It’s time to apply what we’ve learned about tolerance to the most pathetic among us.
Climate change activists.
They need our patience.
Their crusade to save the Earth is misguided.
Reasonable science says things like this:
While climate activists should NOT be taken seriously…
…they should be treated with decency.
Never laugh at them while they are within earshot.
When they speak; smile and nod.
Say things like, “How interesting!” or “My goodness!”
Furrow your brow to appear concerned.
Tolerate them.
Just do not elect them to public office.
Climate activists are simple creatures who mean no harm.
They’re like parrots.
They just repeat what they’ve heard.
They don’t actually understand the stuff they say.
They are kind of charming in a way.
Like when children wear adult-size shoes.
They stumble around with charts, graphs, terminology and ‘science’…
…but everyone can tell the information doesn’t belong to them.
…they’re just pretending they’ve done research.
Tolerance doesn’t cost us anything.
It’s easy to make a climate activist feel happy.
Use one of these phrases:
- “Polar bears are majestic.”
- “I’ll reduce my carbon footprint.”
- “We should take care of our planet!”
- “Every day should be Earth Day.”
It doesn’t cost you anything and it brings joy to a fellow human.
Remember…
…tolerance and approval aren’t the same thing.
156 Responses
https://theliberalweb.wordpress.com/
well, that means you’d be laughing at 97% of climate scientists. i Beg you to read my article on climate change with an open mind. it might do some good for you…
Polar bears are majestic.
Pro-choicers used to believe worshiping Moloch by sacrificing their children on his alter (burning them alive) would bring about prosperity and other positive results. Now they have the priests of Planned parenthood.
https://branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2015/07/28/a-better-human-sacrifice/
All the talk about “reality” reminds me of this clip:
The only question is, why did David’s dad answer “yes” without asking Tildeb first?
Bright side: we learned a new term today! “Bayesian reasoning.”
After Googling, I’ve discovered that it’s statistical analysis. It’s mathematical. It’s what computers do.
So “reasoning” is kind of a misnomer. Bayes wasn’t into philosophy…he was a statistician.
It all makes sense now. If you don’t understand what Tildeb is talking about, try “thinking” more like a robot.
Bayesian reasoning is a process of assigning likelihood based on the preponderance of evidence. The more more likely something is, the greater the confidence awarded. The opposite is true, too.
This is how the jurisprudence operates, too: the preponderance of evidence to achieve a carefully weighed confidence up to and beyond reasonable doubt. But perhaps you don’t believe there really are juries made up of jurors but a hidden robot calculating away…..
Some days, Amanda, I think you’re clinically insane.
Sounds to me like the process I use for determining whether or not there’s a God.
I was beginning to worry I’d never get to play this again …
I feel better now.
~
Yes, it’s all about your feelings, CQW.
I’m glad you feel that way.
~
Speaking of feelings, the Bonobo descendants didn’t weigh in on the newest post about suicide.
Tildeb works in hospice, yet–look how surprised we are–he’s got nothing of substance to say to someone who WANTS to die…
By “we” she didn’t include myself, the math major of the group. Bayes, like many early workers involed in statistics, was way ahead of his time.
However, wouldn’t a true Bayesian thinker agree that the odds of a testimony of a miraculous occurance being true (not yet ruling out the possibility of a miracle) is greater than the odds of life coming from non-life ( without assuming the age of the earth)?
I’m actually willing to bet that THE Bayesian thinker ( Thomas Bayes himself) was a theist 😉
Never heard of him before today!
I got good grades in mathematics, but mostly because my teacher was AWESOME….
Was Bayes a Theist?
I would hope so 😉 He was a Presbyterian minister.
Oh, interesting…
That’s probably because Tildeb wasn’t around to explain how to properly apply Bayesian reasoning to the God question…
Thomas Bayes was probably influenced by other Bayesian thinkers ( Joshua Bayes- his father and Samuel Bayes- Joshua’s father) who happened to be ministers as well.
I’m starting to think “Bayesian thinkers” is correlated to “theists”
Those Theists are everywhere…
It’s unnerving…
Atheist Thomas Nagel:
“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.”
…And that’ll be the last time Tildeb references Bayesian Reasoning in this blog space.
I’m starting to understand why Tildeb didn’t respond to THIS comment I made: https://branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2017/01/11/tolerate-global-warming/comment-page-1/#comment-10732
“Sounds to me like the same process I use to determine whether or not there’s a God.”
Shucks, I recognized the method that leads to my own Theism even without knowing who Bayes was and even with TILDEB explaining how it’s done!
I didn’t think it was possible to know anything about reality without Tildeb.
He was involved in my discovery. That’s what I’m saying!
I’m excited to have confirmation from the Arbiter of Reality himself that my faith in God is really CONFIDENCE in STATISTICS…
Wrong again, JB. Just because Bayes was a theist is no more indicative of causal effect than suggesting priesthood causes pedophilia.
I know you proibably won;t bother, and your deluded daughter simply won;t care, but here’s a good illustration of what Bayesian thinking is: (by physicist Sean Carroll)
“Simplicity is sometimes easy to gauge, sometimes it is less so. Consider three competing theories. One says that the motion of planets and moons in the Solar System is governed, at least to a pretty good approximation, by Isaac Newton’s theories of gravity and motion. Another says that Newtonian physics doesn’t apply at all, and that instead every celestial body has an angel assigned to it, and these angels guide the planets and moons in their motions through space, along paths that just coincidentally match those that Newton would have predicted.
Most of us would probably think that the first theory is simpler than the second — you get the same predictions out, without needing to invoke vaguely-defined angelic entities. But the third theory is that Newtonian gravity is responsible for the motions of everything in the Solar System except for the Moon, which is guided by an angel, and that angel simply chooses to follow the trajectory that would have been predicted by Newton. It is fairly uncontroversial to say that, whatever your opinion about the first two theories, the third theory is certainly less simple than either of them. It involves all of the machinery of both, without any discernible difference in empirical predictions. We are therefore justified in assigning it a very low prior credence. (This example seems frivolous, but analogous moves become common when we start talking about the progress of biological evolution or the nature of consciousness.)
Some people don’t like the Bayesian emphasis on priors, because they seem subjective rather than objective. And that’s right — they are. It can’t be helped; we have to start somewhere. On the other hand, ideally the likelihoods of making certain observations can be objectively determined. If you have a certain theory about the world, and that theory is precise and well-defined, you can say with confidence what the chances are of observing various bits of data under the assumption that your theory is correct. In realistic circumstances, we are often stuck trying to evaluate theories that aren’t so rigorously defined in the first place. (“Consciousness transcends the physical” is a legitimate proposition, but it’s not sufficiently precise to make quantitative predictions.) Nevertheless, it’s our job to try to make our propositions as well-defined as possible, to the point where we can use them to objectively establish the likelihoods of different observations.
Everyone’s entitled to their own priors, but not to their own likelihoods.”
Deluded daughter???
I’m offended you would talk about my sister that way!
(But you’re right. Tabby won’t care about any of that…)
“Just because Bayes was a theist is no more indicative of causal effect than suggesting priesthood causes pedophilia.”
…somebody needs to read his own lecture on false equivalency. Pedophilia is not a system of scientific inquiry. Pedophilia is not a philosophy. Pedophilia is not even part of Catholic doctrine.
That you pride yourself on ‘Bayesian Reasoning’ to arrive at your irrefutable, all-encompassing, godless ‘reality’ is an astounding irony given Bayes was a theist. Do you think your Bayesian reasoning is superior to the man who invented it?
I have to laugh when you quote Sean Carroll (an atheist) to illustrate Bayesian thinking! You couldn’t find a Thomas Bayes explanation that you like?
I’m not wrong. You won’t reference Thomas Bayes in the future. Bayes doesn’t understand ‘reality’, right?
I will say that Joshua and Samuel weren’t Bayesian statisticians, but to say that they weren’t “Bayesian thinkers” is to deny them their last name 😉
Actually, Peaches, after taking the History of Mathematics and the History of Mathematics and Science courses in college, it is really fascinating on how many people were philosophers as well as mathematicians and/or scientists. Of course, I went to a State University, so I can only say “philosophers” and not “theists” for certain.
But, I do love the fact that I have two things in common with Bayes and Euler ( pronounced “oiler”) we are pastor’s sons and mathematicians.
Of course, after taking an Into to Philosophy course and many analytic math courses- proving something starts at one thing- logic. Then, from philosophy, comes science; you have to conclude that nature exists before you can study it. People who love science, reference math, but dismiss philosophy are being quite illogical just by the definition of what philosophy really is.
Preach, PK!
#Philosophy
#Logic
#FirstThingsFirst
I thought we were supposed to call you ‘Sweet Cheeks’…?
You know I go by many monikers… Just ask JZ how many different identities I have now.
HAHA! I crack me up…
Intro to Philosophy* I’ll correct that error just because “Into to Philosophy” looks funny.
Although “involed” did too when I meant “involved”.
I’m sure there are more errors, they aren’t as easy to catch on my phone as a computer.
My favorite thing about being granted administrative privileges is correcting my own spelling, when necessary. 🙂
I’ll preface this by saying this is tangential ( although theism, mathematics, and philosophy all came up) but…
What other occupations other than ministers and math teachers have to go through a deconstuction of their belief system?
Pastors have to unlearn what “God” is so they can logically do it in theology. I have to unlearn what “line segments”, “rays”, “angles” and “triangles” and everything more complex than those in Foundations of Geometry then re-learn then from an axiomatic approach.
Everybody OUGHT to… Because philosophy undergirds everything. Everyone ought to question everything (and I do mean EVERYTHING) and see how far they can go down that hole, before they realize they have to plant their foot on something.
That “something” will be their god. Whether it’s a small, shallow, mindless, “natural” god, or the limitless, mindful, supernatural God…you should examine your assumptions until you figure out which of those foundations you’re building on, whether you’re a minister or a mathematician… Or an entertainer or a housewife.
Or a glorified tutor. (Lol. Couldn’t resist.)
My word! Deconstruction* them*
Some good information here by an evangelical yet highly respected climate scientist.
Oops. This is the right link to the video by Dr. Hayoe I meant to post above. (I think it’ll work)
Good grief! Let’s try this again Sorry about my fumbling about.
Yup. That last link works.
Cool.
So you have faith that what this chick says is true?
I think you will agree that just because a person claims to be an Evangelical doesn’t mean I MUST accept everything she says as fact. That wouldn’t be rational.
I did find a fun little fact about rising sea levels. I don’t know if the source is Evangelical or not. It shouldn’t matter anyway, right?
http://www.c3headlines.com/2015/12/factcheck-pacific-ocean-islands-sea-rise-co2-climate-change-those-stubborn-facts.html
No, JB, I don’t have faith to believe what she says is the case; I have evidence adduced confidence in the belief that what she says about climate change is both scientific and reflective of reality. It’s a seamless fit.
You see, JB, I use Bayesian reasoning that raises my confidence BECAUSE what she says accounts for all the evidence so far produced. My belief is shaped by evidence from reality. Your belief stands contrary to reality, to all the adduced evidence produced, to the applied science. Your opinion is shaped by your confidence in your faith-based and not evidence-adduced belief and it is incompatible with the reality we share. That’s why you can draw only upon denialist sources and not reasonable science, which was the entire point of my original comment, to which you ignored by using the tactic of diversion. Hence, the polar bear reference. You think this kind of reality-denying tactic is cute and funny. I think it’s delusional and dangerous because it continues to enable practices that brings unnecessary suffering especially to the most vulnerable. That you do so and think yourself witty for trying to be funny rather than responsible is as idiotic as it is selfish and wholly conceited.
I want future generations to see how people like you screwed with their planet in spite of attempts by people like me to point out the reality denying you exercise in the name of your faith and just how destructive and short-sighted your idiotic real legacy was: from a towering religiously-inspired conceit erected to withstand reasonable science, reasonable and responsible actions, reasonable solutions in a timely manner, a willingness to shift your responsibility on to future generations to bear because you were too stupid and gullible to care, and far more concerned about making fun of others in the name of protecting your destructive opinions from honest criticism than being a good person.
Cool.
So she’s absolutely right about global warming.
But her Evangelicalism still makes her a superstitious nitwit.
What about the fact that sea-levels haven’t swallowed up any islands? Your faith telling you eventually those islands will disappear?
Sea levels are rising, JB. Talked to anyone in Miami lately?
You put a lot of faith in the opinions of Miami citizens?
Having the beaches disappear and salt water flooding the streets and relying on public insurance because no reinsured insurance company will take the risk is hardly a matter of faith… except in JB’s little denialist bubble world
So you’re faith is in the assessment of insurance company risks? Make up your mind.
Well, I tend to listen to trillion dollar companies that evaluate risk for their livelihood over and above the climate denialist sites you must rely on.It’s all part of that growing pile of adduced evidence from reality from which I extract my belief.
Lol. Give up, Tildeb.
Every one of your comments about the supposed difference between your reality and the people who “deny” your reality are just fodder for me to use later. I’ll take screenshots and link back to them on future comments, so that ALL of our readers get equal chance to see how much you talk without saying anything…
Oh… you caught me, Amanda… I’m just making shit up. Except… I’m not.
Oh, I thought you were done for today… Running away instead of answering direct questions, as usual.
You don’t care about any answers I provide and couldn’t give a fig about explanations describing them. And you don;t care because you don;t care about what’s true. You care only about supporting Dear Old Dad in whatever fuckwittery he’s up to to try to make his apologetic theology seem other than what it is: credulity leading to gullibility leading to reality denialism… ignorance and stupidity dressed up to look like piety. .
I don’t give a fig about your explanations, because they’re too long, too pretentious, and devoid of actual content.
When you’re concise, then everyone else can see that you’re a know-nothing, as I can.
Boo-hoo.
Answer my question! I don’t care what you say! Too long, too boring.
Repeat as needed
You’re either an idiot or insane. I think the latter. Goodbye Amanda.
Just a short list of the questions you won’t answer:
“Which came first: the brain or logic?”
“Why do you believe developed humans (‘oak trees’) have the right to keep living, but fetuses (‘oak seeds’) do not?”
“Why do I ponder my own existence? Why do I sometimes act contrary to my own instincts?”
“What is the difference between ‘faith-based’ belief that you criticize everyone here for using–and what you’ve done, by choosing to accept climate scientists as authorities and then putting your faith in whatever they decide as a group?”
“…were you suggesting that you DON’T assume logic (like faithful folks do)? I’m genuinely still trying to figure out why you think YOUR brain-particles are producing something different from mine.”
You give one of three excuses every time: “You’re misrepresenting me!” or “You don’t care anyway!” or (my personal favorite) “Those are bad questions!!!”
Lol.
The globe may be warming. I don’t really care.
But I certainly don’t trust YOU to figure it out. Poor pseudo-intellectual. Poor, gullible, selectively-skeptical God-denier… 🙁
I’m going to look up ‘reality denialism debunked’.
If you object to whatever Google returns, take it up with JZ.
According to Google, ‘reality denialism’ doesn’t seem to be part of reality.
Awkward.
I guess we’ll have to take it on faith that Tildeb isn’t just making stuff up.
Rather than this ridiculous song and dance, perhaps John Branyan could just cut to the chase and let everyone know why American Evangelicals, such as himself, are so determined to deny man-cause climate change?
I, for one, would be tremendously interested to hear this explanation…. and perhaps also an explanation as to why virtually all climate change deniers are Evangelicals.
What is the connection?
I suspect I am missing something, so I’m hoping he can educate me on my apparent ignorance in this matter.
A-ha! JZ said “Song and Dance!”
I have “B-I-”
Now I just need “N-G-O,” and I’ll win!
You may want to take a gander at something like this because evangelicals as a significant cohort of the voting public are far and away the most illiterate – and therefore the most deluded – amongst AGW climate change deniers in the world today. For those of us actually concerned about the consequences of our collective actions, we’ll take whatever help wherever we can find it.
The climate of this post was heart warming or maybe that is global warming I feel. it makes me want to hug a sedated polar bear.
If the bear is sedated, the hug doesn’t count.
The climate of this post should chill you because it is demonstrably predicated on denialism. It denies reality and you think it’s cute. Great.
This was funny!
John,
Well, you know… humans will just have to evolve to live under the higher temperatures of global warming, or they will be naturally selected out of existence. Then the roaches and scorpions and hot-thriving creatures will rule long after we are gone. Guess we are not fit for the future, if we globally warm ourselves out of existence. We are just another animal, of no more or less value than any other.
Right?
/snark
Dave
2 Peter 3:10 (ESV) – But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.
So the /snark indicates that you think we’re not subject to the consequences of our actions but magically above all that because, you know, god, And you wonder why rational people think you religious folk are delusional?
Hey, Tildeb.
The religious folk are wondering why you won’t answer MY question.
You do that a lot, you know? Just drop out of a conversation when you’re called out…
Diversionary hand waving tactics is not a means by which to ‘call out’ someone, Amanda. I’ve already explained why your understanding of my previous comments is not what you think it is and any reader is welcome to marvel at how you’ve twisted my meaning into something it obviously isn’t. You do all of this to pretend you’re not lying, you’re not presenting an intentional comment to deceive. I never said what you falsely accused me of saying. Rather than own your mistake you’re now busy bearing false witness against me and trying to cover up your sin with all of this diversionary bullshit.
You think your meaning is obvious? LOL! You are the WORST communicator, of all the Atheists who verbally vomit here.
Also, did you forget where you are? You can’t get away with accusing people of hand-waving around here, just because you don’t have clear thoughts and good answers.
It doesn’t work.
Every time you can’t answer good, relevant questions, you simply disappear. Like this time:
https://branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2016/10/04/christians-are-learning-disabled/comment-page-1/#comment-6526
JB: “Is it not ‘reproductive preference’ for a mother to kill her toddlers because they’re annoying?”
Tildeb: “No. There is both a qualitative and quantitative difference. You confuse the oak seed to be an oak tree. They are not the same.”
JB: “Brilliant! Oak seeds are not oak trees. How does this apply to aborting babies with Down Syndrome? Qualitative and quantitative differences are determined by whom?”
Tildeb: “I would explain but that would entail too many words for you to handle.”
Mrs. McMommy: “How many words do you need to say, “I believe adult humans are valuable and fetuses are worthless because I’ve never thought about it critically” ? I just did it in less than 20.”
Tildeb: *Crickets*
Mrs. McMommy: “No one thinks an oak seed (uh, acorn?) and an oak tree are the same. But YOU’RE the one who thinks the seeds have no rights, while the full-grown trees need to be protected. That’s why YOU have to explain why one is valuable and deserves to live–but not the other.”
Tildeb: *Crickets*
On the contrary, we are ultimately subject to the consequences of our actions. God has plainly told us as much in Scripture.
What is delusional is to tell people dying and starving today that they can’t use coal because they (the climate cultists) claim that us civilized people already messed up the climate with coal. So the climate cultists are willing to let others die today so that they can live tomorrow.
If truly carbon dioxide (a naturally occurring thing that plants use for respiration) in the atmosphere is causing a global warming, then the real solution would be for scientists to work on the invention of “atmosphere scrubbers” that can be deployed and take care of that icky CO2 much like a desalinization plant makes potable water from sea water.
Oh yeah… that’s right…. God *did* invent an atmosphere scrubber to get rid of that icky CO2. Plants! Trees! The wealthier climate cultists of the world should spend time planting new trees, grasses, and other pretty flowery things that naturally use up that CO2. Actually, even the not-so-wealthy climate cultists can do the same. Victory Gardens for all!
Dave
Proverbs 19:21 (ESV) – Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will stand.
Good. We agree we’re responsible for our actions.
Now, does increasing CO2 concentration to the atmosphere cause it to warm?
Dave –
I agree. And as you know – we’ve already established a 97% consensus that the Sea Centaur is a forthcoming fact.
The Sea Centaur will be happy with and thrive in the new Miami.
~
You’re on a roll CQW.
CQW,
Well, sea centaurs *are* factual. They are on Wikipedia, after all. And Wikipedia is the source of all knowledge, unless I say it isn’t. And there is one of the critters in Jefferson City, Missouri.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyocentaurs
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/31/Ichthyocentaurs_from_the_Fountain_of_the_Centaurs_by_AA_Weinman%2C_Jefferson_City_MO_USA%2C_1927.jpg
They have not made their way to Miami yet, but give them time.
Dave
Genesis 1:21 (ESV) – So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Claiming the discredited Heartland Institute* as your source for “reasonable science” says more about your inability to recognize reasonable science even when it smacks you in the face than it does anything reasonable about those who understand why human caused climate change is something worth addressing in a meaningful way.
Using discredited sources also reveals the hypocrisy of claiming the scientific consensus on climate change is really a bunch of people – aka working climate scientists – as those who “just repeat what they’ve heard.” Yup, those of us who think every major scientific body in the world is worth listening to “don’t actually understand the stuff they say.” Sure, that’s true as far as it goes with the scientific particulars but doesn’t apply to the granting of a high level of confidence to the scientific consensus on the issue. Apparently, being a reasonable and responsible adult respecting reasonable scientific consensus is in your mind “charming in a kind of way. Like when children wear adult-size shoes.” Not nearly as charming as you applying egg to your own denialist clown face while filling your clown mouth with those great big clown feet.
* The Heartland Institute has also campaigned against those trying to address second-hand smoke, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as the Endangered Species Act. Its funding comes from ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute as well as more than $25 million from something called the Donor’s Capital Fund, created expressly to conceal the identity of its large donors – ahem… Koch Brothers… via their Knowledge and Progress Fund. The Heartland Institute was once at the forefront of climate denialism, which is why JB finds it representative of his partisan political “reasonable science” denied stance. You see, reality just doesn’t align with John’s preferred source material, so he has little choice but to substitute this kind of tailored denialist bullshit and misrepresent it as if it were ‘reasonable science’ rather than bought and paid for denialist crap. Of course, it is the very opposite… not that JB has ever been concerned with respecting what’s true.
Polar bears are majestic.
I knew you’d pull this kind of silly response. You’re so predictable in your dishonesty, JB.
You can’t possibly disagree with me on my assessment of polar bears.
I thought JB was pretty honest about what his response would be.
LOL!
Polar Bears ARE majestic. I don’t care if science says otherwise.
*snort*
Stop distracting me. I’m trying to send invoices and contracts…
(‘Cuz, you know: #SuccessfulEvangelicalComedian)
Tildeb! We’ve missed you, Buddy!
Stay cool out there! <3
Hahahaha!!! You were right, JB. The activists don’t know what’s going on. They don’t know any of the particulars.
But they’ll accept whatever certain scientists say anyway–on faith.
I’m sorry, I meant confidence.
Wrong already, mrsmcmommy; I know a lot about climate science.
I also know a lot about the dishonesty and lack of integrity demonstrated by people like your dear old dad who uses a denialist organization as if a scientific ‘source’ and tries to fob it off only to gullible idiots as if its ‘conclusions’ represented ‘reasonable science’. It’s not. It’s purchased deceit. It is dishonest. It is partisan. It has a goal other than doing and reporting ‘reasonable science’. It is trying to fool people. Your dad has most certainly been fooled. You’ve been fooled. What does that make you, Amanda? Informed?
I’m totally uninformed about Climate Science.
I don’t care.
But, apparently, it puts me in good company with you–since, by your own admission–you “don’t know the particulars.”
No, I said lots of people don;t know many of the particulars but have enough confidence in scientific consensus to accept its conclusion about human caused climate change. And I do know a lot of the particulars… all of which point in the same direction of causation: human activity..
Right. You don’t know all the particulars. You take what (certain) scientists say, on faith.
Got it.
That’s called a false dichotomy*, Amanda. One doesn’t need to know either all the particulars or have faith. That’s a thinking mistake you’re making. Time for you to learn something.
* A false dilemma (also known as a false dichotomy) is a logical fallacy which involves presenting two opposing views, options or outcomes in such a way that they seem to be the only possibilities: that is, if one is true, the other must be false, or, more typically, if you do not accept one then the other must be accepted. The reality in most cases is that there are many in-between or other alternative options, not just two mutually exclusive ones.
In other words, there are two ways in which one can commit a false dilemma. First, one can assume that there are only two (or three, though that case is strictly speaking be a “false trilemma”) options when there really are many more. Second, one can take the options to be mutually exclusive when they really are not.
You were one of the teachers that insisted a person either knows everything about science, the Bible, Creation, and Theology, or they’re operating on “nothing but faith!”
I thought you’d be pleased with how well I learned the lesson…
Bullshit, Amanda. You’re lying. I never said any such thing.
What is the difference between “faith-based” belief that you criticize everyone here for using–and what you’ve done, by choosing to accept climate scientists as authorities and then putting your faith in whatever they decide as a group?
Respecting reality.
*snort*!
You’re too much…
Luckily we’ve had this conversation before, so I know what you mean…
Tildeb: “Theism isn’t a thing, but a belief set… Its removal must be done by the person using it…”
MrsMcMommy: “I have bad news, Tildeb. Everything you think you know about reality is just a set of beliefs, too… It’s just a product of the brain. No brain–no beliefs about “reality.” It’s just an illusion.”
Tildeb: “Yes, Amanda, they are beliefs as you say… but not the same KIND. Yours are faith-based. Mine are evidence-adduced. Night and day.”
MrsMcMommy: “Of course they’re the same kind of beliefs. Particles. Just particles.”
https://branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2016/09/10/all-natural-funeral/comment-page-1/#comment-4595
Is that supposed to be a retort? Looks like a fail to me.
You have to provide EVIDENCE that I’ve failed. And then link your evidence to reality.
😉 😉 😉
Your comment is the evidence. Ipso facto.
Brilliant. lol.
If you keep talking, maybe people will forget to click on my link and read the rest of our conversation about “faith” vs. your definition of “reality.”
And maybe they won’t take a gander at this conversation, either:
https://branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2016/09/10/all-natural-funeral/comment-page-1/#comment-4514
Tildeb: “First, logic is an axiomatic system….that means, you have to accept the axioms FIRST before you can utilize the form. That’s why faith-based belief is a failed epistemology.”
Am I misunderstanding, or were you suggesting that you DON’T assume logic (like faithful folks do)? Genuinely still trying to figure out why you think YOUR brain-particles are producing something different from mine.
Is that supposed to be a retort?
Yes, JB. My comment was a retort.
Retort OED):.
noun
1. a sharp, angry, or wittily incisive reply to a remark.
Please link that retort to reality.
Already did, JB.
No. You didn’t.
Your retort is not linked to reality and therefore a groundless statement of faith.
JB, including the negative ‘not’ doesn’t alter the reality of my retort that specifically referenced your parroting daughter’s comment as the evidence requested. Now go hug your polar bear and stop playing this silly little word game with your betters.
You have to show a connection between what you select as evidence for a causal claim and the cause – the hypothetical ‘source’ – for that evidence. I even used the rain dancer example and showed why claiming something to be evidence for a cause doesn’t make it so. What is needed is an explanation how you know – adduced from reality and not one’s faith-based beliefs – the two are connected. That’s the necessary link. Without that link, all you have is another claim masquerading as a conclusion…
The link is right there in the reference to the comment. That’s the connection. Quoting my own words back to me doesn’t support your criticism that I offer no evidence.
Wow. I cannot believe just how obtuse you pretend to be to avoid my original criticism: that you’re relying on denialist propaganda because your opinion about climate change caused by human activity has no ‘reasonable science’ behind it but stands contrary to it! All the rest of this garbage you’re producing is just a silly diversion.
Comparing Climate Deniers with God-Deniers isn’t diversion. It’s relevant.
When are you going to admit that “Reality” is just your word for the stuff you WANT to believe in…and then you demand that people provide “links” (whatever that means) when you DON’T want to believe.
I agree with Silence of Mind. You pretend to be a skeptic, but you’re actually gullible.
Hint: when you agree with SoM, you’ve left reality.
LOL!
That’s actually a really helpful hint. I appreciate the glimpse into reality.
You should make a list for me, of people who live in reality and those who don’t.
I appears John Branyan didn’t know the Heartland Institute (catchy name) is actually a right wing political lobby group whose “work” has about as much to do with science as Dr. Pepper has to do with medicine.
Hilarious, though, that he would cite such an organisation.
John Branyan knows that John Zande has proven himself to be a liar. So any claims John Zande makes have as much to do with truth as Dr. Pepper has to do with medicine.
I get it, you’re embarrassed.
So, you didn’t know the Heartland “Institute” was a junk organisation and are now regretting posting their “thoughts” because you’ve been made to look like a fool.
Fair enough, although a two second internet search would have saved you the embarrassment.
In the future, check your sources.
Problem solved.
Now, I asked a question above (or below). Are you going to answer it?
I’d like a link to the sources that discredit the Heartland Institute.
(It will be nice to see which people you put your faith in.)
Two-second internet search.
Knock yourself out.
I get it.
You’re embarrassed.
https://ncse.com/files/nipcc.pdf
you can start here… but there are hundreds upon hundreds of others for you to peruse and
National Center for Science Education? That sounds like a left wing political lobby.
Now, as it appears your father can’t answer my question, perhaps you can?
ANOTHER left-wing political lobby group?!?! How embarrassing…
Seriously, debating a climate change denier is an exercise in near-perfect futility; the intellectual equivalent of a baobab tree discussing the intricacies of Game Theory with the spent placenta of a long eared jerboa.
Don’t waste my time.
I asked a question.
Can you answer it?
Didn’t see your question.
Don’t care.
Please don’t ask again, because my answer will still be: “No. I don’t care.”
Fine.
You’ve already bored me.
Okay. But if you want to share more links from biased, left-wing, God-deniers, you know where to find me!
See ya next time!
And do be sure to check your “sources” in the future.
Being humiliated is never good.
Simple search will so it, like: heartland institute debunked
So, if I see the words “[insert key word] debunked” then I know it has been debunked.
Got it.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/20/heartland-institute-scientists
More left-wing propagandists! I’m not even going to click on that… They deny reality.
http://www.salon.com/2014/04/08/heartland_institutes_ridiculous_new_lie_climate_change_is_good_for_you/
I can’t believe you read Salon! How EMBARRASSING!
Oooh, look what I found. Seems I’ve answered the question I put to Branyan myself.
The Cornwall Alliance’s Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming:
So, to paraphrase. Yhwh is causing climate change, not man.
Case solved!
(*gasp*) Look at THIS!
Just a simple, two-second search…
I bet you feel humiliated.
Here you go… The Evangelical play book for climate change denial!
The Cornwall Alliance’s Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming:
WHAT WE BELIEVE
1. We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
2. We believe abundant, affordable energy is indispensable to human flourishing, particularly to societies which are rising out of abject poverty and the high rates of disease and premature death that accompany it. With present technologies, fossil and nuclear fuels are indispensable if energy is to be abundant and affordable.
3. We believe mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, achievable mainly by greatly reduced use of fossil fuels, will greatly increase the price of energy and harm economies.
4. We believe such policies will harm the poor more than others because the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on energy and desperately need economic growth to rise out of poverty and overcome its miseries.
WHAT WE DENY
1. We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.
2. We deny that alternative, renewable fuels can, with present or near-term technology, replace fossil and nuclear fuels, either wholly or in significant part, to provide the abundant, affordable energy necessary to sustain prosperous economies or overcome poverty.
3. We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits.
4. We deny that such policies, which amount to a regressive tax, comply with the Biblical requirement of protecting the poor from harm and oppression.
A CALL TO ACTION
In light of these facts,
1. We call on our fellow Christians to practice creation stewardship out of Biblical conviction, adoration for our Creator, and love for our fellow man—especially the poor.
2. We call on Christian leaders to understand the truth about climate change and embrace Biblical thinking, sound science, and careful economic analysis in creation stewardship.
3. We call on political leaders to adopt policies that protect human liberty, make energy more affordable, and free the poor to rise out of poverty, while abandoning fruitless, indeed harmful policies to control global temperature.
There you have it folks… Yhwh is in control!
Oh, come ON, old man. Don’t make me start copying and pasting from my “sources,” too.
I thought you were bored?
If you REALLY want to keep going, then I’ll keep doing EXACTLY what you’re doing–only arguing that you’re a “God-denier” rather than a “climate-denier.”
I’ll reject anybody who inconveniently disagrees with me. I’ll post quotes from Atheists who admit there could be a God. I’ll tell you to do all the work for me by doing a “simple Google search” for yourself.
Do you REALLY want to continue?
I’m telling you now: I’m going to get the last word (or laugh or meme). The question is, how many comments are there going to be?
Your “sources”?
LOL!
Let me guess, Praga “University”
Right?
I have no opinion, whatsoever, on Global Warming or Climate Science. I don’t care. But, the fact that you and the other Atheists believe in it so religiously, without providing evidence, is just too good to pass up.
All of your sources are biased and don’t live in reality.
So there.
Your move.
It WAS Praga “University”!!
LOL!
Good. Grief.
What’s next for you and your father, quoting Ken Ham on geology?
Goodbye.
Wait, REALLY Goodbye? Or just JZ goodbye?
Lol.
Also…. “Praga?”
HAHAHAHAHA! I think you might mean “Prager.”
Hysterical.
Let me know if you want to post any more of those “hundreds” of links. (Try to avoid The Guardian and Salon, though.) #Biased
See, two can play the game where you flat reject the other person’s source, without firing a brain cell.
If you have any other “experts” you like me to ignore, out of hand, just paste the link! 🙂 <3
Also: polar bears are majestic creatures.
NCSE is Left wing? Well, sure it is, Amanda…. to the clinically insane where science is really a Left wing conspiracy and reality possesses a partisan Left wing bent. You’re so perceptive.
Of course you’d say that. You’re biased, too. I have no evidence to the contrary.
You know what the problem is? You’re asking the wrong questions. No knowledge can come from the questions you’re asking.
Because, reality.
https://branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2016/07/01/i-dont-believe-in-god-because-of-scripture/comment-page-1/#comment-2149
Per searching instructions from good old “Grab them by the” Zande – I searched “The Consensus Project Debunked” and found the following (and my oh my … how embarrassing).
” …only 65 papers are identified as “quantifying AGW as 50%+”. Excluding the “No Positions”, there are 4011 papers classified in total, so we find that the number of papers agreeing that “humans are the primary cause of recent global warming” is only a tiny 1.6%, far from the 97% claimed.”
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/cooks-97-scam-debunked/
AND
http://climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus/
I have yet to search “The Consensus Project Debunked Debunked” – but that could readily be argued by searching “The Consensus Project Debunked Debunked Debunked”.
Lol!
Fabulous!
I’m literally cackling out loud.
Always ask JZ for a source.
Always.
It’s always hilarious.
Yes, this almost seems convincing… until you talk to the authors of the study and find out – look how surprised we are – it’s been misrepresented by the denialists yet again. SOP.
I’m not surprised at all…
You’re going to say “misrepresented by the denialists” no matter how much evidence is against you.
That’s a part of reality. 😉
I agree, except for the part about climate activists meaning no harm. They insist that government enforced action is required, and that funds and property must be seized by force of law to combat whatever they care to blame. They mean to harm whatever they want to blame today, to crush it and sweep it away.
Like most folks of means who advocate for larger more intrusive government, they labor under the delusion that they themselves will somehow end up in charge.
The average, rank-and-file climate activist just believes they are ‘saving the Earth’. They don’t grasp the bigger political picture.
For the most part, they’re of no consequence. They don’t actually practice what they preach. That’s why a nod and a smile will often send them on their way with a feeling of accomplishment. They don’t really DO anything.
Yes, and a self-named “comedian” (a Creationist, no less) in middle America knows more about climate science than a single NASA climate scientist, let alone thousands of climate scientists.
Got it.
Polar bears are majestic.
“In middle America…”
If he were a comedian on the coasts would you take what he says into consideration? As a fellow Midwesterner I now can’t help but wonder if we’re all without validity. We should all pack up and move so our lives have abundant meaning as soon as the ice storm passes this weekend.
From JZ’s perspective, my Christian faith is what invalidates my views, not my Midwestern locale. Whatever you do, don’t provoke him or he’ll start talking about the Exodus!
JZ lives in Brazil and tutored some college students a few times…
So, show him the respect he deserves.
😉