Deniers, Sceptics and Unbelievers

 Home page

Denier, Sceptic and Unbeliever

These are just some of the names I have been called.

Click here to go to my home page (which looks just like this one) but it has a list of sites who are unable to  answer my comments 

I have also been called unscientific.

Well I have decided to start this blog to record some of the conversations I am having with AGW hypothesis supporters. 

The conversations usually end up with the AGW supporter simply spamming my answer because it is too hard to answer.

I guess they feel that my comment threatens their “faith”.

I also think that publishing the unanswered comments here will help illustrate how paranoid and dishonest many of these sites are.

I will let you, the readers, decide whether my approach is scientific or not.

As for the other names “Denier, Sceptic and Unbeliever” I frankly cannot believe we are in the 21st century and part of a (hopefully) generally educated and self determining society.

Those labels one might reasonably expect from an Islamic extremist, or to go back in history, possibly from the inquisitions of the medieval period – but is this the 21st century?

All these things point to the fact that we seem to have a new religion rising among us.

Now I am a tolerant sort of guy. I was brought up in an extremely rigid and religious family so there is not much I don’t know of how a religion works. However as I grew up I saw through all the duplicity and guilt that I was being loaded with and I suppose I would be labeled nowadays as an “unbeliever” in that sense.

However, as you might imagine, when some proselytising person comes to my door to peddle their particular religion, I am well equipped to deal with them at an intellectual level. In fact as a youth I was tutored in all the questions that would make these people doubt their own faith.

But when one of these people comes to my door, I find my attitude is quite different. I find that I don’t want to argue with them. I take the attitude that if they are happy in their belief, then they should go for it. So I quickly thank them for their “concern” (which should make them feel at least a little guilty because they are really competing to see how many “souls” they can capture) and politely but firmly send them on their way.

Now I used to have the same attitude towards believers in the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis – if it makes you feel good – go for it, well after all in the 70’s we had the same scare about the approaching ice age

we had scares about running out of oil – Two “Oil Shocks” as I recall – not to mention Malthusian scares about the population getting too large for the earth by the year 2000.

Of course these things have an element of possibility or inevitability about them, but those particular prophets of doom have been and are definitely ahead of their time.

What is different to me is this new “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis religion is basically going to hit me in my pocket. As an economist I am quite aware of what the consequences of the IPCC emission reduction demands will be.

Frankly my opinion at the moment is that the IPCC emission reduction demands, coupled with the proposed transfers of wealth, will cause enough economic collapse in the western world that we will see our children and ourselves face starvation. ( I am researching this aspect for my next blog, which I hope to publish soon, and so far the evidence I have gathered doesn’t look too good).

So this fact that this other peoples religion is not going to be kept to themselves but is going to influence me personally and the community where I live adversely and for no good cause, is the reason why I have come vocal in pointing out the inconsistencies and duplicities of the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis religion.

Of course our planet needs to be conserved, its resources used wisely and our garbage and poisonous emissions cleaned up etc. However the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis is leading us on quite the opposite path by threatening to deprive us of the very resources we need to nurture the planet by instead wasting our resources pursuing the life-giving gas – Carbon Dioxide.

I firmly maintain that one does not need to be a scientist in order to evaluate the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis. Although there is a lot of smoke and mist obscuring the real truth, a lay person can come to a sensible decision simply by using his mind. See my other blog

Sadly though, like the sheep in Orwells’s book “Animal Farm” many people are throwing their faith in the juggernaut of the UN and the IPCC and not thinking any further.

Click here to go to my home page (which looks just like this one) but it has a list of sites who are unable to  answer my comments 

P.S. Do you like my header? I’m open for suggestions for a caption. Yes I have thought of “St Peter at the Pearly Gate”.

Home page

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Deniers, Sceptics and Unbelievers”

  1. cmb Says:

    You are neither deniers, skeptics, or unbelievers. If you didn’t secretly believe, you wouldn’t use dishonest tactics.

    Denialism explained:

    “Denialism is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.

    Examples of common topics in which denialists employ their tactics include: Creationism/Intelligent Design, Global Warming denialism, Holocaust denial, HIV/AIDS denialism, 9/11 conspiracies, Tobacco Carcinogenecity denialism (the first organized corporate campaign), anti-vaccination/mercury autism denialism and anti-animal testing/animal rights extremist denialism. Denialism spans the ideological spectrum, and is about tactics rather than politics or partisanship.

  2. JMurphy Says:

    That CIA report you link to does NOT mention any approaching ice-age. You will have to do better than that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: