Originally posted by Leonhard
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Follow the (Climate Change) Money
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Tassmoron View PostWhy are you so reluctant to accept global warming when the consequences if true, as seems likely, are so harmful?Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostAnd yet you openly resist the scientific consensus for global warming with such cynical OP's as this one and sneering comments such as “climate preachers".
Why, when the consequences are predicted to be so dire?
It was because of your beliefs and those of your ilk, that Trump precipitously withdrew from the Paris Agreement, so as to appease those that comprise his base.
Do you deny that you are "preaching" Climate?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View PostThis level of skepticism, after all that you have learned, simply means that you hate your grandchildren.
You people are just nuttier than fruitcakes, which makes your message incredibly distasteful.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostAs soon as I see solutions that are practical, economical, and don't run roughshod over basic liberties then I'll be all in favor.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
So, again.... the analogy....
I believe that Jesus is the answer to man's sin problem, and that acceptance of Jesus Christ is necessary for Salvation. I preach that unapologetically.
When I encounter unbelievers, I know it's my job to win their heart and mind with the Gospel.
I know that calling them idiots or treating them with hostility does nothing to win them over, and only drives them away.
If somebody mocks me for being a "preacher" or "pastor" (as a number of liberals have here on Tweb) I don't take that as an insult, because it's my calling.
Those who believe that bad things will happen because of climate change.... well, here's where the analogy breaks down.
They preach doom and gloom without a sure solution.
They make prophecies that often fail.
They get really triggered when you label them "climate preachers".
They double down with insults and really wild and crazy statements -- like you'd expect from an old fashioned hellfire preacher, or, better yet, from the folks at Westboro.
Come to think of it -- the climate preachers here on Tweb seem more like the folks from Westboro than....
Interesting.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Post...sneering comments such as “climate preachers".
One of the jobs I've held in a couple of companies for whom I've done consulting was actually titled "technology evangelist".
Look at this definition from Wiki (seems compatible with what I knew the job to be, and what I actually did)...
A technology evangelist is a person who builds a critical mass of support for a given technology, and then establishes it as a technical standard in a market that is subject to network effects.[1] The word evangelism is taken from the context of religious evangelism due to the similarity of relaying information about a particular set of beliefs with the intention of converting the recipient. There is some element of this although some would argue it's more of showcasing the potential of a technology to lead someone to want to adopt it for themselves.
So, let's adapt that to Climate....
A Climate evangelist (preacher) is a person who builds a critical mass of support for Climate Change, and then establishes it as a technical standard in a market that is subject to Climate effects. The word evangelism is taken from the context of religious evangelism due to the similarity of relaying information about a particular set of beliefs with the intention of converting the recipient. There is some element of this although some would argue it's more of showcasing the dangers of Climate Change to lead someone to want to accept it for themselves.
So why are not climate advocates "climate preachers", and why do you find this term so offensive.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostSee, it's jackass comments like this that reinforce the idea that you guys are "climate preachers" of the extreme televangelist flavor. It would be like me saying if you don't accept Christ, you hate your grandchildren.
You people are just nuttier than fruitcakes, which makes your message incredibly distasteful.
In Romans 1:20 we read the people are without excuse. The same applies to climate change. The question for each of us concerns our legacy because we will be fortunate enough to miss the collapse.“I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
“And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
“not all there” - you know who you are
Comment
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View PostFirstly, it’s not OUR message.
Climate science provides politically neutral facts about the world.
In Romans 1:20 we read the people are without excuse.
The same applies to climate change.
The question for each of us concerns our legacy because we will be fortunate enough to miss the collapse.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassmoron View PostWhy are you so reluctant to accept global warming when the consequences if true, as seems likely, are so harmful?
Yet you don't accept this line of reasoning as sufficient to take Christianity seriously.
Curious.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostWhy would it do so? Let's say the federal government is paying for the costs of the building of the new solar and wind power stations out of general taxes that might otherwise be spend somewhere else (e.g. military-industrial complex), what the average person with their energy bill is then paying for is the running costs of the power stations. If those are coal power stations they are paying for buying the coal each year that is burned to provide the power. If those are wind or solar power stations they are paying for no fuel. It would seem likely to be cheaper then for them?
Solar and wind farms take up a LOT of real estate and infrastructure. That ain't cheap. Or even doable in many parts of the country. That is why most solar farms are out in the west where land is plentiful. Hydroelectric is a good renewable energy source but it too is dependent on geography.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostGood observation.
(Poor kid still hasn't figured out that insisting that the scientific method is the only valid means of testing truth claims is a self-defeating assertion.)Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostThis is basically Pascal's Wager applied to global warming.
Yet you don't accept this line of reasoning as sufficient to take Christianity seriously.
Curious.
It fails in practice because one premise of Pascal's wager is that there is no way to determine whether or not there is a god.
We can try to determine whether climate change is occurring, and whether our actions are affecting it. There is no need for a blind wager because we can make informed decisions.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostIt is a surprisingly good observation.
It fails in practice because one premise of Pascal's wager is that there is no way to determine whether or not there is a god.
We can try to determine whether climate change is occurring, and whether our actions are affecting it. There is no need for a blind wager because we can make informed decisions.
There is good evidence for God now if you want to look. It is not a blind wager.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Today, 01:12 PM
|
4 responses
52 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 02:38 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 09:33 AM
|
45 responses
349 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by Starlight
Today, 05:05 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-16-2024, 10:43 PM
|
60 responses
388 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Today, 03:09 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
27 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-16-2024, 06:47 AM
|
100 responses
440 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 12:45 PM |
Comment