Modded Mustang Forums banner

241 - 260 of 462 Posts

·
He of Long Wind
Joined
·
2,169 Posts
Yes. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Two parallels that have nothing to do with the other. I would offer that the bible has faith and faith alone to substantiate it's claim while climate change can offer up measurable, quantifiable, empirical data.

Like I've said before, I don't believe the bible is the word of God. If you told me that the bible is the word of God through his having endowed us with the gift of reason then I can agree but to say that the words in the bible came directly from God? Sorry......
You didn't get it. But at least you took the opportunity to **** on the Holy Bible. Nice!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,562 Posts
Yes. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Two parallels that have nothing to do with the other. I would offer that the bible has faith and faith alone to substantiate it's claim while climate change can offer up measurable, quantifiable, empirical data.

Like I've said before, I don't believe the bible is the word of God. If you told me that the bible is the word of God through his having endowed us with the gift of reason then I can agree but to say that the words in the bible came directly from God? Sorry......



I agree with you on the part of us being responsible stewards. Perhaps where you and I are divergent is in what the definition of "clean" is. You may feel that a particular level of clean is good enough while I may disagree and say that it needs to be a higher standard. I think this is where a lot of people disagree.

I've been on the receiving end of having to deal with the EPA and clean air standards since I live in one of the most stringent states in the nation so I know what that's like and, honestly, once I incorporated it into the business it really didn't affect it in any appreciable way. Did it suck that I had to spend money twice? Yes but, again, it didn't hurt the business.

You and I are probably much closer in how we feel about climate change. What may divide us is your belief seems to be that we just need to keep it at a tolerable level whereas from all the research I've done I feel we've blown past that level and we need to start reacting now rather than wait and see if further damage to the environment is going to affect us.
It isn't that I don't want things cleaner, I do. I simply don't want to jump the gun and force change that will affect lots of business much more than yours was affected, and the overall quality of life/cost of living based on what "might" happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
You didn't get it. But at least you took the opportunity to **** on the Holy Bible. Nice!
I got it! I just wasn't going to hand it back to you on a silver platter!:grin2::wink2:

I'm not shitting on the Bible. I think it is a very valuable text in that it has a lot of good lessons on civility and how we should treat each other. My issue is when people are told that it is actually the word of God. I'm not going to go into this anymore because continuing will just take us that much further off topic but suffice to say that I am not a hater when it comes to the Bible. I see it for what I understand it's worth to be but I can't come to grips with the idea that it is literally the word of God.

It isn't that I don't want things cleaner, I do. I simply don't want to jump the gun and force change that will affect lots of business much more than yours was affected, and the overall quality of life/cost of living based on what "might" happen.
I'm sure you and I are pretty much on the same level as far as what we deem clean. I guess where we disagree is in that I see climate change and it's remedy in a proactive light whereas you seem to be more reactive to it.

John
 

·
Pawsitively sexy
Joined
·
10,564 Posts
Harvard-Smithsonian Physicist: Computer Models Used by U.N. Overstate Global Warming

(CNSNews.com) – A scholarly paper explaining why predictions made by climate computer models used by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) tend to exaggerate global warming has ignited a political firestorm.
Dr. Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon, a solar physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, came under attack by environmentalists after co-authoring a peer-reviewed paper explaining “the widening discrepancy between prediction and observation” in climate change models, and members of Congress soon took sides.

The scientific paper, entitled “Why Models Run Hot,” concludes that the computer models overstated the impact of CO2 on the climate: "The impact of anthropogenic global warming over the next century... may be no more than one-third to one-half of IPCC's current projections."

The paper was published January 8 in China’s Science Bulletin, and has been downloaded more than any other paper in the publication’s history.

The paper was co-authored by Lord Christopher Monckton, David Legates and William “Matt” Briggs.

“The billion-dollar climate models that have so profitably predicted Thermageddon are hopelessly wrong,” Monckton said.

“We said the models were wrong because they were using a rogue equation borrowed from electronic circuitry and bolted on to the climate, where it does not fit. That equation, and that alone, leads the modelers erroneously to triple the small and harmless 1 Cº global warming we should expect from a doubling of CO2 in the air,” he wrote.

“Our irreducibly simple climate model does not replace more complex models, but it does expose major errors and exaggeration in those models, such as the over-emphasis on positive or amplifying temperature feedbacks,” Monckton explained.

“Take away the erroneous assumption that strongly net-positive feedback triples the rate of manmade global warming and the imagined climate crisis vanishes.”



The paper generated a blizzard of responses, including an accusation by former Greenpeace researcher Kert Davies that Soon had failed to disclose “substantial funding from the fossil fuel industry” totaling more than $1.2 million over the last decade.

According to documents obtained by Davies under the Freedom of Information Act, donations to support Soon’s research on the link between solar radiation and climate change were signed off by Smithsonian officials, including center Director Charles Alcock, and the checks were made out directly to the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory.

They included a $76,106 donation for “general support” for Soon’s research from ExxonMobil that was reclassified as an “unrestricted contribution” at the request of Smithsonian advance and external affairs officer Amanda Preston, who signed an affidavit on April 2, 2009 stating that no “goods and/or services [were] provided to ExxonMobile in return for this contribution.”

Smithsonian spokeswoman Linda St. Thomas confirmed to CNSNews.com that the Smithsonian accepted the donations, and then gave Soon a grant for his research after keeping 30 percent of the funds for “overhead.”

The Smithsonian does not monitor potential conflicts of interest when it accepts donations for targeted research, St. Thomas told CNSNews.com. “Individual scientists go to the science journals themselves and they have their own regulations about what researchers must tell them about conflicts of interest,” she said.

Heartland Institute senior fellow Robert Carter argued that Soon met all of the publication’s disclosure requirements.

“Because of the way in which the Smithsonian oversees and manages outside funding sources, simply by identifying himself on publications as being engaged by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Dr. Soon makes full and sufficient disclosure that he has no funding conflicts regarding his research.

"No further disclosure of funding sources is necessary because, for a scientist employed in this fashion, there simply are none,” Carter wrote in Soon’s defense, calling the attacks on him “false, mean-spirited, insulting and potentially libelous.”

One of Soon’s co-authors pointed out that they did not receive any financial remuneration for the Science Bulletin paper.

”Soon, like most research scientists, has in the past accepted money from sources other than our beneficent government (and what makes government money pure?),” Briggs said. “But we did this paper on our own time driven only by our intellectual curiosity. We had no conflict of interest of any kind.”

Nonetheless, the Smithsonian announced on February 22 that it was “greatly concerned about the allegations surrounding Dr. Willie Soon’s failure to disclose funding sources for his climate change research,” and has asked the inspector general to “review the matter.”

Two days later, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, sent a letter citing the Soon controversy to seven universities, including the University of Delaware where Legates works, citing “potential conflicts of interest and failure to disclose corporate funding sources in academic climate research.”

The letter, which Grijalva later admitted was “an overreach,” asked for all sources of external funding that Legates and six other climate researchers who have challenged the prevailing "consensus" on global warming received, as well as copies of their correspondence.

Minority Democrats on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works also cited the Greenpeace allegations in a Feb. 25 letter they sent to 100 “fossil fuel companies, trade groups and other organizations to determine whether they are funding scientific studies designed to confuse the public and avoid taking action to cut carbon pollution,” according to the Climate Investigations Center (CIC) founded by Davies.

Senators Edward Markey (D-MA), Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-CT) asked each group for a list of all research projects they have funded over the past ten years “as well as support for other efforts related to climate change.”

One of the recipients accused the three Democrats of “an attempt to silence public debate.”

“Are you not aware that neither his employer, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, nor the journal that published the scholarly article in question… has found Dr. Soon violated any of their rules or disclosure policies? Who asked you to repeat that lie?” Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, wrote back.

Bast’s organization, which is sponsoring its Tenth International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, D.C. this June, gave its 2014 Courage in Defense of Science Award to Soon last year for challenging “computer modelers and advocates who consistently underestimate solar influences on cloud formation, ocean currents, and wind that cause climate to change.”

“I am very proud to report that The Heartland Institute has spent millions of dollars over the past ten years supporting scientific research that contradicts alarmist claims about climate change,” Bast said in his reply, adding that all the requested information could easily be found on The Heartland Institute’s websites.

Eleven majority members of the Senate Environment Committee then sent a letter to the same groups on February 27 calling their minority colleagues’ previous missive “wholly inappropriate.”

“Rather than empower scientists and researchers to expand the public discourse on climate science and other environmental topics, the [Democrats’] letter could be viewed as an attempt to silence legitimate intellectual and scientific inquiry,” the Republicans' letter said.

It was signed by Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK), and Senators David Vitter (R-LA), John Barrasso (R-WY), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Mike Crapo (R-ID), John Boozman (R-AR), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Mike Rounds (R-SD), and Dan Sullivan (R-AK).

In a March 2 statement, Soon called the Greenpeace-initiated attacks on him “a shameless attempt to silence my scientific research and writings, and to make an example out of me as a warning to any other researcher who may dare question in the slightest their fervently held orthodoxy of anthropogenic global warming….

“Let me be clear. I have never been motivated by financial gain to write any scientific paper, nor have I ever hidden grants or any other alleged conflict of interest.

“I have been a solar and stellar physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics for a quarter of a century, during which time I have published numerous peer-reviewed, scholarly articles. The fact that my research has been supported in part by donations to the Smithsonian Institution from many sources, including some energy producers, has long been a matter of public record.

“In submitting my academic writings, I have always complied with what I understood to be disclosure practices in my field generally, consistent with the level of disclosure made by many of my Smithsonian colleagues.

“If the standards for disclosure are to change, then let them change evenly. If a journal that has peer-reviewed and published my work concludes that additional disclosures are appropriate, I am happy to comply. I would ask only that other authors - on all sides of the debate - are also required to make similar disclosures.

“And I call on the media outlets that have so quickly repeated my attackers’ accusations to similarly look into the motivations of and disclosures that may or may not have been made by their preferred, IPCC-linked scientists.”

Harvard-Smithsonian Physicist: Computer Models Used by U.N. Overstate Global Warming | CNS News
Speaking of cherry picking...

1. Limiting the argument to land temperatures, which was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the data points used in the graph JohnC so eagerly shared.

2. Limiting already cherry picked data to an arbitrarily picked period of "pause". We've been over this part of the argument to the point we've killed the horse. Models made to predict long term trends being attacked with short term, cherry picked results is intellectually dishonest. I can't remember who said it, but its like assuming at sundown that the sun will never rise again. It’s not an impossible outcome, but it’s probably worth waiting until morning to find out if you’re actually right. Monckton is making the assertion that the current upward trend that, notably, even his cherry picked data shows as existing is going to remain relatively flat (and publicly claims will begin to cool). There is no evidence to suggest this. Creating your own formula and presenting it at proof is hilariously wrong.

You say there is no way the article has been shown for what it is so early(very confidently put, by the way), but yet this paper has seen boat loads of criticism from all sorts of angles.

Critique of the model

Issues in the data

This analysis by Carbon Brief which draws it's arguments from this Nature article.

Climate Economy Society's take

Climate Depot's breakdown.

I'm going to leave out an ass ton of reports and opinions over the issue over the fact Willie Soon is heavily funded by big oil.
I'd love to hear a response on this. Eagle bailed because of his data limits and naturally @JohnC completely ignored it.
 

·
He of Long Wind
Joined
·
2,169 Posts
I'm not shitting on the Bible. I think it is a very valuable text in that it has a lot of good lessons on civility and how we should treat each other. My issue is when people are told that it is actually the word of God. I'm not going to go into this anymore because continuing will just take us that much further off topic but suffice to say that I am not a hater when it comes to the Bible. I see it for what I understand it's worth to be but I can't come to grips with the idea that it is literally the word of God.
You're not shitting on the Holy Bible? It's just a nice collection of stories with cute little parables and guides for good behavior?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,562 Posts
You're not shitting on the Holy Bible? It's just a nice collection of stories with cute little parables and guides for good behavior?
Don't put words into his mouth.

I share similar views. We have long been told depending on our religion growing up that the Bible is "The word of God" or "Inspired by God and put to paper by Man".

There are LOTS of valuable lessons to be learned, and the parables are very much like Aesop's fables, teaching a lesson through an entertaining story.

Does that make them untrue? Not in the least. Does that make them less valuable? No. But we do need to recognize that the Bible as we know it has been re-written, edited, modified, and changed by literally every person who translated it before us. There are countless variations of the bible, from the King James version through the New Living Translation that takes a lot of the "thees" and "thous" out of it, but it doesn't change the fact that it has been heavily modified over the years by humans.

The "gist" is there, and there is plenty to teach us to be good, to think about our actions before acting out on our basest desires, and to not judge everyone because we too are sinners, etc. But to actually say that the Bible as it sits now was just plopped into it's current form by God is plainly inaccurate.
 

·
He of Long Wind
Joined
·
2,169 Posts
Don't put words into his mouth.

I share similar views. We have long been told depending on our religion growing up that the Bible is "The word of God" or "Inspired by God and put to paper by Man".

There are LOTS of valuable lessons to be learned, and the parables are very much like Aesop's fables, teaching a lesson through an entertaining story.

Does that make them untrue? Not in the least. Does that make them less valuable? No. But we do need to recognize that the Bible as we know it has been re-written, edited, modified, and changed by literally every person who translated it before us. There are countless variations of the bible, from the King James version through the New Living Translation that takes a lot of the "thees" and "thous" out of it, but it doesn't change the fact that it has been heavily modified over the years by humans.

The "gist" is there, and there is plenty to teach us to be good, to think about our actions before acting out on our basest desires, and to not judge everyone because we too are sinners, etc. But to actually say that the Bible as it sits now was just plopped into it's current form by God is plainly inaccurate.
I can't say my personal view is all that different. I wouldn't go so far as to make a judgment about the accuracy of events in the Bible. I have my doubts about the supernatural elements, sure, but should God exist - and the Bible is indeed the recorded word of God - I think I'll stop short of shitting on it myself. Not to mention it would be a collosal conceit to think I have the capacity to understand God anyway. Some things are simply too big for man to apprehend.

... well, unless you're a liberal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,562 Posts
I can't say my personal view is all that different. I wouldn't go so far as to make a judgment about the accuracy of events in the Bible. I have my doubts about the supernatural elements, sure, but should God exist - and the Bible is indeed the recorded word of God - I think I'll stop short of shitting on it myself. Not to mention it would be a collosal conceit to think I have the capacity to understand God anyway. Some things are simply too big for man to apprehend.

... well, unless you're a liberal.
I can't understand God, but I can understand mankind and I see a lot more "mankind" in how the bible is interpreted over "God" in how it's interpreted. It's not just the Bible, it's every bit as much about how it's interpreted that gets fouled up.
 

·
He of Long Wind
Joined
·
2,169 Posts
I can't understand God, but I can understand mankind and I see a lot more "mankind" in how the bible is interpreted over "God" in how it's interpreted. It's not just the Bible, it's every bit as much about how it's interpreted that gets fouled up.
Yes! That's exactly the point I was making about global warming. I wasn't actually trying to get off-topic about Christian theology. I was pointing out the political ministry of the global warming initiative, and how many of their tactics mirror organized religion. Of course, John just dismissed it as misguided apples and oranges babble, but I think this a very telling comparison.

The global warming ministry has strict membership requirements. To be part of the congregation, you must accept that the climate is changing (for the worst), mankind is the cause, and we must take immediate steps to reduce greenhouse gases – no matter the economic cost. If you don't accept that view, you are a “denier.” Do you hear the ring that word makes when you say it? There's a word for that in western religion, “heretics.” The function and application of the “denier” and “heretic” labels are exactly the same. Though Jews and Christians don't use the term much today, Muslims actively use a similar label, the “infidel.”

Regardless of the specific term (denier, heretic, infidel, pagan, heathen, etc.), such derogatory terms are fundamentally the same tool - used to label and scorn a non-believer or anyone who dares to challenge a Holy doctrine. It makes no difference what the particular theology is, the tactic and purpose is identical – to punish and silence non-believers. That's why guys like John can only talk in that voice from hell when someone challenges the idea that “climate change science is settled.” He must protect the church doctrine. So anyone who speaks-out against the principles of the global warming ministry is guilty of heresy. It's no different than someone speaking out against the church in 16th century England. It's just a different religion – the church of global warming.

Now, I think your thoughts about God are pretty intelligent and reasonable, but in another time and place, you would just be a heretic – an infidel – a denier. You would need to be silenced. You might even need to be burned at the stake (sorry). Fortunately, we've evolved a little in the last 500 years, at least enough to allow independent thought. So just as we might not be able to truly understand God, we also can't possibly understand something as titanic as the climate history of the entire planet (let alone understand all the dynamics to accurately predict its future). Just as you noted about religion, I see a lot of “mankind” in how the “science” of global warming is conducted and interpreted. If the science were truly "settled" there would be little need for the global warming ministry to protect the doctrine.

Or ... this might just be a matter of faith.
 

·
Pawsitively sexy
Joined
·
10,564 Posts
Yes! That's exactly the point I was making about global warming. I wasn't actually trying to get off-topic about Christian theology. I was pointing out the political ministry of the global warming initiative, and how many of their tactics mirror organized religion. Of course, John just dismissed it as misguided apples and oranges babble, but I think this a very telling comparison.

The global warming ministry has strict membership requirements. To be part of the congregation, you must accept that the climate is changing (for the worst), mankind is the cause, and we must take immediate steps to reduce greenhouse gases – no matter the economic cost. If you don't accept that view, you are a “denier.” Do you hear the ring that word makes when you say it? There's a word for that in western religion, “heretics.” The function and application of the “denier” and “heretic” labels are exactly the same. Though Jews and Christians don't use the term much today, Muslims actively use a similar label, the “infidel.”

Regardless of the specific term (denier, heretic, infidel, pagan, heathen, etc.), such derogatory terms are fundamentally the same tool - used to label and scorn a non-believer or anyone who dares to challenge a Holy doctrine. It makes no difference what the particular theology is, the tactic and purpose is identical – to punish and silence non-believers. That's why guys like John can only talk in that voice from hell when someone challenges the idea that “climate change science is settled.” He must protect the church doctrine. So anyone who speaks-out against the principles of the global warming ministry is guilty of heresy. It's no different than someone speaking out against the church in 16th century England. It's just a different religion – the church of global warming.

Now, I think your thoughts about God are pretty intelligent and reasonable, but in another time and place, you would just be a heretic – an infidel – a denier. You would need to be silenced. You might even need to be burned at the stake (sorry). Fortunately, we've evolved a little in the last 500 years, at least enough to allow independent thought. So just as we might not be able to truly understand God, we also can't possibly understand something as titanic as the climate history of the entire planet (let alone understand all the dynamics to accurately predict its future). Just as you noted about religion, I see a lot of “mankind” in how the “science” of global warming is conducted and interpreted. If the science were truly "settled" there would be little need for the global warming ministry to protect the doctrine.

Or ... this might just be a matter of faith.
Jesus man... Here's my thing about your argument here, and just your arguments in general. You always have to attack the person that disagrees with you(or in this case, since you have claimed ignorance, attack the "liberal" position), whether direct or discrete, while continuously ignoring anything actually relating to the argument. Your feelings or personal observations on the people involved almost exclusively make up your arguments. But when it comes time to substantiate any of it with any sort of factual information related to the topic, you're MIA or just in finger wag mode. You contribute to the argument in a superficial way, never any substance.
 

·
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
Joined
·
5,055 Posts
Discussion Starter #251
Well this is interesting...

Climate Doomsayers Ignore Benefits Of Carbon Dioxide Emissions ? Now compiled in a new report | Watts Up With That?

London 12 October: In an important new report published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, former IPCC delegate Dr Indur Goklany calls for a reassessment of carbon dioxide, which he says has many benefits for the natural world and for humankind.

Dr Goklany said: “Carbon dioxide fertilises plants, and emissions from fossil fuels have already had a hugely beneficial effect on crops, increasing yields by at least 10-15%. This has not only been good for humankind but for the natural world too, because an acre of land that is not used for crops is an acre of land that is left for nature”.

Pointing to estimates that the current value of the carbon dioxide fertilisation effect on global crop production is about $140 billion a year, he notes that this additional production has helped reduce hunger and advance human well-being.

But the benefits go much further than this. It is not only crops that benefit from this “carbon dioxide fertilisation effect”: almost without exception, the wild places of the Earth have become greener in recent decades, .largely as a direct result of carbon dioxide increases. In fact, it has been shown that carbon dioxide can increase plants’ water-use efficiency too, making them more resilient to drought, so that there is a double benefit in arid parts of the world.

And as Dr Goklany points out: “Unlike the claims of future global warming disasters these benefits are firmly established and are being felt now. Yet despite this the media overlook the good news and the public remain in the dark. My report should begin to restore a little balance.”

In a powerful foreword to the report, the world-renowned physicist Professor Freeman Dyson FRS endorses Goklany’s conclusions and provides a devastating analysis of why “a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts”, arguing that “the thinking of politicians and scientists about controversial issues today is still tribal”.

The report is available here: benefits-of-co2 (PDF, 2.7mb)

---------- Post added at 05:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:45 AM ----------

Another good read...

Scientific Urban Legends | Watts Up With That?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
Well this is interesting...

Climate Doomsayers Ignore Benefits Of Carbon Dioxide Emissions ? Now compiled in a new report | Watts Up With That?

London 12 October: In an important new report published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, former IPCC delegate Dr Indur Goklany calls for a reassessment of carbon dioxide, which he says has many benefits for the natural world and for humankind.

Dr Goklany said: “Carbon dioxide fertilises plants, and emissions from fossil fuels have already had a hugely beneficial effect on crops, increasing yields by at least 10-15%. This has not only been good for humankind but for the natural world too, because an acre of land that is not used for crops is an acre of land that is left for nature”.

Pointing to estimates that the current value of the carbon dioxide fertilisation effect on global crop production is about $140 billion a year, he notes that this additional production has helped reduce hunger and advance human well-being.

But the benefits go much further than this. It is not only crops that benefit from this “carbon dioxide fertilisation effect”: almost without exception, the wild places of the Earth have become greener in recent decades, .largely as a direct result of carbon dioxide increases. In fact, it has been shown that carbon dioxide can increase plants’ water-use efficiency too, making them more resilient to drought, so that there is a double benefit in arid parts of the world.

And as Dr Goklany points out: “Unlike the claims of future global warming disasters these benefits are firmly established and are being felt now. Yet despite this the media overlook the good news and the public remain in the dark. My report should begin to restore a little balance.”

In a powerful foreword to the report, the world-renowned physicist Professor Freeman Dyson FRS endorses Goklany’s conclusions and provides a devastating analysis of why “a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts”, arguing that “the thinking of politicians and scientists about controversial issues today is still tribal”.

The report is available here: benefits-of-co2 (PDF, 2.7mb)

---------- Post added at 05:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:45 AM ----------

Another good read...

Scientific Urban Legends | Watts Up With That?
I had a long factual argument to counter this but it was pretty much the same stuff I've been posting all along. It's apparent, regardless of what factual evidence I post, it will be disregarded so continue in your fear bubble. The fact that Dr. Goklany works for the Heartland Institute is enough to inform me of his and the studies lean. He also worked for the Department of the Interior so he's a bureacrat. The same type of guy you love to kick around as cowtowing to the government and not to be trusted.

Mike? I'll leave the rebuttal to your response in Eric and Durwoods hands. Your characterization is the same sort of baseless argument that I keep hearing from the right. First it was, there is no such thing as global warming, now it's OK but it's naturally occurring. It would seem that the only way to get through the thick skulls of some is for them to actually watch their houses float away in the string of freakish weather that has become more common and that are stronger and last longer which is one of the byproducts of our poisoning our earth and one of the bigger points of the consensus that is happening and was predicted by the "flawed" science yet ignorance is the answer to those predictions from some.

If we stayed within the parallells you've outlined between religion and climate change I will offer this. Whenever I get into religious debates the conclusion almost always ends up in a stalemate mostly because we are talking about faith so to prove or disprove organized religions claims is almost impossible. In essence, it equates to trying to catch wind. The last rebuttal I usually get is that while organized religions claims can't be proven or disproven conclusively they would rather err on the side of caution. "If I'm wrong and there is no God then no harm no foul. Nothing happens. If I'm right then I get to be in the kingdom of God forever." I wish that same idea would be applied to climate change.

John.
 

·
He of Long Wind
Joined
·
2,169 Posts
It really is true. Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are at chess, the pigeon is going to knock over the pieces, crap all over the board, then strut around like it’s victorious. It's been fun ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
It really is true. Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are at chess, the pigeon is going to knock over the pieces, crap all over the board, then strut around like it’s victorious. It's been fun ...
What is it with you and birdshit? LOL!

I think your post is a cop out. You're going to run away when arguments that are hard to rebut get posted? I've enjoyed discussing things with you. You're articulate, you're intelligent and you discuss issues in a calm, intelligent manner unlike some of the other members on the board.

That you leave the discussion because it doesn't go your way just confirms my feelings about conservatives.

John
 

·
He of Long Wind
Joined
·
2,169 Posts
What is it with you and birdshit? LOL!

I think your post is a cop out. You're going to run away when arguments that are hard to rebut get posted? I've enjoyed discussing things with you. You're articulate, you're intelligent and you discuss issues in a calm, intelligent manner unlike some of the other members on the board.

That you leave the discussion because it doesn't go your way just confirms my feelings about conservatives.

John
Not true. There's just nothing left to say. You're just repeating P-R-A-I-S-E G-O-D! P-R-A-I-S-E G-O-D! P-R-A-I-S-E G-O-D! P-R-A-I-S-E G-O-D! I see no reason to bother you while you're at church.
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
Comparing the theory of human-factored climate change to religion makes literally zero sense.

In one case, science can show proof of the existence of the theory; in the other, science will never prove or disprove the existence of religion.

It really doesn't matter that the majority of science backs up the idea of human-factored climate change, as long as there is a small percentage of articles that support their opinions, the JohnCs and Mikes will continue to point to that as all they need to prove to themselves that climate change exacerbated by humans is bullshit.

It's like me showing articles about how eating cheeseburgers and cigarettes for every meal will actually make me live longer than someone with a balanced diet so I can justify my opinion on the matter. Regardless of the majority of science-based research showing otherwise.
 

·
He of Long Wind
Joined
·
2,169 Posts
Comparing the theory of human-factored climate change to religion makes literally zero sense.

In one case, science can show proof of the existence of the theory; in the other, science will never prove or disprove the existence of religion.

It really doesn't matter that the majority of science backs up the idea of human-factored climate change, as long as there is a small percentage of articles that support their opinions, the JohnCs and Mikes will continue to point to that as all they need to prove to themselves that climate change exacerbated by humans is bullshit.

It's like me showing articles about how eating cheeseburgers and cigarettes for every meal will actually make me live longer than someone with a balanced diet so I can justify my opinion on the matter. Regardless of the majority of science-based research showing otherwise.
No. It's the same choice, just a different religion. For the record, I've taken no position on the church of climate change - other than to say I don't know and I doubt you really do either. Nevertheless, it's a simple matter here ... either you're a disciple or you're not. You can't "almost" be a believer in a religion - less you risk heresy. Works the same way for climate change politics. Anyone who resists the doctrine is either "lost" or under the influence of a conservative demon. If you can't see the parallel because you're such a dedicated disciple of the church of climate change, then fine. Be washed in the blood and worship away. P-R-A-I-S-E G-O-D!

I suggest a public display involging kneeling, holding both arms aloft, and pointing to the highest CO² molecules you see while making a scornful grimmace. That way you can evangelize a little at the same time.

P-R-A-I-S-E G-O-D! P-R-A-I-S-E G-O-D! P-R-A-I-S-E G-O-D!

Amen
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
No. It's the same choice, just a different religion. For the record, I've taken no position on the church of climate change - other than to say I don't know and I doubt you really do either. Nevertheless, it's a simple matter here ... either you're a disciple or you're not. You can't "almost" be a believer in a religion - less you risk heresy. Works the same way for climate change politics. Anyone who resists the doctrine is either "lost" or under the influence of a conservative demon. If you can't see the parallel because you're such a dedicated disciple of the church of climate change, then fine. Be washed in the blood and worship away. P-R-A-I-S-E G-O-D!

I suggest a public display involging kneeling, holding both arms aloft, and pointing to the highest CO² molecules you see while making a scornful grimmace. That way you can evangelize a little at the same time.

P-R-A-I-S-E G-O-D! P-R-A-I-S-E G-O-D! P-R-A-I-S-E G-O-D!

Amen
But you're missing where a large portion of science supports one idea. The other idea is literally un-supportable - which is the entire idea of faith. There is no comparison.

One is a belief, one is proof created from tangible evidence.

But, since you believe they're comparable as religions, lets do this:

Religion: No harm, no foul if you're wrong about their being a god. At least you're not going to hell in case you're right. If you're wrong, then no big deal.

Climate change: No harm, no foul if you're wrong about man-induced climate change. At least you reduced your pollution and cleaned up the air that we breathe or the water we drink. Maybe the climate turns back around and the ice caps expand and glaciers begin to extend again. If you're wrong about human-induced climate change, no big deal - at least the planet is a little cleaner.


...oh wait, that second idea is backed by a bunch of scientists; scientists work at universities; universities are inherently liberal; liberals are politicians on the wrong team, politicians only care about money

therefore, climate change = money

(except that supporting efforts against climate change goes against the will of the energy sector which is funded substantially by oil & gas interests which is one of the highest grossing industries in the world - but yeah, the liberals just want money) side note: I work in oil & gas
 

·
He of Long Wind
Joined
·
2,169 Posts
But you're missing where a large portion of science supports one idea. The other idea is literally un-supportable - which is the entire idea of faith. There is no comparison.

One is a belief, one is proof created from tangible evidence.

But, since you believe they're comparable as religions, lets do this:

Religion: No harm, no foul if you're wrong about their being a god. At least you're not going to hell in case you're right. If you're wrong, then no big deal.

Climate change: No harm, no foul if you're wrong about man-induced climate change. At least you reduced your pollution and cleaned up the air that we breathe or the water we drink. Maybe the climate turns back around and the ice caps expand and glaciers begin to extend again. If you're wrong about human-induced climate change, no big deal - at least the planet is a little cleaner....oh wait, that second idea is backed by a bunch of scientists; scientists work at universities; universities are inherently liberal; liberals are politicians on the wrong team, politicians only care about money

therefore, climate change = money

(except that supporting efforts against climate change goes against the will of the energy sector which is funded substantially by oil & gas interests which is one of the highest grossing industries in the world - but yeah, the liberals just want money) side note: I work in oil & gas
I see something entirely different. Clearly, you see climate change as the higher power. In contrast, religion is just a silly and inconsequential annoyance. You believe the climate change doctrine, earnestly, whole-heartedly, and you defend it zealously.

So how is that any different than how a Christian believes that God is the higher power? Psalm 91 tells the Christian: You who live in the shelter of the Most High, who spend your nights in the shadow of the Almighty, who say to the LORD, “My refuge! My fortress! My God, in whom I trust!” – He will rescue you from the trap of the hunter, and from the plague of disease. He will cover you with His pinions, and under His wings you will find refuge; His truth is a shield and a protection.

How could something as silly and inconsequential as a couple degrees possibly harm anyone that is shielded by God? More to the point, why would Christians possibly care about the false-religion presented by professed non-believers?

Why is it that YOUR higher power is somehow superior - more enlightened - based on the fickle science of man which he scarcely comprehends? God created the Earth and everything upon it - including us. Do you really think God is but a bystander - that God isn't in control?

Your global warming nonsense was defeated thousands of years ago when God promised to never again flood the Earth (Genesis 9:11, And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.) So Christians already know your doctrine is false.

---------- Post added at 03:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:27 PM ----------

Oh ... I forgot. PRAISE GOD!

---------- Post added at 03:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:43 PM ----------

C'mon, admit that climate change is a discipleship. C'mon, you can do it. Admit the mantra and doctrine are defended and propagated like a religion. C'mon, show me that enlightenment you have ....
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
I see something entirely different. Clearly, you see climate change as the higher power. In contrast, religion is just a silly and inconsequential annoyance. You believe the climate change doctrine, earnestly, whole-heartedly, and you defend it zealously.

So how is that any different than how a Christian believes that God is the higher power? Psalm 91 tells the Christian: You who live in the shelter of the Most High, who spend your nights in the shadow of the Almighty, who say to the LORD, “My refuge! My fortress! My God, in whom I trust!” – He will rescue you from the trap of the hunter, and from the plague of disease. He will cover you with His pinions, and under His wings you will find refuge; His truth is a shield and a protection.

How could something as silly and inconsequential as a couple degrees possibly harm anyone that is shielded by God? More to the point, why would Christians possibly care about the false-religion presented by professed non-believers?

Why is it that YOUR higher power is somehow superior - more enlightened - based on the fickle science of man which he scarcely comprehends? God created the Earth and everything upon it - including us. Do you really think God is but a bystander - that God isn't in control?

Your global warming nonsense was defeated thousands of years ago when God promised to never again flood the Earth (Genesis 9:11, And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.) So Christians already know your doctrine is false.

---------- Post added at 03:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:27 PM ----------

Oh ... I forgot. PRAISE GOD!

---------- Post added at 03:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:43 PM ----------

C'mon, admit that climate change is a discipleship. C'mon, you can do it. Admit the mantra and doctrine are defended and propagated like a religion. C'mon, show me that enlightenment you have ....
Uh, what?

I'm just going to assume humor in Kentucky is on a different wavelength than here in the real world...
 
241 - 260 of 462 Posts
Top