UK media are shutting out evangelicals and climate-change deniers

UK media are shutting out evangelicals and climate-change deniers January 3, 2020

NEWS outlets in Britain, including the BBC, are treating devout Christians and climate change deniers as ‘a bunch of very strange people.’

Image via YouTube

The result, says Graham Nicholls, above, Director of Affinity – a network of UK churches and evangelical agencies – is that the Christian voice is “a bit” lost in national mainstream media.

On national media, an evangelical, orthodox view is very rarely expressed. If it is expressed, it’s kind of given as a sort of setup for ‘Here’s a bunch of very strange people who have quite strange views.’

Image via YouTube

Nicholls, was reacting to a complaint by Conservative peer Charles Moore, above. Journalist Moore  – Margaret Thatcher’s biographer – claimed on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that the national broadcaster has a liberal bias, specifically on Brexit and climate change.

What I am objecting to is preaching. The BBC has decided to be a secular church and it preaches and tells us what we ought to think about things. So it tells us we shouldn’t support Brexit and we should accept climate change alarmism and we have to all kowtow to the doctrines of diversity.

Moore’s comments came after he said he faced “obstacles” within the BBC to get a climate change sceptic onto the show.

He said that even though he was a guest editor, he was having difficulties:

Trying to get all this stuff about climate change onto this programme. Obstacles come in every single time because of rulings and bureaucracy and the fact that Roger Harabin, the environment editor, is so biased.

Today host, Nick Robinson, defended his colleague and said the BBC reported the “global consensus” on climate science. He added that the BBC is regulated by Ofcom and the law when it comes to its news coverage.

Nicholls said he has “a lot of sympathy” with what Moore had to say, especially when broadened out to issues other than Brexit and climate change.

I think it’s an unquestioning acceptance of a number of things, whether it’s to do with moral issues or to do with what climate change. There’s no longer… an acceptance that some things are tentative, some things are untested.

I think the problem with that is you then become intolerant of any other views, so your whole questioning and framing of questions becomes based on a number of presumptions.

He added that there’s the danger that news media is “no longer objectively” bring news:

But actually bringing a whole set of biases and presumptions and everyone, Christian or non, is the worst for it.

In dismissing Nicholls’ and Moore’s accusation, Robinson said the broadcaster has fair news coverage, and denied the claim that the BBC told listeners not to eat meat to help the environment.

We report people who say you shouldn’t eat meat and we interview people who say you should. We are not telling people to do anything.

"Hmmm, I could see a nasty expose catching all of them in the same den ..."

Vandal in vigil to force German ..."
"Well, that's one point of view.You might like Mark Steel's opinion on The News Quiz ..."

Barmy Brexit bell-ringing plan blasted by ..."
"You need help. Put the trench coat back in the closet. You're a freak. Deal ..."

Catholic school apologises over Chicago’s Nutcracker ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Raging Bee

    On national media, an evangelical, orthodox view is very rarely expressed. If it is expressed, it’s kind of given as a sort of setup for ‘Here’s a bunch of very strange people who have quite strange views.’

    He should be glad the Beeb are using relatively innocuous words like “strange,” when they could (and SHOULD) be using words like “stupid,” “backward,” “regressive,” “dishonest,” “insane,” “repeatedly proven dead wrong,” etc.

  • Martin Penwald

    Giving a voice to climate change deniers is giving a voice to fake news and disinformation. It’s then normal for a respectable news outlet to refuse to give them air time.

  • llDayo

    I’ll wait patiently until evangelical or orthodox churches start allowing guest holy men from other religions (not just Christian) to come in and try to “recruit” their parishioners…

  • llDayo

    Don’t forget the whole kiddie diddler issue. That doesn’t exactly invite others to want to interview you.

  • Geoff Benson

    Exactly, it’s the false equivalence idea. Just because an idea is quite widespread doesn’t make it legitimate. Good ideas can be debated, such as how we address climate change or predicting its effects, but giving airtime to the denialists is to waste time.

  • WallofSleep

    “The BBC has decided to be a secular church and it preaches and tells us what we ought to think about things.”

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xTndEeOC7Lk/TxigJPw3MzI/AAAAAAAAAfM/qF4vdselAGA/s1600/PotKettleBlack.jpg

  • WallofSleep

    “I think it’s an unquestioning acceptance of a number of things, whether it’s to do with moral issues or to do with what climate change. There’s no longer… an acceptance that some things are tentative, some things are untested.”

    https://media.giphy.com/media/GOXDFrZpjTlHG/giphy.gif

  • Raging Bee

    ZOMG THIS IS JUST AS HORRIBLE AND UNFAIR AS THEIR POLICY OF IGNORING FLAT-EARTHERS! RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!! WHY ISN’T ANYONE THINKING OF THE (overgrown) CHILDREN?!!!

  • Michael Neville

    Moore’s complaint is that his opinions are just as valid as climatologists’ facts.

  • Tawreos

    I guess having the whole of the American government to use as their plaything isn’t enough and they need British TV as well.

  • Broga

    The BBC has censored secular opinions from their religious so called “Thought for the Day.” They load every Sunday with TV and radio religious programmes. They stuff religious comments from vicars into other programmes. They have some smarmy vicar now inserting himself into non religious programmes. And now, not having done enough damage, they want to give climate deniers a chance to push their “facts” which are contradicted by anyone who wants to look at what is happening in the world.

    On climate change the critical point has been passed. There is no way back as the only time the imminent disaster will lead to effective action is when it is too late. Australia is a current example with a doltish Prime Minister (or whatever they call him) insisting that climate change is fiction and exporting coal in vast amounts to China. Now that much of Australia is in flames this nutter has decide to rethink the export of coal to China. I heard a USA climate change scientist say that he thinks that by the end of the century the human species will struggle to survive.

    Meanwhile, back to religion, the Vatican and other religions oppose any curbs on population growth.

    Happy New Year.

  • abb3w

    Giving an example, Nicholls said: “You would say ‘this is true, so here's a set of questions’. You would never say ‘here's a set of questions that says the consensus seems to be the climate change exists. But let's listen to a contrary view and then our listeners can make up their own minds as whether this contrary view is ridiculous’.”

    Hmmm…

    Giving an example, a skeptic responded: “You would say ‘this is true, so here's a set of questions’. You would never say ‘here's a set of questions that says the consensus seems to be Graham Nicholls' brain exists. But let's listen to a contrary view and then our listeners can make up their own minds as whether this contrary view is ridiculous’.”

  • abb3w

    I heard a USA climate change scientist say that he thinks that by the end of the century the human species will struggle to survive.

    Well, “survive” seems less of a worry than “maintain an industrial civilization”.

  • epeeist

    On climate change the critical point has been passed.

    The BBC didn’t seem to think so at one time, hence the eventual mea culpa – https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/07/bbc-we-get-climate-change-coverage-wrong-too-often

    Oh, and as for Brexit, it was interesting to see how many times Farage appeared on various BBC TV and radio programmes (someone who has failed multiple times to become an MP), compared with anyone from the Greens, who do at least have one MP.

  • TheBookOfDavid

    Somehow, during his rant about how superstition, bigotry, xenophobia, and conspiracy paranoia were being treated with insufficient deference, I missed the part where Nicholls challenged the BBC on journalistic or editorial accuracy.

  • Ann Kah

    Or pastors invite environmentalists and climatologists and cosmologists and evolutionary biologists to teach science classes in their churches on Sunday mornings…

  • Raging Bee

    They need to keep the BBC from being more credible than the “news” “sources” they control.

  • frostysnowman

    Or say that gay people are not, in fact, evil sodomists69 who don’t deserve the same rights as the rest of us.

  • Climate change denial is absurd, and represents a false idea beyond reasonable doubt. In the U.S., many large newspapers (New York Times, Los Angeles Times) have instituted an editorial policy of rejecting letters to the editor which deny AGW. That’s entirely reasonably editorial policy given the state of our knowledge and the limited space available for presenting letters.

    I see no reason that any reputable news outlet should waste time or space on AGW denial. Nobody complains that they don’t present flat earthers as anything other than nuts; why should climate change deniers get any different treatment?

  • persephone

    We’ll be lucky to make it 20 more years industrially.

  • Linda

    No, Of course the liberal rags aren’t going to allow those who work to expose that scam that won’t ever change our climate. Not humanly possible. It’s a normal cycle the planet has gone through on its own for centuries.

    No matter how any multiple trillions of dollars we allow these thieves to and try to steal from uninformed citizens it’s not ever going to change the climate.

    Even the UN IPCC leadership admitted years ago, it’s all about the redistribution of wealth from rich nations for the benefit of poorer nations. Obamas Marxism on a much bigger scale.

    Another fraud on the American taxpayers

  • Jim Jones

    You are a ranting loon. Go tell the Australians that there’s no global warming and that the fires are figments of their imagination.

  • Jim Jones

    Wed better start learning how to knap flint.

  • Wisdom, Justice, Love

    Right?
    Next up, a person to warn us about the monsters under our beds. Let’s give them an opportunity to make their case.

  • Linda

    Pull up: ‘UN IPCC members admit climate change is about wealth redistribution’.

  • (((J_Enigma32)))

    Of course the liberal rags aren’t going to allow those who work to expose that scam that won’t ever change our climate.

    I’ve seen this happen within my life time. Don’t tell me it’s not real when I’ve seen the shift in climate happen with my own eyes.

    Another fraud on the American taxpayers

    Sort of like Trump’s negative income tax on billion-dollar multinational companies?

  • (((J_Enigma32)))

    Pull up the weather in Michigan today and compare it to the weather in Michigan 30 years ago.

    We’re averaging much warmer in Michigan today than we were 30 years ago. Just because you clueless fools bury your heads in the sand doesn’t mean it isn’t real.

  • John Crockett

    Yes Linda, come over here and say that. I’m sure you and the Prime Minister and the Murdoch press will get on just fine.

  • Jim Jones

    Have you sought professional help?

  • Linda
  • Linda

    Sure you have. Be sure and report your findings to those admitting their own theories were wrong

    Must be why wealthy people like
    Obama are buying beach front homes for millions in Martha’s Vineyard. They just know their newly purchased mansions, will be under water any time now.

    Some are just too gullible to be allowed out alone.

  • Linda

    My son as he served in your country said it was beautiful.

    What applies in other nations, don’t always work here.

    Your anti-gun rules certainly won’t work here.

  • (((J_Enigma32)))

    Not that long ago, we were to go through a divesting freeze we’re told would destroy us.

    We never thought that. Climate science and the science of climate change is literally older than the first commercial radio, starting with Tyndall and Arrhenius in the late 1800s and moving forward from there. By the late 1970s we were almost certain the world was warming and by the 1990s, when the IPCC released their first report, we knew humans were doing it.

    It is older than the first commercial radio. It’s almost as old as the telegraph. Just because you heard something on FOX does not make it correct. In fact, that probably makes it wrong.

    Like the communist cortez lies and tells us we’re going to die in 12 years

    And yet, you can’t cite a single instance of her saying that. Wonder why?

    Gores predictions of dire consequences if we didn’t pay for our carbon footprints turned out to be another hoax to allow them to get rich themselves.

    What’s happening in Australia is looking pretty dire. And that says nothing about ocean acidification and the negative effects this will have.

    Nothing man can do will change our climate by any noticeable difference.

    This arrogant attitude displays just how little you know about the world. Because I’ve seen it with my own eyes; the weather has noticeably shifted since I was younger, and winters have become obviously warmer.

    Carbon dioxide absolutely warms planets. Fun fact: Venus’ atmosphere is 99% carbon dioxide, and the more CO2 you pump into an atmosphere, the warmer it gets. We knew this back in the 1800s; Tyndall proved it and Arrhenius confirmed it and took the experiments further. That’s why the night side surface of Venus, the second planet from the Sun, is hotter than the day-time side of Mercury, the closest planet to the sun.

    This is basic chemistry. It’s not my fault you’re so ignorant you reject the principles of basic chemistry, but it is yours.

  • Linda

    I look at all the different causes of their fires, none of them list as being caused by global warming. You might want to do the same.

    I’ll list one link of several.

  • (((J_Enigma32)))

    Be sure and report your findings to those admitting their own theories were wrong

    Would that be the something like 96% of scientists who say it’s happening? Because we are more certain of climate change and the cause than we are the cause of gravity.

    Obama are buying beach front homes for millions in Martha’s Vineyard. They just know their newly purchased mansions, will be under water any time now.

    This has nothing to do with anything, but I’m glad you brought this up. It explains why insurance companies are divesting from coal and other fossil fuels; in fact, they’ve divested billions, because unlike you, they know how science works and their business depends on it. The military likewise has agreed it’s a problem, and so has the Pentagon.

    You don’t know as much as you seem to think you do. In fact, you know markedly less.

  • Linda

    Lol. You can’t find a link of Cortez saying that either? I’m beginning to see a pattern here.

  • (((J_Enigma32)))

    Yeah. She didn’t say it.

  • (((J_Enigma32)))

    Also, I see you studiously ignored my rebuttal of your points. Where’d that arrogant certainty go?

  • Jim Jones

    Why hasn’t there been a burn off like this in years?

  • Linda

    Those 97% has been debunked long ago.

    It wasn’t 97% of all scientists.
    Try again.

  • (((J_Enigma32)))

    No, it hasn’t been debunked.

    It is, in fact, real.

  • (((J_Enigma32)))
  • Linda

    Here’s the causes this link says causes the different fires in Australians Believe them or not.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/11701132

  • Linda

    You need to ask their leaders or party in charge about that.

  • Linda

    It’s not factual. The cei has asked NADA to remove it from their website because it just not true.

  • Linda

    No. It points out how unserious these dems who want to take our money, don’t even believe what they’re preaching on the hoax of man-made climate change, when no amount can change our climate. It’s been a natural cycle of our universe for centuries.

  • Linda

    CEI wants NASA to change their website since sources the they had been given weren’t correct; that false claims had been used that they used as their sources.

  • Linda

    This is one of their worst but they’ve had others. My link provided the many different causes of their fires.

  • Linda

    Don’t need it. Do you???

  • Linda
  • Linda
  • Linda

    Your Detroit link? It was funny and full of errors, which I expect from the radical left. Have yet to see them post much that’s truthful.

  • zenlike

    Any evidence that no amount of (what?) can change our climate?

  • Linda

    Read the request CEI has asked NASA website, since they have seen the way in witch that number was used from questionable sources. NASA does need to update their sites after the errors were exposed.

  • John Crockett

    So far 12 million acres of wilderness has been burnt. Do you have any idea how vast this continent is?
    I live near Picton, 85 km south of Sydney in a village on the edge of a national park. The sea lies 50 km to the east through dense bush and trees and continues to the west for another 100 km.
    Not much desert in my part of the world although land clearing for farms is taking place at record levels….but that is another story.
    There has been a decade of record temperatures and climate scientists have been predicting lower rainfall in the southeast for years.
    This is what global warming looks like, mate.

  • John Crockett

    Because there hasnt been a drought like this in years.

    How long ago do you think the millenium drought occurred?
    And why have just about all of Australia’s capital cities built desalination plants over the last 20 years?

  • John Crockett

    It can be a surprise just how quickly attitudes and behavior can change sometimes.

  • John Crockett

    So what is the science behind the natural cycle?

  • Broga

    And yet I still read of governments, including the one led by Boris (or should that be Cummins) saying that we have to get our carbon footprint reduced to whatever by 2030. The mass of the public just don’t believe anything catastrophic will happen. It has happened already. I live in a rather remote rural area and I notice the great reduction of the insects that used to be so common. Not just bees but butterflies, moths, dragon flies and so many others. In the past car windscreens were plastered with dead insects as we drove. No more.

    The connection between the disappearance of insects and the production of fruits and vegetables is ignored or unknown. I’m told that in the USA bees are transported to places to propagate plants for food. Last I heard this is a problem because the bees are “becoming exhausted”. I mentioned this to an acquaintance and he thought “that’s very funny.” Cattle now have so many drugs injected into them to keep them “healthy” that these same drugs are eaten in the beef.

    I have some fruit trees, mainly apple with a few plum trees. They don’t get sprayed with chemicals and, as a result, there are some minor blemishes on their skins. My grandchildren always take lots home. They offered an apple to one of their friends and he refused it because of the blemishes on the skin: a sign of a healthy apple as it happens. He said that the apples his mum brought from the super market were better because they had no “nasty bits on the skin.”

  • (((J_Enigma32)))

    It hasn’t. I’ve noticed a gradual shift in weather. Gradual changes in weather patterns are referred to as — you guessed — climate!

  • (((J_Enigma32)))

    Yeah, and you told me you never cite your sources, so I’m not about to believe that.

  • (((J_Enigma32)))

    No. She was using a rhetorical device; hyperbole specifically, and it’s signified by the “like” in front of the statement, which is often used to highlight a following rhetorical device, whether it be a simile, hyperbole, or something similar. Lurn2English. However, given the path we’re on right now as far as nationalism and the the gradual shift away from democracies towards authoritarianism facilitated by people like you as a result of climate catastrophes? She probably isn’t wrong, hyperbole or not.

    It probably won’t be 12 years, but then, you never know. That’s what the “like” in front of that statement meant. Do you even understand English or are you trying too hard to play “Gotcha” that you don’t care?

    Also, she isn’t a climatologist. She just listens to people who are, unlike you, who listen to talking heads on AM radio without a degree one to their name except a mastery in propaganda.

  • (((J_Enigma32)))

    You’re dishonest and disingenuous and you know full well what I mean.

    You said: “Not that long ago, we were to go through a divesting freeze we’re told would destroy us.” I said no, and explained why.

    You said: “Like the communist cortez lies and tells us we’re going to die in 12 years” and I said she didn’t. The best evidence you have is a bit of quote-mined hyperbole, so I’m not impressed. This is the only point you attempted to rebut, and in doing so demonstrated you have no idea how English or rhetoric works.

    You said: “Gores predictions of dire consequences if we didn’t pay for our carbon footprints” and I pointed out that Australia is pretty dire.

    You said: “Nothing man can do will change our climate by any noticeable difference” and I explained basic chemistry to use using Venus’ surface temperature compared to Mercury’s surface temperature as an example.

    The best you got is a politician saying something close to what you claim they said, even though your misquote was intentionally designed to make it seem like they were saying something they were not because she was clearly invoking hyperbole when she said it.

    You didn’t even attempt a rebuttal of my points. Wonder why that is.

  • (((J_Enigma32)))

    No, she didn’t. What’s more, you took what was clearly hyperbole out of context to say she was making a claim she was never making.

    Why should I apologize to someone who traffics in dishonesty and lies?

  • (((J_Enigma32)))

    The CEI is a libertarian think-tank that takes money from the fossil fuel industry; in fact, they’re one of the central antagonists in that story. That’s like citing Philip Morris International to prove cigarettes don’t cause lung cancer.

    Besides, what does a think tank know that the agency that got us to the moon doesn’t when it comes to the atmosphere, huh? Unless, of course, you’re one of those people who deny that we ever went to the moon. Fool conspiracy theories do traffic together.

    Also, what I linked to isn’t NASA’s website. NASA’s website is climate.nasa.gov — that’s a different web page.

  • (((J_Enigma32)))

    And the CEI takes fossil fuel money, making them part of the disinformation machine you fell so hard for, so of course they would.

  • (((J_Enigma32)))

    I don’t have gurus. I read scientific research papers and follow the peer reviewed science. I could care less what Obama, Cortez, or Gore says about the issue because they aren’t scientists.

    Unlike you people, who trust whoever confirms what you already believe, especially if a politician, talking head, or radio host tells you.

  • (((J_Enigma32)))

    This lie again?

    Six out of the top ten largest solar plants in the world, based off capacity, are in India or China, and were all built within the last few years. Do you know how many the U.S has?

    Zero, that’s how many. Zero. You have to expand that search to the Top 15, and the United States occupies the last two spots, under the UAE, and they were built 3 and 4 years ago, respectively, and their combined capacity can’t even match the Pavagada Solar Park in India. You tell me who’s taking the problem seriously and who isn’t.

  • John Allman

    It would appear that John Crawford is right. This documentary was made in 1971. It’s about catastrophic forest fires in Australia, and the forest management methods that were developed to start controlled fires, to burn off excess fuel, to prevent wild fires caused by lightening from burning our of control.

    https://vimeo.com/135628812

  • (((J_Enigma32)))

    No, you clearly don’t. Because if you did, you’d acknowledge it was happening because that’s where the preponderance of evidence and indeed, basic atmospheric chemistry, leads.

  • (((J_Enigma32)))

    Seriously, do you not understand the basic functions of English vocabulary, either?

    “Like” has several uses in the English language. One of the most prevalent in certain dialects, especially among younger people, is as a flag to alert the listener that a rhetorical device is going to be employed. Similes explicitly require the use of “like” or “as,” and hyperbole frequently use like or as, too. Properly read, her quote requires a secondary set of quotations around “end of the world” because that’s technically a quote, even if she isn’t quoting anyone in particular. That was clearly hyperbole to anyone with even a modicum of knowledge about how English and rhetorical devices work .

  • (((J_Enigma32)))

    I could care less what the ‘anti-science Left’ tells us. I’m telling you what actual science tells us.

    That you disagree with actual science is your own problem, dude.

  • (((J_Enigma32)))

    Pruitt lied when he said that. China and India actually do have obligations that they themselves pledged to make. And since the Paris Accords was basically non-binding, that’s the same thing as signing themselves aboard. They weren’t “exempt” from anything and Pruitt was just making that up because he’s bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry.

    And as far as solar power requiring expenditures from coal and other fossil fuels — that is absolutely correct. However, that doesn’t consider that these power plants frequently repay the energy cost that went into creating them within a few month’s time. And the prices in the US were undercut because Trump passed a number of executive orders with the explicit intention of undermining the production of those plants, specifically where his fool tariffs are concerned.

  • John Allman

    Geoff Benson, you are succumbing to precisely the fallacy that you accuse others of succumbing to. The public has not had the benefit of a popularisation, on the part of a mass media that nowadays insert casual references to AGW in most news stories about unusual weather, of the scientific evidence of any particular hypothesis, theory, doctrine or pessimistic prediction, however formulated. It has instead been exposed, at most, to *expert* evidence (albeit opinions of scientists), and, at least, to evidence that an idea (that of a climate crisis) is quite widespread, especially amongst climate scientists.

    Skeptoid published a very good article about this problem in May 2012, which explains what has gone wrong.

    The Science and Politics of Global Warming
    How global warming became the poster boy for failed science communication.
    https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4309

    Since then, what had already gone wrong when Skeptoid covered the topic, hasn’t been put right. More and more of being told what to believe, but not why to believe it, won’t overcome public scepticism, I’m afraid.

    If the way in which scientific facts were proven was by the taking of opinion polls amongst scientists and going with the majority, then we might have settled science by now without the need for any scientific evidence at all, let alone sceptical scrutiny of evidence, and how it was purported to prove this or that. But that is not how science works, even if it is how bad politics sometimes gets away with working. We of the sceptical general public who are scientifically educated aren’t satisfied to form any opinion by blindly copying the common opinion of 99% of experts without sight of the data on which this is based, dismissing the 1% dissident opinion because of a false doctrine that a majority is always right. We want to hear both sides of a scientific-evidence-based debate in which evidence, fact and opinion are clearly distinguished.

  • John Allman

    Taking opinion polls amongst scientists is not how science advances. Concluding that a hypothesis is proven because more scientists hold the opinion that it is true, isn’t doing science. That is pseudoscience par excellence.

  • Michael Neville

    Do you even know what “consensus” means? When you don’t know anything about a subject then you should ask what the experts believe. When the vast majority of experts agree on some aspect of their field then it’s most likely to be correct.

  • (((J_Enigma32)))

    I explained it in detail in another thread to you and you refused to acknowledge it. To save myself pixels, if you even care to learn instead of just argue over the obvious truth, look up “Apple negative income tax.”

  • (((J_Enigma32)))

    It does change. But that change happens over millions of years, not 35 of them.

  • John Allman

    Could I please refer you to my longer comment below, in reply to Geoff Benson, and to the Skeptoid piece from May 2012 to which it links?

  • (((J_Enigma32)))

    That refers to sunspots, and it was accompanied by volcanoes which worked to lower the global temperature. It’s true that volcanoes, especially large ones, can cause sudden climate shift. But there haven’t been any VEI 6 or higher eruptions to trigger that, so there’s no point in bringing it up; it’s a red herring. There is no — I repeat no — evidence demonstrating that it or other sunspot activity has an effect over the past 30 years, so that’s a red herring, too.

    The current climate change is a direct result of industrial activity and the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It just is. All the denialism doesn’t change that fact, it just gets in the way of solving the problem. And if you don’t think carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, which Arrhenius and Tyndall demonstrated in the 1800s (the science of climate change is literally older than the first commercial radio), then explain why the night-time side of Venus is hotter than the day-time side of Mercury.

  • (((J_Enigma32)))

    The accords are nothing but pledges.

  • abb3w

    Exempted, where and from what? Please indicate which treaty or agreement, and what section thereof provides for such purported exemption?

  • abb3w

    Didn’t see that in the particular comment to which I responded. That also does not indicate what specific section of the Paris accords purportedly provides such agreement.

    The text of the Paris Accords is available here from Wikisource. I’m not seeing such an exemption; can you point it out?

    As a stylistic aside, while your personal quirk of consistently ending of “semper fi” might have a marginal persuasive impact impact on current/former Marines, for those who aren’t it seems likely to signal that you are someone attempting to bask in the embers former honors due to lack of any merit more current, or that your comments are mere reflexive parroting of talking points; this may therefore limit your persuasive impact on non-Marines. Of course, if you are less interested in persuading others than in such basking or than in preventing from being persuaded yourself, it might make sense to maintain that habit.

  • Raging Bee

    Libertard being lazy and stupid.

  • (((J_Enigma32)))

    No one thing can change climate, huh?

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/4073/panama-isthmus-that-changed-the-world

    Tell that to the Panama Isthmus, which formed 15 million years ago and up until recently was the reason we had ice in the Arctic (A 2018 study found the ice a 66% decrease in overall ice in the Arctic over the last six decades along with a shift from permanent coverage to seasons coverage; this is a problem because the dark ocean has a lower albedo and absorbs more of the heat from the sun, causing the oceans to warm faster. Ice has a higher albedo, reflecting it, and helping to cool the planet. Less ice means more warming. Interestingly, Venus has a high albedo and so reflects a lot of sunlight; it speaks to the power of CO2 as a greenhouse gas that the surface is the Hellish environment it is). While it’s true our system is complex, major paradigm shifts can affect things. The formation of the Panama Isthmus was one of those things.

    Anthropogenic global warming is another.

  • John Crawford

    No, I didn’t give you a specific section.
    Semper fi

  • Will

    Suppression of free expression is tyranny.

  • Raging Bee

    There’s no “suppression,” trollbot. Now go back to the ROC and get an upgrade, okay?

  • abb3w

    And yet, I asked not merely for “which treaty or agreement” but also “what section thereof”; and yet further, even after providing a link to a primary source, no section was cited to demonstrate the existence of such exemption.

  • abb3w

    I opted to allow you to learn by doing your own research, after leading you to the Paris Accords.

    Well, what I’ve learned after reading the entirety of that document is that no section of the Paris Accord appears to contain such an exemption; and that from past experience, I infer you seem most likely to be ignorantly repeating hearsay that does not correspond to the “real world”.

    Learning is never-ending

    Perhaps at some point you may learn that claims may tend to have more persuasive impact when they can be accompanied by supporting evidence such as specific reference to primary sources.

    Meanwhile, I find you unpersuasive.