Maybe we don't have man made global warming after all! forums forums Politics and other things Maybe we don't have man made global warming after all!

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 50 total)
  • Author
  • #6437

    Fact is, one reason the left is so heavily invested in global warming/global cooling/climate change is because it is a religion in itself. They worship at the altar of mother earth, giving credit to creation and not a Creator.

    Their very terminology, i.e., ‘climate change deniers’ suggests that to challenge their ever-changing hypotheses is a sacrilege, as if being akin to something like Holocaust denial.

    But perhaps worst of all is that it never really was about climate, anyway. As Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, Bobby Kennedy Jr., and so many laughable leftist hypocrites have shown by spewing carbon in their jets, it’s more about controlling the behavior of others.

    Green is the new pink, with plenty of leftist radicals foaming at the mouth to change your life the way THEY see fit.



    The term “deniers” is used when people fail to present a rational case, yet continue to assert their policy preferences make sense.

    You are right about it being like holocaust denial. Irrational. Spot on, and bat shit nuts.

    You are also right about managing behavior.

    Science has brought us the understanding for engineers to build us a more diverse energy supply, and it’s one that does not do as much harm as fossil fuels continue to do.

    I hardly believe a creator would condone lies, misinformation, corruption, harm, death, and all that goes with preserving the petrodollar.


    “Obviously the climate change industry is rewarding him handsomely. So one can’t help but wonder what’s in it for the climate changers.”

    The real question should be, what’s in it for the climate change deniers?

    Lots and lots of money stands to be made polluting the air.


    Yep, but somehow that doesn’t seem to matter much, does it?


    If “climate change” is such a left wing conspiracy, can’t the right find someone a little more relevant than Al Gore to vilify? He’s so 2005…


    For sure.

    Lots of advocates out there. Wonder why they don’t get after ’em.

    I think they know better. “The base” will lap Gore stories up like no other. Others, maybe well connected with scientists, etc.. ? Not so much.


    97 out of 100 dentists say toothpaste is good for your teeth, three of them, however, say you’re better off chewing glass.


    Entrepreneurs will bring us new forms of energy, if and when they can compete with fossil fuels. If there are better and cheaper ways they will naturally displace oil consumption.

    Once again, and this point has been ignored, the study with 12,000 scientists was manipulated in a way to state that they are in agreement about a global warming “crisis” and that is not the case. Why do the climate changers need to play games like that?


    “If there are better and cheaper ways they will naturally displace oil consumption.”

    100% in error. If there are “better and cheaper ways,” the oil industry will do everything in its power to suppress those alternatives.


    Yep. That’s a market failure that requires regulation.

    The most cost effective means are not always the correct or appropriate or even the best means.


    And by the way, we are seeing oil companies do exactly that, once again facts and data driving the need for policy adjustments.

    It’s being ignored because silly word games and petty semantics do not change the data trends science is observing.

    You will be hard pressed to find a reputable scientist who recommends we do nothing about the changes we are observing.

    There is some disagreement about how much and when. But it’s not a whole lot.

    It’s like this:

    Factually, a building will burn down in a day. Doesn’t matter about the type, or location. It’s just going to burn in a day.

    Somebody hypes that and says it’s burning in an hour with the intent to get water flowing quickly to preserve something.

    Either way the place burns down, with the hype being a minor detail. We don’t want to let it burn all the way for the preservation, which sees good agreement as being the right thing to do, but we might not have to stop traffic everywhere to hit the hour deadline either.

    It’s that kind of thing.

    Andy Brown

    There are those (most of us) that understand what is credible and then there’s F&B.

    Personally I’ll stick to the scientific discussion and the debate between real science and those that have studied it and worked with it.

    F&B seems to put all his faith in politicians and religious hacks with their hidden agendas. F&B has a long history of claiming “manipulation” when the facts are not in alignment with his minority unsubstantiated views. There really isn’t an argument about the climate predicament amongst educated and informed individuals. The argument is created by those without the background and without the knowledge. When the oceans warm to the highest temperature on record and accelerate to that level over the last 40 years at an ever increasing and record setting rate, there are clear reasons and causes. Of course, F&B has had these issues with pure science before.

    Imagine being back in the days when there were those that continued to believe the earth was flat. I’m sure if F&B was alive then, he’d be in that group. The facts are simple, most science denial is rooted in right wing religious thinking. Denial of climate change is not scientific, it is political. It is funded by a few very wealthy conservative billionaires who have managed to buy off a few scientist. That, however, is not a credible science. It is politics. I mean really, shining off climate change as a left wing conspiracy?

    F&B is not alone, but there is a commonality amongst those that live in that bubble. They are all religious conservatives. They challenge more than climatology, they challenge evolution, they challenge sociology, etc. They challenge anything that is contrary to their uninformed beliefs because they are modern day believers in what is more commonly known as fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, or reactionary views. Some far-right movements, such as the Nazis, have pursued oppression and genocide against groups of people on the basis of their alleged inferiority or their alleged threat to the nation or state or their advancement of science and understanding both philosophical and physiological.

    On a more street level note, most people I’ve run into that are climate change deniers have never studied physics at all or at most have a high school level of the sciences. I can no longer deal with trying to discuss science with them. Are they idiots? Not usually. Are they cockalorum? They sure act that way. Are they lickspittle to the wealthy? Most definitely. These mumpsimus types, once they are adults, can not be shown that there is knowledge beyond their present scope. The fact that they see those not as far right as themselves as pettifoggers is their constant defense.

    In physics there is something called the Causality Principle. It is perhaps the most basic concept in all of science. I suggest deniers look it up and stop using God as the answer. Humankind is managing the planet. We are the stewards. We are the consumers, innovators, and poisoners. Conservative deniers are truly the most despicable of all humans when it comes to educating others about the reality of our existence. “Creation ex nihilo”


    Bonus points for:

    cockalorum, lickspittle, and mumpsimus types.

    Well done. Highly entertaining prose Andy.


    And spot on!

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 50 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.