telegraph.co.uk (a Libertarian bastion; laissez-faire capitalist; neoliberal) closed the comments on this article before I had the opportunity to post my final comment there on the issue of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming; human-caused).
Here's that final comment. The context will be difficult; but if you read it, much of it will be self-explanatory. You can always go to the article and read the 1117 comments; or to help you start with my first one there, start here: (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100152774/global-warming-what-global-warming-says-high-priest-of-gaia-religion/#comment-526045880 – will open in a new tab).
Before I get into my last comment, let me say that telegraph.co.uk really doesn't know how to set up and run the DISQUS commenting system.
Here's a bit of the 2nd to the last comment to me:
I must say, this DISQUS system is the biggest pile of poo on God's green Earth. Sometimes it loads, sometimes it doesn't, sometimes it lets you post, other times not, sometimes it edits stuff – posting on this blog is like playing Russian Roulette.
Now, here's my last comment:
I find the following simply fascinating:
@MagicTurtle: "As I keep telling you, I am not an 'AGW denier'. However, in your post of 16/05/2012 03:54 PM you wrote: "You were offended at being called a denier. You can re-read my comments and yours. I said you were, but then you said you weren't. Then you said you were again. So, how can I speak to you where you aren't a moving target by virtue of you are but you aren't but you are...?"
"I think this is where your confusion about me may have started because your sentence "Then you said you were again" is simply untrue. "
Tom Usher: It is not untrue:
Tom Usher to MagicTurtle: "'Why are you feeling insulted being called an AGW denier?'
MagicTurtle's immediate, direct reply in that same comment: "BECAUSE I'M NOT AN AGW DENIER!!!"
Yet, for comment after comment after comment, this MagicTurtle has insisted that the subject of the above is not about "You were offended at being called a denier" (offended; insulted) but rather that I have been supposedly calling him a denier the whole time, which is patently untrue and which anyone who re-reads the entire back-and-forth should clearly see. He even asked if I wouldn't be in trouble with God for bearing false witness about his being a denier, even though I had openly acknowledged long before that, that he revealed he claims not to be denier and had not claimed he was a denier once after that acknowledgment.
Here's what MagicTurtle said in reply to my comment:
You [Tom Usher] wrote:
'....You can re-read my comments and yours. I said you were, but then you said you weren't. Then you said you were again. So, how can I speak to you where you aren't a moving target by virtue of you are but you aren't but you are...?' I said consistently that I am not a denier of AGW. I don't know why you can't accept that.
Who can't see that he changed the subject from one of offense or insult to that of denial, per se? Anyone? He definitely changed the subject, which made him a moving target, as I said.
However, a comment or portion thereof seems to have gone missing. I distinctly remember reading MagicTurtle saying that he was not insulted for himself but for the professed deniers. Perhaps that was in reply to someone else. I didn't look in that regard. Regardless, he certainly changed the subject and has refused to acknowledge that fact.
Remember, this is what I had written:
You were offended at being called a denier. You can re-read my comments and yours. I said you were, but then you said you weren't. Then you said you were again.
Okay, that's an awkward statement. The subject is clearly offense, but MagicTurtle turned it into solely about the question of his own AG denialism and chronology. I could have written the whole bit better.
That said, even if one takes MagicTurtle's stance about it, MagicTurtle still said the following: " I neither agree nor disagree with AGW."
What we have here is semantical difficulties (style difficulties, which MagicTurtle denied: "Your style is not difficult for me.").
In Christianity, agnosticism (in the sense MagicTurtle has applied denial to himself) is the denial of God.
He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. (Matthew 12:30 KJV)
That is the sense in which I've applied MagicTurtle's claimed non-denial to him while at the same time acknowledging his connotation of the concept in his own mind. I disagree with him on it, in that I hold with Jesus's view on such matters; and for the sake of clearing the air, I've explained in a bit more detail herewith.
Yes, it adds another layer of complication for readers, but it is part of what was running through my mind while dealing with, but not previously directly addressing, MagicTurtle's numerous unsubstantiated assertions about the "AGW Movement," as he likes to think of it (as some monolith headed by a secret, evil cabal rather than mostly by people genuinely concerned about the environment and ecology, etc.). How does he think of it? Eco-Nazis, is it?
Read the following and consider:
"'In addition, do you pay attention to your own term "initially"? Where are the carbon corporations vis-a-vis the IPCC now? They are fighting it with everything they can bring.'
"Are they? And you know this how?
"'They pay thousands of professional lobbyists to work against everything the IPCC does.'
"And you know this how?"
Lobbyists are registered in the US. Didn't you know that? There are about 3 or 4 professional carbon corporation lobbyists on the Hill for every member of Congress.
"In any case, they also pay thousands of professional phony climate scientists to conduct pantomime research to 'prove' to the scientifically-naÃ¯ve general public that human carbon-emissions are provoking an imminent global climate catastrophe."
How do you know that? You don't. You're just throwing garbage out there.
You say that while claiming you are not an AGW-denier. So you will now split your position for us by suggesting that you're not denying AGW but that it will provoke "an imminent global climate catastrophe." Perhaps you'll say that you aren't saying that though and that you're really only addressing the fear-mongering even while you call thousands of climate scientist who say there is AGW, "professional phony climate scientists."
So, I said how I know: "Lobbyists are registered in the US. Didn't you know that? There are about 3 or 4 professional carbon corporation lobbyists on the Hill for every member of Congress." Where's MagicTurtle's proof for his allegation that "they also pay thousands of professional phony climate scientists to conduct pantomime research to 'prove' to the scientifically-naÃ¯ve general public that human carbon-emissions are provoking an imminent global climate catastrophe."? He's made that up. The carbon corporations do not do that. They do not pay "thousands of professional phony climate scientists" or thousands of any kinds of scientists to do that. He has absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever. It's a complete fabrication - a boldfaced lie!
Here's also a response from MagicTurtle:
'You are also completely correct that I don't buy into the idea that anyone who has gone through the material can come to the conclusion based upon rigorous scientific training in the field that there is no warming and that even if there is, it is not human activity that is tipping the balance right now.' Then you are a prize ignoramus who remains in stubborn ignorance of the fact that there are thousands of accredited scientists who have studied the material and come to the common conclusion that AGW is trivial and there is no empirical evidence for it being otherwise. This is in spite of the fact that verifiable links to their writings and utterances are shot throughout the comments section of this very blog.
You will note that I said "rigorous scientific training in the field," but MagicTurtle dumbed that down to merely "accredited scientists." Accredited in what field(s)? You see, that's twisting.
'Look, I believe the anti-NGO scientist about as much as I believe scientists who were paid by the Tobacco Institute (Heartland Institute)....' The question of who you choose to believe is irrelevant to the facts about AGW. Belief is not the same as knowledge and taking the word of your preferred scientific authorities on blind trust leaves you none the wiser about what the global climate is really doing. In view of your commitment to Christ's teachings, which included the injunction to 'Put not your trust in princes', I am surprised that you should be appearing to do precisely that by putting your trust in princes of academia like Hansen, Mann, Jones and Trenberth to mention only a few.
This MagicTurtle doesn't seem to understand that Jesus was and is a prince. Who are his Apostles? Were they not, are they not, princes in Heaven? Are they, were they, not to be trusted in their witness? I don't have blind trust in the climate scientists who put forth AGW. I have no trust in the non-climate scientists from the Heartland Institute (proven Tobacco Institute types) though. Why did MagicTurtle not address that connection of the founding AGW-deniers' direct connection with the liars about tobacco? It's an inconvenient truth. You shall know them by their fruits -- liars -- professional liars -- proven!
'Now, as to your last main point about the NWO, there is nothing you mentioned that's new to me in the slightest. I've been all over it. The major oil companies are not funding AGW believers so those oil companies can usher in an evil NWO. They have funded....etc' Believe what you will. You're making up the facts to suit yourself anyway and I shall not try to argue you out of such blind folly.
Meaning, he doesn't have the proof to substantiate his wild libel; therefore, he'll just duck the issue and try to divert attention to the he said, she said of "offense."
I don't see how any Christian can subscribe to the alarmist AGW movement because that is promoting a belief-system which is antithetical and incompatible with the Biblical teachings of Christ. You said in your reply to commonsensemajority a couple of days ago that the Bible enjoins us to be good stewards of the earth and to care for it lovingly, but that is the opposite of what the AGW movement is enjoining us to do. That requires us to hand over our stewardship of the earth to a central panel of expert technocrats, who will tell us what the earth needs and how to run our lives in order to meet those official planetary requirements that they have defined. How can we practice good stewardship of the earth if we stop being its stewards ourselves and abdicate all power and responsibility for stewardship to a bunch of ruling technocrats to administer as they see fit? We can't! And it's cloud-cuckoo land thinking to believe that we can.
Who said any of that? All of that is just a self-serving, selectively convenient way of lumping everyone who knows there is AGW together. It's about as bad as Heartland Institute's utterly stupid billboard lumping me in with the Unibomber. I am the face of the AGW movement, if there is one, just as much as anyone else is; and I don't subscribe to handing "over our stewardship of the earth to a central panel of expert technocrats," quite the contrary. I'm anti-technocracy. You should read my "fights" with the Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement (TZM) over that issue and others.
The AGW movement is not about practicing good stewardship of the earth. That is just another one of its phony claims and selling points to justify and sanctify its rape of humanity. Christ told his followers: 'Continue in my Word and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.' (John 8;32) Knowledge of the truth? Freedom? These things are anathema to the AGW movement! The AGW movement proposes to hide the truth from the public behind a wall of secrecy that is immune to the Freedom of Information Act, so that only insiders - the privileged elite - will have access to it.
I don't; but at the same time, I fully appreciate that scientists in the middle of studying and questioning and debating amongst themselves not be taken wildly out of context, as happened regarding "Climategate." There is a point at which people have a right to converse and study in private. The question is where to draw the lines and not whether. Now, if everyone were genuinely interested in truth alone, we wouldn't have to worry about it. The Heartland Institute though was not worried about truth alone, as the paid work for Big Tobacco showed, or am I wrong on that?
And freedom - there won't be any of that if we consent to go where they want to take us. We'll be lucky if we get away with our lives! Their political-social philosophy is one of absolute centralization of power and absolute central control over everything. They are proposing a technocratic socialist dictatorship! How Christian is that?
Some people want a "technocratic socialist dictatorship." However, just because some people want it does not mean or prove that AGW is not happening and that it is not the carbon corporations' love of mammon that is at it's heart. It is MagicTurtle who is blind to the truth.
'Contrary to what some here have said, I'm not here trolling.'
So you say. However, as far as I have seen you have only picked fights here up to now. Sorry, but to my mind that is trolling.
I didn't come to pick a fight. I came to speak the truth. "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: (Luke 12:51 KJV)."
The AGW-deniers are separating themselves out into the destroyers of the earth via pollution, and yes, contrary to Alex Jones (who is a hothead and likes it and promotes it -- not that everything he says is wrong) CO2 in over supply is a pollutant. It is a matter of relativity.
You insist that if I am not an 'AGW denier' myself then I am "in their camp – deeply. It's like a lamb wrapping itself in a wolf skin and then complaining to the shepherd." (19/05/2012 06:25 AM)
And that is another false accusation against me and the 'AGW deniers' who you are comparing to wolves(!). I have simply pointed out that the people who you are branding 'AGW deniers' have as much right to their views and beliefs about AGW in a free society as you have to yours. 'AGW denial' is NOT a thought-crime and it will never become one either if I can help it. So if you don't want me to defend 'AGW deniers' against your unwarranted assaults upon their good names and characters, then don't attack them for being 'AGW deniers' in the first place.
I am comparing those who deliberately mislead and obfuscate to wolves, yes. I stand by that. Yes, I find your fence-sitting to be reprehensible concerning the Heartland Institute and the others like them and who employ them to spread false propaganda against scientists who don't have an evil NWO agenda but rather are just letting the data speak for itself as best as they are able to make that happen.
Now you ask me: 'Do you not know what the following means: "I certainly don't see why I couldn't be forgiven for taking you as a denier what with your strange ("projecting") defense of denial"?'
Oh, I think I do know what it means. But fear not, I do forgive you.
That is an admission on MagicTurtle's part that MagicTurtle was beating a dead horse all this time when he was claiming that I hadn't acknowledge that he claimed not to be a denier and/or that I had been calling him one after he had said he was not. That, however, does not alter the fact that semantically, I see him as against the position that AGW is happening by the very fact of his fence sitting (that, per Jesus Christ, as I've stated previously).
To be clear here, I finished replying to MagicTurtle yesterday (my time). I will no longer be reading MagicTurtle's comments to me. I did a somewhat exhaustive job yesterday of answering his false claims while admitting my own shortcomings (a line of awkward wording, which MagicTurtle spun into a completely different issue) and I wrap it up here today with this, my last comment on the subject. I haven't left anything dangling vis-a-vis MagicTurtle that I can tie up, as far as I can tell.
I am not in a state of perfection yet with Jesus and don't claim to be. What I am not is what MagicTurtle has mischaracterize me as being. I stand by my statements here. I still wholly believe that AGW-denial is completely consisting of dupes, minions, and/or shills of the carbon-corporation camp. I do not accept as any sort of preponderance of evidence or any good evidence at all the claims of non-climate scientists regarding Global Warming. I believe there is AGW and have ample and compelling reasons to hold that position. The mammon worshiping carbon oligarchs are behind AGW-denial and for no good reason but rather for evil, and all of you need to face that fact.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)