Climate Denialism paid by Exxon

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
haha...remember when all those quacks falsified all the "scientific" documents?

When did that happen?

Man-made global warning is not science it is a religion.

How would you know? From your "contributions" to this thread so far, I'd say you don't know enough about the topic to form an opinion.
 
Upvote 0

lemur

Newbie
Aug 20, 2011
475
15
✟15,711.00
Faith
Atheist
When did that happen?
The discussion in the future:
_____________
questftbest: Moves by referencing 'Climate Gate' or some other PRATT(s)
USincognito: Dismantles PRATT(s)
Crowd A: Either repeat some or all of USincognito's arguments and insert their own points in whatever points were missed in the first counter argument.
Crowd B: Quotes the previous crowd and repeats other PRATTs

For the next 10 pages, group A quotes group B, and vise versa.

2 weeks latter, or maybe even sooner (a given if you count the other Society forums), the process repeats itself with the exact same people.
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
sn't "denialism" a matter of perspective, a function of who is denying what?
Given you deny the arguments of those who disagree with you - aren't you too a Denialist?
And since you coined the cutesy phrase - "climate denialism" - perhaps you could give us some insight on how that actually works.
How *does* one deny the climate?

Don't be deliberately obtuse and demean yourself even further. You know what a 'Denialist' is and you're just sulking that the scientific reality doesn't agree with your politics. So I'll just ignore your quibbling over words, your sulking. Denialist suits you perfectly and you know it.

But in the meantime...

How are you going to save America $600 billion a year, get heaps of jobs back, and get your economy going? I've got a plan to do this that ALSO saves the climate; what's your big idea for helping America? ;)

hoax.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saving Hawaii
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
A Gawron
Accept this at face value, and you have just ceded control of you life over to others.

What's wrong with that? You're a Christian, right? Ever read "Give to Caesar what is due to Caesar" and especially Romans 13, where the authorities are God's servants to do us good? And that's Paul describing the ROMAN authorities. Today we have accountability systems through both our politics and science; we should be amazed and grateful that we live under modern democratic systems with modern science and medicine, and not stuck back under Roman authorities. Yet the bible says even they were God's servants for their good! Can ya dig it?

Now here's a more personal story. I'm not a scientist, and I'm definitely not a climatologist.

But I'll tell you one thing I've noticed. Only the Denialist websites seem to try to straw-man the peer-reviewed science, bluff with bluster, misinterpret and sometimes even outright lie.

For example, about 5 years ago I was a complete newcomer to this subject. Then I saw "The Great Global Warming Swindle" by Martin Durkin. It really threw me — as it has a lot of clever data and facts in it. I was on the brink of moral outrage, wondering how on earth the whole climate community could have lied to us so completely when these 'facts' were self-evidently against climate science!

The whole thing was itself a Swindle. Durkin used clever half truths and lies. He covered probably a dozen of the top Denialist myths, and covered them well. Any half informed Denialist can pull the wool over an uninformed member of the public. It's easy. Most of us, sadly, just don't read that much. So that's what Durkin did. He lied. When I finally read the peer-reviewed responses to Durkin's claims, especially the responses of Sir John Houghton — himself an active and keen Christian and former head of the IPCC — I was TRULY outraged at Durkin's audacious lies. It amazes me that someone can behave like that. Can say the things he did about the entire climate community.

Are you proud of being associated with him? Does intentionally lying about the actual claims of climate science sit well with your conscience when you pray? Or are you quoting things way outside your area of expertise in the vain and vague hope that they might be true, and might somehow disprove what every National Academy of Science on the planet says is a fact!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Saving Hawaii
Upvote 0

EdwinWillers

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2010
19,443
5,258
Galt's Gulch
✟8,420.00
Country
Niue
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Succs administered IV will probably kill you if nobody sustains your basic body functions. It paralyzes you with just trace amounts of the compound. You can't move your arms, your legs. You can't move. Your lungs can't move. That's the part that kills you. Just a trace amount can do that.

Paramedics are taught to always administer a knockout drug before they provide Succs. The knockout drug has no value to them. It causes you to lose consciousness. Succs allows them to perform some medical procedures that would be very difficult otherwise (they're hard enough even with Succs). From what I've learned though, the administration of Succs without a knockout is enough to cause PTSD. You will permanently scar anybody you only give Succs to. It's a horrific experience. You already feel like you are dying and you are scared. All of the sudden you're paralyzed, can't breath, are suffocating, and you're definitely dying. Succs has saved a lot of lives and it's a tremendously useful drug, but my point is: Trace amounts can have huge effects.
Volume/Size/Quantity relative means ABSOLUTELY nothing.

There are poisons that would be LESS than 0.1% of a person's mass that can make a person drop dead.
So what's your point with that line of though?
The topic of CO2 was strictly introductory - but further discussion is probably pointless.

...but who'da thunk it'd lead to a discussion about human physiology? Maybe we should move this thread over to Health & Fitness? There's probably a correlation between AGW and excess exercise too.
 
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
24,494
13,119
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟361,729.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
The topic of CO2 was strictly introductory - but further discussion is probably pointless.

...but who'da thunk it'd lead to a discussion about human physiology? Maybe we should move this thread over to Health & Fitness? There's probably a correlation between AGW and excess exercise too.
and who'da thunk that a pretty straight forward analogy could be so easily lost?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saving Hawaii
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The topic of CO2 was strictly introductory - but further discussion is probably pointless.

...but who'da thunk it'd lead to a discussion about human physiology? Maybe we should move this thread over to Health & Fitness? There's probably a correlation between AGW and excess exercise too.

I'm glad to see you've conceded that tiny amounts of something can have huge impacts. You've also admitted that discussing this with you was pointless. Well, we knew that all along. ;)
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I don't see glow ball warming true believers lining up to stop emitting Co2.

Eerrr, dude, you're not looking. Renewable energy is growing exponentially. Just look at this chart of wind power.

wind_energy.jpg


Not only that, but GE has nearly commercialised the S-PRISM nuke that can burn nuclear waste and when deployed, could run the world for 500 years on the nuclear waste we've already got sitting around in cooling ponds. That would mean that instead of being a problem, nuclear waste was the solution! If it could run the global economy for 5 centuries, it would become a resource worth $30 trillion dollars! The S-PRISM is just one variety of Integral Fast Reactor that could run the world until the Lord returns (or for atheists, until the sun expands and burns this planet to a crisp). There's that much uranium on earth, and floating in our oceans, and the oceans are gradually topped up with uranium particles as continents move and new mountain ranges are eroded back into the oceans.

Why on earth do global warming Denialist’s also deny any alternatives to fossil fuels? This view is ultimately worse than those of us who take global warming seriously, because at least we think that with strong action to get off fossil fuels, we can do something about it. Your view? We’re stuffed. It might not happen immediately, but you seem to think that there is no alternative to fossil fuels. Taken to the logical extremes that means that when we've burnt the last of the fossil fuels, Industrial Civilisation collapses. You've just condemned 6 billion people to starvation. Industrial Agriculture feeds 6 billion of us (and the other billion go pretty hungry — we're at 7 billion now remember?) But because there's no alternative to fossil fuels, it’s all going down. Big time. Want to modify your previous statement?

watch-the-book-of-eli-online.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

bricklayer

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2009
3,928
328
the rust belt
✟5,120.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Don't be rude — it was the right-wing and Denialist Bush regime that coined the term "Climate change". A political attitudes expert and PR machine decided the term 'global warming' was too alarming, and so tried to domesticate the science by introducing climate change everywhere they could. So don't you dare turn around and play silly semantic games with a term your side invented, because the egg is on your face OK?
Global Warming Debate : The Denial Machine : the fifth estate : CBC News

If you're going to comment in a thread all about 2 video's, at least have the decency to watch them.

Also, Climatologists know that the climate changes 'frequently'. They've mapped out the last 800 000 years of glacial to interglacial periods and correlated it with the Co2 in ice core samples and the mathematics of Milancovitch cycles. It all works. They know this. The planet has 'wobbles', Milancovitch cycles, that sometimes accumulate in just the right way to reduce the incoming sunlight and bring on an 'ice age'. (Well, glacial period really. We are currently in an 'Ice Age' because there is ice on the earth somewhere! But who wants to play semantic games? I'll use the common term 'Ice Age' if you'll use the common, pre-Bush term 'Global Warming'. OK?)

So anyway, the point is the Earth has been drifting into Ice Ages and out of them for a long time, and climatologists know all this. They also know about the earth's funky super-greenhouse periods in the dinosaur period, way back when the sun was 2% cooler! With a 2% hotter sun, do you really want to play games and roll the dice with our climate?

Basically,
'Cold' = bad.
'Warm' = good.
'Hot' = bad.

Get it?

I don't believe in chance, nor do I believe anthropogenic global climate change.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I don't believe in chance, nor do I believe anthropogenic global climate change.

I'm glad you've at least conceded by your silence on the issue that the Bush regime changed the language from global warming to 'climate change.'

I'm sad that you appear to be letting the Christian faith down by just going along with the nuts. You don't believe in chance? I guess that means you don't believe in evolution, and so have placed a wedge between your 'faith' and science that is so wide slipping in a little global warming denialism is nothing.

What an intellectually bankrupt position.

I'm a Christian AND I accept evolution (without believing it was all through 'chance'). Evolution is simply the means by which God made life on earth. I also accept climate change. So where do we go from here? That is, you just state your Denialist 'beliefs' without even attempting to justify why. I at least have the whole of the scientific enterprise on my side. (Even though I'm not claiming to be a scientist).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

bricklayer

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2009
3,928
328
the rust belt
✟5,120.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I'm glad you've at least conceded by your silence on the issue that the Bush regime changed the language from global warming to 'climate change.'

I'm sad that you appear to be letting the Christian faith down by just going along with the nuts. You don't believe in chance? I guess that means you don't believe in evolution, and so have placed a wedge between your 'faith' and science that is so wide slipping in a little global warming denialism is nothing.

What an intellectually bankrupt position.

I'm a Christian AND I accept evolution (without believing it was all through 'chance'). Evolution is simply the means by which God made life on earth. I also accept climate change. So where do we go from here? That is, you just state your Denialist 'beliefs' without even attempting to justify why. I at least have the whole of the scientific enterprise on my side. (Even though I'm not claiming to be a scientist).

The exact opposite of God is not the devil, because the devil actually exists.
He has actuality and existence with God.
the exact opposite of God is that which does not actually exist,
and "chance" fits the bill.
Macro-evolution is premised on the spontaneous increase of complexity and available information.
Absolutely every material process observable operates in exactly the opposite way.

"Global warming" is calibrated based on the assumption that material processes operate in a way not observable.

The "science" of today is, in many ways, as futile as it has been since those state of the art Egyptian resurrection machines.

As to climate, (please forgive my spelling) Bijorn Lormborg seems to me to have the best perspective.
I recommend that you read his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist".
 
Upvote 0

lordbt

$
Feb 23, 2007
6,514
1,178
60
Mentor, Ohio
✟19,508.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
Here is my take on global warming, FWIW. Is the climate changing? Sure, it is always changing and would be changing if man were not even around. Is the change we are seeing caused by man? I am not a scientist, so I have no idea. But I do not rule out the possibility that the activities of 6 billion people may have an impact. For me, the question is: Does the state have the authority to to limit, regulate or alter my behavior to address the "problem?" The answer to that is no.

Those of you convinced that humans are having a negative impact on the climate are free to alter your own personal behavior as you see fit. You have no authority to compel me to alter mine; and, by extension, neither does the state on your behalf.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nilloc
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Here is my take on global warming, FWIW. Is the climate changing? Sure, it is always changing and would be changing if man were not even around. Is the change we are seeing caused by man? I am not a scientist, so I have no idea. But I do not rule out the possibility that the activities of 6 billion people may have an impact. For me, the question is: Does the state have the authority to to limit, regulate or alter my behavior to address the "problem?" The answer to that is no.

Those of you convinced that humans are having a negative impact on the climate are free to alter your own personal behavior as you see fit. You have no authority to compel me to alter mine; and, by extension, neither does the state on your behalf.

The answer (for you) may be a resounding 'no', but the obvious question is 'why not?'
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gawron

Well-Known Member
Apr 24, 2008
3,152
473
✟5,109.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The answer (for you) may be a resounding 'no', but the obvious question is 'why not?'

Because we are not willing to live in a totalitarian state based simply on the word of a few scientist who are becoming rich off of promoting AGW.
 
Upvote 0

whatbogsends

Senior Veteran
Aug 29, 2003
10,370
8,314
Visit site
✟281,129.00
Faith
Atheist
Here is my take on global warming, FWIW. Is the climate changing? Sure, it is always changing and would be changing if man were not even around. Is the change we are seeing caused by man? I am not a scientist, so I have no idea. But I do not rule out the possibility that the activities of 6 billion people may have an impact. For me, the question is: Does the state have the authority to to limit, regulate or alter my behavior to address the "problem?" The answer to that is no.

Those of you convinced that humans are having a negative impact on the climate are free to alter your own personal behavior as you see fit. You have no authority to compel me to alter mine; and, by extension, neither does the state on your behalf.

Thank you, lordbt, for stating your position so clearly. Your freedom trumps the good of the community each and every time. If the actions of a person or person is a detriment to the world around them, it is only up to the individual to determine if they should continue that action.

Clearly, you should also support the removal of laws against murder, as that behavior - which has an detrimental impact to those around them - should be up to the individual to decide. Does the state have the authority to limit or regulate my behavior to address the problem? That answer, if you remain logically consistent, is not.
 
Upvote 0

Steve Petersen

Senior Veteran
May 11, 2005
16,077
3,390
✟162,912.00
Faith
Deist
Politics
US-Libertarian
Clearly, you should also support the removal of laws against murder, as that behavior - which has an detrimental impact to those around them - should be up to the individual to decide.

Wouldn't it be great to be the person who gets to define what 'detrimental' means?

Think of the POWER!
 
Upvote 0

Gawron

Well-Known Member
Apr 24, 2008
3,152
473
✟5,109.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What's wrong with that? You're a Christian, right? Ever read "Give to Caesar what is due to Caesar" and especially Romans 13, where the authorities are God's servants to do us good?

What is wrong with relinquishing increasing portions of our income and increasing portions of our freedom in a quest to save the planet from the effects of a gas we discharge every time we breath? With all due respect, if you have to ask that question, you probably won't understand the answer.

"Render unto Caesar” was not a command from Jesus to pay whatever taxes a government body saw fit to levy. Jesus was being asked if it was lawful to pay taxes, with the specific tax in question being the annual tribute tax to Rome. Jews who opposed Roman authority opposed this tax while Jews within the Temple authority endorsed it. The question was an attempt to trick Jesus into choosing sides. In addition, for your comment to be true one would have to completely disregard what type of government may exist. Republic, Communists Dictatorship, Fascist state, Apartheid, whatever, just shut up and pay.

As for "the authorities" being "God's servants to do us good", you may want to remember Ephesians 6:12.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gawron

Well-Known Member
Apr 24, 2008
3,152
473
✟5,109.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Clearly, you should also support the removal of laws against murder, as that behavior - which has an detrimental impact to those around them - should be up to the individual to decide.

The laws against murder have little to do with the laws enacted in attempts to prevent someone from having the ability to murder. Every gun control law which has come along has done absolutely nothing to prevent one person from killing another if one person decides to kill another. But the aim of gun control laws has little to do with trying to prevent murder, but rather everything to do with limiting the freedom of the law abiding American citizen from owning a gun.
 
Upvote 0