I love how certain religious people are.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Well, firstly, the Kingdom of Heaven is on Earth, so Jesus will be here. When He returns He will judge the world, the living and the dead, and establish His kingdom. Secondly, righteousness is credited to you because of faith in God, not as in something that you earned, or because you're so great. It's all to Gods glory..I'm no better than anyone else.
Romans 3:22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,
Three, people have this impression of sin as being fun and cool, and living a sanctified life as being dull and boring. Where ever God is will be the creative center of existence..there isn't going to be a lack of interesting things to do. Everyone seems to like the Creation, and this is just s ahadow of what is to come. It isn't going to be boring. Sin is temporary pleasure, flash in the pan, and it all leads to death, and it is the source of corruption in this world. There is nothing good about it at all.

>> ^dag:
I think I'd prefer to stay down here with the unrighteous. If you're only letting in the self-righteous and pious moralists - it's going to be pretty dull.
I think Jesus would rather stay down here with us too - to be honest. But you go on up with the righteous SB, save us a spot. We'll muddle on without you post-rapture.
>> ^shinyblurry:
So it's my fault you don't have any self-control? It doesn't matter what you think about me personally. The word of God is what is important:
1 Corinthians 6
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
>> ^Payback:
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's never going to cease being a sin no matter how you dress it up. It is immoral and against the natural order of the Universe, as ordained by our Creator.

Oh fucking shut up already. No one here cares about your opinion on anything. Seriously.
I really wish the sift would completely remove you from my view when you're set to "ignore". Then I wouldn't be so fucking tempted to pop open your comments like the puss-filled, diseased boils they are.
Fucking troll.

It's not just about dullness and being boring. Religious zealots confirmed in their beliefs and unswerving in their faith make the hairs stand up on the back of my neck. It's kind of like the creepiness of the uncanny valley with robots. "Letting go and letting God" is an abdication of your humanity - and it shows on the outside.

Gay people, in my subjective experience, are often the opposite. Full of quirky, imperfect, damaged humanity - or maybe you could even call it the holy spirit. I think I will.

Allow me to quote GK Chesterton:

Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.

To live like Jesus is a taller order than you seem to realize, and of course as I am sure you realize, most of us have failed to do so. You seem to have this idea that Christians believe that they are perfect, but that is a joke. We are actually far more candid with eachother about our faults than would even be socially acceptable in secular culture. We don't think we are perfect, and even the most devout of the brethern runs into doubts. Letting go and letting God isn't in the bible. What we do is trust God with our lives, it isn't sitting back and doing nothing. To do what Jesus gave us to do is a lot of hard work.

This is what you don't understand: We love God. The tragic thing about you atheists is that you do too, in your own ways. You all love the Creation. You are fascinated and mystified by the Universe, in awe of its manifold complexity and endless wonders. That is, if there is nothing attached to the experience. You value and treasure your freedom from authority, and guard it jealously; after all you think you only have one life to live. I can understand that. You want to be in control.

Yet, you're not in control. Look at Steve Jobs, he had about everything you could ever hope to have, and none of it did him the least bit of good. In the end, he illustrated the truth of this verse:

Matthew 16:26

For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?


There is no control to be had, because no one is in control on this planet except for God. What you consider happenstance and coincidence doesn't really exist. So, we give God back what He already has. We decide to stop fooling ourselves and believe that we can beat the system, because the issue has already been decided. What you do in this life matters, because at the end you will give account for every idle word.

Someone has to be God, this what you don't understand. I doubt many of you have thought this through very deeply. Let's play your game for a moment. Let's say the Universe really is 20 billion years old, and life is able to evolve spontaneously from nothing. This means that some lifeforms have had a lot more time to develop than others, and the ones who were successful early and have mastered physical reality are going to be more powerful than anyone else. If any of this is true you most certainly already have a self-proclaimed divinity, one that may look upon a lifeform like us like cockroaches. The position of absolute ruler of existence is a power vacuum that will be filled by someone, and it is almost certainly filled already.

If God isnt in charge, you should be scared of who is. It is a far better thing to have someone who loves us personally and cares about our lives. The alternative is far worse, and something that should worry any thoughtful person. Because if God isn't in charge, and it isn't you and it isn't me; it is going to be someone else. You might not think God is perfect, but again, you love His reality, you just don't want to play by His rules. What you're unwilling to do is take a long hard look at yourself and see that if you are going to be honest about it, the problem is with you and not with Him. You most certainly have some terrific sounding excuses for how you justify rebellion against God, but none of them will match up to your conscience.

>> ^dag:
It's not just about dullness and being boring. Religious zealots confirmed in their beliefs and unswerving in their faith make the hairs stand up on the back of my neck. It's kind of like the creepiness of the uncanny valley with robots. "Letting go and letting God" is an abdication of your humanity - and it shows on the outside.
Gay people, in my subjective experience, are often the opposite. Full of quirky, imperfect, damaged humanity - or maybe you could even call it the holy spirit. I think I will.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, firstly, the Kingdom of Heaven is on Earth, so Jesus will be here. When He returns He will judge the world, the living and the dead, and establish His kingdom. Secondly, righteousness is credited to you because of faith in God, not as in something that you earned, or because you're so great. It's all to Gods glory..I'm no better than anyone else.
Romans 3:22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,
Three, people have this impression of sin as being fun and cool, and living a sanctified life as being dull and boring. Where ever God is will be the creative center of existence..there isn't going to be a lack of interesting things to do. Everyone seems to like the Creation, and this is just s ahadow of what is to come. It isn't going to be boring. Sin is temporary pleasure, flash in the pan, and it all leads to death, and it is the source of corruption in this world. There is nothing good about it at all.
>> ^dag:
I think I'd prefer to stay down here with the unrighteous. If you're only letting in the self-righteous and pious moralists - it's going to be pretty dull.
I think Jesus would rather stay down here with us too - to be honest. But you go on up with the righteous SB, save us a spot. We'll muddle on without you post-rapture.
>> ^shinyblurry:
So it's my fault you don't have any self-control? It doesn't matter what you think about me personally. The word of God is what is important:
1 Corinthians 6
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
>> ^Payback:
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's never going to cease being a sin no matter how you dress it up. It is immoral and against the natural order of the Universe, as ordained by our Creator.

Oh fucking shut up already. No one here cares about your opinion on anything. Seriously.
I really wish the sift would completely remove you from my view when you're set to "ignore". Then I wouldn't be so fucking tempted to pop open your comments like the puss-filled, diseased boils they are.
Fucking troll.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It's not just about dullness and being boring. Religious zealots confirmed in their beliefs and unswerving in their faith make the hairs stand up on the back of my neck. It's kind of like the creepiness of the uncanny valley with robots. "Letting go and letting God" is an abdication of your humanity - and it shows on the outside.

Gay people, in my subjective experience, are often the opposite. Full of quirky, imperfect, damaged humanity - or maybe you could even call it the holy spirit. I think I will.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Well, firstly, the Kingdom of Heaven is on Earth, so Jesus will be here. When He returns He will judge the world, the living and the dead, and establish His kingdom. Secondly, righteousness is credited to you because of faith in God, not as in something that you earned, or because you're so great. It's all to Gods glory..I'm no better than anyone else.
Romans 3:22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,
Three, people have this impression of sin as being fun and cool, and living a sanctified life as being dull and boring. Where ever God is will be the creative center of existence..there isn't going to be a lack of interesting things to do. Everyone seems to like the Creation, and this is just s ahadow of what is to come. It isn't going to be boring. Sin is temporary pleasure, flash in the pan, and it all leads to death, and it is the source of corruption in this world. There is nothing good about it at all.

>> ^dag:
I think I'd prefer to stay down here with the unrighteous. If you're only letting in the self-righteous and pious moralists - it's going to be pretty dull.
I think Jesus would rather stay down here with us too - to be honest. But you go on up with the righteous SB, save us a spot. We'll muddle on without you post-rapture.
>> ^shinyblurry:
So it's my fault you don't have any self-control? It doesn't matter what you think about me personally. The word of God is what is important:
1 Corinthians 6
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
>> ^Payback:
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's never going to cease being a sin no matter how you dress it up. It is immoral and against the natural order of the Universe, as ordained by our Creator.

Oh fucking shut up already. No one here cares about your opinion on anything. Seriously.
I really wish the sift would completely remove you from my view when you're set to "ignore". Then I wouldn't be so fucking tempted to pop open your comments like the puss-filled, diseased boils they are.
Fucking troll.

Well, firstly, the Kingdom of Heaven is on Earth, so Jesus will be here. When He returns He will judge the world, the living and the dead, and establish His kingdom. Secondly, righteousness is credited to you because of faith in God, not as in something that you earned, or because you're so great. It's all to Gods glory..I'm no better than anyone else.

Romans 3:22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,

Three, people have this impression of sin as being fun and cool, and living a sanctified life as being dull and boring. Where ever God is will be the creative center of existence..there isn't going to be a lack of interesting things to do. Everyone seems to like the Creation, and this is just s ahadow of what is to come. It isn't going to be boring. Sin is temporary pleasure, flash in the pan, and it all leads to death, and it is the source of corruption in this world. There is nothing good about it at all.


>> ^dag:
I think I'd prefer to stay down here with the unrighteous. If you're only letting in the self-righteous and pious moralists - it's going to be pretty dull.
I think Jesus would rather stay down here with us too - to be honest. But you go on up with the righteous SB, save us a spot. We'll muddle on without you post-rapture.
>> ^shinyblurry:
So it's my fault you don't have any self-control? It doesn't matter what you think about me personally. The word of God is what is important:
1 Corinthians 6
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
>> ^Payback:
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's never going to cease being a sin no matter how you dress it up. It is immoral and against the natural order of the Universe, as ordained by our Creator.

Oh fucking shut up already. No one here cares about your opinion on anything. Seriously.
I really wish the sift would completely remove you from my view when you're set to "ignore". Then I wouldn't be so fucking tempted to pop open your comments like the puss-filled, diseased boils they are.
Fucking troll.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I think I'd prefer to stay down here with the unrighteous. If you're only letting in the self-righteous and pious moralists - it's going to be pretty dull.

I think Jesus would rather stay down here with us too - to be honest. But you go on up with the righteous SB, save us a spot. We'll muddle on without you post-rapture.

>> ^shinyblurry:

So it's my fault you don't have any self-control? It doesn't matter what you think about me personally. The word of God is what is important:
1 Corinthians 6
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

>> ^Payback:
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's never going to cease being a sin no matter how you dress it up. It is immoral and against the natural order of the Universe, as ordained by our Creator.

Oh fucking shut up already. No one here cares about your opinion on anything. Seriously.
I really wish the sift would completely remove you from my view when you're set to "ignore". Then I wouldn't be so fucking tempted to pop open your comments like the puss-filled, diseased boils they are.
Fucking troll.

I work in IT for state gov't and I think the argument that private sector being more efficient than private sector is a bit deceptive.

I think the reason that phenomenon exists is that private sector is allowed to offer better pay to attract the better talent. Gov't often has a very rigid pay structure for the workers. A few years ago we wanted to hire a database admin and we were forced to take our 3rd choice for the job because the 1st and 2nd demanded higher pay and we simply aren't allowed to meet that demand. Not that we couldn't meet that demand. So gov't is being forced to have one hand tied behind their back to start with so IMO you can't judge public vs private with the same metric. The contest is rigged. Then on top of it, this rigid pay structure only appears to apply to the lower and middle levels of gov't. Very often are the pay grades for the upper level directors and commisioners that get appointed are listed as "discretionary" In other words, the bureaucrats made a back room deal.

It gets even worse typically when a Republican gets in office. The same guy that would give himself and his workers bonuses in the private sector is telling public employees that they're going to lay them off or give them furloughs or de-fund various agencies. It's a double standard. So we have this situation where we elect into government, someone who hates gov't and sabotages it and then whines about how gov't is inefficient. They're the ones that MADE it inefficient. They talk about free markets, but then they rig the game in their favor.

It's even more interesting when we occasionally hire someone who used to work in the private sector. They always complain that we don't have some luxury perk or why we don't have legions of interns to do the grunt work for them. Speaking for myself personally, there was this one time I was helping a coworker set up a presentation with their laptop and a simple projector and this guy who used to work for the private sector started complaining about how we didn't have the sophisticated AV system and the sound proofed auditorium that his private sector job had. He was just that spoiled that he simply didn't understand why we didn't have those things that we didn't even need for a basic presentation.

So if you actually want to talk about efficiency? a Lower or middle level gov't employee typically receives far less pay than their private sector counterpart, but yet is usually expected to produce the same level of work. So in that regard, gov't is far more efficient. It gets muddled when you factor the higher level positions and factor in other agencies. News flash: not all gov't agencies are the same, speaking from experience, some have higher standards than others. You simply can't lump them all and judge them the same way.

This really is everybody's movement. Wall Street, in principle, ought to be in agreement with OWS (and I think it is). When the board votes obscene salaries to the officers it robs that company of R & D capital and increases the price of the product. We live in a highly competitive global marketplace. Corporate profits simply cannot be gutted by either the CEO or unrealistic demands of labor. Both mistakes serve to drive the consumer toward cheaper products.

Unfortunately, the message is muddled by some who wish to co-opt these demonstrations for their own ends, thereby turning off many who would gladly stand for the core.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

It is more akin to the idea of WHICH good thing you wish to practice, or the thing being done that is said to be good not being good in your own moral judgement. One might say feeding the poor isn't done properly unless accompanied by a health dose of soul food. I am no one to tell them they are wrong. The hard part of doing good with other peoples money is we don't have the same idea of what good is, so any attempt is muddled in personal bias and dogma. Which is why I support more community based charity than national.

Again, I'm not a theologian, but does Jesus say something akin to "don't help people at all if you're uncertain whether you'll succeed?"

Do you really dispute that providing medical treatment to people who're sick is a good thing?

I'm not religious, and I don't think we should base our morals on what we read in the Bible, but what little I do know of the Bible is that Jesus doesn't sound much like Ayn Rand, or any other right-wing ideologue on this topic.

Is there any passage of the bible that supports the libertarian case against state-sponsored distributive justice? Does Jesus say property is the sole enforceable moral obligation we have to one another, and everything else must be considered a matter of personal choice? Does he say tax-funded welfare programs are morally worse than letting the poor starve or succumb to treatable illness through individual negligence?

If he did, it'd resolve what I see as the biggest cognitive dissonance present in American culture, but I don't think the Bible says anything of the sort.

It is more akin to the idea of WHICH good thing you wish to practice, or the thing being done that is said to be good not being good in your own moral judgement. One might say feeding the poor isn't done properly unless accompanied by a health dose of soul food. I am no one to tell them they are wrong. The hard part of doing good with other peoples money is we don't have the same idea of what good is, so any attempt is muddled in personal bias and dogma. Which is why I support more community based charity than national.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:
Actually I'm pretty sure that's exactly what Jesus had in mind when he tells us to give up our earthly possessions and follow God, trusting in him to take care of us.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Is it Christian to let other people do good deeds for you instead of doing them yourself? Social services undercut many peoples ability to practice their own moral choices.


Trusting government is trusting God? That is a stretch I don't think that is what you meant, but it is what you seem to of said.

I'm no theologian, but nobody's ever cited to me the part of the Bible where Jesus makes a distinction between people helping others through an institution (like churches, non-profits, or government), or on their own as an individual.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

As always - the Warmies love to muddle terminilogy in order to misdirect.
There is a vast world of difference between what a typical Warmie is talking about when they say, "climate change" and what a scientist is talking about. However, in the news media and popular culture, the Warmies routinely equate both of them together in order to lend themselves false credibility.
"Climate change" as a generic term simply means the climate is changing. This is scientifically provable - however it is so patently obvious (and has been for millenium) that it does not require the rigor of the scientific method to verify. No one is arguing against the reality that Earth's climate has cycles, changes, alters, or otherwise permutates over long periods of time (or even short periods locally).
However, when Warmies talk about "Climate change" they do not mean this. They pack so many other things into two words that it becomes almost impossible to pin it down. But generally speaking when a Warmie says climate change they mean something along these lines...
"Human C02 emissions are the primary agent of all climate changes in the past 200 years, and all scientists in all fields are in 100% agreement that only human C02 is responsible and these scientists are also in 100% agreement that the only solution is to enact massive government taxation schemes in order to reduce C02 emissions to 1820 levels, or the Earth will experience such catastrophic world-wide destruction that all humanity will be wiped out."
That's quite a difference in meaning. It is perfectly reasonable to say that scientists, economists, and regular folks everywhere can rationally debate the veracity and truth of the latter definition, while accepting the former.
And yet the Warmies cannot allow a rational line of discussion and debate, and so they instead turn to their time-practiced tactic of poisoning the well, insults, ad hominems, and other obfuscations of the truth in order to desperately lend their terminally unsupportable position enough credence to allow the desperate and brain-washed to continue to cling to it in the face of real evidence.
Day after day we hear repeated news of the facts behind the so-called 'proof' that the Warmies have falsified for years. East anglia, the polar bear liar, the hockey stick chart, the IPCC panels - they have all been discredited and proven to have buried evidence, censored opposing research, cooked their data, falsified evidence, and otherwise destroyed the entire credibility of the whole Warmie position. Their 'science' (all oriented around C02 being the primary agent of climate change) is bunk.
I've got an entire folder in my Hotmail with article after article after article proving that the claim that "human C02 = climate change" is politically motivated bologna. Here are some from just this WEEK...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/
100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/mental-illness-ri
se-linked-to-climate-20110828-1jger.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.4462
It is 100% hogwash. The climate change INDUSTRY (and it is an over 200 billion dollar industry) is panicing because people no longer buy the "Human C02 = poison" bullcrap. They are losing the debate. Governments are abandoning the green movement. And the Warmies are panicking. So they are putting out articles so insane, so ridiculous that even a child can tell they are stupid morons. Aliens are going to blow up earth over C02 emissions? Climate change is causing mental illness? What utter stupidity.
The evidence - the REAL evidence - is that human C02 is such a minor factor that it does not warrent serious attention. Do we all want to clean up messes? Sure - but the real mess-makers are not in the US or Europe. They're in South America, China, and Africa. That's where the focus should be. But the Warmie movement is nakedly political, so their primary goals have nothing to do with actual pollution. Instead they obsess over making C02 something they can 'regulate', and therefore tax and earn revenues from. It's pathetic, and yet so many people accept it because of faulty, flawed, sloppy so-called 'research', and the fact that they really WANT to believe it for some reason. Morons.


annnnnd ignore

As always - the Warmies love to muddle terminilogy in order to misdirect.

There is a vast world of difference between what a typical Warmie is talking about when they say, "climate change" and what a scientist is talking about. However, in the news media and popular culture, the Warmies routinely equate both of them together in order to lend themselves false credibility.

"Climate change" as a generic term simply means the climate is changing. This is scientifically provable - however it is so patently obvious (and has been for millenium) that it does not require the rigor of the scientific method to verify. No one is arguing against the reality that Earth's climate has cycles, changes, alters, or otherwise permutates over long periods of time (or even short periods locally).

However, when Warmies talk about "Climate change" they do not mean this. They pack so many other things into two words that it becomes almost impossible to pin it down. But generally speaking when a Warmie says climate change they mean something along these lines...

"Human C02 emissions are the primary agent of all climate changes in the past 200 years, and all scientists in all fields are in 100% agreement that only human C02 is responsible and these scientists are also in 100% agreement that the only solution is to enact massive government taxation schemes in order to reduce C02 emissions to 1820 levels, or the Earth will experience such catastrophic world-wide destruction that all humanity will be wiped out."

That's quite a difference in meaning. It is perfectly reasonable to say that scientists, economists, and regular folks everywhere can rationally debate the veracity and truth of the latter definition, while accepting the former.

And yet the Warmies cannot allow a rational line of discussion and debate, and so they instead turn to their time-practiced tactic of poisoning the well, insults, ad hominems, and other obfuscations of the truth in order to desperately lend their terminally unsupportable position enough credence to allow the desperate and brain-washed to continue to cling to it in the face of real evidence.

Day after day we hear repeated news of the facts behind the so-called 'proof' that the Warmies have falsified for years. East anglia, the polar bear liar, the hockey stick chart, the IPCC panels - they have all been discredited and proven to have buried evidence, censored opposing research, cooked their data, falsified evidence, and otherwise destroyed the entire credibility of the whole Warmie position. Their 'science' (all oriented around C02 being the primary agent of climate change) is bunk.

I've got an entire folder in my Hotmail with article after article after article proving that the claim that "human C02 = climate change" is politically motivated bologna. Here are some from just this WEEK...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/mental-illness-rise-linked-to-climate-20110828-1jger.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.4462

It is 100% hogwash. The climate change INDUSTRY (and it is an over 200 billion dollar industry) is panicing because people no longer buy the "Human C02 = poison" bullcrap. They are losing the debate. Governments are abandoning the green movement. And the Warmies are panicking. So they are putting out articles so insane, so ridiculous that even a child can tell they are stupid morons. Aliens are going to blow up earth over C02 emissions? Climate change is causing mental illness? What utter stupidity.

The evidence - the REAL evidence - is that human C02 is such a minor factor that it does not warrent serious attention. Do we all want to clean up messes? Sure - but the real mess-makers are not in the US or Europe. They're in South America, China, and Africa. That's where the focus should be. But the Warmie movement is nakedly political, so their primary goals have nothing to do with actual pollution. Instead they obsess over making C02 something they can 'regulate', and therefore tax and earn revenues from. It's pathetic, and yet so many people accept it because of faulty, flawed, sloppy so-called 'research', and the fact that they really WANT to believe it for some reason. Morons.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

It's the first sentence of your description that muddles it a bit: "I'm really curious who the loyal Democrats view as the least threatening."


I see where you're coming from now. I'll reword that.

It's the first sentence of your description that muddles it a bit: "I'm really curious who the loyal Democrats view as the least threatening."

Ignoring the video - which is typical bilge - I'll move on to actual substance. Here is the crux of the current panic that is gripping the Warmies... Their empire is crumbling and they know it. Hence, they are lashing out in panic and anger. This is typical of most socialist scams when they go belly-up, as is further evidenced by the riots in Europe and elsewhere.

The Warmies have always had a particularly ugly sow’s ear they were desperately trying to turn into a silk purse. Their primary concern has never been the cliimate. Their sole objectives have always been entirely oriented around the creation of expensive programs which force human beings to accept decreased standards of living, reduced freedoms, higher taxes, less food, costly commodities, limited transportation, and onerous regulations. In exchange for all these burdens, humanity was to be provided a very nebulous ‘benefit’ (0.001% lower C02) which was by no means even guaranteed by the implementation of their draconian measures. That’s a tough bottle of snake oil to sell, even IF you have ironclad proof of your argument. And of course when it came right down do it the problem with the Warmies' argument was that they NEVER had proof of any kind beyond fabrications, exaggerations, and fevered imagination.

One of the main problems with all you Warmies is that you can't put forward a position. You talk about 'scientific proof' of 'climate change'. Pht. You don't need the rigor of scientific method to tell anyone that the climage changes. Dur dur dur. Everyone accepts the premise that Earth's climate is not static. Wow - what a keen observation.

Where the Warmies have lost the argument is thier plaintive, inaccurate, unproven position that HUMAN C02 emmissions are (A) what changes the climate and (B) the climate can be changed by reducing human C02. There was never any evidence of that position. But Warmies love to muddle terminology and pretend that just because 'scientists' agree that climate is changing (again - not much of an accomplishment) that also all those scientists agree that human activity is responsible for it (which they most decidedly do NOT).

Add on top of that the fundamental reality that many of the cornerstones of the APG Warmie movement have been proven to be complete bunk. Just this week the Polar Bear guy was proven by a federal probe to be completely full of crap. He had no data that bears were dying because of human activity as he claiimed. The hockey stick chart - falsified. East Anglia university data - the numbers are cooked. The IPCC panels - all thier data is bad and the majority of thier claims have all been debunked and failed. Time and time again when you put the Warmies under the microscope of REAL SCIENCE, the argument completely falls apart.

The video has it completely backwards. It is not FOX & conservatives who are faking thier way. The entire climate change movement and all its acolytes are the ones who are lying to accomplish a biased, incorrect, inaccurate, anti-science objective entirely for political purposes.