Christopher Hitchens on Global Warming

A clip from Christopher Hitchens appearance on C-SPAN In Depth this segment on church and state separation.

via - http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/09/hitchens_on_chu.html

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Christopher
• Hitchens
• Global
• Warming

[JLJorgenson18]

@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW Actually science works through the peer reviewed process and scientific viewpoints/theories are solidified once a majority of credible scientists agree on said viewpoint. My point is that if you want to debate it or try to find out more about it, go get a degree in the field and get involved in the peer reviewed process. Until then, you are a charlatan and you are as dangerous to knowledge as a non-doctor giving medical advice to a sick person.

[Em183]

He was so logical, smart, witty. This earth needed him more!! Such a shame.

[RealRacer69]

@kmeighoo I agree. I am by no means a climate change sceptic, but a much stronger argument than a variant of Pascal's wager is needed before you impose tremendous changes to peoples lives that would effect lifestyle, employment and liberties. 

[healdogtoe2c]

So with all of this science pointing to us shitting in the tub, not just your tub, mind you, but OUR tub, whose interests are guiding your decisions and whose interests are you ignoring? This isn't just about you. People take all kinds of chances in their own lives that can harm or even kill them. But what happens when its the lives of others that are at stake?

[healdogtoe2c]

@kmeighoo The question comes back to, to whom are you responsible? Pascal put forth his ideas as an enticement for the individual to be reasonable and not reject the possibility of hell. Its a simple strategy to hedge your bets. But the whole scheme has one person in mind. And its important to note that he proposed this because of the fact that faith was divorced from any required evidence of proof. In effect his law said,"do yourself a favor", despite the facts.

[healdogtoe2c]

@williamwallacefree Seriously, how do you enjoy being a cross dressing duck decoy? Why are you siting old papers by scientists who are re-educating the scientific world on the laws of physics? So one man says thousands of other scientists are wrong? Or am I interupting someone texting a friend?

[kmeighoo]

@healdogtoe2c None of that changes the fact that the argument made by Hitchens was the same one as used by Pascal. It is based on activating a latent fear of grave consequences for not acting in the pious way of the day.

As I said to RealRacer69, I do not think it was Hitchens's best argument, and I'm sure he would have conceded the point over a drink and vigorous conversation.

I prefer and choose to act as a responsible and honorable human being, even if there is no doomsday imminent.

[kmeighoo]

@RealRacer69 I don't accept Pascal's wager as a sufficient argument for being religious (by which he meant Christian, of course). I also don't think that argumentative structure is a good one to support action against global warming (which has since morphed to climate change).

I thought Hitchens would have been of the same mind. Apparently not. I think it was not his best argument, and he would probably have agreed upon reflection.

[williamwallacefree]

@RoehmErnst Seriously, how do you enjoy being a nazi transvestite? They also prove that a greenhouse operates as a "closed" system while the planet works as an "open" system and the term "atmospheric greenhouse effect" does not occur in any fundamental work involving thermodynamics, physical kinetics, or radiation theory.

[williamwallacefree]

@RoehmErnst how's it going, you nazi swine? Looks like I can post here. How are things?

In a recently revised and re-published paper Dr Gerlich debunks AGW and shows that the IPCC consensus atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming is not only unverifiable, but actually violates basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics. The latest version of this momentous scientific paper appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics

[Fewsandpiper]

@philosophergenius youre ignorant because you dont do anything with that questioning. you cant say 'oh i may be wrong;' thats useless. you say 'oh i may be wrong, but why, and what are the arguments against my belief?' and decide according to the facts, not what makes you feel good about yourself

and all you know is that you went to college for 6 years and the world was upside down when left? is your degree in sitting in your mothers basement all day?

show some effort please

[Nightversionn]

@philosophergenius The great thing about science is that it's real, whether you believe in it or not.