Wow, you really can't read, can you?

From the title of the article you linked:

U.N. climate change report sees risk of 'irreversible' damage

Then, from the article itself:

In a paragraph summing up the risks, the draft says that a continued rise in world greenhouse gas emissions is "increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems."

(both emphasis mine)

Climate change is not irreversible, but if we continue down this path, it may very well be.

And even if it was irreversible as of this point, we would still need to do something to mitigate the effects. Personally, I believe this is the most likely future scenario.

And your contrarian link has zero credibility. An article in the Daily Express talking about a TV weathermans opinion? What's next? A link to the Weekly World News interviewing Joe the Plumber?

Hang on, he's not an engineer... he's a plumber.

As a plumber, I approve this video.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'sheng, china, coin sounds, italian plumber' to 'sheng, china, coin sounds, italian plumber, super mario, music, ancient, instrument' - edited by lucky760

Actually, it's today's so-called "Doctor Who" and the whole point of using a barrel with a plumber's helper was to save money. I don't know what Jim Bakker has to do with it, though. I suppose you just forgot to check the sarcasm box.

It hasn't been much of a show since Jim Bakker. Whenever they left using one's imagination for computer enchanced effects, the whole idea of Dr. Who was violated and demeaned. The whole point of using a barrel with a plumber's helper, and all that, was to engage the viewer's imagination; not the pablum and puerility of today's so-called "Dr. Who".

Not knowing how to properly coil a cable != contributing to the moral dissolution of future generations.

Also, I'm getting tired of this entire ridiculous fascination society in general seems to have with people "getting their hands dirty." I grew up surrounded by intellectuals, and though they might've been able to handle simple problems around the house, there were other things they spent their time learning how to do.

These were mathematicians, programmers, psychologists and physicists, and for all the usefulness of plumbers, mechanics and others of their ilk, these intellectuals provided other services to society which were quite honestly no less vital to its success. What they taught me was how to use my brain rather than my hands, and frankly, the world as I see it is filled to the brim with people are perfectly willing to get their hands dirty but who are astoundingly unwilling to ever use their heads.

I spent about a week this summer building a fence, and for all the shallow gratification of "honest labour," I would honestly really prefer it if I could just pay someone else to do it while I stayed inside, learning about the world and everything that goes on in it, instead of working outside like some sort of beast of burden.

If you happen to be one of those people who for some reason feel that digging holes and putting large sticks in them is a meaningful pastime, I will neither stop you from doing it nor judge you for your choice. So please, would you kindly shut the fuck up about how wonderful it is to "get your hands dirty" and just leave me to my Goddamn books?

Why are these words offensive? Because some assholes uses them to dismiss others? Is "woman" an offensive word now too? Women drivers. Women's health. Women's rights.
Why don't we, for a change, stop turning words into stigmatas and instead change their definition into something more objectively descriptive? Language changes, it's not static, let's embrace that. Let's stop making more and more tools for awful people to hurt others. "Homosexual" was once nothing but a horrible insult and a description of human moral failure. Now we're looking at a future where it is as offensive as the word woman. Or blond. Or plumber.
It is becoming nothing but an adjective. We're getting there.
Crazy people deserve much better than that, they have enough on their plate.

This is a story about a man who was trying to protect a misguided lady from a psychotic plumber.

This video is glorifying stunts like jumping over cars.

It seems reasonable to say it's intellectually simplistic to glorify those things instead of glorifying people like Turing, who contributed far more to the world.

Skills that contribute to society, like being a policeman or plumber, aren't being criticized here.

There's no doubt increased broad based spending by the middle class would help the economy. The notion that the super wealthy are "hoarders" is erroneous. They are profligate spenders, and by doing so, promote the economy. The owner of a very successful software company built a $12,000,000 home recently, that I toured. It was the epitome of excess. However, by his excess he put contractors, roofers, plumbers, masons, landscapers, etc to work, not to mention the people his own company employs. Basically, he pumped that $12,000,000 right back into the economy. As historians Will and Ariel Durant (The History of Civilization, a 10 volume work I dare anyone to get TOTALLY through, wow), noted, "Perhaps it is one secret of their power (bankers) that having studied the fluctuations of prices, they know that history is inflationary, and that money is the last thing a wise man will hoard." In the 18th century, Adam Smith coined the unintentional benefits of profligate spending by the wealthy, for his own wants and desires, the "invisible hand" that promoted the welfare of society at large. It's human nature that even when equipped with the essentials for living, they will envy the privilege of the few super wealthy among them and some wealth will be redistributed to the poor, in order to keep the peace.

>> ^qfan:

Side note: Being well respected doesn't mean his views are truth.

Agreed. On the other hand, the unassailable mountains of evidence for evolution means his views (at least on evolution) are truth. Or at least as much as it's possible to have any scientific "truth".


>> ^qfan:

Though yes, perfectly fine to have an opinion. I'm not disputing that.
What's in dispute is that he's telling parents not to share their beliefs with their own children. So we're not only telling creationists they can't share their views publicly in school, we also tell them that they can't share their views in private with their own children. It's extraordinarily dangerous thinking in the free world. These are private people who wish to raise their children with their own values. Bill is publicly preaching to parents (unlike those parents who are privately teaching their children) not to share what they believe in, all the while saying "When you're in love you want to tell the world about it." The man is amazingly hypocritical and sadly without an ounce of realisation about it.

He's not saying parents can't tell their children about creationism, he's saying they shouldn't. You can dance around the issue all you want, and believe in creationism, the tooth fairy or santa claus, but there comes a time when you have to grow up and accept reality. Right now, there's no debate about evolution, simply because there is no valid competing scientific theory that even comes close to matching the evidence. That I have to even spell this out is pretty sad.

>> ^qfan:

He says "We need scientifically literate people...". The thousands of scientists that believe in creation are also literate in science, even in the evolutionary aspects, except they choose not to believe in evolutionary theory. Science is a method. Nothing more, nothing less. Creationists aren't ignoring science at all, they are ignoring evolutionary theory.

There might be "thousands of scientists that believe in creation", but they represent a tiny percentage of the overall scientific community and almost none of them work in relevant fields. You wouldn't ask a plumber about aeronautical engineering, so don't ask a physicist about biology.

And if you ignore evolutionary theory, you are ignoring the science of biology. You are cherry-picking which evidence you accept because it doesn't fit your world view.

>> ^qfan:

Bill says "We need engineers, people that build stuff, solve problems...". The example of Wernher Von Braun puts this point to rest.

I have already conceded that you do not need to understand evolutionary biology to build rockets.

>> ^qfan:

You're confusing a lot of things here. First you say he ignored an area (evolution) that conflicted with his belief "because it didn't affect his work", then go on to say "You can be damn sure he benefited from the study of evolution".

If you're going to quote me, at least do me the courtesy of doing it fully and in context. What I said was:
>> ^ChaosEngine:

You can be damn sure he benefited from the study of evolution though, given it's the backbone of a lot of medical research.


I meant that Von Braun benefited from the study of evolution in the same way that every other human in the developed world did, through better medicines. It didn't really affect his work, but it did affect his life.


>> ^qfan:

Von Braun, "For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design,” “It is in scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance." http://www.thespacereview.com/article/656/1

So what? He was wrong about evolution. Big deal. Newton was one of the greatest minds of all time and he got time wrong. Science marches on, and I'm confident that Von Braun if he had the time and inclination to really study it, would eventually have accepted the facts of evolution. And if he still chose to ignore the evidence because it didn't fit his world-view, well, that's sad, but it changes nothing about the truth of evolution.

>> ^qfan:

Bill says that denial of evolution is unique to the US (which is already a very questionable statement in itself), then goes on to say that the US is the most technologically advanced nation (with a grudging acceptance that Japan might be slightly ahead). Again, another questionable statement and slightly elitist I might add So if denial of evolution is holding the US back, why is it the most technologically advanced? You could word it another way... denial of evolution and technological advancement do not correlate with one another.


It's not unique to the U.S., but it's more prevalent than any other developed nation. What he's saying is that the U.S. should know better.

Denial of evolution in and of itself is bad, but it's symptomatic of the larger issues of anti-intellectualism and non-rational thought. The people who made the U.S. the most technologically advanced nation are not the same people that believe in a talking snake.

Besides, he's talking about potential. Maybe somewhere in the bible belt the next Alexander Fleming is having their future taken away from them because they are being lied to (intentionally or not) by their parents and/or preachers.

Tomorrow will be a very good day in Bethel... for plumbers.

Yes, sadly it is.

>> ^Tokoki:

Is this serious?!?

holy shit on a stick! @_@

He's not even a plumber!