S
StAnastasia
Guest
Rephrase in English, please Kimmielittle.
Major scandal; Now proven that the entire global warming threat is based on fabricated data
- Status
S
StAnastasia
Guest
CJFrancis, I find that global warming deniers are frequently also evolution deniers. The Internet is their best forum, as here they can rant unencumbered by the work of actual evolutionary biologists or climate scientists.
StAnastasia
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Sorry, I’m doing a bunch of threads on abortion and health Care.
I’m asking if what UN purposes will stop climate change, in your opinion
ps already the UN conference has been politicized / falling apart…read below in one of my posts
D
Don_L
Guest
Wouldn’t it be easier to just say they are backwards hicks who cling to God guns and religion.
It is amazing that when the left gets caught cheating and lying, their defaualt is to always attack and belittle the messenger instead of adimitting they’ve been wrong. Nice try.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
No, that would be an ad homimen attack. I’m more interested in exploring the social factors underlying the connection between evolution denial and global warming denial. Why are these two frequently linked? What issues are involved? What presuppositions might impel it?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Your phrase “UN purposes” is what I’m having trouble with. One purpose of the UN is to provide a forum for the discussion of issues with regional or global implications. I don’t think the purpose of the UN is to stop global climate change, if that is what you mean. Maybe that’s not what you meant.
D
Don_L
Guest
It smells like guilt by association to me - I’ve heard it too many times before. Scientific inquiry is always a good cover for other things. Notice the AGW people - they have no intention of finding any truth that disagrees with their preconceived hoax.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Ya know…I’ve also noticed that some…don’t go to threads that promote religion…or other life…like anti-abortion threads. Maybe, if they took part in those I’d listen to some of their other ideas. Even to a kid, it seems like a bit shallow on their parts
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Your referring to it as a “preconceived hoax” sounds like a preconception that would blind you to any facts in support of AGW.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
I, like many, went in search for answers to questions to AGW. It was the AGW movement that made me say something isn’t adding up. First I found Mr. Gores Lies that are taught in school…and then it was down hill…
B
Barry_Gabriel
Guest
You say you find that “global warming deniers are frequently also evolution deniers”. On what do you base that statement? What does one have to do with the other? It must be nice to smear someone with an attempted slur rather than dp the checking. I know many scientists who do not believe in global warming, and some if not most of them are atheists. Their response when questioned about global warming is that “You can’t establish a theory of warming on only 150 years worth of data”. BTW, I have no problem with evolution. However, I do need valid proof that global warming is actually happening. So far, nothing. Dendrochronology indicates that we are not going into a warming phase, but coming out of a cooling phase. This is based on solid (literally) evidence from thousands of years. As far as CO2 is concerned, don’t we need that for trees and other vegetation so the plants can make oxygen?
J
Jimzz12
Guest
Nevermind the poltics of the secular and God denying world, I have this little ditty of a book published by the Maryknolls that embraces liberation theology through the mode of ecology. This is enough to show us how much of an albatross the environmental theories have become. The book was published circa 1989.
I’ve approached the whole concept of being green with a great deal of caution over the last, say, 20 years since we were all told to love the earth. If I remember correctly it came on with such vigor and force that even for a 10 year old I could clearly discern something amiss was at work. Yerra, with this said it is important to remember that we do have a certain responsiblity to ‘keep the garden’ as this was the first commandment. When it comes to chopping down a tree, I always stop and ask myself if it is the right thing to do. If the tree really needs to come down, let us say, it is blocking sunlight to a garden or it has begun to shade the southern winter sun exposure to my house (thereby increasing my heating fuel consumption) then the tree should indeed come down. If the tree presents no real interference with the required task of the land, then the tree can stay. And, as always I can hold that tree in reserve letting it grow larger so that someday it might be felled for cordwood.
Clearly there are some environmental issues that need addressing. Hadn’t there been fuel for the fire, the issue never would have caught aflame. I remember when the Boston Harbour was an absolute filthy mess and we have improved the quality of our breathing air markedly.
The danger is in the ravenous approach used by certain groups in promoting the agenda. There is some real money to be made. Con men are around every corner. It is plausible that certain men of popular regard stand to make a great deal of money for speaking arrangments. But perhaps a greater danger is that we do have a president that wrote a paper several years ago on how using the issue of ecology to push social reform not as an ends for improved ecology but only as a catalyst in the equation. This reminds me quite remarkedly of the liberation theologists.
The discovery of certain cover-ups should not be and is to be of no suprise. Human frailty is at work. Forgive them and try to wrap your head around what perhaps their postive intentions might have been. In the meantime we really should continue to recycle, not litter, not vandalize, and treat our natural surroundings with a proper deserving Christian of respect of Our Father’s Creation. It is afterall a sin to strew garbage about and dump oil in a river and kill squirrels just for fun.
+++
C
Callin
Guest
You know, in all these threads, I’m STILL waiting for some pro-AGW person to explain the number-fudging happening in these programs and data that have been leaked. I was on the fence until I saw them with my own eyes, leaked from one of the institutions responsible for the three main global temperature datasets.
But apparently now I’m being lumped in with people who deny evolution and being labeled a “skeptic”. But I think I’d rather be one, since the opposite of skepticism is gullibility.
D
Don_L
Guest
Facts? To loosely quote CS Lewis “Satan uses a pint of poison in a lake of clear (facts) water.”
It’s not the “facts” as much as the fact of who’s determining things as facts and the asinine conclusions they draw from them, such as Al Gore stand in front of a calving glacier (which only calve when excess cold causes freezing weight which then pushes them outwards into the sea where they break off in brittle chunks and become icebergs) and he calls that melting. Melting glaciers recede not calve. My fourth grade kids are intellegent enough to laugh at that ignorant hoax.
How come none of those AGW expert scientists didn’t catch that little deception?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
That’s what I’m curious about.
E
Ender
Guest
One of the things this episode points out is the speed with which the global warming position is unraveling. Given that over 230 APS members have already signed the petition, the myth of scientific consensus will surely be one of the first dominoes to fall. We’ve all heard about tipping points in regard to the climate, well we have now seen one with regard to climate theory.
Ender
K
kimmielittle
Guest
K
kimmielittle
Guest
C
CJFrancis
Guest
Jimxx12 is concerned about the amount of money that people will make from fighting global warming. I’m guessing he is talking about companies that make solar panels, windmills, etc. Also, public transportation providers and advertising companies that will show us ways to car pool, etc.
I’m more concerned about the trillions of dollars that go to foreign dictators and oil companies. Does anyone remember the ESSO oil tanker spill? That kind of thing goes on frequently in developing countries.
The Kyoto protocol included money from developed countries going to developing countries to help them use new energy sources and cope with climate change. Droughts hit us hard - imagine how hard they are for people who barely have enough to eat when times are good!
The fact is that most people don’t like change, so our natural instinct is to oppose a viewpoint that tells us that we should change. So, even though we know that reducing pollution, including greenhouse gasses, is a good thing, we are concerned about having to change.
Doing the right thing isn’t always easy. However, God loves His Creation and we have to respect and look after it.
Smokers with integrity listened to the majority of scientists who said that smoking and second-hand smoke are killers. Smokers who didn’t want to change agreed with the scientists paid by the cigarette companies. Let’s do the right thing now and listen to the scientists who are collecting data and analysing it. Let’s not get distracted by the columnists and posters who are telling us to ignore the vast majority of the scientists.
I’m more concerned about the trillions of dollars that go to foreign dictators and oil companies. Does anyone remember the ESSO oil tanker spill? That kind of thing goes on frequently in developing countries.
The Kyoto protocol included money from developed countries going to developing countries to help them use new energy sources and cope with climate change. Droughts hit us hard - imagine how hard they are for people who barely have enough to eat when times are good!
The fact is that most people don’t like change, so our natural instinct is to oppose a viewpoint that tells us that we should change. So, even though we know that reducing pollution, including greenhouse gasses, is a good thing, we are concerned about having to change.
Doing the right thing isn’t always easy. However, God loves His Creation and we have to respect and look after it.
Smokers with integrity listened to the majority of scientists who said that smoking and second-hand smoke are killers. Smokers who didn’t want to change agreed with the scientists paid by the cigarette companies. Let’s do the right thing now and listen to the scientists who are collecting data and analysing it. Let’s not get distracted by the columnists and posters who are telling us to ignore the vast majority of the scientists.
E
Ender
Guest
This is not about whether the people who reject the scientific theory of AGW are reluctant to change, are concerned with the environment, or are working for an oil company. It is about whether their objections are valid. The science either does or does not confirm the theory and most people should be able to recognize that that fact is utterly disconnected from the personal integrity of the people who oppose the theory. You cannot defend a scientific claim by maligning those who reject it. In fact, resort to deprecation is a strong indicator that no better argument is available.
Ender
- Status