Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: What consensus.....

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Posts
    1,405

    What consensus.....


  2. #2

    Re: What consensus.....

    In answer to your question, it is the universal consensus of actual scientists. And most actual self-actualizing humans.

    Your links go to nonsense promulgated by alt-right screamers and schemers. Here's a link to a list of statements, posted at NASA, from 18 different international scientific, non-political institutions regarding both the fact of global climate change, and the human-driven factors causing it.

    This graph, posted on the NASA website, shows "temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record. Data sources: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Met Office Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit and the Japanese Meteorological Agency."

    https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

  3. #3

    Re: What consensus.....

    What I seriously don't understand, is why anyone who is not involved directly with the fossil fuel industries would care to carry on the myth that there is no accelerated human-caused climate change? Why fight against trying to save our Earth from disaster that will dramatically, detrimentally alter the lives of our children and their children?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Posts
    3,033

    Re: What consensus.....

    I think the purpose of these Libertarian sites is to sow seeds of doubt in scientists who study climate change (among other things), but at the same time get people to look the other way when it comes to what conservative politicians and corporations are doing. I think the hopes is these seeds of doubt are such that the court of popular opinion takes over and people take no action against polluting industries. People looking for sound bites, zingers, and sensationalist headlines and have little or no time to do actual research.

    This is why Dylann Roof shot up a church based on propaganda that said Blacks are bad seed.
    This is why people talk about crime in Detroit or other large cities, but at the same time ignore their own dysfunctional communities.
    This is why people think Muslims are all evil but white mass-shooters are "lone wolves".
    This is why people think gun control doesn't work.

    Also notice how they rarely question religious leaders (Especially televangelists and mega-church leaders) like Pat Robertson or Harold Camping. A lot of these people claim these disasters are God's punishment for sexual/reproductive immorality. A lot of these people believe in End of World prophecies like that of the Book of Revelation.
    This in turn has people looking the other way.
    The debate over climate change is very similar to the debate over creationism vs evolution. Libertarians like to say things are ambiguous and there is other data out there that doubts established science but not religious figures who say the instruments are wrong, and the Bible is right. And since there are already seeds of doubt on established scientists, there is very little to counter religion in the court of Libertarian opinion.
    Last edited by jolau; 6.7.17 at 1:42 PM.

  5. #5

    Re: What consensus.....

    Jolau: again with the generalizations! Rule of thumb is that there is only one generalization that is true, and it ironically states that "All generalizations are false."

    The false zealots of extremist pseudo-Christianity are often -- though not always -- also climate change deniers. In the circle that includes the more moderate, traditionalists of most of the world's religions are, more and more, overtly recognizing the impact of humans on the environment, and the responsibility of humankind to care for the Earth as stewards.

    See, e.g.: the Wikipedia article on "Religion and Environmentalism"

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Posts
    3,033

    Re: What consensus.....

    Then how do you explain the rise of Donald Trump without mentioning race or religion? The assumption (especially around here) has been that all these people are isolated kooks. It doesn't matter if these people have been on television for years, or if they have a congregation of thousands of people attending their churches every Sunday, or that they have been winning elections for the last seven years.
    I've been warning against these people for years and very few listen, and there's enough of them to skew elections in the favor of people like Donald Trump.

    I also think it's pretty clear that articles like those above have the intention of sowing seeds of doubt in established science.

  7. #7

    Re: What consensus.....

    63 Million "isolated kooks"? (And that's just the one's who voted.)

    The rise of DT is based on fear used as a political lever. The lever is constructed of whatever parts are handy, including: fascist nationalism, and fear of those-who-are-different whether by race, culture, gender identification, political identification, religious identification, social status, education level, regional accent, or whatever.

    Race and religion are definitely parts of the equation, but they are only parts, and not the whole of it.

    Pseudo-religious assholes are part of the stew, but they are not the only greasy lump in the stew.

    Racist pigs are fearful, under-educated scum, but they aren't the only algae in the pond.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Posts
    3,033

    Re: What consensus.....

    Think about it this way.
    Churches are the perfect propaganda machine.
    People attend every Sunday, speakers are rarely challenged, they determine what behaviors are deemed "good" vs "bad", they promote their religion and themselves as representatives of the "greater good", and the intention is they speak, the people follow.
    Keep in mind a lot of churches also keep people fearful. Fear for their afterlife as well as whether or not they or their country are in the right in the eyes of God. Especially in times of uncertainty.
    In the right hands, they can be venues to promote social justice and good things can come out of it.
    But in the wrong hands, they promote bigotry, ignorance, and distractions from the real problems in our world.
    And a lot of these churches are in the wrong hands.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •