Are Climate Change Deniers Immoral?

[Muhammed]

Who said that the climate doesn't change?

Republican leaders and all the Republican Internet spammers.

It's not about morality, it's about political ideology, political faith. And in this case the Republican party is God and all the words about climate change denial are words of God.

Could you be more specific?

 

[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

The second you bring morals into an argument, you have left science at the door. Science is about facts. Truth and morals is the realm of religion.

I disagree with you on morals. ANY group can set morals like the boy scouts or even a family. On the other hand ethics is NOT science yet IS playing a role in this phony global warming scam.

So to invoke ethics of honesty in data or research only can improve the results of the research. THIS has been the problem with their argument from the start. The ethics in their science have shown to be bought for grant money or outcome.

Science NEEDS to be free of politics free of agendas to be useful.

Science is but a weapon to the statist, much like religion used to be during the inquisitions.

And like the inquisitions of old, those who oppose their agendas are held up and verbally assaulted on every side until they recant.

So now that I oppose their agendas I'm either immoral, dishonest, etc.

 

[Muhammed]

"Are Climate Change Deniers Immoral?"

No, they're just dishonest and wrong.

Their opposition to the science is predicated on ignorance, unwarranted fear, and errant rightwing partisan politics.

What science?

Ignoramuses constantly claim that. However, apparently cannot provide evidence to back their argument.

 

[Votto]

"Are Climate Change Deniers Immoral?"

No, they're just dishonest and wrong.

Their opposition to the science is predicated on ignorance, unwarranted fear, and errant rightwing partisan politics.

What science?

Ignoramuses constantly claim that. However, apparently cannot provide evidence to back their argument.

Sure they can.

1. Green house gases can cause warming.

2. We emit green house gases.

Therefore, we are causing the planet to warm.

Look at any major city. It is warmer in the city than around it.

But what they fail to ignore is that the climate was much warmer than it is today in ancient times, before man even came on the scene. In fact, dino's produced more carbon emissions than we do today just by passing gas.

What their logic then conveniently ignores are the facts that they don't fully understand how the planet survived the dino era. They also conveniently ignore scientists who tell them that their sole solution to the problem, which is cap and trade, does virtually nothing to solve the problem. All it will do is make filth like Al Gore rich beyond his wildest dreams via the Chicago Climate Exchange.

Those who deny climate change are actually walking into a trap that is designed to discredit and mock those who don't understand some of the science they are using as their weapon.

 

[PredFan]

"Are Climate Change Deniers Immoral?"

No, they're just dishonest and wrong.

Their opposition to the science is predicated on ignorance, unwarranted fear, and errant rightwing partisan politics.

What science?

Ignoramuses constantly claim that. However, apparently cannot provide evidence to back their argument.

Sure they can.

1. Green house gases can cause warming.

2. We emit green house gases.

Therefore, we are causing the planet to warm.

Look at any major city. It is warmer in the city than around it.

But what they fail to ignore is that the climate was much warmer than it is today in ancient times, before man even came on the scene. In fact, dino's produced more carbon emissions than we do today just by passing gas.

What their logic then conveniently ignores are the facts that they don't fully understand how the planet survived the dino era. They also conveniently ignore scientists who tell them that their sole solution to the problem, which is cap and trade, does virtually nothing to solve the problem. All it will do is make filth like Al Gore rich beyond his wildest dreams via the Chicago Climate Exchange.

Those who deny climate change are actually walking into a trap that is designed to discredit and mock those who don't understand some of the science they are using as their weapon.

You say some intelligent things and I can't argue with some of it, but I have to poin t out where you are wrong here.

1. Cities are often warmer simply because of the heat from lights, auto exhaust, frequently obstructed breezes, close proximity of heated buildings and several other factors unrelated to the so-called greenhouse gases.

2. the evidence that temperature can be raised by gases in a large area is VERY sketchy. It is a theory that has yet to be proven or demonstrated.

I cannot find fault with the rest.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The IPCC openly admitted there's no science to Global Warming, it's all about wealth redistribution.

 

[Muhammed]

Humans are warm-blooded mammals.

If they did not consistantly warm their environment they would perish due to hypothermia.

 

[Muhammed]

The average temperature of a human is around 98.6 degrees on the Fahrenheit scale. The ambient air temperature on the surface of the Earth is much lower than that.

Apparently, that is why we are categorized as warm-blooded mammals.

 

[Votto]

"Are Climate Change Deniers Immoral?"

No, they're just dishonest and wrong.

Their opposition to the science is predicated on ignorance, unwarranted fear, and errant rightwing partisan politics.

What science?

Ignoramuses constantly claim that. However, apparently cannot provide evidence to back their argument.

Sure they can.

1. Green house gases can cause warming.

2. We emit green house gases.

Therefore, we are causing the planet to warm.

Look at any major city. It is warmer in the city than around it.

But what they fail to ignore is that the climate was much warmer than it is today in ancient times, before man even came on the scene. In fact, dino's produced more carbon emissions than we do today just by passing gas.

What their logic then conveniently ignores are the facts that they don't fully understand how the planet survived the dino era. They also conveniently ignore scientists who tell them that their sole solution to the problem, which is cap and trade, does virtually nothing to solve the problem. All it will do is make filth like Al Gore rich beyond his wildest dreams via the Chicago Climate Exchange.

Those who deny climate change are actually walking into a trap that is designed to discredit and mock those who don't understand some of the science they are using as their weapon.

You say some intelligent things and I can't argue with some of it, but I have to poin t out where you are wrong here.

1. Cities are often warmer simply because of the heat from lights, auto exhaust, frequently obstructed breezes, close proximity of heated buildings and several other factors unrelated to the so-called greenhouse gases.

2. the evidence that temperature can be raised by gases in a large area is VERY sketchy. It is a theory that has yet to be proven or demonstrated.

I cannot find fault with the rest.

My point here is that humans do, in fact, change the climate.

At the least, they change the climate around the immediate city.

The world is a complicated place, other than in the mind of a liberal. In the mind of the liberal, the world is a simple place. Just elect Dims and don't watch Fox News.

They are a special bunch.

 

[2aguy]

Climate change happens all the time...the only denial is based on man not having a role in it...that you guys generally do not like people is obvious, that is why you blame people for natural weather changes....

Also, by putting the blame for the weather on people...it justifies you doing drastic things to make things right....if weather is just weather...you can't punish people for it......

 

[Votto]

Climate change happens all the time...the only denial is based on man not having a role in it...that you guys generally do not like people is obvious, that is why you blame people for natural weather changes....

Also, by putting the blame for the weather on people...it justifies you doing drastic things to make things right....if weather is just weather...you can't punish people for it......

Blame? Anyone who blames climate change only on humans is a retard.

Climate change has a myriad of factors such as the sun and oceans. To simply say "humans done it" it retarded.

For example, all the planets in the solar system seem to be warming up as well. Why? It would appear to me that the common factor is the sun.

Having said that, to simply say that humans have no effect on the climate is equally disingenuous. They do produce carbon emission. The question is, to what degree do they effect climate change?

I don't believe it is as much as factors like the sun, nor do I believe cap and trade will make a drop of difference.

 

[Liminal]

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

The second you bring morals into an argument, you have left science at the door. Science is about facts. Truth and morals is the realm of religion.

Climate change deniers are immoral because they know they are lying.

 

[PredFan]

Here's the main problem with the AGW believers. They are actually grossly ignorant and they make up for it, at least in their minds, by agreeing with scientists. Somehow, even though they have no idea of the science and couldn't understand the tiniest bit of it, they think it makes them smart just because they agree.

The thing is that they are very ignorant, not only of science, history, human nature and they lack critical thinking skills. If they weren't, they'd know that historically, science has been more often wrong than right, and they would realize that scientists are also people. Which means that they are subject to the same faults as everyone else; greed, fraud, envy, pride, and corruption. We've seen all of these in the scandals that surround AGW.

 

[airplanemechanic]

This is a problem with liberals.

They say that that the climate is changing because of man made reasons and then label anyone who has a problem with that theory a "denier."

That is two fold slimy.

1. Those two things need to be broken into their individual parts, that climate is changing and that the reason is man made.
2. Denying one doesn't automatically mean you deny the other.

I absolutely 100% agree the climate is changing. Always has, always will. What I DO deny, and no evidence has been shown to be anything close to reliable, is that it's man made.

So calling me a "climate change denier" because I am in fact a "climate change caused by man denier" is being dishonest.

But honestly, I don't expect anything less out of the liberal left.

It's like saying people are getting fatter because of the size of forks sold today and when I say I don't agree with that you say I'm denying that people are getting fatter. I can agree that the basis of your argument is true and completely disagree with your REASONING.

 

[byhisello99]

I deny nothing, I am merely unconvinced. Yet, being unconvinced has me labeled a "denier," which usually leads to being labeled any number of other nasty things.

I am a scientist. I believe very little. I either know or I do not know. Anthropogenic Global Warming is unlikely as it has been presented, with humans being the primary cause of the current warming trend. We must affect the climate because it is a complex system of which we are a part.

We cannot identify even a minuscule fraction of a fraction of the other actors in the complex system, let alone define which are significant actors. Quantifying the effects of those actions is far beyond us. Modeling the complex system that is the climate is so far beyond our current capability that any attempt to do so is pure hubris.

 

[Brian Nott]

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

I think discussion about climate changes is rather scientific one than moral or ethic so to put question like this concerning this particular topic seems to be not correct or irrelevant.

 

[Hamlet091765]

Folks on other forums seem to have a political opposition about it. I think there are jobs to be made and money to be made if we implement things that will decrease our carbon footprint. Meaningful jobs that cannot be outsourced.
It does not require punitive government regs. to do so.

 

[Hamlet091765]

This is a problem with liberals.

They say that that the climate is changing because of man made reasons and then label anyone who has a problem with that theory a "denier."

That is two fold slimy.

1. Those two things need to be broken into their individual parts, that climate is changing and that the reason is man made.
2. Denying one doesn't automatically mean you deny the other.

I absolutely 100% agree the climate is changing. Always has, always will. What I DO deny, and no evidence has been shown to be anything close to reliable, is that it's man made.

So calling me a "climate change denier" because I am in fact a "climate change caused by man denier" is being dishonest.

But honestly, I don't expect anything less out of the liberal left.

It's like saying people are getting fatter because of the size of forks sold today and when I say I don't agree with that you say I'm denying that people are getting fatter. I can agree that the basis of your argument is true and completely disagree with your REASONING.

We have only one chance to reduce our contribution to warming, only one planet to leave for those who succeed us. When smog and fumes accumulate over a relatively dry and windy metroplex like Dallas/Ft. Worth then that tells me we aren't doing something right.

How can a bunch of novice bigot have such a superior handle on the situation? Oh my, I forgot, they know everything about anything. Think not, then just ask one.

 

[Hamlet091765]

Climate change happens all the time...the only denial is based on man not having a role in it...that you guys generally do not like people is obvious, that is why you blame people for natural weather changes....

Also, by putting the blame for the weather on people...it justifies you doing drastic things to make things right....if weather is just weather...you can't punish people for it......

Yeh right, things like smog and acid rain are just weather.
Ask the Japanese who have oxygen stations in the urban areas about it being just weather.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

There's a supposed "moral basis" for "denying" "climate change"?
One of the dumbest preconceptions ever.