AGW - A religious cult.
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Thursday, October 9, 2025 20:01
VIEWED: 5081
PAGE 2 of 6
Apparently, providing relevant facts in a discussion is a barrier too high for 'me too' jongsie to overcome.
definition of a troll: "and I refuse to chase others in a mindless, endless circle of " debate " on the internet. If I 'bitch out' of a discussion, I've said all I'm going to say on the matter, my views have been presented, and there's nothing left to add."
RUSH LIMBAUGH is a BLUE PILL ADDICT!
As evidence of "rape mentality"
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:11 PM
MAL4PREZ
And just remember, according to Rappy, the term befitting a women who wants the insurance she pays for to cover medications affecting her reproductive organs is whore
Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:23 PM
little rappy
The term applies
And this is Geezer being non-partisan ... HAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...
Dem Super Pac slams Obamacare because it really sucks and will cause herpes
Geezer
So some Democrats are running on pointing out that the Healthcare.gov rollout was an unmitigated disaster
I feel so vindicated.
"Just glad that some Democrats are acknowledging the bad job done in developing Healthcare.com." "it'll be interesting to see if these same Democrats acknowledge" "these Democrats seem to understand what the real Obama Kool-Ade drinkers still won't address" " it's about Democrats using criticism of the rollout in their campaign ads".
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
1kiki is too scared to read what Moore has to say on the matter
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, but neither is knee-jerk opposition, or winnowing through mountains of data in order to isolate one teeny-tiny factoid.
Consensus is not science.
Yanno, SOMETIMES you can learn important things from tiny facts that don't fit, if you look at them with rigor. But all of the facts that you've brought to the table are easily explained, and since I looked them up and resolved them to my satisfaction, I noticed that you've stopped bringing any more to the table, just random references to people who have nothing scientific to say. You don't know science, you don't use science, and any opinion that you have of science is pointless. And since you don't know science, or rigorous logic, any opinion you have about ANYTHING is just that- a pointless opinion. Just like this thread. SO....
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Consensus is not science.
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Moore isn't a climate scientist. But even a broken clock is right twice, so rather than an appeal to authority, his claims should be evaluated on their merit. What is his evidence? What is his logic?
Oh, there is none. And little rappy is left holding the troll bag ... once again.
definition of a troll: "and I refuse to chase others in a mindless, endless circle of " debate " on the internet. If I 'bitch out' of a discussion, I've said all I'm going to say on the matter, my views have been presented, and there's nothing left to add."
RUSH LIMBAUGH is a BLUE PILL ADDICT!
As evidence of "rape mentality"
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:11 PM
MAL4PREZ
And just remember, according to Rappy, the term befitting a women who wants the insurance she pays for to cover medications affecting her reproductive organs is whore
Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:23 PM
little rappy
The term applies
And this is Geezer being non-partisan ... HAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...
Dem Super Pac slams Obamacare because it really sucks and will cause herpes
Geezer
So some Democrats are running on pointing out that the Healthcare.gov rollout was an unmitigated disaster
I feel so vindicated.
"Just glad that some Democrats are acknowledging the bad job done in developing Healthcare.com." "it'll be interesting to see if these same Democrats acknowledge" "these Democrats seem to understand what the real Obama Kool-Ade drinkers still won't address" " it's about Democrats using criticism of the rollout in their campaign ads".
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I love how the Left play this game. They flatly state that Moore isn't a climate scientist, when that claim was never made. He's probably not a master chef either. So frelling what!
The man help found GreenPeace, and knows a thing or two as to how the organization ran, its motivations, its goals, and tactics. He saw, from the INSIDE of the organization, how it stopped being about the science and preservation ,and more radicalized, more political.
This stubborn, childish " Yeah, so what! " mindset never is cute when displayed by adults.
You try to attack him, then the messenger, him again, and anyone who doesn't bow to the almighty AlGore Ox-god.
I'm really getting tired of it.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just because an organisation becomes more radical or political does not disqualify climate change. Some environmental organisations ARE more radical than others. You can disagree with someone's tactics for bringing about change without disputing the reason that change is needed.
Your capacity to argue is inadequate.
Edit. Reading on Patrick Moore, I see that he still believes in climate change, just not that its solely caused by man. he also believes in nuclear power in order to reduce dependancy upon fossil fuels. So in actual fact, he's done a 180 on his views rather than Greenpeace being radicalised.
I note that a variety of unclear statements from members of the self right-eous community here.
So can you be clear.
Do you accept climate change, but that it is not man made
Do you dispute climate change occuring at all.
So if you accept climate change, but that its not man made, can you stop with the 'its snowing somewhere, climate change is a myth' line/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Your capacity to argue is inadequate.
That's funny. Mainly because I wasn't arguing. There's nothing TO argue here. A co-founder of Greenpeace left the group, for the reasons he stated.
Quote:
Edit. Reading on Patrick Moore, I see that he still believes in climate change, just not that its solely caused by man. he also believes in nuclear power in order to reduce dependancy upon fossil fuels. So in actual fact, he's done a 180 on his views rather than Greenpeace being radicalised.
I note that a variety of unclear statements from members of the self right-eous community here.
So can you be clear.
Do you accept climate change, but that it is not man made
Do you dispute climate change occuring at all.
So if you accept climate change, but that its not man made, can you stop with the 'its snowing somewhere, climate change is a myth' line/
Climate is always changing. Not sure what you mean about ' it's snowing somewhere' line, though. I do believe the media are hyping up every little cold front and heat wave and blaming it on AGW. It's quite silly, actually.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The question is pretty simple.
1. Do you believe in the kind of climate change that will dramatically change our weather patterns and impact on us in a variety of ways?
ie not normal seasonal change if no/ then go to the back of the class and stand in the corner for half an hour.
If yes/ go to question 2
2. Do you believe that man has impacted upon the climate changing/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What did Moore say about climate change, exactly?
Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific proof humans are dominant cause of warming climate
A co-founder of Greenpeace told lawmakers there is no evidence man is contributing to climate change, and said he left the group when it became more interested in politics than the environment.
Patrick Moore, a Canadian ecologist and business consultant who was a member of Greenpeace from 1971-86, told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee environmental groups like the one he helped establish use faulty computer models and scare tactics in promoting claims man-made gases are heating up the planet.
“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” he said.
Even if the planet is warming up, Moore claimed it would not be calamitous for men, which he described as a “subtropical species.”
Skeptics of manmade climate change say there is no evidence the Earth is warming. A UN report on the scientific data behind global warming released in September indicated that global surface temperatures have not increased for the past 15 years, but scientists who believe climate change due to man is occurring say it has merely paused because of several factors and will soon resume.
The 2,200-page new Technical Report attributes that to a combination of several factors, including natural variability, reduced heating from the sun and the ocean acting like a “heat sink” to suck up extra warmth in the atmosphere.
Moore said he left Greenpeace in the 1980s because he believed it became more interested in politics than science.
“After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective,” he said. “Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.”
Did he claim it was a religious cult? Did he offer ANY scientific refutation of the facts that have been observed? Did he propose any logic to reinterpret existing information?
So, what does this do to your claim that we're ignoring FACTS! when there are none? And what does this do to your claim AGW is a religion, which has nothing to do with what he said?
In fact what you're doing is an appeal to authority (we're supposed to believe him because of who he is, not on the strength of what he says). And furthermore, we're supposed to believe you because we believe him (tho the two arguments are completely separate from each other).
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
"Did he claim it was a religious cult? "
Yep. He did.
" You can't hardly get a science grant these days without saying it has something to do with climate change. It is a kind of nasty combination of extreme political ideology and a religious cult all rolled into one." - Patrick Moore
Quote:
" And what does this do to your claim AGW is a religion, which has nothing to do with what he said? "
Now I don't care who ya are, that's just funny !
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME