Winning the war against religion

[Super Nova]

I refuse to participate in religion bashing, due to your anti-religious bias, on a political site, SN.

Well, it is true that I feel that religion while it has played an important part in our history has no place today in the political landscape of the world and if have this opinion it is biased. It does not prevent me from debating the issues.

Look at the middle east and tell me that religion is not a major political issue that the world needs to address.

When you are forced to pray 5 times a day and your girls have to dress up like mummy's and prevented to be educated or drive a car as a result of win the war for control over our lives, you may wish to reconsider your position.

However I accept you don't wish to participate in this thread and respect your transparency on why.

May your god bless you.

[IQS.RLOW]

Yet you rely on faith for your global warming and your global warming faith has far far more impact on daily life in the western world.

Are you in competition with the Islamists for how to best fuck up the society you live in?

[Super Nova]

Yet you rely on faith for your global warming and your global warming faith has far far more impact on daily life in the western world.

Are you in competition with the Islamists for how to best fuck up the society you live in?

No. I don't rely on faith I have looked at the stats and there is a man-made problem that is contributing to warming. how we deal with that is a different matter.

Global warming is real. The political solution of just taxing carbon is not the solution. You need to separate the two.

To problem is real.
The proposed solution is not.

[IQS.RLOW]

Your fellow devout followers think along the same lines as you, just a little differently.
Like some that like to put all religions into the extremist category, I put you in there too because you advocate the same response, just a different action.

It's the same as Islamists that call for punishment of defilement, some cal for stoning and some call for beheading...like your religion, they are illogical and the punishment does nothing.

[AiA in Atlanta]

I don't look at it as a battle anymore ... religion is very, very useful evidenced that it has been around forever ... and to substitute science for religion is no improvement at all.

[Super Nova]

Your fellow devout followers think along the same lines as you, just a little differently.
Like some that like to put all religions into the extremist category, I put you in there too because you advocate the same response, just a different action.

It's the same as Islamists that call for punishment of defilement, some cal for stoning and some call for beheading...like your religion, they are illogical and the punishment does nothing.

Excellent. We don't agree.

I am not advocating the substitution of religion for a new religion called science.

I support the result of the scientific method that calls for evidence to support theories.

It appears you don't like the result of climate analysis because it currently concludes man should take action and the politicians implement actions that may impact the economy in a non-growth way. Your right wing view that the economy is the temple that needs worship above all else is flawed. It is short term in it's thinking and in the long run will lead to a worsening planet for human existence. I grant you the west could make a lot of money by the economic activity that may arise from building domes and artificial environments in the future for a small collection of us to exist in but who wants that.

Failure to start to address the big environmental issues now is a false economy.

Researching the facts and even the short term evidence that temperature increases have not gone to forecast still has led me to conclude that the threat is real. In-action will have it's costs. That cost will increase economic activity and will support the biased alter you worship above reasonable logic.

[IQS.RLOW]

Rubbish, the models are on the edge of being flawed with no warming over the the last 16 years, yet your brethren advocate for a worldwide economic solution that will run into the trillions and do absolutely sweet fuck all.

False economy is failing to direct action into adaptation rather than mitigation when the mitigation revolves around false premises, scare mongering and vested interests who are unable to compete without govt intervention.

Inaction will cost less than action and save more lives. Fact.

[Super Nova]

Rubbish, the models are on the edge of being flawed with no warming over the the last 16 years, yet your brethren advocate for a worldwide economic solution that will run into the trillions and do absolutely sweet fuck all.

False economy is failing to direct action into adaptation rather than mitigation when the mitigation revolves around false premises, scare mongering and vested interests who are unable to compete without govt intervention.

Inaction will cost less than action and save more lives. Fact.

Rubbish.

"False economy is failing to direct action into adaptation rather than mitigation when the mitigation revolves around false premises, scare mongering and vested interests who are unable to compete without govt intervention."

It is implied in this statement a recognition there is a warming problem that requires adaption. if the problem reaches a run away point adoption will be far more expensive and the cost effective solution will be to fuck all and let people and the current societies die. Mitigation methods are not sound at the moment because they are punitive rather than incentives for people to do the right thing. Everyone has a short term view and education is required to get everyone working for the collective good of the whole. Something we humans don't do too well except when we as a whole are under threat. And I say we are. maybe the rich will do better.

While we are divided in this issue like your and my view is there will be no real action that is effective on the environment and cost effective or neutral to the economy... paralysis will set in or worse still, taxation for no effect. This taxation for no effect is your main issue not the science and existence of the problem.

Doing SFA is not a choice unless you accept we are to be victims of our own destruction.

[IQS.RLOW]

It is implied in this statement a recognition there is a warming problem that requires adaption.

No. It implies 'if' there 'happens' to be a warming trend that evolves that requires a solution, adaptation is the best course of action.

This renders the rest of your claptrap invalid.

The problem with you warmists is that you are trying to sell the worlds most expensive insurance policy and you are really shit salesmen.

[IQS.RLOW]

PS... I note you still ignore there has been no warming for 16 years when we should have been cooking.

Why do you ignore the science?
Faith?