There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
>> >>maybe we as leftists should stop listening to the entire military community in the united states for lying about WMDS. maybe we should also stop listening to anti-gay right wingers because of their hypocritical actions of living the gay life. you have yet to provide solid proof though about when the scientific community has lied about global warming.
@Trent1492 "Creationist nonsense"? This question is central to the G.W. debate. If the God of the Bible exists, he gave us unalienable rights and intrinsically valuable lives. It means a human baby is more valuable than a cockroach, a spotted owl or even a polar bear. But if you dismiss a creator as "nonsense", then someone in our world or something in nature will take His place. Then babies become cockroaches that can be flushed down airplane toilets without a second tought. True story.
@Trent1492 wrote, "Tell me...how babies become coackroaches...with out the big sky fairy." IF God made us special & valuable / IF each of us -- even the unborn -- is endowed with unalienable rights / IF God is above us and nature is below / IF morality is NOT relative...THEN murder, slavery, rape, abortion etc. are objective evils that can't be reclassified by human beings. To accept this as objective truth is to climb one rung up a ladder toward God and away from our baser instincts.>>
I am sorry but you are making this up. None of what you claim is true. The Bible is littered with slaughter by the Sky Fairy. Slaughter of innocents commanded by your God. Nor can we see anything like inalienable rights by God in the Bible. The concept of the inalienably rights is an Enlightenment concept. In other words, a human concept.
Let us face it the Bible is a human product that reflects the values of primitive man of the time.
@Trent1492 wrote, "The concept of the inalienably rights is an Enlightenment concept. In other words, a human concept."
Not true! If humans invented the concept of "inalienable" rights, then humans can UNinvent the concept. That makes the rights "alienable" (able to be taken away). We mint and print money and then invent the concept that it has value. But since that concept doesn't exist outside of us, the value of money can be taken away. When cash crashes it becomes worthless paper.
"Not true! If humans invented the concept of "inalienable" rights, then humans can UNinvent the concept."
So let continuing in that train of thought if God is human invention then the concept of what is god given can be taken away or added. Just like it has been through out history.
@Trent1492 Exactly right! "If God is a human invention" then anything "can be taken away or added". That's my whole point! But if the Judeo-Christian God is NOT a human invention, then nothing we do or say can erase THE FACT that human life is valuable and our human rights are His sacred and inalienable gifts to us.
My point is not dependednt on the existence of God. I don't have to prove anything about that. All I have to do is follow certain implications to their logical conclusions.
@Trent1492 wrote, "The Bible is littered with slaughter by the Sky Fairy." What? I'm not arguing theology nor am I making a case for God's existence. Either He exists or He doesn't. Right? My point is that belief leads in one direction and disbelief leads in another. If God says humans are valuable beings endowed with inalienable rights, then it's objectively true. But if humans say God is a lie, the value of life and the validity of human rights become matters of opinion.
Uh, dude, you need to provide evidence for the God part of "God given". You are operation on a faulty premise. And you are forgetting something else. If God says humans are valuable then and you accept that then the question arises are human beings value dependent on what God says is value or does God say humans are valuable because they are intrinsically valuable. If it is because says it is then that is a an argument from authority. If it is because they are intrinsically..
@Trent1492 Sorry. I don't understand your point. Why do I have to provide evidence for the God part of "God given"? If our rights are given to us by men, then they can be taken away from us by men. But if our rights are given to us by God, then they CAN'T be taken away from us. They are beyond human jurisdiction. They are intrinsic. They are inalienable. They can't be revoked by any person. This is not my opinion. It's what you must believe if the word "inalienable" has any meaning.
@Trent1492 wrote "the question arises are human beings value dependent on what God says?" Yes. When God drew lines between light and dark, right and wrong, good and evil etc, He tasked us to choose sides. But when Lennon wrote the song "Imagine", he erased those lines, casting us into a gray nothingness. He tasked us to believe in nothing, fight for nothing and die for nothing. But what value does a human life have in an imagined world like that? What would be the point of living?
@Trent1492 <<(cont.) If God doesn't exist, it means all that stuff about the value of life, unalienable rights and moral clarity disappears. It means that murder, slavery, rape, abortion etc. are subjective evils. Without God, the word "evil" is meaningless. Hello Moral Relativism! The world flattens. We lose our special status. Morality bows to the whims of dictators. Nature becomes god. Humans become Public Enemy #1. Snail Darters get protected and babies get aborted.
Did anyone tell you that none of this an argument for God's existence or even morality. I have asked this before and I am asking you this again. If you thought their was no God would you think that random slaughter was an O-kay thing to commit?
@Trent1492 If I thought there was no God would I think that "random slaughter" was OK? This is an "IF-question" so my only honest answer is, "It depends." If I lived in a godless society that validated a scientific consensus that human life was disposable and that "random slaughter" was OK, then no argument of mine could sway the elite thinkers. Folks like you would demand to see peer-reviewed studies that prove "random slaughter" was wrong. Then you'ld dismiss me as a crank and denier.
@Trent1492 Just to be clear, I acknowledge that atheists are perfectly capable of being good & moral people. Likewise, I acknowledge that devout believers in God are perfectly capable of being evil monsters. But these are micro-level ideas that apply to individuals. My argument is at the macro-level. A society permeated by Judeo-Christian values will influence believers and non-believers alike. A society permeated by secular values will influence everyone in radically different ways.>>>
@Trent1492 <<To continue my point about the permeating influences of Judeo-Christian values vs. Secular values, consider the term you used: "mass slaughter". How do you define it? Would you define the banning of DDT and the subsequent deaths of countless millions as a "mass slaughter"? Would you define the abortions of millions of innocent babies as a "mass slaughter"? Many are unequivocal in their belief that these are, indeed, atrocities. But many others say, "Nope! They're all OK!"
@Trent1492 wrote, "Did anyone tell you that none of this an argument for God's existence or even morality."
Yes, I agree. I am definitely not making "an argument for God's existence". Like I said earlier, either He exists or He doesn't. My point is not to persuade you nor dissuade one way or the other. Your beliefs are your business.
As for morality, if God drew a line between what is and isn't moral, then morality is fixed. If God doesn't exist, then morality is relative, like beauty.
@Trent1492 Finally: If I believe that God endowed us with value that no authority on earth can revoke, then I can explain exactly why abortion and infanticide are wrong. But if I'm an atheist, I must accept that a baby is just as devoid of innate value as a cockroach. No scientific study can determine innate value, so any
defense of life must be dismissed as a matter of opinion. The Supremes made abortion a right; Obama opposed The Born Alive Infant Protection Act and Kervorkian took a bow
No that makes no sense. First we can see that in the Bible slaughter is enjoined with the call to slaughter. of innocents. We do not derive our morality from the Bible. Especially with our modern sensibilities of anti-slavery and anti-genocide, the prohibition of child labor and sexual assault.
This is why we live in an era that is better than the Biblical Times.
What makes no sense? Can you please quote the exact line or lines and clarify why it makes no sense? I would very much like to explain myself. Thank you.
@Trent1492 A German named Ernst Haeckel coined the word ECOLOGY. His views were in line with the National Socialists and the Social Darwinists who used "science" to justify the elimination of weaker or less desirable human beings. U.S. (Judeo-Christian) values place mankind below God and above nature. So to us, human life is intrinsically valuable. Hitler (a genocidal maniac who was kind to dogs) viewed Christianity as a rebellion against natural law. So to him, human life was disposable.
@thinkingguy87 "Godwinned again." I was responding to another guy who brought Hitler into it first. But so what? I reject your knee-jerk tendency to dismiss a point simply because it raises the specter of Hitler. Aren't we challenged by history to "Never Forget"? Aren't we supposed to be on the lookout for the everpresent danger of "History Repeating Itself"? You should take my argument at face value. If a Hitler reference is valid, then it's valid. Who cares if Godwin doesn't like it?
@Trent1492 wrote, "au contraire,. This thread is littered with your references to Hitler and Stalin."
When you're right, you're right. I stand corrected. But that particular post where I specifically addressed the German origins of ecology and Hitler's envirnomentalism was a response to that post where you wrote "...wait for it....wait for it...Hitler!"
But you are right and I was mistaken. Sorry about that.
@thinkingguy87 I thought you were supposed to be a thinking guy. Or are you more of a knee-jerk guy who reacts rather than thinks? Godwin Law!? You've got to be kidding me.
Godwin's Law helps to keep a conversation moving along and tends to weed out the historically illiterate. It has been a standard guide to argument on the Internet for over a decade. That you are unfamiliar with this convention is telling.
@Trent1492 wrote, "That you are unfamiliar with this convention is telling."
Actually, I AM familiar with it. It just didn't ring any bells at the time because I didn't feel I wasn't making a reference to Hitler. It's kind of like when you fail to recognize a person you know because you see him or her in a totally different setting. Anyway, thanks for answering my honest question, even though I could have done without the snarky jibe at the end. Oh well, I guess I earned it. Cheers.
@Trent1492 wrote, "It has been a standard guide to argument on the Internet."
Fair enough. I just think it's too pat. It seems more sensible and interesting to actually make a case against historically illiterate arguments or unfounded Hitler references. When you just reflexively throw out prefab responses like that and call it an argument, you're basically on auto-pilot, right? All those fallacy tags are like that as well. Why not fashion them as emoticons and save yourself from thought?
@Trent1492 wrote, "You have made the presumption that there is a God and that he is American." Wrong! The Founders of America carefully crafted our national identity by articulating the values that we, as a people, would share and defend. Our documents, money, courts, hallowed halls and our iconic landmarks all reflect these uniquely American values. Though they are clearly consistent with Judeo-Christian values, they are seperate from Jewish and Christian theology. That's your mistake.
@Trent1492 Just to be clear, an American of any faith can accept the fact that there are specific American values. Even an atheist can stand up and say, "Yes, even though I don't believe in God, I will stand behind and defend American/Judeo-Christain values." The three biggies are these: 1) Liberty; 2) E pluribus unum and 3) In God We Trust. If there is no God then our unalienable rights instantly become alienable. France, by the way, trumps Liberty with Equality -- a huge core difference!
@Trent1492 wrote, "In God We Trust" was adopted during the Cold War."
You confine yourself to such literal parameters that your mind becomes trapped. I'm talking about the concept of a creator, of course, and not the exact wording of that quote. Read D.O.I. preamble, written at the country's birth: "...the Laws of Nature and of NATURE'S GOD..." / "...all men are created equal...endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights...Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." See?
@Trent1492 I never said the D.O.I was the Constitution. You can't deny that it lays out in clear terminology a view that our rights don't come from government, but from a creator, right? That's my point. Your point about the Constitution only makes sense if I had stated that it and the D.O.I. are the same document. The Deist argument makes no sense to me because I'm talking about values, not theology. As for the Bible, back in the day, Biblical literacy was the heart of an educated mind.
@Trent1492 "'American Values' are Enlightenment Values [drawn] ...heavily from pagan sources and science." Well, again, you and I disagree. It sounds like you have hostility towards Judeo-Christian thought. If not, why do you dismiss the huge Biblical influences on our country while going out of your way to credit Pagans? The Liberty Bell inscription is from the Torah. Images of the Jewish Exodus figure large in US iconography. And by values I mean MORAL values. Science is amoral.
I do not dismiss the influence of "Judeo-Christian" thought on western civilization for BAD or good. What I am telling you is that the U.S Constitution is an Enlightenment is a product of the Enlightenment and the Enlightenment is a product of science, pagan writers, the Renaissance, the Age of Exploration and Judeo-Christian thought.
What you seem not to grasp that whole parts of the Bible are in contradiction of the Constitution. The First Amendment being a prime example.
@Trent1492 wrote"I do not dismiss the influence of "Judeo-Christian" thought on western civilization for BAD or good." Why do you emphasize BAD. It sounds like you got some hang-ups about the foundational religions of our country. And yes, you DO dismiss the influence. Your prejudices are unambiguous. Try a little tolerance. It'll do you some good.
@Trent1492 wrote, "This country does not have a 'foundational religion'."
This is sneaky and dishonest. By putting "foundational religion" in quotes you are implying that I had claimed we had a "foundational religion". I challenge you to cite my words fairly and accurately. I most definitely did NOT say we had a foundational religion. I said we had "foundational VALUES". I would expect you to understand the huge distinction there. Please be fair and honest. Thank you.
So now we are going to make it plural are we? We do not have "Foundational religions". We have a constitution that governs this land and funny enough I do not see religion/s enshrined in it. Matter of fact, I see such provisions such as forbidding any tests for religion. I am guessing though you think that is but a little oversight.
@Trent1492 wrote, "So now we are going to make it plural are we?"
No, I'm not changing anything. My exact words were, "the foundational religions of our country." Religions with an 's'. You, however, distorted my meaning by distorting my quote: "a 'foundational religion'." I did not write that. My point was to reference the primary influence of the Jewish and Christian faiths. And I did clearly state the big difference between theology and values. And I did NOT claim a U.S. theocracy.
@Trent1492 wrote, "I see such provisions such as forbidding any tests for religion. I am guessing though you think that is but a little oversight."
Why would you think that? I'm for smaller government and more individual liberty. I would never support religious tests. Can you explain to me how you concluded that? Thanks.
@Trent1492 Ooops. I just found the foundational religions line. But notice that I said "religions", meaning not just one. Of course I realize that we do not have a theocracy. Yes, you were right to take issue with me about that line. But that was a simple rush of words that got away from me. My thinking and my point is not about theology of religions but about the values of religions. That's my point. Is that fair?
@Trent1492 Why wouldn't they fund a defense of your even more highly funded assault on free markets and human liberty? If corporate money makes them suspect then "Green" money makes your side suspect, too.
@Trent1492 wrote, "What you seem not to grasp that whole parts of the Bible are in contradiction of the Constitution." I said that the American value system of right vrs. wrong was highly shaped and influenced by Judeo-Christian values. Did I ever argue that our country was a word-for-word adaptation of Jewish or Christian theology? Did I say everything in the Bible figures into our American experiment? You distort and distort and distort to fashion a fantasy that fits your needs. Wow!
@Trent1492 wrote, "So the whole constitution is based on "Judeo-Christian values" is just vague none sense?"
Nope. Didn't say that. Didn't imply that. But if pulling distortions out one after another is fun for you, please keep it up. I'm glad to respond to them.
You know what the neat part is? Your total immunity to evidence. It is like you do not realize that we whole democratic countries with large populations that do not believe in a creator and yet they seem to thrive.
@Trent1492 wrote, "It is like you do not realize that we whole democratic countries with large populations that do not believe in a creator and yet they seem to thrive."
They seem to thrive? Western Europe is dying. They have pretty much stopped having babies because they interfere with their beloved vacation time. Here in Japan, maternity clinics are closing down everywhere. "Be fruitful and multiply" is not taken to heart. Paul Ehrlich's hysteria about overpopulation never panned out.
Is it not neat how you just side stepped the whole issue of addressing whether you can have a moral compass with or with out a God. An no Western Europe is not dying.
"They have pretty much stopped having babies because they interfere with their beloved vacation time."
A. They still have babies.
B. The birth rate is irrelevant to your assertion of immoral behavior without a God.
@Trent1492 wrote, "Is it not neat how you just side stepped the whole issue..?" I did? Where? I've tried very hard to honor your challenges. "..of addressing whether you can have a moral compass with or without God." Sorry. This line is a bit confusing. You mean can atheists have a moral compass? Yes. We all have moral compasses. But if morality comes from one God, our needles point together toward "True North". If morality comes from our disparate hearts, they point every which way.
@Trent1492 wrote, "No, Western Europe is not dying." Well, it depends on on how you define Western Europe. If you're talking about a land mass, then you could be right. But if you're talking about the Western Europe of Western Civilization, where people have shared origins, shared cultures, shared languages, shared religions and values etc., then no, you are not right. The world has changed. Large families used to be the norm. But now they are rare. For Japan, it's a B I G problem.
@Trent1492 wrote, "The birth rate is irrelevant to your assertion of immoral behavior without a God." My point about the birth rate was in response to your point that democratic countries with large secular populations "seem to thrive." I think demographic studies will back me up on this: Religious folks tend to honor God's wish to be "fruitful and multiply" so they have more kids and reject abortion. Secular folks tend to ignore God's wish so they have fewer kids and accept abortion. Yes?
@Trent1492 wrote, "Tell me, do you really need Thor to tell you not to treat babies like cockroaches?"
Thor? I get your point. One god is just as good/bad as another. They're all the same, silly delusion of people who are too stupid to know any better. Right? The only smart people in the history of mankind are people like you who reject God and bow down to SCIENCE. But science is limited. It can't discern morality from immorality. It can't find the second when human rights activate.
@stuntbaby63 also human rights are a social construct. think about it, why are human rights different in one part of the world and not the other? my point is human rights are dictated by the status-quo not some supreme being.
@Saltedkoshersalami Hi again! Yes, human rights are protected or violated by human beings who have the power to protect or violate them. But that's a given. My point is that a belief in God has a profoundly different impact on society than a disbelief in God. I mean, consider how the Roman Empire was rocked to its core by the concept of a single God existing outside of nature. Unwanted babies had been routinely tossed out on trash piles. But Judeo-Christianity made such acts look evil.
oh word? you mean babies are no longer being killed in this world. thank god for judeo-christianity. also heres a little history lesson since you probably know as much about history as you do science. i guess thats a given though since both are heavily entrenched in leftist ideology hmm? anyway the roman empire was already crippling. constantine who at first opposed xtianity latched onto it to unify the empire. much like all religions are founded to do, unify a people against X
@Saltedkoshersalami wrote, "You mean babies are no longer being killed in this world?" No. How do you conclude that from what I wrote? My point was that a simple shift from a polytheistic concept of gods in nature to a monotheistic concept of God in nature profoundly impacted the world. The Romans saw no value in a baby's life so tossing one out like garbage was thought to be OK. Pantheism is worse because it views babies as CO2 polluters who SHOULD be killed for the good of the planet.
@Saltedkoshersalami If you think about it, your history lesson really doesn't invalidate my point. If anything, it validates it. Constantine had to adapt to a changing world that was quickly embracing a new view of the human experience. I'm not asking you to accept Christian values. I'm definitely not asking you to believe Christian theology. All I'm asking you to do is accept the proposition that a society that believes in God is profoundy different from one that rejects Him. Fair point?
@Saltedkoshersalami I want to live in a country founded by God-fearing people who believe: 1) Human life is sacred and infinitely valuable. 2) Each human is endowed, by God, with unalienable rights. 3) Animal life is less valuable than human life. I would NOT want to live in a country founded by atheists who believe: 1) Human life has no intrinsic value. 2) Each human is endowed, by gov't, with alienable rights. 3) Human and animal life is equal. Does this distinction make sense?
@Trent1492 The U.S. chose Liberty; France chose Equality. By equality, I mean equality of outcome, not of birth. Our foundational values liberate us to be as rich as our luck & abilities will allow us (Liberty trumps Equality). Of course, if we're free to succeed, we're free to fail -- like an elevator that goes as far up or down as we choose. But France's egalitarian roots make gaps unsavory. They prefer to redistribute wealth (Equality trumps Liberty). It's either/or but not both.
@Trent1492 Please explain to me how a society can foster both liberty AND equality. One has to take a back seat to the other. It is NOT a false dichotomy.
Liberty creates a huge gap between the rich and the poor because individuals are free to succeed or fail. They're free to keep their own money. They're free to move to any neighborhood they choose, wealthy or not. But when equality is the main value, the gap narrows. You get central planners, social engineering, envy, & less freedom.
@Trent1492 wrote, "Let me see... Oh, yeah that whole equality before the law thing."
I clearly stated that we're talking about equality of outcome. The goal of egalitarians is to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor through wealth redistribution, "social justice" -- as opposed to individual justice -- and social engineering. If Big Gov't is in the business of creating equality, it is also in the business of limiting liberty. See my point?
@Trent1492 When did I refuse to "believe in physics"? And I never said I didn't believe in global warming. I admit it is probably happening. But that's not what I'm questioning. I'm questioning the Leftist claims that 1) it will lead to global catastrophe; 2) it is caused by humans and 3) humans have the power to stop the climate from changing. Are these all that unreasonable? I don't think so.
@Trent1492 wrote, "you think that you need to know none of the basics of physics and yet feel qualified to comment on the science."
How can you say that when I specifically said I wasn't interested in making a scientific argument? My whole point basically boils down to this: The scientific community looks suspicious. They act like agenda-driven tools of Leftist political powers. So why would I trust anything they say? You distrust scientists who you think distort the truth, right?
@Trent1492 wrote, "most adults understand that the science should inform the policy." I agree with this, of course, but only if "the science" is unbiased and truthful But if it's biased and untruthful, why on God's green earth should we allow it to inform our public policy?! Wouldn't that be a very foolish and dangerous thing to do? That's basically the nut of my whole argument. Now, if you need me to back up that statement with evidence, okay...here's one piece of evidence: >>Continued>>>
@Trent1492 <<<continued<< Joel Rogers (a radical Leftist Prof. at the U. of W.-Madison) said this at Columbia University in 1996: "...the Right, in the early 1970's said, 'OK, we're going to TAKE OVER this country and the way we're going to do it is CAPTURE a bunch of intellectuals and we're going to have them produce just tons of JUNK...just tons! Books and case studies and MADE UP studies and empirical studies and FAKE studies.' We should do the same!" His audience applauded wildly. See?
woah that single anecdotal claim about a professor jokingly telling his audience they are going to emulate what the right has been doing is really eye opening.
im glad you are concerned about biased and untruthful nice stemming from science but maybe you should look for biased and untruthfulness everywhere instead of just where your GOP overlords ask you to
@Saltedkoshersalami Hi! In my defense, Joel Rogers is not just some professor. He's a founder of the Apollo Alliance which wrote the $787 billion Congressional stimulus package in 2009. He has ties to radicals who wish to destroy the U.S. What he said about clogging up the works with tons of junk science was no joke. He was serious. His audience didn't laugh; they cheered. I backed up my suspicions with many other posts. And your "GOP overlords" line cleverly dodges my argument.>>>>
@Saltedkoshersalami <<<<You wrote, " maybe you should look for biased and untruthfulness everywhere instead of just where your GOP overlords ask you to." Here's what I did: I made a claim and then I backed it up with evidence. I may be wrong, but at least I tried to make a clear and honest argument. But yours is neither. You want me to undermine my whole case against the bias and lies of the Left by attacking the bias and lies of the Right? Why on Earth would I do that? Tell me why.
@stuntbaby63 well your defense is a joke MADE UP studies and empirical studies and FAKE studies.' We should do the same!" = 'look guys, the left does this too!' argument. i agree two wrongs dont make a right. but lets examine this giant leap of logic by using a crowds applause as evidence of leftist scientific revisionism, a prime example of crazy tea-bagger logic (not saying ur a tea-bagger, just on the same plain of thought)
@Saltedkoshersalami My defense is a joke? How so? I'm making a case that the science that supposedly ends the debate about so-called "global warming" (a.k.a "climate change" or "climate disruption") is full of holes. I'm making a case that the whole science community has been hijacked by frauds who are invested in Leftist political agendas and NOT in objective truth. Is it "crazy tea-bagger logic" to take words and their meanings seriously? Rogers is who he is and he said what he said.
ironically Christians would persecute Pagans after they themselves came to power,along with the rest of the world for the next 2000 years. Anyway the roman empire was plagued with a plethora of reasons: Decline in Morals and Values Public Health Political Corruption Unemployment Inflation Urban decay Inferior Technology Military Spending
@Saltedkoshersalami How does any of what you wrote prove me wrong? What exactly IS your point...that Christianity isn't perfect? Anything placed in the hands of flawed humans will undoubtedly be flawed. You'll get no argument from me on that score. But if you believe that there would have been less evil and more good in the world had Christianity never been founded, then I would have to disagree with you.
also im interesting the source you can come up with for this Rogers fellow (probably a republican shill site). its too bad you've cast off "the whole science community" as a bunch of crock fueled by barry soetoro and the democrats as a way to steal your freedom. perhaps you'd feel more comfortable living a few hundred years into the past where claiming the earth was round could land you a death sentence for using science to state facts not adhering to the bible.
@Saltedkoshersalami wrote, "its too bad you've cast off 'the whole science community'". I haven't. I fully trust and respect those scientists who have the guts to stand up to the bullies in power and say that all this Global Warming nonsense is a big hoax. Can't you see what's going on? Shouldn't you be suspicious? I am. Why aren't you? Why are you so eager to have some big intrusive gov't micro-manage our lives and rob us of our freedoms supposedly for the benefit of polar bears?
@Saltedkoshersalami Please explain what "tea-bagger logic" is. What is a "tea-bagger" in your opinion? You claimed I have "GOP overlords" but your argument seems to be a defense of the overlords the Tea Party folks are protesting. Obama's agenda attacks our individual liberties on almost every level. Cap and Trade. ObamaCare. The Fairness Doctrine. Immigration Reform. You name any Leftist policy and it will reduce us to wards of intrusive government. I'm for freedom. What are you for?
Well, I'm for progress, too! But what does the word mean? Does it mean bigger government? Does it mean an end to wealth production, free markets and human liberty? Does it mean the mass slaughter of human beings for the purpose of reverting to a simpler lifestyle without cars, factories, or any other eco-unfriendly product of human activity? What do you mean by "progress"? Pease define the word for me. Thanks.
"Does it mean the mass slaughter of human beings"
nice job fear mongering,how hypocritical.typical accusing the left of scaring people on way, when the right also scares them one way. you only listen to people that share your political beliefs.
the brainwashee,you, believes everyone else has been brainwashed but never suspects himself. im saying this as a general blanket statement and its not just directed at you but most of us as well.
@Saltedkoshersalami Have you seen the promotional ad for the 10:10 Initiative? Well-meaning, die-hard believers of global warming confront the reality that some folks just don't share their Chicken Little views. So, as they seemingly accept the "deniers" with calm assurance that there's "No pressure" and "It's your choice" the 10:10 organizers press a red button in a black box and instantly blow up these bad eggs in a disgusting shower of blood and guts. (1010global)
tell me more about the latest FW FW FW conservative chain letter. keep on spouting off anecdotal examples to prove your point. did you hear about example X. yeah? well it disproves Y. look pal either shut up or back up your claims with solid evidence. also if global warming exists,shouldnt public-spirited people spread the word of why we should watch out for it? it will be funny to hear what you think the ulterior motives are behind global warming .
@Saltedkoshersalami If you think I am taking orders from "GOP overlords" then back up your accusation with some proof. If you think that there is junk science on the right side of the political aisle, then YOU make the case and then YOU back it up. It's as if I were to demand that Mr. Wonderingminds make a case that global warming is a hoax, despite the fact that it's counterintuitive to his whole world view. It's not his burden to make that case. It's the burden of skeptics like me. See?
@Trent1492 "Hitler was a self professed [Christian?]" Reconcile this with these Hitler quotes: "The strong are always the masters of the weak." / "As in everything, nature is the best instructor." / "Christianity [is] a rebellion against natural law." / "There is the feeling for this all-mighty, which we call god [i.e. dominion of natural laws]" ... Christians don't worship the creation. They don't mass murder in the name of social progress. They don't see social hierarchy as natural law.
Try source attribution. You are quoting from others who are supposedly quoting Hitler. What is far credible is to quote what he says. Like say Mein Kampf.
Volume 1, Chapter 7, The Revolution
"More than once I was tormented by the thought that if Providence had put me in the place of the incapable of criminal incompetents or scoundrels in our propaganda service, our battle with Destiny would have taken a different turn."
@Trent1492 I can reconcile these Hitler quotes very easily with my claim that Hitler was NOT a Christian. 1) He was a liar. His words were directed at a people who did have strong Christian beliefs. When you're in power, you always try to appeal to the sensibilities of the people. He was just using the type of rhetoric that would appeal to folks who loved and read the Bible. 2) His murderous deeds violate Christian principles. How could he love Jesus the Jew when he hated all Jews?>>>
@Trent1492 Come on. A demand for source attribution is fine in a scholarly paper, but we have limited space and time here. Just deal with the challenge and don't run from it. I face your challenges and accept your sources. Why not extend the same courtesies to me? Don't play the game of snakes and slither away on a technicality. Can you or can you not reconcile my Hitler quotes with your claim that he was a Christian? I'm waiting. Thanks.
"Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise."
Hitlers speeches and writings repeatedly refer to providence.
"If the German nation wants to end a state of affairs that threatens its extermination in Europe, it must not fall into the error of the pre-War period and make enemies of God and the world; it must recognize the most dangerous enemy and strike at him with all its concentrated power. And if this victory is obtained through sacrifices elsewhere, the coming generations of our people will not condemn us."
I have a new idea for murder mystery. How does this title sound "The Rice Cake Murders". Catchy, no? After all according to some conservatives rice cakes are just as dangerous as smoking. I kid you not.
@Trent1492 Far more deaths can be directly linked to rice cakes than to second-hand smoke. But what's the point of explaining myself again. Your clear intention is to run away from my point. If you were to actually confront it, you would have to deal with it. That's what you've done with this side-post. It's nothing but a desperate appeal to bystanders who can come to your rescue with warm, comforting words of encouragement and validation. What? Are mommy's skirts out of reach?
Instead of "what's the worst that can happen" how about "occam's razor: What's most likely to happen"? Or as the med students like to say, When you hear hoofbeats, think horses before zebras. George Carlin put it best: The planet is FINE. It's the people who are phuqued.
What you should definitely not do is showing your 2X2 table.
If you insist of showing a table make it 3X3 table that includes all possible outcomes and actions. You know, what happens if we artificially cool the planet while a natural cooling period occurs? Really, Really bad!
"Teaching controversial scientific subjects in high-school"
And make sure you emphesize that a teacher should not limit the material to his own opinion. You should also ask the audience to fit a least square line on the mean global temperatures for the last 8 years.
You can watch both a denialist video: "The global warming swindle" watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs
And the worst case scenario AGW propaganda: "Earth 2100" watch?v=LHNSLxDmMCM
Stuntbaby63, if you have objections to the concept of climate change, there are places to voice those concerns -- namely by talking to PhD's in the subject.
Please stop spamming an otherwise constructive thread.
Please see the Climate Scientists' Register that the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) have created & has been endorsed by 137 climate experts since June 2010:
tinyurl[dot]com/2es3rqx
The Register states:
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
Do people still believe in the global warming hoax? The solar activity is to blame. We are well within the range of what's historically normal. Move to advocacy is scientist being bought by banks and corporations to convince people that they need to be taxed for the air we're breething. This is nothing short of a human rights violation. Don't let others do your thinking and reasoning for you! Not even me! Educate yourselves on this.
@MariusDemocratius Except that solar activity has been quite low the past couple of years, and this year is the hottest on record. and NASA disgarees with you.
@thinkingguy87 And you blindly believe NASA? It's a big institution I know but remember that someone owns NASA, and they decide what "facts" they release.
I strongly disagree with NASA that is correct. And I'm not the one with economical interests in distorting the truth.
@MariusDemocratius of course, those who are claiming that it is the sun have no interests that would tempt them to distort the truth.
Given that NASA's conclusions aren't convtrvened, really, by any other scientific organisation or space agency, as is hihgly accountable, I don't see how the credbility of you disagreeing stronngly can outweigh the conclusions about solar activity.
@thinkingguy87 I know that I as a person can never achieve the scientific wheight as that of NASA. But if you're a high school teacher feeling honored by this invitation you're more likely to accept these teachings because it gives you the feeling of taking part in something big and important. And might even start distributing this as fact to your students. I think this is very dangerous. And it smells fishy. Please do not take this as a personal attack.
@MariusDemocratius No scientific fact is 100% when it is taught to students. You ahppen to diagaree with the vast majority of the scientific community. Schools, generally, teach what the vast majority of the scientific community supports. This is a really simple concept.
@thinkingguy87 By the way. I live in the far north of Norway. And our polar bear population seems to thrive under the slightly warmer climate. This local observation contradicts with the common belief that global warming causes the population to decline. The people of Svalbard have never been more armed in case of polar bear attacks. (we never seek to confront them though. Only one serious case of attack so far this year)
To me there are just too many things that doesn't add up,
@MariusDemocratius who mentionned polar bears? Besides, personal experience and anecdotal evidence are the kinds of things that the scintific process is designed to discount.
How's this title: "A Demand to Halt the Birth of 'Parasitic Human Infants'" This is wrong. You talk about so-called "monied interests" but you ignore the fact that the Global Warming Hoaxers are the ones drowning in "dirty money". Gore is poised to become a "Green Billionaire". Leftist academia financially rewards believers with jobs, grants and promotions while blacklisting skeptics. So now it's "Screw science! Let's advocate our poloitical agenda!" Wow! You guys are crumbling!
@thinkingguy87 "Rhetoric..." is a lame response. The G.W. agenda is anti-liberty and anti-human, hence the Gore-inspired terrorist in Maryland. If "monied interests" invalidate a skeptic's arguments, then oceans of money ("Green" jobs/technology, CO2 credits, gov't grants, tenure etc.) invalidate a believers' arguments even more. Scientific facts get kicked by the wayside when the pressure of "concensus" makes them unpopular. Gore, Cameron, Greg etc. run from every challenge. Why?
@stuntbaby63 Oops! I'm having a bit of trouble in the spelling department. The words "political" and "consensus" are now spelled correctly. I hope these corrections work in my favor. To Greg: You seem like a nice guy. In fact, you remind a lot of one of my best friends. I've watched most of your videos and it seems you have given up on engaging with folks like me who are leery of media-driven hysterias. Can you please explain, "The debate is over," and "scientific consensus"? Thanks.
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
2110kop 6 months ago
i CLICKED ON THIS BECAUSE YOU LOOKED LIKE ANGERY GERMAN KID XD
Rasbutin7000 9 months ago
Next time just say no.
capemall 1 year ago
Sorry It's a little late but I have a title for you " HOW TO BE A DUMBSHIT PUPPET FOR THE GLOBALIST'S AND NOT EVEN KNOW IT!"
dinos98 1 year ago
i am glad AGU is doing this... i hope it goes well... i would love to see the video :-)
SMesbah 1 year ago
>> >>maybe we as leftists should stop listening to the entire military community in the united states for lying about WMDS. maybe we should also stop listening to anti-gay right wingers because of their hypocritical actions of living the gay life. you have yet to provide solid proof though about when the scientific community has lied about global warming.
Saltedkoshersalami 1 year ago
good luck at the meeting
yukicrossluvs 1 year ago
image: Woman in bikini
title: "HOT DATE: Climate Change and other things you have in common with beautiful women."
Surely this will grab the attention of even the most well sexed nerd.
wildcatcatcatcat 1 year ago
read the farmers almanac instead for the true weather. and watch the wooly caterpillar
bette1122 1 year ago
I see that the Northwest Passage is open again for the third consecutive time
Trent1492 1 year ago
Color me surprised that Stuntbaby is spouting creationist nonsense.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492 "Creationist nonsense"? This question is central to the G.W. debate. If the God of the Bible exists, he gave us unalienable rights and intrinsically valuable lives. It means a human baby is more valuable than a cockroach, a spotted owl or even a polar bear. But if you dismiss a creator as "nonsense", then someone in our world or something in nature will take His place. Then babies become cockroaches that can be flushed down airplane toilets without a second tought. True story.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
Tell me again, how babies become coackroaches again with out the big sky fairy. I missed where put the steps in after "then".
Trent1492 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Trent1492 wrote, "Tell me...how babies become coackroaches...with out the big sky fairy." IF God made us special & valuable / IF each of us -- even the unborn -- is endowed with unalienable rights / IF God is above us and nature is below / IF morality is NOT relative...THEN murder, slavery, rape, abortion etc. are objective evils that can't be reclassified by human beings. To accept this as objective truth is to climb one rung up a ladder toward God and away from our baser instincts.>>
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
I am sorry but you are making this up. None of what you claim is true. The Bible is littered with slaughter by the Sky Fairy. Slaughter of innocents commanded by your God. Nor can we see anything like inalienable rights by God in the Bible. The concept of the inalienably rights is an Enlightenment concept. In other words, a human concept.
Let us face it the Bible is a human product that reflects the values of primitive man of the time.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492 wrote, "The concept of the inalienably rights is an Enlightenment concept. In other words, a human concept."
Not true! If humans invented the concept of "inalienable" rights, then humans can UNinvent the concept. That makes the rights "alienable" (able to be taken away). We mint and print money and then invent the concept that it has value. But since that concept doesn't exist outside of us, the value of money can be taken away. When cash crashes it becomes worthless paper.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stuntbaby63
"Not true! If humans invented the concept of "inalienable" rights, then humans can UNinvent the concept."
So let continuing in that train of thought if God is human invention then the concept of what is god given can be taken away or added. Just like it has been through out history.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492 Exactly right! "If God is a human invention" then anything "can be taken away or added". That's my whole point! But if the Judeo-Christian God is NOT a human invention, then nothing we do or say can erase THE FACT that human life is valuable and our human rights are His sacred and inalienable gifts to us.
My point is not dependednt on the existence of God. I don't have to prove anything about that. All I have to do is follow certain implications to their logical conclusions.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@Trent1492 wrote, "The Bible is littered with slaughter by the Sky Fairy." What? I'm not arguing theology nor am I making a case for God's existence. Either He exists or He doesn't. Right? My point is that belief leads in one direction and disbelief leads in another. If God says humans are valuable beings endowed with inalienable rights, then it's objectively true. But if humans say God is a lie, the value of life and the validity of human rights become matters of opinion.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
Uh, dude, you need to provide evidence for the God part of "God given". You are operation on a faulty premise. And you are forgetting something else. If God says humans are valuable then and you accept that then the question arises are human beings value dependent on what God says is value or does God say humans are valuable because they are intrinsically valuable. If it is because says it is then that is a an argument from authority. If it is because they are intrinsically..
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492 Sorry. I don't understand your point. Why do I have to provide evidence for the God part of "God given"? If our rights are given to us by men, then they can be taken away from us by men. But if our rights are given to us by God, then they CAN'T be taken away from us. They are beyond human jurisdiction. They are intrinsic. They are inalienable. They can't be revoked by any person. This is not my opinion. It's what you must believe if the word "inalienable" has any meaning.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@Trent1492 wrote "the question arises are human beings value dependent on what God says?" Yes. When God drew lines between light and dark, right and wrong, good and evil etc, He tasked us to choose sides. But when Lennon wrote the song "Imagine", he erased those lines, casting us into a gray nothingness. He tasked us to believe in nothing, fight for nothing and die for nothing. But what value does a human life have in an imagined world like that? What would be the point of living?
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@Trent1492 <<(cont.) If God doesn't exist, it means all that stuff about the value of life, unalienable rights and moral clarity disappears. It means that murder, slavery, rape, abortion etc. are subjective evils. Without God, the word "evil" is meaningless. Hello Moral Relativism! The world flattens. We lose our special status. Morality bows to the whims of dictators. Nature becomes god. Humans become Public Enemy #1. Snail Darters get protected and babies get aborted.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
Did anyone tell you that none of this an argument for God's existence or even morality. I have asked this before and I am asking you this again. If you thought their was no God would you think that random slaughter was an O-kay thing to commit?
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492 If I thought there was no God would I think that "random slaughter" was OK? This is an "IF-question" so my only honest answer is, "It depends." If I lived in a godless society that validated a scientific consensus that human life was disposable and that "random slaughter" was OK, then no argument of mine could sway the elite thinkers. Folks like you would demand to see peer-reviewed studies that prove "random slaughter" was wrong. Then you'ld dismiss me as a crank and denier.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@Trent1492 Just to be clear, I acknowledge that atheists are perfectly capable of being good & moral people. Likewise, I acknowledge that devout believers in God are perfectly capable of being evil monsters. But these are micro-level ideas that apply to individuals. My argument is at the macro-level. A society permeated by Judeo-Christian values will influence believers and non-believers alike. A society permeated by secular values will influence everyone in radically different ways.>>>
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@Trent1492 <<To continue my point about the permeating influences of Judeo-Christian values vs. Secular values, consider the term you used: "mass slaughter". How do you define it? Would you define the banning of DDT and the subsequent deaths of countless millions as a "mass slaughter"? Would you define the abortions of millions of innocent babies as a "mass slaughter"? Many are unequivocal in their belief that these are, indeed, atrocities. But many others say, "Nope! They're all OK!"
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@Trent1492 wrote, "Did anyone tell you that none of this an argument for God's existence or even morality."
Yes, I agree. I am definitely not making "an argument for God's existence". Like I said earlier, either He exists or He doesn't. My point is not to persuade you nor dissuade one way or the other. Your beliefs are your business.
As for morality, if God drew a line between what is and isn't moral, then morality is fixed. If God doesn't exist, then morality is relative, like beauty.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@Trent1492 Finally: If I believe that God endowed us with value that no authority on earth can revoke, then I can explain exactly why abortion and infanticide are wrong. But if I'm an atheist, I must accept that a baby is just as devoid of innate value as a cockroach. No scientific study can determine innate value, so any
defense of life must be dismissed as a matter of opinion. The Supremes made abortion a right; Obama opposed The Born Alive Infant Protection Act and Kervorkian took a bow
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
No that makes no sense. First we can see that in the Bible slaughter is enjoined with the call to slaughter. of innocents. We do not derive our morality from the Bible. Especially with our modern sensibilities of anti-slavery and anti-genocide, the prohibition of child labor and sexual assault.
This is why we live in an era that is better than the Biblical Times.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492 wrote, "No that makes no sense."
What makes no sense? Can you please quote the exact line or lines and clarify why it makes no sense? I would very much like to explain myself. Thank you.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@ Wondering Mind,
I have some suggestions via a certain conservatives ideas. How do these suggestions sound?
Why Adolf Hitler Would Want to Stop Global Warming?
How Joseph Stalin Came to Fear Ocean Acidification
Would Pol Pot Like Shifting the Jet Stream Further North? No!
Why Totalitarians Everywhere Do Not Like a Melting Arctic.
How Can We Eat More Conservative Babies in the Name of Global Warming.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492 A German named Ernst Haeckel coined the word ECOLOGY. His views were in line with the National Socialists and the Social Darwinists who used "science" to justify the elimination of weaker or less desirable human beings. U.S. (Judeo-Christian) values place mankind below God and above nature. So to us, human life is intrinsically valuable. Hitler (a genocidal maniac who was kind to dogs) viewed Christianity as a rebellion against natural law. So to him, human life was disposable.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63 Godwinned again.
thinkingguy87 1 year ago
@thinkingguy87 "Godwinned again." I was responding to another guy who brought Hitler into it first. But so what? I reject your knee-jerk tendency to dismiss a point simply because it raises the specter of Hitler. Aren't we challenged by history to "Never Forget"? Aren't we supposed to be on the lookout for the everpresent danger of "History Repeating Itself"? You should take my argument at face value. If a Hitler reference is valid, then it's valid. Who cares if Godwin doesn't like it?
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
"I was responding to another guy who brought Hitler into it first"
au contraire,. This thread is littered with your references to Hitler and Stalin.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492 wrote, "au contraire,. This thread is littered with your references to Hitler and Stalin."
When you're right, you're right. I stand corrected. But that particular post where I specifically addressed the German origins of ecology and Hitler's envirnomentalism was a response to that post where you wrote "...wait for it....wait for it...Hitler!"
But you are right and I was mistaken. Sorry about that.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@thinkingguy87 I thought you were supposed to be a thinking guy. Or are you more of a knee-jerk guy who reacts rather than thinks? Godwin Law!? You've got to be kidding me.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
Godwin's Law helps to keep a conversation moving along and tends to weed out the historically illiterate. It has been a standard guide to argument on the Internet for over a decade. That you are unfamiliar with this convention is telling.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492 wrote, "That you are unfamiliar with this convention is telling."
Actually, I AM familiar with it. It just didn't ring any bells at the time because I didn't feel I wasn't making a reference to Hitler. It's kind of like when you fail to recognize a person you know because you see him or her in a totally different setting. Anyway, thanks for answering my honest question, even though I could have done without the snarky jibe at the end. Oh well, I guess I earned it. Cheers.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63 wrote, "I didn't feel I wasn't making a reference to Hitler."
Eek-gads! What a revoltin' development this is. I stumbled into a double-negative nightmare. Let me try that again:
"I didn't feel I WAS making a reference to Hitler."
And again:
"I FELT I wasn't making a reference to Hitler."
There. Now I can rest easy.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@Trent1492 wrote, "It has been a standard guide to argument on the Internet."
Fair enough. I just think it's too pat. It seems more sensible and interesting to actually make a case against historically illiterate arguments or unfounded Hitler references. When you just reflexively throw out prefab responses like that and call it an argument, you're basically on auto-pilot, right? All those fallacy tags are like that as well. Why not fashion them as emoticons and save yourself from thought?
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
A. Hitler was a self professed Christina.
B. You have committed the genetic fallacy.
C. You have made the presumption that there is a God and that he is American.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492 wrote, "You have made the presumption that there is a God and that he is American." Wrong! The Founders of America carefully crafted our national identity by articulating the values that we, as a people, would share and defend. Our documents, money, courts, hallowed halls and our iconic landmarks all reflect these uniquely American values. Though they are clearly consistent with Judeo-Christian values, they are seperate from Jewish and Christian theology. That's your mistake.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@Trent1492 Just to be clear, an American of any faith can accept the fact that there are specific American values. Even an atheist can stand up and say, "Yes, even though I don't believe in God, I will stand behind and defend American/Judeo-Christain values." The three biggies are these: 1) Liberty; 2) E pluribus unum and 3) In God We Trust. If there is no God then our unalienable rights instantly become alienable. France, by the way, trumps Liberty with Equality -- a huge core difference!
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
A. Those "American Values" are Enlightenment Values. Values that draw heavenly from pagan sources and science. B. The Bible is a product of tyranny.
C. "In God We Trust" was adopted during the Cold War.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492 wrote, "In God We Trust" was adopted during the Cold War."
You confine yourself to such literal parameters that your mind becomes trapped. I'm talking about the concept of a creator, of course, and not the exact wording of that quote. Read D.O.I. preamble, written at the country's birth: "...the Laws of Nature and of NATURE'S GOD..." / "...all men are created equal...endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights...Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." See?
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
A. The D.OI is not the Constitution.
B. Many of the Founders were Deist.
C. None of them used the Bible to write either the Constitution or Declaration of Independence.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492 I never said the D.O.I was the Constitution. You can't deny that it lays out in clear terminology a view that our rights don't come from government, but from a creator, right? That's my point. Your point about the Constitution only makes sense if I had stated that it and the D.O.I. are the same document. The Deist argument makes no sense to me because I'm talking about values, not theology. As for the Bible, back in the day, Biblical literacy was the heart of an educated mind.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@Trent1492 "'American Values' are Enlightenment Values [drawn] ...heavily from pagan sources and science." Well, again, you and I disagree. It sounds like you have hostility towards Judeo-Christian thought. If not, why do you dismiss the huge Biblical influences on our country while going out of your way to credit Pagans? The Liberty Bell inscription is from the Torah. Images of the Jewish Exodus figure large in US iconography. And by values I mean MORAL values. Science is amoral.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
I do not dismiss the influence of "Judeo-Christian" thought on western civilization for BAD or good. What I am telling you is that the U.S Constitution is an Enlightenment is a product of the Enlightenment and the Enlightenment is a product of science, pagan writers, the Renaissance, the Age of Exploration and Judeo-Christian thought.
What you seem not to grasp that whole parts of the Bible are in contradiction of the Constitution. The First Amendment being a prime example.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492 wrote"I do not dismiss the influence of "Judeo-Christian" thought on western civilization for BAD or good." Why do you emphasize BAD. It sounds like you got some hang-ups about the foundational religions of our country. And yes, you DO dismiss the influence. Your prejudices are unambiguous. Try a little tolerance. It'll do you some good.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
This country does not have a "foundational religion". Get over it.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492 wrote, "This country does not have a 'foundational religion'."
This is sneaky and dishonest. By putting "foundational religion" in quotes you are implying that I had claimed we had a "foundational religion". I challenge you to cite my words fairly and accurately. I most definitely did NOT say we had a foundational religion. I said we had "foundational VALUES". I would expect you to understand the huge distinction there. Please be fair and honest. Thank you.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
So now we are going to make it plural are we? We do not have "Foundational religions". We have a constitution that governs this land and funny enough I do not see religion/s enshrined in it. Matter of fact, I see such provisions such as forbidding any tests for religion. I am guessing though you think that is but a little oversight.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492 wrote, "So now we are going to make it plural are we?"
No, I'm not changing anything. My exact words were, "the foundational religions of our country." Religions with an 's'. You, however, distorted my meaning by distorting my quote: "a 'foundational religion'." I did not write that. My point was to reference the primary influence of the Jewish and Christian faiths. And I did clearly state the big difference between theology and values. And I did NOT claim a U.S. theocracy.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Trent1492 wrote, "I see such provisions such as forbidding any tests for religion. I am guessing though you think that is but a little oversight."
Why would you think that? I'm for smaller government and more individual liberty. I would never support religious tests. Can you explain to me how you concluded that? Thanks.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@Trent1492 Ooops. I just found the foundational religions line. But notice that I said "religions", meaning not just one. Of course I realize that we do not have a theocracy. Yes, you were right to take issue with me about that line. But that was a simple rush of words that got away from me. My thinking and my point is not about theology of religions but about the values of religions. That's my point. Is that fair?
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
I am looking now at a report on how Koch industries is funding climate denial to the tune of 20 million dollars and north of that.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492 Why wouldn't they fund a defense of your even more highly funded assault on free markets and human liberty? If corporate money makes them suspect then "Green" money makes your side suspect, too.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@Trent1492 wrote, "What you seem not to grasp that whole parts of the Bible are in contradiction of the Constitution." I said that the American value system of right vrs. wrong was highly shaped and influenced by Judeo-Christian values. Did I ever argue that our country was a word-for-word adaptation of Jewish or Christian theology? Did I say everything in the Bible figures into our American experiment? You distort and distort and distort to fashion a fantasy that fits your needs. Wow!
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
So the whole constitution is based on "Judeo-Christian values" is just vague none sense? Thanks for the admission.
Trent1492 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Trent1492 wrote, "So the whole constitution is based on "Judeo-Christian values" is just vague none sense?"
Nope. Didn't say that. Didn't imply that. But if pulling distortions out one after another is fun for you, please keep it up. I'm glad to respond to them.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
You know what the neat part is? Your total immunity to evidence. It is like you do not realize that we whole democratic countries with large populations that do not believe in a creator and yet they seem to thrive.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492 wrote, "It is like you do not realize that we whole democratic countries with large populations that do not believe in a creator and yet they seem to thrive."
They seem to thrive? Western Europe is dying. They have pretty much stopped having babies because they interfere with their beloved vacation time. Here in Japan, maternity clinics are closing down everywhere. "Be fruitful and multiply" is not taken to heart. Paul Ehrlich's hysteria about overpopulation never panned out.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
"They seem to thrive? Western Europe is dying."
Is it not neat how you just side stepped the whole issue of addressing whether you can have a moral compass with or with out a God. An no Western Europe is not dying.
"They have pretty much stopped having babies because they interfere with their beloved vacation time."
A. They still have babies.
B. The birth rate is irrelevant to your assertion of immoral behavior without a God.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492 wrote, "Is it not neat how you just side stepped the whole issue..?" I did? Where? I've tried very hard to honor your challenges. "..of addressing whether you can have a moral compass with or without God." Sorry. This line is a bit confusing. You mean can atheists have a moral compass? Yes. We all have moral compasses. But if morality comes from one God, our needles point together toward "True North". If morality comes from our disparate hearts, they point every which way.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@Trent1492 wrote, "No, Western Europe is not dying." Well, it depends on on how you define Western Europe. If you're talking about a land mass, then you could be right. But if you're talking about the Western Europe of Western Civilization, where people have shared origins, shared cultures, shared languages, shared religions and values etc., then no, you are not right. The world has changed. Large families used to be the norm. But now they are rare. For Japan, it's a B I G problem.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@Trent1492 wrote, "The birth rate is irrelevant to your assertion of immoral behavior without a God." My point about the birth rate was in response to your point that democratic countries with large secular populations "seem to thrive." I think demographic studies will back me up on this: Religious folks tend to honor God's wish to be "fruitful and multiply" so they have more kids and reject abortion. Secular folks tend to ignore God's wish so they have fewer kids and accept abortion. Yes?
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
Tell me, do you really need Thor to tell you not to treat babies like cockroaches?
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492 wrote, "Tell me, do you really need Thor to tell you not to treat babies like cockroaches?"
Thor? I get your point. One god is just as good/bad as another. They're all the same, silly delusion of people who are too stupid to know any better. Right? The only smart people in the history of mankind are people like you who reject God and bow down to SCIENCE. But science is limited. It can't discern morality from immorality. It can't find the second when human rights activate.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63 also human rights are a social construct. think about it, why are human rights different in one part of the world and not the other? my point is human rights are dictated by the status-quo not some supreme being.
Saltedkoshersalami 1 year ago
@Saltedkoshersalami Hi again! Yes, human rights are protected or violated by human beings who have the power to protect or violate them. But that's a given. My point is that a belief in God has a profoundly different impact on society than a disbelief in God. I mean, consider how the Roman Empire was rocked to its core by the concept of a single God existing outside of nature. Unwanted babies had been routinely tossed out on trash piles. But Judeo-Christianity made such acts look evil.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
oh word? you mean babies are no longer being killed in this world. thank god for judeo-christianity. also heres a little history lesson since you probably know as much about history as you do science. i guess thats a given though since both are heavily entrenched in leftist ideology hmm? anyway the roman empire was already crippling. constantine who at first opposed xtianity latched onto it to unify the empire. much like all religions are founded to do, unify a people against X
Saltedkoshersalami 1 year ago
@Saltedkoshersalami wrote, "You mean babies are no longer being killed in this world?" No. How do you conclude that from what I wrote? My point was that a simple shift from a polytheistic concept of gods in nature to a monotheistic concept of God in nature profoundly impacted the world. The Romans saw no value in a baby's life so tossing one out like garbage was thought to be OK. Pantheism is worse because it views babies as CO2 polluters who SHOULD be killed for the good of the planet.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@Saltedkoshersalami If you think about it, your history lesson really doesn't invalidate my point. If anything, it validates it. Constantine had to adapt to a changing world that was quickly embracing a new view of the human experience. I'm not asking you to accept Christian values. I'm definitely not asking you to believe Christian theology. All I'm asking you to do is accept the proposition that a society that believes in God is profoundy different from one that rejects Him. Fair point?
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
Comment removed
Saltedkoshersalami 1 year ago
@Saltedkoshersalami I want to live in a country founded by God-fearing people who believe: 1) Human life is sacred and infinitely valuable. 2) Each human is endowed, by God, with unalienable rights. 3) Animal life is less valuable than human life. I would NOT want to live in a country founded by atheists who believe: 1) Human life has no intrinsic value. 2) Each human is endowed, by gov't, with alienable rights. 3) Human and animal life is equal. Does this distinction make sense?
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
Yea, Stuntbaby that whole equality thing is just so foreign.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492 The U.S. chose Liberty; France chose Equality. By equality, I mean equality of outcome, not of birth. Our foundational values liberate us to be as rich as our luck & abilities will allow us (Liberty trumps Equality). Of course, if we're free to succeed, we're free to fail -- like an elevator that goes as far up or down as we choose. But France's egalitarian roots make gaps unsavory. They prefer to redistribute wealth (Equality trumps Liberty). It's either/or but not both.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
I like how you do so relish in delving into a false dichotomy.
"They prefer to redistribute wealth (Equality trumps Liberty). It's either/or but not both. "
Ah, such a profound mixture of one part ignorance and one part unfounded assertion.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492 Please explain to me how a society can foster both liberty AND equality. One has to take a back seat to the other. It is NOT a false dichotomy.
Liberty creates a huge gap between the rich and the poor because individuals are free to succeed or fail. They're free to keep their own money. They're free to move to any neighborhood they choose, wealthy or not. But when equality is the main value, the gap narrows. You get central planners, social engineering, envy, & less freedom.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
Let me see... Oh, yeah that whole equality before the law thing.
Trent1492 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Trent1492 wrote, "Let me see... Oh, yeah that whole equality before the law thing."
I clearly stated that we're talking about equality of outcome. The goal of egalitarians is to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor through wealth redistribution, "social justice" -- as opposed to individual justice -- and social engineering. If Big Gov't is in the business of creating equality, it is also in the business of limiting liberty. See my point?
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
So tell me again, how your refusal to believe in physics makes global warming go away? I am dying to hear it told again.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492 When did I refuse to "believe in physics"? And I never said I didn't believe in global warming. I admit it is probably happening. But that's not what I'm questioning. I'm questioning the Leftist claims that 1) it will lead to global catastrophe; 2) it is caused by humans and 3) humans have the power to stop the climate from changing. Are these all that unreasonable? I don't think so.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
I guess it is the part where you think that you need to know none of the basics of physics and yet feel qualified to comment on the science.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492 wrote, "you think that you need to know none of the basics of physics and yet feel qualified to comment on the science."
How can you say that when I specifically said I wasn't interested in making a scientific argument? My whole point basically boils down to this: The scientific community looks suspicious. They act like agenda-driven tools of Leftist political powers. So why would I trust anything they say? You distrust scientists who you think distort the truth, right?
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
Well unless you are pants on head retarded most adults understand that the science should inform the policy.
"The scientific community looks suspicious. They act like agenda-driven tools of Leftist political powers."
Correction the scientific community looks suspicious to ideologues who think evidence based arguments are for sissies.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492 wrote, "most adults understand that the science should inform the policy." I agree with this, of course, but only if "the science" is unbiased and truthful But if it's biased and untruthful, why on God's green earth should we allow it to inform our public policy?! Wouldn't that be a very foolish and dangerous thing to do? That's basically the nut of my whole argument. Now, if you need me to back up that statement with evidence, okay...here's one piece of evidence: >>Continued>>>
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@Trent1492 <<<continued<< Joel Rogers (a radical Leftist Prof. at the U. of W.-Madison) said this at Columbia University in 1996: "...the Right, in the early 1970's said, 'OK, we're going to TAKE OVER this country and the way we're going to do it is CAPTURE a bunch of intellectuals and we're going to have them produce just tons of JUNK...just tons! Books and case studies and MADE UP studies and empirical studies and FAKE studies.' We should do the same!" His audience applauded wildly. See?
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
woah that single anecdotal claim about a professor jokingly telling his audience they are going to emulate what the right has been doing is really eye opening.
im glad you are concerned about biased and untruthful nice stemming from science but maybe you should look for biased and untruthfulness everywhere instead of just where your GOP overlords ask you to
Saltedkoshersalami 1 year ago
@Saltedkoshersalami Hi! In my defense, Joel Rogers is not just some professor. He's a founder of the Apollo Alliance which wrote the $787 billion Congressional stimulus package in 2009. He has ties to radicals who wish to destroy the U.S. What he said about clogging up the works with tons of junk science was no joke. He was serious. His audience didn't laugh; they cheered. I backed up my suspicions with many other posts. And your "GOP overlords" line cleverly dodges my argument.>>>>
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@Saltedkoshersalami <<<<You wrote, " maybe you should look for biased and untruthfulness everywhere instead of just where your GOP overlords ask you to." Here's what I did: I made a claim and then I backed it up with evidence. I may be wrong, but at least I tried to make a clear and honest argument. But yours is neither. You want me to undermine my whole case against the bias and lies of the Left by attacking the bias and lies of the Right? Why on Earth would I do that? Tell me why.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stuntbaby63 well your defense is a joke MADE UP studies and empirical studies and FAKE studies.' We should do the same!" = 'look guys, the left does this too!' argument. i agree two wrongs dont make a right. but lets examine this giant leap of logic by using a crowds applause as evidence of leftist scientific revisionism, a prime example of crazy tea-bagger logic (not saying ur a tea-bagger, just on the same plain of thought)
Saltedkoshersalami 1 year ago
@Saltedkoshersalami My defense is a joke? How so? I'm making a case that the science that supposedly ends the debate about so-called "global warming" (a.k.a "climate change" or "climate disruption") is full of holes. I'm making a case that the whole science community has been hijacked by frauds who are invested in Leftist political agendas and NOT in objective truth. Is it "crazy tea-bagger logic" to take words and their meanings seriously? Rogers is who he is and he said what he said.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
ironically Christians would persecute Pagans after they themselves came to power,along with the rest of the world for the next 2000 years. Anyway the roman empire was plagued with a plethora of reasons: Decline in Morals and Values Public Health Political Corruption Unemployment Inflation Urban decay Inferior Technology Military Spending
Saltedkoshersalami 1 year ago
@Saltedkoshersalami How does any of what you wrote prove me wrong? What exactly IS your point...that Christianity isn't perfect? Anything placed in the hands of flawed humans will undoubtedly be flawed. You'll get no argument from me on that score. But if you believe that there would have been less evil and more good in the world had Christianity never been founded, then I would have to disagree with you.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
also im interesting the source you can come up with for this Rogers fellow (probably a republican shill site). its too bad you've cast off "the whole science community" as a bunch of crock fueled by barry soetoro and the democrats as a way to steal your freedom. perhaps you'd feel more comfortable living a few hundred years into the past where claiming the earth was round could land you a death sentence for using science to state facts not adhering to the bible.
Saltedkoshersalami 1 year ago
@Saltedkoshersalami wrote, "its too bad you've cast off 'the whole science community'". I haven't. I fully trust and respect those scientists who have the guts to stand up to the bullies in power and say that all this Global Warming nonsense is a big hoax. Can't you see what's going on? Shouldn't you be suspicious? I am. Why aren't you? Why are you so eager to have some big intrusive gov't micro-manage our lives and rob us of our freedoms supposedly for the benefit of polar bears?
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
Comment removed
Saltedkoshersalami 1 year ago
@Saltedkoshersalami Please explain what "tea-bagger logic" is. What is a "tea-bagger" in your opinion? You claimed I have "GOP overlords" but your argument seems to be a defense of the overlords the Tea Party folks are protesting. Obama's agenda attacks our individual liberties on almost every level. Cap and Trade. ObamaCare. The Fairness Doctrine. Immigration Reform. You name any Leftist policy and it will reduce us to wards of intrusive government. I'm for freedom. What are you for?
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
im for progress. you are for lower taxes and bible thumping.
Saltedkoshersalami 1 year ago
@Saltedkoshersalami wrote, "I'm for progress."
Well, I'm for progress, too! But what does the word mean? Does it mean bigger government? Does it mean an end to wealth production, free markets and human liberty? Does it mean the mass slaughter of human beings for the purpose of reverting to a simpler lifestyle without cars, factories, or any other eco-unfriendly product of human activity? What do you mean by "progress"? Pease define the word for me. Thanks.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
"Does it mean the mass slaughter of human beings"
nice job fear mongering,how hypocritical.typical accusing the left of scaring people on way, when the right also scares them one way. you only listen to people that share your political beliefs.
the brainwashee,you, believes everyone else has been brainwashed but never suspects himself. im saying this as a general blanket statement and its not just directed at you but most of us as well.
Saltedkoshersalami 1 year ago
@Saltedkoshersalami Have you seen the promotional ad for the 10:10 Initiative? Well-meaning, die-hard believers of global warming confront the reality that some folks just don't share their Chicken Little views. So, as they seemingly accept the "deniers" with calm assurance that there's "No pressure" and "It's your choice" the 10:10 organizers press a red button in a black box and instantly blow up these bad eggs in a disgusting shower of blood and guts. (1010global)
Is that "progress" to you?
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
tell me more about the latest FW FW FW conservative chain letter. keep on spouting off anecdotal examples to prove your point. did you hear about example X. yeah? well it disproves Y. look pal either shut up or back up your claims with solid evidence. also if global warming exists,shouldnt public-spirited people spread the word of why we should watch out for it? it will be funny to hear what you think the ulterior motives are behind global warming .
Saltedkoshersalami 1 year ago
@Saltedkoshersalami If you think I am taking orders from "GOP overlords" then back up your accusation with some proof. If you think that there is junk science on the right side of the political aisle, then YOU make the case and then YOU back it up. It's as if I were to demand that Mr. Wonderingminds make a case that global warming is a hoax, despite the fact that it's counterintuitive to his whole world view. It's not his burden to make that case. It's the burden of skeptics like me. See?
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@Trent1492 "Hitler was a self professed [Christian?]" Reconcile this with these Hitler quotes: "The strong are always the masters of the weak." / "As in everything, nature is the best instructor." / "Christianity [is] a rebellion against natural law." / "There is the feeling for this all-mighty, which we call god [i.e. dominion of natural laws]" ... Christians don't worship the creation. They don't mass murder in the name of social progress. They don't see social hierarchy as natural law.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
Try source attribution. You are quoting from others who are supposedly quoting Hitler. What is far credible is to quote what he says. Like say Mein Kampf.
Volume 1, Chapter 7, The Revolution
"More than once I was tormented by the thought that if Providence had put me in the place of the incapable of criminal incompetents or scoundrels in our propaganda service, our battle with Destiny would have taken a different turn."
I got plenty more.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492 I can reconcile these Hitler quotes very easily with my claim that Hitler was NOT a Christian. 1) He was a liar. His words were directed at a people who did have strong Christian beliefs. When you're in power, you always try to appeal to the sensibilities of the people. He was just using the type of rhetoric that would appeal to folks who loved and read the Bible. 2) His murderous deeds violate Christian principles. How could he love Jesus the Jew when he hated all Jews?>>>
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@Trent1492 Come on. A demand for source attribution is fine in a scholarly paper, but we have limited space and time here. Just deal with the challenge and don't run from it. I face your challenges and accept your sources. Why not extend the same courtesies to me? Don't play the game of snakes and slither away on a technicality. Can you or can you not reconcile my Hitler quotes with your claim that he was a Christian? I'm waiting. Thanks.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
Shorter Stuntbaby. I do not need no stinking sources.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
Some more quotes from Mein Kampf:
Volume 2, Chapter 1, Philosophy and Party
"Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise."
Hitlers speeches and writings repeatedly refer to providence.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
More quotes from Mein Kampf:
Volume 2, Chapter 13
"If the German nation wants to end a state of affairs that threatens its extermination in Europe, it must not fall into the error of the pre-War period and make enemies of God and the world; it must recognize the most dangerous enemy and strike at him with all its concentrated power. And if this victory is obtained through sacrifices elsewhere, the coming generations of our people will not condemn us."
Trent1492 1 year ago
I have a new idea for murder mystery. How does this title sound "The Rice Cake Murders". Catchy, no? After all according to some conservatives rice cakes are just as dangerous as smoking. I kid you not.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492 Far more deaths can be directly linked to rice cakes than to second-hand smoke. But what's the point of explaining myself again. Your clear intention is to run away from my point. If you were to actually confront it, you would have to deal with it. That's what you've done with this side-post. It's nothing but a desperate appeal to bystanders who can come to your rescue with warm, comforting words of encouragement and validation. What? Are mommy's skirts out of reach?
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63
"Far more deaths can be directly linked to rice cakes than to second-hand smoke."
Oh, do show these epidemiological studies then. I am dying to hear more about the ever growing danger of rice cake murder.
Trent1492 1 year ago
Well everyone please not that Stuntbaby thinks that anyone who does not want have carcinogens imposed on them is acting just like Adolf Hitler.
Trent1492 1 year ago
Greg good luck in December, good move on the AGU's part.
kelban100 1 year ago
Trent and thinkingguy valiant effort, but might as well be talking to a wall....
stuntbaby, nothing relevant or meaningful here
kelban100 1 year ago
Instead of "what's the worst that can happen" how about "occam's razor: What's most likely to happen"? Or as the med students like to say, When you hear hoofbeats, think horses before zebras. George Carlin put it best: The planet is FINE. It's the people who are phuqued.
wavking 1 year ago
You gotta scare people!
nellre 1 year ago
What you should definitely not do is showing your 2X2 table.
If you insist of showing a table make it 3X3 table that includes all possible outcomes and actions. You know, what happens if we artificially cool the planet while a natural cooling period occurs? Really, Really bad!
judomagyar 1 year ago
The title of your speach/presentation should be:
"Teaching controversial scientific subjects in high-school"
And make sure you emphesize that a teacher should not limit the material to his own opinion. You should also ask the audience to fit a least square line on the mean global temperatures for the last 8 years.
You can watch both a denialist video: "The global warming swindle" watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs
And the worst case scenario AGW propaganda: "Earth 2100" watch?v=LHNSLxDmMCM
judomagyar 1 year ago
Just a thought -- could it be worth simply asking them to join? Add that on to any other idea:
"Users Guide to the Earth, Chapter 21- Troubleshooting. I need your help."
60l23 1 year ago
Stuntbaby63, if you have objections to the concept of climate change, there are places to voice those concerns -- namely by talking to PhD's in the subject.
Please stop spamming an otherwise constructive thread.
60l23 1 year ago
Please see the Climate Scientists' Register that the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) have created & has been endorsed by 137 climate experts since June 2010:
tinyurl[dot]com/2es3rqx
The Register states:
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
Tom Harris
ICSC
TomHarrisICSC 1 year ago
Don't Panic! Motivating Change on Climate Change
kkob 1 year ago
How about "The most important decision you will ever make"
ekhaat 1 year ago
mother earth says it's time to change.
tdidonato1 1 year ago
how about: "i dont really know anything, but what if i did?"
keenly 1 year ago
call it...Common NonSense
DodgyDrifter7 1 year ago
Tricia Helfer: Naked Dancing Inside. It'd certainly attract me
dwarfshuffle 1 year ago
@dwarfshuffle That was along the lines of my idea of just putting up a sign that reads LIVE NUDES -------> lol
survivalhorrorman 1 year ago
Was that a seismic shift, or or does the world want us to speak out? Geophysics and Climate Debate.
ScreamingTc 1 year ago
"Oh NO! Mom is pissed"
"This is what happens when you piss your mother off"
"Dumbin' Down"
"wtf"
"Family Feud: Uncle Greed vs. Mother Nature"
DodgyDrifter7 1 year ago
Common Grounds: Where Climate Science meets Public Discourse.
RyuDarragh 1 year ago 2
The reason and soultion for the end of the world
aaron15geek 1 year ago
Deniers and Criers: Saving the biosphere from public climate change disagreement
sierraglacier 1 year ago
Users Guide to Earth, Chapter 21 - Troubleshooting
alaaper 1 year ago 25
Earth 2.0 - The new reality
alaaper 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How to save the world
alaaper 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How to save the world
alaaper 1 year ago
How to save the world
alaaper 1 year ago
how it all ends
stompcity 1 year ago
Climategate!
afc0ne 1 year ago
Gradual push, sudden shift - Anthropogenic factors of human activities!
Tgclove 1 year ago
The doomsday that will make the 2012 stories seem like a fairytale: Global climate change and its likely consequences
applecheesedoodle 1 year ago
Come with me,if you want to live.
brufadeve 1 year ago 11
Do people still believe in the global warming hoax? The solar activity is to blame. We are well within the range of what's historically normal. Move to advocacy is scientist being bought by banks and corporations to convince people that they need to be taxed for the air we're breething. This is nothing short of a human rights violation. Don't let others do your thinking and reasoning for you! Not even me! Educate yourselves on this.
MariusDemocratius 1 year ago
@MariusDemocratius Except that solar activity has been quite low the past couple of years, and this year is the hottest on record. and NASA disgarees with you.
thinkingguy87 1 year ago
@thinkingguy87 And you blindly believe NASA? It's a big institution I know but remember that someone owns NASA, and they decide what "facts" they release.
I strongly disagree with NASA that is correct. And I'm not the one with economical interests in distorting the truth.
MariusDemocratius 1 year ago
@MariusDemocratius of course, those who are claiming that it is the sun have no interests that would tempt them to distort the truth.
Given that NASA's conclusions aren't convtrvened, really, by any other scientific organisation or space agency, as is hihgly accountable, I don't see how the credbility of you disagreeing stronngly can outweigh the conclusions about solar activity.
thinkingguy87 1 year ago
@thinkingguy87 I know that I as a person can never achieve the scientific wheight as that of NASA. But if you're a high school teacher feeling honored by this invitation you're more likely to accept these teachings because it gives you the feeling of taking part in something big and important. And might even start distributing this as fact to your students. I think this is very dangerous. And it smells fishy. Please do not take this as a personal attack.
MariusDemocratius 1 year ago
@MariusDemocratius No scientific fact is 100% when it is taught to students. You ahppen to diagaree with the vast majority of the scientific community. Schools, generally, teach what the vast majority of the scientific community supports. This is a really simple concept.
thinkingguy87 1 year ago
@thinkingguy87 By the way. I live in the far north of Norway. And our polar bear population seems to thrive under the slightly warmer climate. This local observation contradicts with the common belief that global warming causes the population to decline. The people of Svalbard have never been more armed in case of polar bear attacks. (we never seek to confront them though. Only one serious case of attack so far this year)
To me there are just too many things that doesn't add up,
MariusDemocratius 1 year ago
@MariusDemocratius who mentionned polar bears? Besides, personal experience and anecdotal evidence are the kinds of things that the scintific process is designed to discount.
thinkingguy87 1 year ago
@plugin7
I really like the simple-ness of this one. very to the point!
Foderick 1 year ago
(Un)reasonable Response: The public, the politicians and the problems of communicating to a non-expert population.
thinkingguy87 1 year ago
How's this title: "A Demand to Halt the Birth of 'Parasitic Human Infants'" This is wrong. You talk about so-called "monied interests" but you ignore the fact that the Global Warming Hoaxers are the ones drowning in "dirty money". Gore is poised to become a "Green Billionaire". Leftist academia financially rewards believers with jobs, grants and promotions while blacklisting skeptics. So now it's "Screw science! Let's advocate our poloitical agenda!" Wow! You guys are crumbling!
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63 rhetoric...
thinkingguy87 1 year ago
@thinkingguy87 "Rhetoric..." is a lame response. The G.W. agenda is anti-liberty and anti-human, hence the Gore-inspired terrorist in Maryland. If "monied interests" invalidate a skeptic's arguments, then oceans of money ("Green" jobs/technology, CO2 credits, gov't grants, tenure etc.) invalidate a believers' arguments even more. Scientific facts get kicked by the wayside when the pressure of "concensus" makes them unpopular. Gore, Cameron, Greg etc. run from every challenge. Why?
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63 Oops! I'm having a bit of trouble in the spelling department. The words "political" and "consensus" are now spelled correctly. I hope these corrections work in my favor. To Greg: You seem like a nice guy. In fact, you remind a lot of one of my best friends. I've watched most of your videos and it seems you have given up on engaging with folks like me who are leery of media-driven hysterias. Can you please explain, "The debate is over," and "scientific consensus"? Thanks.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63 of course, no scientific organisation would agree with you.
thinkingguy87 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thinkingguy87 wrote, "Of course, no scientific organisation would agree with you."
A scientific organization interested in objective truth -- as opposed to Leftist ideology -- would probably agree with me.
What did I write that is so objectionable?
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
@stuntbaby63 the point is that the scientific organisation have checks and balances, and are far more a