Rush Limbaugh: Hurricanes are a liberal conspiracy for promoting climate change

[Tassman]

When it's convenient for the propaganda purposes of his latest fake news article on Breitbarf?

Of course, silly me. I forgot that bit.

[Mountain Man]

Maybe the scientists got it wrong. Since when does a YEC trust anything science has to say anyway?

I have no problem with the scientific method and following the evidence where it leads.

[Mountain Man]

I do not see any money making conspiracy among scientists in the climate change area. I do see Gore and probably a few others being exactly using the field as a money making arena.

Government grants seem to flow almost exclusively to those universities and organizations who promote climate change, and to those industries ostensibly combating it. Then, of course, there are the snake oil salesman like Gore, and he's far being the only one. And that's not even looking at the political capital.

To pretend that the climate change scam is somehow altruistic is naive at best.

[Leonhard]

Government grants seem to flow almost exclusively to those universities and organizations who promote climate change, and to those industries ostensibly combating it.

Universities promote and do science. That you don't like the results of the science, doesn't mean there's a conspiracy.

There's also nothing 'ostensible' about solar power, nuclear power, wind power, energy storage or electric cars, all those are in fact decreases of CO2. There's plenty of wildly inaccurate rumors and myths floating around in the conservative sphere. "A Wind Turbine creates more CO2 than it'll ever save" is one of the most hillarious, since it doesn't take more than a couple of years for a wind turbine to earn back all the energy it took to make it. Solar panels in Arizona earn themselves home within only a couple of years as well, and their energy investment within six months for some of the types. Heck even electric vehicles recharged by electricity from coal power plants still produce less CO2 than a diesel or petrol car, because of the enormous inefficiencies of those piston engines (using less than 15% of the energy released in the cylinder and sending most out as useless heat).

As for money flowing almost exclusively to these industries "ostensible fighting it", you do realize that the Coal industry received a much bigger subsidy than they do right? Try to tell the coal mines to suddenly pay the actual rent for the areas, rather than the massively artificially lowered rent they pay, or for the tax or transportation subsidies to be removed. The reality is that that coal and oil are receiving a significant amount of government welfare.

I'd love to see a level playing field as much as you, but the Koch Brothers and Exxon certainly wouldn't.

[Leonhard]

My favorite myth about wind turbines is that they're the cause of the earthquakes in states that do a lot of fracking. Its not the jack hammer pumps slamming down high pressure acidic water to crack the shale, its those slowly turning wind turbines.

[Roy]

As for Darwinian evolution, the next time someone tells you it's "settled science", you'd better check for your wallet, because he's conning you. Even from a strictly scientific perspective, there's good reason to question many of the basic assumptions needed for Darwinian evolution to be true.

https://creation.com/young-universe-evidence

I'm not going to get into a long, drawn out debate on this because I think the above source speaks well enough for itself.

It certainly does speak for itself - and it says that you're a credulous fool who'll swallow even the flimsiest lies and fallacies if they're used to support something you want to believe. None of the items listed in that article give any reason to question anything except the honesty and gullibility of the author. That you link to that garbage while describing some-one else as being 'an ignorant fool who would swallow it all without a second thought' is hilarious.

[Mountain Man]

It certainly does speak for itself - and it says that you're a credulous fool who'll swallow even the flimsiest lies and fallacies if they're used to support something you want to believe. None of the items listed in that article give any reason to question anything except the honesty and gullibility of the author. That you link to that garbage while describing some-one else as being 'an ignorant fool who would swallow it all without a second thought' is hilarious.

Yeah, OK. Much easier to insult and dismiss than to give a substantive response, isn't it?

But to be fair, I did say I didn't want to get this thread sidetracked in a drawn-out, off-topic debate, but I did happen to recently read through the thread you linked to, and I think the poster named "logician bones" did an excellent job making the case that an old earth is anything but "settled science".

[Leonhard]

Yeah, OK. Much easier to insult and dismiss than to give a substantive response, isn't it?

Not sure what else you expected. You linked to a fringe website, and didn't even bother to make any argument, but just referred to them. As such I don't think we need to do more than simple state our opinion of that source. If you want specifics open up a thread in NatSci.

[Roy]

Yeah, OK. Much easier to insult and dismiss than to give a substantive response, isn't it?

You ought to know, since that's what you did.

But to be fair, I did say I didn't want to get this thread sidetracked in a drawn-out, off-topic debate, but I did happen to recently read through the thread you linked to, and I think the poster named "logician bones" did an excellent job making the case that an old earth is anything but "settled science".

He did an excellent job of avoiding discussing any details by referring to YEC articles that don't exist.

[Mountain Man]

He did an excellent job of avoiding discussing any details by referring to YEC articles that don't exist.

People can read the thread for themselves and come to their own conclusion, which won't necessarily be the one you want.

[EvoUK]

But to be fair, I did say I didn't want to get this thread sidetracked in a drawn-out, off-topic debate, but I did happen to recently read through the thread you linked to, and I think the poster named "logician bones" did an excellent job making the case that an old earth is anything but "settled science".

You can't expect your suspicion of climate change to be taken seriously when moment later you're referring to a young earth. It throws your ability to objectively analyse the evidence into question.

I figured you denied climate change due to partisan political reasons, not that you're just credulous in general.

[Mountain Man]

You can't expect your suspicion of climate change to be taken seriously when moment later you're referring to a young earth. It throws your ability to objectively analyse the evidence into question.

I figured you denied climate change due to partisan political reasons, not that you're just credulous in general.

Yeah, I have this bad habit of allowing myself to be influenced by the facts.

[EvoUK]

Yeah, I have this bad habit of allowing myself to be influenced by the facts.

Given your stated positions, that doesn't really add up. Unless you're pulling our leg when you say that the evidence points to a young earth.

[Roy]

Yeah, I have this bad habit of allowing myself to be influenced by the facts.

You think creation.com's claim's are facts???

[Mountain Man]

"How dare you present facts that contradict me! "