Are Climate Change Deniers Immoral?

[Wyatt earp]

I don't believe that rank-and-file deniers will be able to use their ignorance as an excuse for they harm they cause. A drunk driver may sincerely believe he's not doing harm, but we still define drunk drivers as immoral. Those low-level deniers are like drunk drivers with the truth.

Taken past a certain point, deliberate incompetence crosses the line into immorality. Deniers have been presented with all the tools and information they need to not be incompetent, but they still deliberately choose to be incompetent. Hence, they are morally culpable for the harm that derives from their incompetence.

Let's use the analogy to its completion. Let's say, instead of climate change, the deniers were denying the holocaust and you knew all along it is going on. The question isn't what the deniers will do but what YOU are doing. Would you confront the Nazis or would you confront those who denied the holocaust?

In other words, what are you doing to stop what you apparently feel I can stop. Cut back on your driving? Internet use? Paid for carbon credits? What exactly is it that you are doing other then calling people names? Which the consensus of scientist has agreed that name calling leads to global warming.

Global warming is a global issue, and requires a global response. Everyone must do their part.

No sorry we have more important things to do.then worry about mother earth, she is not going anywhere for a few billion years but we are and it doesn't matter

 

[orogenicman]

I don't believe that rank-and-file deniers will be able to use their ignorance as an excuse for they harm they cause. A drunk driver may sincerely believe he's not doing harm, but we still define drunk drivers as immoral. Those low-level deniers are like drunk drivers with the truth.

Taken past a certain point, deliberate incompetence crosses the line into immorality. Deniers have been presented with all the tools and information they need to not be incompetent, but they still deliberately choose to be incompetent. Hence, they are morally culpable for the harm that derives from their incompetence.

Let's use the analogy to its completion. Let's say, instead of climate change, the deniers were denying the holocaust and you knew all along it is going on. The question isn't what the deniers will do but what YOU are doing. Would you confront the Nazis or would you confront those who denied the holocaust?

In other words, what are you doing to stop what you apparently feel I can stop. Cut back on your driving? Internet use? Paid for carbon credits? What exactly is it that you are doing other then calling people names? Which the consensus of scientist has agreed that name calling leads to global warming.

Global warming is a global issue, and requires a global response. Everyone must do their part.

No sorry we have more important things to do.then worry about mother earth, she is not going anywhere for a few billion years but we are and it doesn't matter

And that is why deniers are immoral.

 

[Porker]

If humans could have caused all the shit on this earth that happened naturally like...

The Grand Canyon

The Rocky Mountain Range

The Alps

The Himalayas

The Oceans

The Great Lakes

Bryce Canyon

Death Valley

The Appalachians

The Ozarks

The Smokies

Yellowstone

The Great Yellowstone Caldera, just to name a few...

Then I would buy the global warming bullshit...But we couldn't have even imagined all that much less cause it to happen.

 

[Freewill]

I don't believe that rank-and-file deniers will be able to use their ignorance as an excuse for they harm they cause. A drunk driver may sincerely believe he's not doing harm, but we still define drunk drivers as immoral. Those low-level deniers are like drunk drivers with the truth.

Taken past a certain point, deliberate incompetence crosses the line into immorality. Deniers have been presented with all the tools and information they need to not be incompetent, but they still deliberately choose to be incompetent. Hence, they are morally culpable for the harm that derives from their incompetence.

Let's use the analogy to its completion. Let's say, instead of climate change, the deniers were denying the holocaust and you knew all along it is going on. The question isn't what the deniers will do but what YOU are doing. Would you confront the Nazis or would you confront those who denied the holocaust?

In other words, what are you doing to stop what you apparently feel I can stop. Cut back on your driving? Internet use? Paid for carbon credits? What exactly is it that you are doing other then calling people names? Which the consensus of scientist has agreed that name calling leads to global warming.

Global warming is a global issue, and requires a global response. Everyone must do their part.

So you are a collaborator who wants someone else to do something...gotja. Face it, you are doing nothing about global warming all you really want is to force your views on everyone else. It makes you feel good.

 

[Votto]

What is the moral basis for climate change denial? Do climate change deniers have any morality? Based on the evidence of global climate change, and the obvious effects this will have on humanity, are climate change deniers in fact immoral?
Climate denial is immoral says head of US Episcopal church Environment The Guardian

Anyone who suggests that there is no climate change is a retard.

History shows that it has been going on long before humans showed up.

In fact, during the time of the Dino it was far warmer than today. Scientists speculate that dino's created more of a carbon footprint by simply passing gas than humans do today.

Statists using religion to control the masses is what the Founding Fathers feared, just like Hillary telling religious folk that their views on abortion must change.

 

[orogenicman]

I don't believe that rank-and-file deniers will be able to use their ignorance as an excuse for they harm they cause. A drunk driver may sincerely believe he's not doing harm, but we still define drunk drivers as immoral. Those low-level deniers are like drunk drivers with the truth.

Taken past a certain point, deliberate incompetence crosses the line into immorality. Deniers have been presented with all the tools and information they need to not be incompetent, but they still deliberately choose to be incompetent. Hence, they are morally culpable for the harm that derives from their incompetence.

Let's use the analogy to its completion. Let's say, instead of climate change, the deniers were denying the holocaust and you knew all along it is going on. The question isn't what the deniers will do but what YOU are doing. Would you confront the Nazis or would you confront those who denied the holocaust?

In other words, what are you doing to stop what you apparently feel I can stop. Cut back on your driving? Internet use? Paid for carbon credits? What exactly is it that you are doing other then calling people names? Which the consensus of scientist has agreed that name calling leads to global warming.

Global warming is a global issue, and requires a global response. Everyone must do their part.

So you are a collaborator who wants someone else to do something...gotja. Face it, you are doing nothing about global warming all you really want is to force your views on everyone else. It makes you feel good.

I drive less than 5,000 miles per year. I keep my thermometer low in the winter, high in the summer. I recycle. I use energy efficient lighting. I try to inform others so they can do the same or better. What are you doing to contribute? Anything?

 

[Freewill]

YES.

Not the dumb RWs. They're just doing what they're told, following orders from their owners.

But, the businesses who rape the planet for money, knowing they are dooming their own children and grandchildren to a life of misery - that's immoral.

"The land that the Lord your God cares for. The eyes of the Lord your God are always upon it, from the beginning of the year until the end of the year."
Deuteronomy 11:12

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

God pretty much is saying, do as you want it is yours.

That would be the immoral interpretation. The moral interpretation is that God has made us responsible to take care of his creations.

That would be true if God gave parameters for that care, He did not. Free will wins. YOU wish to be God and say what He did not.

 

[Votto]

 

[orogenicman]

As if killing Rhinos for their horns or elephants for their tusks ISN'T interfering with nature?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

What is the moral basis for climate change denial? Do climate change deniers have any morality? Based on the evidence of global climate change, and the obvious effects this will have on humanity, are climate change deniers in fact immoral?
Climate denial is immoral says head of US Episcopal church Environment The Guardian

Why would they be immoral? Not like over a billion people live within 50 miles of the ocean and would be royally screwed if sea levels continue to rise or anything. (whisper whisper) ...Oh wait.

 

[Votto]

What is the moral basis for climate change denial? Do climate change deniers have any morality? Based on the evidence of global climate change, and the obvious effects this will have on humanity, are climate change deniers in fact immoral?
Climate denial is immoral says head of US Episcopal church Environment The Guardian

Why would they be immoral? Not like over a billion people live within 50 miles of the ocean and would be royally screwed if sea levels continue to rise or anything. (whisper whisper) ...Oh wait.

I was promised by the scientists that Washington DC would soon be under water.

I've done my part by eating a can of baked beans every day, but still nothing.

 

[Liminal]

YES.

Not the dumb RWs. They're just doing what they're told, following orders from their owners.

But, the businesses who rape the planet for money, knowing they are dooming their own children and grandchildren to a life of misery - that's immoral.

"The land that the Lord your God cares for. The eyes of the Lord your God are always upon it, from the beginning of the year until the end of the year."
Deuteronomy 11:12

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

God pretty much is saying, do as you want it is yours.

That would be the immoral interpretation. The moral interpretation is that God has made us responsible to take care of his creations.

That would be true if God gave parameters for that care, He did not. Free will wins. YOU wish to be God and say what He did not.

You've obviously never even seen a Bible, let alone read one.

 

[Liminal]

Based on this bit, I'm glad George Carlin is dead.

 

[Freewill]

YES.

Not the dumb RWs. They're just doing what they're told, following orders from their owners.

But, the businesses who rape the planet for money, knowing they are dooming their own children and grandchildren to a life of misery - that's immoral.

"The land that the Lord your God cares for. The eyes of the Lord your God are always upon it, from the beginning of the year until the end of the year."
Deuteronomy 11:12

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

God pretty much is saying, do as you want it is yours.

That would be the immoral interpretation. The moral interpretation is that God has made us responsible to take care of his creations.

That would be true if God gave parameters for that care, He did not. Free will wins. YOU wish to be God and say what He did not.

You've obviously never even seen a Bible, let alone read one.

Can't prove me wrong so attack, simple religion you have.

 

[Liminal]

"The land that the Lord your God cares for. The eyes of the Lord your God are always upon it, from the beginning of the year until the end of the year."
Deuteronomy 11:12

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

God pretty much is saying, do as you want it is yours.

That would be the immoral interpretation. The moral interpretation is that God has made us responsible to take care of his creations.

That would be true if God gave parameters for that care, He did not. Free will wins. YOU wish to be God and say what He did not.

You've obviously never even seen a Bible, let alone read one.

Can't prove me wrong so attack, simple religion you have.

You want to talk about the Bible, but you obviously don't know anything. So why talk about things you don't know anything about?

 

[Liminal]

God has little tolerance for people who want to destroy the earth for their own petty gains.
Christian Ecology - -- echo var heading --

 

[PredFan]

YES.

Not the dumb RWs. They're just doing what they're told, following orders from their owners.

But, the businesses who rape the planet for money, knowing they are dooming their own children and grandchildren to a life of misery - that's immoral.

"The land that the Lord your God cares for. The eyes of the Lord your God are always upon it, from the beginning of the year until the end of the year."
Deuteronomy 11:12

How odd to use the excuse of an imaginary, invisible being to destroy what one believes that imaginary being created.

In order for that to be the case, the left wing lies about AGW would have to be true. They aren't so there's no conflict.

Climate change deniers whole premise is a lie. In order for the deniers to have any moral or ethical credibility they would have to stop lying about everything all the time. They won't, so they are in fact immoral. Their position is based on deception, innuendo, distortion, and outright lies.

So, I said that the believers were lying and you respond with "The Deniers are lying more?" That's it? Schoolyard gainsaying is all you have? Grow up.

 

[Porker]

What is the moral basis for climate change denial? Do climate change deniers have any morality? Based on the evidence of global climate change, and the obvious effects this will have on humanity, are climate change deniers in fact immoral?
Climate denial is immoral says head of US Episcopal church Environment The Guardian

Anyone who suggests that there is no climate change is a retard.

History shows that it has been going on long before humans showed up.

In fact, during the time of the Dino it was far warmer than today. Scientists speculate that dino's created more of a carbon footprint by simply passing gas than humans do today.

Statists using religion to control the masses is what the Founding Fathers feared, just like Hillary telling religious folk that their views on abortion must change.

Climate change has happened for the last 198,677, 923, 775, 109, 665, 378 years. And HUMANS HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

 

[Porker]

And that is why deniers are immoral.

SCIENTISTS trying to play GOD is IMMORAL. And that would be sumbitches such as YOURSELF.

 

[Liminal]

YES.

Not the dumb RWs. They're just doing what they're told, following orders from their owners.

But, the businesses who rape the planet for money, knowing they are dooming their own children and grandchildren to a life of misery - that's immoral.

"The land that the Lord your God cares for. The eyes of the Lord your God are always upon it, from the beginning of the year until the end of the year."
Deuteronomy 11:12

How odd to use the excuse of an imaginary, invisible being to destroy what one believes that imaginary being created.

In order for that to be the case, the left wing lies about AGW would have to be true. They aren't so there's no conflict.

Climate change deniers whole premise is a lie. In order for the deniers to have any moral or ethical credibility they would have to stop lying about everything all the time. They won't, so they are in fact immoral. Their position is based on deception, innuendo, distortion, and outright lies.

So, I said that the believers were lying and you respond with "The Deniers are lying more?" That's it? Schoolyard gainsaying is all you have? Grow up.

Another false, lying, immoral interpretation.