Unfortunately, everyone on this is wrong - I don't agree with transmorpher so much, but if we don't get population growth under control, all the green energy in the world won't be enough. Which is why the Pope pontificating on planetary stewardship is nothing short of obscene. When the Catholic Church starts making birth control a mandatory practice for good Catholics, then I'll start believing his advice on global stewardship is sincere.

Because Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the rest... "CO2 is good for the Earth, it helps plants" (ignoring that most plants are absorbing about as much CO2 as they can already, and ignoring the bigger problem that very little of the Earth is green, and no walls or ceilings to keep the CO2 where plants are), "compact fluorescent bulbs are stupid, they have mercury in them!" (ignoring that the mercury in them and the mercury put into the air by the power plant is less than the mercury put into the air by the power plant to power regular bulbs). And the news media paints it as a debate, having one climate change scientist debate one climate change denier (though the media still refuses to call them deniers and paints them as skeptics) and this isn't just the right wing media, almost all the media in the US presents it as a debate. They don't present the fact that a 97% consensus exists.

Then there is religion. They talk how insane it is to assume that humans, made of God could destroy God's work. That we can't damage the Earth as God made it... of course they take the idea of destruction literal, and not in the way people actually mean when they say it's destroying the Earth. They also don't care about the repercussions of future generations as "Jesus is coming soon, well before any of this will matter"... more or less an actual quote. They believe also that God has granted mankind all authority over the Earth and not that it was stewardship over the Earth, so we can and should do whatever we want.

There's also ignorance. The media, especially the right wing media, portray the idea of climate change as presented is being presented as being only 100% caused by humans, they claim that the pro climate change scientists won't acknowledge any part of it might be natural. The media is playing it as an all or nothing scenario, either humans caused it all, or caused none of it. This isn't what any scientists are saying. They are just pointing out the natural uptick vs the uptick we are seeing is explained by human burning of fossil fuels, and that's what the 97% consensus is about, the uptick we are observing vs what would be expected naturally. But not understanding, and thinking science is ignoring all possible natural causes, they deny the whole thing.

Heck, just look at the media uproar over the supposed mini ice age that is coming in 2030 or so. Of course the actual paper never mentions an ice age or climate at all, and neither did the presentation. The problem was the press release for presentation mentioned the Maunder Minimum and linked to the Wikipedia article about it, and from there the media assumed that would mean a new mini ice age, even though the mini ice age during that time was started before the Maunder Minimum. Nobody in the climate change community is really calling for a mini ice age (just like it was never widely thought in the 70s that we were heading for global cooling, it was understood even then it was warming, the cooling thing came from an article in Time if I recall correctly, not exactly a peer reviewed science journal) come the 2030's, at best we may get a very small slow down of the warming, but CO2 levels are 40% higher than during the Maunder Minimum. Anyhow the media tends to mislead the public with things that wasn't actually said. The right wing media machines especially know that their audience won't vet their sources or information and will trust them and talk about conspiracies to hide the truth. Heck most of the media never even cleared the air over climategate emails, so most of the deniers still cite the climategate emails as a valid thing, even though in context and with scientific understanding none of the climategate claims are valid, and in fact still point to global warming... (http://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-hoopla-giant-failure-science-communication)

There's also the change from "global warming" to "climate change" which they don't understand to be an escalation of the term, and think instead it's toning it down.

Hi A10ANIS,

Could you please address the heart of my argument, that the principle of parsimony (occams razor) states that we should consider the theory of a Creator over the multiverse theory? Thanks.

To address some of your points:

Regarding your "fine tuner" argument; Such is the fine tuning of your "creator" that 98% of all life that has existed, is extinct. Which, apart from being incredibly incompetent and wasteful, points logically to random
selection/evolution.

It also points to a global flood which wiped out nearly all life on Earth around 4400 years ago. The speciation which occurred up until that time was lost, but new species have been created since then. The mass extinctions going on today have everything to do with human development and bad stewardship rather than any design flaw.

Also, your "a painting therefore a painter" point is a non-sequitur for if there were a "fine tuner," there would, by your own argument, have to be a creator of the fine tuner and so an inevitable regression.

We as Christians do not believe in created gods which are a delusion by definition; we believe in an eternal God who was not created. The infinite regression stops at the feet of the eternal God who has always existed. This line of reasoning is a problem not for Christians but for those who believe in the multiverse theory, because whatever the mechanism is which generates all of these Universes would be yet another Goldilocks zone, and so precisely finetuned as to be statistically impossible. You may as well posit a Creator at that point. I mean just ask yourself the same questions; what created the multiverse, what created it, etc.

No, Science has thrown off the shackles of myths and gods. Had they not, our lives would be controlled by theocratic dictators and we would still believe earth was the centre of the universe.

Interesting you would say this considering that in its infancy, pretty much all of the important discoveries were made by professing Christians. It was actually the environment of Christian Europe which nurtured science into what it is today.

Another point is, Christians don't believe in myths; Jesus Christ is not a myth, He is a real person who died for our sins and rose from the dead. He told us about who God is, because He was with God and He is God.

We no longer use the god of the gaps argument. We may never know all the answers but, just because we don't, we no longer lazily, ignorantly, insist that; "Hallelujah, God must have done it."

It is not a God of the gaps argument when the theory has greater explanatory power than what is being proposed. When even apparent fine tuning as been observed, which it has, the principle of parsimony would prefer the theory of a Creator to multiple unobserved universes.

I really wouldn't be able to pick Piers Morgan out of a line up. I wrote that first comment over a year ago in the immediate aftermath of the Newtown shooting and it was largely a response to the rhetoric pro-gun advocates were displaying all over my Facebook feed.

What I wrote is not at all an over-reaction to what I saw during that time.

Totally normal and sane friends of mine applauded a ten year old girl who shot and killed a home invader, enthusing that this is how America should be.

Totally normal and sane friends of mine waxed romantic about how concealing and carrying a weapon transforms a vanilla suburban dining experience into a potential battlefield. Whereas most people get lost in one of the many flat screen TVs at an Applebees, they spend their time sizing up potential adversaries and keep close tabs on every exit as they feel the reassuring bulge of their Glock at their side.

I totally agree that most of these guys will never end up needing to use their weapons in an adversarial situation, and I totally agree that these guys are responsible gun owners if responsible gun ownership is defined by a safe stewardship of the guns you acquire, but that is not the point that I'm trying to make.

The problem is that these sorts of people and the gun culture they have created has an enormous impact on the type of gun laws we pass. This wouldn't be a problem if they were coming from a place that wasn't obsessive and wasn't paranoid and wasn't delusional, but they are and this is unfortunate because it enables and accentuates much of the violence you lament in inner city culture.

Hence, a predatory pedophile gives Satan a bad name, and power to those whose stewardship begins as compromised ⚸ Savilles' a piece of shit

I think part of it must have been cut off. Christians are the most anti-pro-environmental people around, they are the ones most defending the giant corporations fight against the science of climate change. Fox News and the Republican party say it is junk, so they say it is all junk. Which I find odd for the same reason Louis CK notes in the video, if He was real and came back, He'd be upset that they didn't take better care of the Earth. They seemed to have forgotten how good stewardship works... it wouldn't matter if climate change science was BS, taking better care of the environment would be the right thing to do from a Biblical perspective, yet many if not most don't care. I've been told, "It doesn't matter anyhow as Jesus is coming again soon"... as if that is reason enough not to be a good steward of what He apparently gave them to watch over... It just boggles my mind how far disconnected from any sort of logical thought train that the vast majority of them seem to be on... and I don't mean where it contradicts the Bible, but where logic would follow the Bible and yet is still ignored as the vast right wing media machine tells them to...

I would think that if the Bible says to be a good steward of the Earth and the right wing media machine and Republican party says profits matter more, then I'd question the Republican party and right wing media machine. I would think that if Jesus said the rich won't inherit the kingdom of God, that we were to take care of the sick and the poor and needy, and the Republican party and right wing media machine said, no, we need to let the rich keep more of the money they made by not paying their workers a living wage and punish those working for them by taking away benefits that help them survive, then I would question that message... oh wait, I did. Which is why I changed from a Republican to a Libertarian (defending Fox News and bashing evolution and the whole bit) and eventually to the Liberal I am today. Everything the right wing folks do in the so called name of God is in contradiction to the teachings of the Bible... save perhaps abortion, the solution of which isn't laws restricting it, but affordable health care and education, two things they are against providing...

RUBot!

We are expecting a channel stewardship from you.

When Ron Paul says he's for limited government and fiscal responsibility, he practices what he preaches:

Congressman Ron Paul has continued to run his Congressional office in a frugal manner, and was able to return more than $100,000 from his allotted office budget to the Treasury this year, an increase over the $90,000 returned last year.

“Since my first year in Congress representing the 14th district I have managed my office in a frugal manner, instructing staff to provide the greatest possible service to the people of the 14th district at the least possible cost to taxpayers,” said Paul.

How does the scientific fact that people are contributing to climate change have to do with wrecking the American economy? What we do about it at the policy level has nothing to do with the science. They are two separate issues. Also since climate change is a global thing, not just an American thing, shouldn't we think about the global impact and not just be self centered ass holes concerned only about a few American multi-billion dollar companies? WTF is wrong with these people? I mean these idiots believe in God, who said to be a good steward of the Earth. If I left somebody in charge of something and came back and it was all messed up because they were more concerned about making money than taking care of what I told them to take care of, I would be pissed... perhaps, like Denethor, they confused stewardship with lordship and think they can do what the heck they want... of course that is perhaps one of the parts of the Bible they picked to ignore, like the parts that say the Earth doesn't move, because if they came out and said that the sun goes around the Earth because the science isn't settled on that, then they would lose all respect (at least one would hope)...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I think this is really well put. I like the idea of a mutebox.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Clearly, we're all opinionated mofos and are going to butt heads.
So yeah, to slow VideoSift's inevitable slide into a niche version of youtube - comments and all - Civility is important.
Since Dag and Lucky probably have more important things to do than babysit, and VideoSift was founded on the principles of self-correcting stewardship or whatnot..
We should find a solution to maintain civility that satisfies both.
All that said, the two best method for returning civility to VideoSift have been suggested by @rottenseed & @lucky760:
      1. Anonymous "flag inappropriate" is a must.
[Tit for tat has been the name of the game on this site for a while, myself included. BoneRemake is just that infuriating sometimes, hah.]
      2. Muting malicious users for a few days is sensible.
[Ten flags by Gold Stars gets you 3 days in the mutebox? Maybe even a new badge to track frequency? Increasing mutebox timeouts of 3,7,11,15 days?]
      3. Crown Stars could be our own CSI!
[Crown users could browse the list of users in the Mutebox in order to help mediate.
We all trust our Crown star members to be honest and somewhat impartial investigators, right? ...right?]
      4. Receiving enough "inappropriate" flags or MuteBox Badge levels summons the heaviest of hitters - @dag & @lucky760
[This insures only the douchey-est of douches are singled out for bannination.
If you don't get the hint to be more civil after 30 or 40 members repeatedly tell you to cut it out, it's clear you didn't join the sift to be a productive part of our community.]
Anywho, that was my 1/5th of a dime.
Peace, bitches trolls and douche bags. = P

Clearly, we're all opinionated mofos and are going to butt heads.

So yeah, to slow VideoSift's inevitable slide into a niche version of youtube - comments and all - Civility is important.

Since Dag and Lucky probably have more important things to do than babysit, and VideoSift was founded on the principles of self-correcting stewardship or whatnot..

We should find a solution to maintain civility that satisfies both.

All that said, the two best method for returning civility to VideoSift have been suggested by @rottenseed & @lucky760:

      1. Anonymous "flag inappropriate" is a must.

[Tit for tat has been the name of the game on this site for a while, myself included. BoneRemake is just that infuriating sometimes, hah.]

      2. Muting malicious users for a few days is sensible.

[Ten flags by Gold Stars gets you 3 days in the mutebox? Maybe even a new badge to track frequency? Increasing mutebox timeouts of 3,7,11,15 days?]

      3. Crown Stars could be our own CSI!

[Crown users could browse the list of users in the Mutebox in order to help mediate.

We all trust our Crown star members to be honest and somewhat impartial investigators, right? ...right?]

      4. Receiving enough "inappropriate" flags or MuteBox Badge levels summons the heaviest of hitters - @dag & @lucky760

[This insures only the douchey-est of douches are singled out for bannination.

If you don't get the hint to be more civil after 30 or 40 members repeatedly tell you to cut it out, it's clear you didn't join the sift to be a productive part of our community.]

Anywho, that was my 1/5th of a dime.

Peace, bitches trolls and douche bags. = P

This seems to be the only way the DC press ever "challenges" Republicans anymore. Ask a simple question like "what policies will you enact if elected", press for an actual answer, and let the Repub flounder.

Good on Gregory for not letting him dodge, but it's an almost accidental thing -- Meet the Press is basically a second hour of Fox News Sunday under his stewardship.

But even Chris Wallace nails Republicans from time to time with this same "hard hitting" journalistic method. At least when someone like Chris Matthews does it, he really drives home the rank incompetence of the empty suit he's interviewing for being unable to answer the question.

*news

What does stewardship of a channel entail? Get it? tail? anyone?

But seriously, what are the tasks involved?

>> ^marinara:

man i really want to solve this.
I have to point out there is a difference between the wiki entry of neoliberalism and the politically charged use that Dumenil puts the same word to.

Dumenil says politically charged things about neoliberalism. It's not that he's using the word "neoliberalism" incorrectly, he's saying things about it that are somewhat inflammatory.

For example, your article on Oprah being a "neoliberal icon", well, they're not really using neoliberalism incorrectly, though I don't really think it's fair to paint Oprah as being part of the cult of neoliberalism because she promotes people taking direct action to solve problems on an individual basis.

Neoliberalism is more about saying that that's the only way anything should ever be solved, and fighting back against attempts to put problems like poverty and environmental stewardship under the purview of the state (because they believe it will always be a net drag on any such efforts).

If Oprah starts saying things like "Medicaid does more to harm to the poor than it does to help them", then I'm fully on board with calling her a neoliberal.

I'd like to see this guy's emails.

If he's actually interested in science and transparency, and not just influencing public perceptions of climate science, he shouldn't have a problem handing them over.


==================================== ==================================================
Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP).[1] Two of the three directors of the NRSP - Timothy Egan and Julio Lagos - are executives with the PR and lobbying company, the High Park Group (HPG).[2] Both HPG and Egan and Lagos work for energy industry clients and companies on energy policy.[3]

Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science.[4] Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations.[5]

==================================== ==================================================

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball