FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Politicians using the Bible to resist climate action

Politicians using the Bible to resist climate action

(1:32) Featured politicians are Republican Party members: James Inhofe, John Shimkus, Joe Barton, and Rick Santorum.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SATAN'S RAPIST (1452 days ago)
cenglan0's and originalmad's retarded relatives!! AAAA HA HA HA HA HA!
ReplyVote up (191)down (87)
Original comment
cenglan0's and originalmad's retarded relatives!! AAAA HA HA HA HA HA!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: steve-o (1452 days ago)
This is 2013 and these cretins still exist? Unbelievable. Maybe another million years of zero evidence may convince them god doesn't exist? Don't hold your breath....
ReplyVote up (171)down (101)
Original comment
This is 2013 and these cretins still exist? Unbelievable. Maybe another million years of zero evidence may convince them god doesn't exist? Don't hold your breath....
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1451 days ago)
At this moment in time in america you dont have to belive in the bible to resist climate action, all you have to do is go outside. Central usa is in the grip of a record cold snap. Looks like the global warming idiot screamers are being refuted by good old fashioned reality.
ReplyVote up (185)down (109)
Original comment
At this moment in time in america you dont have to belive in the bible to resist climate action, all you have to do is go outside. Central usa is in the grip of a record cold snap. Looks like the global warming idiot screamers are being refuted by good old fashioned reality.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1451 days ago)
Record cold snaps are consistent with global warming. More heat in the atmosphere equates to more energy in the atmosphere which results in more extreme weather (therefore more records being broken) and overall global warming. We have many more record heat waves than record cold snaps.
ReplyVote up (148)down (86)
Original comment
Record cold snaps are consistent with global warming. More heat in the atmosphere equates to more energy in the atmosphere which results in more extreme weather (therefore more records being broken) and overall global warming. We have many more record heat waves than record cold snaps.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1451 days ago)
thats right walter, cold is caused by warming...... only the stupidist ******* libtard could belive a bit of logic like that. btw no global warming officially for 17 years (one santer), looks like your wrong again walter
ReplyVote up (108)down (114)
Original comment
thats right walter, cold is caused by warming...... only the stupidist ******* libtard could belive a bit of logic like that. btw no global warming officially for 17 years (one santer), looks like your wrong again walter
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1451 days ago)
If record cold snaps were balanced by record heat waves, then the climate would just be getting more extreme. But since there are more record heat waves than cold snaps, the climate is getting more extreme and warmer at the same time. That's why scientists prefer to say "climate change" rather than "global warming", so as not to confuse people like you.
ReplyVote up (145)down (189)
Original comment
If record cold snaps were balanced by record heat waves, then the climate would just be getting more extreme. But since there are more record heat waves than cold snaps, the climate is getting more extreme and warmer at the same time. That's why scientists prefer to say "climate change" rather than "global warming", so as not to confuse people like you.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1451 days ago)
Walter they say "climate change" because everybody knows global warming has stopped Its for retards like you to still belive in. those of us who can actually derive the equations behind the "theory" know better. There has been no change in the frequency of weather events that cannot be explained by natural variation. even the ipcc doesn't make that claim. go read the wg1 report
ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment
Walter they say "climate change" because everybody knows global warming has stopped Its for retards like you to still belive in. those of us who can actually derive the equations behind the "theory" know better. There has been no change in the frequency of weather events that cannot be explained by natural variation. even the ipcc doesn't make that claim. go read the wg1 report
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1451 days ago)
This should help explain some of your doubts: LINK
ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment
This should help explain some of your doubts: LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: orginalmad (1451 days ago)
Oh a link to a liberal "reassuring the troops" site. you know the problem with taking measurements in the real world is that they come with error bars, and it is unfortunate but when the measurement error is roughly 30 times the actual measurement it does tend to render your conclusions somewhat meaningless
ReplyVote up (107)down (109)
Original comment
Oh a link to a liberal "reassuring the troops" site. you know the problem with taking measurements in the real world is that they come with error bars, and it is unfortunate but when the measurement error is roughly 30 times the actual measurement it does tend to render your conclusions somewhat meaningless
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1451 days ago)
Attention, retard: After years of folks dying trying to find it, the northwest passage has been discovered. Turns out, the ice north of Canada all the way to the north pole has melted. Yes, because of global warming (more accurately known as climate change).
ReplyVote up (77)down (158)
Original comment
Attention, retard: After years of folks dying trying to find it, the northwest passage has been discovered. Turns out, the ice north of Canada all the way to the north pole has melted. Yes, because of global warming (more accurately known as climate change).
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1451 days ago)
Roald Admundson (of south pole fame) did it back in the 1900's
ReplyVote up (91)down (138)
Original comment
Roald Admundson (of south pole fame) did it back in the 1900's
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1451 days ago)
additional note "all the way to the north pole has melted", now thats delusional maybe you should go check out the charts
ReplyVote up (151)down (135)
Original comment
additional note "all the way to the north pole has melted", now thats delusional maybe you should go check out the charts
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1451 days ago)
excellent we now have some filtering, that should make satan redundant.
ReplyVote up (93)down (174)
Original comment
excellent we now have some filtering, that should make satan redundant.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SATAN'S RAPIST (1451 days ago)
ha ha! yer mum's a CUUUNNNTTT!! ha ha ha!!
ReplyVote up (97)down (108)
Original comment
ha ha! yer mum's a CUUUNNNTTT!! ha ha ha!!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1451 days ago)
sad to see but satan has learnt to hold down keys on the keyboard, if only he could devote more time to learning how to decipher simple barcharts
ReplyVote up (99)down (101)
Original comment
sad to see but satan has learnt to hold down keys on the keyboard, if only he could devote more time to learning how to decipher simple barcharts
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SATAN'S RAPIST (1451 days ago)
aa ha ha ha!! you belligerent fool! bar-charts? aa ha ha ha ha!! yer mum is still a CCUUUUNNNTTT!! ha ha ha ha! FU*K YOU!
ReplyVote up (101)down (106)
Original comment
aa ha ha ha!! you belligerent fool! bar-charts? aa ha ha ha ha!! yer mum is still a CCUUUUNNNTTT!! ha ha ha ha! FU*K YOU!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1451 days ago)
why is it every time walter gets whipped in an arguement, satan turns up ?
ReplyVote up (143)down (70)
Original comment
why is it every time walter gets whipped in an arguement, satan turns up ?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SATAN'S RAPIST (1451 days ago)
as you can see from the comments (fu*ktard) you summoned me by mentioning my name. You will always reach the wrong conclusion (fu*ktard) if you start from a wrong premise. And the only one who is delusional enough (fu*ktard) to think that walter got whipped for arguing with right wing propagandist denialist sheits like you (fu*ktard) is you and cengfuk duck Fu*ker zero codger banker scum, ya stupid FU*KTARD!
ReplyVote up (123)down (135)
Original comment
as you can see from the comments (fu*ktard) you summoned me by mentioning my name. You will always reach the wrong conclusion (fu*ktard) if you start from a wrong premise. And the only one who is delusional enough (fu*ktard) to think that walter got whipped for arguing with right wing propagandist denialist sheits like you (fu*ktard) is you and cengfuk duck Fu*ker zero codger banker scum, ya stupid FU*KTARD!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1451 days ago)
walter always get whipped even by cengland, and then you turn up to give out abuse. sad isn't it
ReplyVote up (146)down (73)
Original comment
walter always get whipped even by cengland, and then you turn up to give out abuse. sad isn't it
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SATAN'S RAPIST (1451 days ago)
yes it is sad that you consider denialism on par with "walter getting whipped", when instead, denialism should be listed as a mental disorder., so keep on "high-five-ing" yourself like the idiot , right wing, shale gas propagandist that you are. ya piece of sheit!
ReplyVote up (85)down (128)
Original comment
yes it is sad that you consider denialism on par with "walter getting whipped", when instead, denialism should be listed as a mental disorder., so keep on "high-five-ing" yourself like the idiot , right wing, shale gas propagandist that you are. ya piece of sheit!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SATAN'S RAPIST (1451 days ago)
I'm a stupid idiot. I am dumb. I don't know anything. I am a dolt and a wanker.
ReplyVote up (124)down (75)
Original comment
I'm a stupid idiot. I am dumb. I don't know anything. I am a dolt and a wanker.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1451 days ago)
i have a banana up my arse right now... and it feels soo goooood!! i love it!
ReplyVote up (69)down (123)
Original comment
i have a banana up my arse right now... and it feels soo goooood!! i love it!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SATAN'S RAPIST (1451 days ago)
I would like a banana up my ass too. Must feel so good. Plantains might be better. Gerbils anyone?
ReplyVote up (144)down (64)
Original comment
I would like a banana up my ass too. Must feel so good. Plantains might be better. Gerbils anyone?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1450 days ago)
you're not having the banana i stuck up my arse, it's mine and you can't have it, and just to make sure you won't steal it, like i stole your nickname, i'm going to go ahead and eat it right now. nom nom nom.. and climate change is a lie told by the illuminati, to the sheep..I love shit flavoured bananas, mmmm.
ReplyVote up (127)down (135)
Original comment
you're not having the banana i stuck up my arse, it's mine and you can't have it, and just to make sure you won't steal it, like i stole your nickname, i'm going to go ahead and eat it right now. nom nom nom.. and climate change is a lie told by the illuminati, to the sheep..I love shit flavoured bananas, mmmm.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1451 days ago)
oh it has been tried most recently by a oregan professer of sociology kari norgaad As it was a noted tactic of the nazis to have dissenters labelled as mentally deficient, not suprisingly the thick cow got labelled as a nazi. However your will be pleased to know there is an recently identified mental disorder in germany called "doomer depression", so it looks like the medical profession are on the side of the sceptics
ReplyVote up (151)down (143)
Original comment
oh it has been tried most recently by a oregan professer of sociology kari norgaad As it was a noted tactic of the nazis to have dissenters labelled as mentally deficient, not suprisingly the thick cow got labelled as a nazi. However your will be pleased to know there is an recently identified mental disorder in germany called "doomer depression", so it looks like the medical profession are on the side of the sceptics
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SATAN'S RAPIST (1451 days ago)
yeah! i guess that bullshit you just wrote proves you're not a denialist right wing shale gas propagandist piece of sheit! way to go there fu*Ktard! ya got me!
ReplyVote up (144)down (131)
Original comment
yeah! i guess that bullshit you just wrote proves you're not a denialist right wing shale gas propagandist piece of sheit! way to go there fu*Ktard! ya got me!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Unoriginalmad (1451 days ago)
'..As it was a noted tactic of the nazi's to have dissenters labelled as mentally deficient..' Said the guy who called someone a retard. Hmm..
ReplyVote up (95)down (101)
Original comment
'..As it was a noted tactic of the nazi's to have dissenters labelled as mentally deficient..' Said the guy who called someone a retard. Hmm..
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1451 days ago)
yep i did, after all 17 years is a long time for an reality not to be agreeing with theory, you have to pretty dumb not to questioning the theory after all that time. btw denier is not a nice word either.
ReplyVote up (131)down (59)
Original comment
yep i did, after all 17 years is a long time for an reality not to be agreeing with theory, you have to pretty dumb not to questioning the theory after all that time. btw denier is not a nice word either.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: unoriginalmad (1450 days ago)
That didn't make much sense but are saying 17 years is a long time in climate terms? Jeez, you really don't know what you're talking about do you?
ReplyVote up (91)down (120)
Original comment
That didn't make much sense but are saying 17 years is a long time in climate terms? Jeez, you really don't know what you're talking about do you?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1450 days ago)
when ipcc dr ben santer was asked how long a period of time the pause would have to last to disprove co2 warming theory he said 17 years...., well the 17 years is up.
ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment
when ipcc dr ben santer was asked how long a period of time the pause would have to last to disprove co2 warming theory he said 17 years...., well the 17 years is up.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: unoriginalmad (1450 days ago)
The slower pace of temperature rise since the late 90s is so short term in comparison to the long term  warming trend that there is no reason to change our basic expectation that warming will continue.  - Warming occurs when there is more energy going in to the climate system than going out.  Observations confirm that this has been the case over the period 2000-2013.  Surface temperature is only one measure of climate change that scientists look at – it is useful for  measuring long term trends but less informative over short timescales.  - Trends in other variables over the same period, such as sea level change, Arctic sea ice cover,  glacier volume, and ocean temperatures, are consistent with a planet continuing to warm.
ReplyVote up (154)down (136)
Original comment
The slower pace of temperature rise since the late 90s is so short term in comparison to the long term  warming trend that there is no reason to change our basic expectation that warming will continue.  - Warming occurs when there is more energy going in to the climate system than going out.  Observations confirm that this has been the case over the period 2000-2013.  Surface temperature is only one measure of climate change that scientists look at – it is useful for  measuring long term trends but less informative over short timescales.  - Trends in other variables over the same period, such as sea level change, Arctic sea ice cover,  glacier volume, and ocean temperatures, are consistent with a planet continuing to warm.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1450 days ago)
Alarmists screamed surface temps when it suited them and if you didnt believe them you were called a denier. But its stopped rising (and is starting to drop) and the alarmists said "oh it wasn't the most important measure look at sea ice thats where the canary is and btw its not called global warming anymore its called climate change *much sexier you see)". Alarmists screamed death spiral in the arctic and just look at the glaciers (conveniently ignoring antartica as you also did above) and if you didn't believe them you were a denier. Now the arctic appears to be recovering and those glaciers dont appear to be melting quite so fast (and after they were caught lying in the ar4 ipcc report about the glaciers ) and look to be recovering and the antarctic (remember the antarctic) is frankly setting records for ice cover its "oh sea ice isn't the most important measure look at sea levels thats where the canary is and if you didn't believe them you were called a denier" .And as the level of sea rise rate appears to be dropping its now"oh isn't the weather weird, its extreme weather wierding thats where the canary is" (all this despite there being no scientific evidence for this claim) ,and if you dont believe them your are called a denier. And finally the people said "bullshit"
ReplyVote up (61)down (114)
Original comment
Alarmists screamed surface temps when it suited them and if you didnt believe them you were called a denier. But its stopped rising (and is starting to drop) and the alarmists said "oh it wasn't the most important measure look at sea ice thats where the canary is and btw its not called global warming anymore its called climate change *much sexier you see)". Alarmists screamed death spiral in the arctic and just look at the glaciers (conveniently ignoring antartica as you also did above) and if you didn't believe them you were a denier. Now the arctic appears to be recovering and those glaciers dont appear to be melting quite so fast (and after they were caught lying in the ar4 ipcc report about the glaciers ) and look to be recovering and the antarctic (remember the antarctic) is frankly setting records for ice cover its "oh sea ice isn't the most important measure look at sea levels thats where the canary is and if you didn't believe them you were called a denier" .And as the level of sea rise rate appears to be dropping its now"oh isn't the weather weird, its extreme weather wierding thats where the canary is" (all this despite there being no scientific evidence for this claim) ,and if you dont believe them your are called a denier. And finally the people said "bullshit"
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1449 days ago)
btw nice of unoriginalmad to acknowledge that i did know what i was talking about (ben santer)..... no he didn't did he.
ReplyVote up (146)down (69)
Original comment
btw nice of unoriginalmad to acknowledge that i did know what i was talking about (ben santer)..... no he didn't did he.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
glortman glortman (1451 days ago)
The degree to which these people are 'nut-jobs' has little to do with their purported religious beliefs. a) There are people who quote and use scripture to attain political ends without any sincere belief themselves. b) Many believers would consider this limited and sloppy interpretation of scripture to be an egregious affront to more thoughtful exegesis. c) There are also atheistic people who do not believe in anthropomorphic climate change who are as deluded as the people featured here but cite bad scientific sources, or cite good science sources badly. Rather than blame science or religion for people's mishandling of big ideas, we should see sloppy thinking as the culprit.
ReplyVote up (163)down (117)
Original comment
The degree to which these people are 'nut-jobs' has little to do with their purported religious beliefs. a) There are people who quote and use scripture to attain political ends without any sincere belief themselves. b) Many believers would consider this limited and sloppy interpretation of scripture to be an egregious affront to more thoughtful exegesis. c) There are also atheistic people who do not believe in anthropomorphic climate change who are as deluded as the people featured here but cite bad scientific sources, or cite good science sources badly. Rather than blame science or religion for people's mishandling of big ideas, we should see sloppy thinking as the culprit.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1451 days ago)
Its interesting to note that the majority of the world doesn't actually believe in anthrpomorphic climate change, belief is mostly confined to the english and german speaking worlds, and they are very much in the minority. Are you saying the rest of the world is deluded, they do represent the majority.
ReplyVote up (143)down (60)
Original comment
Its interesting to note that the majority of the world doesn't actually believe in anthrpomorphic climate change, belief is mostly confined to the english and german speaking worlds, and they are very much in the minority. Are you saying the rest of the world is deluded, they do represent the majority.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1451 days ago)
Would you accuse Tony Blair or the Pope of sloppy thinking?
ReplyVote up (111)down (173)
Original comment
Would you accuse Tony Blair or the Pope of sloppy thinking?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Casey (1451 days ago)
My only question to you, Walter, is what evidence would you need to stop believing in climate change? We now know the models are completely flawed, the change in climate is inside the normal range and the climate change models are way out of that range...the IPPC science seems wrong.
ReplyVote up (162)down (166)
Original comment
My only question to you, Walter, is what evidence would you need to stop believing in climate change? We now know the models are completely flawed, the change in climate is inside the normal range and the climate change models are way out of that range...the IPPC science seems wrong.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1450 days ago)
My views are dictated by the experts because they probably know better than me. So if the consensus changes, and no conspiracy or incompetence can be shown, then I will follow like a sheep.
ReplyVote up (142)down (180)
Original comment
My views are dictated by the experts because they probably know better than me. So if the consensus changes, and no conspiracy or incompetence can be shown, then I will follow like a sheep.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Casey (1450 days ago)
Well here's some incompetence for you Walter LINK note also the predictions were used to calculate fuel taxes etc. Another flaw in the IPCC is its mandate to see how much human influence has on climate change. They don't consider, for example how much the sun or other variables contribute to supposed climate change, oh it seems it hasn't changed meaningfully in the last 17years although we were told otherwise and that also coincides with increased CO2 over the same period. Doesn't that strike you as odd? Doesn't that raise some concern or questions about the so called science? Just asking, as one rational human being to another.
ReplyVote up (167)down (99)
Original comment
Well here's some incompetence for you Walter LINK note also the predictions were used to calculate fuel taxes etc. Another flaw in the IPCC is its mandate to see how much human influence has on climate change. They don't consider, for example how much the sun or other variables contribute to supposed climate change, oh it seems it hasn't changed meaningfully in the last 17years although we were told otherwise and that also coincides with increased CO2 over the same period. Doesn't that strike you as odd? Doesn't that raise some concern or questions about the so called science? Just asking, as one rational human being to another.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1450 days ago)
Yes, of course questions need to be asked. The answers are here: LINK Let me summarise: The warming hasn't stopped, just slowed down, at least on the surface of the planet. It's the deeper oceans that are doing most of the warming at this point in time. Evidence is from thousands of automated ocean buoys that measure down to 2km, combined with global satellite data measuring radiative energy entering and leaving the planet.
ReplyVote up (111)down (171)
Original comment
Yes, of course questions need to be asked. The answers are here: LINK Let me summarise: The warming hasn't stopped, just slowed down, at least on the surface of the planet. It's the deeper oceans that are doing most of the warming at this point in time. Evidence is from thousands of automated ocean buoys that measure down to 2km, combined with global satellite data measuring radiative energy entering and leaving the planet.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Casey (1449 days ago)
Not only has it slowed down, while CO2 emissions have increased, it has slowed so as to be completely in the range of normality. The so called science of climate change and their predictions and models have been proven false and misleading. First it was warming then climate change(as it does , naturally) and now it's slowed down, taking a rest as it were...warming is bad, cooling is bad, no change is bad...you can see where I'm coming from. ..
ReplyVote up (178)down (124)
Original comment
Not only has it slowed down, while CO2 emissions have increased, it has slowed so as to be completely in the range of normality. The so called science of climate change and their predictions and models have been proven false and misleading. First it was warming then climate change(as it does , naturally) and now it's slowed down, taking a rest as it were...warming is bad, cooling is bad, no change is bad...you can see where I'm coming from. ..
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1449 days ago)
walter also forgot to mention that the coverage of the oceans (by argo buoys) is still only just hit 30% (and an individual buoy is supposed to cover a lot of ocean) and has only been going for a decade, there isn't sufficient data to make any meaningful conclusions yet and already there are stories about data from "anomolous" cooling buoys being "doublechecked and corrected" so it looks like we have good old confirmation bias in action again.
ReplyVote up (148)down (166)
Original comment
walter also forgot to mention that the coverage of the oceans (by argo buoys) is still only just hit 30% (and an individual buoy is supposed to cover a lot of ocean) and has only been going for a decade, there isn't sufficient data to make any meaningful conclusions yet and already there are stories about data from "anomolous" cooling buoys being "doublechecked and corrected" so it looks like we have good old confirmation bias in action again.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1449 days ago)
Did you even read what I wrote, or look at the link?
ReplyVote up (114)down (166)
Original comment
Did you even read what I wrote, or look at the link?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1449 days ago)
links to misleading cherrypicking sites dont really count walter you should try finding real graphs and real data
ReplyVote up (110)down (161)
Original comment
links to misleading cherrypicking sites dont really count walter you should try finding real graphs and real data
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PUS&GUTS (1449 days ago)
here's one ya stupid FU*K! LINK knock yerself out, ya shale gas propagandist right wing fascist fu*K! FU*K YOU!!
ReplyVote up (117)down (95)
Original comment
here's one ya stupid FU*K! LINK knock yerself out, ya shale gas propagandist right wing fascist fu*K! FU*K YOU!!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1449 days ago)
throwing your toys out the pram in aid of walter... how touching
ReplyVote up (105)down (168)
Original comment
throwing your toys out the pram in aid of walter... how touching
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PUS&GUTS (1449 days ago)
ha ha ha! you suck! nothing to say about the link, is it now? ha ha ha!! shale gas propagandist Fu*K! everybody knows you suck you fascist FU*K! sod off!
ReplyVote up (152)down (185)
Original comment
ha ha ha! you suck! nothing to say about the link, is it now? ha ha ha!! shale gas propagandist Fu*K! everybody knows you suck you fascist FU*K! sod off!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1449 days ago)
yes but realclimate is cagw belief central, you wont see dissenting views, btw have tried comparing the amo index against arctic ice area
ReplyVote up (161)down (86)
Original comment
yes but realclimate is cagw belief central, you wont see dissenting views, btw have tried comparing the amo index against arctic ice area
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PUS&GUTS (1449 days ago)
it's all there LINK fu*ktard! all you have to do is some research! you dumb FU*K!
ReplyVote up (145)down (107)
Original comment
it's all there LINK fu*ktard! all you have to do is some research! you dumb FU*K!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1449 days ago)
oh i do pop by occasionally there but the problem is they act too much like advocates and not enough like scientists,you have to go elsewhere to find the truth. Without for example steve mcintyre and ross mckittrick, the problems in the methods used with the hockeystick graph would have not come to light despite the fact that it is quite clear from the climategate emails that a number of the "team" knew it wasn't robust
ReplyVote up (152)down (104)
Original comment
oh i do pop by occasionally there but the problem is they act too much like advocates and not enough like scientists,you have to go elsewhere to find the truth. Without for example steve mcintyre and ross mckittrick, the problems in the methods used with the hockeystick graph would have not come to light despite the fact that it is quite clear from the climategate emails that a number of the "team" knew it wasn't robust
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PUS&GUTS (1449 days ago)
it's robust as FU*K! but denialist fu*ks like you keep crying about them fekin treerings, ya stupid fu*K! i'm done arguing! i'm here to call you a CU*T and your mother a SOW! and your father a limp dicked alcoholic! and YOU, you're a sheit eater! FU*K YOU, ya denialist right wing fascist shale gas propagandist FU*K!
ReplyVote up (76)down (173)
Original comment
it's robust as FU*K! but denialist fu*ks like you keep crying about them fekin treerings, ya stupid fu*K! i'm done arguing! i'm here to call you a CU*T and your mother a SOW! and your father a limp dicked alcoholic! and YOU, you're a sheit eater! FU*K YOU, ya denialist right wing fascist shale gas propagandist FU*K!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1449 days ago)
so using data series (tiljander) upside down is robust ? and grafting a dodgy instrument series on to the end of your reconstruction to "hide the decline" is robust ?. really ? ha ha ha ha ha
ReplyVote up (129)down (89)
Original comment
so using data series (tiljander) upside down is robust ? and grafting a dodgy instrument series on to the end of your reconstruction to "hide the decline" is robust ?. really ? ha ha ha ha ha
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PUS&GUTS (1449 days ago)
...aaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!! aaa ha ha ha ya fu*K! i gave you the link, fekin' look at it, all your bullsheit has been addressed already, ya stupid fu*K! now you can obviously type, but can you fekin read? you stupid denialist, shale gas propagandist FU*K! FU*K YOU, ya CU*T!
ReplyVote up (139)down (73)
Original comment
...aaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!! aaa ha ha ha ya fu*K! i gave you the link, fekin' look at it, all your bullsheit has been addressed already, ya stupid fu*K! now you can obviously type, but can you fekin read? you stupid denialist, shale gas propagandist FU*K! FU*K YOU, ya CU*T!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1449 days ago)
I did, i have read most of what realclimate has to say in the past, you could say its their personal attacks on certain skeptics in the comments that made me seek out the alternate viewpoint
ReplyVote up (73)down (101)
Original comment
I did, i have read most of what realclimate has to say in the past, you could say its their personal attacks on certain skeptics in the comments that made me seek out the alternate viewpoint
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PUS&GUTS (1448 days ago)
bloody hell man! how else are you going to talk to inbred semi-educated morons who think they can tell left from right but they can't?? and in their stupidity, they keep on thumping the denialist "bibles"... it's fekin frustrating and it leads people to give up on the polite discussions, because stupid people respond mostly to negative motivation. Which is what you are, an idiot! a feking shale gas propagandist, denialist idiot! now sod off!
ReplyVote up (79)down (101)
Original comment
bloody hell man! how else are you going to talk to inbred semi-educated morons who think they can tell left from right but they can't?? and in their stupidity, they keep on thumping the denialist "bibles"... it's fekin frustrating and it leads people to give up on the polite discussions, because stupid people respond mostly to negative motivation. Which is what you are, an idiot! a feking shale gas propagandist, denialist idiot! now sod off!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1448 days ago)
just because you have the inabilty to understand how science works and have to be told what to believe in based puely on your political religion, means calling me an idiot because is an utterly empty gesture.
ReplyVote up (138)down (181)
Original comment
just because you have the inabilty to understand how science works and have to be told what to believe in based puely on your political religion, means calling me an idiot because is an utterly empty gesture.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PUS&GUTS (1448 days ago)
just because you have the inability* to understand how science works and have to be told what to believe in, based purely* on your political religion doesn't mean you get to declare anyone who is tired of your bullsheit, guilty of "utterly empty gestures" you stupid FU*K! you stupid right wing, shale gas propagandist denialist FU*K! FU*K YOU!
ReplyVote up (116)down (76)
Original comment
just because you have the inability* to understand how science works and have to be told what to believe in, based purely* on your political religion doesn't mean you get to declare anyone who is tired of your bullsheit, guilty of "utterly empty gestures" you stupid FU*K! you stupid right wing, shale gas propagandist denialist FU*K! FU*K YOU!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1448 days ago)
An insult is only worth the person it comes from
ReplyVote up (134)down (72)
Original comment
An insult is only worth the person it comes from
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PUS&GUTS (1448 days ago)
shut the FU*K UP GRANDMA! AND GO FU*K YOURSELF!
ReplyVote up (157)down (147)
Original comment
shut the FU*K UP GRANDMA! AND GO FU*K YOURSELF!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1450 days ago)
The consensus amongst most of the religious leaders, experts in their field, is that there is a God. So do you believe there is a God? In the UK, only 25% of the people do not believe there is any sort of spirit or God (atheists). That means the overwhelming majority believe there is a God. Why wouldn't you believe it too?
ReplyVote up (149)down (182)
Original comment
The consensus amongst most of the religious leaders, experts in their field, is that there is a God. So do you believe there is a God? In the UK, only 25% of the people do not believe there is any sort of spirit or God (atheists). That means the overwhelming majority believe there is a God. Why wouldn't you believe it too?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1450 days ago)
I don't believe the religious consensus because there is plenty of evidence for conspiracy and incompetence.
ReplyVote up (79)down (115)
Original comment
I don't believe the religious consensus because there is plenty of evidence for conspiracy and incompetence.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1450 days ago)
So what I'm hearing you say is that you don't agree with some consensus even though the majority of the world population disagrees with your opinion; however, you do agree with the cherry picked consensus with the cause of global warming even though there are debates amongst the scientific community about the cause and the models do not work out. Very interesting. This tells me a lot about you. As for me, I don't believe either until someone gives me proof. I'm not saying that there is no God nor am I saying that humans are not the cause of global warming but I want proof before I believe either. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
ReplyVote up (166)down (217)
Original comment
So what I'm hearing you say is that you don't agree with some consensus even though the majority of the world population disagrees with your opinion; however, you do agree with the cherry picked consensus with the cause of global warming even though there are debates amongst the scientific community about the cause and the models do not work out. Very interesting. This tells me a lot about you. As for me, I don't believe either until someone gives me proof. I'm not saying that there is no God nor am I saying that humans are not the cause of global warming but I want proof before I believe either. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1450 days ago)
I explained why I don't believe the religious consensus, and you missed it. It was only one sentence long. As for your claim that the scientific consensus is cherry-picked - we had this argument before and you lost. Since then, nothing has changed.
ReplyVote up (84)down (167)
Original comment
I explained why I don't believe the religious consensus, and you missed it. It was only one sentence long. As for your claim that the scientific consensus is cherry-picked - we had this argument before and you lost. Since then, nothing has changed.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1450 days ago)
I didn't lose an argument regarding climate change. At best, we agreed to disagree. I still stand by the statement that the scientists were cherry picked and even then only 97% of them agreed. Regarding why you don't believe in the religious consensus, you stated there is evidence for conspiracy and incompetence. So show me where this evidence for conspiracy is and what incompetence there is. You think it's a whole conspiracy that a remote village separated from others without any form of communication still believes in a deity? Could it also be that there is a conspiracy to believe in human caused global warming to scare consumers away from using carbon based fuels and to try to get them to use a different form of energy? Seems plausible to me.
ReplyVote up (169)down (97)
Original comment
I didn't lose an argument regarding climate change. At best, we agreed to disagree. I still stand by the statement that the scientists were cherry picked and even then only 97% of them agreed. Regarding why you don't believe in the religious consensus, you stated there is evidence for conspiracy and incompetence. So show me where this evidence for conspiracy is and what incompetence there is. You think it's a whole conspiracy that a remote village separated from others without any form of communication still believes in a deity? Could it also be that there is a conspiracy to believe in human caused global warming to scare consumers away from using carbon based fuels and to try to get them to use a different form of energy? Seems plausible to me.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1448 days ago)
I put it down to liberals bring white middle class modern day luddites. they invent a /have a problem co2, and yet appose any affordable solutions to the problem like fracking or nuclear . Only the most unaffordable and unworkable solutions are allowed. They dont seem to have much sympathy for those that are going to freeze to death or go hungry as a result, but then carng about the poor, is very unfashionable nowadays
ReplyVote up (116)down (93)
Original comment
I put it down to liberals bring white middle class modern day luddites. they invent a /have a problem co2, and yet appose any affordable solutions to the problem like fracking or nuclear . Only the most unaffordable and unworkable solutions are allowed. They dont seem to have much sympathy for those that are going to freeze to death or go hungry as a result, but then carng about the poor, is very unfashionable nowadays
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1448 days ago)
That is an excellent point. Wonder what their solution to fix this "problem" is.
ReplyVote up (170)down (97)
Original comment
That is an excellent point. Wonder what their solution to fix this "problem" is.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1448 days ago)
they dont tend to have one .What is important to most liberals is feeling morally superior to everybody else. Empty unworkable futile gestures are all the rage amongst liberals
ReplyVote up (168)down (109)
Original comment
they dont tend to have one .What is important to most liberals is feeling morally superior to everybody else. Empty unworkable futile gestures are all the rage amongst liberals
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: reallyunoriginalmad (1447 days ago)
That is a load of rubbish, designed to get a reaction. Classic troll.
ReplyVote up (85)down (101)
Original comment
That is a load of rubbish, designed to get a reaction. Classic troll.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1447 days ago)
oh just an observation from years of watching people prance around for the cameras only to disappear for a important "meeting" when the graft has to be done.
ReplyVote up (173)down (152)
Original comment
oh just an observation from years of watching people prance around for the cameras only to disappear for a important "meeting" when the graft has to be done.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PUS&GUTS (1447 days ago)
a stupid observation, from a stupid lad! putting all liberals in the same pot is a stupid thing to do! take my example; i don't say all conservatives are "right wing, shale gas, propagandist ************ , i say that only about stupid old you and stupid old cengfuk! FU*K YOU! when you start from the wrong premise , you reach the wrong conclusion, you stupid shale gas propagandist FU*K!
ReplyVote up (95)down (101)
Original comment
a stupid observation, from a stupid lad! putting all liberals in the same pot is a stupid thing to do! take my example; i don't say all conservatives are "right wing, shale gas, propagandist ************ , i say that only about stupid old you and stupid old cengfuk! FU*K YOU! when you start from the wrong premise , you reach the wrong conclusion, you stupid shale gas propagandist FU*K!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1447 days ago)
Nobody has a problem with CO2, fracking or nuclear. It's the consequences that are problematic. The CO2 balance in the atmosphere is increasing and causing the atmosphere to warm - not a problem in itself, except for the droughts, heat waves, crop failures; rising sea levels; floods etc. Fracking adds more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, uses and contaminates huge amounts of water, and delays the move over to clean energies. Nuclear has different issues such as cost, security, safety and waste. Don't forget, the climate doesn't give a shit about what anybody thinks, expert or not. It just follows the laws of physics. That's why we have to trust what almost every climate scientist is saying. It always comes back to that same point. Demonstrate conspiracy or incompetence, or shut up and accept that you are not an expert.
ReplyVote up (147)down (158)
Original comment
Nobody has a problem with CO2, fracking or nuclear. It's the consequences that are problematic. The CO2 balance in the atmosphere is increasing and causing the atmosphere to warm - not a problem in itself, except for the droughts, heat waves, crop failures; rising sea levels; floods etc. Fracking adds more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, uses and contaminates huge amounts of water, and delays the move over to clean energies. Nuclear has different issues such as cost, security, safety and waste. Don't forget, the climate doesn't give a shit about what anybody thinks, expert or not. It just follows the laws of physics. That's why we have to trust what almost every climate scientist is saying. It always comes back to that same point. Demonstrate conspiracy or incompetence, or shut up and accept that you are not an expert.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1447 days ago)
walter co2 appears increasingly not to be affecting the climate, so we dont need to force the poor to freeze to death. Why do you hate the poor ?
ReplyVote up (144)down (77)
Original comment
walter co2 appears increasingly not to be affecting the climate, so we dont need to force the poor to freeze to death. Why do you hate the poor ?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1447 days ago)
So you want to move on to another topic. Does that mean that in the absence of conspiracy or incompetence, you accept what almost every climate scientist in the world is saying?
ReplyVote up (192)down (100)
Original comment
So you want to move on to another topic. Does that mean that in the absence of conspiracy or incompetence, you accept what almost every climate scientist in the world is saying?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1450 days ago)
I said 'conspiracy' and 'incompetence' because those were the terms I used when talking about climate change - a sort of poetic licence. The point is, an expert should know their subject better than a non-expert, so there needs to be good reason to disagree with an expert if you are a non-expert. In the case of religion, it is the lack of evidence and logic. In the case of climate change, you agreed climate scientists are not incompetent, and that you didn't see a conspiracy. But now you have found a conspiracy - wind farms have persuaded climate scientists to lie. I like it. I'm sure there's a movie there.
ReplyVote up (91)down (161)
Original comment
I said 'conspiracy' and 'incompetence' because those were the terms I used when talking about climate change - a sort of poetic licence. The point is, an expert should know their subject better than a non-expert, so there needs to be good reason to disagree with an expert if you are a non-expert. In the case of religion, it is the lack of evidence and logic. In the case of climate change, you agreed climate scientists are not incompetent, and that you didn't see a conspiracy. But now you have found a conspiracy - wind farms have persuaded climate scientists to lie. I like it. I'm sure there's a movie there.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1449 days ago)
ReplyVote up (99)down (163)
Original comment
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1448 days ago)
Dunning–Kruger effect, very interesting. Thanks.
ReplyVote up (90)down (133)
Original comment
Dunning–Kruger effect, very interesting. Thanks.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1448 days ago)
walter you're not an expert, so i would shut up about the dunning-kruger effect if i were you
ReplyVote up (131)down (75)
Original comment
walter you're not an expert, so i would shut up about the dunning-kruger effect if i were you
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MyName MyName (1451 days ago)
Crikey, those are some proper nut-jobs. Who needs science when you have the bible?
ReplyVote up (106)down (85)
Original comment
Crikey, those are some proper nut-jobs. Who needs science when you have the bible?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
ReligiousNut ReligiousNut (1451 days ago)
Me. The Bible has all the science we need. What could possibly be better than our holy book?
ReplyVote up (104)down (102)
Original comment
Me. The Bible has all the science we need. What could possibly be better than our holy book?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MyName MyName (1451 days ago)
I'm sorry to break it to you but your holy book has, um, a few holes..
ReplyVote up (70)down (101)
Original comment
I'm sorry to break it to you but your holy book has, um, a few holes..
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
ReligiousNut ReligiousNut (1451 days ago)
All those "holes" can be filled with one statement. You cannot understand the mind of a supreme being.
ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment
All those "holes" can be filled with one statement. You cannot understand the mind of a supreme being.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1451 days ago)
Hi Sam.
ReplyVote up (101)down (86)
Original comment
Hi Sam.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
ReligiousNut ReligiousNut (1451 days ago)
Wrong guess. I am not this Sam person you speak of.
ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment
Wrong guess. I am not this Sam person you speak of.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Dumbass (1451 days ago)
Yes that's Sam alright ....he's back with more guff...
ReplyVote up (70)down (101)
Original comment
Yes that's Sam alright ....he's back with more guff...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Knobette Knobette (1447 days ago)
I wish Sam does come back. He was the best of the Lord's disciples.
ReplyVote up (72)down (125)
Original comment
I wish Sam does come back. He was the best of the Lord's disciples.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1426 days ago)
Latest comment: Lol they will try anything to continue and not change their billion dollar machines
ReplyVote up (101)down (81)
Original comment
Latest comment: Lol they will try anything to continue and not change their billion dollar machines
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1451 days ago)
These guys quote the bible and say that the earth isn't in danger. They are probably right to some extent. The earth will endure and, as the late George Carlin put it 'shake us off like a bad case of fleas'. We, as a species, may not survive because climate change really is real, like it or not. It's our children and grandchidren who will reap the rewards(?).
ReplyVote up (101)down (95)
Original comment
These guys quote the bible and say that the earth isn't in danger. They are probably right to some extent. The earth will endure and, as the late George Carlin put it 'shake us off like a bad case of fleas'. We, as a species, may not survive because climate change really is real, like it or not. It's our children and grandchidren who will reap the rewards(?).
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1449 days ago)
And this is how religion will kill all people.
ReplyVote up (92)down (101)
Original comment
And this is how religion will kill all people.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1452 days ago)
It's interesting that they refer to the Bible when it suits them, but then talk about dinosaurs - WHAT - where are the dinosaurs in the Bible? According the Bible, the Earth is only about 6000 years old - my God these guys are SO thick it is scary. Trouble is they get elected by people who are even thicker - sigh...
ReplyVote up (79)down (101)
Original comment
It's interesting that they refer to the Bible when it suits them, but then talk about dinosaurs - WHAT - where are the dinosaurs in the Bible? According the Bible, the Earth is only about 6000 years old - my God these guys are SO thick it is scary. Trouble is they get elected by people who are even thicker - sigh...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: orginalmad (1451 days ago)
i've always wondered why people vote for liberals, i mean how many times do they have to screw up the economy before people see sense
ReplyVote up (104)down (47)
Original comment
i've always wondered why people vote for liberals, i mean how many times do they have to screw up the economy before people see sense
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
ReligiousNut ReligiousNut (1451 days ago)
God created the earth with the appearance of age. So he planted those dinosaurs to make the planet look older than it really is. The Bible is correct, it's somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old but made to look much older. An example you might understand is that Adam was created as an adult -- not as a newborn infant. Adam was created with age.
ReplyVote up (57)down (107)
Original comment
God created the earth with the appearance of age. So he planted those dinosaurs to make the planet look older than it really is. The Bible is correct, it's somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old but made to look much older. An example you might understand is that Adam was created as an adult -- not as a newborn infant. Adam was created with age.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1451 days ago)
I guess you are one of idiots who votes for these guys...
ReplyVote up (101)down (88)
Original comment
I guess you are one of idiots who votes for these guys...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: steve-o (1450 days ago)
and the reason this God thought it important to make the earth look older than it is would be.... Hmmmmm. your statement has as many holes as the bible Sam
ReplyVote up (65)down (101)
Original comment
and the reason this God thought it important to make the earth look older than it is would be.... Hmmmmm. your statement has as many holes as the bible Sam
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
ReligiousNut ReligiousNut (1450 days ago)
Because there wouldn't be anything to eat if all the seeds that were planted were only 6 days old max. The trees and other items on earth had to be old enough to support the new lives God created.
ReplyVote up (68)down (101)
Original comment
Because there wouldn't be anything to eat if all the seeds that were planted were only 6 days old max. The trees and other items on earth had to be old enough to support the new lives God created.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1449 days ago)
When is part 3 of the bible out? We've been waiting more than 1,700 years for it. God is so lazy....
ReplyVote up (52)down (101)
Original comment
When is part 3 of the bible out? We've been waiting more than 1,700 years for it. God is so lazy....
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
ReligiousNut ReligiousNut (1449 days ago)
Depending on which bible you have, you already have 73 parts (for the Catholic) and 66 parts for everyone else. Don't look for any new books. Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
ReplyVote up (101)down (44)
Original comment
Depending on which bible you have, you already have 73 parts (for the Catholic) and 66 parts for everyone else. Don't look for any new books. Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1449 days ago)
and don't forget that the catholic church only printed the parts that were convenient to them. the remainder is under lock and key in the vatican vaults so you only get to see the abridged version according to whoever was pope at the time. allowing for translation errors and personal selfish input of course.
ReplyVote up (101)down (84)
Original comment
and don't forget that the catholic church only printed the parts that were convenient to them. the remainder is under lock and key in the vatican vaults so you only get to see the abridged version according to whoever was pope at the time. allowing for translation errors and personal selfish input of course.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
God God (1449 days ago)
I am not lazy. I worked for 6 days straight and only rested on the 7th day.
ReplyVote up (95)down (101)
Original comment
I am not lazy. I worked for 6 days straight and only rested on the 7th day.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Tsuki Tsuki (1449 days ago)
Can I sit on your lap and take a selfie? Oh pleeeeease... my friends would be so impressed.
ReplyVote up (101)down (73)
Original comment
Can I sit on your lap and take a selfie? Oh pleeeeease... my friends would be so impressed.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
God God (1449 days ago)
Exodus 33:20, You cannot see My face. John 1:18, No one has seen Me at any time. John 6:46, Not that anyone has seen Me.
ReplyVote up (101)down (78)
Original comment
Exodus 33:20, You cannot see My face. John 1:18, No one has seen Me at any time. John 6:46, Not that anyone has seen Me.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Drumbeat (1448 days ago)
So when is the earth's climate going to be back to normal ? I mean we are still in an inter-glacial stage tacked on to the end of an ice age. Normal, (the Cretaceous, Jurassic and Triassic) is a lot hotter than we are now. Or is this man made global warming going to put us back into an ice age. I mean people here are stating that this cold snap is caused y global warming. Does anyone know, I may need a new jumper.
ReplyVote up (37)down (101)
Original comment
So when is the earth's climate going to be back to normal ? I mean we are still in an inter-glacial stage tacked on to the end of an ice age. Normal, (the Cretaceous, Jurassic and Triassic) is a lot hotter than we are now. Or is this man made global warming going to put us back into an ice age. I mean people here are stating that this cold snap is caused y global warming. Does anyone know, I may need a new jumper.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Creationist's theme park busted
Creationist's theme park busted
Christopher Hitchens revises the Ten Commandments
Christopher Hitchens revises the Ten Commandments
George Carlin - Swearing on the Bible
George Carlin - Swearing on the Bible
Bill Nye tours Ark Encounter with Ken Ham
Bill Nye tours Ark Encounter with Ken Ham
The Holy Quran Experiment
The Holy Quran Experiment