Settled Science, Hardly

They exist; I've never met them among scientists, although some might exist there. But the point where this narrative falls down completely is that the preferred solution is alternative energy sources and more parsimonious use of energy for greater effects, not reduced consumerism. That's a complete strawman peddled by people who want to tell us that the only alternative to buying their needlessly expensive and dangerous energy is to live in caves. It's not.

The question wasn't what do the scientists believe, it was how do conservatives perceive climate change scientists.

Was it? See bolded passage above.

Counting on the idea that technology will save us before we finish completely screwing ourselves over is magical thinking. Maybe it will, maybe it won't; but just blindly saying "we can do whatever we want now, because we'll come up with some technology to bail ourselves out with later" is irresponsible.

If it is not factually based then their perception shouldn't influence what is good policy. Now, because we are a democracy their misinformation does matter but in an ideal world key policies would be decided based upon facts and reality not by misinformation. What I get pissed off at is when you have people deliberately lying because they want to prevent sound policy because they personally profit off the harm to millions.

Predictably, IdiotForge fails to see the forest for the trees.

The point of the OP was to expose the lie that "THE DEBATE IS OVER!!!111!!1!" "THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!!!11!!1!11"

Oh, you mean not all scientists agree? But liberals have been telling us for years that anyone who has issues with the global warming orthodoxy is akin to flat-earthers and holocaust deniers.

Like I said, the Cult of Global Warming is no different than Scientology. Encourage group think, ostracize opposing voices & dissent, look to consolidate political power, and harshly punish heretics. Anti-Americanism wrapped inside liberal elitist snobbery.

Your desperate attempt to turn this issue into an anti-Christian diatribe is as clumsy as it is stupid. That's Dickynoo's schtick.

And your smug dismissal of any possibility that climate change cultists have motives other than altruistic love of the environment is the perfect example of bubble-liberal hubris. You want to know why Trump won? Look in the mirror lady.

All the OP exposes is that the debate needs better challenges than he offers.

Rebuttal to OP Mail article: More Fake News in the Mail. This was posted earlier, but in your breathless rush to post drivel you probably missed it.

Okay, TLDR version...

I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, because they're the opposite of critical thinking posing as critical thinking.
They lack evidence, they're built on a foundation of suspicion, and/or hate based insinuation, and they're too damned easy to make up about absolutely anything.

They used to just annoy me, but the last straw for me that pushed me into outright contempt was the one that goes "grieving parents of mass shooting victims are hired actors from the anti-gun lobby".
Fuck that shit, I'm done.

You immediately outright dismissed the whistleblower and said probably wasn't as respected as the article claims, you have no room to talk about critical thinking.

Because I haven't seen his evidence.
That it wasn't the first thing he coughed up automatically smells like a rat.
And that's if climate denial just now fell from the sky, but I've been on this merry-go-round before with not just climate denial, but cigarette companies, and sugar lobbyists.

Then you shouldn't outright dismiss the guy. Critical thinking folks.

I don't mind being proven wrong.
I'm not wired like you, it won't make me physically die to be wrong.
But given past performance of your side of the debate, I won't hold my breath on it.

So if someday physicists prove that there is some sort order and something behind it in the universe, which I believe they will, you'll stop with the invisible sky wizard BS?

If they also find that this ordering force to the universe hates buttsex, mixed fabrics, and porkchops, sure.

The things with fabrics and pork no longer apply.

Old Testament.

Oh Dayton.

"Old Testament therefore doesn't count" is a terrible, over-simplistic, and wrong theological argument.

The correct argument is, "the ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law Code were specifically for God's physical Old Covenant people on Earth (Israel according to the flesh), to represent 'ritual holiness' as a sign and shadow of ACTUAL holiness that we, the Church (Israel according to the Spirit, or "True Israel"), have in Jesus Christ under the New Covenant. The moral aspects of the Mosaic Law Code (the 10 Commandments) are general moral law for all of humanity and transcend the Old Covenant."

Fine.

I'll go with that. I assume I can copy and paste it in response to the idiot Bible critics in the future.?

Be my guest.

But you'll cling to the rest of Leviticus like a toddler with a teddy-bear, huh?

Who cares about Leviticus garamet?

I swear you must think I'm someone else given the nature of your posts regarding me.

Then you have no problem with gay marriage then, right?

Homosexual acts are strongly condemned in the New Testament.

So naturally I'm against anything seen as endorsing homosexuality or any other deviant sexual practices.

If the Bible said "gay is a-okay!", would you be tolerant, or just get another religion?

I would stick with the Bible.

Though I sense where this is leading. You're going to find some obscure reference in the Bible and grossly misrepresent it to imply that the Bible condones homosexuality.

No, I'd say he was seeing if your views are based just on the Bible or something else.

Well...I wasn't gonna do that, but now that you mention it, there's parts that make it look like king David had a boyfriend.
Like, there's not full penetration, but they're certainly gayer than Adam West Batman.

This is the part where once again you cite Paul’s epistles with the implication that they’re more important than the Gospels because Jesus himself never said a word about homosexuality, isn’t it?

You’ll never consider the possibility that Paul doth protest too much.