• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

It's a cult. I knew I was right!

Grand Mal said:
Cut it out. You know what we're talking about here, why play word games?
Click to expand...

HA! YOU are the one playing word games. You say we are "Climate Change deniers" but those words clearly mean someone who denies that climate changes. So show me someone here or anywhere else that denies that climate changes or admit that "climate change denier" is a purposefully misleading pejorative meant to slime skeptics.
 
jmotivator said:
HA! YOU are the one playing word games. You say we are "Climate Change deniers" but those words clearly mean someone who denies that climate changes. So show me someone here or anywhere else that denies that climate changes or admit that "climate change denier" is a purposefully misleading pejorative meant to slime skeptics.
Click to expand...

Ohferchristsake.
'Skeptics'? The point of this thread is the difference between skeptics and deniers. Did you read the OP?
 
Grand Mal said:
Cut it out. You know what we're talking about here, why play word games?
Click to expand...
I believe almost all the skeptics here think adding CO2 causes some warming.
The direct response warming of the added CO2 is not questioned much.
The skepticism is about the warming from amplified feedback predicted by the IPCC,
and many of the models.
The IPCC seems to be sticking with their range of 1.5 to 4.5 C ECS, while the
data seems to favor the very low end of that scale.
The IPCC preaches that a massive reversal on CO2 emissions, is the only thing that can save humanity,
The reality is that Humanity can only survive with an alternative fuel at least as energy dense
has hydrocarbon fuels.
 
Kobie said:
You people live in a fantasy world.

I remember first hearing the word "stimulus," referring to a large infusion of government capital, in 1989. And shockingly enough, the "Journolist" nontroversy -- outrage ginned up by conservative partisan media -- rears its head.

Debunking the Journolist "Conspiracy" - CBS News
Click to expand...


You here that folks? Jonathan Chait, A member of Journolist, says there was nothing problematic about Journolist and he has statements by Journolisters to prove it!

It's funny because even in their denial they can't help themselves!

"First of all, we all do know and understand the importance of combatting reactionary or partisan-Republican media "frames" of contemporary events and their significance. " - Journolist Ed Kilgore

He then went on to say but no, while he is fighting like a good comrade that doesn't mean they weren't reporting "reality". :roll:

And says that only 10% of the Liberal Journalist Only story swap members signed the letter, the other 90% only joined to story swap. SHEW! And here I thought there was a conspiracy!
 
Grand Mal said:
Ohferchristsake.
'Skeptics'? The point of this thread is the difference between skeptics and deniers. Did you read the OP?
Click to expand...

And I am asking you to point out someone that is ACTUALLY a Climate Change denier. My argument is that the term "Climate Change Denier" describe the beliefs of exactly nobody and is meant purely as a pejorative to liken CAGW skeptics to Holocaust and Evolution deniers.
 
Last edited:
I'm waiting for something about Environment and Climate Issues to be posted...
 
jmotivator said:
And I am asking you to point out someone that is ACTUALLY a Climate Change denier. My argument is that the term "Climate Change Denier" describe the beliefs of exactly nobody.
Click to expand...

Here's the first paragraph of the subject of this thread...

Public discussion of scientific topics such as global warming is confused by misuse of the term “skeptic.” The Nov 10, 2014, New York Times article “Republicans Vow to Fight EPA and Approve Keystone Pipeline” referred to Sen. James Inhofe as “a prominent skeptic of climate change.” Two days later Scott Horsley of NPR’s Morning Edition called him “one of the leading climate change deniers in Congress.” These are not equivalent statements.

Did you read it? This, the OP, is the subject of this thread. I know you have a pet cause but it's not all about you.
 
Ntharotep said:
I'm waiting for something about Environment and Climate Issues to be posted...
Click to expand...

Why? This thread is about the article in the OP.
 
Phys251 said:
That is a very ill-posed problem.
Click to expand...
But the reality is that almost the same could be said for anything blamed on AGW.
At the core of the concept is the idea that added CO2 causes warming, which is amplified
to cause a whole host of problems.
Empirical evidence would require a control group to show that the event would not have happened,
if CO2 were at the pre industrial levels.
 
longview said:
But the reality is that almost the same could be said for anything blamed on AGW.
At the core of the concept is the idea that added CO2 causes warming, which is amplified
to cause a whole host of problems.
Click to expand...

Stop and think about why the underlined phrase negates your argument. Take your time.
 
Phys251 said:
Stop and think about why the underlined phrase negates your argument. Take your time.
Click to expand...
I am paraphrasing the IPCC shroud waving!
The catastrophic portions of the IPCC predictions are predicated of the mid to high range
of their ECS predictions.
Several areas of research move the ECS to between 1.5 and 2 C, some are even lower.
I think Dr. Evans, speculates we could cool by between .1 and .4 C,
(which actually could be catastrophic.)
 
Grand Mal said:
Here's the first paragraph of the subject of this thread...

Public discussion of scientific topics such as global warming is confused by misuse of the term “skeptic.” The Nov 10, 2014, New York Times article “Republicans Vow to Fight EPA and Approve Keystone Pipeline” referred to Sen. James Inhofe as “a prominent skeptic of climate change.” Two days later Scott Horsley of NPR’s Morning Edition called him “one of the leading climate change deniers in Congress.” These are not equivalent statements.

Did you read it? This, the OP, is the subject of this thread. I know you have a pet cause but it's not all about you.
Click to expand...

YOU made the snide claim that someone else was trying to distance themselves from "climate change deniers" and I asked you to name someone who fits the clear meaning of that label and YOU got pissy.

If we are here to discuss the difference between skeptics and deniers then it is perfectly reasonable to ask where "climate change deniers" actually exist or whether it is simply a pejorative used by AGW believers to demean skeptics.

Because if "Climate Change Deniers" don't actually exist (hint: they don't) then the definition of "Climate Change Denier" is precisely: "A pejorative phrase used by AGW believers to demean AGW skeptics as being equivalent to Holocaust and Evolution deniers."

That is very much on topic, and you are very much guilty of using the term as I have defined it.
 
jmotivator said:
YOU made the snide claim that someone else was trying to distance themselves from "climate change deniers" and I asked you to name someone who fits the clear meaning of that label and YOU got pissy.

If we are here to discuss the difference between skeptics and deniers then it is perfectly reasonable to ask where "climate change deniers" actually exist or whether it is simply a pejorative used by AGW believers to demean skeptics.

Because if "Climate Change Deniers" don't actually exist (hint: they don't) then the definition of "Climate Change Denier" is precisely: "A pejorative phrase used by AGW believers to demean AGW skeptics as being equivalent to Holocaust and Evolution deniers."

That is very much on topic, and you are very much guilty of using the term as I have defined it.
Click to expand...

I was quoting the article in the OP. Don't like it? Tough. Take it up with the signatories of the article.
 
KLATTU said:
Some time ago , I noticed that in several discussion board where I was involved, the warmists all started calling skeptics deniers. It was eerie, as if it happened overnight. I suspected someti8ng was up. Like maybe marching orders went out from Real climate to the cult members: " In every discussion forum, use the word denier, skeptic sounds way too reasonable". OR something like tha. I was too lazy to look that up though.

Until the other day.
Yep I was basically right.
Deniers are not Skeptics - CSI

LAFFRIOT.

Needless to say- this kind of crap doesn't happen in real science, only climate science.
Click to expand...

LOL...

Did anyone read who signed it? names like John Cook, Bill Nye, etc...
 
Grand Mal said:
I was quoting the article in the OP. Don't like it? Tough. Take it up with the signatories of the article.
Click to expand...

No you were not, you liar.

Grand Mal said:
I don't blame them for wanting to disassociate themselves from climate-change deniers.
Click to expand...


Your use of the phrase was entirely your own choice and not a quote. I asked to to name some people who were, as you called them, "Climate-Change deniers" and you couldn't back up your own statement.
 
KLATTU said:
There was also this. The term Government spending disappeared. It was either 'investment' or 'stimulus'.

Oh and remember journolist? Where it was exposed how many journalists from the wtachdog press ( smirk) were simply DNC operatives with bylines. ?

Remember, journalists didn't have to call it investment just becuase Democrat politicians did, But they sure did ,din't they?
Click to expand...

I very much remember JournoList. It was exposed about the time I was doing all the research. I'm fortunate to have people work for me who decided to help. It was a revealing, and distressing, exercise that consumed weeks of time.

JournoList played a role in the "call them racists" meme the country is still suffering from today. The 5th Estate was bathed in cyanide at that point, with any further confirmation of it's duplicity unnecessary.
 
ocean515 said:
I very much remember JournoList. It was exposed about the time I was doing all the research. I'm fortunate to have people work for me who decided to help. It was a revealing, and distressing, exercise that consumed weeks of time.

JournoList played a role in the "call them racists" meme the country is still suffering from today. The 5th Estate was bathed in cyanide at that point, with any further confirmation of it's duplicity unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wonder is Kobie understands that his weak rebuttal is like posting a link to a Fox News article that says it is "fair and balanced" as proof that Fox News is "fair and balanced"?
 
longview said:
I am paraphrasing the IPCC shroud waving!
The catastrophic portions of the IPCC predictions are predicated of the mid to high range
of their ECS predictions.
Several areas of research move the ECS to between 1.5 and 2 C, some are even lower.
I think Dr. Evans, speculates we could cool by between .1 and .4 C,
(which actually could be catastrophic.)
Click to expand...

So you know more than all of the IPCC scientists combined?! Please post your credentials--I would love to read some of your research.
 
Phys251 said:
So you know more than all of the IPCC scientists combined?! Please post your credentials--I would love to read some of your research.
Click to expand...

He's just extrapolating from what they say. There has only been trends in their low predictions, and their low prediction don't extend to predicting there will be catastrophes.
 
Lord of Planar said:
He's just extrapolating from what they say. There has only been trends in their low predictions, and their low prediction don't extend to predicting there will be catastrophes.
Click to expand...

That does not answer my question. I would like to see his credentials.
 
Casper said:
Yes, it does happen in real science, or you have never taken part in a Discussion on Evolution.
Click to expand...

I have never heard of a creationist scientist. Are there really evolution deniers lurking in the labs?
 
KLATTU said:
Needless to say- this kind of crap doesn't happen in real science, only climate science.
Click to expand...

While man-made climate change may well be occurring, you're right in that there is a cult forming around it.

Anytime an issue creates the need to "believe," you have the makings of a cult. Anytime it develops "followers" who verbally or physically attack those who disagree, you have the making of a cult.

The Christian cult did the same thing and took it so far as to institute the "Inquisition," just to ensure that folks were thinking, or at least "claiming to think" in the prescribed manner. Islam is still steeped in that "don't disagree or make fun of the cult, mode" and it rears its ugly head when imams issue fatwas against those who draw cartoons of Muhammad.

That is not to say that there is no validity behind the idea that man is contributing to climate change on our planet -- perhaps that is happening, but, when we put the cultists in perspective, we'll likely find that it's happening on a lesser scale than the cultists claim.

So yes...it's attracting a cult following.

If someone tries to shame you, or advocates punishing you in some way for not "believing," that individual is already steeped in cult mythology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom