Are Climate Change Deniers Immoral?

[Sun Devil 92]

This statement makes no sense at all.

First, you have no evidence......it is simply a claim.

And beyond that there is no dishonesty......or lies.....

You have not responded with anything in the way of a valid argument....at all.

We're at the point now where I have to assume that everything you say is a lie.

And I think we've clearly established you'll be in your second year of high school.

You can't even deflect well.

Maybe you'll get better when puberty is over.

Another one for the ignore list.

Yea we know as a person who is as open minded as you, who goes for "true science " will put people who disagree with you on ignore.

Funny I don't have no one on Ignore because a person I disagree with a lot can teach me something, a New thought on a topic like NY in this thread
A question for the anti-abortionists US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Sir you don't want to debate and share Ideas. You just want to hear what you want to hear and close your mind off to things that might upset you.

That's not progression and searching for the truth.

Deniers don't give two shits about the truth. So given the fact that there are no honest deniers anywhere: what would be the basis for actual discussion?

This from the poster who has provided no information to back up his/her OP.

Look at the logic she just utilized.

Starts with a premise that the other side is lying and then draws conclusions.

But can't sustain the premise.

And so the conclusion is worthless.

I wonder if he is an AGW scientist ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

For the record, no one is denying.

The OP does not premise the validity of Global Warming.

It questions the morality of denying AGW. With no premises that clarrify just what a moral basis would or would not be.

The OP is being challenged....not AGW.

 

[bripat9643]

This statement makes no sense at all.

First, you have no evidence......it is simply a claim.

And beyond that there is no dishonesty......or lies.....

You have not responded with anything in the way of a valid argument....at all.

We're at the point now where I have to assume that everything you say is a lie.

And I think we've clearly established you'll be in your second year of high school.

You can't even deflect well.

Maybe you'll get better when puberty is over.

Another one for the ignore list.

Yea we know as a person who is as open minded as you, who goes for "true science " will put people who disagree with you on ignore.

Funny I don't have no one on Ignore because a person I disagree with a lot can teach me something, a New thought on a topic like NY in this thread
A question for the anti-abortionists US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Sir you don't want to debate and share Ideas. You just want to hear what you want to hear and close your mind off to things that might upset you.

That's not progression and searching for the truth.

Deniers don't give two shits about the truth. So given the fact that there are no honest deniers anywhere: what would be the basis for actual discussion?

You have it precisely backwards. The AGW cult doesn't give two shits about the truth. They are going to ram their agenda down our throats even if they die trying. Truth is an obstacle for them. There are no honest AGW cult members anywhere.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

We're at the point now where I have to assume that everything you say is a lie.

And I think we've clearly established you'll be in your second year of high school.

You can't even deflect well.

Maybe you'll get better when puberty is over.

Another one for the ignore list.

Yea we know as a person who is as open minded as you, who goes for "true science " will put people who disagree with you on ignore.

Funny I don't have no one on Ignore because a person I disagree with a lot can teach me something, a New thought on a topic like NY in this thread
A question for the anti-abortionists US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Sir you don't want to debate and share Ideas. You just want to hear what you want to hear and close your mind off to things that might upset you.

That's not progression and searching for the truth.

Deniers don't give two shits about the truth. So given the fact that there are no honest deniers anywhere: what would be the basis for actual discussion?

You have it precisely backwards. The AGW cult doesn't give two shits about the truth. They are going to ram their agenda down our throats even if they die trying. Truth is an obstacle for them. There are no honest AGW cult members anywhere.

And there are fewer of them than they would like to believe.

 

[Crick]

You have it precisely backwards. The AGW cult doesn't give two shits about the truth. They are going to ram their agenda down our throats even if they die trying. Truth is an obstacle for them. There are no honest AGW cult members anywhere.

Paddie, who, precisely are you talking about when you make such charges? The world's climate scientists"? The portion of the world's population that believes AGW is valid and a threat to our well being? Whoever it might be, their numbers are large enough that a charge such as yours fails as simple bigotry. Stop drinking, stop getting high, wake up and engage your brain. There is no global conspiracy. The MANY people who believe AGW to be valid do so because there is good reason to do so; not because the enormous numbers of people you're talking about are all evil.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

What is the moral basis for climate change denial? Do climate change deniers have any morality? Based on the evidence of global climate change, and the obvious effects this will have on humanity, are climate change deniers in fact immoral?
Climate denial is immoral says head of US Episcopal church Environment The Guardian

No. The proponents of that international scientific fraud are the immoral ones.

 

[Crick]

I think its immoral to be stupid enough to seriously believe an international scientific fraud exists (and actually call it that).

 

[bripat9643]

I think its immoral to be stupid enough to seriously believe an international scientific fraud exists (and actually call it that).

That's only because you benefit from the fraud.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I think its immoral to be stupid enough to seriously believe an international scientific fraud exists (and actually call it that).

You don't think. So that's your first lie, dipshit.

Secondly. YOU are a moron (which is not a matter of morality or immorality, you obtuse butt fuck) to DENY that there is an international scientific fraud. Of course you only believe it because you lack the ability to recognize what is obvious to honest people with functioning brains.

 

[Crick]

I don't believe for a number of reasons, but the first and foremost and the one most obvious to people with "functioning brains" is that the ODDS of nearly every member of that large and diverse a group choosing to act - in perfect concert, over a period of decades, for trivial reward - in such a risky and unethical manner is a decimal point followed by an astoundingly large number of zeroes.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I think its immoral to be stupid enough to seriously believe an international scientific fraud exists (and actually call it that).

This statement makes no sense.

It is immoral to be stupid ?

Like that is a choice.

Or was your choice of words stupid ?

 

[IanC]

Crick is still doing the straw man argument thing.

There is no worldwide conspiracy to commit fraud. Scientists are social creatures, and science funding even more so. Groupthink and incompetence are more than sufficient reasons for the headlong rush down a blind alley.

Again, there are a large amount of skeptics out there who believe that CO2 increase is substantially man-made, and will cause at least some warming. But 1C is a far cry from 3C or 6C. As it stands now there is little evidence that 1C warming has a detrimental effect, it certainly has benefits as well. At the very least, the Pause has shown that there is little reason to stampede into immature technologies that have obvious drawbacks.

 

[Liminal]

Crick is still doing the straw man argument thing.

There is no worldwide conspiracy to commit fraud. Scientists are social creatures, and science funding even more so. Groupthink and incompetence are more than sufficient reasons for the headlong rush down a blind alley.

Again, there are a large amount of skeptics out there who believe that CO2 increase is substantially man-made, and will cause at least some warming. But 1C is a far cry from 3C or 6C. As it stands now there is little evidence that 1C warming has a detrimental effect, it certainly has benefits as well. At the very least, the Pause has shown that there is little reason to stampede into immature technologies that have obvious drawbacks.

The deniers are apparently modern day Galileos.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I don't believe for a number of reasons, but the first and foremost and the one most obvious to people with "functioning brains" is that the ODDS of nearly every member of that large and diverse a group choosing to act - in perfect concert, over a period of decades, for trivial reward - in such a risky and unethical manner is a decimal point followed by an astoundingly large number of zeroes.

Mann and Gore have made absolute fortunes as part of the AGW Scam

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Crick is still doing the straw man argument thing.

There is no worldwide conspiracy to commit fraud. Scientists are social creatures, and science funding even more so. Groupthink and incompetence are more than sufficient reasons for the headlong rush down a blind alley.

Again, there are a large amount of skeptics out there who believe that CO2 increase is substantially man-made, and will cause at least some warming. But 1C is a far cry from 3C or 6C. As it stands now there is little evidence that 1C warming has a detrimental effect, it certainly has benefits as well. At the very least, the Pause has shown that there is little reason to stampede into immature technologies that have obvious drawbacks.

The deniers are apparently modern day Galileos.

Still won't address the OP.

No arguments....nothing.

This isn't about AGW.

It's about morality.

Or was the OP poorly worded ?

 

[bripat9643]

I think its immoral to be stupid enough to seriously believe an international scientific fraud exists (and actually call it that).

This statement makes no sense.

It is immoral to be stupid ?

Like that is a choice.

Or was your choice of words stupid ?

Well, he is stupid, so he must be immoral.

 

[mamooth]

It is immoral to be stupid ?

Yes. Society definitely thinks so. For example, drunk driving is a crime, even if you don't think you're doing anything wrong. You can be criminally cited for other forms of negligence. Malicious intent is not required, just stupidity taken past a reasonable level.

So, since deniers are taking stupidity past a reasonable level, deniers can be reasonably be defined as immoral. They have a moral responsibility to not be so stupid, and have failed to live up to it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

It is immoral to be stupid ?

Yes. Society definitely thinks so. For example, drunk driving is a crime, even if you don't think you're doing anything wrong. You can be criminally cited for other forms of negligence. Malicious intent is not required, just stupidity taken past a reasonable level.

So, since deniers are taking stupidity past a reasonable level, deniers can be reasonably be defined as immoral. They have a moral responsibility to not be so stupid, and have failed to live up to it.

Such reasoning can only come from a crusader.

Like so many in a crusade, new "logic" finds its way into the public discussion.

Deniers might be dishonest, but they are not stupid.

They've outmaneuvered the AGW group with a pretty good public relations campaign that has shut down all the Chicken Little's on the other side.

Unless you want to admit you are REALLY stupid.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Crick is still doing the straw man argument thing.

There is no worldwide conspiracy to commit fraud. Scientists are social creatures, and science funding even more so. Groupthink and incompetence are more than sufficient reasons for the headlong rush down a blind alley.

Again, there are a large amount of skeptics out there who believe that CO2 increase is substantially man-made, and will cause at least some warming. But 1C is a far cry from 3C or 6C. As it stands now there is little evidence that 1C warming has a detrimental effect, it certainly has benefits as well. At the very least, the Pause has shown that there is little reason to stampede into immature technologies that have obvious drawbacks.

While not taking sides, it has become pretty disconcerting to see the open minded technical community defame any dissenters.

American weather forecasters do battle over mankind s role in global warming - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent

This was from 2007 when H. Cullen, a so-called meteorologist suggest that the credentials of any weather person who doubts AGW be revoked.

Never watched her and wasn't going to then.

Funny how, when you can't get your message out....you go after the competition.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Crick is still doing the straw man argument thing.

There is no worldwide conspiracy to commit fraud. Scientists are social creatures, and science funding even more so. Groupthink and incompetence are more than sufficient reasons for the headlong rush down a blind alley.

Again, there are a large amount of skeptics out there who believe that CO2 increase is substantially man-made, and will cause at least some warming. But 1C is a far cry from 3C or 6C. As it stands now there is little evidence that 1C warming has a detrimental effect, it certainly has benefits as well. At the very least, the Pause has shown that there is little reason to stampede into immature technologies that have obvious drawbacks.

The deniers are apparently modern day Galileos.

Still won't address the OP.

No arguments....nothing.

This isn't about AGW.

It's about morality.

Or was the OP poorly worded ?

Morality is derived from religious teachings. Are we implying that AGW is a religion now and that to not believe like they demand is immoral?

Hell, Muslims want to kill and conquer all those who dont believe like they do and justify beheadings and terror attacks. The similarities are stunning..