement was a sloppy assertion ordering a proving of a negative.
The burden of proof is not being raised against JTK because of any arbitrary proposition being "false".
Again, my response had nothing whatsoever to do with any of JTK's statements but rather to Nerd's complacency and tendancy to sqwak simplistic and unoriginal taunts while never adding any insight or original viewpoint. Admittedly my annoyance is personal as my first encounter with him when he clearly hadn't bothered to read a post I had written but felt compelled to call me a Catholic and challenged me to provide evidence for a god I never claimed to believe in.
In the year or so since he hasn't seemed to show any more originality or insight, and, yes, I know he's on the right (atheist, pro-AGW, anti-creationism, pro-science, etc.) side and thus my ally, but, sheesh... weak logic and sloppy debating is irritating whichever side it appears on.
Anyhow, it was just *sitting* there and nothing else on this thread was going on so ... I felt compelled. And for that I apoligize to you for having had to endure it.
Now that i got it out of my system, I'll try not to indulge it again for at least a few more months.
>>>JTK's claim is fairly specific:
But the post I was responding to was not.
>>> Again making an equivalence with a ridiculous proposition that is comparatively irrelevant
No. In a case with all propositions being equal, it is very important to establish priorities as to which is the null, which are confirmed and how strongly. You addressed that. (I'm sorry that I didn't notice your resonse until several posts later.)
(but it looks that no one's continuing with that anyway - the thread is dead).
I wouldn't have done it if anything active or relevant was going on.
A.C. Grayling concedes that AGW may not be happening, then says: but, Hey! reducing CO2 emissions is STILL a good idea because we're preserving resources for ourselves and the Planet, or some such idjit loonacy.
Okaaaay...
And why exactly is reducing CO2 emissions because we are preserving resources for ourselves and the planet not a good idea?
(not to mention it'd keep things cleaner, delay AGW all that much longer, etc.)
What possible sense does it make to say, "Phew, we just got a reprieve. Good, now I can trash about for the hell of it" or "Hurray! I *don't* have hypertension! Now I get to eat greasy food until I do!"?
ABQ:
Actually, what he said was "even if [it weren't happening]".
As for the lunacy of reducing fossil-fuel pollution, your opinion is noted.
Hi Woozy,
no worries. JTK's silliness was made manifest on the "Climate change denialists = climate change liars" thread, where he cited the Climate Audit blog as a reliable source, and this is possibly why there is little patience with him (or his fellow stooge Al B. Quirky).
>>why there is little patience with him (or his fellow stooge Al B. Quirky)
Well. Stupid statements and arationality simply *hurt*. Even if AGW was completely false and it's only adherents were right-wing creationist looneys, a statement like "A.C. Grayling concedes that AGW may not be happening, then says: but, Hey! reducing CO2 emissions is STILL a good idea because we're preserving resources for ourselves and the Planet, or some such idjit loonacy" would still hurt.
I mean, suppose someone insisted that eating a stalk of broccolli a day would prevent cancer (nuts!) and suppose he said "Even if it doesn't prevent cancer, it provides follic acid so why not eat healthy". There's a lot of legitimate counter-responses to the broccolli-prevents-cancer arguments but "Yeah, right; even if it doesn't it's STILL a good idea cause it's healthy or some such idjit loonacy" is not one of them.
Arrationality and inability to follow simply if-then clauses! It hurts, I tells ya! It hurts!
His speaking style and clarity remind me of Bertrand Russell.
woozy,
You claim to be an ardent supporter of rationality yet you make a lame analogy about broccoli to support Grayling's patently absurd claim that even if CO2 is not causing warming that reducing CO2 can do no harm.
When nearly 90% of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels which emit CO2 when burned it is idiotic to claim that even if CO2 isn't causing warming reducing CO2 for its own sake will do no harm.
Perhaps you think people use energy only for frivolous purposes. This is demonstrably false in a world where people heat and electrify their homes, cook their food, transport themselves to work and run entire economies on fossil fuels.
If an energy source is plentiful, as hydrocarbon energy certainly is, using it is the rational thing to do. To use all of the petroleum, coal and natural gas reserves estimated today would take hundreds of years at current rates of consumption and that doesn't include methane hydrates which may double that time frame if they become commercially viable.
If the use of fossil fuels is artificially constrained to limit consumption it certainly will have negative economic and social impacts.
To claim otherwise is irrational in the extreme. To do so with out presenting evidence to the contrary, as Grayling did, is either intellectually lazy or dishonest or both.
JTK:
If there were no pollution to consider (never mind other factors such as peak oil, the entire petrochemical industry or the sociopolitical effects of the current energy regime), you might've had a point.
What a remarkably grown-up and pleasant interview. It almost makes me want to pay the license fee (to Oz).
I can't help but wonder how that would have panned out with Billo Reilly as the 'host'.