• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Climate change as a tool of tyranny

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
The only gullibility is those in denial, like yourself. Remember, your ilk are the ones who ignore what experts report.
Denial doesn't imply gullibility. Scientists are opportunists - the money comes from governments, and human government is based on error.

Speaking of experts, this one doesn't buy into the cult of warm.

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years.
 

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
are collaborating on some convoluted conspiracy/hoax from which they would have nothing to gain and everything to lose, just for ****s and giggles.
Strawman - there's no conspiracy. As the adage says, those who the gods would destroy they first make mad.
 

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
Are you not accusing the scientific community of lying?
Not in general. It's well know that it's difficult speak the truth when everyone else repeats the fiction. Also, those who publish the reports are not only scientists, they're commercial operators in a world where holding to the truth about the intangibles of nature gets you excommunicated by the church-state of Westminster.
Sounds like a wacky conspiracy theory to me.
When the alternative is a lone gunman and with a magic bullet, conspiracy theory is entirely sane. The killing of JFK is where the conspiracy theory slur got started.
In lieu of critical thinking, you've simply gobbled up political propaganda that was spoon-fed to you.
Classic projection. I'm the one who is debunking the politicians, not you.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I keep hearing republicans accuse the Obama era FBI of "spying" on Trump and the Trump campaign during the 2015-16 campaign. They never acknowledge that the FBI was watching Russians who were meeting Trymp and his campaign officials. There were 112 documented meetings with Russians at a time the FBI knew Russia was working to interfere with our election.
I don't listen to the right at all. There are reasonable conservatives, but they have no voice and are replaced if they don't march in lockstep with the alt-right. Did you serve on the J6 Committee or vote for impeachment? Adios! The "Righties" cannibalized them like praying mantises.

Regarding those that can be heard and who define the Republican party, and their indoctrination media and the uncritical sycophants carrying water for their enemies and ours created by these conservative propaganda sources, I have zero interest in their opinions or what they want, nor the opinions of their echo chamber. It's just a steady diet of lies and propaganda including the lie that this is how their critics behave. I don't merely disagree with them. I disapprove of them. I consider it all the enemy of Americanism - democracy, egalitarianism, the rule of law, church-state separation. They're enemies of all of that, just like Putin, and just like the Taliban - not fellow anythings.
I plan to set up solar in my house in the next few years. My city suffered severe storms 5 weeks ago and hundreds of thousands of people were without power. Trees took out a lot of the infrastructure. Most were without power for several days, but others were out for up to 5-6 days. Mine was out for almost 4 days, which is a rude awakening when it is hot and still have to function and go to work. A lot of citizens were mad that it took so long, but that is the dilemma of a city with a lot of trees and power lines above ground.

I don't think deniers understand the effects quite yet. And thus far some will deny regardless what happens.
Sorry to hear that. My in-laws are going through something similar now in the Detroit area - flooded basements and power failures. It's a first for them.

It appears that this is the future for many, becoming progressively more severe and more frequent. I shake my head when I hear them refer to a 100-year flood. Not anymore. It's probably a twenty-year flood now on its way to becoming a five-year flood. Everybody would be well advised to recognize that we are in a state of transition now, and the past no longer predicts the future.

In my opinion, if you live in one of these areas already experiencing ill effects of heat, drought, wind, or water/snow, and you expect to be around a few more decades, it's time to start looking at other places to live. Volcanoes, Quakes, and World Weather News to see the world weather report and who's having problems now. Here's a video link (2 minutes of review of recent major world weather) you might be able to use if any of this is of interest to you:


Here's what's coming, in my opinion. Certain areas are now in the process of transitioning to undesirable or uninhabitable locations. As this becomes more evident, homes in those areas will become progressively less desirable as properties become very expensive to insure or uninsurable, and property values start to fall. The alert will have sold and relocated before the rest figure it out and the housing market dries up. Once this begins, everybody's going to lose a little or a lot. The biggest losers in this game of musical houses will be the last to understand this. They will be the ones who get stuck with a home that they can't sell or insure, and then it burns down or is destroyed in a hurricane or tornado.

If this describes your situation - if you are a homeowner in a transitioning locale - I expect you to recognize that and take action sooner than later and salvage the present equity in your home. Let a climate denier buy it from you. They'll be the last to recognize the situation and too late to avoid the loss - the price of faith-based thought (religion doesn't have a monopoly on that) and the avoidance of critical, evidence-based thought.
No, it's about the gullibility of the cult of warm.
Right on cue. You're the guy I just wrote about - among the last to see the writing on the wall.
 
Last edited:

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Not in general. It's well know that it's difficult speak the truth when everyone else repeats the fiction. Also, those who publish the reports are not only scientists, they're commercial operators in a world where holding to the truth about the intangibles of nature gets you excommunicated by the church-state of Westminster.
So where is the evidence that the entire scientific community is collaborating on a hoax, and what would they have to gain from it? And how is that more plausible than the fossil fuel industry lobbying to protect its profits from regulation? Your POV is wacky cartoon nonsense.
When the alternative is a lone gunman and with a magic bullet, conspiracy theory is entirely sane. The killing of JFK is where the conspiracy theory slur got started.
Evidence and plausibility matter. Even if the details of the JFK assassination were covered up, that doesn't lend credence to the lost city of Atlantis.
Classic projection. I'm the one who is debunking the politicians, not you.
Regurgitating **** you've read on facebook or infowars hasn't debunked anything.

If you don't trust the scientific method, then you have no business using medicine or technology, which includes the internet and the device you're using to access it.
 
Last edited:

Father Heathen

Veteran Member

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
So who exactly is paying off the international scientific community, and why?
Exact is too much work.


The reason why is humanism - to err is human. Humanism got it's name in Rome, which connects functionally to the U.N. via the Treaty of Rome. Humanism denies the intangibles of nature, and errors of this scale lead to ruin.

You wish.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Exact is too much work.


The reason why is humanism - to err is human. Humanism got it's name in Rome, which connects functionally to the U.N. via the Treaty of Rome. Humanism denies the intangibles of nature, and errors of this scale lead to ruin.
So science is a nefarious agenda whereas fossil fuel industry lobbying is a selfless fight for truth and justice.

Since technology is the application of science, are you sure you can trust your devices? Might want to turn them off and toss them away just to be on the safe side.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
Ebionite, please explain what you are talking about. When were CO2 levels ever above even 500 ppm?

From around 20 million years ago, according to earth.org

Who cares? That has nothing to do with whether global warming today is anthropogenic, and that is the question that we were talking about before you introduced this red herring. What is your point in replying to me with this nonsense? If CO2 levels were that high today, the world would be vastly different than it is today. Neither we nor those organisms and plants we depend on for food are evolved to survive under such hypothetical conditions. We are already experiencing a sixth mass extinction event going on across the globe because of climate change and ocean pollution as insect, animal, and plant populations die off. This is affecting the human food chain, so it is quite serious.

Holocene (Anthropocene) Extinction
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Retarded arguments don't make me angry, they bore me.
And you don’t seem to consider that you could be mistaken, and have been duped by those who benefit from less climate change action. As i asked before, isn’t it wiser to defer to the worst case scenario? If the experts are wrong then we still have problems. If the deniers are wrong (which the evidence suggests) then acting now will help save lives. You don’t seem interested in that moral argument.
 

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
And you don’t seem to consider that you could be mistaken, and have been duped by those who benefit from less climate change action. As i asked before, isn’t it wiser to defer to the worst case scenario? If the experts are wrong then we still have problems. If the deniers are wrong (which the evidence suggests) then acting now will help save lives. You don’t seem interested in that moral argument.
The worst case scenario is that the U.N. is leading the world to ruin because of its humanism.
 
Top