Global Warming deniers and Holocaust deniers...

Open discussion on general Baptist-related topics of interest to Baptists around the world.

Moderator: Dave Roberts

Global Warming deniers and Holocaust deniers...

Postby William Thornton » Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:06 am

...are nestled by Robert Parham in the same paragaph in his article Global Warming Worsens, New Ethic Needed. No surprise there.

There is a difference between skeptics and deniers, however. Skeptics doubt with reason. Skeptics are open to truth, to proof. Given evidence, skeptics generally shift from doubt to belief, from reluctance to acceptance.

The same can't be said of deniers--deniers are those who are ideologically unyielding, regardless what evidence is presented, what proof is delivered. Deniers have little room for science, for empirical evidence. No amount of testimony and hard evidence will convince the Holocaust-deniers that the Holocaust really happened, for example. The same kind of rigidity characterizes the global warming deniers who would rather dismiss an abundance of evidence than abandon their false ideology.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12404
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Global Warming deniers and Holocaust deniers...

Postby Chris » Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:27 am

I do not deny that the Holocaust happened. I'm sure it did. What I am leery about is the figure 6,000,000. Why has this number been memorialized? Can it be verified?

I read recently that the Nazis killed over 20,000,000 people in WWII. Why should this particular 30% of them get all the attention (and excessive sympathy).
Jesus paid the price for me and everybody.
Chris
 
Posts: 4190
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 7:29 pm
Location: Newport News, VA

Re: Global Warming deniers and Holocaust deniers...

Postby William Thornton » Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:28 am

Chris wrote:I do not deny that the Holocaust happened. I'm sure it did. What I am leery about is the figure 6,000,000. Why has this number been memorialized? Can it be verified?

I read recently that the Nazis killed over 20,000,000 people in WWII. Why should this particular 30% of them get all the attention (and excessive sympathy).


Huh? Are you serious or putting me on?
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12404
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Global Warming deniers and Holocaust deniers...

Postby Dave Roberts » Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:03 am

Chris wrote:I do not deny that the Holocaust happened. I'm sure it did. What I am leery about is the figure 6,000,000. Why has this number been memorialized? Can it be verified?

I read recently that the Nazis killed over 20,000,000 people in WWII. Why should this particular 30% of them get all the attention (and excessive sympathy).


I have seen the 20,000,000 death figure also. I suspect that includes battlefield deaths, the bombing deaths in Britain, and the unbelievable suffering and death at Stalingrad. It may also include German citizens who died. I would like to see more documentation on how that was arrived at. I suspect the 6,000,000 is pretty well documented in the meticulous records that the Germans kept, even in death camps.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7551
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Global Warming deniers and Holocaust deniers...

Postby ET » Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:49 pm

The thing about human-caused global warming is that there is NO HARD evidence to support the theory that man is the cause of any increase.

I guess the author didn't see this one: January 2008 - 4 sources say “globally cooler” in the past 12 months
From dailytech.com:
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

As the lion said in "The Wizard of Oz", "Strange weather we're having, ain't it?"

From a National Post column:
And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.

The ice is back.

Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.

OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.

But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature. (emphasis mine)

As for the holocaust numbers, the 6,000,000 is the number of Jews. I believe there were another 5,000,000 killed in those same concentration camps. Those victims were labeled "undesirables" (homosexuals, gypsies, handicapped, etc). It's just the genocidal Jewish aspect that gets more exposure for whatever reason. I imagine you'll find that most holocaust deniers have quite a number of conspiracy theories involving the Jews when it comes to various problems in society.
I'm Ed Thompson, and I approve this message.
User avatar
ET
 
Posts: 2805
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:20 pm
Location: Cordova, TN

Re: Global Warming deniers and Holocaust deniers...

Postby Bruce Gourley » Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:09 pm

ET wrote:The thing about human-caused global warming is that there is NO HARD evidence to support the theory that man is the cause of any increase.


As has been documented repeatedly in these forums, there is plenty of hard evidence that humans are contributing to global warming, but some global warming deniers (not most anymore, actually) refuse to believe the facts.
User avatar
Bruce Gourley
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3008
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 7:25 pm
Location: Montana

Re: Global Warming deniers and Holocaust deniers...

Postby William Thornton » Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:16 pm

Bruce Gourley wrote:
ET wrote:The thing about human-caused global warming is that there is NO HARD evidence to support the theory that man is the cause of any increase.


As has been documented repeatedly in these forums, there is plenty of hard evidence that humans are contributing to global warming, but some global warming deniers (not most anymore, actually) refuse to believe the facts.


By adopting the language and vocabulary of the neo-Nazis, Global Warming proponents seek to marginalize, demonize, and villify even those reasoned, scientific voices who haven't gotten the Al Gore word that the debate is over.

As I said to begin, it is not a surprise.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12404
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Global Warming deniers and Holocaust deniers...

Postby Bruce Gourley » Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:28 pm

William Thornton wrote:
Bruce Gourley wrote:
ET wrote:The thing about human-caused global warming is that there is NO HARD evidence to support the theory that man is the cause of any increase.


As has been documented repeatedly in these forums, there is plenty of hard evidence that humans are contributing to global warming, but some global warming deniers (not most anymore, actually) refuse to believe the facts.


By adopting the language and vocabulary of the neo-Nazis, Global Warming proponents seek to marginalize, demonize, and villify even those reasoned, scientific voices who haven't gotten the Al Gore word that the debate is over.

As I said to begin, it is not a surprise.


Are you speaking of the language that our friend David Flick uses to villify and denounce those of us who believe the scientific consensus on global warming? :o
User avatar
Bruce Gourley
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3008
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 7:25 pm
Location: Montana

Re: Global Warming deniers and Holocaust deniers...

Postby jerryl » Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:30 pm

Dave Roberts wrote:I have seen the 20,000,000 death figure also. I suspect that includes battlefield deaths, the bombing deaths in Britain, and the unbelievable suffering and death at Stalingrad. It may also include German citizens who died. I would like to see more documentation on how that was arrived at. I suspect the 6,000,000 is pretty well documented in the meticulous records that the Germans kept, even in death camps.


According to the Wikipedia article, The Holocaust estimates have been done in several ways, and they usually end up suggesting 5-6 million Jewish deaths. (Of course, this is one of those places that if I were doing serious study, I wouldn’t want to rely completely on Wikipedia.)

I read recently that the Nazis killed over 20,000,000 people in WWII. Why should this particular 30% of them get all the attention (and excessive sympathy).


I think it is in good part because of how close the Nazis came to actually accomplishing genocide. And while the death camps included other groups besides Jews, it seems the Jews were the primary victims of the camps. Many other victims, like Slavs and Poles were slated for complete elimination after the 'Jewish Problem' had been taken care of.

I feel a sad connection to the Holocaust because of the deaths of thousands of gay men. But the Holocaust didn't affect the same percentage of gay men as it did Jews. I have no problems with Jews having the primary 'mind share' when the holocaust is mentioned. If fact I find the 'excessive sympathy' comment troubling.

jerryl,
who has friends who's grandparents were Jewish Holocaust survivors.
jerryl
 
Posts: 1563
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 11:34 am
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: Global Warming deniers and Holocaust deniers...

Postby Chris » Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:19 pm

William Thornton wrote:Huh? Are you serious or putting me on?


I chose my words carefully. Take them at face value.
Jesus paid the price for me and everybody.
Chris
 
Posts: 4190
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 7:29 pm
Location: Newport News, VA

Re: Global Warming deniers and Holocaust deniers...

Postby William Thornton » Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:51 pm

Bruce Gourley wrote:Are you speaking of the language that our friend David Flick uses to villify and denounce those of us who believe the scientific consensus on global warming? :o


Well, er, ah, I don't believe my strident GW questioner and favorite Okie escalates the discussion and attendant villification of those who question various aspects of GW by jumping up several orders of magnitude through invoking the language of Neo-Nazis.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12404
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Global Warming deniers and Holocaust deniers...

Postby David Flick » Wed Feb 27, 2008 10:17 pm

William Thornton wrote:
Bruce Gourley wrote:Are you speaking of the language that our friend David Flick uses to villify and denounce those of us who believe the scientific consensus on global warming? :o

Well, er, ah, I don't believe my strident GW questioner and favorite Okie escalates the discussion and attendant villification of those who question various aspects of GW by jumping up several orders of magnitude through invoking the language of Neo-Nazis.

William, I'm watching to see how this plays out. The global warming alarmists, I believe, are beginning to panic. Their worst fears are coming true. The man-made global warming argument is coming unraveled right before their eyes. The "scientific consensus" (Al Gore, James Hansen, the IPCC, and friends) was wrong. There really never was a scientific consensus about man-made global warming. The notion that man can affect global climate change one way or the other is a myth.

I'm in a relaxed mood right now. I'm going to sit back and enjoy this. The alarmists have prophesied gloom and doom about global catastrophe due to anthropogenic global warming. It'll be interesting to see how they explain why their prophesies are failing... :)
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming deniers and Holocaust deniers...

Postby Ed Pettibone » Wed Feb 27, 2008 11:09 pm

Ed: I shoveled 10 inches of global warming out of the driveway behind one of our vehicles today to make room for folk attending a parish planning meeting at the parsonage. Another slide off the back porch roof and I will have to go to the dinning room to see the back yard. the snow is now about a foot form the top of the Windows on the glassed in back porch. :wink:
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: Global Warming deniers and Holocaust deniers...

Postby David Flick » Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:58 am

Ed Pettibone wrote:Ed: I shoveled 10 inches of global warming out of the driveway behind one of our vehicles today to make room for folk attending a parish planning meeting at the parsonage. Another slide off the back porch roof and I will have to go to the dinning room to see the back yard. the snow is now about a foot form the top of the Windows on the glassed in back porch. :wink:

Maybe that's the new wave of man-made global cooling you're dealing with there, Ed? :wink:

I began thinking about the wave of significant ice storms hitting Oklahoma since 2000. I spent about 20 minutes googling Oklahoma Ice storms and realized that since 2000, Oklahoma has experienced five major ice storms, affecting at least 1,170,000 customers, causing more than $374.5 million in property damages with more than 78 fatalities. I created an incomplete chart that doesn't include property damages for one of those storms. The dollar figure of the latest (and biggest) storm (dubbed the "Great Ice Storm of 2007") was listed a "hundreds of millions".

One of my favorite editorial cartoons about global warming is by Jim Lange of the Daily Oklahoman. This appeared in the Oklahoman on 1/7/05...

. . . . . . . .Image
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming deniers and Holocaust deniers...

Postby ET » Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:23 pm

Well, Bruce, I give you a quote by Michael Crichton about "consensus" in science:
"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.

"Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus." -- Michael Crichton, author, Harvard Medical School graduate and former postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies

How many great scientific discoveries have come about because someone decided to think outside the box and not follow the consensus?

Here's an even better quote that doesn't let the global warmers hide behind the graphs and charts that supposedly are the foundation of the "scientific consensus" - just plain old common sense in this one:
"Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horse****? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?

"But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon….

"Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it's even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They're bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment's thought knows it." (emphasis mine)

Now I imagine that 100 years ago scientists could have reached a "consensus" about the amount of horse poop and the "inevitable" cholera or typhoid epidemic that was sure to wipe out NYC and every other large city in the world within the next 50 to 100 years. They could have made charts and graphs showing the coming doomsday as the horse pooped increased as a result of population growth.

There might have been calls to ban horses or to find ones with lower "emissions" or to run them on more efficient "fuels" that produced less waste. They could have required folks to collect their horse poop and recycle it as fuel or fertilizer. They might have imposed a "poop tax" on the sale of each horse or an annual fee to "offset" the costs of handling the dangerous (from a sanitation standpoint), undesirable waste. Scientists and politicians could have used the "consensus" as a basis for imposing a tremendously ridiculous, costly plan that would seem laughable to us now. Now in the present day, as Crichton points out, we want to project our current lives 50 or 100 years into the future and make doomsday claims about what will come unless we "do something". Why? What similar doomsday predictions in the past have come true upon which to base such action? Do any of these current predictions take into account possible technological advances that may render all this CO2 stuff moot? No.

If there's one thing about science, it is that it seems to continually show us that we all too often are proved wrong in what we we believed science had shown to be true. How much about what you were taught about the atom in school has changed over the years? Too bad someone hasn't posted a list of scientific "consensus" that has proven to be wrong over the last 200 or so years. I'm sure it would be lengthy.

The eco-imperialists HATE coal, absolutely and radically HATE it (see the Sierra Club's web site for a tracking list of proposed coal power plants and tips on how to "fight" them). Coal is the most abundant and cost efficient means of energy in this country, yet there are a large number of "rich" people who would deny the poorer in society low-cost electricity on the basis of "consensus" science, which is fine with them as they will simply offer income redistribution plans (tax schemes) to offset the increased cost and assuage their conscience for increasing energy costs for "the poor". Does anyone want to state that at some point in the next 10, 15 or 20 years a method won't be discovered to make it tremendously less polluting than it is now?

(Man-made) Global warming - the horse fertilizer of the 21st century!

An example of the hypocrisy of the eco-imperialist crowd is the love affair with the compact fluorescent bulb. Is there not a "consensus" that mercury is bad for humans? After years of hearing the hand-wringing over mercury in this or that, now they have successfully lobbied to banish the less energy efficient, but superior (in terms of lighting) incandescent light bulb from normal use fours years from now. They have gone from wailing about mercury in everything else to telling us the eventual use and disposal of billions of CFBs with a "small amount" of mercury in them are nothing to worry about. GE sure doesn't mind, as it is the primary provider of the bulbs in the US and makes 5 times the money on a CFB as an incandescent and also gets to look "socially responsible" and "green". It's cool to them because while they can't as a private business force consumers to buy their product, the government can use scientific "consensus" to make us buy them. (BTW, I do use some CFBs in my house, but they are inferior to incandescent. I've got them dated so as to see if they actually last "5 years" or "7 years". I doubt they will. They have their uses (such as our house's exterior soffit lights), but to me incandescents are worth the extra cost in electricity for indoor applications.)

People got all riled up recently over lead in paint in toys, but what about when you drop that CFB while changing bulbs and break it? Now there's a mercury spill in your house compliments of the eco crowd through no fault of your own because the eco-imperialists used government power to take away your freedom of choice to buy another type of light bulb you might have preferred. Thanks a lot.

So keep bringing the charts, graphs and other data. One day they'll make good displays in the "Museum of Bogus Predictions".

P.S. Something to think about when you're alone in your car after coming home from the grocery store, just after you've closed the garage door and right before you turn off the engine, or maybe enjoying the beauty of nature while sitting on an cliff in the mountains. If humans are the cause of global warming, what's the biggest single contribution you can make to help fight it? Just be sure to leave a note explaining your decision so we can proclaim you a hero in the fight against global warming! :D
Last edited by ET on Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I'm Ed Thompson, and I approve this message.
User avatar
ET
 
Posts: 2805
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:20 pm
Location: Cordova, TN

Re: Global Warming deniers and Holocaust deniers...

Postby David Flick » Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:33 pm

ET wrote:So keep bringing the charts, graphs and other data. One day they'll make good displays in the "Museum of Bogus Predictions".

EdT, the eight most prominent exhibits in the Museum of Bogus Predictions will be:

  1. An Inconvenient Truth (the book) by Al Gore
  2. An Inconvenient Truth (the movie) by Al Gore
  3. IPCC First Assessment Report (1990)
  4. IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR) (1995)
  5. IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) (2001)
  6. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) (2007)
  7. The Hockey Stick global temperature graph (created by Michael Mann)
  8. BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, ( Essay by Naomi Oreskes declaring that there is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth's climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason.)

The Museum of Bogus Predictions will almost certainly contain a few marble busts of bogus prophets. The most prominent of these will be
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Al and Naomi

Postby Prentice Fox » Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:54 pm

Flick, I see Al Gore's book, "An Inconvenient Truth" is on sale for 99 cents now. And Naomi Oreskes, one of the authorities on Global warming, must live in Southern California or Florida now with that beautiful Palm Tree behind her. She is an attractive young lady, and must have "Warmed the Heart of Many a Man." Have there been any studies yet on the amount of carbons emissions released when a formerly purely platonic relationship suddenly erupts into a purely erotic relationship? There must be a Government Grant here somewhere for this Project!!
Prentice Fox
 

Re: Al and Naomi

Postby David Flick » Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:20 pm

Prentice Fox wrote:1Flick, I see Al Gore's book, "An Inconvenient Truth" is on sale for 99 cents now. 2And Naomi Oreskes, one of the authorities on Global warming, must live in Southern California or Florida now with that beautiful Palm Tree behind her. She is an attractive young lady, and must have "Warmed the Heart of Many a Man." Have there been any studies yet on the amount of carbons emissions released when a formerly purely platonic relationship suddenly erupts into a purely erotic relationship? 3There must be a Government Grant here somewhere for this Project!!

1) Gee, I didn't know that... :o Oh well, hardly any of the information in the book is correct and the information found therein isn't worth 2 cents. However, if one is looking for a book of nice looking photos, I suppose it might be worth .99 cents...

2) Yes, she is from Southern California. She's a Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California San Diego.

3) You have that right. The GW alarmists are rolling in the money. They have $50,000.00 for every $19.00 the skeptics have to work with.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming deniers and Holocaust deniers...

Postby David Flick » Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:22 am

Rather than start a new thread, I'll just post it here with no comments.

The article speaks for itself...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming deniers and Holocaust deniers...

Postby David Flick » Fri Mar 07, 2008 3:18 am

What about that so-called consensus? (This appeared on the internet yesterday)

Source... wrote:A November editorial in The New York Times spelled it out: "... the consequences could be disastrous: further melting at the poles, sea levels rising high enough to submerge island nations, the elimination of one-quarter or more of the world's species, widespread famine in places like Africa, more violent hurricanes." What's more, there is no time to waste: "...the world must stabilize the emission of greenhouse gases by 2015, begin to reduce them shortly thereafter and largely free itself of carbon-emitting technologies by midcentury."

In support of this nonsense, the Times offered the report of "the International Panel on Climate Change, a group of 2500 scientists who collectively constitute the world's most authoritative voice on global warming." In the ensuing months, a major effort has been made to establish that this panel's view is the all-but-unanimous opinion of the world's climatologists on the question. It is, however, no such thing. More than 19,000 scientists have signed a petition saying global warming is probably natural and not a crisis. (The complete list can be seen at http://www.oism.org/pproject.)


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(Red highlighting mine - David Flick)
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming deniers and Holocaust deniers...

Postby rickwright01 » Fri Mar 07, 2008 12:19 pm

William Thornton wrote:...are nestled by Robert Parham in the same paragaph in his article Global Warming Worsens, New Ethic Needed. No surprise there.

There is a difference between skeptics and deniers, however. Skeptics doubt with reason. Skeptics are open to truth, to proof. Given evidence, skeptics generally shift from doubt to belief, from reluctance to acceptance.

The same can't be said of deniers--deniers are those who are ideologically unyielding, regardless what evidence is presented, what proof is delivered. Deniers have little room for science, for empirical evidence. No amount of testimony and hard evidence will convince the Holocaust-deniers that the Holocaust really happened, for example. The same kind of rigidity characterizes the global warming deniers who would rather dismiss an abundance of evidence than abandon their false ideology.


I happen to have little difficulty with the idea (theory? conclusion?) that global warming (a) is happening and (b) is significantly influenced by human activity. (Genesis 6-8 anyone? Conservatives read their Bibles one assumes.) That having been said such comparisons are unfortunate. Those who question the "consensus" are like Holocaust deniers? Geez leweez. And unfortunately such over the top rhetoric seems to be all too common with Robert Parham. Whether we are "brother moderates" is beside the point. Moderates of all people should know better than to employ extreme, excessive, divisive, polarizing, and demonizing rhetoric. Remember the despicable Wall Street Journal editorial blasting the New Baptist Covenant? And yet who gave her some of her best ammunition? (Robert Parham.) Anyone who uses Nazi/Holocaust comparisons to marginalize (a favorite mod-lib term right?) their opponents is already on mighty thin ice. And just because those who use such comparisons are "right" does not justify the practice.

When I hear about another lambast from Parham... a certain British word comes to mind.
Resist Creon.
"It is now considered patriotic to celebrate our own evisceration." (Gary Graham at Bighollywood.Breitbart.Com)
User avatar
rickwright01
 
Posts: 844
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:16 pm
Location: Baton Rouge, LA

Re: Global Warming deniers and Holocaust deniers...

Postby Joshua Villines » Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:14 pm

rickwright01 wrote:nyone who uses Nazi/Holocaust comparisons to marginalize (a favorite mod-lib term right?) their opponents is already on mighty thin ice.


Yup, Godwin's Law.
"Saying that CBF churches are more progessive than SBC ones because they support the ordination of women is like noting that one flat-earth society is more progressive than the other because it admits to the existence of gravity."
User avatar
Joshua Villines
Forum Tech Support
 
Posts: 1840
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 11:04 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Global Warming deniers and Holocaust deniers...

Postby Jonathan » Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:26 pm

Joshua Villines wrote:
rickwright01 wrote:nyone who uses Nazi/Holocaust comparisons to marginalize (a favorite mod-lib term right?) their opponents is already on mighty thin ice.


Yup, Godwin's Law.


Learned a new latin phrase for use in debate: reductio ad Hitlerum
"There is a simple way to get corporate money out of politics: get the government out of our lives and economic affairs. If government has no favors to sell, no one will spend money trying to win them." - John Stossel
Jonathan
 
Posts: 4209
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 9:31 am


Return to Baptist Faith & Practice Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest