@ govkristinoem Kristi Noem, Here’s Something You Can Deliver for the American People

Guest opinion By David Archibald

The Trump interregnum didn’t achieve as much as it could have done. President Trump did have the power to kill the global warming monster. The renowned physicist Dr. Will Happer was summoned to the President-elect’s presence on January 13, 2017. He served in the Trump administration for a while but left without writing the report saying global warming is a nonsense.

In my opinion, global warming/climate change is the religion of choice for militant atheists, without which their meaningless lives would seem empty, hollow, depressing and pointless. The former science journalist Nicholas Wade makes a case that we are hardwired to believe in a religion as it is a kind of software that enhances societal productivity. But some religions are better than others and global warming is one of the worst, being largely self-flagellation with some nature worship mixed in. Global warming, the religion, doesn’t build hospitals, nursing homes or anything else useful.

The global warmers were relatively harmless when they just told scare stories to each other and frightened the children but with the Biden Illegitimacy they are back at the controls, putting the economy into a nosedive. We will all be poorer, for no good reason, but the real problem is that the US economy will shrink relative to China’s which in turn means that more of our blood will be shed in defeating them in China’s war of choice. Within a couple of days of the inauguration the Chicoms were predicting America’s relative decline. As Napoleon said, “Never interrupt the enemy when his making a mistake.” Ten years ago the Republicans said that there is no point in making sacrifices for global warming if the Chicoms weren’t on board. So the Chicoms learnt to pay lip service to global warming and must be laughing their heads off as we commit economic suicide.

China’s oil production has now rolled over and is in decline but they are still attempting to increase coal production for at least the next decade. China’s carbon dioxide production is shown by this graph:

China now produces more than twice as much carbon dioxide as the US. China’s coal consumption of four billion tonnes per annum is the energy equivalent of 50 million barrels of oil per day.

Three groups continue to vie for world domination: the globalists, the Chicoms and the Islamists. The Biden Illegitimacy is in the globalist camp. The globalists woke up to the Chicom threat to their plan for world domination in 2015 as shown by Foreign Policy suddenly writing negative articles about China. The globalists realise that China’s war will entrench tribal divisions and make it impossible to enforce vegetarianism on the world. The globalists are on a timetable and they see the need to stick to it.

Thus the EU approved ‘maggot-like’ mealworms for human consumption a couple of weeks ago. This is to replace meat in the diet at some point, with global warming as the excuse. At the moment only a war with China will save us from this fate. If you think that is a bit far-fetched, consider that the warmers have been able to demonize carbon dioxide for a quarter of a century despite its being at a near-starvation concentration in the atmosphere. For the record, I would rather fight a war with China than eat mealworms.

This is the point at which Kristi Noem, the Republican Governor of South Dakota, can make herself useful. Governor Noem recently gave a speech titled in part “The Republican Party Has Failed America” in which she said, “Republicans have had chances to deliver for the American people. But we haven’t followed through.

Well here’s a chance for Governor Noem to deliver for the American people. Produce the report on the science of global warming that President Trump failed to produce. It will be the first government report in the world saying that global warming is bad science. And that report will have as much authority as another government report on the subject.

Kristi Noem, Governor of South Dakota

The timing is auspicious. Also from Dr Roy Spencer’s website is this graph of the satellite temperature record from 1979:

There are over 40 years of records now and the earth’s temperature has increased by only 0.27°C, imperceptible to a human. There is a big La Nina developing in the Pacific with the result that January could be a negative number. Which in turn means there is something wrong with the climate models that say that we should be frying. As a nation we should check if the science is leading us in the right direction.

Any Republican state government could take on this task, for the benefit of all. In October, 2013 I was approached to quote on a similar exercise for Nebraska. This is an excerpt from the proposal:

Unfortunately some warmers at a local university offered to produce the report for free and no good came of it.

Eight years have passed and the need is more urgent than ever. Any politician who puts his or her name to this report will get millions of dollars worth of free advertising as the media pile on. It will be intolerable to the left, like vampires exposed to sunlight. Someone could ride this report all the way to the Whitehouse.


David Archibald is the author of American Gripen: The Solution to the F-35 Nightmare

4.8 41 votes
Article Rating
403 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 2, 2021 2:32 am

The religion is Gaia, which they want us to sacrifice our lives to. No carbon emissions.

Scissor
Reply to  jillmirran
February 2, 2021 5:38 am

There are a whole lot of climate preachers, many, if not most motivated by what’s in the collection plate.

Reply to  Scissor
February 2, 2021 6:01 am

Exactly.. It’s called “virtue”. At least, that’s what they call it. Others would have an entirely different opinion.

meiggs
Reply to  jillmirran
February 2, 2021 9:18 am

Hard wired for religion = monkey see, monkey doo

a_scientist
Reply to  jillmirran
February 2, 2021 9:49 am

I don’t want to descend into the militant atheist stream of this thread. But rather focus on the political angle of Governor Noem.
The left is already attacking her for her ideas, including those clear thoughts on CAGW.

They fear her as a successful populist leader that could run for President in 2024, hence the attacks.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/kristi-noem-like-ron-desantis-is-now-a-media-target

Reply to  a_scientist
February 2, 2021 10:03 am

Well, religion is certainly militant, and Gaia is certainly atheist..
And these morons believing in this tripe are certainly dangerous.
Today I watched this, and it sums up my thoughts from last March.
Psychology. All of it.

Reply to  a_scientist
February 2, 2021 1:39 pm

Stepping back a little bit, think about why the Left is so hostile to evangelical Christians. The Gramscian long march through the institutions is nearly complete. The universities, mass media, civil service, entertainment industries even now including sports, etc. are all under their control.

The only remaining obstacle in the USA is evangelical Christianity. The mainline denominations which have top-down organizational structures which have already been subverted with minimal resistance from their local adherents. 

But most evangelical churches have “congregational government”–they elect their own pastors rather than taking what comes down from headquarters. And the informal leaders of these congregations work hard to maintain this independence. It provides status for them that they might not be finding in other areas of their life. 

This distributed resistance is a huge problem for the Left. It likely is the motivation for the rising attacks on religious freedom coming from that direction.

Robbin
Reply to  a_scientist
February 3, 2021 5:17 am

I can vote her!

tommyboy
Reply to  Robbin
February 3, 2021 2:23 pm

Gramscian???
Gramsci was an Italian Marxist a century ago I lifted a paragraph from wiki.

Gramsci is best known for his theory of cultural hegemony, which describes how the state and ruling capitalist class – the bourgeoisie – use cultural institutions to maintain power in capitalist societies. The bourgeoisie, in Gramsci’s view, develops a hegemonic culture using ideology rather than violence, economic force, or coercion. Hegemonic culture propagates its own values and norms so that they become the “common sense” values of all and thus maintain the status quo. Cultural hegemony is therefore used to maintain consent to the capitalist order, rather than the use of force to maintain order.

Reply to  tommyboy
February 5, 2021 3:35 pm

Yes, Gramscian. The “long march” phrase came from one of his followers. The idea was to replace the capitalist bias in the institutions with a socialist one: “subverting society by infiltrating institutions such as the professions.” See The long march through the institutions – Wikipedia

Ed Zuiderwijk
February 2, 2021 2:35 am

‘In my opinion, global warming/climate change is the religion of choice for militant atheists, without which their meaningless lives would seem empty, hollow, depressing and pointless’.

Wow, David, it’s been a long time since I read a gem like that. I am actually an atheist, that is someone without god. I’m rather adamant about it but a militant ? I doubt it. I am also a climate change skeptic of the first hour. Just check my humble contributions to this blog. Yet my life is pointless? I don’t think so, it doesn’t feel like it.

However, Dave, in the good old Christian tradition I was raised in, you are forgiven. Just don’t throw this stone again.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
February 2, 2021 4:14 am

“…militant atheists…” Militant. If you are not a militant atheist, why take exception? Your glass abode too near the quarry?
Oh ye gods, as I accidentally scroll down too far, I see the next godless glazier snarling. Just goes to show, being atheist does not preclude religiosity.
Not fighting, I am an acoitheist myself… no dog in that race.

Abolition Man
Reply to  paranoid goy
February 2, 2021 4:40 am

Hey, Goy!
They’re getting their panties in a wad even though it’s obvious from the text that he meant Progressive Statists, not actual atheists! Believing that The State is God was the biggest religion of the 20th Century and killed more people than all the wars in human history combined!
Being insatiably curious, I have to ask what is an acoitheist?

Last edited 2 months ago by Abolition Man
Richard Page
Reply to  Abolition Man
February 2, 2021 7:48 am

Acoitheist? Dunno, God is a goldfish, perhaps?

Abolition Man
Reply to  Richard Page
February 2, 2021 8:04 am

Richard,
I appreciate the attempt, but wouldn’t that be akoitheist? Didn’t mean to carp, though!

Richard Page
Reply to  Abolition Man
February 2, 2021 8:29 am

Decidedly fishy – I think the use of a c instead of a k was just a red herring. I’ll have to mullet over.

Reply to  Richard Page
February 2, 2021 11:13 am

Ha ha! Very clever, fellows! Actually, the translation is quite mundane, I thought describing my (de)volution was clear enough. Let me explain:
Atheism: a=not + theo=god => no god
Agnostic a=not + gnosis=know =>I don’t know
Acoitheist: a=not + coitus=copulation + theos => I don’t give an eff for gods
You will understand I made that PG a bit…

David Archibald
Reply to  Abolition Man
February 2, 2021 3:44 pm

It is more the irony of atheists believing in something without themselves realising that it is their religion. They go on to try to impose their religion on the rest of us for our own good. And have become very annoying. Fresh news from me on the F-35:
https://wentworthreport.com/the-air-force-warfighting-integration-capability-office-shoots-down-the-f-35/

TheFinalNail
Reply to  David Archibald
February 2, 2021 4:03 pm

Hello David,

Are you in a position to state, as of now, why it is that your 2006/07 predictions of imminent global cooling were so badly wrong?

You’ve had plenty of time to think about it. Why were your forecasts so badly out?

David Archibald
Reply to  TheFinalNail
February 3, 2021 5:23 pm

Very flattering of you to remember events of such a long time ago. Thankyou,

Rick C
Reply to  David Archibald
February 2, 2021 4:29 pm

Well I’m an atheist and I don’t “believe in” anthropogenic global warming for the same reason I don’t “believe in” God – lack of objective evidence. Here’s a list of things don’t believe in for the same reason.

1.     Existence of God
2.     Extraterrestrial Aliens visits to earth including UFOs, alien abduction, ancient aliens, etc.
3.     Astrology
4.     Alchemy
5.     ESP
6.     Psychokinesis
7.     Perpetual Motion
8.     Homeopathy
9.     Chiropractory
10.  Acupuncture
11.  Reincarnation
12.  Life after death
13.  Psychics
14.  Mediums (séances etc.)
15.  Zombies, vampires, werewolves
16.  Anthropogenic Climate Change is a significant problem
17.   Intelligent Design (i.e. creationism)
18.   Virgin birth
19.   Dowsing/Divining 

anthropic
Reply to  Rick C
February 3, 2021 6:25 am

If you believe Intelligent Design is creationism, you understand neither. The inference to design is quite normal science, such as in SETI, biomimetics, and cryptography.

takebackthegreen
Reply to  anthropic
February 4, 2021 12:22 am

Nope. Not even a little bit. Swing and a miss, anthropic…

R. Morton
Reply to  David Archibald
February 3, 2021 7:07 am

I’m assuming that you’re a member of the crowd who believes that NOT collecting stamps IS a hobby??

Jeffery P
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
February 2, 2021 10:08 am

Militant atheist

Nowhere are all atheists included, only militant atheists who otherwise need “religion” to find purpose in life.

takebackthegreen
Reply to  Jeffery P
February 4, 2021 12:55 am

Name a militant atheist. Wait. Define militant.

Many, many groups and categories of people can be truthfully described as “militant.” Atheists, who by definition don’t care about, think about or acknowledge any gods, are extremely unlikely to be militant.

It’s an oxymoronic phrase coined by moronic people who waste vast quantities of the precious time they are given on Earth believing in plagiarized Bronze-Age fairy tales.

Pariah Dog
February 2, 2021 2:42 am

“In my opinion, global warming/climate change is the religion of choice for militant atheists, without which their meaningless lives would seem empty, hollow, depressing and pointless.”

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Being an atheist myself, I can assure you that I do not buy into the global warming hysteria, and my life is only somewhat depressing due to the imposition of lockdowns thanks to Covid hysteria. Perhaps you should get out more – when you have a chance – and meet a better class of atheist.

Reply to  Pariah Dog
February 2, 2021 5:36 am

There is a difference between atheist and militant atheist. I’m the former, too

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Krishna Gans
February 2, 2021 7:47 am

Ye are gods.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
February 2, 2021 8:59 am

We are told to be Gods double, the likeness of God.

takebackthegreen
Reply to  Krishna Gans
February 4, 2021 12:55 am

Yes. One exists. The other doesn’t.

AndyHce
Reply to  Pariah Dog
February 2, 2021 12:53 pm

Perhaps atheists isn’t the best label but it certainly seems that there is some rather common condition, perhaps especially of younger people, that is expressed in a need to promote, or oppose, with a great deal of energy and attention, something that exists only as a human concept. Without that crusading passion they seem to have little or nothing to sustain them. They then become addicts of alcohol or some other drug(s), sexual sadists, monks/nuns or some combination thereof. This is nothing new, it has certainly been going on for a few thousand years, maybe many times that, but the record is rather spotty if we try to read further back.

Philo
Reply to  Pariah Dog
February 3, 2021 1:44 pm

I believe in God two ways- the first is “just” the universe. We have no explanation for it. Maybe someday we will have an explantion for it, but until then “God” is the only possible one. An “Almighty, Allpowerful, Infinite being who has no beginning and no end” pretty much covers all the bases- The universe is in some sense part of God who encompasses the whole thing from beginning to end.

That Brings us to
1)“Except our own thoughts, there is nothing absolutely in our power.” — René Descartes

2)The idea of God must have come from somewhere. This idea must have a cause. Because I am finite and God is infinite, the idea is infinite and can only come from an infinite being. Therefore there must be enough formal reality as objective reality from such a cause, therefore God must exist. — René Descartes

I may not be right, but it lets me sleep at night.

Don’t argue, I certainly won’t respond.

Gregory Woods
February 2, 2021 2:50 am

Every atheist that I am aware of is a Climate Realist. (including me)

fred250
Reply to  Gregory Woods
February 2, 2021 3:13 am

Ditto. I’m also an atheist

MJB
Reply to  fred250
February 2, 2021 3:33 am

Ditto again, I’m also an atheist, and nearly all I know are realists. I have no idea why David feels the need to bring such divisive language into it.

Richard (the cynical one)
Reply to  MJB
February 2, 2021 5:29 am

Even as a fairly staunch non-atheist, I find the “militant atheist” phrase and the “Biden Illegitimacy” term to be deliberately provocative. And I am no supporter of the Biden/Harris team.
Perhaps there are some unresolved emotional issues behind those caustic words.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Richard (the cynical one)
February 2, 2021 7:33 am

Richard,
Did you see refutations of the evidence of voter fraud? I’ve been looking for it everywhere and all I’ve found are thousands of sworn affidavits, videos and testimonies of expert witnesses. Those in a court would be called evidence; but I guess if you don’t look they don’t really exist!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Abolition Man
February 2, 2021 11:15 am

AM
But, we have all those MSM ‘journalists’ who repeatedly tell us the accusations are “baseless” and “unfounded.” Surely the number of times that “baseless” is repeated has some relation to the truth!

Philo
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 3, 2021 1:48 pm

Why? mere assertion doesn’t make any proposition true without proof.

fred250
Reply to  Abolition Man
February 2, 2021 1:02 pm

“but I guess if you don’t look they don’t really exist!”

..

Like being in the Amazon Basin and pretending there are no trees.

David A
Reply to  Richard (the cynical one)
February 3, 2021 3:01 am

Yet atheists have no problem pointing to past religious abuses of power, and, instead of blaming such failures on the dark side of human nature, they often blame it on religion.

See my post just above, the statist one world crowd preaching secular humanists philosophy throughout the institutions they have come to dominate, are ” militant atheists”.

David A
Reply to  MJB
February 3, 2021 2:54 am

Because one finds that “militant atheists” fit a large portion of Marx inspired statist, present in academia today, and as mentioned, they are thus far successful in their ” March through the institutions.”

For centuries religious men ruled and dominated, often in cruel and even barbaric behaviours. ( History is complex, and there are very many beautiful examples of religious life and ideals that have also inspired humanity, and improved life).

The failures of religious life were not, per-se, the fault of “religion” but a natural result of human failures, common to most all of humanity. And so the Marxists gained power in many nations, and promptly demonstrated my above assertion of “the dark side of “human nature”. And, sans the good morality of the bright side of human behaviour, the Communist proceeded on a rule of terror against there own people, killing well over 100 million of their own citizens!

If one does not think “secular humanism” and the ” one world government” crowd is not dominated by atheists, one is simply not paying attention.

Non acceptance of a truth cannot negate it. And it is an observable that humans crave power. In moral men this sought power is expressed as power over one’s own life; the right to self determine, the right to own land, marry who you choose, etc…

In immoral “militant atheism” and in past human abuse of religious government authority, this power hunger becomes the desire for power OVER others, the basis of all crimes. The communist crowd, in rejecting religion, through out the baby with the bathwater, and rejected those ideals of love and liberty, that came from the light good side of religion.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  David A
February 3, 2021 7:26 am

The lust for power leads to trying to eliminate competitors for that power. Religion is a prime competitor with the state for power and therefore the state must eliminate religion – usually through purges like those of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Chavez, and others.

MJB
Reply to  David A
February 4, 2021 4:06 am

A sincere thank you for the replies David. I think we agree on many points but differ on some significant ones.

In my view the reason the Marxists reject religion is that it is clearly an alternative power over the masses, and one they would have to compete with. It is not so much that they chose atheism as they chose against religion. You too seem to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater when you bundle Marxism and atheism as if they were inseparable, or that atheism causes Marxism.

I agree, we should loudly decry all attempts to bring Marxist ideals into a modern society, but those are separate from atheism in it’s basic form.

I also agree that the “one world government” crowd has strategically foisted secular humanism as an alternative. But again this is not so much a preference for it, but seeing the variety of religions practiced around the world, and the differences between adherents, as a road block to their end game. It is an i’ll-minded attempt, akin perhaps but much more sinister than Esperanto, to bridge across societies.

I think we disagree on the net effect of religion on humanity. I take your point that history is complex but the number of evils committed in the name of religion is truly sobering, often justified as a direct article of their faith, not just humans behaving badly (crusades, inquisition, sanctioned child marriage, jizyah, blasphemy laws, Myanmar Rohingya, Israel-Palestine, Irish ‘troubles’, Indian residential schools, systematically hiding child abuse, etc, etc, etc).

I would argue that the slow secularization of western society has reigned in the worst effects of religion, and the only reason a sane person could argue religion as currently being a force of good. A push-pull of sorts that keeps both in check. You might see some of this shift differently (e.g. reproductive rights), but on the whole I would say their is more freedom now, and more equal distribution of that freedom, than nearly any point in history. This is due to the secularization.

If I understand your point, I think we disagree that atheists are by definition immoral (amoral?). All atheists i know have a clear sense of right and wrong. You seem to decry moral relativism without recognizing that is exactly what religion is – right and wrong, or what the “good life” is, defined not only by the religious doctrine of where you were born, but the current interpretation of it, which changes drastically over time.

There are many immoral atheists, but it seems proportionately there are just as many immoral religious adherents. Taking Abrahamic faiths as an example, if the only reason you are being ‘good’ is because you fear damnation, then you’re not really good at heart, are you.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  MJB
February 4, 2021 5:22 am

I take your point that history is complex but the number of evils committed in the name of religion is truly sobering, often justified as a direct article of their faith”

The number of evils done in the name of religion pales besides the number done in the name of power. From the Romans conquering the known world, to the Mongol hordes, to the tribal/bloodline wars in Europe, to the Marxist takeovers of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Chavez, to the Aztecs, and many, many more.

All atheists i know have a clear sense of right and wrong.”

All the atheists I know are pro using abortion for contraception, for the breakup of the nuclear family in the name of “feminism, and are pro-Marxism.

“I would argue that the slow secularization of western society has reigned in the worst effects of religion”

Secular humanism is the driving force behind the abortion of literally millions (60M?) of the unborn in the name of contraception, a massacre of unimaginable proportion. Far, far worse than *any* evil perpetrated in the name of religion. I agree that Marxism usually eliminates religion as a competitor to power but all of the Marxist dictators I can think of (Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc) were atheists. While being an atheist is not perfectly joined with being a secular humanist they are very, very closely tied.

“if the only reason you are being ‘good’ is because you fear damnation, then you’re not really good at heart, are you.”

Do you have children? Fear of punishment is a prime motivator for being good. It’s the same with most adults, we are not perfect beings.

TonyG
Reply to  Tim Gorman
February 4, 2021 6:33 am

All the atheists I know are pro using abortion for contraception, for the breakup of the nuclear family in the name of “feminism, and are pro-Marxism.

Well, now you know one who isn’t. Good to meet ya

TheFinalNail
Reply to  fred250
February 2, 2021 1:47 pm

If fred’s an atheist I immediately think maybe there is a God.

KAT
Reply to  Gregory Woods
February 2, 2021 4:33 am

Every monotheist is an atheist. I do not worship Thor for example – although I must admit that I am inclined to recline in the arms of Bacchus on occasion! If I am interrogated on the subject of my beliefs I prefer to answer that I most probably worship one god fewer than they do!

Reply to  KAT
February 2, 2021 11:25 am

Nope, atheism denies the existence of god/s. Also, the Nordic pantheon never once demanded worship. If you wanted something from, say, Odin, you got on your horse, and went to his abode, and asked him for it. Gifts were, apparently, welcome, never sacrifice. Ever. Sacrifice is what lesser beings did to influence unavailable deities, far as I can see. The more abstract the deity, the bloodier the sacrifice, it seems.
That would explain the climastrolgists’ need to eradicate billions of humans? All hail Baal Gates, chief evangelist for Monsatano, holy profit of population control.

Last edited 2 months ago by paranoid goy
Ken Irwin
Reply to  Gregory Woods
February 2, 2021 4:36 am

I’m an atheist as should be anyone who follows the precepts of science.
(yeah, yeah, I know “don’t test me” says God.)
Therefore by definition atheists are highly unlikely to be climate alarmists.
The only beliefs held by most atheists is in skepticism and the falsifiability of all knowledge.
If it isn’t falsifiable then it isn’t knowledge – its faith.
I have none of that and I am no poorer for it although devout must furiously tell me that I am maladjusted and cannot possible be happy. I’m just fine thank you.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Ken Irwin
February 2, 2021 5:44 am

There is nothing that prevents a man of science from also having faith! Most of the great scientists throughout history were also men of God like Newton and Einstein!
I have faith that the sun is going to rise tomorrow, and you had better hope that that faith is not misplaced!

jim hogg
Reply to  Abolition Man
February 2, 2021 6:57 am

Abolition Man. Tomorrow’s sunrise? That isn’t faith in the religious sense: it’s simply a reasonable expectation based on past experience and history. As for “most” great scientists being “men of God” I think that would be a difficult claim to prove, given that so many were actually atheists, and a considerable number of them are on the record as saying so. A wee bit of research will confirm. Scientists from earlier times were probably less inclined to admit to atheism for obvious reasons. Belief in the kind of Gods that are associated with religion makes no sense to me at all. There is absolutely no evidence that I’ve seen or heard of in a long life of wide reading, and careful observation in the pursuit of understanding that suggests even the slightest hint of a “God”. If there are such beings out there with the qualities they’re believed to possess then I have to say that they’ve been sleeping on the job for a very long time. And yes, I’m a climate sceptic: the kind that’s sceptical of claims to certainty on both sides of the debate. The head posting contained too much irrationality imv. By which I mean emotionalism and claims that have no basis in hard reality/fact. The anti CAGW movement does itself no favours by allying itself with irrationality, personal abuse, unsupportable claims and Gods of any stripe except a devoted commitment to accuracy, and that only as a result of logic.

Abolition Man
Reply to  jim hogg
February 2, 2021 7:36 am

You mean like Einstein? But he was smart enough to know that discussing religion is bad table manners!

Last edited 2 months ago by Abolition Man
John Tillman
Reply to  Abolition Man
February 2, 2021 8:16 am

Einstein was not a man of God in anything like the way that anti-Trinitarian, ie Unitarian or Deist, Newton was. To the extent that Einstein had any religious opinion, it was in Spinoza’s pantheistic god. He did not believe in a personal God Who concerns Himself with the fates and actions of humans. Einstein considered such a view naïve.


pigs_in_space
Reply to  John Tillman
February 2, 2021 12:47 pm

Einstein believed in JS Bach who was close to God, and had 17 children.

Einstein was also a violinist so he knew you can analyse all you want, but it doesn’t get you anywhere without giant leaps into the unknown!

Each time he got stuck and couldn’t find an answer to his problems he got his violin out and had a chat with Bach, who had a direct telephone line to God.
(FACT).

Tim Gorman
Reply to  John Tillman
February 2, 2021 2:39 pm

Deists believe in a single Creator God. They don’t believe in revalation. Some don’t believe God intervenes.

So what? That doesn’t mean they don’t believe in God the Creator.

John Tillman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
February 2, 2021 6:24 pm

Einstein did not believe in a creator god. He entertained Spinoza’s speculation that the universe was god.

Please don’t try to squeeze Einstein’s metaphysics into Christian or Jewish creationism and sparrowfallingism and headhaircountingism.

Please read what Einsteian actually said, rather than the falsehoods put into his mouth by paid creationist liars.

Thanks!

Last edited 2 months ago by John Tillman
Tim Gorman
Reply to  John Tillman
February 2, 2021 6:51 pm

Did you read this before you posted it.

Einstein didn’t believe in god but he believed in god.

Hmmmmm……

BTW: “He did not believe in a personal God Who concerns Himself with the fates and actions of humans.” That’s the very definition of a Deist!

David A
Reply to  John Tillman
February 3, 2021 3:20 am

John says “He did not believe in a personal God Who concerns Himself with the fates and actions of humans. Einstein considered such a view naïve.”

Evidence?

Alan Robertson
Reply to  jim hogg
February 2, 2021 7:59 am

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

David A
Reply to  jim hogg
February 3, 2021 3:15 am

Jim Says
“There is absolutely no evidence that I’ve seen or heard of in a long life of wide reading, and careful observation in the pursuit of understanding that suggests even the slightest hint of a “God”.

I must say your follow up claim of skepticism of “certainty” is not adequately broad to be personalized.

Wishing to avoid fruitless debate on the weakness of your assertion, I will simply point out that it is simply a fact that Communist in general, and the one world GOVERNMENT crowd in particular, is full of secular humanists that want to dominate. Therefore “militant atheists” is simply an accurate observation.

I must come to the conclusion that many ” non-militant” atheists, on this board are somewhat sensitive.

Last edited 2 months ago by David A
Reply to  Abolition Man
February 2, 2021 11:21 am

Believe the sun will rise tomorrow? Nope, that’s just hubris. So far, you’ve been lucky, that’s all.

David A
Reply to  Ken Irwin
February 3, 2021 3:07 am

Hi Ken, as stated above, ” Yet atheists have no problem pointing to past religious abuses of power, and, instead of blaming such failures on the dark side of human nature, they often blame it on religion.

See my post just above, the statist one world crowd preaching secular humanists philosophy throughout the institutions they have come to dominate, are ” militant atheists”.

Ken Irwin
Reply to  David A
February 3, 2021 5:46 am

I did not point any fingers – however religion is exploitative of the dark side of human nature. Religion (of all creeds) has a very dark past for which it consistently gets a “free pass” according to Richard Dawkins in “The God Delusion”.

“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil – that takes religion.”
― Steven Weinberg

R. Morton
Reply to  Ken Irwin
February 3, 2021 7:25 am

Some of us would argue that religion IS the “dark side of human nature”.

David A
Reply to  R. Morton
February 3, 2021 4:31 pm

An exceedingly weak argument, faced with the grim realty of over 140 million citizens killed by their own atheistic government, not to mentions the many other millions killed in wars against such governments.

One can point to many examples of historical benefits as a result of religious sincerity and influence. One can point to virtually none that resulted from atheistic philosophy.

R. Morton
Reply to  David A
February 3, 2021 7:02 pm

Re: “An exceedingly weak argument, faced with the grim realty of over 140 million citizens killed by their own atheistic government, not to mentions the many other millions killed in wars against such governments.”

It was less of an argument and more of a statement. But as for your response: that’s an exceedingly weak argument in comparison to the ‘god’ of the Old Testament – he killed EVERYONE on Earth – with the exception of a single family – if you believe that sort of silliness.

Also, not sure what an “atheistic philosophy” is, since being an atheist simply means that one does not believe in religion or deities – it is not a religion itself, so I’m not sure how it can have a “philosophy”.

David A
Reply to  Ken Irwin
February 3, 2021 10:12 am

Religion hardly gets a free pass. And Dawkins is blind in many ways. And you did point your finger, although I was not speaking of you personally.

R. Morton
Reply to  Gregory Woods
February 3, 2021 7:18 am

There’s a group on FB called “the Thinking Atheist”. It started out well intentioned enough several years ago, but it is now morphing into more of a “friends of Michael Mann” propaganda site than anything truly atheist related. They’re typical of those who are now bastardizing/weaponizing/politicizing/conscripting the word “science” – they seem to not understand science one single iota – but they sure love spraying it around like Lysol in an attempt to quiet anyone who disagrees with their “climate change is real, it is happening now, and it is the biggest danger we face on earth – because… the science” propaganda.

Klem
February 2, 2021 3:02 am

“In my opinion, global warming/climate change is the religion of choice for militant atheists, without which their meaningless lives would seem empty, hollow, depressing and pointless”

I used to be atheist until I realized that belief was untenable, and i was a staunch global warming alarmist as well. I pretty much have to agree with your statement.

Merrick
Reply to  Klem
February 2, 2021 4:15 am

Like you, Klem, I was an athiest before I found that belief system untenable. But unlike you, I was a pretty ardent skeptic before my conversion. Still pretty solidly in thr skeptic camp, however. And while I understand the position some atheists are taking here, it’s a position I would not have taken even when I was an atheist. I think David has it essentially correct. That there are atheists who don’t buy into the global warming pseudoreligion – of course. And they tend to gravitate to a ace like WUWT – of course. That the exception falsifies the rule? Not a chance.

Reply to  Klem
February 2, 2021 4:58 am

So you accept that believing in the unprovable and illusionary theory of an omnipotent being, but you do not accept believing in reality, science and the provable.

Oh well. Demonstrates who follows the Anthropogenic Climate myth.

Thanks for clearing it up.

Klem
Reply to  Jim Franklin
February 2, 2021 8:21 am

No I didn’t say that, i do not follow the anthro-climate myth, and i work in the science world. Science is my life.

What’s mystifying is how you arrived at that bizarre conclusion. Wow.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Klem
February 2, 2021 5:53 am

I have never been an athiest. I have spent too many warm, too many cold, and too many rainy nights sleeping out under the stars to believe that this universe is a statistical anomaly based on quantum theory. Even quantum theory depends on a space-time framework in order to work and it has never been answered as to how that framework came into existence – other than God.

jim hogg
Reply to  Tim Gorman
February 2, 2021 7:38 am

A statistical anomaly?? We know of only the one. At the moment. As for quantum theory: that’s aimed at explaining only part of it, not the reason for the universe’s existence. . . One of my major worries about believers is that having believed in something for which there is no evidence that matches the normal definition of the word, they will be inclined to believe in other notions which aren’t evidentially supported or supportable. Gods and religion came into being in darker, less aware times as the means of understanding and explaining all manner of mysterious things. Most of the mysteries have long since been explained, or at least attributed to natural processes, and though the myths which were clearly unsustainable were cast aside, an intangible skeleton of beliefs persists. Gods and religions are products of the human imagination in combination with human fears and needs.We don’t know as much as we like to think, but that much should be clear to us now. But somehow it isn’t. Early indoctrination/immersion in religious processes/assertions keeps religions staggering along and their Gods alive in our heads, to the extent that we’ll kill each other individually or collectively in their name. I may seem intolerant, but from where I stand religion on the whole is a blight on humanity. Though only one of many, but the source of so many of them is the same: deep commitment to mainly erroneous beliefs, frequently the value based kind that can be found on the ideological spectrum, for which there is no objective basis. No doubt some will be reaching for their Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot/Chairman Mao etc superficial anti-atheist arguments by this point. That would be a waste of time. The same applies: blind commitment to particular ideas but turbo-charged via large scale state apparatus/force by people who had arrogated themselves to the position of God within their own solipsistic minds. These were dictators/psychopaths/reckless obsessives. No different from those who killed en masse or a small scale in the name of Jesus, Allah, God or other supposed omnipotents, or ideals. The root is the same: irrationality, ignorance and the blindness that emotional commitment to a cause induces. Only a profound commitment to accuracy can overthrow these human demons and get us to a place where we can at least acknowledge our ignorance and start to build from that foundation. The alternative is increasing division and risk of greater bloodshed as we forget the lessons of the 20th Century..

Tim Gorman
Reply to  jim hogg
February 2, 2021 2:31 pm

for which there is no evidence”

No evidence? It’s around you every single day!

“Most of the mysteries have long since been explained,”

No they haven’t. The First Cause is still unexplained other than the excuse that it was chance under quantum physics. But the very word “physics” means something in the existing physical world. If there was no existing physical world then how could there be quantum physics? The only alternative is that the universe has existed forever – and you want to talk about an article of faith?

When you can prove the universe has been around forever, then come talk to me about my faith. When you can prove that quantum physics can exist with no physical universe, then come talk to me about my faith.

I’m not going to hold my breath waiting.

David A
Reply to  Tim Gorman
February 3, 2021 3:28 am

Quite correct Tim. I have observed that many who claim to be atheists are actually agnostic. Atheism is a positive assertion of something not being.

jim hogg
Reply to  Tim Gorman
February 3, 2021 7:41 am

You say: “No evidence? It’s around you every single day!” Whatever you regard as evidence might seem to be such in your mind, but most certainly isn’t in mine. Your idea of evidence clearly includes material that’s only available to believers. That process doesn’t happen inside my head. I don’t allow myself beliefs which are not supported by my senses/the reality I perceive. That doesn’t make me better than you or inferior to you. We’re just different, however similar the structure of our brains may be.

I said “Most of the mysteries”. I didn’t say “all”. We are not omniscient. Far from it my view, but nothing in my experience/learning has led me to look for, or see any value in what Dennet would call “skyhook” answers. The course of scientific progress has been one of continuous discovery and a gradual reduction of “mysteries”.

You mention “First Cause”. That’s a matter for reasonable speculation in my view. Personally, I believe that it’s highly likely that the universe has existed forever in some form or other. Any other explanation seems illogical to me. Why or how would it spring into being spontaneously or otherwise? If by the hand of a God like creature, then it would need to pre-exist the universe to be. I regard that as exceedingly unlikely at best. Proving it? How would we do that with the level of knowledge we have at the moment? However, concluding that there must be a God to initiate the whole shebang seems to be a rather strange line of reasoning to my mind (as it would of course) when everything we’ve opened up to scrutiny and explanation so far appears to be utterly devoid of supernatural content.

Quantum physics exist without a physical universe? That idea seems bizarre to me. Chance? I don’t believe in it. Where chance is used is an explanatory mechanism I immediately suspect ignorance. In my view the laws of cause and effect are not subject to chance at any level. Quantum physics is a reminder that we need to be more humble, as far as I’m converned, and that we need to look more carefully for the explanation for the mechanisms by which cause and effect apply in matters we do not yet understand. We are not particularly bright creatures – though we’re often not short of arrogance (usually as a result of ignorance) – and there is much that we’ll struggle to understand as we make new discoveries. The total field of knowledge (discovered and undiscovered) is surely vast and we will probably never be party to all of it before we destroy ourselves or are destroyed by something we didn’t see coming, but the trend so far is all secular, all evidence and logic based. However, religious belief will probably persist as long as humankind does for reasons that are emotional rather than rational, deriving from “Ghost in the Machine” phenomena in the brain. Just my tuppenmceworth. Your world view is clearly different from mine.

There will be typos.

John Bell
Reply to  Klem
February 2, 2021 9:37 am

Atheism is a LACK of belief, and it does not need to prove anything, the person making the claim has the burden of proof.

Reply to  John Bell
February 2, 2021 11:42 am

Nope! Atheism is the belief that god does not exist, which is a religous approach. I THINK, not BELIEF. Huh???? I might be wrong, as I often am, that’s how I learn.

pigs_in_space
Reply to  paranoid goy
February 2, 2021 12:50 pm

Atheism is really just another form of self worship, which is a religion all of its own, but solves very badly the questions of why you are here, and why you have to die.

DonM
Reply to  John Bell
February 2, 2021 11:45 am

I see your current defn of atheism, but I am still confused. Lack of belief … (in what?)

What is your defn of agnostic?

Seems that atheists (long ago) said that atheism is the firm belief that there is no godlike creator. “Belief is belief”, said the other guys, “and you are no different from other believers”. And rather than being honest about the disconnect and accept ‘agnostic’ as their label, some of the atheists changed the defn of their personal label. Is agnostic an insult for some reason or another?

Is ‘militant atheist’ now the guy that is adamant in his belief there is no godlike creator and regular ‘aetheist’ is now the common sense guy that professes a lack of belief, like the agnostics from 100 years ago?

Pariah Dog
Reply to  DonM
February 3, 2021 1:07 am

I would say that a militant atheist is one that thinks all religions should be shown the door post-haste due to them having an overall negative influence. A ‘regular’ atheist takes a more live-and-let-live approach and acknowledges that religion can have a positive effect on people.

That’s how I see it, anyway.

DonM
Reply to  Pariah Dog
February 3, 2021 8:48 am

Thanks,

Do you believe (with a capital B) that there is no godlike creator, or do you just profess a lack of belief?

(And what is your understood difference between Agnostic and Atheist?)

Ken Irwin
Reply to  John Bell
February 3, 2021 5:54 am

John, That’s the bit the devote don’t get.

The very question “You don’t believe in God ?” is offensive to an atheist – god simply does not exist in the mind of an atheist (Believe it or not that has been demonstrated through PET scans on brain activity).

The other is the idea that atheism is a belief system.

“Atheism is not a belief system. …Saying atheism is a belief system is like saying not going skiing is a hobby. I’ve never been skiing. It’s my biggest hobby. I literally do it all the time.” Ricky Gervais.

Reply to  Klem
February 2, 2021 11:49 am

Klem, say that again, slowly. Seems the atheists have no sense of humour, and less of a heart for poetry. “…until I realise belief was untenable…” I read that as “atheism is a belief”, which is, in my opinion, (and yours?) religion, so up Merrick’s (and the others’) oopsie!
You guys see yet, why I declare myself acoitheist?

Barry Malcolm
Reply to  Klem
February 2, 2021 2:50 pm

I used to be an atheist until I realiazed they didn’t get the religious holidays off.

Yan
February 2, 2021 3:03 am

“Three groups continue to vie for world domination: the globalists, the Chicoms and the Islamists.”

Spot on David!

I do note that one common denominator these three nefarious forces have in common is restriction of freedom.

The antidote, therefore, has to be populism. And not the “gilets jaunes” type. I’m talking about a Trump-inspired capitalist type of populism, which was going splendidly for four years until the globalists cheated.

Derg
Reply to  Yan
February 2, 2021 3:59 am

Orangeman bad 😉

Reply to  Derg
February 2, 2021 4:19 am

Orange man bad? I have no opinion on that, but magnificently ineffectual against and sinisterly tolerant of Bolsh, he sure was.

Reply to  paranoid goy
February 2, 2021 11:44 am

Six downvotes and not one counter argument? Youse guys is bullies!

DonM
Reply to  paranoid goy
February 2, 2021 7:20 pm

I didn’t downvote, but had I done so, it would have been because I didn’t know why someone thinks Orangeman was toleranat of Bolsh (and why someone would use ‘Bolsh’ in a post; and what ‘Bolsh’ is)

David A
Reply to  paranoid goy
February 3, 2021 3:35 am

An opinion that made exactly zero supportive examples or assertions is silly to even contemplate. So if thou wishes to engage in constructive dialogue, consider such assertions and have the curtsey to also articulate the best argument to your assertions that you know if, and express why it is wrong.

Derg
Reply to  paranoid goy
February 2, 2021 4:07 pm

Sure you don’t have an opinion. TDS indeed.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Yan
February 2, 2021 5:56 am

Yan,
Not just restriction of freedom, but submission to one’s betters!
Globalists hope to be in the ruling elite, the nobility, as they establish Feudalism 2.0, the ChiComs are the slavemasters and overseers over their hopefully docile masses, and the mullahs want to rule over an illiterate and shackled humanity!
All three want a submissive and ignorant population to rule over and, like all tyrants, comedy and criticism are to be suppressed severely! We’re looking at three different versions of slavery for mankind. They are arguing over who gets top-billing!

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Abolition Man
February 2, 2021 6:35 am

Hmmm…
Islamist = Eurasia
Chicoms= East Asia
Globalists = Oceania
Maybe Georgie was on to something.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
February 2, 2021 6:39 am

Mumbles,
Who knew the DemoKKKrats were going to use it as a training manual!
Make Orwell fiction again!

Last edited 2 months ago by Abolition Man
David A
Reply to  Abolition Man
February 3, 2021 3:41 am

Bingo! And exactly as history asserts, the more successful the secular humanists become, the more likely the Communists of China, and the old world Tyranny of dark age religion, will fight each other. And Russia fits in there somewhere. They appear to dislike all three, and quite rationally so.

Tom Foley
February 2, 2021 3:03 am

Most of the time WUWT is worth reading. But sometimes the articles really go off the rails. If writers are going to legitimately critique global warmists, it’s not a good look to outdo them in total silliness. It’s not worth seriously commenting on anything in this post.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Tom Foley
February 2, 2021 3:17 am

Then pick up your toys and go home…

Tom Foley
Reply to  Gregory Woods
February 2, 2021 4:04 am

I am merely giving some neutral advice on how to be taken seriously.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Tom Foley
February 2, 2021 5:15 am

You certainly don’t seem to be very serious – take your advice elsewhere….

Richard Page
Reply to  Gregory Woods
February 2, 2021 7:54 am

I don’t actually think that is your call to make, but you are certainly entitled to your own opinion. And so is he.

griff
February 2, 2021 3:05 am

In my opinion, global warming/climate change is the religion of choice for militant atheists, without which their meaningless lives would seem empty, hollow, depressing and pointless’

That’s a nonsense statement. Global warming is a real event, evidenced by scientific observation.

The science and research communities providing the evidence aren’t militant atheists, or leftists, come to that.

The people accepting the science are not (necessarily) atheist, or militant atheists, or leftists.
(I’m not a leftist and do occasionally go to church, because of my religious belief).

If climate skepticism wishes to argue the case on climate change, it needs to drop the ridiculous ‘its a cult’ and ‘watermelons’ arguments, and just argue on the science.

And there are plenty of economies thriving despite a massive investment in renewables and away from fossil fuel (or at least not suffering from those actions: we are all pretty much damaged in the current circumstances!).

The USA will benefit in terms of renewables roll out from 20 years and more of technical development in wind, solar and storage: its green revolution will be massively cheaper and easier than pioneers like Germany and Denmark.

In the UK wind and solar is now delivered without subsidy. We have all but eliminated coal with no cost to our grid. The USA will not enter poverty by taking up what dozens of states have successfully already rolled out, years ago.

(you won’t even approach the levels of infrastructure development of forward looking countries, which is a pity: sad to see the US falling behind the curve technologically and economically)

Mr.
Reply to  griff
February 2, 2021 6:42 am

and speaking of believers, right on cue – here’s Griff.

griff
Reply to  Mr.
February 3, 2021 12:23 am

I am not a ‘believer’ in climate change. I accept the science; my critical evaluation of the evidence convinces me it stands up. I have a Christian faith: faith being something which requires a leap beyond the facts.

Redge
Reply to  griff
February 2, 2021 6:53 am

If climate skepticism wishes to argue the case on climate change, it needs to drop the ridiculous ‘its a cult’ and ‘watermelons’ arguments, and just argue on the science.

If the alarmist wishes to argue their case on climate change, they wouldn’t ban debates with sceptics, walk out of debates with sceptics and not force sceptics out of their jobs in academia.

Jeffery P
Reply to  Redge
February 2, 2021 10:11 am

You can’t debate science with someone who doesn’t understand or follow science.

Richard (the cynical one)
Reply to  Redge
February 2, 2021 8:38 pm

The banning of debates, walking out of debates and persecution of ‘skeptics’ are all indicators of cowardice and bullying. But then, all bullies are cowards.

griff
Reply to  Richard (the cynical one)
February 3, 2021 12:27 am

And let’s look at the skeptic side of that debate and critically examine its quality: is making the main argument ‘the opposition are cultists, political extremists, ignorant of science’ really a good argument?

I sometimes think that skeptics don’t want a debate, just to shut off having to look at the other side’s case by labelling it ‘bad’

griff
Reply to  Redge
February 3, 2021 12:25 am

Well I’m not doing that am I? Here I am having a debate with you about climate science.

all I am saying is please make that debate about the science, not about peoples alleged belief systems or political affiliation

Redge
Reply to  griff
February 3, 2021 6:37 am

all I am saying is please make that debate about the science, not about peoples alleged belief systems or political affiliation

I do agree with you on this point, Griff.

The issue I have with alarmists is they are forever playing the man and not the ball.

griff
Reply to  Redge
February 4, 2021 1:04 am

Well take a good, long look at the comments I get here from skeptics…

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  griff
February 2, 2021 6:58 am

Where is all the copper going to come from?

griff
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
February 4, 2021 1:06 am

copper mining? recycling copper?

I don’t think renewable energy requires no more mining… just using as much renewable energy as possible in mining and maximum ‘recycling’ of what’s already mined.

there are mines powered by solar panels in Chile, with those huge dump trucks in som emines battery powered

Tim Gorman
Reply to  griff
February 4, 2021 9:33 am

Really?

Can you provide a link about battery powered dump trucks in China being sued for mining? Or is this something you dreamed about last night?

What recycling of copper are you thinking of? Recycling of what that has copper in it?

And how do you use intermittent power in mining? Do you not mine when it is cloudy or calm?

Reply to  griff
February 2, 2021 7:28 am

What is the world you are living in ? 😀

“The USA will benefit in terms of renewables roll out from 20 years and more of technical development in wind, solar and storage: its green revolution will be massively cheaper and easier than pioneers like Germany and Denmark.”

Oha, a critical point against Germany 😀 Didn’t you tell us all the time, we are so well situated with “Green Energy” in Germany?

How “to benefit” works well we see in California, with rolling black outs, and other “Green States” will follow, Greener they will be – well done 😀
Is there something out there you have understanding of ?

Last edited 2 months ago by Krishna Gans
griff
Reply to  Krishna Gans
February 3, 2021 12:29 am

California has blackouts because of a new record level of demand due to heat stress and an incompetent electricity company which has to switch off to avoid starting fires. Germany has far more renewables than California and no blackout.

I’ve been reading Watts since 2009, I think, and none of the constant predictions of German grid failure (or anywhere else for that matter) have come about. Grids now run regularly with over 60% renewables at times…

Tim Gorman
Reply to  griff
February 3, 2021 7:50 am

What are you talking about – no blackouts in Germany. They had a major one in 2019 and another one just a month ago.

“It is not a question about if a blackout in some European regions will happen, it is only a question of when it will happen,”said Stefan Zach, head of communication at Austrian utility EVN AG.”

The problem in CA is not rising demand, solar and wind were supposed to take care of that. The problem is the intermittency of wind and solar and it wasn’t there in CA when it was needed.

griff
Reply to  Tim Gorman
February 4, 2021 1:07 am

He was referring to a recent event in southern/eastern EU, not Germany.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  griff
February 4, 2021 5:58 am

No, the newspaper was a German one saying Germany was impacted. The initiating event didn’t happen in Germany but Germany was certainly impacted!

Stop with the misdirection!

Reply to  griff
February 3, 2021 8:26 am

In January, we where near to a blackout.

Californias black-outs resulted in not enough production by renewables, not more, not less.

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
February 3, 2021 10:42 am

The German grid has been increasingly backed up by fossil fuel power stations which is the only thing stopping the blackouts. Germany’s grid is powered by 65-80% fossil fuels, a steady increase from at least 2015.

griff
Reply to  Richard Page
February 4, 2021 1:09 am

That is absolutely NOT the case. The percentage, the total terrawatt hours, clearly show that not to be the case. The balance of German power imports/exports, in case you claim its power stations outside Germany, also backs that point of view.

Reply to  griff
February 4, 2021 1:21 pm

As usual you are completely wrong, and speaking of the January impact, you are still “wronger” 😀

Graemethecat
Reply to  griff
February 2, 2021 7:52 am

Hello Griffiepoo,

You want to argue the science, great. In that case, please present empirical, physical evidence that global temperatures are determined by atmospheric CO2 concentration, and not vice versa..

Abolition Man
Reply to  Graemethecat
February 2, 2021 8:17 am

Graemethecat,
Don’t ask the impossible of poor Griffiepoo, just see if you can get him to explain the economic benefits of Unreliable Energy using Germany, Spain and Commifornia as examples!
Maybe he can expound on the new Caracas Diet craze that is sweeping Germany this winter as people get to choose between freezing to death and eating!

griff
Reply to  Abolition Man
February 3, 2021 12:34 am

The benefits? Their energy systems actually work with renewables.

They also are predicated on the idea that it is essential to reduce CO2 output and are designed on that basis.

Here’s a thought experiment for you: for once suspend disbelief and accept just for a moment that it is necessary to reduce CO2. Then look at the electricity systems of those 3 countries. do they make sense or more sense if CO2 is a problem?

Then we can get back to the heart of the debate: is CO2 warming the planet and if so is that a problem

Reply to  griff
February 3, 2021 7:01 am

Where do you see a problem ?
Looking at these 3 countries, I see problems with renewable and no problems with CO2, not reduced by renewables or even just increased.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  griff
February 3, 2021 7:32 am

There is more than one way to reduce CO2, you don’t need to eliminate fossil fuels. Saying we need to eliminate fossil fuels is an argumentative fallacy named the False Dilemma. There are more than the two choices of eliminate/don’t eliminate.

griff
Reply to  Graemethecat
February 3, 2021 12:31 am

and are you arguing the science there, calling me names?

and I don’t have to recapitulate the whole evidence each time we have a discussion: go google it and we can debate specific cases where the evidence is capable of different interpretation

Reply to  griff
February 3, 2021 7:02 am

Go duckduckgo and find the contrary too 😀

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
February 2, 2021 8:03 am

Sorry Griff – I’m sure other people will call you out on other parts of this where you are wrong but I’ll concentrate on the UK part. The UK govt has had to reinstate the solar and wind subsidies as, after removing them, the industry was failing and unprofitable in this country. This has proven beyond reasonable doubt that wind and solar cannot compete with other energy sources without subsidies. Obviously, in the run up to COP26 they weren’t about to let the industries crash completely – wouldn’t play well to the cheap seats, but afterwards, I wonder if the govt will feel it’s still got money to waste on a vanity project like wind and solar?

griff
Reply to  Richard Page
February 3, 2021 12:35 am

And I’m telling you it is a matter of fact that new solar and offshore wind is now being built subsidy free in the UK (and that is the only point I’m making, since I’m arguing about the cost impact on the USA pushing for more renewables)

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
February 3, 2021 7:38 am

Again you are incorrect – the wind and solar installations built since the subsidies were withdrawn were all planned and subsidies assigned prior to that point. There have been no wind and solar installations that have been built without subsidies.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  griff
February 2, 2021 10:30 am

Hence the problem. The people who profess belief in global warming also believe that they have the one, the only, proper answer to make Eden on Earth and are, in the end, narcissists. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro were all narcissists. They knew if they ran government and could obtain the cooperation of each and every individual, then they could create a system where everyone was happy and satisfied. And it made it easy to rationalize that the end justifies the means.

griff
Reply to  Jim Gorman
February 3, 2021 12:37 am

That is another nonsense assertion.

Renewable energy is being put forward by multiple govts and commercial organisations of different structures, political affiliation and nationalities, in very different ways, with different levels of urgency

niceguy
Reply to  griff
February 5, 2021 9:05 pm

Renewable energy is not a thing, period.

Lrp
Reply to  griff
February 2, 2021 11:55 am

You are a self confessed Marxist

griff
Reply to  Lrp
February 3, 2021 12:37 am

am I? I might not have been serious if I did say that 😉

DonM
Reply to  griff
February 2, 2021 12:09 pm

“In the UK wind and solar is now delivered without subsidy.”

An outright lie.

If I, and the government, take away your water supply and show up to sell you bottled stream water for $22/gallon, while at the same time pissing in the stream next door to your home, then the government is helping me with the indirect subsidy of confiscation and blackmail.

Griff, you ignorant slut.

John Tillman
Reply to  DonM
February 2, 2021 6:31 pm

You, sir, insult ignorant sluts everywhere!

griff
Reply to  DonM
February 3, 2021 12:40 am

And there we are back to the name calling.

Is it too much to ask for a 2 line extract from some source showing how I’m wrong?

The UK’s first subsidy-free solar farm will be officially opened today (Tuesday 26 September) by Climate Change Minister Claire Perry.’ (2017)

Subsidy free solar comes to the UK – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
February 3, 2021 7:51 am

Griff – it’s the UK’s only solar plant built without subsidies; you’ll notice that it was sold at a loss immediately after completion to a company that runs several installations, all with subsidies. The only way they could run this plant was to average the subsidies across all of their installations. It may have been built without subsidies but it is run only with subsidies. Clayhill is not an example of an installation run without subsidies.

DonM
Reply to  griff
February 3, 2021 8:57 am

If I, and the government, take away your water supply and show up to sell you bottled stream water for $22/gallon, while at the same time pissing in the stream next door to your home, then the government is helping me with the indirect subsidy of confiscation, and blackmail. THE WATER I SELL IS EFFECTIVELY SUBSIDIZED THROUGH REGULATION!

Griff, you ignorant slut. (apologies to Jane for the indirect comparison)

Last edited 2 months ago by DonM
fred250
Reply to  griff
February 2, 2021 7:37 pm

poor griff,

Little twerp doesn’t realise just how much of a low-level marxist/totalitarian he really is.

griff
Reply to  fred250
February 3, 2021 12:42 am

I argue that climate change is a fact. I often attach evidence for points I’m making. and I get ‘you are a marxist’ in return.

Is that debate on the science? If the only response to an argument for climate science is ‘you are an atheist/marxist/leftist/totalitarion’ I think climate skepticism loses the argument.

Reply to  griff
February 3, 2021 7:05 am

You confuse CC, not refused as fact, and the discussion about the reasons.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  griff
February 3, 2021 7:37 am

And if that climate change is an increase in average minimum temps and not in average maximum temps then why do we need to do anything?

Atheist/marxists/leftists/totalitarian’s are the ones that try to control the people with large Bureaucratic Hegemonies regulating every aspect of the people lives and beliefs.

Conservatives/libertarians simply don’t believe that is the proper purpose of government. They believe that the proper purpose of government is to point problems out to the people and then let the people solve the problem – just like converting from coal to natural gas through fracking. It is the government that is trying to eliminate the conversion to natural gas – for the good of the people?

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  griff
February 3, 2021 6:31 pm

Griff says:

“I argue that climate change is a fact.”

Griff, if want to argue an issue, I suggest that you start by understanding what the issue is exactly. No one denies that the Earth has warmed since coming out of the LIA in the 19th century. I have always understood that the issue is whether there is a DETECTABLE human signal of noticeable significance in the warming. The argument here at WUWT is that, if there is one, it is not detectable.

That does not preclude the possibility that an undetectable human signal is there. Govts however cannot make policy on that which is not detectable in science.

Understand?

griff
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
February 4, 2021 1:12 am

There are dozens of different skeptic opinions on how climate change is not happening: the ‘its only natural warming since the ice age’ is just one of them – (and not supported by global temperature increases in recent decades). I can find plenty of opinions that it isn’t warming at all, the ice age is started, imminent solar minimum will crash temps and all sorts of other stuff.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  griff
February 4, 2021 9:12 am

Griff, anyone who tells you that climate is a static, unchanging entity is feeding you bullocks (to use a British term). HOW MUCH the climate is changing today certainly is an issue, especially with Urban Heat Island, siting problems with surface temp stations (at airports and near AC units for example), and the — ahem — “adjustments” made to the those surface temperatures. Are you reading this Gavin Schmidt?

If we humans are affecting the surface temperatures we record, it is likely due to the reasons cited above (among others like land use changes) which is not global warming in the sense that alarmists talk about. So far as I know, science is uncertain about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which actually comes from us, so blaming humanity for “climate change” or “global warming” is far more complicated than most people understand. The media is especially egregious keeping the masses in the dark about the complication involved here.

This is why it is premature and irresponsible for the governments of the world to jump on the alarmist bandwagon and wage their war on all of us and the current fossil-fuel dominated energy infrastructure we depend on. I don’t know about you Griff, but I for one have zero interest in seeing my quality of life regress back to the Middle Ages. If the ignorant actions of the Biden administration threatens to take us all there, I should hope he gets the kind of reaction from the masses which will make him deeply regret it.

So I ask you again Griff: Understand?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
February 4, 2021 10:17 am
  1. go to degreeday.net and look up the cooling degree-days over the past decade for sites around the globe. You will find that most places are *not* seeing increased maximum temps requiring more air conditioning.
  2. If you then look at the warming degree-days you will find that it is almost always the minimum temps that are going up. I.e. fewer heating degree-days
  3. A change of average temps from 71.1F to 71.2F is about a 0.2% change and would be unnoticeable to anyone. An anomaly change from 0.1F to 0.2F is a 100% change and sounds ominous. It is lying by scaling. It’s also probably the biggest reason the climate scientists use anomalies although they will try to defend it by saying it allows comparing different locations. The problem there is that there is no such thing as a global climate. Climate is local and regional. Climate scientists should focus on local and regional climate, not a phantom global climate.

Climate is the whole of the temperature profile at a location, it is *not* some mid-range temperature. Even worse it is not some average of a bunch of mid-range temp anomalies from around the globe.

Be sure to ask griff why warmer nighttime temps are so dangerous when offers longer growing seasons, more food, fewer cold deaths, and lower heating costs (i.e. LESS CO2 EMMISSIONS!).

Reply to  griff
February 4, 2021 1:23 pm

Skeptics have no consensus, in so far, they are more scientifc than the consensus praeching climate priests :d

David A
Reply to  griff
February 3, 2021 3:47 am

Secular humanism is the Bible of militant atheists. CAGW is one of the chapters.

By the way, if someone called the Islamists “militant religionists” I would not object, or consider it slander against all religious people.
It is simply a fact, that the one world Government crowd is dominated by militant atheists.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  griff
February 3, 2021 6:13 pm

Griff says:

“..The USA will benefit in terms of renewables roll out from 20 years and more of technical development in wind, solar and storage: its green revolution will be massively cheaper and easier than pioneers like Germany and Denmark….”

Griff, the fact is that, in addition to being intermittent, wind and solar energy are low density compared with fossil fuels and nuclear power. Fossil fuels and nuclear work because they are energy dense enough to work. I am at a loss to understand how you think low density energy sources can successfully compete with high density ones in the free market and drive the high density energy sources out.

I am highly skeptical (but won’t totally dismiss) the notion that engineering and technical innovation will be able to overcome the poor energy density problem for wind and solar. The density issue is why they need govt to survive; they cannot compete without govt. I can almost guarantee you that if and when Washington decides to pull the plug on subsidies and mandates for wind and solar here in the U.S. someday, these “industries” will panic and make a beeline for Washington to fight it off. Their survival depends on it. Fortunately for them, Biden won’t do it.

The only reason wind and solar energies exist today is because govt acquiesced and pandered to the political clout of the environmentalists who pushed for them (and still do). The wind and solar markets are totally artificial products of govt created at the behest of environmentalism.

As for cost, the wind and solar pushers conveniently leave out the costs associated with the fossil fuel and nuclear plant backups that wind and solar farms require. That is what kills them in the cost department. And besides, labor costs in the U.S., the U.K. and Europe preclude solar panels from being manufactured there in large volume. China’s low labor costs play a role in your “cheap wind and solar” argument.

The bottom line here Griff is that you are selectively cherry-picking what you accept and what you dismiss about wind and solar energies out of a need and desire to believe in them. Your need to believe doesn’t make the problems with the physics of wind and solar (density and intermittency) go away. Economies do not run of your (non-Christian) faith or anyone else’s.

griff
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
February 4, 2021 1:14 am

There are many commercial companies which have opted for renewable energy – because it gives them a known fixed cost for their supply going forward. It makes economic sense for them. Walmart, UK car plants…

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  griff
February 4, 2021 8:09 am

Griff, do you know what public relations is? PR is important to companies. Looking “green” these days is a very stylish thing to do, and it makes them look good in the public eye.

Known fixed costs are not going to do you a lot of good when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing Griff. Known fixed costs that require fossil fuel and nuclear power backups and cannot displace fossil fuel and nuclear energies (low solar and wind densities) do not make for a viable alternative energy source regardless of the PR they provide.

Griff, do yourself a favor and read the last paragraph in my comment above again please. Especially the first line. Cults always believe they have infallible and unquestionable doctrines Griff, and the wind and solar pushers and climate alarmists behave like they have one.

Solar panels were invented in 1954 (coming up on 67 years ago) and wind turbines have probably been around even longer. If the heavy hand of govt is required to force the wind and solar issues after all these years, it should be patently obvious that wind and solar have serious problems that are not easy (if not impossible) to overcome. Only governments are stupid enough to pour money into them anyway. That’s politics.

Learn to tell the difference between science and ideology Griff.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
February 4, 2021 9:37 am

CD,

“As for cost, the wind and solar pushers conveniently leave out the costs associated with the fossil fuel and nuclear plant backups that wind and solar farms require.”

Which California is finally figuring out!

John Garrett
February 2, 2021 3:17 am

A report will do no good if NPR, PBS, CNN, AP, CBS, NBC, MsNBC, ABC, BBC, Pravada (a/k/a New York Times), the WaPo and the rest of the noise manufacturers refuse to publicize it.

Ask Tony Bobulinski.

Mr.
Reply to  John Garrett
February 2, 2021 6:45 am

And this list, in my opinion, is where much of the climate bullshit is produced.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Mr.
February 2, 2021 7:55 am

Nah, urinalists aren’t smart enough to come up with this stuff on their own. They just read the TelePrompTer with smug and smarmy expressions on their faces!
Most of them probably had ghostwriters for their dissertations; they get this junk from frauds like Mann and Holden! Think how long Paul Ehrlich has been making dire predictions without once getting it right!

griff
Reply to  John Garrett
February 3, 2021 12:43 am

Well make an argument they’ll go with/show.

‘climate scientists are only in it for the money/you are all marxists/you are all atheists’ is not a presentable argument, is it?

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
February 3, 2021 8:02 am

That really depends on whether you’re making a good living out of government grants by perpetuating this argument, doesn’t it? The sign of a successful scientific hypothesis is that you can use it to make a prediction about how it will perform in the future – if it happens as predicted, it’s a good hypothesis. If it doesn’t happen, it’s a failed hypothesis. CAGW has had so many failed predictions – it’s a completely failed hypothesis.

Ian Magness
February 2, 2021 3:19 am

Mr Archibald,
This is a fine article, you are clearly very knowledgeable and I’m sure most strong AGW sceptics like me would agree wholeheartedly with the great majority of your sentiments.
Why therefore, did you feel the need to come out with the following statement which is bordering on the abusive (as well as being plain wrong): “In my opinion, global warming/climate change is the religion of choice for militant atheists, without which their meaningless lives would seem empty, hollow, depressing and pointless.”
I struggle to see the connection between a belief or otherwise in a god – any god – and an individual’s (in my case heavily researched) stance on AGW. I cannot speak for American society. In Britain, however, we have become an increasingly secular society during my lifetime and a very significant number of us – especially but not exclusively those of us who benefitted from a science training – became atheists at an early age. Many of us again became committed AGW heretics in more recent times. There is thus no mileage in conflating belief in atheism with belief in AGW. Fellow atheists that I know don’t disrespect those that believe in a god – it’s just not something we have experienced ourselves. It would be good to have that respect reciprocated.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Ian Magness
February 2, 2021 4:25 am

Ian,
I believe he was trying to describe the militant Progressives who aren’t actually atheists; they believe that The State is God!
In the Progressive pantheon politicians and bureaucrats are blessed with perfect vision and wisdom; if the goal was not obtained then more of the same is needed! No right-thinking person can ever be in error no matter what their actions are; an apology will suffice as long as you mouth the pious platitudes!

Jim Carson
Reply to  Abolition Man
February 2, 2021 5:06 am

If he wanted to say Militant Progressives, he would have said Militant Progressives. He didn’t. He said militant atheists.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Jim Carson
February 2, 2021 6:03 am

I am not that good at mind reading, but it seemed that he was talking about climate alarmists who, as a general rule, are more likely to believe in the State than in organized religion. Perhaps he misspoke; something I have only heard of from others having never done so myself!

David A
Reply to  Jim Carson
February 3, 2021 3:56 am

Jim, because it is true. Most of the One World Government crowd is atheist, proud of their Secular Humanism, well instituted in most all public schools, and ready to use force to achieve their power objectives.
You would not object if I called the Islamists, “militant religionists”.

David Archibald
Reply to  Ian Magness
February 2, 2021 4:49 pm

Ordinary atheists are fine. It is the militant atheists who have the compulsion to force their idiotic religion on the rest of us, which is the perfectability of man via global warming. I do recommend reading Nicholas Wade’s book. If you would like to go on to understand the basis of human society I recommend John Skoyles’ paper on Expensive Prolonged Neurodevelopment. Religion was invented so that the adult males could work cooperatively together instead of wasting their time fighting over the females. Christianity gave us one each. It was a Christian society that landed humans on the Moon, like a yeast cell bursting and sending a blob of protoplasm across to the nearest rock, despite the super-primitive technology of the time. Of course I would not darken the doorstep of a church myself. All the priests and priestesses these days are lefty scum who hate Western Civilisation. Listening to their droning would make me want to reach for my Browning, to mix a metaphor. The Pontiff is the prime example of the type, naturally. I have found that the best thing to say, when someone asks me if I are a Christian, is “Jesus walks beside me.” They start backing away fast because they realise they have encountered someone even loopier than themselves.No further discussion and certainly no arguments.

ghalfrunt
February 2, 2021 3:39 am

“There are over 40 years of records now and the earth’s temperature has increased by only 0.27°C,”
Then you show a plot that shows a 0.65°C increase. Or are you going from the final single point on a noisy plot? If so then why not take 2016 and call it a round 1°C rise. Cherries seem to be ripening early this year!

Derg
Reply to  ghalfrunt
February 2, 2021 4:01 am

Interesting come from Ghalfrunt who told people to drink bleach 🤔

Carbon500
Reply to  ghalfrunt
February 2, 2021 4:33 am

ghalfrunt: how can anyone look at that plot and consider that we’re approaching climate Armageddon? Fractions of a degree (yes, fractions of one degree only) bouncing up and down around the 1981 – 2010 average – yet here in the UK for example our politicians seek to ban the sale of domestic gas boilers and also the sale of internal combustion engines in a matter of a few years. The sheer gullibility and idiocy of politicians in paying lip service to the dangerous man-made global warming (aka ‘climate change’) nonsense concerns me a lot more than trivial temperature changes.

Mr.
Reply to  Carbon500
February 2, 2021 6:47 am

Yes, there is a crisis of rationality, not climate.

TonyG
Reply to  Mr.
February 2, 2021 9:13 am

They don’t teach rational thinking anymore. Quite the contrary, they teach how to jump through all sorts of convoluted hoops to support your emotional position. I’ve seen some of what passes for “reasoning” lately and it’s terrifying.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  ghalfrunt
February 2, 2021 8:00 am

“There are over 40 years of records now and the earth’s temperature has increased by only 0.27°C,”

Yes, that is a howler from Mr Archibald. +0.27C was just the UAH Dec 2020 global temperature anomaly. The rate of warming over the full UAH record is +0.14 C per decade, which comes to around +0.6C warming in total.

ggm
Reply to  TheFinalNail
February 2, 2021 9:40 am

UAH for January just came out. It’s down to +0.12 now.

BobM
Reply to  ggm
February 2, 2021 10:06 am

Not to worry. GISS will be out shortly and they’ll probably reduce some temps back in 1910 to make the trend “worse than we thought”.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  ggm
February 2, 2021 11:23 am

Yes, but that’s with the new 1991-2020 anomaly base, as Dr Spencer explained. It is down a little from Dec, but still warmer than the 1991-2020 norm for January.

fred250
Reply to  TheFinalNail
February 2, 2021 7:45 pm

And still FAR COLDER than nearly all the last 10,000 years

Your desperation is becoming laughable. 🙂

David Archibald
Reply to  TheFinalNail
February 2, 2021 4:58 pm

Redo your sums. UAH has changed it from a 30 year period to a 40 year period. The January anomaly is 0.12 degrees C. So that is the increase relative to 40 years which equates to 0.03 per decade. The instantaneous warming rate is therefore 0.30 degrees per century. Still frightened? But the trend in rate of warming is down and going to go negative due to lower solar magnetic activity. What are you going to do then? Are you able to run around screaming faster?

fred250
Reply to  David Archibald
February 2, 2021 7:47 pm

Rusty is frighten of anything and everything.. especially data and facts.
.
….. and desperately determined to stay that way. 🙂

Jim Carson
Reply to  David Archibald
February 3, 2021 3:39 am

David, you’re the one who needs to redo his sums. The new baseline is not 40 years–it’s just a different 30 years. And using a single temperature point to calculate an “instantaneous warming rate” is spectacularly meaningless.

fred250
Reply to  TheFinalNail
February 2, 2021 7:45 pm

Right through those NATURAL El Ninos, right , rusty

You KNOW there was no warming apart from those major NATURAL events , don’t you, corroded one.

Still waiting for evidence of warming by human released CO2.

You remain an empty sock

John Tillman
Reply to  ghalfrunt
February 2, 2021 8:56 am

Speaking of 2016, please note that this month, Earth will have been cooling for five years, with more most likely to come.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  John Tillman
February 2, 2021 2:06 pm

2016 was the peak of the latest big El Nino. Surely anyone can see that as soon as the next moderate/big El Nino arrives new global temperature records will be set?

I remember many ‘global cooling is nigh’ type comments on this site 10 years ago (including by David Archibald), because temperatures were lower than the previous high set during the 1998 El Nino. Now the goalposts are shifted to the 2016 El Nino.

History seems condemned to repeat itself.

John Tillman
Reply to  TheFinalNail
February 2, 2021 6:38 pm

Please explain how it is possible for there to be five years of cooling in a supposedly man-made warming world.

Please show your statistical work.

Thanks!

If man-made CO2 is the driving control knob, then even after a Super El Nino, the warming trend should show up within five years. But it hasn’t and didn’t after the previous SEN in 1997-98, aka the “Pause”.

QED. Not only no dangerous AGW, but no AGW at all.

fred250
Reply to  TheFinalNail
February 2, 2021 7:52 pm

Always those NATURAL El Ninos, hey rusty

Its all you have .. work them like you are in manic panic. !!

“History seems condemned to repeat itself.”.

.
Yep , as the La Nina bites and the AMO starts to trend down , the cyclic nature of climate will be shown

The modern slightly warm period…

less warm than the MWP…

which was less warm than the RWP

which was less warm than the Minoan period

back to the much warmer Holocene optimum

All those warmer periods.. human flourished. !!

fred250
Reply to  ghalfrunt
February 2, 2021 7:42 pm

poor half-runt

Your desperation is palpable

So funny !!

Having to use El Ninos as your trend-maker.

NO EVIDENCE OF ANY WARMING BY ATMOSPHERIC CO2

None anywhere.

Its only NATURAL.

MJB
February 2, 2021 3:50 am

“..without which their meaningless lives would seem empty, hollow, depressing and pointless.”
 
The fact that you think you need a god figure to have meaning in your life, and to avoid feeling empty, hollow, or depressed saddens me.
 
I am an atheist, have been since at least the age of 12, when I would routinely get in trouble for not reciting prayers in school, and I live as meaningful, fulfilled, and hopeful a life as anyone I know. Knowing there is no afterlife makes this life all the more precious.
 
Sure, religion can provide meaning for some, but it’s definitely not the only path.

ggm
February 2, 2021 3:59 am

Ohh no. I just checked the NOAA SST and the Aussie BoM ENSO monitor, and La Nina has just started weakening. ENSO 2 region is now +ve and ENSO 3 is almost neutral. And the NOAA daily SST shows the whole ENSO 2 and 3 regions now +ve. Lets hope La Nina continues for at least another few weeks. Waiting for Roy Spencer’s January UAH data…. should be out in the next day or so.

Tom Foley
Reply to  ggm
February 2, 2021 4:08 am

Oh nooo. And I’ve been enjoying the rain after the severe drought.

Richard Page
Reply to  ggm
February 2, 2021 8:11 am

What? Were you really expecting the first one to be a corker?
Don’t forget to check the Peruvian anchovy catches – they are supposed to be down 50% this year.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  ggm
February 2, 2021 1:28 pm

It’s out: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/

Never one to overstate the magnitude of global warming, Roy has already changed the UAH anomaly baseline from the period 1981-2010 to 1991-2020. This has the effect of lowering the anomaly values (because the period 1991-2020 was considerably warmer than 1981-2010).

In the new figures, Jan 2021 (+0.12 C) is fractionally down on Dec 2020 (+0.15C). So still warmer than the 1991-2020 UAH average for January, despite the la Nina.

fred250
Reply to  TheFinalNail
February 2, 2021 7:57 pm

So, a FRACTION of a degree above the a longer term warming, after 2 major NATURAL El Nino events.

La Nina starting to grip.

Don’t get too DESPERATE in your DENIAL, rusty

Temperatures are still only a degree or so above the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.. and starting to FALL.

Where is all this HUMAN CO2 warming , rusty?

You know the ONLY warming has come from NATURAL EL Nino events.

You can see your cult AGW religion crumbling around you..

…. leaving your mind corroded and destitute .

Derg
Reply to  TheFinalNail
February 3, 2021 2:04 am

But shouldn’t it go up with the CO2?

Abolition Man
February 2, 2021 4:15 am

This is perhaps the most egregious example of Monday morning quarterbacking I have ever seen! Identifying globalists, ChiComs and Islamists as the enemies of human freedom and prosperity is really a no-brainer; many voices have been stating that for years, if not decades!
What President Trump did that is different is he jumped in and actually got to work fighting this multi-headed monstrosity while carrying the Republican Party on his back! The fact that he didn’t get more accomplished has a lot more to do with the large number of globalist RINOs who were stabbing him in the back and grabbing on to anything they could to slow his progress while whispering in his ear like Grima Wormtongue!
Reports! We don’t need no stinking reports! We’ve got three reports from Dr. Peter Navarro on the precise nature and extent of the election fraud!
We’ve got the Durham Report due to come out any day now that will list all the crimes committed by our government against the Trump campaign and administration! I’m sure the Xiden administration will get right on chasing the malefactors down; they shouldn’t have any trouble finding them since many of them were deeply involved like the Big Guy himself!
Finally we’ve got numerous reports about the pandemic that are still being ignored! There are thirty that show that lockdowns don’t work; there are two dozen that show that HCQ used properly reduces fatalities by about 75%! Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people are being killed by bad government policy; and you think that a report on climate change is going to break through the censorship of the Big Tech Nazis and the DemoKKKrat propaganda mills formerly called the media?

Paul Milenkovic
Reply to  Abolition Man
February 2, 2021 4:21 pm

Is the most powerful person in America now Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia?

West Virginia is both a coal and a natural gas-producing state?

He appears to be against the latest round of Stimulus, insisting that any direct payments should go to people who have lost their jobs rather than to people who are still working?

Does he have the fortitude to stand against Energy Poverty, or will he cave given the right mix of threats and inducements? He seems really “put out” that the Vice President went to his state to appear on TV stations without coordinating with him.

What motivates him?

John Tillman
Reply to  Paul Milenkovic
February 2, 2021 6:42 pm

Previously reelection motivate Sen. Manchin.

Now we’ll see who his real masters are. His daughter has already cashed in big time.

The fact that he didn’t switch parties when his country needed him, after his state voted al most 70% for Trump, shows you all you need to know of this Schumer butt boy.

Tom Foley
Reply to  Abolition Man
February 2, 2021 5:50 pm

I thought the reason Trump didn’t get more accomplished was because he was spending so much time on the golf course! How could he watch his back when he was focusing on all those golf balls?

Pamela Matlack-Klein
February 2, 2021 4:17 am

“In my opinion, global warming/climate change is the religion of choice for militant atheists, without which their meaningless lives would seem empty, hollow, depressing and pointless.”

I believe that there is one significant word missing in the above statement, namely, “LIBERAL!” I have always been skeptical of the insane AGW/CAGW nonsense because I studied paleoclimatology. But it seems to me that the AGW/CAGW core is both far-left nutters and willing to resort to violence in defense of their beliefs. Where have we seen such behavior in the past? Was it not in defense of various forms of Christianity and Islam? How many millions of people have been wiped out by militant Christians and Islamist over the millennia in an effort to establish supremacy?

Last edited 2 months ago by Pamela Matlack-Klein
Abolition Man
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
February 2, 2021 4:51 am

Pamela,
Just a few nits to pick. Those people aren’t Liberals, they are leftists or Progressives! The Liberal will defend your freedom of speech, while the other wants to lock you up and reprogram you for wrongthink!
The Progressive Statist religions of Marxism and Communism have killed far more than militant Christians or Islamists, although the latter seem to be attempting to regain the lead!

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Abolition Man
February 2, 2021 7:04 am

Yes, agreed, almost wrote Progressives. Too late to edit now.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
February 2, 2021 8:00 am

In keeping with the discussion here, I checked with my God and she says you’re forgiven!

David A
Reply to  Abolition Man
February 3, 2021 4:19 am

I would add that the statist left killed hundreds of millions of their own citizens!

It is simply a fact that the one world Government crowd is mostly atheist.
A militant atheists is not shackled by any authority outside himself, and revels in moral relativism. Just as I would not object if someone called an Islamist a militant religionists, a non militant atheists should not object to the factual statement about militant atheists.

Indeed the ladder may be more inclined to tyranny over others for the reason stated, a lack of restraining principles of higher authority, in conjunction with a philosophy of moral relativism. Thus the “power over others” inherent flaw in human nature, religious or not, has no natural restraint.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  David A
February 3, 2021 7:22 am

Very astute!

I would only add that morals are those traditions and practices that insure the survival of a society. That doesn’t mean that those morals are similar in any way, shape, or form, just that they work. Aztec’s vs Judeo/Christian are a prime example. Morals are typically passed on through a religion, they are not “rediscovered” over and over each generation. Those that abandon those traditions and practices of society risk their survival and possibly even the survival of the society from which they were a part of. That’s part of what we are seeing in American society today – an abandonment of the traditions and practices of the Judeo-Christian moral framework – elimination of the nuclear family, elimination of monogamy, killing the unborn as a method of contraception, moving from personal charity to state charity because its “easier”. The list goes on and on.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
February 2, 2021 5:57 am

Not as many as Marxism has seen die under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim(s), Castro, Chavez, and Maduro. I’m sure I’ve missed some.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
February 2, 2021 7:30 am

“militant Christians” ???

Jesus spoke of a Christian as someone showing wholehearted devotion to the sovereign God and a compassionate concern for people and even enemies.

The name Christian was not used of the earliest followers of Jesus. They were called believers because they believed his teachings, that he had been crucified and had risen from the dead and had come to fulfil God’s promise. When a community of these believers in Antioch, ancient Syria (now Turkey), were called Christians because of being followers of Christ, the name began to be used widely.

Anyone in history committing atrocities in the name of Christ was certainly no Christian. The name was often used for political gain like modern politicians who profess an allegiance but flagrantly disregard the teachings of Jesus. Their fruits expose them as fake.

Finally, Christians have no need for militancy to establish supremacy. Jesus said to Pilate at his trial, My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.

To claim Christians have engaged in widespread killing of large numbers to gain supremacy and impose their beliefs is as false as many of the claims of climate alarmists.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
February 2, 2021 8:09 am

“Jesus said to Pilate at his trial, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.””

Fair enough, but did Peter not cut somebody’s ear off with a sword as Jesus was arrested just shortly before that?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  TheFinalNail
February 2, 2021 2:35 pm

Did you somehow think the Apostles were without sin? They weren’t Jesus, you know.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Tim Gorman
February 2, 2021 4:15 pm

I was just wondering why his apostles were carrying swords and cutting people’s ears off if they weren’t supposed to be fighting against his arrest. Comms problem?

fred250
Reply to  TheFinalNail
February 2, 2021 8:35 pm

As opposed to AGW apostles, who’s sacks are terminally EMPTY.

David A
Reply to  TheFinalNail
February 3, 2021 4:27 am

I don’t know if all the disciples carried swords, and I don’t know how completely non violent Christ’s teachings were. Was there room for defensive violence, or just war? Ghandhi left room for that potential.

Yet I do know that in the biblical gosepel Christ healed the injured man.

Curious that you make a story of one person plural, and miss the main message in the story.

John Tillman
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
February 2, 2021 10:41 am

Christianity did spread peacefully for its first 300 years or so, but after becoming an imperial state religion, its dominion was extended by fire and sword, as with Islam from its outset.

Charlemagne for instance massacred the pagan Saxons and burnt their sacred groves in order to convert them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxon_Wars

Some have suggested that religious revenge partly motivated Viking raids on France and the British Isles, since the Norse shared Germanic paganism with the continental Saxons.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  John Tillman
February 3, 2021 7:54 am

Paul wanted to destroy Christianity before his conversion. He approved the killing of Stephen. However, after his conversion, he never encouraged violent means to convert Jews. He followed the teachings of Christ and wrote, “ faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

Charlemagne certainly did not follow the teachings of Jesus nor the example of Paul. What he spread bore little resemblance to the Christian communities established following Paul’s missionary journeys. The proclaiming of the message of Christ results in vibrant Christian communities. Charlemagne’s legacy produced no fruit of the Gospel in the lives of his converts.

There is an analogy here. Many keep spreading the falsehoods about Christianity because of a lack of knowledge of “biblical” Christianity and its spread. Similarly many keep spreading the falsehoods about an imminent climate catastrophe because they ignore how science works, its shortcomings and its limitations.

griff
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
February 3, 2021 12:47 am

Really the entire body of climate science is not marxist or progressive.

Labelling it as such, especially as the first response to someone attempting a debate on the science, just loses any audience or wider support skepticism could hope to win.

Outside the US, US right of centre politics makes little sense to the man in the street and Trumpism even less.

RickWill
February 2, 2021 4:25 am

All god until this:

There are over 40 years of records now and the earth’s temperature has increased by only 0.27°C, 

The UAH chart this refers to has nothing to do with surface temperature. According to the UAH anomaly over the Nino34 region, the Pacific should be in an El Nino phase:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/itlt_60_120-170E_-5-5N_n_2015:2020.png
That is at considerable variance with reality on the surface, which is clearly in a La Nina phase:
comment image

So lets be clear. The Earth’s temperature is thermostatically controlled. The temperature surface temperature is stuck where it is for at least the next millennia. Any trend in a measurement other than zero is WRONG.

The UAH measure something way up in the atmosphere that has little to no relationship with surface temperature. It has a terrible bias that needs urgent correction.

David A
Reply to  RickWill
February 3, 2021 4:33 am

Why do you say no relationship to surface T? On what time scale?

UAH can monitor the MIA CAGW hypothetical ” hot spot” and there is a correlation to surface T over some time scales.

There is no bias. It is what it is, and recognised as such.

Ian Flint
February 2, 2021 4:38 am

Just to ram the point home I’m also an atheist and have been since my teens. My life is far from meaningless or depressing. You cannot and should not generalise about people. The only thing atheists have in common is their lack of belief in a deity. That’s it. I know plenty of Christians, Jews and Moslems who are CAGW alarmists. Most of the atheists I know, are, like me, scientists and CAGW sceptics.

Tom in Florida
February 2, 2021 4:51 am

I think if you changed the word “atheist” to “uneducated” you would be spot on.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Tom in Florida
February 2, 2021 5:28 am

And BTW, I am not saying atheists are uneducated. I am saying uneducated people will grasp at things they do not understand and then defend themselves with religious tenacity.

Ladislav
February 2, 2021 5:06 am

To allege, that global warming is the religion of choice for atheists, militant or otherwise, is an offensive stereotyping. As an atheist myself, my live is certainly not meaningless or depressing. I do strongly oppose the global warming BS, as are no doubt, countless of other atheists. On the other hand, there are many religious people who push this global warming heap of bovine excrement, like for example Ms. Katharine Hayhoe or the Pope, just to name a couple.

David A
Reply to  Ladislav
February 3, 2021 4:37 am

Nobody asserted that. Just as the middle East is dominated by “militant religionists”, so the one world Government crowd is dominated by militant atheists. Neither statement is a reason for non militant Christians, or non militant atheists, to take offense.

Barnes Moore
February 2, 2021 5:15 am

Clearly, the atheist comment has struck a nerve which detracts from the central point of this article. I have no problem comparing CAGW to a religion – frankly, as one poster pointed out, the wars over Christianity and Islam have killed a lot of people, just like a war on Co2 may end up killing a lot of people. Maybe the author can be persuaded to edit that piece out and simply replace “atheist” with “left wing Liberal” although even that is not 100% accurate as there are in reality many on the right who believe in this nonsense as well – so maybe just leave it at militant activists.

The central point is we need to have people in government who have the courage to confront the CAGW mob and so far, few have shown that courage (Inhofe being an exception). Kristi Noem may have it, Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis may be 2 others, but all will face serious opposition and criticism. Just look at how the media has treated DeSantis, Abbot, and Noem re: COVID compared to how they have treated Cuomo (until recently) or virtually any other dem governor.

Leftist ideology has permeated our entire culture – government, media, entertainment, education, sports, and sadly, even the military and many of our police forces. Those who support it are largely able to commit crimes with impunity, while those on the right are prosecuted for non crimes, or for crimes they have not actually committed.

China and Russia are ROFL at all western “leaders” as they look to one-up each other in their fight against climate change. The more salient quote from this article “As Napoleon said, “Never interrupt the enemy when his making a mistake.” Ten years ago the Republicans said that there is no point in making sacrifices for global warming if the Chicoms weren’t on board. So the Chicoms learnt to pay lip service to global warming and must be laughing their heads off as we commit economic suicide”.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Barnes Moore
February 2, 2021 6:50 am

Barnes,
The ChiComs seem to be doing a bit more than paying lip service to global warming; they’ve now got their favorite ventriloquist dummy installed in the White House! All of the leftists are lined up, waiting for their turn to see what they can make the dummy say next!

griff
Reply to  Abolition Man
February 3, 2021 12:49 am

A partisan and narrow political statement which only detracts from any debate on whether it is warming or not and if so how much

Reply to  griff
February 3, 2021 7:08 am

Not the warming is in question but the reason

griff
Reply to  Barnes Moore
February 3, 2021 12:48 am

Accepting the science of climate change is nothing like a religion.

The widespread nature of climate science support shows this.

Reply to  griff
February 3, 2021 7:11 am

It’s nothing other, skeptics are seen as heritics, can’t have arguments not woth to discuss with, because it’s settled science, contradiction not allowed.
It’s nothing other than religion.

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
February 3, 2021 8:09 am

Actually it has all the hallmarks of a religion and none of a scientific hypothesis. Science does not support it, which leaves only unsupported faith on the part of its believers.

Jim Carson
February 2, 2021 5:18 am

I had hoped this kooky and needlessly insulting article was written by someone we could easily dismiss, but it seems he’s affiliated with Heartland. I am (was?) a big fan of Heartland, and I hope they’ll quietly disassociate with this hate-filled lunatic.

griff
Reply to  Jim Carson
February 3, 2021 12:50 am

I’ll be honest, as someone on the other side of this debate, this article is only too typical of much of climate skepticism. and Heartland.

The carrying over of US political viewpoints into science does not help or clarify or advance debate

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
February 3, 2021 8:13 am

All the more remarkable as, I believe, the author is Australian.

Michael in Dublin
February 2, 2021 5:19 am

David Archibald is correct I believe in the qualification “global warming/climate change is the religion of choice for militant atheists.” A number of atheists commenting overlooked this and that what follows is attributed to this specific group.

However, it is not quite so simple. A number of professing Christians are concerned because they think catastrophic climate change is imminent. They are also inconsistent. They forget the Christian teaching that there is a sovereign, providential God who “causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” (righteous = those who do what is morally good). They forget Jesus telling his followers to focus on serving him and doing what is right, today, and not to worry unnecessarily about tomorrow.

MJB
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
February 2, 2021 5:51 am

I for one did not overlook it – if anything it added to the offense. By many religious peoples definition an atheist that does not carefully and quietly hide their beliefs, or who dares to question even the minutest aspect of religious dogma or gross over-reaches into civil society, is a militant.

Even if you allow the most generous interpretation of the ‘militant’ qualifier, he still paints with a brush too broad when generalizing that “their meaningless lives would seem empty, hollow, depressing and pointless” and that “militant atheists” are predominantly AGW alarmists.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  MJB
February 2, 2021 8:07 am

Over the past seven decades I have seen the close correlation between what people believe and how they behave. For some it goes far beyond argument and disagreement.

I have yet to come across a single militant atheist who is calling for physical action to silence those promoting climate alarmism. All their actions go in one direction and that is against all climate dissenters – not climate deniers as they are falsely branded.

I am happy to reason with those who hold different views as long as they do not resort to personal attacks – usually an indication there is no substance to their views.

MJB
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
February 2, 2021 9:43 am

This comment will probably read as a bit snarky, hopefully you’ll believe me when I say that’s not my intention, I am genuinely trying to understand your point.

First, I agree with you and fully condemn any personal attacks. I might add a rider in that I do not consider calling someone out in a debate or public forum to which they have willingly entered an attack.

Definition of terms matters I suppose (militant vs non-militant atheist, etc), but this is not the best forum to tease those out. A few questions perhaps:

1) How did you determine who were atheists, militant or otherwise, and who were not?

I am genuinely confused by your second paragraph in particular:

2) Are you suggesting that the only way for an atheist, militant or otherwise, to show support for realism is by “calling for physical action to silence those promoting climate alarmism”?. I know many atheists actively promoting climate realism. I certainly do my own small part through lectures and advocacy in my professional capacity.

3) Do you mean to say that the people calling for physical action against dissenters are disproportionately atheists? If yes then i go back to question 1).

David A
Reply to  MJB
February 3, 2021 5:02 am

MJB, in answer to your number one question, consider that most of the One World Government crowd are from the same school of secular humanism and moral relativism that is also prevalant and dominate in academia, and clearly associated with atheistic communism.

Communism is indeed atheist dominated, and it history of democide certainly fits ” “physical action against dissenters.”

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
February 2, 2021 1:33 pm

“I have yet to come across a single militant atheist who is calling for physical action to silence those promoting climate alarmism.”
__________________________

What, like wrestle them to the ground??

fred250
Reply to  TheFinalNail
February 2, 2021 8:33 pm

calling for physical action to silence those promoting climate alarmism

.

Just debating them face to face would destroy most alarmists. !

FEAR is a mind-killer . (mis-quote from Dune… iirc)

Last edited 2 months ago by fred250
David A
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
February 3, 2021 4:51 am

Are you likewise offended by calling Islamists militant religionists? It is simply factual, the doctrine of Communism is atheistic, as is the One World Government crowd and their moral relativism and Secular Humanism.

The tranny of the militant religionists can be shown to be fundemental flaws of the human condition. An historical based argument can be made that atheism mixes more readily with those certain fundemental flaws that exist in the human condition, whereas certain charteristics of most religions more effectively combat the fundemental human flaw of seeking power OVER others.

ResourceGuy
February 2, 2021 5:38 am

Insiders say there is a gatekeeper process to slow reports down to a crawl in the White House Science Office. It is a longstanding tradition there, probably for good reason in the case of John Holdren the court jester.

bonbon
February 2, 2021 5:39 am

It should be clear why the US Founders insisted on separation of Church and State?

After all the U.K. is a theocracy with the nominal Doge , a head of a church.
Now that the Vatican’s head has adopted Gaia, hey, the great schism of Henry VIII is forgiven!
Add in Mount Athos’s Head, Bartholomew the Green, and that schism of 1100 AD is forgiven!

Gaia the Great Resetter! Only problem is, bring the kids as offerings to the alter.
This makes the Aztecs look like a coffee shop!

KT66
Reply to  bonbon
February 2, 2021 6:36 am

It’s too bad that author didn’t take this tact. This is the real problem and I think his main point. It’s a marriage of church and state. AGW is a religion.

Richard Page
Reply to  bonbon
February 2, 2021 8:17 am

My god but you are off your meds with a vengeance bonbon. Your usual anti-British drivel appears to be more disconnected from reality than usual and trawling through the gutters in search of things to rant about. Find a nice quiet place to sit and cool yourself before you do yourself an injury, dear!

Steve E.
February 2, 2021 5:52 am

Well written, but…
short of icebergs in the Chesapeake or ice sakting on the Thames, the battle for the hearts and minds of the masses regarding climate change is over. We lost. It is time to start building the giant pile of OPM needed to cover the earth in windmills.

Why the pessimism? The following comment I made in another, fairly conservative forum was deemed too controversial for discussion:
…society has allowed activists to drive the agenda, with actual science minimized, denigrated
and often abused. The goal often appears to be to prevent any serious discussion that does not conform to the message that man-made CO2 drives warming AND disaster is imminent.

Right now, I don’t believe anything written or said is going to alter the trajectory we are on.

Steven
Reply to  Steve E.
February 2, 2021 7:01 am

Conform

Death follows Apathy

griff
Reply to  Steve E.
February 3, 2021 12:53 am

don’t give up the ship.

argue like Curry, not Heller and there might be a better debate

Bruce Cobb
February 2, 2021 6:03 am

“the Biden Illegitimacy”
Heh. That’s just another rabid, emotion-based belief system. Other than pulling the US out of the Paris Travesty, TraitorTrump showed over and over that he was no friend of Skeptics or of defeating Warmunism.

2hotel9
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 2, 2021 7:03 am

Wow, that fantasy world you live in is a sad little place.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  2hotel9
February 2, 2021 7:19 am

Said the moron living in Trumpderland.

2hotel9
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 2, 2021 7:27 am

Ohhh, direct hit, boilers are out and compartments flooding fast. You best hurry, all the other rats will fill the lifeboats before you can get your tinfoil hat straightened for your grand exit.

Last edited 2 months ago by 2hotel9
Abolition Man
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 2, 2021 7:05 am

Did you miss the part about the US becoming energy independent with a smoking hot economy due to lowered regulations and energy costs?
Also please specify what you thought was treasonous! The FBI knew in March of 2017 that the Russian Collusion claim was a hoax created by the Clinton campaign and the DNC, yet they covered it up to give us The Mueller Witch-hunt! The January 6th “insurrection” seems to have been largely created and instigated by Antifa and BLM agitators who are certainly no fans of Trump! The only real question at this point is how much the DemoKKKrat leadership knew about the planning and if the lack of adequate security was intentional or mere incompetence! There were lots of useful idiots involved as well, but Marxists always keep some of those around for special events!

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Abolition Man
February 2, 2021 7:20 am

Moron.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 2, 2021 11:32 am

It is generally accepted that when someone resorts to insults it is because they are out of intellectual ammunition.

fred250
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 2, 2021 8:01 pm

“Moron.”

.

Bruce is in his House of mirrors, yet again. !

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 2, 2021 7:09 am

Zhou Bai-Den “listens to the scientists.”

griff
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 3, 2021 12:52 am

to be honest, he advanced himself rather than any established political viewpoint or the viewpoint of any organised community of opinion…

John Bell
February 2, 2021 6:18 am

I am an atheist* and a capitalist, I am NOT a leftist/socialist/marxist. *depending on how you define your god(s), if your god is something vague like the love you feel in your heart then yes I am all for it, but if your god is a giant invisible man in the sky, then no I doubt it. I am a life member of FFRF and American Atheists because I am all for the separation of state and church, INCLUDING the church of climate change. I became disenchanted with those two groups when they lurched leftward and started preaching global warming religion. All leftists use fossil fuels every day and they are hypocrites for doing so, they could live like the Amish.

John Bell
Reply to  John Bell
February 2, 2021 6:34 am

And by the way if your life would be so meaningless and empty without an imaginary sky friend, that is a sad commentary on your life. We ask for proof of global warming, how about proof of your god(s)?

2hotel9
Reply to  John Bell
February 2, 2021 7:03 am

Where is your proof there is no god? Trot it out and show us. No religion requires more faith in a “god” than atheism.

Reply to  2hotel9
February 2, 2021 7:11 am

Proof of absence, really ?? 😀

2hotel9
Reply to  Krishna Gans
February 2, 2021 7:25 am

Yes. If it is so obvious it should be easy.

Reply to  2hotel9
February 2, 2021 8:06 am

Never ever 😀

2hotel9
Reply to  Krishna Gans
February 2, 2021 8:15 am

Been waiting several decades for prove no god exists, it is like cold fusion, just around the corner.

Reply to  2hotel9
February 2, 2021 8:48 am

Tells me something about your understanding of science, waiting for an absence proof 😀

TonyG
Reply to  Krishna Gans
February 2, 2021 9:22 am

I’m still waiting for someone to prove that unicorns don’t exist.

2hotel9
Reply to  Krishna Gans
February 2, 2021 1:41 pm

Has nothing to do with science, it is religion. Atheists effeminately screech “There is no god!”. OK. Prove it. I just keep jabbing a finger in their eye and laughing. If their faith in their religion is so fragile it is shattered by me dropping a joke on them, well, then they need to sit down and SERIOUSLY re-evaluate what they belief.
And don’t miss the point, the left LOVES atheists, they are so easily manipulated.

Reply to  2hotel9
February 2, 2021 2:29 pm

I’m atheist, I sreech nothing, and doen’t ask to prove God. I just don’t believe what religious people tell me about religion, that’s all.
You can tell me a lot, but not “prove absence” or “prove existance”.
It doesn’t interest me, not the absence, not the existance.
And what leftist love in that concern doesn’t touch me.

Last edited 2 months ago by Krishna Gans
fred250
Reply to  Krishna Gans
February 2, 2021 8:03 pm

“It doesn’t interest me, not the absence, not the existence.”

.

And don’t the religious zealots like “2hotel9” absolutely HATE that idea.

2hotel9
Reply to  Krishna Gans
February 3, 2021 4:58 am

You claim no interest in any of this, and yet clearly you are very interested in it. On a regular basis I read and hear atheists demanding religion be removed from everything. Sure, lets us start by removing the religion of atheism first, since it is, apparently, so inconsequential to any issues of actual importance.

You and I have discussed this before, you weren’t so antagonized by a simple joke then. What could possibly have changed?

Reply to  2hotel9
February 3, 2021 5:32 am

Politics are politics, and religion is religion, that’s all.
It’s not my fault, some climatists behave like priests and declare every skeptic as heretic.

Reply to  2hotel9
February 3, 2021 5:34 am

If it’s a discussion, I take part, yes, but in my daily life, it has no place.

jim hogg
Reply to  2hotel9
February 3, 2021 7:08 am

Religions have placed themselves beyond logic and proof. They couldn’t survive otherwise. The only evidence, as such, for belief, is what they claim happens inside each believer’s head. There is no physical evidence observable to us, objectively, outside of human heads that necessarily implies or proves the existence of any God by any reasonable yardstick. There is nothing that’s known to us already in the universe that needs more explanation than logic and evidence can provide. There is no room for a god or supernatural explanation for anything we’ve encountered yet. No reputable field of science operates by religious principles.

We also know that many people are prone to believe absolute nonsense despite a more than sufficient evidence of their errors – flat earthers, moon landing hoaxers, 9/11 inside jobbers. birthers, etc. Many millions fall into that category. Many more millions fall into the category of mistaken beliefs about all sorts of things because of lack of knowledge. Many more false beliefs depend on faulty judgement. Many millions misunderstand the written word on a daily basis. If you take yourself to a large scale poetry site (poemhunter would do) and read the comments by readers about the poems they’ve just read, you’ll see that a significant proportion of readers who are there because of their interest in the written word have real problems understanding.it. The fault lies in us and one of its many aberrant products is religion.

Evidence of the non existence of a phenomenon atheists believe doesn’t exist? I’m quite happy with my position that the non existence of any God is proved beyond reasonable doubt (the very reasonable standard that’s required to demonstrate innocence) by the sheer absence of evidence in favour of it’s/their existence. As for the peurile “effeminately screech” remark, I suspect that reflects badly on the quality of your commitment to your own religion.

2hotel9
Reply to  jim hogg
February 4, 2021 5:00 am

“Religions have placed themselves beyond logic and proof” Which is precisely why the political left has created their Man Caused Globall Warmining religion, can’t be argued with. And they are using it to push their agenda, create laws and regulations and brainwash children into accepting nonsensical crap.

As to my commitment to a religion, when did humor become a religion? Want to speak on religion causing harm? Lets us start with islam, then we can move on to catholicism.

niceguy
Reply to  jim hogg
February 5, 2021 6:32 am

The funny thing is: our French “Ministère des affaires étrangères” (State Dept) official stance on Macrongate and on the accusation on the secret account “offshore aux Bahamas”, that is, that the alleged PDF evidence is a fraud, actually implies the “Ministère des affaires étrangères” believes (or shall believe) the Obama long-form birth certificate is a computer creation and not authentic.

David A
Reply to  Krishna Gans
February 3, 2021 5:11 am

Krishna, I think the difference between an agnostic and an atheist is informative here.
The atheist has your science based only position, whereas the atheist takes a positive position on a negative position, as in “I know there is no God.” IE, faith in a negative.

Reply to  David A
February 3, 2021 5:35 am

I don’t know, if there is a God or not, it doesn’t interest me.

fred250