Happy Atheist Forum

http://www.juancole.com/2010/11/energy- ... ml?rainbow (http://www.juancole.com/2010/11/energy-committee-chairman-candidate-says-god-promised-no-more-catastrophic-climate-change-after-noah.html?rainbow)

[youtube:3u42r64o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5WHkT45Vs[/youtube:3u42r64o]

Whew!  I feel much better now...

Absolutely terrifying.  

i hope he lives to see that his god violated his promise.

Quote from: "Will"Absolutely terrifying.  

I found it comforting, nothing to worry about now.
I wonder where god's going to hide the next oil deposit?
I hope it's not in deep water, because drilling rigs aren't infallible.
Do godly oil people re-explore areas in case god's snuck in a deposit while they weren't watching?

You realise global warming's a scam right? They're just using the name of science to justify something completely irrational.  

Quote from: "Bubblepot"You realise global warming's a scam right? They're just using the name of science to justify something completely irrational.  

And why do you think almost all climatologists would be lying about this?  How are they benefiting?  Could they not benefit more by siding with the fundamentalists and get paid to write books about how global warming is false?

Who is "most climatologists"? That's very vague.

I think someone isn't going to last very long here . . .

Goodnight troll.

Uhh.... Global warming being a scam is a very widely held belief; I don't see how voicing it is trolling- and nor do I see how asking for what you mean by "most climatologists" is trolling either. Either you can show what you mean or you can't; if you can't, then I'm afraid I maintain my position that global warming is a scam. I can also provide links which lead to sites and blogs etc. by people who think the same way if you wish. Thanks.

Quote from: "Bubblepot"You realise global warming's a scam right? They're just using the name of science to justify something completely irrational.  

Quote from: "Bubblepot"Who is "most climatologists"? That's very vague.

I wonder what sources you've been relying on to keep yourself informed on this issue.

QuoteFrom Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change (http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html):

Over eight out of ten American climate scientists believe that human activity contributes to global warming, according to a new survey released by the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The researchers also report that belief in human-induced warming has more than doubled since the last major survey of American climate scientists in 1991. However, the survey finds that scientists are still debating the dynamics and dangers of global warming, and only three percent trust newspaper or television coverage of climate change.

I suppose that you will have no problem explaining to me why the polar ice caps have been melting?  And why this past decade has been the hottest ever recorded (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/14/hottest-year-environment-review-vidal)?

And finally, what exactly are your qualifications to make such succinct and authoritative pronouncements about the climate of this planet?

Quote from: "Bubblepot"Uhh.... Global warming being a scam is a very widely held belief...

"Widely held beliefs" don't have anything to do with valid, empirical evidence.  Produce some please. I imagine you are well aware that "sites and blogs etc." do not constitute evidence.

1. If only one in ten scientists believed global warming were a scam that would still be a very formidable number of scientists, so I maintain my position that this view is widely held.

2. Wrong; this decade is the hottest *known* recorded.

3. If anything, doesn't having two ice caps on each side of the planet mean that the earth's current temperature *isn't* as sustainable to human life as it's made out to be?

Quote from: "Bubblepot"1. If only one in ten scientists believed global warming were a scam that would still be a very formidable number of scientists, so I maintain my position that this view is widely held.

If there are that many who believe that their colleagues are conspiring to scam the world, then you should have no trouble at all producing a quote from a reputable climate scientist who says exactly that.  Not one who has doubts, but one who has gone on record as saying that, "anthropogenic global warming is a scam." When you've done that, we can address that scientist's reasons for saying such a thing.

Quote from: "Bubblepot"2. Wrong; this decade is the hottest *known* recorded.

For somebody who has yet to present one scintilla of evidence, you seem mighty sure of yourself.  Your distinction is completely irrelevant.  We don't have any "unknown" temperature records, unless you know where they might be hidden.  If in some rather jejune way you're trying to say that the climate might have been warmer in the past, but we have no record of it, that really doesn't address the point that I made.  The climate might well have been warmer during certain periods in the past.  How do we know that the conditions on the planet during those periods would have been hospitable to our current civilization?  I'll repeat: You seem quite willing to assert a position, but have been remarkably reticent about providing evidence. It's beginning to look like you really don't have any.

Quote from: "Bubblepot"3. If anything, doesn't having two ice caps on each side of the planet mean that the earth's current temperature *isn't* as sustainable to human life as it's made out to be?

Polar ice caps which have existed for all of recorded human history and beyond (ice core samples prove that conclusively) are somehow evidence that the climate as we know it now isn't sustainable?  What does that even mean?  Please clarify this point for me; I would really appreciate that.

okay I'll be honest....I didn't read all the post leading up  to this, but I sort of glanced at them.   Here's my deal with Gore's Global Warming....I believe the planet is getting warmer....but the whole reason I'm an athiest is from watching the History Channel.  And the History channel has showed some weird ass shows about the planet's temp goin' haywire.  So I believe that if we as a planet experienced a mini-ice-age a couple hundred years ago for no apparent reason, it is also possible to experience an increase in temp right now.   I ALSO belive that currently we human beings as a whole have completely overindulged in  things...NINETEEN KIDS AND COUNTING for example....(that woman's uterus is going to fall the fuck out) we need to take care of this planet whether you think global warming is real or not BECAUSE THERE IS NO DAMN ALMIGHTY BEING that will come to our rescue...and that's what I think.  We've got to take care of what we've got 'cause we of all people now that there is NO supernatural being that will come to the rescue.

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "Bubblepot"1. If only one in ten scientists believed global warming were a scam that would still be a very formidable number of scientists, so I maintain my position that this view is widely held.

If there are that many who believe that their colleagues are conspiring to scam the world, then you should have no trouble at all producing a quote from a reputable climate scientist who says exactly that.  Not one who has doubts, but one who has gone on record as saying that, "anthropogenic global warming is a scam." When you've done that, we can address that scientist's reasons for saying such a thing.

But you're the one who said 10% of scientists believe that, not me. Hence why your point falls apart. There's a difference between factual discussion and make-believe.

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "Bubblepot"2. Wrong; this decade is the hottest *known* recorded.

For somebody who has yet to present one scintilla of evidence, you seem mighty sure of yourself.  Your distinction is completely irrelevant.  We don't have any "unknown" temperature records, unless you know where they might be hidden.  If in some rather jejune way you're trying to say that the climate might have been warmer in the past, but we have no record of it, that really doesn't address the point that I made.  The climate might well have been warmer during certain periods in the past.  How do we know that the conditions on the planet during those periods would have been hospitable to our current civilization?  I'll repeat: You seem quite willing to assert a position, but have been remarkably reticent about providing evidence. It's beginning to look like you really don't have any.

My distinction is perfectly relevant because there may well have been many decades hotter than our current one, a point you seem to be cunningly avoiding.

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "Bubblepot"3. If anything, doesn't having two ice caps on each side of the planet mean that the earth's current temperature *isn't* as sustainable to human life as it's made out to be?

Polar ice caps which have existed for all of recorded human history and beyond (ice core samples prove that conclusively) are somehow evidence that the climate as we know it now isn't sustainable?  What does that even mean?  Please clarify this point for me; I would really appreciate that.

I think you should re-read my post; it expresses the nature of my point quite fully. Thank you.

Quote from: "Bubblepot"

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "Bubblepot"1. If only one in ten scientists believed global warming were a scam that would still be a very formidable number of scientists, so I maintain my position that this view is widely held.

If there are that many who believe that their colleagues are conspiring to scam the world, then you should have no trouble at all producing a quote from a reputable climate scientist who says exactly that.  Not one who has doubts, but one who has gone on record as saying that, "anthropogenic global warming is a scam." When you've done that, we can address that scientist's reasons for saying such a thing.

But you're the one who said 10% of scientists believe that, not me. Hence why your point falls apart. There's a difference between factual discussion and make-believe.

Please provide a quote from me which says that 10% of climate scientists believe that global warming is a scam.  You've either misunderstood the source I provided (and what I said) or are purposely misrepresenting it.  Also I made a very reasonable request here which you've ignored.  Your position is still unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.  Until you rectify that situation I see no reason to take it seriously.  I'm happy to carry on here for laughs though.

Quote from: "Bubblepot"

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "Bubblepot"2. Wrong; this decade is the hottest *known* recorded.

For somebody who has yet to present one scintilla of evidence, you seem mighty sure of yourself.  Your distinction is completely irrelevant.  We don't have any "unknown" temperature records, unless you know where they might be hidden.  If in some rather jejune way you're trying to say that the climate might have been warmer in the past, but we have no record of it, that really doesn't address the point that I made.  The climate might well have been warmer during certain periods in the past.  How do we know that the conditions on the planet during those periods would have been hospitable to our current civilization?  I'll repeat: You seem quite willing to assert a position, but have been remarkably reticent about providing evidence. It's beginning to look like you really don't have any.

My distinction is perfectly relevant because there may well have been many decades hotter than our current one, a point you seem to be cunningly avoiding.

As can be seen in the bolded sentence, I directly address that which you've accused me of avoiding.  What does such blatant misrepresentation do to support your position?

Quote from: "Bubblepot"

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "Bubblepot"3. If anything, doesn't having two ice caps on each side of the planet mean that the earth's current temperature *isn't* as sustainable to human life as it's made out to be?

Polar ice caps which have existed for all of recorded human history and beyond (ice core samples prove that conclusively) are somehow evidence that the climate as we know it now isn't sustainable?  What does that even mean?  Please clarify this point for me; I would really appreciate that.

I think you should re-read my post; it expresses the nature of my point quite fully. Thank you.

Yes; laughable.

Quote from: "Bubblepot"

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "Bubblepot"1. If only one in ten scientists believed global warming were a scam that would still be a very formidable number of scientists, so I maintain my position that this view is widely held.

Quote from: "Bubblepot"But you're the one who said 10% of scientists believe that, not me. Hence why your point falls apart. There's a difference between factual discussion and make-believe.

Invent a percentage to maintain a position, then disown the percentage, how creative.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Invent a percentage to maintain a position, then disown the percentage, how creative.

Bubble, bubble, trolls and trouble...

He'd make a fair enough politician doing that. Maybe a finance minister..?  

Oh, are we all still here? The truth is Recusant I don't see much more point in trying to get my point across to you. I don't mean this to imply anything about you specifically; in fact if anything I am to blame because I have a tendency to opt out of discussions when people aren't being rational. So it was a good talk and I shake your hand, but goodbye.

Quote from: "Bubblepot"Oh, are we all still here? The truth is Recusant I don't see much more point in trying to get my point across to you. I don't mean this to imply anything about you specifically; in fact if anything I am to blame because I have a tendency to opt out of discussions when people aren't being rational. So it was a good talk and I shake your hand, but goodbye.

Quote from: "Bubblepot"Oh, are we all still here? The truth is Recusant I don't see much more point in trying to get my point across to you. I don't mean this to imply anything about you specifically; in fact if anything I am to blame because I have a tendency to opt out of discussions when people aren't being rational. So it was a good talk and I shake your hand, but goodbye.

The thing is, it doesn't appear that you actually have been trying to get your point across.  As well, your feeble attempt to portray me as irrational merely indicates that your real motivation in this thread has been to elicit some sort of reaction.  I don't shake hands with maladroit wannabe Enfant Provocateurs (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/enfantprovocateur.htm); you never know where their hands have been.

QuotePlan of action for riling up the atheists:

1) Make an inflammatory unfounded assertion (aimed at scientists, no less *heeheehee*) on a topic which it's known that people can tend to get emotional about.

2) Proceed to make snarky dismissive remarks about any replies.

3) Invoke "widely held beliefs" as an authority.  (Remembering that atheists often run afoul of "widely held beliefs."  *snortle*)

4) Follow up with more snotty incoherent assertions.

5) Accuse your interlocutor of living in a fantasy world and poor fact management.  (They hate that!)

6) Finally, pretend that the other is guilty of irrational behavior and withdraw, dripping crocodile tears of regret.

 [spoiler:2k6c4rf1]FAIL[/spoiler:2k6c4rf1]

So, basically, be a troll.

"Recusant is irrational"

I laughed out loud and spilled coffee all over myself.

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "Bubblepot"Oh, are we all still here? The truth is Recusant I don't see much more point in trying to get my point across to you. I don't mean this to imply anything about you specifically; in fact if anything I am to blame because I have a tendency to opt out of discussions when people aren't being rational. So it was a good talk and I shake your hand, but goodbye.

The thing is, it doesn't appear that you actually have been trying to get your point across.  As well, your feeble attempt to portray me as irrational merely indicates that your real motivation in this thread has been to elicit some sort of reaction.  I don't shake hands with maladroit wannabe Enfant Provocateurs (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/enfantprovocateur.htm); you never know where their hands have been.

QuotePlan of action for riling up the atheists:

1) Make an inflammatory unfounded assertion (aimed at scientists, no less *heeheehee*) on a topic which it's known that people can tend to get emotional about.

2) Proceed to make snarky dismissive remarks about any replies.

3) Invoke "widely held beliefs" as an authority.  (Remembering that atheists often run afoul of "widely held beliefs."  *snortle*)

4) Follow up with more snotty incoherent assertions.

5) Accuse your interlocutor of living in a fantasy world and poor fact management.  (They hate that!)

6) Finally, pretend that the other is guilty of irrational behavior and withdraw, dripping crocodile tears of regret.

 [spoiler:3u2rb8bv]FAIL[/spoiler:3u2rb8bv]

wow, I almost miss bigmac, at least his trolling was brilliantly done.