ron4jesus #fundie

ron4jesus #fundie rr-bb.com

(referring to global warming)

It's all about controlling the masses. The big lie, and lie enough, and lie often, and they will believe it. I don't buy it at all!!!!!!!!

69 comments

old comment by Xotan

So the Greenland icecap is intact; the Pyrenean Glaciers will not be completely gone in two years time; the Antarctice iceshelf is not in disastrous retreat and decay; the level of the seas has not measurably risen in the past decade; Europe (and now Australia) are not experiencing disastrous droughts and fires?

Strange. I must have been imagining this during the hurricane we had here three weeks ago. BTW, Europe is not hurricane territory, apart from the odd one once or twice a century. I'm certainly not a hundred years old, but I can now remember three mjor ones. Three weeks ago the winds were up to 185 kph - about 115 mph!

But I'll be happy enough to say 'told you so' as you get consumed by the flames; or as the icy cold sea shrivels your testicles; or when you can no longer go skiing for fear of unstable snow adhesion to the slopes (avalanches to you) or total lack of snow.

old comment by zz tops

I think we need to lend more credibility to Dr. Kunihiko's comments. Lots of posters are simply dismissing global warming as "fact, and if you disagree you're an idiot", but we have to remember that we're talking about science, not religion. Science is all about thinking and rethinking hypothesis based on the data, not about being right or wrong. Lots of scientists looked at the data and said global warming doesn't exist, but this doesn't make them idiots, it just means they interpreted data differently.

We have to ensure that science doesn't become a form of religion, and maintains its legitimacy even in the face of issues we find politically or morally important. Despite the fact that we may personally agree with global warming science (I lean towards accepting its legitimacy), people who know the data, and interpret it differently shouldn't be considered wrong, but as simply, in disagreement with us. once people are posting stuff like this: "Sounds like Dr. Kunihiko needs to be quoted on CTSTDT." I intuitively know we're taking science the wrong way.

old comment by zz tops

@Lucretius:
Much of the debate on global warming is political/regulatory. We generally recognize its existence, though it's still up for scientific debate (see my last post). The big problem is that many on the far left have used global warming as an opportunity to blame the "evil corporations" for the problem. I'm not denying they play a role, but demand-side self-regulation (choosing not to buy SUVs) is infinitely preferable to supply-side forced-regulation (rules against SUVs) because of the inefficiencies such rules would create (imagine if construction workers had to drive prius's? Buildings wouldn't get built. I know it's a bad example, but the general idea holds, some people are "required" to be fuel-inefficient in order to be productive.)

old comment by blackgem

You know I feel that more people would accept global warming if it was referred more as "global climate change", since not everywhere is necessarily going to be affected by having local temperatures get hotter. After all, if the sea levels rise more then the UK will get colder as the gulf stream gets flooded, for example.

@zz top
It's a point well made, we should always be careful to look at the evidence before drawing conclusions and be open to new evidence. Still, the current evidence is distinctly pointing towards global climat changes with at least some level of human intervention, even if the worse case scenarios are a bit more debatable.

old comment by Won Ton

On the first page of the comments one user wants us to check out a link about global warming, a column by a C Brooker.

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3563532/The-world-has-never-seen-such-freezing-heat.html)

That's quite funny, linking fstdt users to Brooker. Let's see what wikipedia has to say about him...

"Via his long-running column in the UK's Sunday Telegraph, Booker has claimed that man-made global warming was "disproved" in 2008[1], that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent risk" to human health[2], that "scientific evidence to support [the] belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist"[3] and that there is "no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans"[4]. He has also defended the theory of Intelligent Design, maintaining that Darwinians "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions"."

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"It's all about controlling the masses."

Well, get a lot of people together in an enclosed space - say, a concert hall, disco etc - doing heavy exertions (fnar-fnarr! [/Finbarr Saunders]), with little to no air circulation, and you'll create a microclimate - with clouds, nay, even rain.

"The big lie, and lie enough, and lie often, and they will believe it. I don't buy it at all!!!!!!!!"

Every irony meter in the universe ever manufactured; past, present & future, has gone supernova. Why?

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

-Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Propaganda Minister [/Godwin]

Just take a good look at yourselves in those ever so shiny mirrors of yours, Ruptured Retards: People who believe in a book that claims as fact that a talking snake existed?!

'There's a sucker born every minute'

-PT Barnum

One word: Evidence. We has it. Do you?

ron4jesus #fundie rr-bb.com

69 comments

Confused?