Science meets political spin & popular culture: who has seen "Don't look up!"?

Captain Ahab

Active Member
Aug 7, 2020
93
126
Southeast
✟6,976.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You could try to learn the basics of science. If you did that you would see that what is claimed is well supported. And you would be hard pressed to find "false prophesies" made by the actual experts. For example Al Gore is not an expert, even though he pushed the concept very strongly. He made quite a few prophecies and they pretty much failed. That does not mean that AGW is not a serious threat.

Like I said, you should start with the basics. Would you care to discuss the Greenhouse Effect?


Respectfully, it comes off as sort of arrogant and condescending to assume just because someone doesn’t subscribe to the authorized narrative on this topic, they do not understand the basics. I truly don’t care to discuss it, have already heard all about it. Many times. I understand what is ‘claimed’ well enough. Thank you for using that terminology though, ‘claimed’ and ‘supported’ i.e. not proven as fact.

That isn’t true though, anybody with an internet search engine can easily find several decades worth of newspaper articles quoting the ‘experts’ themselves, scientists at top universities and all of their failed eco-apocalyptic prophecies, dating back to when the movement referred to it as ‘global cooling’. Al Gore is far from the only false prophet of the movement.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Respectfully, it comes off as sort of arrogant and condescending to assume just because someone doesn’t subscribe to the authorized narrative on this topic, they do not understand the basics. I truly don’t care to discuss it, have already heard all about it. Many times. I understand what is ‘claimed’ well enough. Thank you for using that terminology though, ‘claimed’ and ‘supported’ i.e. not proven as fact.

That isn’t true though, anybody with an internet search engine can easily find several decades worth of newspaper articles quoting the ‘experts’ themselves, scientists at top universities and all of their failed eco-apocalyptic prophecies, dating back to when the movement referred to it as ‘global cooling’. Al Gore is far from the only false prophet of the movement.
Not if one side is demonstrably correct and the other is demonstrably wrong. You have just demonstrated that you are not reasoning rationally. If a person makes claims without understanding a topic and then refuses an offer to help him understand he has shown that he or she is not reasoning. That person is only looking for excuses to believe. And belief of that sort is almost always wrong.


And once again, you cannot even name any proper "failed prophecies'. You just claimed that they existed and never posted any.

Here are the criteria that you need to follow. It must be a prophecy that clearly failed. And it has to be have been made by an expert in the field. When those two criteria are applied I am betting that all of your failed prophecies will disappear. Al Gore is not an expert in global warming. His prophecies do not count.

So one more time, would you care to learn about the basics of the science involved? The Greenhouse effect is an excellent place to begin.
 
Last edited:
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
Respectfully, it comes off as sort of arrogant and condescending to assume just because someone doesn’t subscribe to the authorized narrative on this topic, they do not understand the basics.
Something as basic as what the IPCC said about sea level rise in 1990 when you've been caught out spreading misinformation about it 32 years later?

I truly don’t care to discuss it, have already heard all about it.
Yes - your post here show a wealth of information on sea-level rise - including who said what, when, and all so carefully documented and verified with credible source documentation! :oldthumbsup: :doh: :oldthumbsup: :doh: :oldthumbsup:

Many times.
Of course! That's why it was so effortless for you to find your source materials and show how the peer-reviewed science stuffed up their earlier sea-level rise claims, not just parrot empty assertions they stuffed it up. :oldthumbsup: :doh: :oldthumbsup: :doh: :oldthumbsup:

That isn’t true though, anybody with an internet search engine can easily find several decades worth of newspaper articles quoting the ‘experts’ themselves, scientists at top universities and all of their failed eco-apocalyptic prophecies, dating back to when the movement referred to it as ‘global cooling’. Al Gore is far from the only false prophet of the movement.
More mere assertions. Where's your evidence? When you can be bothered to do your own homework, then we'll have a discussion.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Something as basic as what the IPCC said about sea level rise in 1990 when you've been caught out spreading misinformation about it 32 years later?


Yes - your post here show a wealth of information on sea-level rise - including who said what, when, and all so carefully documented and verified with credible source documentation! :oldthumbsup: :doh: :oldthumbsup: :doh: :oldthumbsup:


Of course! That's why it was so effortless for you to find your source materials and show how the peer-reviewed science stuffed up their earlier sea-level rise claims, not just parrot empty assertions they stuffed it up. :oldthumbsup: :doh: :oldthumbsup: :doh: :oldthumbsup:


More mere assertions. Where's your evidence? When you can be bothered to do your own homework, then we'll have a discussion.
One thing that I do not like about Al Gore is that he made some very wrong predictions. He did not understand the science. But he wisely accepted the word of experts. But then he made the mistake of misinterpreting their work and making his own predictions. I do not fully understand the science. I will leave the predictions to those that do understand it. I do understand some of the basics. I actually learned quite a bit from some deniers that kept ranting about the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. It had been many years since I left college so I had to learn it all over again to show how they were constantly misapplying it. One fun thing about debating is that if an opponent makes at least a half hearted effort to support one's claims that one can learn form others, indirectly, even if they are wrong.
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,854
3,888
✟273,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Respectfully, it comes off as sort of arrogant and condescending to assume just because someone doesn’t subscribe to the authorized narrative on this topic, they do not understand the basics. I truly don’t care to discuss it, have already heard all about it. Many times. I understand what is ‘claimed’ well enough. Thank you for using that terminology though, ‘claimed’ and ‘supported’ i.e. not proven as fact.

That isn’t true though, anybody with an internet search engine can easily find several decades worth of newspaper articles quoting the ‘experts’ themselves, scientists at top universities and all of their failed eco-apocalyptic prophecies, dating back to when the movement referred to it as ‘global cooling’. Al Gore is far from the only false prophet of the movement.
A confirmation bias does not mean you understand the basics.
I used to be sceptical about AGW until it was pointed out to me, the paradoxical cooling of the lower stratosphere is the strongest evidence for AGW and serves to differentiate from "natural" warming such as changes in solar radiation or Milankovitch cycles.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: eclipsenow
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
A confirmation bias does not mean you understand the basics.
I used to be sceptical about AGW until it was pointed out to me, the paradoxical cooling of the lower stratosphere is the strongest evidence for AGW and serves to differentiate from "natural" warming such as changes in solar radiation or Milankovitch cycles.
I never liked Al Gore and found him to a terrible politician. Not as bad as Donald Trump, but he had the same sort of underserved superiority complex. So when he supported AGW, I was against it. And he made it rather easy to refute. If you were refuting his claims. But when I debated it on science based sites I found that my sources tended to make the error of referring to local climate and trying to extrapolate to the world as a whole. They always had the better evidence. And then when I realized that one of the stars of the anti-AGW debate were using the same tactics as creationists I knew that I was wrong. Why would one find it necessary to lie if one was right?
 
Upvote 0

Captain Ahab

Active Member
Aug 7, 2020
93
126
Southeast
✟6,976.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Something as basic as what the IPCC said about sea level rise in 1990 when you've been caught out spreading misinformation about it 32 years later?


Yes - your post here show a wealth of information on sea-level rise - including who said what, when, and all so carefully documented and verified with credible source documentation! :oldthumbsup: :doh: :oldthumbsup: :doh: :oldthumbsup:


Of course! That's why it was so effortless for you to find your source materials and show how the peer-reviewed science stuffed up their earlier sea-level rise claims, not just parrot empty assertions they stuffed it up. :oldthumbsup: :doh: :oldthumbsup: :doh: :oldthumbsup:


More mere assertions. Where's your evidence? When you can be bothered to do your own homework, then we'll have a discussion.

So many emojis, all that bold print. Way too emotional. I didn’t spread any misinformation. I simply relayed some of the misinformation that was spread to me haha. Honestly, respectfully, you’re getting way too triggered and worked up over this. Take it easy. I did say ‘anyone with a search engine’. Seems you’re the one who doesn’t want to do the homework and demand to be spoon fed. Which explains your devotion and emotional investment in the official narrative. Can’t be bothered to do any independent research, or seek out any sources on your own that cast doubt on the authorized narrative, just unquestioningly accept the BigBro@NannyState.gov certified, biased mainstream media approved dogmas.

Honestly, I don’t want to waste my time..or yours for that matter, you’re obviously dead set on this topic and like I say anybody with a search engine can see for themselves what I mentioned, many false eco-apocalyptic prophecies. Just have to venture outside the confirmation bias and echo chambers of impending eminent catastrophe a little bit is all.

To be clear, I don’t care to attempt to convince you of anything, and you’re definitely not going to convince me of anything, can we just respectfully agree to disagree because I can’t keep coming back here all the time and responding, no need to drag this on. Don’t have the time. And truthfully, it seems many folks I am acquainted with on your side of this spend too much time on the computer and in front of the TV in my humble opinion, consuming too much of this eco-apocalyptic fearp*rn. Now just think of all those emissions that could be eliminated if you all would shut em off for a while, ya know? In fact if it makes you feel better, let’s just say you’re 100% correct. I’m 100% wrong. Oh, and it was the bad orange scary mean man and his red hats who taught me to be a ‘climate denier’ too. And Alex Jones of course, and Boogieman Tucker also. In no way had it anything to do with my own observations and conclusions. Absolutely none! There’s definitely dangerous sea level rising for certain, and may science have mercy on all those brand new multimillion dollar ‘developments’ being built up on the shores of the beaches I can no longer visit. I’m sure they’ll be very green friendly though. I repent. And will turn to CNN and holy peer reviews for wisdom, and am willing to shell out boo koo bucks for rising tax and inflation rates for my atonement! Greta have mercy on me, a climate denier! How dare me! In AOC’s name amen!
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
So many emojis, all that bold print. Way too emotional. I didn’t spread any misinformation. I simply relayed some of the misinformation that was spread to me haha. Honestly, respectfully, you’re getting way too triggered and worked up over this. Take it easy. I did say ‘anyone with a search engine’. Seems you’re the one who doesn’t want to do the homework and demand to be spoon fed. Which explains your devotion and emotional investment in the official narrative. Can’t be bothered to do any independent research, or seek out any sources on your own that cast doubt on the authorized narrative, just unquestioningly accept the BigBro@NannyState.gov certified, biased mainstream media approved dogmas.

Honestly, I don’t want to waste my time..or yours for that matter, you’re obviously dead set on this topic and like I say anybody with a search engine can see for themselves what I mentioned, many false eco-apocalyptic prophecies. Just have to venture outside the confirmation bias and echo chambers of impending eminent catastrophe a little bit is all.

To be clear, I don’t care to attempt to convince you of anything, and you’re definitely not going to convince me of anything, can we just respectfully agree to disagree because I can’t keep coming back here all the time and responding, no need to drag this on. Don’t have the time. And truthfully, it seems many folks I am acquainted with on your side of this spend too much time on the computer and in front of the TV in my humble opinion, consuming too much of this eco-apocalyptic fearp*rn. Now just think of all those emissions that could be eliminated if you all would shut em off for a while, ya know? In fact if it makes you feel better, let’s just say you’re 100% correct. I’m 100% wrong. Oh, and it was the bad orange scary mean man and his red hats who taught me to be a ‘climate denier’ too. And Alex Jones of course, and Boogieman Tucker also. In no way had it anything to do with my own observations and conclusions. Absolutely none! There’s definitely dangerous sea level rising for certain, and may science have mercy on all those brand new multimillion dollar ‘developments’ being built up on the shores of the beaches I can no longer visit. I’m sure they’ll be very green friendly though. I repent. And will turn to CNN and holy peer reviews for wisdom, and am willing to shell out boo koo bucks for rising tax and inflation rates for my atonement! Greta have mercy on me, a climate denier! How dare me! In AOC’s name amen!
I thought that you claimed to be a Christian? You appear to be putting yourself first instead of your fellow man. Now if AGW was a hoax and you could prove it you might have a proper attitude. But you appear to be totally incapable of defending your position.

As Jesus taught you: "Love your neighbor as yourself". If you are putting your neighbors at risk (and he did not mean just your next door neighbors) you have a duty to try to abate that risk. This is why you should try to learn at least the basics instead of listening to deniers of science.
 
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
So many emojis, all that bold print. Way too emotional. I didn’t spread any misinformation. I simply relayed some of the misinformation that was spread to me haha.
Fine - if you're now conceding the actual climate science never said anything other than the 1990 IPCC report originally did - we're on the same page then.

Honestly, respectfully, you’re getting way too triggered and worked up over this. Take it easy.
That's just my communication style - imagine I criticised you for your grammar or condescending language choice?

Really - I've met literally hundreds of deniers like yourself that can't actually demonstrate why you're saying the things you're saying - you just heard it somewhere. This somewhere is a magical place where magical thinking happens and no one takes responsibility for what everyone is saying or 'knows' to be true. :wave: So having met hundreds of your sort - I'm hardly emotional or surprised. Dismissing your untrue assertions was easy - trite even. I just happen to like emoticons. So sue me.

I did say ‘anyone with a search engine’. Seems you’re the one who doesn’t want to do the homework and demand to be spoon fed. Which explains your devotion and emotional investment in the official narrative. Can’t be bothered to do any independent research, or seek out any sources on your own that cast doubt on the authorized narrative, just unquestioningly accept the BigBro@NannyState.gov certified, biased mainstream media approved dogmas.
Once again...more mere assertions. Where's your evidence? When you can be bothered to do your own homework, then we'll have a discussion.

Honestly, I don’t want to waste my time..or yours for that matter, you’re obviously dead set on this topic and like I say anybody with a search engine can see for themselves what I mentioned, many false eco-apocalyptic prophecies.
If you're talking eco-apocalyptic prophecies, you might be unknowingly cheating.
You might be broadening this to a whole range of other eco-apocalypse conversations and predictions, some of whom I have been actively fighting myself! In other words, if you could be bothered being specific in your thinking and adult in your referencing, I might even agree with you! EG: I agree with many of the sustainability questions that Paul Ehrlich and the Club of Rome guys raised - including their emphasis on us learning how to do exponential thinking. But I have disagreed with many of their rather doomer conclusions.

But that's not climate science is it? Climate science is about the climate. See? But if you want to lump in pollution, toxins, overpopulation, or other predictions from 'those environmentalists' then you might not even be debating climate science - do you agree? Try not to paint the Mona Lisa with such broad brushstrokes that you may as well be using a roller.

Just have to venture outside the confirmation bias and echo chambers of impending eminent catastrophe a little bit is all.
Again, if you could bother to be specific and clear and quote a particular, specific prophecy of doom, I might even agree with you that they got it wrong.

But right now, I'm just glad to have you at least admit you were misinformed about what climate science has ALWAYS SAID about sea level rise - at least in the near third of a century since the original IPCC report! Which you could have read all along - before asserting your 'misinformation' above.

eco-apocalyptic fearp*rn.
Nice - and you accuse me of getting emotional because I use a few emoticons!

Again, when you can be responsible for your own statements, calm down, slow down in your thinking and give specific examples with specific references, we'll have a chat. Until then, please stop using inflammatory language like the example above.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
... I understand what is ‘claimed’ well enough. Thank you for using that terminology though, ‘claimed’ and ‘supported’ i.e. not proven as fact.
In science, the facts are what is observed. Explanations for those facts are always provisional, never proven (though they're often beyond reasonable doubt).

That isn’t true though, anybody with an internet search engine can easily find several decades worth of newspaper articles quoting the ‘experts’ themselves, scientists at top universities and all of their failed eco-apocalyptic prophecies, dating back to when the movement referred to it as ‘global cooling’. Al Gore is far from the only false prophet of the movement.
Vested interests & sponsorships apart, newspapers and the rest of the popular media want to dramatise events and discoveries to maximize readership (clicks, ads, purchases, etc.), so they'll distort, exaggerate, select fringe opinion, quote-mine, and plain fabricate to get exciting headlines & articles.

If you want to know what the science is, read the peer-reviewed papers in respected journals.
 
Last edited:
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

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,411
15,559
Colorado
✟427,916.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Science meets political spin & popular culture: who has seen "Don't look up!"?
Definitely more fun than the low-bar mediocre reviews would lead me to believe.

It rambles and is too long. But there's lots of funny on point skewering of contemporary political & social-media culture.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,169
US
✟1,440,830.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The movie was sorta about climate change, but not by any means specifically about climate change. I took it to be just as applicable to the national reaction to covid-19.

The sharp point in the movie is that even if the threat were real and clearly visible--Just look up and see the danged thing with your own eyes!--politicians and the media would suppress the magnitude, people would attempt to deny it, and if there is any money to be made out of it, they'll try to make that money. Even worse, notice that the people chosen to survive were the fat, saggy, wealthy elite. Even at the last, they were too much more concerned about their own welfare to select the young and healthy to replenish humanity.

I'd characterize it as "Dr Strangelove" for Millennials...the government playing politics too fast and loose with any genuine threat. In today's political and social landscape, what threat could there possibly be that would not be met exactly as this movie depicts it.

The movie could be considered a failure only because it attempts to be satire...but it's impossible to satirize what is already absurd.

But the kid did give a really nice prayer at that "last supper."
 
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 movie was sorta about climate change, but not by any means specifically about climate change. I took it to be just as applicable to the national reaction to covid-19.

So they wrote the script about climate change, and THEN a far more immediate and pressing scientific concern hit America - Covid. They couldn't believe the parallels with anti-science memes going around, and had to rewrite some of the script. They didn't spell it out - but remember how Trumpists were standing around yelling at reporters to "Take it off! Take it off!" because they were offended by the guy wearing a mask?! I'm wondering if that's where the "Don't look up" campaign came from?

The sharp point in the movie is that even if the threat were real and clearly visible--Just look up and see the danged thing with your own eyes!--politicians and the media would suppress the magnitude, people would attempt to deny it, and if there is any money to be made out of it, they'll try to make that money.
Exactly. According to this boring thing called 'science' (to many people today apparently), we can't even burn the remaining oil, let alone all the gas and coal. But what do our global governments subsidize to the tune of about half a TRILLION dollars a year? Yup - fossil fuels.

Governments even help subsidise exploration for more oil.

It's just like the movie, where the President sides with BASH to go get some more money.


The movie could be considered a failure only because it attempts to be satire...but it's impossible to satirize what is already absurd.
The effect on the young adults I know was profound.
They were laughing - but also utterly traumatised because it's all so real to them.
Oh to have the self-delusional capacities of some boomer oil-tycoon that's convinced themselves it's all some kind of lefty-hoax! I sometimes wish I could go there....
 
Upvote 0

Captain Ahab

Active Member
Aug 7, 2020
93
126
Southeast
✟6,976.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Fine - if you're now conceding the actual climate science never said anything other than the 1990 IPCC report originally did - we're on the same page then.


That's just my communication style - imagine I criticised you for your grammar or condescending language choice?

Really - I've met literally hundreds of deniers like yourself that can't actually demonstrate why you're saying the things you're saying - you just heard it somewhere. This somewhere is a magical place where magical thinking happens and no one takes responsibility for what everyone is saying or 'knows' to be true. :wave: So having met hundreds of your sort - I'm hardly emotional or surprised. Dismissing your untrue assertions was easy - trite even. I just happen to like emoticons. So sue me.


Once again...more mere assertions. Where's your evidence? When you can be bothered to do your own homework, then we'll have a discussion.


If you're talking eco-apocalyptic prophecies, you might be unknowingly cheating.
You might be broadening this to a whole range of other eco-apocalypse conversations and predictions, some of whom I have been actively fighting myself! In other words, if you could be bothered being specific in your thinking and adult in your referencing, I might even agree with you! EG: I agree with many of the sustainability questions that Paul Ehrlich and the Club of Rome guys raised - including their emphasis on us learning how to do exponential thinking. But I have disagreed with many of their rather doomer conclusions.

But that's not climate science is it? Climate science is about the climate. See? But if you want to lump in pollution, toxins, overpopulation, or other predictions from 'those environmentalists' then you might not even be debating climate science - do you agree? Try not to paint the Mona Lisa with such broad brushstrokes that you may as well be using a roller.


Again, if you could bother to be specific and clear and quote a particular, specific prophecy of doom, I might even agree with you that they got it wrong.

But right now, I'm just glad to have you at least admit you were misinformed about what climate science has ALWAYS SAID about sea level rise - at least in the near third of a century since the original IPCC report! Which you could have read all along - before asserting your 'misinformation' above.


Nice - and you accuse me of getting emotional because I use a few emoticons!

Again, when you can be responsible for your own statements, calm down, slow down in your thinking and give specific examples with specific references, we'll have a chat. Until then, please stop using inflammatory language like the example above.

Respectfully, you’re way too emotional over this and I apologize, it really wasn’t my intention to get anyone so worked up. However, it is quite telling. You mention me repeating something I’ve heard somewhere, when that’s exactly what you are doing too. You’re just angry that what I am repeating doesn’t align with your narrative. I am just repeating the fearmongering propagandas and false prophecies made in the name of ‘global cooling’, ‘global warming’, ‘climate change‘ and ‘climate crisis’. Then you scoot the goalpost on wheels back and claim ‘that’s not climate science’ and continually refer to some claims made over 30 years ago by an organization that has been recently called out by another organization for misleading policy makers with skewed information. Clintel letter to world leaders: serious misrepresentations in latest IPCC report - Clintel

Maybe I’m not the one who is being misinformed here, could easily be you based on that link above. Or are those experts not experty enough? That organization is made up of over 900 experienced climate scientists, is that enough peers to be considered ‘peer reviewed’ and their work ‘actual climate science’? Or is biased mainstream media endorsement required? I don’t claim to be any ‘climate expert’ and neither are you. You’re only going by what you are told. In regards to all this, I don’t trust either the IPCC or the CLINTEL. Simply because I don’t KNOW if either is accurate in their claims. But I do know many ecopocalyptic prophecies being made in the name of global cooling/warming, climate change/crisis that have PROVEN to be false. Then you move the goalposts and accuse me or ‘lumping things together’. No, the false prophecies I am referring to were made directly in the name of the global cooling/warming, climate change/crisis movement.

Do you really believe it is unreasonable to conclude this whole global cooling/warming, climate change/crisis movement is not credible due to the easily provable fact that many false ecopocalyptic prophecies have been made in its name? Are you denying that false prophecies have been made in its name? You’re a Christian, yes? Whom is the author of confusion? Is a spirit of fear from God? Maldives still isn’t underwater, the arctic didn’t become ice free by either 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, or 2018 as those goalposts kept moving, the neo ice age has yet to come, the rising seas failed to ‘obliterate nations’ by the year 2000, the NY Westside highway was supposed to be underwater by 2019 yet still high and dry, Britain was supposed to have a ‘Siberian climate’ by 2020 yet not the case. And it goes on and on and on. All those false ecopocalyptic prophecies are documented for anyone willing to venture outside the echo chambers of political ‘correctness’.

My apologies for even commenting to begin with, but then again, when something isn’t allowed to be disagreed with, that isn’t good either. That appears to be the case with this subject, and that alone makes it more suspect. You don’t understand, I don’t want to chat about this anymore, don’t want to argue, don’t have the time to keep coming back here to entertain all these comments coming at me all at once here. It’s beautiful weather outside and depending on which fearmongering talkinghead we only have 12, 10, 9, 8, 5 years left before catastrophe strikes, may as well enjoy it while we can.

Sorry if I come off a certain way. I am all for being a good steward and such but so many of the public figures I see pushing this movement they aren’t practicing what they preach with their big energy sucking seaside mansions, private jets, fuel guzzling exotic car collections, fraudulent PR stunts, and all. And how convenient the only ‘solutions’ are to go for the wallets of the common everyday working taxpayer. I do not support this movement, way too many false prophecies..you’re not going to get me onboard with the authorized narrative so can we please just agree to end this as amicably as possible right now?

Again I apologize and don’t wish to argue. You just have to learn to accept that not everyone shares your worldview, and they have their reasons. I’m just the sort of person that when I see claims being made with fearmongering and impending disaster being thrown in the mix, along with calls for further restricting and financially burdening the average everyday Joe, and dozens of false prophecies made on behalf of such a movement spanning multiple decades, I cannot get on board. You accuse me of not being clear, I really don’t see how I can make it much clearer. In other words, all it takes is one piece of feces in the punch bowl, I’m not going to drink from it. Take care and God bless, sincerely.
 
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
You mention me repeating something I’ve heard somewhere, when that’s exactly what you are doing too.
Nah - you're repeating fallacious urban myths - I'm going to the credible sources.

I was a climate denier once. I read a denier book back in the late 1980's. But a few decades on and I decided to check the things I had been parroting. I found half the book had straw-manned climate science, and half had outright lied. If a sceptic has a genuine question they'll ask that question, and go on a hunt for the truth. What do the deniers say? What do the actual climatologists? What do you learn from forums, and from the history of climate science? Who has said what? How did the peer-reviewed climate scientists respond? Only 1% of actual, qualified climatologists are contrarians - and we know their names. To the Denier movement these people are poster boys (and one girl I think) - but their arguments have been responded to and laughed at for *decades*. People like Richard Lindzen and his denier mates.

If you are truly sceptical - and not just operating on political presuppositions - you will be open to real data and logical arguments. I submit that if you don't have actual expertise in an area - you should listen to the 99% of the people who DO. But it's more than that. I can list hundreds of outright LIES that the deniers quote - and they've been known to be wrong for decades - and yet people keep quoting them because they have confirmation bias and want to keep on living the way they always have. They don't want a big cause to get in the way of a comfortable life. They're the kind that would probably say the whole pre-American civil war slavery debate was too hard - who is to know? It's not a bad comparison. Climate change is going to hurt the poor continents of the world first. This is real. The atmospheric physics is getting clearer and clearer - and the various computer simulations of real world data are now - decades on - being shown to be fantastically accurate. And Africa and Bangladesh and other poorer places are going to be hurt so much worse than us. But eventually, if we don't take action now, it will hurt us all. Our environments, our croplands, our economies, our lifestyles, and people we love in ever increasing droughts and famines, and floods and mayhem.

PS: Meet the founder of CLINTEL and tell me if he's a climatologist. ;-) "Augustinus Johannes "Guus" Berkhout (born 1940) is a Dutch engineer who has worked for the oil and gas industry"
Guus Berkhout - Wikipedia

Your false predictions paragraph was fantasy - just not based in reality. EG: "They said there was going to be an ice age!" People remember media hype, not the state of the actual science. The science was that the majority of papers predicted warming. Indeed, the warming power of CO2 was confirmed by Eunice Foote in 1856. Only 10% of papers in the 1970's predicted cooling, and of them, lead authors soon retracted their work.
What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

Indeed, so many predicted warming that movies in the poplar culture like Soylent Green showed global warming. The Bell Telephone company predicted catastrophic warming way back in 1958!

The models are clear. This is going to hurt Africa the most, and other low lying pacific nations are already feeling the effects of the very small amount of sea level rise - entirely as predicted (and don't bother repeating your misinformation that they were going to be WIPED OUT by now unless you have a source.) I'm urging you to investigate your political biases against this very real part of science, and to try to come to some sort of acknowledgement of reality and integrate it into your faith. This is too serious. You do not want to be on the wrong side of this.

Have you heard of Katharine Hayhoe?
She's an Evangelical, bible believing Christian - and married to a pastor. She is also an actual climatologist. Here she is responding to "Climate change can't be happening because God's in control, right?"

Also great is this Undeceptions Apologetics podcast with my friend Dr John Dickson. (We do some work for him now and then.) He's awesome and interviews Katharine and asks some of the hard questions, like how do we REALLY know?
Good Earth - Undeceptions
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Respectfully, you’re way too emotional over this and I apologize, it really wasn’t my intention to get anyone so worked up. However, it is quite telling. You mention me repeating something I’ve heard somewhere, when that’s exactly what you are doing too. You’re just angry that what I am repeating doesn’t align with your narrative. I am just repeating the fearmongering propagandas and false prophecies made in the name of ‘global cooling’, ‘global warming’, ‘climate change‘ and ‘climate crisis’. Then you scoot the goalpost on wheels back and claim ‘that’s not climate science’ and continually refer to some claims made over 30 years ago by an organization that has been recently called out by another organization for misleading policy makers with skewed information. Clintel letter to world leaders: serious misrepresentations in latest IPCC report - Clintel

Maybe I’m not the one who is being misinformed here, could easily be you based on that link above. Or are those experts not experty enough? That organization is made up of over 900 experienced climate scientists, is that enough peers to be considered ‘peer reviewed’ and their work ‘actual climate science’? Or is biased mainstream media endorsement required? I don’t claim to be any ‘climate expert’ and neither are you. You’re only going by what you are told. In regards to all this, I don’t trust either the IPCC or the CLINTEL. Simply because I don’t KNOW if either is accurate in their claims. But I do know many ecopocalyptic prophecies being made in the name of global cooling/warming, climate change/crisis that have PROVEN to be false. Then you move the goalposts and accuse me or ‘lumping things together’. No, the false prophecies I am referring to were made directly in the name of the global cooling/warming, climate change/crisis movement.

Do you really believe it is unreasonable to conclude this whole global cooling/warming, climate change/crisis movement is not credible due to the easily provable fact that many false ecopocalyptic prophecies have been made in its name? Are you denying that false prophecies have been made in its name? You’re a Christian, yes? Whom is the author of confusion? Is a spirit of fear from God? Maldives still isn’t underwater, the arctic didn’t become ice free by either 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, or 2018 as those goalposts kept moving, the neo ice age has yet to come, the rising seas failed to ‘obliterate nations’ by the year 2000, the NY Westside highway was supposed to be underwater by 2019 yet still high and dry, Britain was supposed to have a ‘Siberian climate’ by 2020 yet not the case. And it goes on and on and on. All those false ecopocalyptic prophecies are documented for anyone willing to venture outside the echo chambers of political ‘correctness’.

My apologies for even commenting to begin with, but then again, when something isn’t allowed to be disagreed with, that isn’t good either. That appears to be the case with this subject, and that alone makes it more suspect. You don’t understand, I don’t want to chat about this anymore, don’t want to argue, don’t have the time to keep coming back here to entertain all these comments coming at me all at once here. It’s beautiful weather outside and depending on which fearmongering talkinghead we only have 12, 10, 9, 8, 5 years left before catastrophe strikes, may as well enjoy it while we can.

Sorry if I come off a certain way. I am all for being a good steward and such but so many of the public figures I see pushing this movement they aren’t practicing what they preach with their big energy sucking seaside mansions, private jets, fuel guzzling exotic car collections, fraudulent PR stunts, and all. And how convenient the only ‘solutions’ are to go for the wallets of the common everyday working taxpayer. I do not support this movement, way too many false prophecies..you’re not going to get me onboard with the authorized narrative so can we please just agree to end this as amicably as possible right now?

Again I apologize and don’t wish to argue. You just have to learn to accept that not everyone shares your worldview, and they have their reasons. I’m just the sort of person that when I see claims being made with fearmongering and impending disaster being thrown in the mix, along with calls for further restricting and financially burdening the average everyday Joe, and dozens of false prophecies made on behalf of such a movement spanning multiple decades, I cannot get on board. You accuse me of not being clear, I really don’t see how I can make it much clearer. In other words, all it takes is one piece of feces in the punch bowl, I’m not going to drink from it. Take care and God bless, sincerely.


There is no point in claiming to make accurate climate predictions. Nobody ever has.
Logically the earth is going to warm and logically, it will handle it.
Logically, people are not going to give up ease or comfort based on predictions.
So we have to deal.
 
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
There is no point in claiming to make accurate climate predictions. Nobody ever has.
Weather is hard to predict.
Climate - being temperature averages across decades - not so hard. Especially when Eunice Foote isolated CO2 as a primary driver 166 years ago.

Check this 10 minute video.
It's a bit old - from 2009 - but it really is good.
It compares the earlier model predictions with what actually happened.

 
Upvote 0

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
6,721
4,888
69
Midwest
✟278,877.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The sharp point in the movie is that even if the threat were real and clearly visible--Just look up and see the danged thing with your own eyes!--politicians and the media would suppress the magnitude, people would attempt to deny it, and if there is any money to be made out of it, they'll try to make that money.
And that is the world we live in.
 
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

Captain Ahab

Active Member
Aug 7, 2020
93
126
Southeast
✟6,976.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Nah - you're repeating fallacious urban myths - I'm going to the credible sources.

I was a climate denier once. I read a denier book back in the late 1980's. But a few decades on and I decided to check the things I had been parroting. I found half the book had straw-manned climate science, and half had outright lied. If a sceptic has a genuine question they'll ask that question, and go on a hunt for the truth. What do the deniers say? What do the actual climatologists? What do you learn from forums, and from the history of climate science? Who has said what? How did the peer-reviewed climate scientists respond? Only 1% of actual, qualified climatologists are contrarians - and we know their names. To the Denier movement these people are poster boys (and one girl I think) - but their arguments have been responded to and laughed at for *decades*. People like Richard Lindzen and his denier mates.

If you are truly sceptical - and not just operating on political presuppositions - you will be open to real data and logical arguments. I submit that if you don't have actual expertise in an area - you should listen to the 99% of the people who DO. But it's more than that. I can list hundreds of outright LIES that the deniers quote - and they've been known to be wrong for decades - and yet people keep quoting them because they have confirmation bias and want to keep on living the way they always have. They don't want a big cause to get in the way of a comfortable life. They're the kind that would probably say the whole pre-American civil war slavery debate was too hard - who is to know? It's not a bad comparison. Climate change is going to hurt the poor continents of the world first. This is real. The atmospheric physics is getting clearer and clearer - and the various computer simulations of real world data are now - decades on - being shown to be fantastically accurate. And Africa and Bangladesh and other poorer places are going to be hurt so much worse than us. But eventually, if we don't take action now, it will hurt us all. Our environments, our croplands, our economies, our lifestyles, and people we love in ever increasing droughts and famines, and floods and mayhem.

PS: Meet the founder of CLINTEL and tell me if he's a climatologist. ;-) "Augustinus Johannes "Guus" Berkhout (born 1940) is a Dutch engineer who has worked for the oil and gas industry"
Guus Berkhout - Wikipedia

Your false predictions paragraph was fantasy - just not based in reality. EG: "They said there was going to be an ice age!" People remember media hype, not the state of the actual science. The science was that the majority of papers predicted warming. Indeed, the warming power of CO2 was confirmed by Eunice Foote in 1856. Only 10% of papers in the 1970's predicted cooling, and of them, lead authors soon retracted their work.
What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

Indeed, so many predicted warming that movies in the poplar culture like Soylent Green showed global warming. The Bell Telephone company predicted catastrophic warming way back in 1958!

The models are clear. This is going to hurt Africa the most, and other low lying pacific nations are already feeling the effects of the very small amount of sea level rise - entirely as predicted (and don't bother repeating your misinformation that they were going to be WIPED OUT by now unless you have a source.) I'm urging you to investigate your political biases against this very real part of science, and to try to come to some sort of acknowledgement of reality and integrate it into your faith. This is too serious. You do not want to be on the wrong side of this.

Have you heard of Katharine Hayhoe?
She's an Evangelical, bible believing Christian - and married to a pastor. She is also an actual climatologist. Here she is responding to "Climate change can't be happening because God's in control, right?"

Also great is this Undeceptions Apologetics podcast with my friend Dr John Dickson. (We do some work for him now and then.) He's awesome and interviews Katharine and asks some of the hard questions, like how do we REALLY know?
Good Earth - Undeceptions


LOL, again, I’m only repeating what the ‘credible experts’ on your side have been telling the public for the past 50 years. You act like I’m just making these false ecopocalyptic prophecies up. They’re all documented. You act like there isn’t access to the newspaper articles online. They’re there. You’re going to sources you ‘feel‘ (rather than know) are credible like IPCC, and it’s funny how you seem to mention only the founder of CLINTEL, while ignoring the fact that the organization consists of nearly 1,000 experienced climate scientists. But you’d surely claim they aren’t ‘qualified’ and likely because they aren’t being advocated by biased mainstream media and their shills. They’re an independent organization and not Big Bro/Big Media certified. Guess that alone disqualifies them.

But if you’re such a stalwart of credible sources, perhaps you can do better than Wikipedia, and YouTube, which aren’t exactly the most reliable. Anyone can post anything on either one of those sites. You even go so far as to cite fictional Hollywood movies to back your position. So honestly you’re not really in a position to criticize anyone’s sources.

I am not just skeptical, I think it’s all a load of road apples, but maybe you missed the part earlier where I made it clear I don’t follow any of these political ideologies..they are tremendous failures full of liars. Sorry to disappoint you but no I don’t watch FOX, don’t own any MAGA hats or apparel, I’m not even a registered voter. So what were you saying about bias? Pigeonholing? LOL. Left wing, right wing, in the end, all part of the same chicken.

So you’re basically saying I should just not ever think for myself or come to my own conclusions, and blindly follow the majority of ‘experts’ (so-called), and just ignore all the false ecopocalyptic prophecies made by the forefathers of today’s ‘experts’ in the name of the movement. This sort of sentiment is why the Jonestown Massacre was a thing. Just follow the herd, like a good sheep.

I guess you could say though, that there will be a global warming catastrophe some day. I just don’t buy into the world’s version. The real thing though, well the alphabet soups models will not be able to forecast it, no amount of nanny state authoritarianism, financial bilking, and virtue signaling can thwart it, and their cause will ultimately be in vain.

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 2 Peter 3:10-13.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0