English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Here is the website for the Church of Global Warming:

http://www.churchofglobalwarming.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

2007-09-06 17:16:05 · 14 answers · asked by - 6 in Environment Global Warming

14 answers

That's Awesome! I can't believe someone took the time to do that.

I love how all these alarmists make big claims about how they use science and hard facts to show how big bad global warming is out to get us. They do use numbers... but only the ones that present the info they way they want it to look.

It's like looking down the road you are traveling... If you have just gone down a hill and start going back up again these alarmist are saying OMG we're going too high were gonna shoot off into space, we've never been this high before as they point back to the low spot in the road. Even though just a little further back is the much higher hill you just went down moments before. Greenland was not named Greenland because it was covered with Glaciers. The plains and great lakes were once covered by Ice and we don't seem to be concerned that is gone. Change happens and we better get used to it because if you can't adapt... you die.

2007-09-07 02:13:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

A large group of people are living in a big co-operative apartment bock. Everyone paints their apartment, to make it look nice, and then dumps paint and solvent-soaked rags down the rubbish chute, so that a huge pile of solvent-soaked rags accumulates in the basement. The fire inspector comes around and says "This big pile of solvent-soaked rags is dangerous, you could get a spontaneous fire. It needs to be removed." The governing commitee of the co-op gets bids from contractors to take the rags away. It's a lot of money! There's a meeting of all the tenants. They divide into two groups---one says that everyone should pay a fee to get the rags taken away---the other says that there is no danger, the fire inspector is wrong, and the whole problem should be ignored. The second group has lots of arguments: If the rags are so dangerous, why don't clothing stores catch on fire? The fire inspector is a very bad man who owns a trash-hauling business, and is just in it for the money. No one has ever proven that a fire can start without a flame. All fires are natural and caused by lightning. Spontaneous fires are "just a theory", and the scientific evidence is "weak". Suppose a fire started, how bad could it be? Maybe a fire would just reduce heating bills for the whole apartment block. There's no way to prove that a fire would spread to the penthouse, so why should those rich tenants pay? The governing commitee is just using the pile of rags as an excuse to enslave the other tenants and get more fees. A different apartment block in the city had a fire, and it was not caused by oily rags. Some people in the upper floors might survive a fire, so why do anything?

The first group becomes increasingly disgusted by these arguments, and begins to loose patience. They insist that they know the pile of rags is dangerous, and they want everyone to pay to have it removed.

So the first group are the believers in a new religion?

2007-09-07 02:47:42 · answer #2 · answered by cosmo 7 · 3 1

The abscence of pain does not mean that the house isn't on fire.

The wieght of evidence is very much on the side of GW is fact - that CO2 is a cause, that the earth's CO2 / heat system is a positive feedback loop - and that the more fossil fuel you burn the more CO2 you move from 200million years ago to now.

It's science - and not a belief in fairies system.

The church of the naysayers is more appropriate - trusting that God wouldn't do this to them - believing they can trash their rooms and burn all the goodies in the stored and their God parent will clean up the mess just like the magic mummy made when they were 4yr olds.

30 years ago my parents were clearly in the church of 'what this little spray can is damaging the atmosphere, Nah!'.

Well some of us read the science - saw the experiments - measured the Ozone depletion and said - stop using CFCs. The naysayers sprayed on and used more CFC coolants. Then the science was eventually understood by politicians and the world banned CFCs.

The problem we face today is that the world can't find substitutes fast enough to ban oil and coal - AND unlike the chemical industrries who supplied BOTH CFC and the CFC replacements the Oil, Gas and Coal industries are in competion with other engergy suppliers and their shareholders want to see the consumption of these resources promoted - not curtailed. So they produce bogus reports littered with half truths, twisted sceince and sometime pure mumbo jumbo. The US coal industry actually said that becuase CO2 was essential for plants the buring of coal was a fertilizer and so essential for the promotion of forests.

All the words are corrent and present a beguiling illusion but the sentence is a complete lie. Forest grow without burning coal extracted from the groud. The same half truths and truncated stats were used in the Channel 4 programme supposidly debunking GW - in truth teh programme has destroyed the last vestiges of C4s credibility and they are now under investigation.

No the only people who continue to refute GW are the loud and keen right wing God or my shares will save us nutters - Always the first to get a long answer in rubbishing any question which does not obviously support their view.

2007-09-06 21:23:30 · answer #3 · answered by Wayne ahrRg 4 · 1 4

truly, in case you may decide for to pass forward and discover a thank you to try this, it could be a actual help to the reason. in case you should by some ability convince the government that worldwide Warming is a faith, and we've adequate followers (which we would) then shall we become an expert faith complete with tax exempt prestige. think of all the tax loose progression shall we make interior the environmental circulate if we would purely admit to being "a faith"! And yet for some reason...we nonetheless decide for to stand up for technological information, and paying taxes...flying interior the face of naysayers. pass discern. Edit: Oh and that i forgot, Bush gave federal funds to "faith based projects" so as that church homes ought to help greater human beings. nicely wager what, we would be entitled to that too! If purely we've been a faith!

2016-10-10 02:52:55 · answer #4 · answered by ciel 4 · 0 0

Well, no. I would like to know is this a sort of new denomination? Or a branch of a current religion? Personally i believe that environmentalism should be a part of every religion, but not the sole focus. I mean, the first sentence of that website said basically that everything bad in the world is because of humans. A bit pessimistic don't you think? I feel that a religion should boast peace and love rather than scare people into joining. Maybe rethink your spiritual walk...

2007-09-06 18:30:15 · answer #5 · answered by magedabura 2 · 2 2

And here is the Pope of the Deniers

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={17E83FB7-5695-4F36-AC08-D87BCB5C51CE}

Keep in mind, Global Warming is a scientific finding based on more than a century's scientific research by qualified people.

The Denier/Skeptic nonsense is a political movement similar to Creationism, led by people who lack credibility, with the sole goal of blocking the progress of science (most of which has already been paid for by the American Taxpayer).

2007-09-07 02:49:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

Can I join the militant faction of the church, and do I get a brown shirt to go with that?

Right, "global warming" is a religion. It's a pseudo science just like eugenics was in the 1930's.

Because of politics enforcing a pseudo science by demand from the people who saw it as an article of faith, 6 million were killed under the name of purity, or eugenics.

How many will have to die because people accept the subjective science of "global warming"?

2007-09-07 01:59:55 · answer #7 · answered by Dr Jello 7 · 3 5

That "church" will receive less members than a muslim trying to open a church for christians.

2007-09-06 18:47:26 · answer #8 · answered by Ingela 3 · 1 2

Not as long as there is a big symbol of Turkey on the page.

And I'm not even going to address this church foolishness.

2007-09-06 17:54:58 · answer #9 · answered by joecool123_us 5 · 1 3

Americans, Nazis, Islamofascists do present similarities when it comes to propaganda and defamation.

I advise you to educate yourself and come back to talk with rational arguments and NUMBERS !!! SCIENCE !!! YOU KNOW ??? the things you are not capable of and you might have failed at school.

POLITICS IS BS... HARD CRUDE NUMBERS DON'T LIE

2007-09-06 22:15:37 · answer #10 · answered by NLBNLB 6 · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers