• 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!

Is all this recent Climate Change stuff pure hysteria?

julianalexander745

Active Member
Definitely immoral. That is without question.

No it's not. We're just a bunch of carbon flying around time and space with no purpose. If the world blows up, so be it.

And selfish too since even though you do not have children you have other relatives and then there is man as a whole.

It's actually more selfish to presume that just because our species will die some day, everything else in the universe should take a backseat to facilitate our own existence.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
No it's not. We're just a bunch of carbon flying around time and space with no purpose. If the world blows up, so be it.



It's actually more selfish to presume that just because our species will die some day, everything else in the universe should take a backseat to facilitate our own existence.
So not only immoral but you justify that by being amoral. And a poor debater as well. Your last line is a non-sequitur.
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
When the title of the linked article tells us that the man is a science denier it is hard to take any of his claims seriously.

  • He challenges whoever is willing in Reading University or other appropriate institutions to a debate on the failed Global Warming scam Vs evidence-based science.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I don't have any children or grandchildren.

Selfish? Maybe. Immoral? Not necessarily.
Selfish?! Eschewing children is the single greatest action an individual can do to lower his environmental impact on the planet. How could it be selfish? It's positively saintly.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
  • He challenges whoever is willing in Reading University or other appropriate institutions to a debate on the failed Global Warming scam Vs evidence-based science.
So does Kent Hovind when it comes to evolution, and there is no bigger idiot in the biz than Kent. The uneducated masses can easily be fooled by the dishonest. A willingness to debate is meaningless. If other scientists agreed that he won those debates then you would have something.

By the way, if he uses those phrases the man is an idiot and has lost before he even starts.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
I can remember being a young boy in primary school learning, in great scientific detail, about what climate change is, why it is happening and the role that human beings play in causing it.

This was something like circa 1998.

Since then, there have been modest yet genuine attempts to rectify the issue through carbon emissions schemes, changes to the materials corporations use, et al. It's modest, but progress has been made.

On the other hand, apocalyptic visions for the outcome of our impact of the world and a complete exaggeration of how we are all in imminent danger seems to have exploded into the forefront of the international media this year.

Personally, I think the biggest problem humans face today is that too many people in the West get off on being outraged.

Interest waxes and wanes. Too many in the West had ADD when it comes to media consumption.
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
So does Kent Hovind when it comes to evolution, and there is no bigger idiot in the biz than Kent. The uneducated masses can easily be fooled by the dishonest. A willingness to debate is meaningless. If other scientists agreed that he won those debates then you would have something.

By the way, if he uses those phrases the man is an idiot and has lost before he even starts.

He has only lost those that wear blinkers.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
In your opinion, what defines "qualified opinions" in this context?

Is it any person who understands what climate change is, or does it strictly refer to those who hold a PHD in ecology? Because if it is the latter, I think you are wading into dangerous territory.
Ah. If you say so.
 

julianalexander745

Active Member
failed-climate-predictions.jpg
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
I can remember being a young boy in primary school learning, in great scientific detail, about what climate change is, why it is happening and the role that human beings play in causing it.

This was something like circa 1998.

Since then, there have been modest yet genuine attempts to rectify the issue through carbon emissions schemes, changes to the materials corporations use, et al. It's modest, but progress has been made.

On the other hand, apocalyptic visions for the outcome of our impact of the world and a complete exaggeration of how we are all in imminent danger seems to have exploded into the forefront of the international media this year.

Personally, I think the biggest problem humans face today is that too many people in the West get off on being outraged.
How 'imminent' is 'imminent'? It could be for instance things that will directly affect your own children in a big, powerful way, radically reordering their lives (such as if there are widespread big rainfall pattern changes so that food prices skyrocket, for instance).
For others, it could be something that only affects them themselves in the next 5-10 years. That would mostly only be people getting hit by a powerful heat wave that breaks all the records, or a powerful storm along the coast (that breaks all the records, etc.)
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
LOL -- You do see why this is misleading, I hope.
They actually think this rable rousing BS is factual. The fact that mainstream climatology has been fairly consistent and accurate for 50 years doesn't get reported much. The outlier fringe theories get the most reporting, and then, when they turn out to be inaccurate, the ill informed but strongly opinionated loudly proclaim "YA SEE??! Scientists don't know what they're talking about!!"

The "New Ice Age" thing is a dead giveaway. If anyone cites it, that's pretty good evidence they have no idea what they're talking about. The "new ice age" theory was always extremely fringe, but they love to claim it as though it was a mainstream prediction.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Congratulations for figuring that out.



I'm as not balls deep in this "debate" as you seem to think. In fact, I wasn't even sure that I was debating anyone. Thanks for the insult though - I'm sure you'll go far with that attitude.
And yet you find more than one thread to post your denial on. Not looking too good when you claim not to be debating and then search out debates.
 
Top