This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

locri's Profile

locri's Avatar Joined almost 8 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by locri

More Discussions by locri

Latest Comments by locri

Go to: Is Atheism A Positive Force in America?

locri's Avatar Jump to comment 6 by locri

I'm a bit confused by this segment, though. I see absolutely no attempt to discuss whether or not atheism is a positive force. It seemed more focused on pointing out the more silly things that some atheists do in humour and then poking fun at it.

Also, I'm sure there was a response to the Stalin, etc comment, but the interview looked all hacked together. I'd be interested in seeing the unedited version.

Either way, very little of the video talked about the potential detriments that religion can bring to society and the positive outcomes of being an atheist.

(Oh, wait... I didn't see that there are 4 parts... I better go watch the other three first :P)

Updated: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 19:13:03 UTC | #503091

Go to: Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets

locri's Avatar Jump to comment 47 by locri


No worries, people have lives, that's a good thing! It was only an unfortunate coincidence that allowed me to have the time to write the comments I have so far (sick, yay).

While I do understand why you talk about the concern over hydrocarbons, it seems to me we'd have the same concern discussing salt. Sure, we have to worry about the Sodium and Chloride separately as both can be rather toxic or reactive, but for the most part salt itself is pretty harmless and we don't really concern ourselves with it.

Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:14:00 UTC | #446848

Go to: Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets

locri's Avatar Jump to comment 40 by locri

Jos Gibbons:

True, there is no reason at all that they couldn't express their opinions on the uses of their data, however the point in question was that they were denying access to data because they felt it wouldn't be used in a way that they felt was good.

Which is silly, because I'd imagine any scientist that's trapped in their own little mental sphere and is certain that they are right would likely think that anyone using the data to verify that they are right and could potentially prove them wrong wasn't going to use their data in a good way. They can express their opinions all they want, but this was a case where they specifically sought to suppress opposition to their ideas by not releasing the data. Any time that anyone does something like that instantly flags themselves as 'potentially shady' in my mind.

Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:22:00 UTC | #446800

Go to: Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets

locri's Avatar Jump to comment 38 by locri

sundiver: Glad to see you continue to dodge my questions.

Jos Gibbons: Does it matter what a group wants to do with the data? They could make an artistic collage for all I care, but it is NOT right to hide the data and methods. Good science relies on openness and verifiability. Period. Anything else is just a bad excuse.

Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:43:00 UTC | #446784

Go to: Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets

locri's Avatar Jump to comment 34 by locri

chawinwords: Yes, in the same way that water is a pollutant and oxygen is a pollutant and anything in large enough quantities to cause harm is a polutant.

The problem is that a lot of people are pushing CO2 as a pollutant when they forget that it is ALSO essential to life. We don't call water and various other things pollutants, so why CO2?

Besides that, what level is the "right" level? Is it only what's 'naturally' put out by Earth if humans weren't around? How do we know that? It might be lower, or it might be higher. In greenhouses the level of CO2 is often extremely high compared to normal air because it helps plants grow extremely well. It's just another one of those extremists that bother me like what I mentioned above with the different stances.

Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:26:00 UTC | #446775

More Comments by locri