If enough people believe anything it's considered "normal".

Off Topic » in reply to Climate 'denial' is now a mental disorder

If enough people believe anything it's considered "normal".

Bowser — 3/11/2009 10:44:27 AM (archived)

Take a look at some of the fondest beliefs in most religions, for instance. Jesus' virgin birth, or rising from the dead. Those take a leap of faith, because reason will not support them, yet those folks aren't considered crazy.

Most religions believe that "God" loves their adherents above all other of His creatures. That has to be an insane belief, and yet those people are regarded as highly as anyone who thinks that any entity worthy of the title "God" would love all his creatures equally. At least all creatures in the same species.

Flat Earthers and Creationists are allowed to vote. Go to TBN and watch Benny Hinn - nuttier than an almond farm, and yet because there are so many trees in that orchard he's not only not locked up but makes a small fortune.

Anyone who is able to deny that the CO2 pumped into the atmosphere by mankind hasn't affected the climate has decided to short-circuit the reasoning and observational abilities they were granted through the judicious application of amino acids in a nuturing environment. If there weren't a lot of them they'd be locked up.

Arf

The whole thread (46 posts)

Climate 'denial' is now a mental disorder - S - 3/10/2009 8:25:34 PM
- If enough people believe anything it's considered "normal". - Bowser - 3/11/2009 10:44:27 AM
  - The problem is that almost all consideration of global warming is VERY short-term. - David F Mayer - 3/12/2009 10:45:10 PM
    - re: The problem - S - 3/26/2009 7:53:58 PM
  - The Null Hypothesis - S - 3/11/2009 8:54:28 PM
    - And what is there that says there are drivers to keep the current conditions are stable? - Bowser - 3/11/2009 10:25:23 PM
      - There is no permanent stasis in Nature - S - 3/12/2009 8:26:17 PM
        
        I didn't say it very well. - Bowser - 3/15/2009 1:27:05 AM
  - Falsification of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect - S - 3/11/2009 8:05:01 PM
    - Gee, that's odd. - ER - 3/11/2009 10:35:43 PM
      - Well, actually... - Laurie Street - 3/11/2009 11:01:57 PM
        
        I didn't want to confuse the poor boy. - ER - 3/12/2009 12:04:09 AM
        
        And all this... - SDAI-Tech1 - 3/12/2009 10:11:04 PM
        
        re: And all this... - ER - 3/12/2009 10:42:03 PM
        
        Hardly. - SDAI-Tech1 - 3/13/2009 12:32:30 AM
        
        re: Hardly. - ER - 3/13/2009 3:02:05 AM
        
        Hey Mr. S.... - Jody - 3/15/2009 2:35:59 PM
        
        re: Hey Mr. S.... - S - 3/26/2009 7:45:17 PM
        
        Yes, I suppose that was insensitive of me. (n/t) - Laurie Street - 3/12/2009 2:28:54 AM
    - So what you are saying is... - Laurie Street - 3/11/2009 9:16:17 PM
      - Threadbare argument - S - 3/11/2009 9:44:58 PM
        
        I don't even know where to start... (n/t) - Laurie Street - 3/11/2009 11:02:55 PM
        
        Perhaps with my first question - S - 3/12/2009 7:43:31 PM
        
        No. Next? (n/t) - Tony - 3/12/2009 8:03:39 PM
        
        And also... - S - 3/12/2009 8:53:59 PM
        
        Show me the conclusive physics/models that show increasing "greenhouse gasses" produces no "greenhouse effect" (n/t) - Tony - 3/13/2009 12:16:34 PM
        
        Good luck. For AGW there aint no such animal as falsification. ;-) (n/t) - SDAI-Tech1 - 3/12/2009 10:06:26 PM
        
        Bingo. - TB - 3/13/2009 5:23:20 PM
        
        Well said - S - 3/26/2009 7:59:44 PM
        
        Once Upon a Time... - SDAI-Tech1 - 3/14/2009 1:27:13 AM
        
        CO2 vs temperature - Laurie Street - 3/13/2009 8:36:37 PM
        
        Ice graphs to present - Laurie Street - 3/13/2009 8:21:17 PM
        
        It's the mean calculation that stops at 2000, not the data. (n/t) - TB - 3/13/2009 10:55:32 PM
        
        I don't understand what you're saying - ER - 3/13/2009 11:39:50 PM
        
        re: I don't understand what you're saying - TB - 3/14/2009 12:45:01 AM
        
        You obviously don't understand what a linear regression is. - ER - 3/14/2009 2:08:15 AM
        
        I think I see the source of your confusion - ER - 3/14/2009 2:39:27 AM
        
        re: I think I see the source of your confusion - ER - 3/14/2009 2:46:57 AM
        
        re: confusion - TB - 3/14/2009 4:15:28 PM
        
        fusion confusion - ER - 3/14/2009 5:16:28 PM
        
        Average - TB - 3/14/2009 6:25:12 PM
        
        A better link to the graph in question - ER - 3/13/2009 11:56:46 PM
        
        Oh? - S - 3/12/2009 8:51:28 PM
        
        try looking @ more than a decade - tony - 3/12/2009 10:56:20 PM
- It's not a mental disorder. They know exactly what they're doing. (n/t) - ER - 3/11/2009 2:07:02 AM
- Not surprising. - SDAI-Tech1 - 3/11/2009 1:30:19 AM

Recent posts

On this day in Off Topic

The whole thread (46 posts)