Are Climate Change Deniers Immoral?

[Liminal]

No, Mr. Uncensored, you are not a man of science at all. You reject science and the evidence it presents. We have the scientists presenting the physical evidence that action is needed on the subject of climate change, we have the religious leaders stating that there is a moral responsibility to take these actions, and we have people like you are Westwall, stating that the profits of the polluters are far more important.

Dogma and fraud are not "evidence."

Your cult started with a conclusion and then fabricated evidence to support that conclusion. You've been caught repeatedly. The AGW cult belongs with religion, especially the Catholic church. You and the Catholics from the dark ages have a great deal in common.

Shows what you know about the Catholics. Ever hear of the theory of the expanding universe? Any idea what the origins of that are? Any remote clue as to who thought of the theory that eventually disproved Einstein? Any ideas at all?
I'll give you a short review period, there will be a quiz later.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I've provided no data.

You are just making stuff up.

I am awaiting your post where you point out the lies.

You said they are lying. You must be able to show the lies (or I suppose you would).

I am not calling anyone anything (except you whom I am calling a fraud because you can't produce what you need to back up your claims).

I've made no claims other than you are a fraud.

You are deflecting.

Like so many who post, you are good with the accusations but when asked to produce back up...you wander all over the map farting out smoke every step of the way.

Show the lies.

Since you are apparently a little slow to learn I'll help you out by deconstructing the denier myths a piece at a time.

I am most looking forward to your responses.

Let's start with the foundation of the denier lies: Climate change deniers maintain that 97% of climate scientists are either directly or indirectly employed by the government, and therefore all their studies and conclusions are based on a conflict of interest.

This is the foundation of the denier lies ?

I don't believe I've ever heard that claim before.

Surely you can produce something that shows this is the "foundation".

Would the "deniers" agree with you ?

They all evidently agree because of financial incentives.

I suppose you mean all these scientists agree...correct ?

Didn't Al Gore make the same claim about the deniers in his movie ? I didn't see it so I can only go from what I've heard.

What kind of financial incentives are we talking about ?

Yet not one denier can even begin to substantiate wild distortions like that, some apparently believe they can make it true by simply repeating it.

I would agree that this is quite a claim. But I am not sure that I can agree that this is the basis for their denial.

The tactic you call out is pretty common. Not just in this debate.

I'd love to see someone provide the evidence of this massive, diabolical plot to suppress the truth......with something besides more idle speculation.

Yes, well this claim makes it all the more difficult.

You'd need to produce the argument on their part (and I can assure there are other arguments that seem to be much more at the front of things) if they have one. If they don't, you obviously can't refute it.

Are you saying this is the whole basis of their claim ?

They are not basing anything on data they say is relevant ?

Never heard it before huh? Not the foundation of the denier's arguments, that everyone has heard repeated over and over in the media, seen ad nauseam on this forum. You aren't just denying, now you're obviously lying too.

I have heard the claim that it has to do with the their ties to money.

I have never heard the claim that this is the "foundation" for their lies. Mostly, it seems to be their contestation of the "science", the interpretation of data, potential other causes.....etc. So, yes, I've never heard that this is the foundation of their claims. It isn't repeated all over the media. It is stated.....but I don't recall the media supporting that claim.

When you get you story straight, you'll be much more credible.

Denying....? I never said I didn't believe in AGW....I simply said I was still up in the air on a lot of things.

So, why don't you grow up and learn how to communicate instead of bouncing between the keyboard and the popsicles your parents give you to keep you quiet.

Sounds like you'll need to make a whole huge list of things that you've never heard of before we can even begin to think about having an honest discussion.

Another display of dishonesty or laziness.

That the AGW group's link to money is the "foundation" of the deniers claims is pure garbage.

You can't prove that.

But, let's get to the more compelling argument which is where I thought you go to begin with. The science. Surely, you disagree with or take exception to the science they offer up as counter to your arguments (I know I've seen some of it).

Or are you saying you can't argue away their science ?

Please tell us which is it.

 

[Liminal]

Since you are apparently a little slow to learn I'll help you out by deconstructing the denier myths a piece at a time.

I am most looking forward to your responses.

Let's start with the foundation of the denier lies: Climate change deniers maintain that 97% of climate scientists are either directly or indirectly employed by the government, and therefore all their studies and conclusions are based on a conflict of interest.

This is the foundation of the denier lies ?

I don't believe I've ever heard that claim before.

Surely you can produce something that shows this is the "foundation".

Would the "deniers" agree with you ?

They all evidently agree because of financial incentives.

I suppose you mean all these scientists agree...correct ?

Didn't Al Gore make the same claim about the deniers in his movie ? I didn't see it so I can only go from what I've heard.

What kind of financial incentives are we talking about ?

Yet not one denier can even begin to substantiate wild distortions like that, some apparently believe they can make it true by simply repeating it.

I would agree that this is quite a claim. But I am not sure that I can agree that this is the basis for their denial.

The tactic you call out is pretty common. Not just in this debate.

I'd love to see someone provide the evidence of this massive, diabolical plot to suppress the truth......with something besides more idle speculation.

Yes, well this claim makes it all the more difficult.

You'd need to produce the argument on their part (and I can assure there are other arguments that seem to be much more at the front of things) if they have one. If they don't, you obviously can't refute it.

Are you saying this is the whole basis of their claim ?

They are not basing anything on data they say is relevant ?

Never heard it before huh? Not the foundation of the denier's arguments, that everyone has heard repeated over and over in the media, seen ad nauseam on this forum. You aren't just denying, now you're obviously lying too.

I have heard the claim that it has to do with the their ties to money.

I have never heard the claim that this is the "foundation" for their lies. Mostly, it seems to be their contestation of the "science", the interpretation of data, potential other causes.....etc. So, yes, I've never heard that this is the foundation of their claims. It isn't repeated all over the media. It is stated.....but I don't recall the media supporting that claim.

When you get you story straight, you'll be much more credible.

Denying....? I never said I didn't believe in AGW....I simply said I was still up in the air on a lot of things.

So, why don't you grow up and learn how to communicate instead of bouncing between the keyboard and the popsicles your parents give you to keep you quiet.

Sounds like you'll need to make a whole huge list of things that you've never heard of before we can even begin to think about having an honest discussion.

Another display of dishonesty or laziness.

That the AGW group's link to money is the "foundation" of the deniers claims is pure garbage.

You can't prove that.

But, let's get to the more compelling argument which is where I thought you go to begin with. The science. Surely, you disagree with or take exception to the science they offer up as counter to your arguments (I know I've seen some of it).

Or are you saying you can't argue away their science ?

Please tell us which is it.

You don't present an honest argument. Therefore there is no basis to proceed further. You can't get past the premise.

 

[Liminal]

So to summarize the thread so far: Denier followers know jack shit about science.

 

[mamooth]

According to deniers, nobody can be trusted on anything unless they've taken a vow of poverty.

Oh wait. They apply that standard solely to climate scientists. That's rather flagrantly hypocritical of them.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I am most looking forward to your responses.

This is the foundation of the denier lies ?

I don't believe I've ever heard that claim before.

Surely you can produce something that shows this is the "foundation".

Would the "deniers" agree with you ?

I suppose you mean all these scientists agree...correct ?

Didn't Al Gore make the same claim about the deniers in his movie ? I didn't see it so I can only go from what I've heard.

What kind of financial incentives are we talking about ?

I would agree that this is quite a claim. But I am not sure that I can agree that this is the basis for their denial.

The tactic you call out is pretty common. Not just in this debate.

Yes, well this claim makes it all the more difficult.

You'd need to produce the argument on their part (and I can assure there are other arguments that seem to be much more at the front of things) if they have one. If they don't, you obviously can't refute it.

Are you saying this is the whole basis of their claim ?

They are not basing anything on data they say is relevant ?

Never heard it before huh? Not the foundation of the denier's arguments, that everyone has heard repeated over and over in the media, seen ad nauseam on this forum. You aren't just denying, now you're obviously lying too.

I have heard the claim that it has to do with the their ties to money.

I have never heard the claim that this is the "foundation" for their lies. Mostly, it seems to be their contestation of the "science", the interpretation of data, potential other causes.....etc. So, yes, I've never heard that this is the foundation of their claims. It isn't repeated all over the media. It is stated.....but I don't recall the media supporting that claim.

When you get you story straight, you'll be much more credible.

Denying....? I never said I didn't believe in AGW....I simply said I was still up in the air on a lot of things.

So, why don't you grow up and learn how to communicate instead of bouncing between the keyboard and the popsicles your parents give you to keep you quiet.

Sounds like you'll need to make a whole huge list of things that you've never heard of before we can even begin to think about having an honest discussion.

Another display of dishonesty or laziness.

That the AGW group's link to money is the "foundation" of the deniers claims is pure garbage.

You can't prove that.

But, let's get to the more compelling argument which is where I thought you go to begin with. The science. Surely, you disagree with or take exception to the science they offer up as counter to your arguments (I know I've seen some of it).

Or are you saying you can't argue away their science ?

Please tell us which is it.

You don't present an honest argument. Therefore there is no basis to proceed further. You can't get past the premise.

There is no argument to present on my part.

I have not made any claims.

You have.

You are the one who does not present the argument even though you've represented a conclusion.

Your statement is a classic. It is a dead giveaway of someone who is good with spouting off the talking points but has nothing behind it.

Your statements don't add up.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

According to deniers, nobody can be trusted on anything unless they've taken a vow of poverty.

Oh wait. They apply that standard solely to climate scientists. That's rather flagrantly hypocritical of them.

You mean like Al Gore ?

Gore did nothing to help the credibility of the AGW cause.

Why don't you people get back to the numbers and go from there.

Simply stating your opposition is lying is not much of an argument.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So to summarize the thread so far: Denier followers know jack shit about science.

To summarize: the pro-AGW group has done nothing to support the claim of the OP.

 

[Old Rocks]

What does not add up? The fact that the absorption sprectrum of CO2, CH4, and NOx gaurantee that if you add more of these to the atmosphere, the atmosphere will trap more outgoing longwave IR? Are you saying all the experiments done that show this since 1858 are incorrect? Care to show us some proof of those experiments?

 

[bripat9643]

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

 

[Liminal]

Never heard it before huh? Not the foundation of the denier's arguments, that everyone has heard repeated over and over in the media, seen ad nauseam on this forum. You aren't just denying, now you're obviously lying too.

I have heard the claim that it has to do with the their ties to money.

I have never heard the claim that this is the "foundation" for their lies. Mostly, it seems to be their contestation of the "science", the interpretation of data, potential other causes.....etc. So, yes, I've never heard that this is the foundation of their claims. It isn't repeated all over the media. It is stated.....but I don't recall the media supporting that claim.

When you get you story straight, you'll be much more credible.

Denying....? I never said I didn't believe in AGW....I simply said I was still up in the air on a lot of things.

So, why don't you grow up and learn how to communicate instead of bouncing between the keyboard and the popsicles your parents give you to keep you quiet.

Sounds like you'll need to make a whole huge list of things that you've never heard of before we can even begin to think about having an honest discussion.

Another display of dishonesty or laziness.

That the AGW group's link to money is the "foundation" of the deniers claims is pure garbage.

You can't prove that.

But, let's get to the more compelling argument which is where I thought you go to begin with. The science. Surely, you disagree with or take exception to the science they offer up as counter to your arguments (I know I've seen some of it).

Or are you saying you can't argue away their science ?

Please tell us which is it.

You don't present an honest argument. Therefore there is no basis to proceed further. You can't get past the premise.

There is no argument to present on my part.

I have not made any claims.

You have.

You are the one who does not present the argument even though you've represented a conclusion.

Your statement is a classic. It is a dead giveaway of someone who is good with spouting off the talking points but has nothing behind it.

Your statements don't add up.

Your continued denials all add up to the same thing.

 

[Old Rocks]

Once again, every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. But, of course, we are to believe an anonymous poster that all the scientists are wrong, and he knows so much more than the people that have spent decades learning their discipline. I don't think so.

 

[Liminal]

Since you are apparently a little slow to learn I'll help you out by deconstructing the denier myths a piece at a time.

I am most looking forward to your responses.

Let's start with the foundation of the denier lies: Climate change deniers maintain that 97% of climate scientists are either directly or indirectly employed by the government, and therefore all their studies and conclusions are based on a conflict of interest.

This is the foundation of the denier lies ?

I don't believe I've ever heard that claim before.

Surely you can produce something that shows this is the "foundation".

Would the "deniers" agree with you ?

They all evidently agree because of financial incentives.

I suppose you mean all these scientists agree...correct ?

Didn't Al Gore make the same claim about the deniers in his movie ? I didn't see it so I can only go from what I've heard.

What kind of financial incentives are we talking about ?

Yet not one denier can even begin to substantiate wild distortions like that, some apparently believe they can make it true by simply repeating it.

I would agree that this is quite a claim. But I am not sure that I can agree that this is the basis for their denial.

The tactic you call out is pretty common. Not just in this debate.

I'd love to see someone provide the evidence of this massive, diabolical plot to suppress the truth......with something besides more idle speculation.

Yes, well this claim makes it all the more difficult.

You'd need to produce the argument on their part (and I can assure there are other arguments that seem to be much more at the front of things) if they have one. If they don't, you obviously can't refute it.

Are you saying this is the whole basis of their claim ?

They are not basing anything on data they say is relevant ?

Never heard it before huh? Not the foundation of the denier's arguments, that everyone has heard repeated over and over in the media, seen ad nauseam on this forum. You aren't just denying, now you're obviously lying too.

I have heard the claim that it has to do with the their ties to money.

I have never heard the claim that this is the "foundation" for their lies. Mostly, it seems to be their contestation of the "science", the interpretation of data, potential other causes.....etc. So, yes, I've never heard that this is the foundation of their claims. It isn't repeated all over the media. It is stated.....but I don't recall the media supporting that claim.

When you get you story straight, you'll be much more credible.

Denying....? I never said I didn't believe in AGW....I simply said I was still up in the air on a lot of things.

So, why don't you grow up and learn how to communicate instead of bouncing between the keyboard and the popsicles your parents give you to keep you quiet.

Sounds like you'll need to make a whole huge list of things that you've never heard of before we can even begin to think about having an honest discussion.

Another display of dishonesty or laziness.

That the AGW group's link to money is the "foundation" of the deniers claims is pure garbage.

You can't prove that.

But, let's get to the more compelling argument which is where I thought you go to begin with. The science. Surely, you disagree with or take exception to the science they offer up as counter to your arguments (I know I've seen some of it).

Or are you saying you can't argue away their science ?

Please tell us which is it.

Still playing dumb huh. You're pretty good at it too....almost as if it comes naturally for you.

 

[Liminal]

So to summarize the thread so far: Denier followers know jack shit about science.

To summarize: the pro-AGW group has done nothing to support the claim of the OP.

The evidence of immorality is your own continued dishonesty.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I have heard the claim that it has to do with the their ties to money.

I have never heard the claim that this is the "foundation" for their lies. Mostly, it seems to be their contestation of the "science", the interpretation of data, potential other causes.....etc. So, yes, I've never heard that this is the foundation of their claims. It isn't repeated all over the media. It is stated.....but I don't recall the media supporting that claim.

When you get you story straight, you'll be much more credible.

Denying....? I never said I didn't believe in AGW....I simply said I was still up in the air on a lot of things.

So, why don't you grow up and learn how to communicate instead of bouncing between the keyboard and the popsicles your parents give you to keep you quiet.

Sounds like you'll need to make a whole huge list of things that you've never heard of before we can even begin to think about having an honest discussion.

Another display of dishonesty or laziness.

That the AGW group's link to money is the "foundation" of the deniers claims is pure garbage.

You can't prove that.

But, let's get to the more compelling argument which is where I thought you go to begin with. The science. Surely, you disagree with or take exception to the science they offer up as counter to your arguments (I know I've seen some of it).

Or are you saying you can't argue away their science ?

Please tell us which is it.

You don't present an honest argument. Therefore there is no basis to proceed further. You can't get past the premise.

There is no argument to present on my part.

I have not made any claims.

You have.

You are the one who does not present the argument even though you've represented a conclusion.

Your statement is a classic. It is a dead giveaway of someone who is good with spouting off the talking points but has nothing behind it.

Your statements don't add up.

Your continued denials all add up to the same thing.

There are no denials.

You are simply trying to cover your tracks.

Everyone can see you are shooting blanks.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I am most looking forward to your responses.

This is the foundation of the denier lies ?

I don't believe I've ever heard that claim before.

Surely you can produce something that shows this is the "foundation".

Would the "deniers" agree with you ?

I suppose you mean all these scientists agree...correct ?

Didn't Al Gore make the same claim about the deniers in his movie ? I didn't see it so I can only go from what I've heard.

What kind of financial incentives are we talking about ?

I would agree that this is quite a claim. But I am not sure that I can agree that this is the basis for their denial.

The tactic you call out is pretty common. Not just in this debate.

Yes, well this claim makes it all the more difficult.

You'd need to produce the argument on their part (and I can assure there are other arguments that seem to be much more at the front of things) if they have one. If they don't, you obviously can't refute it.

Are you saying this is the whole basis of their claim ?

They are not basing anything on data they say is relevant ?

Never heard it before huh? Not the foundation of the denier's arguments, that everyone has heard repeated over and over in the media, seen ad nauseam on this forum. You aren't just denying, now you're obviously lying too.

I have heard the claim that it has to do with the their ties to money.

I have never heard the claim that this is the "foundation" for their lies. Mostly, it seems to be their contestation of the "science", the interpretation of data, potential other causes.....etc. So, yes, I've never heard that this is the foundation of their claims. It isn't repeated all over the media. It is stated.....but I don't recall the media supporting that claim.

When you get you story straight, you'll be much more credible.

Denying....? I never said I didn't believe in AGW....I simply said I was still up in the air on a lot of things.

So, why don't you grow up and learn how to communicate instead of bouncing between the keyboard and the popsicles your parents give you to keep you quiet.

Sounds like you'll need to make a whole huge list of things that you've never heard of before we can even begin to think about having an honest discussion.

Another display of dishonesty or laziness.

That the AGW group's link to money is the "foundation" of the deniers claims is pure garbage.

You can't prove that.

But, let's get to the more compelling argument which is where I thought you go to begin with. The science. Surely, you disagree with or take exception to the science they offer up as counter to your arguments (I know I've seen some of it).

Or are you saying you can't argue away their science ?

Please tell us which is it.

Still playing dumb huh. You're pretty good at it too....almost as if it comes naturally for you.

More smoke.

No science.

It's as clear as a Colorado day in the morning.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So to summarize the thread so far: Denier followers know jack shit about science.

To summarize: the pro-AGW group has done nothing to support the claim of the OP.

The evidence of immorality is your own continued dishonesty.

You are getting desperate.

You only reveal yourself to be a fraud with each post.

The only lie you can come up with is one the media presents but it never does.

And you can't address the conflicts in the science. I wonder if you even understand it.

 

[Liminal]

Sounds like you'll need to make a whole huge list of things that you've never heard of before we can even begin to think about having an honest discussion.

Another display of dishonesty or laziness.

That the AGW group's link to money is the "foundation" of the deniers claims is pure garbage.

You can't prove that.

But, let's get to the more compelling argument which is where I thought you go to begin with. The science. Surely, you disagree with or take exception to the science they offer up as counter to your arguments (I know I've seen some of it).

Or are you saying you can't argue away their science ?

Please tell us which is it.

You don't present an honest argument. Therefore there is no basis to proceed further. You can't get past the premise.

There is no argument to present on my part.

I have not made any claims.

You have.

You are the one who does not present the argument even though you've represented a conclusion.

Your statement is a classic. It is a dead giveaway of someone who is good with spouting off the talking points but has nothing behind it.

Your statements don't add up.

Your continued denials all add up to the same thing.

There are no denials.

You are simply trying to cover your tracks.

Everyone can see you are shooting blanks.

So you keep saying. Is that really the best you can do? Don't you know that it's wrong to lie? Maybe you don't realize you're lying, maybe you lie to yourself. Either way, you can't get anywhere because you can't be honest.

 

[Liminal]

So to summarize the thread so far: Denier followers know jack shit about science.

To summarize: the pro-AGW group has done nothing to support the claim of the OP.

The evidence of immorality is your own continued dishonesty.

You are getting desperate.

You only reveal yourself to be a fraud with each post.

The only lie you can come up with is one the media presents but it never does.

And you can't address the conflicts in the science. I wonder if you even understand it.

What fraud is that? Do you even understand the meaning of the word? Is English really your first language?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Another display of dishonesty or laziness.

That the AGW group's link to money is the "foundation" of the deniers claims is pure garbage.

You can't prove that.

But, let's get to the more compelling argument which is where I thought you go to begin with. The science. Surely, you disagree with or take exception to the science they offer up as counter to your arguments (I know I've seen some of it).

Or are you saying you can't argue away their science ?

Please tell us which is it.

You don't present an honest argument. Therefore there is no basis to proceed further. You can't get past the premise.

There is no argument to present on my part.

I have not made any claims.

You have.

You are the one who does not present the argument even though you've represented a conclusion.

Your statement is a classic. It is a dead giveaway of someone who is good with spouting off the talking points but has nothing behind it.

Your statements don't add up.

Your continued denials all add up to the same thing.

There are no denials.

You are simply trying to cover your tracks.

Everyone can see you are shooting blanks.

So you keep saying. Is that really the best you can do? Don't you know that it's wrong to lie? Maybe you don't realize you're lying, maybe you lie to yourself. Either way, you can't get anywhere because you can't be honest.

You don't appear to know what honesty is.

Maybe you don't realize you are nothing more than a self-righteous know nothing.