Are Climate Change Deniers Immoral?

[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.

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

Still no back up to the claim in your OP.

Eight pages of wasted bandwidth.

 

[Liminal]

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.

I was kidding earlier.....you really aren't a very good liar at all.

 

[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?

Still no back up to the claim in your OP.

Eight pages of wasted bandwidth.

As I said already, the evidence of denier immorality is the consistent dishonesty of liars like yourself.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

The weight of this fact seems to get lost time after time in the name calling.

Why not let the science speak for itself.

Why the need to attack those who disagree with you ?

 

[Liminal]

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.

The weight of this fact seems to get lost time after time in the name calling.

Why not let the science speak for itself.

Why the need to attack those who disagree with you ?

That's pretty funny coming from you. I don't know if you're delusional or dishonest or both.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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?

Still no back up to the claim in your OP.

Eight pages of wasted bandwidth.

As I said already, the evidence of denier immorality is the consistent dishonesty of liars like yourself.

This statement makes no sense at all.

First, you have no evidence......it is simply a claim.

And beyond that there is no dishonesty......or lies.....

You have not responded with anything in the way of a valid argument....at all.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

The weight of this fact seems to get lost time after time in the name calling.

Why not let the science speak for itself.

Why the need to attack those who disagree with you ?

That's pretty funny coming from you. I don't know if you're delusional or dishonest or both.

You are right....you don't know....anything.

Nice answer though.

It's easier to call people names than engage in honest debate....

Oh wait....honest debate....that rules you out.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

I was kidding earlier.....you really aren't a very good liar at all.

Yes, well you would know a good one.

 

[Liminal]

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?

Still no back up to the claim in your OP.

Eight pages of wasted bandwidth.

As I said already, the evidence of denier immorality is the consistent dishonesty of liars like yourself.

This statement makes no sense at all.

First, you have no evidence......it is simply a claim.

And beyond that there is no dishonesty......or lies.....

You have not responded with anything in the way of a valid argument....at all.

We're at the point now where I have to assume that everything you say is a lie.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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?

Still no back up to the claim in your OP.

Eight pages of wasted bandwidth.

As I said already, the evidence of denier immorality is the consistent dishonesty of liars like yourself.

This statement makes no sense at all.

First, you have no evidence......it is simply a claim.

And beyond that there is no dishonesty......or lies.....

You have not responded with anything in the way of a valid argument....at all.

We're at the point now where I have to assume that everything you say is a lie.

And I think we've clearly established you'll be in your second year of high school.

You can't even deflect well.

Maybe you'll get better when puberty is over.

 

[Liminal]

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

Still no back up to the claim in your OP.

Eight pages of wasted bandwidth.

As I said already, the evidence of denier immorality is the consistent dishonesty of liars like yourself.

This statement makes no sense at all.

First, you have no evidence......it is simply a claim.

And beyond that there is no dishonesty......or lies.....

You have not responded with anything in the way of a valid argument....at all.

We're at the point now where I have to assume that everything you say is a lie.

And I think we've clearly established you'll be in your second year of high school.

You can't even deflect well.

Maybe you'll get better when puberty is over.

Another one for the ignore list.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Still no back up to the claim in your OP.

Eight pages of wasted bandwidth.

As I said already, the evidence of denier immorality is the consistent dishonesty of liars like yourself.

This statement makes no sense at all.

First, you have no evidence......it is simply a claim.

And beyond that there is no dishonesty......or lies.....

You have not responded with anything in the way of a valid argument....at all.

We're at the point now where I have to assume that everything you say is a lie.

And I think we've clearly established you'll be in your second year of high school.

You can't even deflect well.

Maybe you'll get better when puberty is over.

Another one for the ignore list.

Of course....

It's your only way out.

Everyone knows you've ducked the challenge.

They see you for what your are.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

What is the moral basis ?

Ha ha ha ha ha.....

Great question.

What is the moral basis for the pro-AGW movement ?

 

[Liminal]

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.

But those people are all part of a massive, diabolical, global conspiracy of scientists and governments, whose purpose is to suppress the truth and destroy freedom. How can we believe what they say?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Once again, that's an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. The so-called "authorities" you list are all boot-lickers sucking on the government tit.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Still no back up to the claim in your OP.

Eight pages of wasted bandwidth.

As I said already, the evidence of denier immorality is the consistent dishonesty of liars like yourself.

This statement makes no sense at all.

First, you have no evidence......it is simply a claim.

And beyond that there is no dishonesty......or lies.....

You have not responded with anything in the way of a valid argument....at all.

We're at the point now where I have to assume that everything you say is a lie.

And I think we've clearly established you'll be in your second year of high school.

You can't even deflect well.

Maybe you'll get better when puberty is over.

Another one for the ignore list.

Yea we know as a person who is as open minded as you, who goes for "true science " will put people who disagree with you on ignore.

Funny I don't have no one on Ignore because a person I disagree with a lot can teach me something, a New thought on a topic like NY in this thread
A question for the anti-abortionists US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Sir you don't want to debate and share Ideas. You just want to hear what you want to hear and close your mind off to things that might upset you.

That's not progression and searching for the truth.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

Once again, that's an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. The so-called "authorities" you list are all boot-lickers sucking on the government tit.

From what I read, the number of so-called "authorities" is overstated.

The following is the kind of crapp that really takes away from the discussion:

Global warming the 97 fallacy Environment Free speech spiked

Let’s examine how Cook et al reached this very precise figure.

First, they searched the abstracts of 11,944 articles in peer-reviewed journals from the years 1991 to 2011 which included the terms ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. At the very least, then, their conclusion is three or four years out of date.

Second, they sorted the abstracts into four piles: no position on anthropogenic global warming, endorsement, rejection and uncertainty. The biggest pile (66.4 per cent) was no position. Of the smaller piles which did express an opinion, 97.1 per cent ‘endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming’.

This already sounds a bit odd. This is not what the public understands by a consensus. Mr and Mrs Average are entitled to imagine that 97.1 per cent agreement means that 97.1 per cent of scientists voted on a ballot proposal. But no one ever voted. Instead, volunteers recruited from the Skeptical Science website winnowed the articles and interpreted the often arcane language of scientific abstracts. Since the slogan of this website is ‘rebutting global warming misinformation’, the volunteers’ interpretations were bound to be skewed in favour of the ‘consensus’.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

2/3's of the abstracts had no position.

That really changes things.

Next:

Aware of this problem, Cook et al sought the opinions of the authors themselves. This could be construed as a kind of ballot measure. There were 29,083 authors listed on the 11,944 papers. Of these, only 8,547 were sent an email asking for their opinion. Of these, only 1,189 responded. Using this method, Cook and his team found that an even higher proportion of them agreed that climate change was real and man-caused – 97.2 per cent. But notice that only four per cent of the authors ‘voted’. A ballot measure with a four per cent turnout is not what Mr and Mrs Average mean by a ‘consensus’.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Simply stated....WOW.

I agree with the authors final statements:

Scientists and politicians do themselves no favours when they use shoddy statistics and public relations flim-flam to sell scientific hypotheses to the public. Sooner or later Mr and Mrs Average will wake up to the fact that they have been manipulated. The backlash could be quite nasty.

Of course, the shenanigans of spinmeisters do not disprove the reality of global warming. It may be happening. It may be dangerous. It may be the greatest moral challenge of our generation. But it remains to be proved that there is a scientific consensus on any of those propositions.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Here is just one of many articles that perpetrates the fraud:

Global warming climate scientists overwhelmingly agree it s real and is caused by humans.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

Once again, that's an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. The so-called "authorities" you list are all boot-lickers sucking on the government tit.

From what I read, the number of so-called "authorities" is overstated.

The following is the kind of crapp that really takes away from the discussion:

Global warming the 97 fallacy Environment Free speech spiked

Let’s examine how Cook et al reached this very precise figure.

First, they searched the abstracts of 11,944 articles in peer-reviewed journals from the years 1991 to 2011 which included the terms ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. At the very least, then, their conclusion is three or four years out of date.

Second, they sorted the abstracts into four piles: no position on anthropogenic global warming, endorsement, rejection and uncertainty. The biggest pile (66.4 per cent) was no position. Of the smaller piles which did express an opinion, 97.1 per cent ‘endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming’.

This already sounds a bit odd. This is not what the public understands by a consensus. Mr and Mrs Average are entitled to imagine that 97.1 per cent agreement means that 97.1 per cent of scientists voted on a ballot proposal. But no one ever voted. Instead, volunteers recruited from the Skeptical Science website winnowed the articles and interpreted the often arcane language of scientific abstracts. Since the slogan of this website is ‘rebutting global warming misinformation’, the volunteers’ interpretations were bound to be skewed in favour of the ‘consensus’.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

2/3's of the abstracts had no position.

That really changes things.

Next:

Aware of this problem, Cook et al sought the opinions of the authors themselves. This could be construed as a kind of ballot measure. There were 29,083 authors listed on the 11,944 papers. Of these, only 8,547 were sent an email asking for their opinion. Of these, only 1,189 responded. Using this method, Cook and his team found that an even higher proportion of them agreed that climate change was real and man-caused – 97.2 per cent. But notice that only four per cent of the authors ‘voted’. A ballot measure with a four per cent turnout is not what Mr and Mrs Average mean by a ‘consensus’.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Simply stated....WOW.

I agree with the authors final statements:

Scientists and politicians do themselves no favours when they use shoddy statistics and public relations flim-flam to sell scientific hypotheses to the public. Sooner or later Mr and Mrs Average will wake up to the fact that they have been manipulated. The backlash could be quite nasty.

Of course, the shenanigans of spinmeisters do not disprove the reality of global warming. It may be happening. It may be dangerous. It may be the greatest moral challenge of our generation. But it remains to be proved that there is a scientific consensus on any of those propositions.

He don't want to hear it, one of those flat earthers in the 1400s that the Catholic pope agreed with.

 

[Liminal]

As I said already, the evidence of denier immorality is the consistent dishonesty of liars like yourself.

This statement makes no sense at all.

First, you have no evidence......it is simply a claim.

And beyond that there is no dishonesty......or lies.....

You have not responded with anything in the way of a valid argument....at all.

We're at the point now where I have to assume that everything you say is a lie.

And I think we've clearly established you'll be in your second year of high school.

You can't even deflect well.

Maybe you'll get better when puberty is over.

Another one for the ignore list.

Yea we know as a person who is as open minded as you, who goes for "true science " will put people who disagree with you on ignore.

Funny I don't have no one on Ignore because a person I disagree with a lot can teach me something, a New thought on a topic like NY in this thread
A question for the anti-abortionists US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Sir you don't want to debate and share Ideas. You just want to hear what you want to hear and close your mind off to things that might upset you.

That's not progression and searching for the truth.

Deniers don't give two shits about the truth. So given the fact that there are no honest deniers anywhere: what would be the basis for actual discussion?