Our local Democrats' recent tweet about people who reject the "climate change" b.s.

[Novaheart]

You know...you were actually starting to sound like a rational thinking human being with that post until you took your gratuitous and uncalled for...and quite frankly unneeded shot at religion.

You know it IS ok to make a point here relative to a topic without getting a cheap shot in on one of your pet peeves.

Global Warming is a religion. It's a belief system with a myth at its center, and back and fill which includes some actual people and events to make it more plausible. But it's still a belief system, not a science system.

[Novaheart]

You have moments of lucidity followed by delusion, take your lithium.

I'm not the one who believes in the magic sky creature who is somehow the source of all that is good without being responsible for all that is bad. If that sounds a bit like, "Lot's of snow is a sign of Global Warming" and "No snow is a sign of Global Warming" it's because it's the same kind of stuff.

[wasp69]

It's rather like arguing the absurdity of Christianity with the Catholic Church: they have had 1500 years to make up excuses (more or less plausible depending upon the willingness you have to believe) for why the gaping holes in the science and logic of the Bible aren't evidence of its humanity rather than its divinity.

You're a lapsed Catholic, aren't you?

[m00]

Al Gore invented the internet. He thinks in binary. 4000 degrees in bin = 111110100000

[Bailey]

You're a lapsed Catholic, aren't you?

or a episcopalian

[JB]

they have had 1500 years to make up excuses...for why the gaping holes in the science and logic of the Bible aren't evidence of its humanity rather than its divinity.

Such as?

[Hubie]

I had a brief letter to the editor printed about this and the Democrats responded on their Twitter page with four tweets. Four of them! I responded to each of those tweets and the blocked me. Typical.

Their four tweets were:

(1) claiming that they were just repeating a question asked at an education forum (except they didn't use quotation marks)

(2) saying I'm entitled to my own opinion, but not my own facts (ironic)

(3) that "climate change" has been scientifically proven (it hasn't -- "consensus" is not scientific proof), just like evolution (again, it hasn't) and pi not being 3 (cute attempt to ridicule the Bible)

(4) citing two anything-but-neutral blogs favoring the belief in "climate change"/global warming

[Elspeth]

I had a brief letter to the editor printed about this and the Democrats responded on their Twitter page with four tweets. Four of them! I responded to each of those tweets and the blocked me. Typical.

Their four tweets were:

(1) claiming that they were just repeating a question asked at an education forum (except they didn't use quotation marks)

(2) saying I'm entitled to my own opinion, but not my own facts (ironic)

(3) that "climate change" has been scientifically proven (it hasn't -- "consensus" is not scientific proof), just like evolution (again, it hasn't) and pi not being 3 (cute attempt to ridicule the Bible)

(4) citing two anything-but-neutral blogs favoring the belief in "climate change"/global warming

Hey Hubie,

Next time you should ask them about global cooling.

[Hubie]

Hey Hubie,

Next time you should ask them about global cooling.

It's the '70s again? (The "consensus" in the '70s was that the Earth was cooling and possibly headed towards an ice age.)