Sadly, I have only ever seen clips from “Outnumbered” and haven’t found the DVD’s in NTSC format, either (I’m also in the US). If I can locate them, I’ll (try to remember to) send you an update.

As you can probably tell, it’s frustrating to me when atheists (and secular folks in general) are misportrayed as evil, immoral, and unethical simply due to a lack of belief in the supernatural.

…and I like your old friend’s saying.

I don’t much care for the idea of the AHA at the White House. But I didn’t much care for the idea of Billy Graham at the White House, either. [...Or Rick Warren, or Dr. Lowry at the inauguration, etc.]

But I guess that’s how the political cookie crumbles.

And, yes, Hannity is prone to (rather continuous) outbursts of smugness, ignorance, and–I suppose–outright idiocy. While the idiocy might be questionable, I can certainly identify with your frustration.] The thing is, whether one looks to the “Right” or to the “Left,” a plethora of smug, ignorant idiocy is readily available. I get tired of the tug-of-war. But, sadly, I don’t see the rope’s being laid down any time soon.

An old friend of mine is known to say: Ignorant by birth, stupid by choice. Too many have chosen.

Peace

I meant to add in my previous post some glowing compliments on your site. It is quite “user friendly” and well organized. Clearly you are devoted to “the cause.” I am most appreciative of your work here.
———————
Since you seem to be checking in here, may I ask you a marginally related question? The BBC “Outnumbered” program looks MOST interesting. [And I agree, the acting is superb.] Unfortunately, it seems that it’s only available in the PAL format. Might you have any idea where one could obtain NTSC copies? [I currently live in the US.] I may have to get a PAL player or learn how to convert/play PAL on my PC. Oh, well…just wondering.

Thanks again!

I’m more than happy to have commenters here who disagree with and/or challenge my ideas and I certainly meant no offense in my response.

As for point #2, I again agree and I have considered the errors in the IPCC report. More importantly, the scientific community has considered them. Finding a few small errors in a 3,000 page report, no matter how well-researched doesn’t seem to be a big deal to me, but I think it says a lot that the IPCC chair (along with the UN secretary general) invited the IAC review of the IPCC and the document in question.

I haven’t read anything about actual data tampering, however, so I can’t comment on that other than to say that I’ve heard accusations of data tampering that turned out to be simple denialist spin. As for actual tampering with an intent to deceive, I have read nothing. Of course, my not reading it doesn’t mean it couldn’t have (or didn’t) happen.

I try to avoid straw man and ad hominem attacks but will, on occasion, use strong words when I feel they are warranted. I will accuse someone of ignorance, but that’s a far cry from calling someone an idiot… or calling them stupid. Ignorance can be fixed.

I look forward to your comments, should you decide to linger a bit.

In point #1, I am agreeing with you (and the “thrust” of the piece).

In point #2, I am suggesting that it might behoove the thinking wo/man to at least consider some of the recent revelations of data tampering and potentially glaring omissions that have been revealed in the work of the IPCC. For example, you may or may not wish to read the article published in Scientific American (link below) that gives account of suggested reviews as a result of errors in the IPCC product.

Again, I would concur. Accepting, understanding, and promoting science is truly anything but silly. Perhaps you are doing so–promoting science. But as an “amateur” logician I would point out to you that ad hominem rebuttal and straw man attacks are generally frowned on by folks who long for rational debate…for good reason.

Your so-called deniers might be idiots. Some of the “correct ones” (e.g. anthropogenic global warming “embracers”) might also be idiots. Either way, calling people idiots–or any other “name” for that matter–does nothing to further the debate.

Thanks for the welcome to move on down the road. I might linger a bit. You seem–if nothing else–passionate. And we sure do need RationalityNOW!

“I am not very skeptical…a good deal of skepticism in a scientific man is advisable to avoid much loss of time, but I have met not a few men, who… have often thus been deterred from experiments or observations which would have proven servicable.” – Charles Darwin

Cheers back!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ipcc-errors-prompt-review-by-international-science-academies#comments

Is it wrong–or irrational–to consider the POSSIBILITY that those who advocate the theory of anthropogenic global warming MIGHT be swayed by ignorance and/or arrogance and/or political and/or religious ideology?

Yes, the Jon Stewart shtick is funny. But it seems to me that this sort of humor might contribute to greater reason on the part of ALL proponents of extreme theories. It IS ludicrous to point to isolated weather events as “proof” of anything (whether the frigid precipitation of a Snowpocalypse OR the climbing temperatures of an Australian summer), but it is just as ludicrous to depend on questionable data–that has contributed to some pretty fat bankrolls for a few “concerned” people–to declare “proof” of anthropogenic (a key part of the assertion) global warming.

I am not a meteorologist. But I am not stupid, either. Lets get the FACTS. Facts that do NOT inordinately enrich has-been, not-so-credible, power and money hungry politicians. In the meantime we should be about the business of teaching people the benefits of being better stewards of our planets. Your marginally rabid attacks on “deniers” does little else but fan the flames of ignorance. I implore you to more fully embrace the apparent meaning and spirit of RationalityNOW.

Best wishes.

I actually do find fault with your point #1. That was the thrust of this piece. As for point #2, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.

You’re more than welcome to “move on down the road” but thanks for visiting… and accepting, understanding, and promoting science is anything but silly.

Cheers!

Rationale, it seems to me, would find fault with 1) making blanket conclusions about global climate (macro) change based on a temporary, small (micro) data set, AND 2) making blanket conclusions based on data that may have been manipulated thus unreliable.

Maybe somebody could save me some time and trouble and tell me if this type of left-leaning sentiment is characteristic of RationalityNOW. If so, I’ll “move on down the road” with my silly belief in science.

Best wishes to all & thanks!