> At the end of your life of Earth, evolution, the Big Bang and other theories are interesting academic exercises but they don't do anything if you are more than worm food and there is a Creator. Not believing may or may not get you "in". Being a jerk about it and those who believe probably won't score brownie points:-)
Sadly, we can't even conclude that reliably. For all we know the gods are also jerks, and reward those who emulate them.
You're offering a variant of Pascal's Wager, which depends of a lot of tacit, unsupportable assumptions, e.g. that the only possibilities are the Christian god and no gods at all. The pretense of objectivity is not any more objective than those assumptions.
> but I do deplore the pravailing attitude on Slashdot that religion is a joke or that all ID and Creationism is bunk.
Sorry to inform you, but ID and creationism are both demonstrably bunk: ID, because it consists of nothing but logical fallacies and misrepresentations of known biological fact, and creationism (except for the most watered-down varieties) because it is in direct conflict with known facts about the history of the earth and its inhabitants.
As for religion being a joke... well, my observation is that it makes some people better and others worse.
But I've never encountered a variety of religion based on observation, so if all else is equal it's still a take-it-or-leave-it kind of thing. Not a joke, unless it's offered as evidence of something.
> > Religion is based on faith, science on observation. They are, to some degree, mutually excusive.
> Actually, the opposite is true -- they are intertwined. Observations must be interpreted and interpretation cannot escape one's underlying worldview. And every worldview is built on premises that must be taken on faith (just as the axioms in geometry are taken on faith).
Ah, but the difference is that in science, observations can compel us to change our world views. Think how different our conception of the world is now, as compared to the day Einstein's famous paper on SR came out 100 years ago.
And it's not just Einstein. We've got the startling results of quantum mechanics, we now know "the universe" and "the galaxy" are not at all the same thing, we have a clue what the other planets are like. In the world of formalism we have Kurt Goedel's shocking results, and straddling formalism and reality we have a rudimentary grasp of the power and limits of computation.
Whe is the last time a religious discovery had such an impact on our worldview?
> To show how observation and interpretation are clashing today, the atheist says that biological complexity must have arisen through "natural" processes; since there is no god, what is "natural" must be randomness guided by natural selection.
Atheism is irrelevant. Lots of Christian, Jewish, and Hindu scientists recognize the same conclusion - because it's based on observations, not religion.
And as for the exclusion of gods from our explanations, we only do so because we can't work with them. We likewise exclude unicorns from our explantions, at least until such time as we can make observations that will distinguish the predictions of unicorn-based theories from boring old natural-stuff theories.
> On the other hand, the "intelligent design" crowd will say that chance cannot explain the complexity of living things
Biologists already knew that chance alone doesn't explain the complexity of things.
If we thought biology was the result of pure chance, there wouldn't be much reason to look for explanations, would there?
> and some are trying to bolster this argument via mathematical arguments (e.g. Dembski).
Dembski is the consummate bullshitter.
Do you know his actual arguments, or are you just accepting the PR that says he's presenting good ones?
> IMO, the problem will never be resolved since chance and design have equal explanatory power (although different likelihoods of outcome).
Chance (alone) doesn't really have much explanatory power, and design, as postulated by the ID movement - i.e., we don't know anything about the designer's capabilities or motivations, and don't even have any conjectures about when or how 'he' designed stuff, or, for that matter, what 'design' actually means in terms of an activity - has absolutely no explanatory power at all.
Moreover, the important difference between natural evolution and design isn't explanatory power, but rather supporting evidence. Evolution has museums and laboratories crammed full of it, and design has two or three long-refuted armchair arguments.
> if science is never 100 % correct due to inherent skepticism (even as Richard Feynmann said in his Lectures on Physics), then why do so many evolutionary biologists claim that evolution is the only true fact and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong?
Because so far the only people disagreeing with them are Christian apologists spouting bullshit. If someone would actually present a view based on evidence, you'd find biologists taking a different view.
> I think some people are overlooking the hypocrisy of such adherence to evolution, while insulting intelligent design because it's acceptable on slashdot.
Intelligent design gets insulted because it's a transparently dishonest pseudoscience. If you look at the genuine scientific controversies, you'll find that most scientists aren't so dismissive.
> I think it's fair to say that ID people can have reasonable beliefs as well evolutionists.
Given that the proponents of ID are still peddling their arguments that were easily refuted when they were first offered a decade ago, there is absolutely no reason to associate reasonableness with the ID movement. It serves no purpose other than to give creationists a false sense of respectibility for their long-falsified beliefs.
> So feel free to laugh at me, but I think its worth thinking about.
Yes, lots of things are worth thinking about. However, ID has attempted to make its case and failed miserably, so the only justification for bringing it for consideration now is ignorance.
ID is propaganda, not science. That's transparently obvious both from the arguments they offer and the way they try to peddle them.
> If this guy can go through all the SHIT he describes and still put "Linux-killer" in the title with a straight face, *anything* is possible. Un, fucking, real.
So many tech journalists, so few clues.
At least some things are reliable in this ever-changing world.
> > Unicorn Theory can also be framed in such a way that it is not in conflict with the known facts,...
> Indeed, and the followers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn are following the ID story with a great deal of interest. If the ID people succeed at getting their "theory" imposed on schence teachers is some US states, we will see a followup demand that IPU theory also be included in science classes.
> There are a number of other such competing theories waiting in the wings...
Yes, I'm a big fan of Everyone Owes Me Money Theory, myself.
> If person A witnesses a supernatural event, the only evidence they can provide person B is their eye-witness account, or a photo/video, or some other natural evidence of the event. However, these things are considered insufficient by the sceptic, who is looking for reproducibility, something that cannot be accomplished by natural beings.
> How does one prove the supernatural? As a natural being, one can't reproduce supernatural events, which means that for some people one can never provide enough evidence.
That's why science doesn't have any truck with the supernatural. You never have anything to work with except someone else's opinion.
And even if you're the one who saw something, you have no way of determining whether it was, in fact, supernatural.
As soon as you offer solutions to those two problems we can start incorporating the supernatural into the processes and conclusions of science. Meanwhile we're stuck with the communal reality, such as the observation of stars through a telescope, rather than the private world of evidence-free opinions about what supernatural stuff might exist.
> Not all religions can be categorized the way you do just as not all scientists can.
Maybe your mind skipped over the "most often" part as some kind of fnord?
> The notion that spiritual thinkers are divoid of honestly pursuing truth and therefore unable to appreciate it if they found it is the height of arrogance.
I refered neither to honesty nor dishonesty in my post. I merely pointed out that the pursuit of religious truth is based on traditions and opinions rather than facts.
> Dude, why don't you just go live your life banging whores guilt free?
It happens that I'm not interested in paying for sex, but if I were I wouldn't see any reason to feel guilty about it (assuming the other party was not whoring under coersion).
> You seem to spend more cycles rehashing your own feelings of justification.
> > There's a right to believe in whatever preposterous mythological bullshit you want without being called on it?
> Yep
Nope.
There's a right, in some countries, to believe in whatever preposterous mythological bullshit you want, but no right protects you from being called on it.
> This has been precisely my argument in favor of Intelligent Design. Evolution could have been the product of the creator stacking the dominoes so the right tap made it all happen. Evolution and the Big Bang may have been the implementation of "the Design."
FYI, that's not an argument in favor of ID. It's merely an argument that ID could be framed in such a way that it would not be in conflict with the known facts.
Unicorn Theory can also be framed in such a way that it is not in conflict with the known facts, but an argument in favor of UT is another matter altogether.
And that's precisely the problem with ID. When you analyze their arguments and spot them for the bunkum that they are, you're left without any reason to believe in ID. That's not a proof that no IDer exists, but it leaves ID in the same category as UT, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, PSI power, and other stuff that some people believe in without any evidence.
> Well the actual problem is people on both sides. First you have one group who believes that science is actual truth, and that all the problems in the world can be fixed with science.
I suspect that most scientists actually believe that science is an attempt to get at the truth, and will likely never be complete. And that only some problems can be fixed with science.
> Religion on the other hand is more of a combined study where you put together many different studies and look at the truth as a whole
Actually, religion looks at mythology and people's opinions about theology, morals, the proper social order, and the existence of a lot of unevidenced supernatural stuff.
> The main difference is science is trying to constantly disprove itself while religion is trying to prove itself. They are not opposing forces just different methods of trying to find truth.
Religion, most often, merely attempts to maintain traditional beliefs and values. Those who are "trying to find truth" usually get kicked out of the club, because truth is rarely deferential to traditional beliefs.
> > We NeoCons don't deny that the climate is changing; we deny that it's the fault of mankind.
> How can this be? Being a neo-con is a political alignment, but either of these questions are questions of science. Surely being a neo-con doesn't mean you close your mind to scientific fact on the basis of ideology. Next thing you're going to tell me that people deny evolution merely on the basis of religious preference.
Hopefully that was sarcasm.
At any rate and FYI, neocons are behind the Intelligent Design movement as well. Some of them apparently agree with Marx that religion is the opiate of the masses, but think of that as a situation to be exploited for greater control of those masses, rather than condmemned as a delusion.
(FWIW, the extended version of the Marx quote doesn't actually sound like he was knocking religion, as everyone assumes from the short form of the quote.)
> Why does your political leaning have anything to do with whether you believe humankind is causing global warming? If you're that far gone, you're not judging the issue on the evidence; you're believing whatever fits most comfortably with your pre-established worldview.
It's a sad fact that the holders of some political worldviews think they can bend reality to match their ideology. E.g., Lysenkoism and Deutsche Physik.
I suspect history will add the USA's will to deny global warming and biological evolution to that list.
> We'd have to wear gas masks when we went outside, because of air pollution.
Do you have any idea how many laws and regulations have been imposed to reduce air pollution during the last 40 years?
> We'd be out of oil (evidently it was all floating in the ocean).
There's only a finite amount of oil in the ground, and demand is still growing. You do the math.
> DDT was the scourge of the world.
Are you arguing that DDT is, in fact, safe?
> And, yes, the Coming Ice Age would freeze us all.
Was there ever a consensus among scientists that and Ice Age was imminent? I hear this all the time from global warming deniers, but I don't actually recall hearing it way back when. (There was a big flap over a possible nuclear winter, though.)
> I say again: Global Warning? Meh. Take a number, you'll find the dispenser next to the Y2k countdown calendar.
So, just because one problem was overblown, we can safely ignore all the others?
> > China has 7 of the world's most polluted cities.
> So the lesson here is that decade after of decade of democratic capitalism results in better environment, while decade after decade of socialism results in hell on earth.
No, the lesson is that industrialization goes through a phase of living in your own garbage.
China hasn't alwayse had the world's most polluted cities.
> Indeed. methane produced by sheep and cattle is one of the prime obstructions to New Zealand meeting its Kyoto treaty goals. Apparently it's more the burping than the farting, but still...
By the sheep and cattle, or the people who eat them?
> That aside, one wonders what presidents eat when they get into the White House.
Pretzels.
> How can one protect American jobs while exporting our entire industrial base with the so called out-sourcing?
What makes you think anyone in the White House (or anywhere else in our government) is interested in protecting jobs? Outsourcing is the path to short-term profits for the biggest companies, and that's all that matters to a government of officials whose re-elections depend on donations from those same businesses.
> All real science I've ever seen shows global warming to be total bullshit.
Could you cite some of that "real science" for us?
Or does "real" just mean "that I agree with"?
And speaking of "bullshit", did you know that bovine flatulence is a major soure of atmoshperic methane?
> Also, we know from history that the planet goes through cycles of hot and cold (remember the fact that there was an Ice Age anyone?)
We also know that the current cycle isn't behaving like the previous ones, as you'd know if you'd actually been reading any "real science".
> so there's no proof that any changes in temperatures are from human causes.
We aren't looking for "proof", we're looking for an explanation. We see abberations in the pattern of global temperatures, we have physics that explains the interactions of gasses and heat, we put 2+2 together and get 4.
Your ignorance doesn't do much to undercut that line of reasoning.
> We NeoCons don't deny that the climate is changing; we deny that it's the fault of mankind. We maintain that climate change is a natural part of the planet's life cycle.
Since it's going to screw up your golden age regardless of what's causing it, why aren't you interested in doing whatever is possible to reverse it?
> There is not a *single* scientific report that can prove Global Warming, even as a theory. It's only the nut-job-leftists that tout their unprovable theories as fact
FYI, "global warming" is a measurable phenomenon. A theory would be something that explains it.
And AFAICT, the only scientists disputing the anthropogenic theory are those who have sold their souls to the oil companies.
Slashdot Mirror
That's about half a second in jail per name stolen.
> I can hardly wait until I have hordes of Elephants eating my garden.
Maybe all the lions will keep them away.
> At the end of your life of Earth, evolution, the Big Bang and other theories are interesting academic exercises but they don't do anything if you are more than worm food and there is a Creator. Not believing may or may not get you "in". Being a jerk about it and those who believe probably won't score brownie points
Sadly, we can't even conclude that reliably. For all we know the gods are also jerks, and reward those who emulate them.
You're offering a variant of Pascal's Wager, which depends of a lot of tacit, unsupportable assumptions, e.g. that the only possibilities are the Christian god and no gods at all. The pretense of objectivity is not any more objective than those assumptions.
> but I do deplore the pravailing attitude on Slashdot that religion is a joke or that all ID and Creationism is bunk.
Sorry to inform you, but ID and creationism are both demonstrably bunk: ID, because it consists of nothing but logical fallacies and misrepresentations of known biological fact, and creationism (except for the most watered-down varieties) because it is in direct conflict with known facts about the history of the earth and its inhabitants.
As for religion being a joke... well, my observation is that it makes some people better and others worse.
But I've never encountered a variety of religion based on observation, so if all else is equal it's still a take-it-or-leave-it kind of thing. Not a joke, unless it's offered as evidence of something.
> > Religion is based on faith, science on observation. They are, to some degree, mutually excusive.
> Actually, the opposite is true -- they are intertwined. Observations must be interpreted and interpretation cannot escape one's underlying worldview. And every worldview is built on premises that must be taken on faith (just as the axioms in geometry are taken on faith).
Ah, but the difference is that in science, observations can compel us to change our world views. Think how different our conception of the world is now, as compared to the day Einstein's famous paper on SR came out 100 years ago.
And it's not just Einstein. We've got the startling results of quantum mechanics, we now know "the universe" and "the galaxy" are not at all the same thing, we have a clue what the other planets are like. In the world of formalism we have Kurt Goedel's shocking results, and straddling formalism and reality we have a rudimentary grasp of the power and limits of computation.
Whe is the last time a religious discovery had such an impact on our worldview?
> To show how observation and interpretation are clashing today, the atheist says that biological complexity must have arisen through "natural" processes; since there is no god, what is "natural" must be randomness guided by natural selection.
Atheism is irrelevant. Lots of Christian, Jewish, and Hindu scientists recognize the same conclusion - because it's based on observations, not religion.
And as for the exclusion of gods from our explanations, we only do so because we can't work with them. We likewise exclude unicorns from our explantions, at least until such time as we can make observations that will distinguish the predictions of unicorn-based theories from boring old natural-stuff theories.
> On the other hand, the "intelligent design" crowd will say that chance cannot explain the complexity of living things
Biologists already knew that chance alone doesn't explain the complexity of things.
If we thought biology was the result of pure chance, there wouldn't be much reason to look for explanations, would there?
> and some are trying to bolster this argument via mathematical arguments (e.g. Dembski).
Dembski is the consummate bullshitter.
Do you know his actual arguments, or are you just accepting the PR that says he's presenting good ones?
> IMO, the problem will never be resolved since chance and design have equal explanatory power (although different likelihoods of outcome).
Chance (alone) doesn't really have much explanatory power, and design, as postulated by the ID movement - i.e., we don't know anything about the designer's capabilities or motivations, and don't even have any conjectures about when or how 'he' designed stuff, or, for that matter, what 'design' actually means in terms of an activity - has absolutely no explanatory power at all.
Moreover, the important difference between natural evolution and design isn't explanatory power, but rather supporting evidence. Evolution has museums and laboratories crammed full of it, and design has two or three long-refuted armchair arguments.
> if science is never 100 % correct due to inherent skepticism (even as Richard Feynmann said in his Lectures on Physics), then why do so many evolutionary biologists claim that evolution is the only true fact and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong?
Because so far the only people disagreeing with them are Christian apologists spouting bullshit. If someone would actually present a view based on evidence, you'd find biologists taking a different view.
> I think some people are overlooking the hypocrisy of such adherence to evolution, while insulting intelligent design because it's acceptable on slashdot.
Intelligent design gets insulted because it's a transparently dishonest pseudoscience. If you look at the genuine scientific controversies, you'll find that most scientists aren't so dismissive.
> I think it's fair to say that ID people can have reasonable beliefs as well evolutionists.
Given that the proponents of ID are still peddling their arguments that were easily refuted when they were first offered a decade ago, there is absolutely no reason to associate reasonableness with the ID movement. It serves no purpose other than to give creationists a false sense of respectibility for their long-falsified beliefs.
> So feel free to laugh at me, but I think its worth thinking about.
Yes, lots of things are worth thinking about. However, ID has attempted to make its case and failed miserably, so the only justification for bringing it for consideration now is ignorance.
ID is propaganda, not science. That's transparently obvious both from the arguments they offer and the way they try to peddle them.
...whether proximity to the state of Washington has anything to do with it.
> If this guy can go through all the SHIT he describes and still put "Linux-killer" in the title with a straight face, *anything* is possible. Un, fucking, real.
So many tech journalists, so few clues.
At least some things are reliable in this ever-changing world.
> > Unicorn Theory can also be framed in such a way that it is not in conflict with the known facts,
> Indeed, and the followers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn are following the ID story with a great deal of interest. If the ID people succeed at getting their "theory" imposed on schence teachers is some US states, we will see a followup demand that IPU theory also be included in science classes.
> There are a number of other such competing theories waiting in the wings
Yes, I'm a big fan of Everyone Owes Me Money Theory, myself.
> If person A witnesses a supernatural event, the only evidence they can provide person B is their eye-witness account, or a photo/video, or some other natural evidence of the event. However, these things are considered insufficient by the sceptic, who is looking for reproducibility, something that cannot be accomplished by natural beings.
> How does one prove the supernatural? As a natural being, one can't reproduce supernatural events, which means that for some people one can never provide enough evidence.
That's why science doesn't have any truck with the supernatural. You never have anything to work with except someone else's opinion.
And even if you're the one who saw something, you have no way of determining whether it was, in fact, supernatural.
As soon as you offer solutions to those two problems we can start incorporating the supernatural into the processes and conclusions of science. Meanwhile we're stuck with the communal reality, such as the observation of stars through a telescope, rather than the private world of evidence-free opinions about what supernatural stuff might exist.
> Not all religions can be categorized the way you do just as not all scientists can.
Maybe your mind skipped over the "most often" part as some kind of fnord?
> The notion that spiritual thinkers are divoid of honestly pursuing truth and therefore unable to appreciate it if they found it is the height of arrogance.
I refered neither to honesty nor dishonesty in my post. I merely pointed out that the pursuit of religious truth is based on traditions and opinions rather than facts.
> Dude, why don't you just go live your life banging whores guilt free?
It happens that I'm not interested in paying for sex, but if I were I wouldn't see any reason to feel guilty about it (assuming the other party was not whoring under coersion).
> You seem to spend more cycles rehashing your own feelings of justification.
Huh?
Don't blame the messenger.
> > There's a right to believe in whatever preposterous mythological bullshit you want without being called on it?
> Yep
Nope.
There's a right, in some countries, to believe in whatever preposterous mythological bullshit you want, but no right protects you from being called on it.
> This has been precisely my argument in favor of Intelligent Design. Evolution could have been the product of the creator stacking the dominoes so the right tap made it all happen. Evolution and the Big Bang may have been the implementation of "the Design."
FYI, that's not an argument in favor of ID. It's merely an argument that ID could be framed in such a way that it would not be in conflict with the known facts.
Unicorn Theory can also be framed in such a way that it is not in conflict with the known facts, but an argument in favor of UT is another matter altogether.
And that's precisely the problem with ID. When you analyze their arguments and spot them for the bunkum that they are, you're left without any reason to believe in ID. That's not a proof that no IDer exists, but it leaves ID in the same category as UT, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, PSI power, and other stuff that some people believe in without any evidence.
(+1) Damn fine troll
> Well the actual problem is people on both sides. First you have one group who believes that science is actual truth, and that all the problems in the world can be fixed with science.
I suspect that most scientists actually believe that science is an attempt to get at the truth, and will likely never be complete. And that only some problems can be fixed with science.
> Religion on the other hand is more of a combined study where you put together many different studies and look at the truth as a whole
Actually, religion looks at mythology and people's opinions about theology, morals, the proper social order, and the existence of a lot of unevidenced supernatural stuff.
> The main difference is science is trying to constantly disprove itself while religion is trying to prove itself. They are not opposing forces just different methods of trying to find truth.
Religion, most often, merely attempts to maintain traditional beliefs and values. Those who are "trying to find truth" usually get kicked out of the club, because truth is rarely deferential to traditional beliefs.
> On one hand, that would be a great day, because then people would truly pay attention to security and Microsoft would get the attention it deserves.
Has it ever made a difference in the past?
> > We NeoCons don't deny that the climate is changing; we deny that it's the fault of mankind.
> How can this be? Being a neo-con is a political alignment, but either of these questions are questions of science. Surely being a neo-con doesn't mean you close your mind to scientific fact on the basis of ideology. Next thing you're going to tell me that people deny evolution merely on the basis of religious preference.
Hopefully that was sarcasm.
At any rate and FYI, neocons are behind the Intelligent Design movement as well. Some of them apparently agree with Marx that religion is the opiate of the masses, but think of that as a situation to be exploited for greater control of those masses, rather than condmemned as a delusion.
(FWIW, the extended version of the Marx quote doesn't actually sound like he was knocking religion, as everyone assumes from the short form of the quote.)
> Why does your political leaning have anything to do with whether you believe humankind is causing global warming? If you're that far gone, you're not judging the issue on the evidence; you're believing whatever fits most comfortably with your pre-established worldview.
It's a sad fact that the holders of some political worldviews think they can bend reality to match their ideology. E.g., Lysenkoism and Deutsche Physik.
I suspect history will add the USA's will to deny global warming and biological evolution to that list.
> We'd have to wear gas masks when we went outside, because of air pollution.
Do you have any idea how many laws and regulations have been imposed to reduce air pollution during the last 40 years?
> We'd be out of oil (evidently it was all floating in the ocean).
There's only a finite amount of oil in the ground, and demand is still growing. You do the math.
> DDT was the scourge of the world.
Are you arguing that DDT is, in fact, safe?
> And, yes, the Coming Ice Age would freeze us all.
Was there ever a consensus among scientists that and Ice Age was imminent? I hear this all the time from global warming deniers, but I don't actually recall hearing it way back when. (There was a big flap over a possible nuclear winter, though.)
> I say again: Global Warning? Meh. Take a number, you'll find the dispenser next to the Y2k countdown calendar.
So, just because one problem was overblown, we can safely ignore all the others?
> > China has 7 of the world's most polluted cities.
> So the lesson here is that decade after of decade of democratic capitalism results in better environment, while decade after decade of socialism results in hell on earth.
No, the lesson is that industrialization goes through a phase of living in your own garbage.
China hasn't alwayse had the world's most polluted cities.
> Indeed. methane produced by sheep and cattle is one of the prime obstructions to New Zealand meeting its Kyoto treaty goals. Apparently it's more the burping than the farting, but still...
By the sheep and cattle, or the people who eat them?
> That aside, one wonders what presidents eat when they get into the White House.
Pretzels.
> How can one protect American jobs while exporting our entire industrial base with the so called out-sourcing?
What makes you think anyone in the White House (or anywhere else in our government) is interested in protecting jobs? Outsourcing is the path to short-term profits for the biggest companies, and that's all that matters to a government of officials whose re-elections depend on donations from those same businesses.
> All real science I've ever seen shows global warming to be total bullshit.
Could you cite some of that "real science" for us?
Or does "real" just mean "that I agree with"?
And speaking of "bullshit", did you know that bovine flatulence is a major soure of atmoshperic methane?
> Also, we know from history that the planet goes through cycles of hot and cold (remember the fact that there was an Ice Age anyone?)
We also know that the current cycle isn't behaving like the previous ones, as you'd know if you'd actually been reading any "real science".
> so there's no proof that any changes in temperatures are from human causes.
We aren't looking for "proof", we're looking for an explanation. We see abberations in the pattern of global temperatures, we have physics that explains the interactions of gasses and heat, we put 2+2 together and get 4.
Your ignorance doesn't do much to undercut that line of reasoning.
> We NeoCons don't deny that the climate is changing; we deny that it's the fault of mankind. We maintain that climate change is a natural part of the planet's life cycle.
Since it's going to screw up your golden age regardless of what's causing it, why aren't you interested in doing whatever is possible to reverse it?
> There is not a *single* scientific report that can prove Global Warming, even as a theory. It's only the nut-job-leftists that tout their unprovable theories as fact
FYI, "global warming" is a measurable phenomenon. A theory would be something that explains it.
And AFAICT, the only scientists disputing the anthropogenic theory are those who have sold their souls to the oil companies.