Rick Perry Fears The Lord. I Fear Rick Perry.

Republican presidential wannabe Rick Perry has no regard for science, alleging that man-made global warming is a hoax, and that creationism ought to be taught in classrooms. Here are some of his Godly ravings. Let them be a warning. And what does it say about the US political system that things get so bad that (nearly) every Republican front runner has to be a moron and that the Republicans aren't political pariahs despite this? Amongst the Republican candidates the only ones that believe in global warming and evolution are Jon Huntsman and Newt Gingrich (although some of the lesser-known candidates might also - but info can be hard to track down). Both God-fearing, mind. "Dear Lord, save us from your followers."

 

Views: 164

Tags: atheism, christianity, church, creationism, elections, evangelical, god, jesus, perry, politics, More…rick, usa

Comment by Luke Scientiae on August 23, 2011 at 5:43pm

(continued from previous comment...)

 

3b.

You wrote:

“ …if there is a global warming, at least as many lands will become fertile as will become unusable.”

That might be the case. Again, you provided no evidence stronger than a quote from one man, which is to say no evidence at all. The reality the claim completely ignores is the one I already pointed out to you, with references: the question isn’t a zero-sum game played with land fertility. It is the fact that global temperatures are rising, and that this will devastate bio-diversity (for starters). It’s not just rising temperatures, it’s also ocean acidification which will destroy huge swathes of wildlife (see here, here and here – there are many other studies) and drive species to extinction rates far beyond the unprecedented levels we’re already resulting from human activity.

 

To end, you have a choice, Alejandro: you can start dealing in evidence-based claims or not. Choice is yours. I know which I hope you’ll do. If you do take up an interest in the evidence you previously claimed to be interested in when you asked me for data, I’ll be happy to send you any of the papers I have linked to if you don’t have access already, and any others you happen to want, if I am able. You can contact me through the Contact Page on http://www.lukesci.com

I have spent a considerable time discussing the claims you’ve made, and replied to them all.

I won’t bother to reply further if you indicate that you’re not serious about what I’ve put, if you continue to disregard the evidence and the points I’ve put to you. It’s up to you.

 

All the best,

 

Luke

 

Comment by Luke Scientiae on August 23, 2011 at 7:21pm

Hi Eric,

Jon Huntsman believes in evolution and the genuine climate science. That's not to say I think his policies on other subjects are sound or even sensible. I'm commenting only the basic recognition of scientific realities.

 

Comment by Luke Scientiae on August 23, 2011 at 7:26pm

Alejandro,

 

I just realised that one of the links I sent you - the one to the leaked IPCC memo showing Exxon influencing Bush to sack IPCC members - was the wrong link. It's a copy/paste error. Here is the correct link to the PDF.

That you didn't detect this before replying to my last post but one shows you didn't even try to follow the evidence.

Luke

Comment by Alejandro M on August 23, 2011 at 10:58pm

Luke, thanks for your detailed exposition. I also do not doubt that you are sincere, but I believe that, even if AGW fans are not in any way doing it for a hidden "control" agenda (which I believe is, albeit unconsciously, the case in most cases), they are suffering from the proverbial "drowning in a glass of water" case.

 

Let's assume for one moment all the AGW supporters say is true: there is a global warming happening - and let's assume what Asimov said is not true: there will be no increase in fertile lands (which is doubtful, but let's assume): by the data provided by the AGW supporters themselves, the increase in temperatures caused by man should be no more than 1 (or less than 2) degrees in 100 years. And the worse consequence of this is that 100 million people would have to move to another place (and not from one month to the next, remember - during the course of this 100 years' period). 

 

Is this so terrible? 100 million people displaced (1.6% of the population)? What is the alternative? Spending trillions of dollars per decade in unefficient "green" energies, destroying wealth creation, destroying progress, all for 1-2 degrees in a century? Really?

 

This is the worse part of your whole structure of thought: shouting "AGW, AGW, we will all die, we will all die!" when in reality, only 100 million people, during the course of a century, will need to move (no-one will die because of it). Got the picture?

 

I would love to hear your answer to this one...

 

(And by the way, I did start reading the docs you linked, but stopped when the scientists are now in a consensus for "Climate Change"... interesting that they dropped the "Global Warming" part (as some are now saying what is really happening is a global cooling - the temperature hasn't risen in average in the last 10 years)).

Comment by Luke Scientiae on August 24, 2011 at 5:23pm

Alejandro,

You have now asserted all manner of complete nonsense and I've shown you why it is nonsense. You have not replied to any of my rebuttals.

 

POINTS YOU HAVE FAILED TO REPLY TO/ANSWER:

 

1.Volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activity.

I showed you the evidence that this is wrong, that humans emitted 130 times the CO2 volcanoes do back in 2003, since which time anthropogenic CO2 has only risen. You have completely ignored this and its consequences for the position you asserted.

2. There is no scientific consensus on climate change

I directed you to 2 independent studies that show 97-98% of climate scientists agree AGW is real. You have completely ignored this and its consequences for the position you asserted.

3. 1970s "global cooling" alarmism

I showed you this is complete nonsense: the was no scientific consensus, despite your claim there was, Time magazine is not a scientific publication and provides no data (and neither did you), modern data sets are incomparably superior to anything in the 1970s, the argument from a pretend past alarmism is a non-sequitur and irrelevant and a myth propagated by the denialists. You have completely ignored this and its consequences for the position you asserted.

4. Your ridiculous sources

You use sources that are obviously below the level of dignity your intelligence deserves. Forbes, Time, AP and cartoons you found online are not and have never constituted serious evidence about any scientific claim. And neither do cherry-picked articles, such as the one you used to make accusations against a single scientist, which even the article said were vague.1974 Time articles, YouTube cartoons (really? you inform your opinion through cartoons?) and wild, unsubstantiated allegations against single people are all you have to cling to, because you have nothing of any worth in terms of evidence and you don't care. That hasn't stopped you hypocritically demanding data from me, which i have amply provided. You have completely ignored all my points about your sources.

5. Other points you have failed to answer

I have repeatedly asked you to consider why Exxon would put political pressure on Bush to oust IPCC scientists, why Exxon would pay CEI to broadcast complete propaganda unbefitting the intellects of children, and why Fox would wilfully misrepresent basic scientific principles, like the 1st law of thermodynamics and Le Chatelier's principle in order to make a case against AGW. If there was a knock-down argument against AGW, why not use that? Why manufacture bullshit about college level science? I provided all the sources for this - links to the leaked memo, to the ads, to the debunked Fox material and the arguments with sources. You have roundly ignored all of these questions, throwing up more nonsense for me to debunk.

6. Land Fertility Change

It is further clear from your last point that you have completely ignored my answer to your point about land fertility. Your last comment is as though you never even bothered to read what I wrote, or the evidence for it. You were keen to talk rubbish about polar bears, but when I sent you a link to a recent Science study on the migration of 2,000 species, guess what... yep... you IGNORED that too. Look at what I wrote about fertility change previously:

Again, you provided no evidence stronger than a quote from

Comment by Luke Scientiae on August 24, 2011 at 5:28pm

(Continued from previous comment...)

Again, you provided no evidence stronger than a quote from one man, which is to say no evidence at all. The reality the claim completely ignores is the one I already pointed out to you, with references: the question isn’t a zero-sum game played with land fertility. It is the fact that global temperatures are rising, and that this will devastate bio-diversity (for starters). It’s not just rising temperatures, it’s also ocean acidification which will destroy huge swathes of wildlife (see here, here and here – there are many other studies) and drive species to extinction rates far beyond the unprecedented levels we’re already resulting from human activity.

You go on about land fertility as though you never even bothered to read what I wrote, let alone acknowledged my counterpoint or the evidence I linked to. Instead, AGAIN WITHOUT ANY INDICATION WHERE YOUR DATA IS SOURCED, you wrote:

Is this so terrible? 100 million people displaced (1.6% of the population)?

Clearly you have a callous disregard for human welfare.

 

(Continued in next comment...)

 

 

 

 

Comment by Luke Scientiae on August 24, 2011 at 5:30pm

(continued from previous comment...)

 

YOUR NEW POINTS ARE BUNK:

 

7. "the temperature hasn't risen in average in the last 10 years"

First, let's just first acknolwedge an obvious truth: we both know that you have not looked at the data relating to the temperature claim. We know that you are asserting this from secondary or tertiary sources. Judging from you previous performance, that means popular magazine articles, and perhaps cartoons. And you know full well that's not good enough by a long, long mile. Moreover, we both know you felt simply more comfortable throwing another crackpot fallacy in my direction than returning to any of the topics  (see above) you raised yourself.

  You provide absolutely no evidence that "temperature hasn't risen in average in the last 10 years". Another evidence fail by you.

The "no warming in 10 years" claim was made by deniers in 2008 about temps since 1998. Complete crap. Starting 1998 is to start with a year that is clearly an anomaly due to an unprecedented El Nino event. It's only people who can't follow a graph properly that start the curve at 1998, as you'll appreciate from any graph showing the temperatures. Here is a video about that: 

 

Temperatures have been rising, albeit at a slightly reduced rate, but they have been rising. The fairest way of treating them is to use a running average. Red line in this graph:

 

The above data agrees across data sets, eg. GISS and Hadley (the data above is GISS). The past decade has seen the two hottest years on record: 2010 and 2005, and 2010 had the 3rd greatest arctic ice decrease, behind 2007 and 2008.

Right wing media and retrolectuals like Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh and Lord Monckton incessantly lie about the past decade. Monkton for example says there's been 9 years of cooling. Complete bullshit. Stop listening to the denialists, Alejandro. Just look at the company you find yourself in!

 

(continued in next comment...)

 

 

 

Comment by Luke Scientiae on August 24, 2011 at 5:32pm

8. Economics

Your point that dealing with climate is going to destroy the "wealth creation" is utter rubbish. The economy can and should readjust and forecasts are that reacting to climate by re-arranging production of greener energy is economically favourable. See for example the University of Oregon's report on this subject, or the UK Stern review. That economics collapses when we shift away from fossil fuels is an unsubstantiated right wing fable. Just look at the people selling it to you.

-------

 

I HAVE ANSWERED YOU ON EVERY ONE OF YOUR POINTS, YOU HAVE IGNORED EVERY ONE OF MINE:

You clearly have no intention at all of seriously engaging in any rational conversation about AGW. Your only interest is in accusing me of fallacies I have not committed (you've also ignored my points about that) and regurgitating bullshit against AGW which the climate denial industry (the likes of Fox, CEI, Exxon, Plimer, Monckton, Inhofe, Limbaugh and others) continually disseminate.

One every single point you've raised the evidence is against you. Instead you assert - yet again without a shred of evidence - that scientists (apparently thousands and thousands of them) are claiming AGW is real "for a hidden "control" agenda... albeit unconsciously). First of all, it's not true, as massive, independent and corroborating data sets show from scientists working in many different countries. Moreover, claims without evidedence, which is what yours is, maybe dismissed instantly. There is nothing to back them up anymore than there is to back up Russell's Teapot or God. In fact, it's even worse than that; the data disproving your claim - the data you willfully ignore - is ample. 

Wake up, Alejandro - start basing your beliefs on evidence, not conjecture and cartoons.

----

 Our discussion is accurately summerised thus:

1. You made claims without any data to support them but you demanded data from me.

2. I provided data that shows you're wrong on every single claim (volcanoes, consensus, cooling, sources...).

3.You NEVER followed up on these - topics you raised yourself.

4. It follows you're note interested in having a discussion, only in repeating allegations with exactly zero evidence behind them.

 

I told you in my previous comments that I would not contribute further to this discussion unless you undertook serious replies. You hae not done this, and you know it.

I will therefore not allow you to waste any more of my time. I sincerely hope that at some point - and sooner rather than later - you will learn to value evidence, and gather up the courage to challenge the vast array of misconceptions you hold onto, instead of just ignoring and ignoring and ignoring all indications against them.

 

Luke

Comment by Luke Scientiae on August 24, 2011 at 5:39pm

I did forget to address one of your claims, another ridiculous one, btw - that scientists have stopped using "global warming" and are saying "climate change" instead.

That is bullshit.

"Climate change" was a term popularized by pollster and PR man Frank Luntz who was hired to effect an opinion change to gather up votes for the Bush campaign. Luntz has admitted this, as for example in the following video:

 

 

 

Comment by Alejandro M on August 26, 2011 at 5:54am

But Luke, I don't want to address your points because ultimately, climate change is irrelevant (notice how you called me "callous" by saying the maximum theoretical damage would only be 100 million people displaced, but you didn't say I am not telling the truth).

 

Maximum damage possible: 100 million people displaced (1.6% of population). (Let's remember I don't believe this will happen, but even IF (and it's a big IF) it happened...)

Cost per decade: Let's only assume 1 trillion dollars per decade in "green" costs (Hint: it would be much more). 

Mental exercise: Let's multiply the cost per decade by 10 decades. That is 10 trillion dollars. Divide by the amount of displaced people (100 million) and we have USD 100k per displaced person! And that's if you don't put the money on interest (or to work in the economy). I'd rather give them half that money to buy a house... 

 

Again, that's IF AGW is made by man, which I seriously doubt. Luckily the East Anglia University scandal has clued up most people about this lobbying group for green energy (formerly called scientists).

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

  

Blog Posts

People

Posted by ɐuɐz ǝllǝıuɐp on July 28, 2014 at 10:27pm 4 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service