While I despise statistics, I guiltily resort to them from time to time; the rest of the time, I come to my own conclusions from what I see on a wide variety of network news and cable opinion news (both MSNBC and Fox).  By training I draw threads of evidence together and reach a conclusion, which is precisely what any decent lawyer does in court or when arguing an appeal.  I have reasoned and hunched that most climate deniers are  right of center and dogmatically dedicated to mostly evangelical and fundamentalist religions. 

Only recently a segment of a show was dedicated to an attempt to reconcile science and religion with regard to climate change (no longer called global warming because too many deniers held that term absurd, just look at the blizzard in New York City.  (Reminds me of the evolution deniers.  They claim that God put the fossils in the earth "to fool Darwinists"!)  The white preachers who joined some scientists on a junket to Juneau left the conclave clinging to their denier beliefs.  (I was tempted to italicize the last word of that sentence: Boobical nuts hold in deathgrip their sacred texts, and since God is omnipotent He can be a bit capricious with climate phenomena; after all, He works in mysterious ways.)  But one African-American pastor said he had changed his mind; he now believed in climate change.


Anyone who would believe that God put fossils in the earth to fool evolutionists is beyond the pale.  There is no help in him.  He must insist that climate change is a socialist Godless plot to turn the U.S. into a third world country by shutting down its coal burning gas guzzling manufacturing and consuming habits, including gluttonous gobbling up of precious hydrocarbonous resources.  (The nuclear family goes to church on Sunday in a Suburban, which gets about as good mileage as a Sherman tank, while the rest of the week Mom does her shopping in the same vehicle, going across town and back...alone.)


Politically, these folks tend to be Republicans.  A lot are tea party.  They like Palin and Beck and their ilk.  They are basically misguided boobs who might mean well in some disordered mind, but who propel us forward to their version of the Rapture, since ignoring climate change can only result in Bloomberg's Nightmare coast to coast.  We will end up spending money we do not have just to save us from a Century of Catastrophes.  Naomi Klein got it right when she pointed up the race between the Jihadists and climate deniers to end what was once called America.  Perhaps the world itself.



Views: 276

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

good advice, James. I'll pass as well

Aw, you're no fun. It's a website called 'let me google that for you', the purpose of which is the highlight the fact that you could have done your own research to come to your own conclusion instead of blindly accepting somebody elses.

Here are some other websites for you;

And some theories behind the propaganda;
1. To ween the developed world off of the finite amount of fossil fuel remaining, to avoid a catastrophic economic crash when the wells run dry.
2. To hamper the development of developing nations such as India and China by holding them responsible for 'climate change', in an effort to reduce their competitiveness in the world market.
3.To garner billions in tax revenue by way of 'carbon penalties'.

These things are already happening, and you dumbasses think you're saving the world. This is even more delusional than believing in god...

Consider this my final sign off on this topic, I can tell that I'm talking to disciples of the church of climate change which makes this as futile a discussion as trying to convince Fred Phelps that 'gays r ok!' :P
Uh, I think the word "myth" was used with tongue in cheek.

so, let me get this straight,

thousands of scientists have been "fudging stats" for 50 years now?  wow, that's a lot of fudge!  You would think these scientists would be driving around in lamborghinis by now. 


Do you think, perhaps, that there just might be some money on the other side of the issue?  Oil companies perhaps?  Conservative, "Free Market" organizations?  The ultra conservative "Koch Brothers"?  The "Cato Institute"?  The "Heritage Foundation"? 


Read:  "Merchants of Doubt"


In their new book, Merchants of Doubt, historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway explain how a loose–knit group of high-level scientists, with extensive political connections, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades. In seven compelling chapters addressing tobacco, acid rain, the ozone hole, global warming, and DDT, Oreskes and Conway roll back the rug on this dark corner of the American scientific community, showing how the ideology of free market fundamentalism, aided by a too-compliant media, has skewed public understanding of some of the most pressing issues of our era.

I will email that site to my sons, who certainly will appreciate its artistry and thought.  Thanks.
But the question then becomes: are those with political biases "climate deniers" because they deny there is a problem with hydrocarbons or are they "climate deniers" because there is not a problem with hydrocarbons?  Jebus, I do love playing Devil's Advocate!

"I do love playing Devil's Advocate!"

yes, you do, James, I also see you like playing "doctor".


political climate deniers are in it for the campaign contributions from oil and the free market "think tanks" (actually there isn't any thinking, but there is a lot of money)


yes, politicians are "in it for the gold", not the scientists. They are, afterall, politicians.  Would any skeptic trust a politican over the scientific consensus?

I haven't played Doctor since earliest childhood and it ended superbly with a Mongolian cluster fuck.  Like the Ophite Gnostics of old, we blessed the Bread with coiling serpents and collected wine from the font of flesh, ending the service with the dousing of the lights and fornications with anyone except your spouse.

@ Peetpeet

holy shit. don't forget "one world govt" too!  congrats for finding the truth. 

well, i'm not sure what work you did, other then the spread of yet more ignorance and non-critical thinking.


Apparently the the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. Which was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts and NASA's climate change information site arent' read by climate change deniers. 


A lot of people know Jesus will come back when the last tree is cut down and all the Xtian's will ascend to heaven.










Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


Latest Activity

Joan Denoo liked itsmerrydeath's discussion Reasons for not choosing AA?
22 minutes ago
Gary S commented on Teagraves's blog post Why Are Atheists So Toxic?
1 hour ago
BenGee commented on Teagraves's blog post Why Are Atheists So Toxic?
1 hour ago
Gwen commented on Teagraves's blog post Why Are Atheists So Toxic?
1 hour ago
BenGee commented on Teagraves's blog post Why Are Atheists So Toxic?
1 hour ago
BenGee liked Teagraves's blog post Why Are Atheists So Toxic?
1 hour ago
Loren Miller posted a status
"Well, I thought I respected Asra Nomani ... right up to the point where she became a Trump apologist! Sorry, Asra, but you're full of shit!"
1 hour ago
Daniel W commented on Daniel W's group Godless in the garden
2 hours ago

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service