Unfortunately, like most right-wingers, bitblt does not understand science. This is the root of their problem. He poses a philisophical question and asks for it to be answered by science.
Fools should not concern themselves with deep questions.
October 9th, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Well here’s a break for you shoeless. bit will take an answer from any perspective. While many TPers use the scientific viewpoint to focus on and justify interest in the problem of global warming, what viewpoint do they take to answer the question, “Why is it important to do something about global warming?”

Doesn’t science have something to say about that?

RTWL suggested that the preservation of the species might be important. It might be important but is this desire collectively wired into the species to the point that collectively we, the species, can act in concert to do something about it?

Would the desire to preserve the species have an exception in the right to abortion? Couldn’t we collectively say that a mother’s obligation to the species is more important that her convenience?

OTH, bit takes it that shoeless thinks answering philosophical question with science is verboten.

Others have expressed philosophical opinions based on science. Of course they’re “big names” in science. Since shoeless considers himself qualified to remark on bit’s understanding of science, bit would assume that the following two “big names” in evolutionary science, and what they’ve said that made them famous, would be familiar to shoeless..

As you can see apparently not all scientists think answering philosophical questions, or having philosophical opinions, causes any problems at all.

Take the famous Dr. Provine statement for example.

“Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent” (Provine, 1998).

This is from the abstract Dr. Provine presented for his keynote speech at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville Darwin Day celebration in 1998.

In his keynote Dr. Provine noted that the first four implications were so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that these ideas didn’t need defending. In case it’s not clear to you, shoeless, what Dr. Provine is giving up in his scientifically based philosophical statement; he’s saying there is no basis for the concept of justice.

google William Provine if you interested.

And how about the opinion of the famous Dr. Eric Pianka, shoeless.

Here’s a quote:

“We’re no better than bacteria!” University of Texas biologist Eric Pianka recently announced. “Things are gonna get better after the collapse because we won’t be able to decimate the Earth so much,” he added. “And, I actually think the world will be much better when there’s only 10 or 20 percent of us left.”

Did Dr. Pianka omit the philosophical part and just skip to the application of some sort of science, or does the remark, “…We’re no better than bacteria!” strike you as a philosophical? Any value judge strikes bit as philosophically, or religiously, based especially when it has to do with killing off a very large number of people.

Dr. Pianka’s quote comes from
http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=MURDOCK-06-15-06

Dr. Pianka’s specialty is the study of lizards, and bit would assume that they – the lizards – would do well in a warmer environment.

And as far as what “big name” scientist posit, you can read anything from Richard Dawkins to see that philosophical opinions based on science are about a common as water.

Apparently, “big names” evolutionary biologists agree there’s no meaning or purpose in naturalistic evolution so the question, “Why is it important to do something about global warming?” would seem to need an answer, scientifically speaking, of course.

“Important” is not a scientific term. No scientist has any idea whether humanity is ‘important’, or whether life is ‘important’ or whether the universe is ‘important.’ ‘
Is God ‘Important’?
What the world’s scientists are saying is ‘This is what’s happening. Here are some of the consequences. Here’s what you do to mitigate the consequences.”

Alles klar, herr kommissar?

Science doesn’t say anywhere that it is important for life to continue on earth”, science just observes and explains how life exists, flourishes and expires.

It’s the religious nuts who claim the importance of the continuation of human life at the exclusive expense of all other life and who refuse to acknowledge the fact of extinction and change in the balance of life on the planet.

http://www.enn.com/climate/article/38094

Fools should not concern themselves with deep questions.

ralph suggests that, in a strictly objective sense, one may reach the conclusions that bit suggests — namely, that life is irrelevant to the planet.

however, ralph also thinks that in a narrower, more selfish perspective, the perpetuation of life on this planet is an important goal for humans as it fulfills a deeply instinctive urge toward the continuation of the species.

In this sense — if one accepts the premise that the continuation of life on this planet is a goal toward which humans should direct some energies — it would seem important to deal with an environmental impact that threatens this goal. Especially if, as many scientists have postulated, human activity plays an outsized role in this impact.

To help some of you work through this obscure question bit will make it clearer. Where, or what, in science says that it’s important for life to continue on earth?

For those you still working on this…
What in Darwinism, since most TPers are Darwinist, says that life is important? Can one really loudly declare that evolution got us to this point and then declare that it’s important that we continue?

Shayne Says:
No trolls on a global warming thread. I guess the RNC can’t afford that .05 a post any more.

That’s one of three possible explanations as I see it, Shayne. The second is that the trolls are all so depressed by their usual arguments being shat on by reality that they’re all either curled up in fetal positions under their computer tables or locked in deep Cheetos-toxicity comas.

The third possibility is that TP finally found a way to lock them out, but I don’t think that’s what happened. trolls provide too much entertainment, and drive page counts too high for them to really want to eliminate them.