There are many people I respect on here, so it seems very odd to me when they go so off base with critiques on their own writings.
Harry my be dishonest and a fraud but I don't think he is stupid. He chose words like Anti Science and Denier as pejoratives and now he has to live with it when I bring up his anti science denier views.
It does when the phrase ANTI SCIENCE is used twice in the title alone. Nice try Kendall
What one's views are in regards to religion has nothing to do with their views on other subjects like Climate Change.
If the topic was about when one accepts or rejects science, then you might have something. But wallowing on what one believes in a religious sense does not refute anything that person has said about Climate Change.
Now you wish to revise and extend your remarks by denying what is right there for all to see.
The very basis of your claimed religion that you feel the need to share with us all the time is by its very nature anti science yet you say I am anti science, that I am afraid, on and on. You are a hypocrite and now you show yourself to be dishonest.
Harry you are little more than a common liar. You used the term ANTI SCIENCE twice in the title of that thread alone. Now you were referring to people behind a campaign any fool can see through your BS
We’ve been over this before, Tiredofit. Still, I’m happy to repeat myself for the sake of those who haven’t yet heard it.
I’m won’t call, and have never called, anybody “anti-science,” even though people may conduct campaigns that denigrate some area of scientific research or other.
Here’s why I won’t call anybody anti-science:
Nobody is unequivocally anti-science. We all believe in science. For example, when we drive our cars, we trust our lives to science. We believe that our tires have a high coefficient of friction with the road surface because scientists tell us it does. We trust them when they say our tires will stop our cars and allow them to stay on the road in turns. Therefore, it’s stupid to say anybody who drives is anti-science.
Thanks for giving me another opportunity to display reasonableness.
Just as I thought. NONE
Just who are those behind the ANTI SCiENCE campaign?
How about the creation of the world in 6 days, show me the data on that one.
Any peer reviewed data on heaven?
Is there any proof whatsoever that Jesus rose from the dead?
Is there ANY scientific proof that Adam and Eve ever existed or the snake could at one point talk?
Since you cannot defend that, how about Eve coming from Adams rib? Talking snakes, Garden of eden>?
So exactly WHO were you referring to?
Thankfully, the anti-science propaganda campaign surrounding man-made climate change seems to have lost some of its effect.
Are you seeing storm clouds on the horizon? Two recent studies suggest that the latest anti-science campaign is following its forerunners--the propaganda campaigns attempting to refute science that tobacco causes cancer, that CFC's caused the hole in the ozone layer, and so on—into oblivion. Global warming denial seems to have climbed to a peak in 2010, and global warming acceptance is now climbing. This bodes well for rational public policy.
See the topic of your thread, I guess the anti science campaign does not involve any person is that what you are saying, its it a function of robots or what
Name one person whom I called anti-science, Tiredofit.
Harrys beliefs are germane as you cannot call someone anti science and hold anti science views of your own, well you can, but that makes one a FRAUD
"Harry believes that God..."
God and Judeo-christian beliefs are not the topic.
Either you have evidence to counter Harry's positions on global warming or you do not.
Simple as that.
519 Juliana St. , Parkersburg, WV 26101 | 304-485-1891