How Republican 'thought police' Enforce Climate Science Denial

a reply to: jrod

I'm not sure why so.many insist on mentioning Al Gore. Global warming was a well established science before he was VP circa 1992, well before his movie was released.
It is as if some of you believe, or at least want an ill informed reader to believe Al Gore 'invented' the AGW theory.

No... he invented the World Wide Web, as I understand it.

I hate politics - left and right. They both blind truth from their followers yet... go on as if they were holified saviors of humanity. The goal is... or should be, to see both for what they are then be ready when they come knocking...

Politics is a scourge, an infection that we; the human species, suffer from in absolute joy.

Until... someday, when we rise above our infant approaches to existence, this will go on.

Thanks for the reply

...

So I was scanning through the radio and one of the Christian channels had a piece on the Paris climate summit. It was incredibly ignorant, no mention of any scientific studies, the 'reporter' was using buzz words like 'draconian laws', 'back to the stone age', and others that.we are all familiar with. Pretty much they made a mockery of climate science without actually addressing science and were saying cuts in CO2 emissions would destroy jobs and wreck the economy.

It was obvious to me what their target audience was in the piece.

It's like they know that audience will.not question anything because that radio station claims to preach the truth......

I was disgusted and hope I can find the name of the program I listened to.

It is like there is a propaganda war against science.

originally posted by: jrod
So I was scanning through the radio and one of the Christian channels had a piece on the Paris climate summit. It was incredibly ignorant, no mention of any scientific studies, the 'reporter' was using buzz words like 'draconian laws', 'back to the stone age', and others that.we are all familiar with. Pretty much they made a mockery of climate science without actually addressing science and were saying cuts in CO2 emissions would destroy jobs and wreck the economy.

It was obvious to me what their target audience was in the piece.

It's like they know that audience will.not question anything because that radio station claims to preach the truth......

I was disgusted and hope I can find the name of the program I listened to.

It is like there is a propaganda war against science.

And you would think with the striking similarities of what they were warned of in the revelation (aka the apocalypse) to what is happening today that they would be on the front line working towards a solution.

As in the days of NOAH ( NOAA)
-humans started pillaging the earth, eating the flesh of other animals (see cowspiracy and livestock greenhouse gas emissions), mixing the animals together (spider-goats and others), etc

Calls for formation of global government requiring the number 666 to engage in trade
-Carbon C12 has 6 protons, 6 neutrons, 6 electrons and makes up 98% of all carbon on earth is being proposed as a world tax to fund international governing bodies.

The threat of the animals of the sea dying off
-acidification of the oceans have been predicted to die off in numbers in the range from those of biblical sources

-oh and famine from crop failures

Wars and rumors of wars
-Climate change will (some claim it already is) starting wars in various regions of the globe.

Not due to climate change but also in there
-Israel is a nation again with a large body acting against them
-a falling away from the churches
-etc

I mean really, you would think when they were warned of this over a thousand years ago that they would be ready to identify signs that would give them a heads up.


Oh silly silly anti-science religious people.

-FBB

originally posted by: jrod

To write we should not worry about CO2 because there are other problems in my opinion appeals to the not as bad logic fallacy.

I really do not believe you have studied this subject enough if you think more CO2 would cause more plant growth(including phytoplankton) and that would balance everything out.

I do not believe you studied my response enough if you think that's what I said. Either that or you are intentionally misrepresenting what I said in your refutation in order to make my points look stupid. I never said we should not worry about CO2 rather that it should not be our primary concern. I also never said that everything would balance out. I said that at the end of every cycle there is a balance due. Using more wood and less plastic is not the solution. It's a small part of a solution and it's one that we could easily push for with immediate success. Wood is strong and beautiful. People like using wood. A thousand mile journey is taken by a step at a time not in a single leap.We can take steps forward or we can stand in place and argue about how we're going to jump a thousand miles.

I've always been a firm supporter of less consumption. We need to consume less energy. Even though technology is improving all the time I still think using less is always a good thing. Using less has an immediate impact and doesn't involve complicated schemes or redistribution of wealth.

If you can't have a genuine conversation about it without distorting what I say and that kind of rhetoric is echoed across the debate then there's really never going to be a solution. There are plenty of people that are not polarized with either their head in the sand or just drinking the agenda kool-aid. It's pretty clear that we have been damaging the planet. Either you can bring in more allies with diverse ideas or you can alienate everybody that isn't sharing your exact view. If it's as critical as you say I'd think that making progress would be more important than having a tightly controlled agenda to follow.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

Not trying to make you look bad with.my.posts. I got the perception that you were trying to downplay the CO2 problem with presenting other ecological problems.

Besides your post is a bit off topic and you mentioned Al Gore. Generally when. someone mentions old Al in these discussions, they are not here to have an intelligent conversation.

CO2 as a result if burning petroleum and coal is a major problem that needs to be addressed. It of course is not the only problem we have created and there is no.doubt in my mind that there is an agenda/propaganda that is aimed at making it seem like CO2 emissions is not a problem and even going so far to.claim that regulating fossil fuel will destroy jobs and sink. the economy.