Jesterballz thread – point by point rebuttals and partial methodology for determining Truth

Jesterballz, I’ve migrated the thread to my site for readability/loading time.
Taken from this post for readability.

I honestly can’t see how you can seriously say “I welcome civilised argument in the comments” when your name is “jesterballz”.

In any case, we can do this the easy way (testing for coherency, universality, and uniqueness of claim to truth) or the polemic way (point by point rebuttal/back and forth until no conclusion is reached). Up to you.

You said:
There are a whole lot of people out there who believe in “God”. Billions of people are Christian, Muslim or Jewish, and are following their religion (most often blindly). But I strongly refute the claim that this particular “God” exists, and I have pretty good reason, too. So all those curious people out there, please read this and maybe you will realise your mistake. That said, I am not accusing anyone who believes in God of being stupid. Please make comments to explain your reasoning if you disagree with my theory.

Climate change shifting European seasons

Global warming doesn’t get half as much coverage or have as much direct relevance in the scope of the daily news as Peak Oil does mainly due to its egalitarian way of spreading the blame for all involved for its genesis. (Do you really think John Bolton will stand up at a UN meeting one day and say, “We’re all responsible for global warming, and it’s going to affect the way we live and the way our children will live in the coming future. Let’s do the best we can to change our lifestyle of overconsumption and try to help the world”?)

This alone doesn’t stop the fact that it has as much, if not more, relevance in determining the course of humanity (at least in the form of mass migrations) as Peak Oil would. As usual, for those in power, the more pressing concern is always how to maintain or hoard that power for themselves, as opposed to taking responsibility for problems caused by incorrect empirical assumptions about progress (e.g., how many members of the human race can be supported; assuming that all economic growth – including the production of waste – is good; counting inefficiences such as the simultaneous import and export of millions of pounds of potatoes, consuming more energy, as positive, et. al).

I’m sure that, if they existed, climatologists from undeveloped countries involved in politics would be much more involved in the criticism of first world policies. But I don’t see any reknowned climatologists coming out of Darfur anytime soon.

Oh, right. Sorry – I forgot that the majority of politicians lack spines. Mea culpa.

In any case, it’s too bad that the climatologists who are attempting to take a stand for the issue are being muzzled or marginalized as fringe lunatics with an axe to grind against the government. Gotta love those government-sponsored ad hominems, eh? (Besides, the government these days doesn’t seem to have much of a belief in science or even the majority of opinion).

David Fickling
Friday August 25, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

Spring is arriving sooner and autumn is starting later because of climate change, according to a study of more than 500 plants and animals across Europe.Scientists found that events associated with the start of spring – such as the flowering and leafing of plants and activities of certain animal species – were now appearing six to eight days earlier across the continent than they did 30 years ago.

Miliband unveils carbon swipe-card plan

This article sure has undertones of “666”/one world government to it, in one sense. But realistically, such an ordinance would be impossible to enforce, especially with six billion people, corrupt authorities, and the implausibility of free-market rationing. More on this in another post.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,1824238,00.html

David Adam and David Batty
Wednesday July 19, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

The environment minister, David Miliband, today unveiled a radical plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions by charging individuals for the amount of carbon they use.

Under the proposals, consumers would carry bank cards that record their personal carbon usage. Those who use more energy – with big cars and foreign holidays – would have to buy more carbon points, while those who consume less – those without cars, or people with solar power – would be able to sell their carbon points.