Deniers, Sceptics and Unbelievers (Home Page)

Denier, Sceptic and Unbeliever

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

Check out these pages for examples. ===========>

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 make no apology for making provocative enquiries at these websites. But I do believe they are not beyond the level where one would reasonably expect a courteous response.

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

http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/1974iceagereport.pdf

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 the fact that this “other peoples religion” is not going to be kept to themselves, but is going to adversely influence me personally as well as the community where I live, for no good cause, is  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 http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

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.

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”.

14 Responses to “Deniers, Sceptics and Unbelievers (Home Page)”

  1. Bush bunny Says:

    Well done Roger! Weather kills us. Climate is what we expect, and the trend has been we are getting colder and the interglacial we have thankfully
    experienced over the last 10,000 is getting colder again.

    The thing is we have to take sustainability more seriously. And actually
    cutting CO2 emissions will not change climate. But make for a more expensive life style. You should check out 10:10 U Tube. And see if that
    might change your mind about the religion of AGW. Although meant to
    be satire it’s overall message is threatening to those who will not adher
    to cutting down CO2 emissions. You reckon the message delivered to
    children is correct? Well just watch it first. Blowing them to pieces all those who do not agree with them.

    You can view it on Joanne Nova’s website. Have a laugh? I thought
    it should be banned.

  2. Tim Says:

    As I don’t follow the IPCC stories as religiously as yourself, I tend to miss a lot of the irrelevant nonsense. I suppose though, that you may have heard that the allegations over Pachauri’s profitable earnings on anthropogenic climate change fear are based of lies, or has the original smear campaign worked it’s magic on you?

  3. Neil Says:

    Your comment was spammed by Akismet but I restored it. Don’t bother coming back though, as I saw everything you have to contribute in March.

  4. rogerthesurf Says:

    Neil,

    There may be plenty of hypothesis around, and people who swear by them but it only takes one disproving factor to question anyone’s hypothesis.

    Whether they are part of a plot or not is irrelevant.

    I see you spammed my comment but it is faithfully recorded under your url and title right here on this site.

    As for the Royal Society, lets keep an eye on them shall we?
    http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05/royal-society-fellows-question-b.html
    http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/7040-rebel-scientists-force-royal-society-to-accept-climate-change-scepticism

    Cheers

    Roger

  5. Neil Says:

    Go and change the minds of the present and past presidents of the Royal Society, Stephen Hawking, and just about every scientist of note in the world and I will be impressed. Or are they all part of some UN/communist plot to bring down civilisation as we know it?

  6. globalscams Says:

    Interesting site. AGW is a religion. Changing minds is like trying to convince a Christian that God does not exist.

    Those of us that are skeptics are called Atheists and deniers and we are seen as heretics whose goal is to destroy their god.

    There is no good faith on either side of the AGW debate. Both sides throw around a million facts and juggle them to make them fit their agenda.

    But in the end the truth is a simple matter.

    Why do Christians believe in God? What is their motivation? What effect will their belief in God have on their fellow citizens, their family, their government and their culture?

    Ask the same thing of the AGW proponents and you begin to understand why AGW is a religion. No better or no worse then any of the worlds top religions.

    They all dominate the souls of the ardents and drive them to act and speak in certain ways based upon their beliefs.

  7. Deniers, Sceptics and Unbelievers « Dare I Call These People Alarmists? Says:

    […] Deniers, Sceptics and Unbelievers By rogerthesurf  Home page https://globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com/39-2/ […]

  8. mothincarnate Says:

    Denialist, Alarmist, fear monger, etc etc etc; quite frankly, I have little time for such and indeed being “smug” as you suggested in your comment.
    I also don’t really care about the so-called “debate” over human induced climate change; it’ll all be irrelevant eventually anyway.
    My argument is that climate change is occurring (for whatever reason), we are too heavily supported on an non-renewable energy source, much of what we do is unsustainable and the longer we take to address these issues, the larger the cost (to biodiversity, to health, to the environment and to resource supplies). Because of such, we need to change our views and start developing more sustainable practices.
    Call me an alarmist if you will, but it’ll be people like myself who will eventually have to clean up the mess ignorance leaves in its wake and I refuse to do that to my children and those that follow.

  9. wormthatturned Says:

    Here’s an interesting battle someone had over at Realclimate (aswell as having comments deleted they were falesly accused of just about everthing under the sun). Details here:

    http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/rahmstorf-2009-response-to-realclimate-comments/

  10. Michel Faigley Says:

    I usually don’t post on Blogs but ya forced me to, great info.. excellent! … I’ll bookmark your site.

  11. djmcau Says:

    My post is fairly well referenced if you read it you would see that. All my papers are referenced because they are usually for academic submission. Its actually about the stern report and the shortcomings of the EU ETS. I am feeling a bit bruised by a response on the first two lines which are a quote from the report and ending up on an alarmist list. The economic research I am doing is on the unsustainable nature of an economic model which allows for no upper limits on growth. Climate change regardless of the cause is just one of the issues unfortunately. In the medium term I don’t have an issue with our governments spending maybe 1% to 2% of global GDP on better more energy efficient technologies that might reduce pollution of any kind. I cant imagine why anyone would.

  12. djmcau Says:

    Thanks for your comment. I see you already posted me on your alarmist blog. Wow, you really are quite passionate aren’t you? I am on a steep learning curve and I usually engage in discussion and blogging to help me on that curve and in forming an opinion. I see you already have an opinion and are not really that interested in discussing it, but very busy looking for people to disagree with you. I am not sure if I have this right, you believe in climate change, but you don’t believe its anthropogenic. that’s fair enough. I am concerned about it and not willing to just take your word for it so I will keep reading if that’s OK with you. Like you if someone comes to my door and drags me into the street screaming that I I am actually more concerned about other stuff. I think we have a lot of issues as a species. I agree the planet will be fine. In about 80 million years or so there will be a lot more oil around. Anyway, shame you cant channel your passion into some of the other issues. Proving that the IPCC might or might not be lying seems like a bit of a waste for someone who actually seems quite intelligent.

    • rogerthesurf Says:

      I hope I always have an open mind.

      Its just that only I deal in referenced facts.

      Sites such as yours rarely publish any opinions contrary to their own so I always publish them here just in case.

      In my case I never junk comments unless they are name calling, obscene or possibly over repeatative.

      I take it you have visited my blog at http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

      Feel welcome to discuss things there but I do insist on proper discussion backed up by well referenced facts.

      If you are doing research of your own I suggest you direct it towards the likely economic consequences of the IPCC CO2 emissions requirements.

      Cheers

      Roger

  13. seeker401 Says:

    love the header..pachauri should be in jail

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: