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

Comments by reason-first

Go to: UPDATED: Why I want all our children to read the King James Bible

reason-first's Avatar Jump to comment 26 by reason-first

The original article links to a trailer of the film "in god we trust?"

The full length film can be watched here:

Sun, 20 May 2012 06:59:45 UTC | #942357

Go to: Does Conservatism Have to Be Synonymous With Ignorance?

reason-first's Avatar Jump to comment 84 by reason-first

The idea of conservatism is not to care for the ash but to preserve the embers.

The only problem that most conservatives face is that they are unable to tell the embers from the ash.

Fri, 16 Mar 2012 18:44:44 UTC | #927894

Go to: Will your kid be taught that climate change is a hoax?

reason-first's Avatar Jump to comment 103 by reason-first

I wonder if you get as irate as me when you watch this ",material" that Heartland released for use at schools:

Propaganda of the meanest sort.

To counteract such garbage almost any means seems justified.

If you are not familar with the characters appearing in the video, please do some thorough research. You will find the names of these crooks quite often, when someone claims that there still is a debate about AGW.

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 20:38:25 UTC | #922540

Go to: Trouble in paradise: Maldives and Islamic extremism

reason-first's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by reason-first

It is an odd situation when you think that muslims all get into a rage when someone accidentally burns worn-out copies of their silly book, aka "the holy koran", but on the other hand they do not seem to mind when religious artefacts, hundreds of years old, are destroyed by a mad crowd of uncililized religious zealots.

Where are all the decent muslims, whose duty it would be to stand up against such mindless vandalism?

If religion keeps people from acting sensibly and rationally then religion must be ridiculed at every opportunity - all religion!

Sun, 26 Feb 2012 14:40:13 UTC | #922080

Go to: In Defense of Richard Dawkins

reason-first's Avatar Jump to comment 46 by reason-first

@Comment 9,

Since this is a classic, here are Darwin's words in a letter to Asa Grey :

I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.[

Sun, 05 Feb 2012 08:15:41 UTC | #914763

Go to: While temperatures rise, denialists reach lower

reason-first's Avatar Jump to comment 66 by reason-first


Over the past decade, Germany has spent over €100 billion subsidizing solar energy. In 2011 alone, these subsidies topped €8 billion ($10.2 billion).

Says who?

This figure is utter nonsense or even a lie. Germany greatly expanded its solar installation over those years, so the 2011 figure of €8 billion is a record high. In previous years it was substantially lower. How can that add up to € 100 bn or even more? Please do your own research instead of parroting junk information.

It is true, however, that a substantial amount has been spent on promoting renewable energies (RE) with the result that even photovoltaics - which are considered to be the most expensive form of RE - will reach grid parity within the next three years. This will start a new boom in solar installations as hardly any new building will NOT be fitted with solar panels then and more and more older buildings will also get a PV-installation.

BTW, the underlying law to promote RE (in Germany called EEG) has so far been copied by more than 60 countries worldwide. It has turned out to be the most successful law in the field of energy ever.

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 15:40:14 UTC | #913880

Go to: Book excerpt - "Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America

reason-first's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by reason-first


"Well, yeah, but CO2 only represents a fraction of the atmospheric gases."

Interesting to note that even this "minute" fraction of 0,04% still means 1 x 1013 (ten trillion) molecules of CO2 per cubic millimetre!

How can this NOT have an effect?

Sat, 21 Jan 2012 09:54:48 UTC | #910463

Go to: Gingrich Says He’s Scrapping Climate Change Chapter From Upcoming Book

reason-first's Avatar Jump to comment 1 by reason-first

Should this turn out to be true it would hardly be a surprise.

Regardless of what they really know and think about global warming, any republican candidate is forced to pay lipservice to the silliest of people in the American nation, if they want to stand a chance of being elected.

Unfortunatley it does not make much of a difference, if the American president - as has become obvious with Obama - accepts global warming as a fact or not, as long as the deniers and the people who do not care or are too dumb to understand are in the majority.

Sun, 01 Jan 2012 16:05:12 UTC | #904231

Go to: Journal editor resigns over 'problematic' climate paper

reason-first's Avatar Jump to comment 15 by reason-first


I wonder how long it will take the polluting industries to set up their own journals, if they have not already done so?

What about Energy & Environment? That should come close enough.

Sun, 04 Sep 2011 08:16:39 UTC | #867096

Go to: Exploding Stars Influence Climate Of Earth

reason-first's Avatar Jump to comment 14 by reason-first

I just wonder if anyone has noticed that the original article is dated Oct 06, 2006. It can't be that much of a surprise to science if in the meantime no one cared to discuss the issue.

In fact the names of Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, who are behind this research do not shine brightly when it comes to honest science. To say the least, their findings have been captured by the so called climate skeptics (who in reality are no skeptics whatsoever!) desperate for any explanation of Global Warming other than anthropogenic.

I do not think the issue is worth discussing unless there is more recent evidence to support it.

Sun, 28 Aug 2011 10:25:13 UTC | #864859

Go to: Noah's Ark 'could arrive in London for Olympics'

reason-first's Avatar Jump to comment 103 by reason-first

Just ask any person who has ever worked in a zoo, they'll tell you how ridiculous the whole idea of putting two of every kind in the ark. - End of discussion.

Fri, 03 Jun 2011 11:47:05 UTC | #633652

Go to: Astrologers angered by stars

reason-first's Avatar Jump to comment 132 by reason-first

I found this over at the Guardian:

This really beats it! I have just been over to Deborah Houlding's website and came across this gem:

After accusing Richard Dawkins of being an ignoramus at least as far as astrology is concerned, she comes up with this:

Given that at times of full Moon the surface tension of all water is increased, and the human body is mainly composed of water, is the possibilioty that this powerful cosmic force affects us too much to ask? Not to a real scientist, it isn't; one who doesn't fear that being open-minded may let the brain fall out.

Absolutely hilarious: an ignoramus on matters scientific ventures to define what makes a "real" scientist.

Yes, Ms Houlding, the question has been asked by real scientists and also answered: There is no discernable or even imaginable influence of the Moon, be it full, quarter, new or any stage in between, on water molecules. The gravitational pull of the Moon is exactly the same, completely regardless of the phase it is in.

The initial claim in your statement concerning the full Moon is utter rubbish.

Sorry for being so blunt, but when you call a much respected and brilliant scientist and thinker like RD an "ignoramus", your own ignorance of science falls back on you.

BTW, there is another heated discussion going on about the pros and cons of telling the astrologers what a bunch of frauds they are.

Fri, 28 Jan 2011 15:43:42 UTC | #585284

Go to: The end for small glaciers

reason-first's Avatar Jump to comment 53 by reason-first

@comment 51 by flamenco,

Are you suggesting that a 40% increase in CO2 means we expect to see a 40% increase in temperature? If not, then a 20% increase? No? 4%? 0.4%?

I am certainly not suggesting a 40% increase of temperature, the science is quite clear about what e. g. a doubling of the CO2 concentration would mean temperaturewise. But you seem to be quite unfamiliar with the very basics of climate science, so you will have to go and hit the books to make up for your deficit in knowledge on the subject. The IPCC presents all the known facts:

This chapter gives you the Physical Science Basis. It is the best overview of the state of the art we have.

So unless you find anything wrong with it you had better think twice before you repeat any more nonsense made up by climate deniers.

BTW, I asked you to name some of the "many, many knowledgeable scientists" who - as you claim - are skeptical of Global Warming. Do you know of any who are not affiliated with the fossil fuel industry? If you are honest, you will have to admit that there are not only not "many, many" but virtually none.

Sun, 16 Jan 2011 21:10:13 UTC | #579523

Go to: Rising Seas Look Inevitable

reason-first's Avatar Jump to comment 59 by reason-first

@comment 50 by Steve Zara

so the denier has to find the right maverick, the guru who they can follow.

They found their guru a longt time age. His name is Fred S. Singer, the same person who denied the dangers of second hand smoke and that CFCs deplete the ozone layer. Now he makes his money with climate denial. Same old business.

Sun, 16 Jan 2011 16:46:22 UTC | #579411

Go to: The end for small glaciers

reason-first's Avatar Jump to comment 50 by reason-first

@comment 45 by flamenco,

When I first heard that (years ago) I thought wow - that's seriously bad. Then I asked what fraction of the atmosphere is CO2?


Yes - less than four hundredths of a percent.

Ok, to the lay person that does not seem much but when you look at it this way the effect of CO2 on Global Warming becomes more plausible:

One cubic millimeter of air contains round about

10 trillion (10 X 1012) molecules of CO2. Not much, eh?

If you know little or nothing about climate issues, you may be forgiven for misrepresenting the effect of CO2, but I am sad to say that the above "argument" is very often used by people who do know better.

Any knowledgable person that uses this argument is a fraud, because they know it is invalid.

BTW, it is quite easy to find out, who the crooks are in the debate, just check their arguments for veracity. And you will invariably find that the lies are all with the so called climate "skeptics".

Try and find the film "The Great Global Warming Swindle" on the internet. There you will find the most crooked climate sketics spilling their lies.

Sun, 16 Jan 2011 13:47:34 UTC | #579335

Go to: The end for small glaciers

reason-first's Avatar Jump to comment 37 by reason-first


I find it funny that even nutty Islamic terrorists believe in global warming.

This proves that Palin is even nuttier than the Islamic terrorists. :-)

Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:34:39 UTC | #578558

Go to: The end for small glaciers

reason-first's Avatar Jump to comment 33 by reason-first


I am sceptical that mankind is responsible for what is happening in the climate. So too are many, many knowledgeable scientists.

Would you be so kind and name some?

Should be difficult to find anyone who has NOT got some affiliation with the fossil fuel industry or/and some rightwing "think tank"

BTW Sarah Palin is also a Global Warming denier. :-)

Mankind has increased the atmosphere's CO2 level by about 40% since the start of the industrial revolution and as any knowledgeable person knows, CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Fri, 14 Jan 2011 20:14:10 UTC | #578488

Go to: The end for small glaciers

reason-first's Avatar Jump to comment 29 by reason-first


perhaps you should take the trouble and do some more reading if you want to get a more objective picture of the affair than you can expect from a climate denialist like Costella:

When the hacked emails appeared on the internet the climate denial industry lost no time in trying to sling mud at climate science, alas to no avail because it turned out that ALL of the former's claims were merely fabricated. Climate science still stands firm.

The accusations by the climate deniers could not be verified, the science is solid.

And yes, Reveille, the emails WERE mostly taken out of context as is the usual tactics applied by climate deniers. And this is not the only characteristic they share with creationists. There are many more parallels which alone clearly demonstrate their crookedness.

Fri, 14 Jan 2011 16:38:54 UTC | #578365

Go to: The end for small glaciers

reason-first's Avatar Jump to comment 25 by reason-first

@comment 16 by Pete H

The scientific attitude is scepticism and there is plenty to be sceptical about with climate change.

That is certainly correct but what has climate denialism got to do with scientific scepticism?

As Reckless Monkey pointed out there are hardly any peer-reviewd studies by the so-called climate-"skeptics", but the internet is full of their gibberish.

And more often than not what they say has been debunked as utter nonsense and downright lies.

The most vociferous climate-"skeptics" are also the most notorious liars: Lord Monckton, Fred Singer, Tim Ball, et al.

They keep being dishonest because there is nothing of substance they can rely on.

Fri, 14 Jan 2011 12:44:53 UTC | #578224

Go to: The end for small glaciers

reason-first's Avatar Jump to comment 23 by reason-first

@Comment 10 by AtheistEgbert

"The report co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate sceptic, ...

This and the fact that the source is "The Telegraph" make a lethal combination: they kill the truth.

The Telegraph as well as Anthony Watts have been known for a long time to distort the facts when it comes to the issue of Global Warming.

Just google for the names James Delingpole and Christopher Booker and warming-related articles and you will come across as much nonsense and collection of lies as you can find on the entire internet. Anthony Watts is very much the same chip off the old block.

If you are still skeptical of Global Warming, these people should convince you: why would they resort to lies and trickery if they were honest brokers?

Fri, 14 Jan 2011 12:14:39 UTC | #578214

Go to: [UPDATE JAN 7] Live Webcast - Does a Good God Exist?

reason-first's Avatar Jump to comment 96 by reason-first

For all those who have not had a chance to watch the debate before it wasa taken down for some obscure - or not so obscure - reason, it's up on youtube again:

If you want to skip the somewhat lengthy introduction, Christopher starts at about 9:30 into the first video.

Have fun!

Sat, 08 Jan 2011 12:13:48 UTC | #575133

Go to: Creationism propaganda for children caught on camera

reason-first's Avatar Jump to comment 61 by reason-first


"The real tragedy is that he actually believes what he says he believes."

I think you might be wrong. I find it extremely hard to believe that even someone like Ham does not realize that he is downright lying to his flock.

He is not completely ignorant of the arguments that are put forward in favour of evolution. He must see that he cannot honestly refute them, so he reverts to lying.

Ham is just so morally depraved that he does not mind lying for his income, even to the must gullible of all - young children. The people most to blame I think are those parents, who subject their children to such frauds.

Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:07:00 UTC | #464224

Go to: Simon's New Initiative: Your Help Urgently Needed

reason-first's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by reason-first

I have just signed and put the follwoing on the plegde wall:

Libel laws are an anchronism and a disgrace for any country that calls itself democratic.

Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:59:00 UTC | #440496

Go to: Laser fusion test results raise energy hopes

reason-first's Avatar Jump to comment 17 by reason-first


"This type of research should be where all of the global warming tax money should be being spent."

Most definitely not!

Fusion always has been a dream and for all probabilities always WILL be a dream.

Even if the scientists - who are among the most gifted of the breed - should master the process, they still will be several decades away from building a commercially feasible power reactor.

As Crazycharlie said, it probably would not happen in his lifetime.

And IF it happens, how costly will it be? Don't you think that several decades from now the renewable energies will have become by far the cheapest way of producing usable energy - both power and heat?

And have you taken into consideration that fusion reactors running on deuterium and tritium will require large amounts of lithium that is needed for the production of tritium? This will be in direct competition to the electric cars that are nowadways talked about so much, because they need lithium for their batteries. And when we talk about hundreds of millions of electric cars in the not so distant future it might well be that we run into a shortage of lithium for that purpose alone. There will be none left to be used up in the fusion process.

And, BTW, isn't it a typical example of human hubris that with our limited means and unforeseeable outcome we try to copy a process that already exists.

Most people forget that a fusion reactor has been running perfectly for a respectable number of years, a reactor that provides its own fuel and also has an integrated concept of waste disposal: some call it SUN.

It would be a much better idea to employ all those ingenious scientists to do research on improving what we have got in the range of renewables. This would guarantee abundant AND cheap energy within a few years.

Any more money spent on fusion research is most likely wasted, unless there are a few spin-offs that can be used for other purposes. Fusion will never contribute much to our energy production, even if a commercially working fusion reactor will ever be built. I strongly doubt that.

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:45:00 UTC | #436630

Go to: Godless charity

reason-first's Avatar Jump to comment 26 by reason-first

On second thought, could it be possible that the Telegraph article backfires in such a way that now more non-believers are willing to donate or those who would have donated anyway to donate more generously?

It surely worked with me!

Sat, 23 Jan 2010 09:51:00 UTC | #434475

Go to: Godless charity

reason-first's Avatar Jump to comment 24 by reason-first

"he encourages them to donate money through Non-Believers Giving Aid."

They heinously avoided naming the organisation in question:

International Red Cross

Doctors Without Borders

A few minutes ago I set up a standing order to donate regularly to the latter. Thanks Professor Dawkins, without your encouragement, I might not have done it.

Sat, 23 Jan 2010 09:22:00 UTC | #434472

Go to: The Cost To the Planet of Fearing Science

reason-first's Avatar Jump to comment 30 by reason-first


"The last time the planet was warmer and had more CO2 in the atmosphere plant life did very well. Admittedly it had more time to adapt than we are currently allowing, but still... "

More time to adapt, yes, exactly, hundreds of thousands, maybe even a few million years.

Ecosystems are bound to change considerably, many of them will collapse and then maybe slowly recover over vast amounts of time.

A warmer world is also associated with sea-level rise. The last time Earth had CO2 levels like today, sea-level was some 35 metres higher. Where are all your people going to live?

Your view is ideed extremely simplistic, because it ignores all of the detrimental consequences of Global Warming.

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:24:00 UTC | #410386

Go to: An Open Letter to Bill Maher on Vaccinations

reason-first's Avatar Jump to comment 41 by reason-first

Shouldn't it rather read "co-discoverer" instead of what the text says:

"It was not unreasonable to be a vaccination skeptic in the 1880s, which the co-discovered of natural selection — Alfred Russel Wallace — was, ..."

Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:23:00 UTC | #406200

Go to: It's not a theory, stupid

reason-first's Avatar Jump to comment 18 by reason-first

Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:20:00 UTC | #406199

Go to: Biologist Richard Dawkins talks evolution, religion

reason-first's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by reason-first

“Hearing you speak made me wonder if you see anything at all as legitimate to intelligent design or creationism,” asked one audience member.

After a long pause and a big sip of water, Dawkins plainly replied, “No.”

A very apt reply but also - on second thought - the only possible one.

Wed, 14 Oct 2009 07:07:00 UTC | #405458