4 ms·

Don't you recognize that your words are just as meaningful if the parties are switched? For example: That's not at all why global warming alarmists exist. The

Don't you recognize that your words are just as meaningful if the parties are switched? For example: That's not at all why global warming alarmists exist. The reason they exist is because the green energy industry managed to make believing in climate change a political issue rather than a scientific one, which is why the alarmism is embraced by one party but not the other. The actual "arguments" don't matter, this one especially since it's impossible to tell if Dorian would've even existed or not had the climate not changed. Perspective matters.

aarpmcgee 7y ago
I'm not sure if the inverse is particularly meaningful as much as it is potentially rhetorically convincing, depending on what one wants to believe in the first place. Anecdotally, most of the climate deniers I know (and am related to) also believe that Jesus is coming back soon, so fuck the environment, right?
- justsubmit 7y ago
  > Anecdotally, most of the climate deniers I know (and am related to) also believe that Jesus is coming back soon, so fuck the environment, right? No, that's a very caricatured interpretation of Christian theology about stewardship of the environment. But Christians are a convenient scapegoat, right?
  - corodra 7y ago
    That's the funny part to Christianity. You have the "Christians" that think "fuck the planet". But then you get the other side that believe we have to take care of the planet because it's a gift from God. Sadly, one has a largely voice than the other because the other congregation is busy coordinating and conducting community litter pick-up events.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > Sadly, one has a largely voice than the other because the other congregation is busy coordinating and conducting community litter pick-up events. No, one has a louder voice than the other because that one is a convenient fig leaf used to put the imprint of the cross on the self-interest of the Mammon-worshipping economic elites. The other is also politically active as well as involved in direct action, but money is volume in political discourse, and the side serving money has more of it.
    - majewsky 7y ago
      I also noticed that pattern with the refugee crisis in 2015. The biggest party by votes in Germany is the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the party of Angela Merkel. Merkel was initially willing to take in refugees but then backpedaled by not saying anything on the topic anymore. Meanwhile, all the other CDU politicians (ministers, members of parliament etc.) all called for restricting the intake of refugees as much as possible. At the time, I quipped to myself and my friends that they better take the "C" out of their name since AFAIK helping those in need is part of the proverbial "loving thy neighbor" teached by Christianity. That was only a quip but I've since heard some lower-ranking CDU politicians voice the same concerns. Same with climate change: "How can we claim to be a Christian party when we care so little about honoring God's creation?" (Disclaimer: I'm not Christian and cannot claim any authority on how to interpret the Bible. I would most likely count as agnostic or optimistic nihilist.)
      - justsubmit 7y ago
        > At the time, I quipped to myself and my friends that they better take the "C" out of their name since AFAIK helping those in need is part of the proverbial "loving thy neighbor" teached by Christianity. You did admit that you're not a Christian and haven't studied theology or interpretation, which is fair of you. So let me ask a few simple questions which demonstrate the necessity of interpretation and the diversity of views on the topic: Who are your neighbors? Are they the people in the house next door? Are they the people in the nation across the border? Should you help the people across the border at the expense of the people next door? If so, to what extent? If you decline to let into your country every foreigner who wants in, but offer to help them by other means, are you failing to honor the command to love your neighbor? Why does "love your neighbor" necessarily mean "admit to your nation every foreigner who wants in, and freely give them everything they want, otherwise you're violating the command"? It quickly becomes clear that such demands are, at best, based on a very shallow theology, and at worst, deception by those who couldn't care less about any religion.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > No, that's a very caricatured interpretation of Christian theology about stewardship of the environment. It's a quite accurate view of the particular views expressed by plenty of climate change deniers; there are more robust sets of Christian beliefs about stewardship of the environment, but they don't tend to coexist with vocal climate denial.
    - justsubmit 7y ago
      Your use of weasel words like "plenty of" and "tend to" shows that this is just your biased impression, not necessarily representative of actual populations. As well, your characterization of people who disagree with you using the pejoratives "deniers" and "denial" shows your extreme bias toward one side of the issue. In other words, you're not considering the issue fairly.
      - justsubmit 7y ago
        That's right: when you can't answer, just downvote. If you didn't have 66,000 karma, maybe you'd be held accountable by the mods for religious and political flamewars. But since you do, you can act however you please.
amanaplanacanal 7y ago
Meaningful, maybe? The green energy industry was tiny when the original science around global warming was done. I don't see how they would have the power to do that. Plus you would have to actually show some evidence.
dyslexit 7y ago
You only have a point if you're someone who believes climate change isn't happening. Otherwise switching the words around as you did only shows how ridiculous opposite side is.
pintxo 7y ago
Actually it does not. Converting an scientific issue into a political (or better say an emotional) one is only needed if the science does not support your side. Therefore it makes sense for deniers to move from a scientific discussion (which has largely been lost) to a political/emotional one, where things are more flexible and a good presented bad argument might still enable you to win. So why should the "green energy industry" move the debate from a science driven (which pretty much supports their argument) to a political one?
- justsubmit 7y ago
  You're falling into the same trap. Your words also work from the other perspective: Therefore it makes sense for alarmists to move from a scientific discussion (which has largely been lost) to a political/emotional one, where things are more flexible and a good presented bad argument might still enable you to win. This very submission is an example of the alarmists doing that. There are none so blind...
  - pintxo 7y ago
    Only under the premise that there is no large scientific consensus.
    - justsubmit 7y ago
      Did you read about the 500 scientists who wrote a letter to the U.N. a few days ago indicating just that? Well, you probably didn't, because the mainstream media didn't cover it. You'll have to search for it. Up to you.
      - pintxo 7y ago
        From [1]: > And while some outlets described the co-signers as experts in climate science, most are not. As noted in an analysis below, a significant portion of the co-signers are either engineers or professionals in non-technical fields. Only 10 identified themselves as climate scientists. So 10! climate scientists argue against climate change? Still looks like there is an overwhelming support for it in science. [1] https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-scientists-relies-on-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science/ https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-...

aarpmcgee 7y ago

I'm not sure if the inverse is particularly meaningful as much as it is potentially rhetorically convincing, depending on what one wants to believe in the first place. Anecdotally, most of the climate deniers I know (and am related to) also believe that Jesus is coming back soon, so fuck the environment, right?

justsubmit 7y ago
> Anecdotally, most of the climate deniers I know (and am related to) also believe that Jesus is coming back soon, so fuck the environment, right? No, that's a very caricatured interpretation of Christian theology about stewardship of the environment. But Christians are a convenient scapegoat, right?
- corodra 7y ago
  That's the funny part to Christianity. You have the "Christians" that think "fuck the planet". But then you get the other side that believe we have to take care of the planet because it's a gift from God. Sadly, one has a largely voice than the other because the other congregation is busy coordinating and conducting community litter pick-up events.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Sadly, one has a largely voice than the other because the other congregation is busy coordinating and conducting community litter pick-up events. No, one has a louder voice than the other because that one is a convenient fig leaf used to put the imprint of the cross on the self-interest of the Mammon-worshipping economic elites. The other is also politically active as well as involved in direct action, but money is volume in political discourse, and the side serving money has more of it.
  - majewsky 7y ago
    I also noticed that pattern with the refugee crisis in 2015. The biggest party by votes in Germany is the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the party of Angela Merkel. Merkel was initially willing to take in refugees but then backpedaled by not saying anything on the topic anymore. Meanwhile, all the other CDU politicians (ministers, members of parliament etc.) all called for restricting the intake of refugees as much as possible. At the time, I quipped to myself and my friends that they better take the "C" out of their name since AFAIK helping those in need is part of the proverbial "loving thy neighbor" teached by Christianity. That was only a quip but I've since heard some lower-ranking CDU politicians voice the same concerns. Same with climate change: "How can we claim to be a Christian party when we care so little about honoring God's creation?" (Disclaimer: I'm not Christian and cannot claim any authority on how to interpret the Bible. I would most likely count as agnostic or optimistic nihilist.)
    - justsubmit 7y ago
      > At the time, I quipped to myself and my friends that they better take the "C" out of their name since AFAIK helping those in need is part of the proverbial "loving thy neighbor" teached by Christianity. You did admit that you're not a Christian and haven't studied theology or interpretation, which is fair of you. So let me ask a few simple questions which demonstrate the necessity of interpretation and the diversity of views on the topic: Who are your neighbors? Are they the people in the house next door? Are they the people in the nation across the border? Should you help the people across the border at the expense of the people next door? If so, to what extent? If you decline to let into your country every foreigner who wants in, but offer to help them by other means, are you failing to honor the command to love your neighbor? Why does "love your neighbor" necessarily mean "admit to your nation every foreigner who wants in, and freely give them everything they want, otherwise you're violating the command"? It quickly becomes clear that such demands are, at best, based on a very shallow theology, and at worst, deception by those who couldn't care less about any religion.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > No, that's a very caricatured interpretation of Christian theology about stewardship of the environment. It's a quite accurate view of the particular views expressed by plenty of climate change deniers; there are more robust sets of Christian beliefs about stewardship of the environment, but they don't tend to coexist with vocal climate denial.
  - justsubmit 7y ago
    Your use of weasel words like "plenty of" and "tend to" shows that this is just your biased impression, not necessarily representative of actual populations. As well, your characterization of people who disagree with you using the pejoratives "deniers" and "denial" shows your extreme bias toward one side of the issue. In other words, you're not considering the issue fairly.
    - justsubmit 7y ago
      That's right: when you can't answer, just downvote. If you didn't have 66,000 karma, maybe you'd be held accountable by the mods for religious and political flamewars. But since you do, you can act however you please.

amanaplanacanal 7y ago

Meaningful, maybe? The green energy industry was tiny when the original science around global warming was done. I don't see how they would have the power to do that. Plus you would have to actually show some evidence.

dyslexit 7y ago

You only have a point if you're someone who believes climate change isn't happening. Otherwise switching the words around as you did only shows how ridiculous opposite side is.

pintxo 7y ago

Actually it does not. Converting an scientific issue into a political (or better say an emotional) one is only needed if the science does not support your side. Therefore it makes sense for deniers to move from a scientific discussion (which has largely been lost) to a political/emotional one, where things are more flexible and a good presented bad argument might still enable you to win. So why should the "green energy industry" move the debate from a science driven (which pretty much supports their argument) to a political one?

justsubmit 7y ago
You're falling into the same trap. Your words also work from the other perspective: Therefore it makes sense for alarmists to move from a scientific discussion (which has largely been lost) to a political/emotional one, where things are more flexible and a good presented bad argument might still enable you to win. This very submission is an example of the alarmists doing that. There are none so blind...
- pintxo 7y ago
  Only under the premise that there is no large scientific consensus.
  - justsubmit 7y ago
    Did you read about the 500 scientists who wrote a letter to the U.N. a few days ago indicating just that? Well, you probably didn't, because the mainstream media didn't cover it. You'll have to search for it. Up to you.
    - pintxo 7y ago
      From [1]: > And while some outlets described the co-signers as experts in climate science, most are not. As noted in an analysis below, a significant portion of the co-signers are either engineers or professionals in non-technical fields. Only 10 identified themselves as climate scientists. So 10! climate scientists argue against climate change? Still looks like there is an overwhelming support for it in science. [1] https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-scientists-relies-on-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science/ https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-...