The Liberal Primer: Religion

tsuke

New member
download (2).jpg

https://tsukesthoughts.wordpress.com/2017/05/04/the-liberal-primer-religion/

The Liberal Primer: Religion

Greetings fellow liberals! Today we discuss religion. To the uninitiated it would seem that we are too smug and superior to be concerned about religion but nothing could be further from the truth. The Church of Climatology forms a central part of our lives and we defend it just as zealously as any terrorist defends the great pedophile in the sky. Not only are we willing to kill people to defend our religion, we are willing to ruin careers, livelihoods, and silence anyone critical of our religion.

Tenets

The tenets of our religion are simple. White men are sinful creatures and are going to destroy our environment. The simple minded think that our credo holds that all men are responsible for the changing climate but that is only what we release for public consumption. If there are two countries a white majority one producing 10 units of pollution, lets call it the US for example, and there is a country with a non-white majority one producing 50 units of pollution, lets call it India or China for example, we would require that the country producing the 10 units of pollution be more highly regulated than those producing 50. In our religion the pollution caused by white men causes more damage to the environment than pollution caused by people of other races.

Heirarchy

The church of climatology has a very well defined hierarchy. On top we have our equivalent of the Pope or the Caliph. It is currently the almighty Al Gore. On the next level we have Leo and the rest of the saints residing in our holy city of Hollywood. We use very simple criteria in determining who moves up and down in our hierarchy. The more famous you are and the more pure your belief in climatology the higher your rank is.

Heresy

Like any other religion we do have heretics as well. Our colloquial term for them is deniers. They deny the one true faith. When you meet one of these deniers I encourage you to plug you ears and shout "It's settled Science" at the top of your lungs. This is a very useful phrase to remember. If you ever find yourself backed into a corner or unsure of what to say shouting this is a safe bet. It is like "Deus Vult" for the christians in the middle ages or "Allahu Akbar" for the muslims today. They all mean the same thing. We are right because we believe in our heart we are right. It does not matter what others say.

Rest assured we are going after these heretics. They will hunted down and eliminated. When dealing with these people we are very thorough. First we make sure that they are cut off from any source of funding. We will put pressure on the universities and other places they may be employed to get them fired. Next we will make sure they get humiliated by the press and other agencies controlled by high ranking members of the Church of Climatology. Lastly we make sure that they cannot infect other people with their ideas by censoring them. We can be as thorough as inquisitors employed by the Pope if we put our minds to it.

Doomsday

Every religion has sects which declare the end of the world. Some christians declare that the rapture is coming and hole up in their church. Some muslims say that the final battle is here and head to the middle east to fight. Our religion is no different. In fact out of all major religions we have declared the end of the world the most times. We are very creative as well. Other religions have static scenarios. Jesus is coming or the infidels are coming to Mecca. We have many different ones. A new ice age, islands dissapearing, a massive world war, and many others you can think of.

This shows the strength of our religion. If other faiths were to make the same number of end of the world predictions that we did and consistently get it wrong nobody would believe them anymore. In our case every prediction we make just reinforces the faith of the members of the Church of Climatology. Our faith is truly strong.

Glory be to Gore in the highest and praise Leo and all the saints!
 
I don't think the left should use AGW as part of the argument for changing our habits and sources when it comes to energy. It has become counter-productive, and there are MANY good reasons for developing alternatives, including national security.

What has dismayed me about the environmental debate is the fact that many on the right now seem to have made all of it an ideological issue - to the point where they will oppose common-sense measure to protect the environment, simply because they now feel like "protecting the environment" is a lefty cause.
 
I don't think the left should use AGW as part of the argument for changing our habits and sources when it comes to energy. It has become counter-productive, and there are MANY good reasons for developing alternatives, including national security.

What has dismayed me about the environmental debate is the fact that many on the right now seem to have made all of it an ideological issue - to the point where they will oppose common-sense measure to protect the environment, simply because they now feel like "protecting the environment" is a lefty cause.

ITS SETTLED SCIENCE BROTHER THING! DO NOT MAKE ME LABEL YOU A HERETIC!!!!
 
This shows the strength of our religion. If other faiths were to make the same number of end of the world predictions that we did and consistently get it wrong nobody would believe them anymore. In our case every prediction we make just reinforces the faith of the members of the Church of Climatology. Our faith is truly strong.

Glory be to Gore in the highest and praise Leo and all the saints!

Have you not heard of
49445264-apocalypse_jpg-640x480.png


The Jehovah Witness predicted the end of the world 5 times & now are dragging it out till this very day.......

Looks to me like a thinly veiled attack/mocking of Christianity in the guise of poorly thought out fake news...


Believing in climate change isn't a cult, but some of those opposed do seem to own some similar attributes..

Religion is built upon faith of what isn't seen-a fuckin blind man can see the glaciers aren't there any more.:palm:
 
Have you not heard of
49445264-apocalypse_jpg-640x480.png


The Jehovah Witness predicted the end of the world 5 times & now are dragging it out till this very day.......

Looks to me like a thinly veiled attack/mocking of Christianity in the guise of poorly thought out fake news...


Believing in climate change isn't a cult, but some of those opposed do seem to own some similar attributes..

Religion is built upon faith of what isn't seen-a fuckin blind man can see the glaciers aren't there any more.:palm:

pssshhh only 5 times? Amateurs. The Church of Climatology has predicted the end of the world more than that brother bill!
 
pssshhh only 5 times? Amateurs. The Church of Climatology has predicted the end of the world more than that brother bill!

The difference is the JW's actually exist outside your mind..... Small difference, but an important one.:D
 
SPM 1. Observed Changes and their Causes
Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse
gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts
on human and natural systems. {1}
SPM 1.1 Observed changes in the climate system
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed
changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have
warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen. {1.1}

SPM1.2 Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven
largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in
at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers,
have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been
the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {1.2, 1

In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on
all continents and across the oceans. Impacts are due to observed climate change, irrespective
of its cause, indicating the sensitivity of natural and human systems to changing climate.
{1.3.2}

SPM 1.4 Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950.
Some of these changes have been linked to human influences, including a decrease in cold temperature
extremes, an increase in warm temperature extremes, an increase in extreme high sea
levels and an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events in a number of regions. {1.4}


SPM 2. Future Climate Changes, Risks and Impacts
Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting
changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe,
pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. Limiting climate change would
require substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions which, together
with adaptation, can limit climate change risks. {2}
SPM 2.1 Key drivers of future climate
Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late
21st century and beyond. Projections of greenhouse gas emissions vary over a wide range,
depending on both socio-economic development and climate policy. {2.

SPM 2.2 Projected changes in the climate system
Surface temperature is projected to rise over the 21st century under all assessed emission
scenarios. It is very likely that heat waves will occur more often and last longer, and that
extreme precipitation events will become more intense and frequent in many regions. The
ocean will continue to warm and acidify, and global mean sea level to rise. {2.2

SPM 2.3 Future risks and impacts caused by a changing climate
Climate change will amplify existing risks and create new risks for natural and human systems.
Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for disadvantaged people and
communities in countries at all levels of development. {2.3

SPM 2.4 Climate change beyond 2100, irreversibility and abrupt changes
Many aspects of climate change and associated impacts will continue for centuries, even if
anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are stopped. The risks of abrupt or irreversible
changes increase as the magnitude of the warming increases. {2.4

SPM 3. Future Pathways for Adaptation, Mitigation and Sustainable Development
Adaptation and mitigation are complementary strategies for reducing and managing the risks
of climate change. Substantial emissions reductions over the next few decades can reduce climate
risks in the 21st century and beyond, increase prospects for effective adaptation, reduce
the costs and challenges of mitigation in the longer term and contribute to climate-resilient
pathways for sustainable development. {3.2, 3.3, 3.4}
SPM 3.1 Foundations of decision-making about climate change
Effective decision-making to limit climate change and its effects can be informed by a wide
range of analytical approaches for evaluating expected risks and benefits, recognizing the
importance of governance, ethical dimensions, equity, value judgments, economic assessments
and diverse perceptions and responses to risk and uncertainty. {3.

SPM 3.2 Climate change risks reduced by mitigation and adaptation
Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation,
warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread
and irreversible impacts globally (high confidence). Mitigation involves some level
of co-benefits and of risks due to adverse side effects, but these risks do not involve the
same possibility of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts as risks from climate change,
increasing the benefits from near-term mitigation efforts. {3.2, 3.4}

SPM 3.3 Characteristics of adaptation pathways
Adaptation can reduce the risks of climate change impacts, but there are limits to its effectiveness,
especially with greater magnitudes and rates of climate change. Taking a longerterm
perspective, in the context of sustainable development, increases the likelihood that
more immediate adaptation actions will also enhance future options and preparedness. {3.3}

SPM 3.4 Characteristics of mitigation pathways
There are multiple mitigation pathways that are likely to limit warming to below 2°C relative
to pre-industrial levels. These pathways would require substantial emissions reductions over
the next few decades and near zero emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases
by the end of the century. Implementing such reductions poses substantial technological, economic,
social and institutional challenges, which increase with delays in additional mitigation
and if key technologies are not available. Limiting warming to lower or higher levels involves
similar challenges but on different timescales. {3.4

SPM 4. Adaptation and Mitigation
Many adaptation and mitigation options can help address climate change, but no single
option is sufficient by itself. Effective implementation depends on policies and cooperation at
all scales and can be enhanced through integrated responses that link adaptation and mitigation
with other societal objectives. {4}
SPM 4.1 Common enabling factors and constraints for adaptation and mitigation responses
Adaptation and mitigation responses are underpinned by common enabling factors. These
include effective institutions and governance, innovation and investments in environmentally
sound technologies and infrastructure, sustainable livelihoods and behavioural and lifestyle
choices. {4.1}

SPM 4.2 Response options for adaptation
Adaptation options exist in all sectors, but their context for implementation and potential to
reduce climate-related risks differs across sectors and regions. Some adaptation responses
involve significant co-benefits, synergies and trade-offs. Increasing climate change will
increase challenges for many adaptation options. {4.2
SPM 4.3 Response options for mitigation
Mitigation options are available in every major sector. Mitigation can be more cost-effective
if using an integrated approach that combines measures to reduce energy use and the greenhouse
gas intensity of end-use sectors, decarbonize energy supply, reduce net emissions and
enhance carbon sinks in land-based sectors. {4.3

SPM 4.4 Policy approaches for adaptation and mitigation, technology and finance
Effective adaptation and mitigation responses will depend on policies and measures across
multiple scales: international, regional, national and sub-national. Policies across all scales
supporting technology development, diffusion and transfer, as well as finance for responses
to climate change, can complement and enhance the effectiveness of policies that directly
promote adaptation and mitigation. {4.4

SPM 4.5 Trade-offs, synergies and interactions with sustainable development
Climate change is a threat to sustainable development. Nonetheless, there are many opportunities
to link mitigation, adaptation and the pursuit of other societal objectives through integrated
responses (high confidence). Successful implementation relies on relevant tools, suitable
governance structures and enhanced capacity to respond (medium confidence). {3.5, 4.5}


http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
 
View attachment 4103

https://tsukesthoughts.wordpress.com/2017/05/04/the-liberal-primer-religion/

The Liberal Primer: Religion

Greetings fellow liberals! Today we discuss religion. To the uninitiated it would seem that we are too smug and superior to be concerned about religion but nothing could be further from the truth. The Church of Climatology forms a central part of our lives and we defend it just as zealously as any terrorist defends the great pedophile in the sky. Not only are we willing to kill people to defend our religion, we are willing to ruin careers, livelihoods, and silence anyone critical of our religion.

Tenets

The tenets of our religion are simple. White men are sinful creatures and are going to destroy our environment. The simple minded think that our credo holds that all men are responsible for the changing climate but that is only what we release for public consumption. If there are two countries a white majority one producing 10 units of pollution, lets call it the US for example, and there is a country with a non-white majority one producing 50 units of pollution, lets call it India or China for example, we would require that the country producing the 10 units of pollution be more highly regulated than those producing 50. In our religion the pollution caused by white men causes more damage to the environment than pollution caused by people of other races.

Heirarchy

The church of climatology has a very well defined hierarchy. On top we have our equivalent of the Pope or the Caliph. It is currently the almighty Al Gore. On the next level we have Leo and the rest of the saints residing in our holy city of Hollywood. We use very simple criteria in determining who moves up and down in our hierarchy. The more famous you are and the more pure your belief in climatology the higher your rank is.

Heresy

Like any other religion we do have heretics as well. Our colloquial term for them is deniers. They deny the one true faith. When you meet one of these deniers I encourage you to plug you ears and shout "It's settled Science" at the top of your lungs. This is a very useful phrase to remember. If you ever find yourself backed into a corner or unsure of what to say shouting this is a safe bet. It is like "Deus Vult" for the christians in the middle ages or "Allahu Akbar" for the muslims today. They all mean the same thing. We are right because we believe in our heart we are right. It does not matter what others say.

Rest assured we are going after these heretics. They will hunted down and eliminated. When dealing with these people we are very thorough. First we make sure that they are cut off from any source of funding. We will put pressure on the universities and other places they may be employed to get them fired. Next we will make sure they get humiliated by the press and other agencies controlled by high ranking members of the Church of Climatology. Lastly we make sure that they cannot infect other people with their ideas by censoring them. We can be as thorough as inquisitors employed by the Pope if we put our minds to it.

Doomsday

Every religion has sects which declare the end of the world. Some christians declare that the rapture is coming and hole up in their church. Some muslims say that the final battle is here and head to the middle east to fight. Our religion is no different. In fact out of all major religions we have declared the end of the world the most times. We are very creative as well. Other religions have static scenarios. Jesus is coming or the infidels are coming to Mecca. We have many different ones. A new ice age, islands dissapearing, a massive world war, and many others you can think of.

This shows the strength of our religion. If other faiths were to make the same number of end of the world predictions that we did and consistently get it wrong nobody would believe them anymore. In our case every prediction we make just reinforces the faith of the members of the Church of Climatology. Our faith is truly strong.

Glory be to Gore in the highest and praise Leo and all the saints!
Moronic dribble like this is why the vast majority of scientists have switched from being Republicans to Democrats. If science discovers facts that contradict long held beliefs or threaten vested financial interest y'all attack the Institutions of science instead of doing the science.

If you want you persuade the scientific community they are wrong provide them the data put your arguments into the public domain along with the facts you have and let scientists tests them.

But that's not what's happening you either provide arguments from authority or you don't provide data or when you do and the data is discredited, usually because it comes from laughably biased interest group that has no interest in advancing real since, you cry "foul!" Instead of doing any actual science.

You want to convince the scientific community you are right and they are wrong then quit being bitches and do the science. If your data doesn't support your conclusions then you either have the wrong data or the wrong conclusion. Put it out there man. If the facts and the science are on your side then ultimately your arguments will prevail but trotting out discredited tobacco company science isn't going change to the mind of anyone in the scientific community.
 
Last edited:
Moronic dribble like this is why the vast majority of scientists have switched from being Republicans to Democrats. If science discovers facts that contradict long held beliefs or threaten vested financial interest y'all attack the Institutions of science instead of doing the science.

If you want you persuade the scientific community they are wrong provide them the data put your arguments into the public domain along with the facts you have and let scientists tests them.

But that's not what's happening you either provide arguments from authority or you don't provide data or when you do and the data is discredited, usually because it comes from laughably biased interest group that has no interest in advancing real since, you cry "foul!" Instead of doing any actual science.

You want to convince the scientific community you are right and they are wrong then quit being bitches and do the science. If your data doesn't support your conclusions then you either have the wrong data or the wrong conclusion. Put it out there man. If the facts and the science are on your side then ultimately your arguments will prevail but trotting out discredited tobacco company science isn't going change to the mind of anyone in the scientific community.

Scientists have made arguments against it and Milagro has posted a lot of their articles. My role is to show you how AGW is a religion :)
 
Too wordy. Just shut the fuck up and get us to the day after tomorrow. We're tired of waiting.

Actually, what I posted are only the headnotes of a white paper developed by scientists all over the world for the tiny brains of policy makers. The policy makers are provided the complete documents which is far more "wordy," and even that is dumbed down for their consumption. So that makes you the sort of illiterate who can't be bothered to read bald vanilla policy conclusions in pez dispenser fashion, sorta like Dump.
 
Actually, what I posted are only the headnotes of a white paper developed by scientists all over the world for the tiny brains of policy makers. The policy makers are provided the complete documents which is far more "wordy," and even that is dumbed down for their consumption. So that makes you the sort of illiterate who can't be bothered to read bald vanilla policy conclusions in pez dispenser fashion, sorta like Dump.
Sorry asshole. You give a brief description and provide a link. Anything more than that is litter. You're littering the board, you trash spreading occupier.
 
Scientists have made arguments against it and Milagro has posted a lot of their articles. My role is to show you how AGW is a religion :)
And the large percentage of Milagro's articles he's posted, if you're willing to spend far more time than you want to, have been discredited arguments or come from sources that are not peer reviewed or are biased.

There is a reason why there is such a large consensus in the international scientific community and it's because data supporting is vast. That doesn't mean that there isn't a lot more to learn and that there isn't some contradictory evidence or that there isn't a possibility they might be wrong or that policies derived from the scientific findings might be wrong or misguided.

If Tom want's to convince the scientific community that the conclusion that human activity is causing climate change is wrong then Tom needs to do the science and submit his findings to scientist who are competent in that field. He's not advancing anything by arguing on a political message board. Until then and given that the vast number of sources from reliable sources who are not practicing tobacco science do not agree with Tom and based on that I am giving them the benefit of the doubt over Tom but I will qualify that by saying to Tom...if you got the facts and the science in your favor keep on doing the science and ultimately, if his data and conclusions are factual his arguments will ultimately prevail. It is certainly possible that he is right and the scientific community is wrong. Everything is tentative in science.
 
Last edited:
Sorry asshole. You give a brief description and provide a link. Anything more than that is litter. You're littering the board, you trash spreading occupier.

No, the nonsense you posted which nobody with a neuron would read is not much shorter than my truncated list of conclusions for policymakers from assessment report 5.

Here's to hoping our great grandchildren don't have to pay the price for your gnat like attn span.
Cheers!
 
Back
Top