-
Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Interesting.
Quote:
Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore says there is no proof global warming is caused by humans, but it is likely enough that the world should turn to nuclear power - a concept tied closely to the underground nuclear testing his former environmental group formed to oppose...
"It's like buying fire insurance," Moore said. "We all own fire insurance even though there is a low risk we are going to get into an accident."
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Global Warming is a lie and we should turn to nuclear power? I think I like this guy, but I'll read the article when I'm not rushing for class.
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
How is it that you're able to see that the global warming debate is a farce, and yet still end up taking a side, Phattonez?
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
I didn't get to find the best word to describe it since I had to leave for class. I mean sure, there's probably some truth to it, but I don't feel like there is any way to have enough research to prove that it is happening. There are just way too many variables, especially too many to claim that this is not a natural fluctuation of the Earth. And, from what I've heard, atmospheric temperatures have stabilized in the last 10 years and ocean temperatures have lowered. Arctic ice pack is actually increasing. Global Warming is something that is not being studied by unbiased bodies it seems.
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Prediction: The True Believers, led by Saint Al Gore, will downplay, twist, or outright ignore this position.
You can always tell an open-minded person from a True Believer. The open-minded person will think critically about their own position when they see contrary evidence. The True Believer will either ignore contrary evidence, or somehow spin it around to somehow support their preconceived notions.
Example of a global warming True Believer: "Look at this record-high temperature: Sure evidence of global warming." "Don't be deceived by this record-low temperature: Climate change will produce all sorts of crazy weather."
Another example: In 2005 we had a higher-than-average hurricane season. The True Believers, led by the Chosen One Al Gore, called it prima facie evidence of global warming. In the past two years we have had lower-than-average hurricane seasons. Not a peep from the True Believers. (Hint kids, that is why the word is "average".)
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Starkist
Prediction: The True Believers, led by Saint Al Gore, will downplay, twist, or outright ignore this position.
You can always tell an open-minded person from a True Believer. The open-minded person will think critically about their own position when they see contrary evidence. The True Believer will either ignore contrary evidence, or somehow spin it around to somehow support their preconceived notions.
Example of a global warming True Believer: "Look at this record-high temperature: Sure evidence of global warming." "Don't be deceived by this record-low temperature: Climate change will produce all sorts of crazy weather."
Another example: In 2005 we had a higher-than-average hurricane season. The True Believers, led by the Chosen One Al Gore, called it prima facie evidence of global warming. In the past two years we have had lower-than-average hurricane seasons. Not a peep from the True Believers. (Hint kids, that is why the word is "average".)
Yeah people who believe things without skepticism are crazy, aren't they? I mean, how can anyone just accept something on faith? It's very stupid. I totally agree with your assesment of this type of thinking.
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
I see what you did there, Beldaran. And oh, okay Phattonez - you had me worried, because you were speaking the language of the global-warming deniers, who in my view are just as bad and exploitive as the global-warming believers. I find the whole thing to be utterly ridiculous. You have a serious question posed regarding the environmental impact of our activities, and everyone just wants to politicize it.
And I mean, yeah, I understand that it's politicized because of the perceived impact on the economy of something like global warming, but I really think that people aren't being realistic here. I mean, even if global warming is real, we can't just stop using coal and oil tomorrow. That's utterly absurd. Just as absurd, however, are the people who don't believe we need to do something about our dependence on coal and oil, because there are so many other considerations besides whether or not it contributes to global warming. Regardless of global warming, it's still horribly polluting the atmosphere, as anyone who lives in a city knows. Regardless of global warming, we still have to deal with the fact that it's intimately tied to our relationship with the Middle East (really, it'd just be so much better if we could just avoid the region entirely). Regardless of global warming, we still have to face the fact that within the next few decades, and there's a good chance that it'll be sooner rather than later, the price of oil will just become prohibitively expensive.
At any rate, certainly, something's going on with the climate. We've got huge chunks of ice melting at both the North and South poles. It really behooves us to find out why, even if it isn't us who caused it, so we can at least know the extent of what's going on, and hopefully prepare for it and try to minimize the impact. Even if it's natural, it doesn't mean it's not something to be concerned about - remember, earthquakes, volcanoes, and hurricanes are all natural, too.
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Like I said before, the Arctic Ice Pack is growing, but decreasing in certain areas. I wonder where Al Gore is putting his cameras.
I don't completely deny that the Earth is warming up, but I do deny that it is as bad as the environmentalists say it is. They want to go way too far, and CO2 emissions aren't as bad as ozone emissions. That's the real problem. Low level ozone is terrible and no one is speaking out against it. That is the more pressing issue than Global Warming and that is what celebrities and environmentalists SHOULD be speaking out against (this is the going on the basis that celebrities are going to talk no matter what, even though I think that they should just keep their mouths completely shut).
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Don't worry about it. The real problem is the Earth is suffering from an infestation, of humans. There is a huge population of these critters, and it cannot be sustained, especially with them moving towards western lifestyle habits. This problem is caused by people in poor countries that won't stop fucking and infesting the earth with their spawnlings. Apparently some people think they have the right to pump 20 kids out of their vagina.
But, hopefully a plague or perhaps a war will break out causing massive death in hugely populated areas such as India, China, throw in Africa for good measure. No one has the balls to say it, but that is the solution. While some people want to tell you we need to reduce emissions and use energy more wisely, improve technology, etc... We aren't up for it, certainly not now.
The real solution is the same solution as always. If we suddenly don't have these millions of Chinese and Indians and Africans, the strain on resources will be reduced. Primarily India and China are the problem as they are buying alot of the oil for their growing industrial wastelands. That is probably reason enough to bomb them into the stone age. The planet can't take nations as big as India and China really industrializing like us. So I volunteer them for death.
And global warming, reguardless if it is happening now or not, will result in drastic changes that will fuck us over. Also, the Earth oribital pattern we are in right now should actually be causing the planet to get cooler. We are in a point where the planet gets less energy from the sun. Not like the angle change of summer/winter, but something of a longer time span. So, when the planet should actually be in a cooling spell, we are actually getting warmer... hmm...
And once again the faggots were wrong, violence is the answer.
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
MottZilla, like I said before, global temperatures have plateaued, and there is reason to believe that the rise in temperature was mostly due to activity of the sun. There is a real concern about cooling right now, but people don't really know about that.
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Oh, that'd be priceless, if we suffered Global Cooling. I mean, one of the big things the global warming deniers would trot out to mock the global warming believers was "Oh, but 30 years ago, scientists were all convinced that we're headed toward a new Ice Age." The thing that bothers me about that crowd is that they seem to have this attitude that, not only is climate change not man-made, but that climate change doesn't even happen, and that it's certainly nothing we should concern ourselves with or waste resources on.
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Climate change happens. Remember, when the Vikings discovered a large island in the Arctic Ocean they called it "Greenland". It is covered in ice today. The mean temperature has been rising and falling for thousands of years.
The True Believes and their messiah, Al Gore, believe two things that are absurd: 1) That man has the ability to cause dramatic and dangerous changes to this planet; and 2) That man can halt and reverse the changes that occur.
Both are signs of hubris. When Mt. St. Helens, here in Washington, can cause more damage to the ecosystem than a billion cars, that is a sign that man and his works are nothing to this earth. When that same ecosystem can thrive only twenty-eight years later, that is a sign that this earth is not as fragile as we are taught in grade school.
Like I said, the climate changes on its own. Pre-modern societies learned to adapt. It is only in the last fifty years or so that man has decided that we will try to alter the earth's climate itself to fit our needs, rather than vice-versa. I am more afraid of what Al Gore and his ilk will do to us and to the earth to stop climate change than I am of what the earth will do to us.
The crusade against global warming is an excuse to take away personal freedoms. Seriously. First, they treat science like a religion. The True Believers use propaganda to convert the masses. (An Inconvenient Truth, anyone?) They seek to punish the infidels, comparing global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers. They scare people into submission, treating fantasy films like The Day After Tomorrow as a serious warning, and saying that if we DON'T DO SOMETHING NOW!!! then all life on earth will be severely impacted.
Once the world has become True Believers, then government steps in. First it uses incentives, such as tax-breaks for hybrid cars, subsidies for biofuels, etc. After we accept this level of government intervention, then the mandates come. Incandescent light bulbs are being banned. Plastic grocery bags will soon be outlawed. Eventually, having too large a "carbon footprint" will be cause for fines or even worse. (The elites such as the Prophet Al Gore will be exempt, of course.) You will not be allowed to travel where you wish, because of the danger your car poses to the planet.
Most of you will probably say I'm going overboard, but notice that all the things I mentioned are happening now, except the last two. Those are my predictions.
Al Gore and his followers cannot be deterred by facts or logic. They see themselves as on a divine mission to save the earth from the scourge of mankind.
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
A lot of those things would be good anyway even without an effect on Global Warming. Being environmentally conscious does not make someone a Global Warming nut.
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Thank you, Phattonez. Starkist, um... yeah... what's with all the vitriol? I mean, no one here is a global warming "true believer" and yet you keep harping on about it. Just seems a bit random there, like you're trying to raise a controversy when there is none.
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Starkist
Like I said, the climate changes on its own. Pre-modern societies learned to adapt. It is only in the last fifty years or so that man has decided that we will try to alter the earth's climate itself to fit our needs, rather than vice-versa. I am more afraid of what Al Gore and his ilk will do to us and to the earth to stop climate change than I am of what the earth will do to us.
The crusade against global warming is an excuse to take away personal freedoms. Seriously. First, they treat science like a religion. The True Believers use propaganda to convert the masses. (An Inconvenient Truth, anyone?) They seek to punish the infidels, comparing global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers. They scare people into submission, treating fantasy films like The Day After Tomorrow as a serious warning, and saying that if we DON'T DO SOMETHING NOW!!! then all life on earth will be severely impacted.
Once the world has become True Believers, then government steps in. First it uses incentives, such as tax-breaks for hybrid cars, subsidies for biofuels, etc. After we accept this level of government intervention, then the mandates come. Incandescent light bulbs are being banned. Plastic grocery bags will soon be outlawed. Eventually, having too large a "carbon footprint" will be cause for fines or even worse. (The elites such as the Prophet Al Gore will be exempt, of course.) You will not be allowed to travel where you wish, because of the danger your car poses to the planet.
Wow, what a bunch of paranoid conspiracy bullshit. Seriously, the end result of global warming advocation is just a ploy to rob America of its liberties?
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Well, it's not the most absurd thing I've ever heard. I mean, I've always thought of the environmental movement as more of an anti-corporate movement, at least that's how it is today.
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Daarkseid
Wow, what a bunch of paranoid conspiracy bullshit. Seriously, the end result of global warming advocation is just a ploy to rob America of its liberties?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Starkist
Most of you will probably say I'm going overboard, but notice that all the things I mentioned are happening now, except the last two. Those are my predictions.
Indeed.
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
I just can't believe Starkist is insulting people for believing in things. Pot has sex with kettle.
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
And the stated purpose of environmentalism isn't to destroy corporations. Its been largely to acknowledge the impact humans have on our environment and then to promote ways of living that lessen said impact, because we still kind of rely on the earth for living.
Corporations, by their nature of being producers of large levels of pollution(just a natural result of the quantities of material they process in the normal goal of making and selling products), have been pressed upon to clean up their processes. They have, but still more crazy elements of the environmental movement refuse to trust corporations, and continue to agitate against them.
What you've done then is taken the activities and views of a minority within a movement and made them the face of that movement, and are now incorrectly labeling environmentalism as an anti-corporations movement.
Starkist is taking his fucked up slippery slope arguments that fundie psychos enjoy so much and arriving at the insane conclusion that Al Gore and people supporting him are acting out of a desire to destroy American liberty, and not actually doing it out of concern that this global warming period might actually be more permanent and long term because of human activity on earth.
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beldaran
I just can't believe Starkist is insulting people for believing in things. Pot has sex with kettle.
Yeah, but it's not the same. Global warming advocates don't blindly believe in the right thing, so it's obviously completely different. :rolleyes:
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
You see, that whole post depends on whether or not the anti-corporate viewpoint is a minority, and I'm not so sure that it is.
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Two points:
My beliefs and the beliefs of the global warming True Believers have different effects on society. I have not tried to change laws or human behaviour because of what I believe. Al Gore and his friends want to change laws and human behaviour because of what they believe. See the difference?
I do not necessarily believe that Al Gore and his friends are involved in a grand conspiracy to take away our rights. On the contrary, I am sure they think they are doing some good. As Jonah Goldberg illustrates, however, it is the desire to do good, the desire to make a difference that erodes liberty when government is the tool used to make that difference.
C.S. Lewis once wrote: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Many on this board would agree that no terrorist threat is worth losing any amount of liberty and freedom over. Why then should we give any freedoms away because some people think that we may otherwise harm the earth? Sorry Al, the debate is not over.
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Starkist, you keep shrieking about Al Gore and his True Believers, but why? I think pretty much everyone here can agree that global warming isn't a certainty. So what are you in such a huff about? It's like you're looking for a fight when there's none to be had. We all pretty much agree that the extremists are complete whack jobs. Granted, you seem to fail to recognize that you're falling into one of the extremist camps yourself, but still, you get the basic idea that global warming is used for exploitive political purposes and that's wrong. Just remember that both sides of the debate do it.
But for the record, I would like to note that personally, I happen to believe that dumping harmful shit into our air and into our water is not a right. Just seems to me that it fits under that whole "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," umbrella.
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
so everybody is allowed to share their opinions, however absurd and rediculous, except for Starkist? many have of you have no idea how to participate in discussions. why I wonder do you come to DISCUSSION FORUMS if you're so socially inept. Starkist is sharing his views on the topic and contributing to the thread. He's not attacking any of your ideas, so why can't any of you show him the same courtesy? It's one thing to disagree, but another to act like a jackass and bash him for even posting.
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Breaker
so everybody is allowed to share their opinions, however absurd and rediculous, except for Starkist?
He's clearly allowed to express them. We are allowed to point out his blatant hypocrisy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Breaker
It's one thing to disagree, but another to act like a jackass and bash him for even posting.
This, from Breaker? hah!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Starkist
I have not tried to change laws or human behaviour because of what I believe.
So you support a woman's right to choose? You support legalized prostitution? Because those are human behaviors that you and your fellow True Believers never cease trying to make illegal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Starkist
it is the desire to do good, the desire to make a difference that erodes liberty when government is the tool used to make that difference.
I totally agree! So let's make it illegal to pass fundamentalist christian legislation and end this insane practice of restricting people's behavior in order to please an invisible magic carpenter from anceint Rome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Starkist
Why then should we give any freedoms away because some people think that we may otherwise harm the earth?
At least they aren't asking us to give up freedoms because some people think that we may otherwise offend an invisible magic carpenter from ancient Rome who has magical powers and watches us 24 hours a day from his inter-dimensional super-paradise where all the souls of the dead worship him non-stop.
My point is you have no right to criticize global warming advocates because they are far less crazy and dangerous than people with your delusional beliefs.
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
how do you manage to change every topic into one about religion?
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Because when a person is religious, it infects every aspect of their thought; so in an environment where debate occurs, they can't help but be "religious" in their thinking. In this case, there is an ironic hypocrisy in Starkist accusing people of taking something on faith.
It's not that complicated.
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
So... this quest to show us how bad religion is infects every aspect of your thought; in an environment where debate occurs, you can't help but point out how "religious" thinking is wrong. In this case, the ironic hypocrisy is Beldaran stating religious people turn every argument to religion while turning an otherwise non-religious argument into one.
It's not that complicated; Starkist trolled you hard.
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beldaran
So you support a woman's right to choose? You support legalized prostitution? Because those are human behaviors that you and your fellow True Believers never cease trying to make illegal.
...
I totally agree! So let's make it illegal to pass fundamentalist christian legislation and end this insane practice of restricting people's behavior in order to please an invisible magic carpenter from anceint Rome.
Strawmen. When have you observed me personally pushing for certain laws?
Anyway, I found a weblog post from one of my local (non-conservative) talk radio hosts that illustrates the "tyranny for your own good" argument. Basically, he is outing local government for a quiet study they did to determine the feasibility of tolls that would be paid by every car driver, using GPS to measure how many miles people drive.
Quote:
The plan, of course, is to make it so expensive for people to drive, they'll be forced to give up their cars. The problem is that many people simply cannot give up their cars.
The environmentalists and Democrats driving this plan always pay lip service to how much they care for the little guy. But there are lots of hard-working, blue-collar middle class people who will be crushed by such a plan. They are contractors and salespeople and craftsmen. Maybe they use a toolbox they can't take on a bus. Or they have sales calls that require a vehicle. Would their families really be able to pay $5000-$10000 a year in tolls?
Source: http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=76&sid=49261
Any people thought it absurd when I predicted that soon, we would be forced to curtail our travel plans in order to "save the environment". A tax, or toll, is the first step.
Anyway, I don't support wholesale destruction of the environment. I like to save energy and gasoline, if only for the financial benefits. I like the earth. If you knew me personally you would know that I much prefer nature to the city. However, what I do not support is using unproven data, flimsy hypotheses, and the like in order to enact draconian government regulations and restrictions on personal freedom. Global warming is the Trojan Horse for more government control and as a libertarian that worries me.
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Beldaran did not, in fact, state that religious people turn every argument to religion. The problem here is not religion itself, but what religion represents - blind belief in something. In this case, religion is highly relevant because Starkist's primary argument here revolved around the foolishness of having blind faith. Now, the fact that Starkist himself has blind faith in something does not affect his argument that blind faith is wrong - that would be an ad hominem argument. However, it is still hypocritical to rail against blind faith in one area while simultaneously holding blind faith in another.
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Two points:
As my recent posting indicated, I do not consider my faith to be "blind". You may at your discretion, however.
Also, I am not accusing the global warming True Believers to be engaging in any kind of blind faith. What I accuse them of is taking something which is based on little evidence, and sometimes no evidence, and calling it proven science. Like I said in my first post, the difference between a critical thinker and the True Believer is that the critical thinker can alter their position based on evidence, while the True Believer clings to their position against all evidence.
Before Beldaran pops in again and says that must mean I'm not a critical thinker when it comes to faith, I remind you again that I am not using my beliefs to impose draconian government control over our lives. Al Gore and the global warming True Believers are doing just that.
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
The toll road thing may be completely different. Gas taxes haven't been altered since the 90s (and they do NOT rise with inflation). People won't stand for an increase in the gas tax, so tolls may be the only way to go, with no relation to impact on Global Warming.
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Your definition of a True Believer sounds a lot like blind faith to me. At least, that's how I would define blind faith - taking a position without evidence and presenting that position as fact, and then clinging to that position no matter what evidence turns up that counters that position.
Furthermore, if the issue is really one of personal rights, you do yourself a disservice by arguing on the grounds that global warming is "made up" or whatever, because if it truly is an issue of personal rights, then then reality of global warming should have no bearing. It's like terrorism - you wouldn't argue that wiretapping, for example, is wrong on the grounds that there are no terrorists. That would be a horrible way to go about it on multiple levels.
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Starkist
As my recent posting indicated, I do not consider my faith to be "blind".
Seeing things that are invisible is not the same as seeing things. It is, however, the same as being crazy.
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Beldaran, your arguments lack substance. You are as blinded by your extremely dismissive nature ("If I don't believe it, it's wrong") as Starkist is by his faith.
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dechipher
You are as blinded by your extremely dismissive nature.
Yep! I am blinded by logic. I dismiss Jesus, Zeus, Thor, Leprechauns, Unicorns, and all other relentless bullshit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dechipher
("If I don't believe it, it's wrong")
This is not my attitude at all. My attitude is "If I don't have compelling, irrefutable evidence, then I don't accept something as doctrine."
There is much more evidence for global warming than there is Jesus, and Starkist thinks people are gullible for believing data that is published in scientific journals and supported by 2000 scientists from 150 different countries.
Starkist, who worships an invisible 2000 year old carpenter with magic powers who lives in another dimension and who is best friends with everyone and watches them every second of the day to make sure they don't look at porn and say bad words, thinks people who read climatology journals are gullible.
This is grade A primo bullshit hypocrisy at its best.
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Starkist
The True Believes and their messiah, Al Gore, believe two things that are absurd: 1) That man has the ability to cause dramatic and dangerous changes to this planet; and 2) That man can halt and reverse the changes that occur.
Wow I think you're officially fucking stupid. I know Beldaran has been making fun of it for awhile, but this really shows it off. You actually don't believe man can cause dramatic change to the planet. Holy shit. Oh wait sorry, I don't believe in your imaginary friend so... Wow.
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
The problem is that you claim that everything is to be viewed in black and white and hide it under the banner of logic.
I would rather have someone who is open minded enough to concede that they are narrow-minded than someone who claims to have superior beliefs.
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dechipher
The problem is that you claim that everything is to be viewed in black and white and hide it under the banner of logic.
I would rather have someone who is open minded enough to concede that they are narrow-minded than someone who claims to have superior beliefs.
For the ten billionth time, my beliefs are not superior, because I have no beliefs whatsoever. A belief is a logical aberration consistent with delusion and psychosis. It assumes knowledge without evidence; a form of insanity.
I cannot concede that thinking rationally might be the wrong way to go, because of the mountains of evidence piled against fanciful delusion as a productive and accurate method of acquiring knowledge about the world.
I don't know why you give delusional fantasy such a wide respect. It's really quite a sad condition that deserves to be sadly chuckled at by those whose brains are free from such errors.
-
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Starkist
Two points:
As my recent posting indicated, I do not consider my faith to be "blind". You may at your discretion, however.
Whether or you you think your faith is blind is completely irrelevant to the reality that faith is blind by definition.
Quote:
Also, I am not accusing the global warming True Believers to be engaging in any kind of blind faith. What I accuse them of is taking something which is based on little evidence, and sometimes no evidence, and calling it proven science. Like I said in my first post, the difference between a critical thinker and the True Believer is that the critical thinker can alter their position based on evidence, while the True Believer clings to their position against all evidence.
The irony here is so sharp I had to get a band-aid.
Really, so far you haven't put forth much of an argument. Your debate tactic seems to be something along the lines of:
1. Make an object or a group of people seem scary and evil and evil by giving them a label and Using Capitalization. For bonus points, use a label that is laughably ironic when compared with your own belief system.
2. Spout as much pseudo-intellectual rhetoric as you can. Quote a dead guy to make your argument sound smarter. Use sources such as talk show radio programs to back up your statements, because talk show radio hosts are never wrong.
3. Defend your flimsy arguments by hiding behind a wall of fallacies. When anybody challenges your statements, take any tiny logical fallacy they make, then make a long post about how they used a fallacy and they are therefore totally wrong, without ever actually addressing any counterarguments.
4. Be as arrogant and pretentious as possible. Accuse others of not having an open mind, and not applying critical thinking. Because clearly people with open minds and critical thinking skills would immediately agree with everything you say.
Oh, but wait! This is whole post is obviously ad hominem and can thus be dismissed with a wave of the hand. And possibly a long-winded post about why this post is ad hominem, oh and by the way here's another questionable source of information to prove that this group I hate is a bunch of radical jerks and I am obviously not.