 The Climate Consensus Has Failed Citing the “97 percent consensus” talking point to silence debate on global warming is an unsuccessful distraction from more urgent public policy debates on the issue, according to a group of UK social scientists. “Such efforts to force policy progress through communicating scientific consensus misunderstand the relationship between scientific knowledge, publics and policymakers,” sociologist Warren Pearce and others wrote in an academic commentary, published Monday. “More important is to focus on genuinely controversial issues within climate policy debates where expertise might play a facilitating role,” Pearce and his co-authors wrote. Pearce and his co-authors argue there needs to be a more “cosmopolitan approach” to the climate debate that doesn’t rely on quantifying a scientific consensus, but rather “more urgent matters of knowledge, values, policy framing and public engagement.” “Recent efforts to communicate such scientific consensus attained a high public profile but it is doubtful if they can be regarded successful,” Pearce and his co-authors wrote. “Rather than securing certainty that was absent before, this exercise has invited intense scrutiny to the judgments underpinning their claim, and generated further doubt,” they wrote. For years, Democrats and environmentalists have cited research claiming that 97 percent of scientists agree human activities are warming the planet. The figure stems from a 2010 study led by Australian researcher John Cook. Cook’s study examined thousands of scientific papers and interviewed their authors to claim about 97 percent of climate scientists “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.” Former President Barack Obama used the 97 percent figure to undercut critics of his policies to fight global warming. NASA cites the Cook study as one of several purporting to show near-unanimous agreement on global warming. The Daily Caller News Foundation has already reported on why Cook’s consensus figures are more a statistical sleight of hand than actual agreement. University of Delaware geologist David Legates and some colleagues wrote a paper in 2015, debunking the Cook paper. Legates’ study found only 41 out of the 11,944 peer-reviewed climate studies examined in Cook’s study explicitly agreed that mankind is responsible for most of the warming since 1950.......The UK scientists are saying, in a very polite sort of a way, what we can express more succinctly. Cook's study was a complete fraud, and it's been used to propagate lies. |
|
|
|
This hatred has been terrorizing the whole world for a very long time. I just can not understand why it all started. Is it simply because all people eat pork or not legs before prayer? Of course, the differences between Muslims and Christians are very large, but this is not a reason for each other's hatred and certainly not a reason for murder.
Islam do not hate people. It is just that in their religion, their rule is "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" that's why if you did something wrong to them, expect that they will do the same with you. I know some Muslim people and they are so very kind and approachable. They are willing to help you no matter what. Wow, that's totally brilliant. So some nutcase wackos think that the West did something wrong to them, and they go blow up a random bunch of innocent people. Over and over. And then you think you can rationalize it and talk about how nice they are. How stupid do you think people are? |
|
|
|
Trump really wanted to build the wall, but it has come to the realization that it's going to be very expensive now that he has no idea on how to make the Mexicans can pay for the wall. I believe that the wall will be a very good security for the citizens of the USA because most of the Mexicans who come there engage in illegal activities like drugs and murders.
NO they do not. Only a small percentage are criminal, but that small percentage is a big problem, because they freely roam around, back and forth across the border. valid point. should we then embark on a multibillion dollar infrastructure project, which will take years to build, in order to attempt to deter a "small percentage" of immigrants that would be criminals? certainly easier to simply police the border a little harder, a lot harder even ( I shudder to think of the abuses people will suffer at the hands of overzealous border agents). ..... I don't care what makes you shudder. Probably the horrid thought of your fragile little snowflake hitting the ground one day? The border today is essentially a war zone due to the operation of the Mexican cartel gangs. Yes we need the border fence. |
|
|
|
I hope he won't build it. It's a complete waste of money. Anybody who wants to get into the US, will get in, period. Most people come in via air traffic anyways, so the wall is completely pointless when it comes to stopping the main source of inbound traffic.
The money is far better invested in legalizing drugs and selling them under a strictly regulated entity. That way drug crimes will die out and the US will have a new, enormous, source of income. But I suppose the pharma industry doesn't like that approach, which begs the question: why don't they just jump on board and partake in the proceeds?
I assume you are just ignorant on these issues. It takes no money to "legalize drugs," check Colorado and Nevada. Legalizing drugs provides a serious income stream to the state that does so. As for "Most people come in via air traffic,", .... That's not true of movement between the USA and Mexico. |
|
|
|
A lot of terrorists seem to be coming from the Middle East, because the Middle East is getting screwed from all sides. If you lived in that place you would probably be quite pissed off as well.
What would you do if everyone that you care about got wiped out because of some retarded power games?
I honestly don't know if I would go down the same path or if I'd just try to get away and forget. I can definitely see how people end up that way though. Not that I think they should get away unpunished, I definitely think they need to be held accountable.
But even more so, the people who caused this whole mess to begin with should be held accountable. Terrorists are just a tiny symptom of the real problems.
Shouldn't you start with the Muslim clerics that tutor ignorant people that they should become suicide bombers? |
|
|
|
Trump really wanted to build the wall, but it has come to the realization that it's going to be very expensive now that he has no idea on how to make the Mexicans can pay for the wall. I believe that the wall will be a very good security for the citizens of the USA because most of the Mexicans who come there engage in illegal activities like drugs and murders.
NO they do not. Only a small percentage are criminal, but that small percentage is a big problem, because they freely roam around, back and forth across the border. |
|
|
|
There are many therorists from many religion not only from muslim religion.It cant be true that only 1 religion have therorists when other coutries which dont have muslim citizents are therorising people around the world.
I think you mean "terrorist" because if you mean "theorist" then those would be, well, the Jews, who have won many Nobel prizes for their theories. No of course, it just so happens that most of the terrorists are muslims but not all of them, there are also terrorist which is not a muslim, let's keep thatin mind. Let's break that stereotype that when you are muslim, then you are supposed to be a terrorist.
There is no need to break that stereotype, because there is no such stereotype. Let's break the stereotype that newbie sock puppets have to be regarded seriously. |
|
|
|
Who says that being a terrorist is a Muslim?
It is not a Muslim if he becomes a terrorist
There is nothing in this religion about terosism
Nor taught to hurt each other in this religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatwasFatwas involving violence toward individuals Muammar al-Gaddafi Main article: Muammar al-Gaddafi An Egyptian Muslim cleric, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, issued a fatwa that urged soldiers to kill Muammar al-Gaddafi, the leader of Libya, if they were able to do so.[14] Geert Wilders Main article: Geert Wilders An Australian imam named Feiz Mohammad has issued a fatwa calling for the beheading of the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, as of 2010.[15] Jerry Falwell Main article: Jerry Falwell In an interview given on September 30, 2002, for the October 6 edition of 60 Minutes, American Southern Baptist pastor and televangelist Jerry Falwell said: "I think Muhammad was a terrorist. I read enough by both Muslims and non-Muslims, [to decide] that he was a violent man, a man of war." The following Friday, Mohsen Mojtahed Shabestari, an Iranian cleric, issued a fatwa calling for Falwell's death, saying Falwell was a "mercenary and must be killed." He added, "The death of that man is a religious duty, but his case should not be tied to the Christian community."[16] Salman Rushdie Main article: Salman Rushdie Main article: The Satanic Verses controversy One of the first well-known fatwas was proclaimed in 1989 by the Iranian Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, against Salman Rushdie over his novel The Satanic Verses. The reason was an allegedly blasphemous statement taken from an early biography of Muhammad, regarding the incorporation of pagan goddesses into Islam’s strongly monotheistic structure. Khomeini died shortly after issuing the fatwa. In 1998 Iran stated it is no longer pursuing Rushdie’s death; however, that decree was again reversed in early 2005 by the present theocrat, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In 1991, Rushdie's Japanese translator, Hitoshi Igarashi, was stabbed to death in Tokyo, and his Italian translator was beaten and stabbed in Milan. In 1993, Rushdie's Norwegian publisher William Nygaard was shot and severely injured in an attack outside his house in Oslo. Thirty-seven guests died when their hotel in Sivas, Turkey was torched by locals protesting against Aziz Nesin, Rushdie's Turkish translator. In February of 2016, in celebration of the anniversary of the fatwa against Rushdie, Iranian state-run median agencies added $300,000 to the estimated $3.3 Million bounty for the death of Rushdie. Taslima Nasreen Main article: Taslima Nasreen Fundamentalists in Bangladesh proclaimed a fatwa against Taslima Nasreen in 1993, against a series of newspaper columns in which she was critical of the treatment of women under Islam. The next year she wrote Lajja (Shame) which described the abuse of women and minorities. Again there were calls for her death, and her passport was confiscated. Within the legal system, she felt that she might have faced a jail term of up to two years, where she was likely to be murdered. She managed to escape the country via Calcutta, was granted asylum in Sweden, and then lived in Paris, and finally went to India. Even in India, she had to flee the city of Kolkata and move to Delhi under the Indian government's strict orders following riots in Kolkata. Isioma Daniel Main article: Isioma Daniel Mamuda Aliyu Shinkafi, the deputy governor of Zamfara state in Nigeria, issued a fatwa in November 2002 calling for the death of journalist Isioma Daniel for comments suggesting that Muhammad may have chosen a wife from one of the Miss World contest.[17] Other Muslim authorities have questioned the validity of the fatwa.[18] Raheel Raza Main article: Raheel Raza Raheel Raza, a Muslim human rights activist who has advocated for gender equality, especially for Muslim women, became the first woman to lead mixed-gender Muslim prayers in Canada, in 2005, and said: "I already have a fatwa against me."[19][20][21][22][23][24] Mariwan Halabjaee Main article: Mariwan Halabjaee In an audio file published on the Kurdish website Renesans.nu during September 2008, Mullah Krekar allegedly threatened to kill Mariwan Halabjaee, the Iraqi Kurdish author of Sex, Sharia and Women in the History of Islam, who also resided in Norway. "I swear that we will not live if you live. Either you go before us, or we go before you," said Krekar.[25] Krekar compared Halabjaee with Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.[26] In February 2012, Krekar confirmed in the Oslo District Court that he had issued a twenty-page fatwa against Halabjaee.[27] The fatwa was sent to several hundred Islamic scholars around the world. While Krekar said he thought he might be able to "guarantee the safety" of Halabjaee, Krekar confirmed that his fatwa "implies" that it is "permissible" to kill Halabjaee in Oslo or anywhere else.[27] Krekar compared Halabjaee to Theo van Gogh, the film director who was killed by an Islamist in the Netherlands in 2004.[27] Ulil Abshar Abdalla Main article: Ulil Abshar Abdalla In 2003, a group of Indonesian Islamic clerics from Forum Ulama Umat Islam issued a death fatwa against Ulil[28] for an article that Ulil wrote in Kompas in 2002, "Menyegarkan Kembali Pemahaman Islam" (Rejuvenating the Islamic Understanding) [29][30] that is considered heretical by the clerics. In March 2011, a letter bomb addressed to Ulil at Komunitas Utan Kayu exploded, injuring a police officer. Farag Foda Main article: Farag Foda In June 1992, Egyptian writer Farag Foda was assassinated following a fatwa issued by ulamas from Al-Azhar who had adopted a previous fatwa by Sheikh al-Azhar, Jadd al-Haqq, accusing Foda and other secularist writers of being "enemies of Islam".[31] The jihadist group Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya claimed responsibility for the murder.[32] |
|
|
|
ofcourse not. don't be racist not all muslims are terrorist i have a lot of friends which are muslims and they're so kind in terms of friendship as long as you're good to them also the only reason why there's a lot of muslim terrorist because most muslims are not rich and americans pursuing muslim to do terrorization to put a cover on their badside. this is my only opinion. but it's true lol.
I agree with you, terrorist is a term for those who hate Muslims. Muslim countries continue to be colonized to cover up almost exhausting energy. The middle eastern state is very rich in oil, there is no other way than creating chaos there and all its assets will be mastered. Every Muslim who fights, they say terrorists, developed countries always take refuge with human rights. This is not a matter of Religion, it's about Energy and DAMAGES. No, that's not true. Islamic extremist terrorism is world wide, and just about anywhere where Muslims go, there is terrorism. Take June of 2017 for example. Attacks 164 Killed 1176 Injured 1382 Suicide Blasts 34 Countries 30 Please take a moment to go through the list of these attacks. http://thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=Last30Nigeria? Thailand? Jordon? Lebanon? Pakistan, India, Philippines, Kenya, Israel, Egypt, Italy, Niger, Saudi Arabia. Yes, to be fair, there are a lot in Iraq, Afganistan, and Syria. But I think the facts do refute your assertions. |
|
|
|
why are all terror activities carried out in the world are by people of muslim religion?Why cant muslims let peace be there in the world?Are people of only muslim origins terrorist?so trumps decision by banning muslim is 100% correct?
i think the terrorists only saying that they are muslims to gather more supports in muslims countries but as far as i know , terrorists are no muslims or no religion because , what are they fighting for is different in their beliefs .. terrorists is evil and evil has no religion ,,.. That's a rather foolish point of view, because to assert it you have to ignore the stated motivations of the terrorists themselves. You have to hold that every week, in dozens of countries, suicide bombers are "only saying they are muslims," as they kill hundreds, over and over, year after year, and kill themselves, one after the next. You have to maintain your smug intellectual conceit while reflecting on the reality of 31,000 Islamic terrorist attacks in the last 17 years. |
|
|
|
- Rwanda genocide , but hey they werent Muslim , infact this were not any religion issue .. but hey they are not Muslim so , it doenst count
- as you mentioned the Ira was/were terrrorist organisation , but it was not that important cause they were not Muslims....
- genocide on Jews in WWII , but hey they were no Muslims so it doesnt count ......
- genocide in Yuguslavya , but they they Killed more then 100K Muslims, but hey they were Muslim so is no bad
In Rwanda, it was a racial issue and it was not related to religion. The IRA was also a racial organization, which had nothing to do with religion. And regarding the genocide of Jews during the WW2, you are forgetting the most important fact. Hitler decided to exterminate the Jews, after the grand mufti of Jerusalem urged him to do so. His initial plan was just to deport them. And in the Balkan wars, a majority of the victims were Christians (both Serbs and Croats). Ireland has a long history of conflict between protestants and catholics. Ireland was brought into Catholicism in the 4th century, but then a King of England decided to start his own brand of religion and bingo, we had protestants. Afterwards, conflict between Ireland and England was of course, between Catholics and Protestants. Can the actions of the IRA then be considered "religious terrorism?" I'm really skeptical about that, because the goals of the two sides were completely political, not religious. Wikipedia has a good article on "religious terrorism." I believe it is especially important for people in closed societies, such as a Muslim-dominant culture, to read reasonably unbiased articles such as Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_terrorism |
|
|
|
serial killers are also terrorists. and they arent muslim.
If you could prove that their killings were motivated by religion, then you can call them as religious terrorists. There are a lot of examples out there. David Berkowitz was a born again Christian, who murdered women because he thought that Jesus Christ asked him to do so. Sampson Kanderayi was another fanatical Christian serial killer, who murdered his victims to appease the evil spirits. This is not accurate. A terrorist is one who has specific purposes in his killings, to create an atmosphere of terror. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that is the case for the two you have mentioned. Only a few of all those who murder are terrorists, very few in fact. |
|
|
|
Why should I hate Muslims? They are great ppl in most cases. Not the immigrants and terrorists though. But they aren't true Muslims
Please stop this nonsense about "True Muslims." They're either Muslims, or they're not Muslims, and if they're shouting Allah Akbar as they detonate their bombs, they are Muslims. |
|
|
|
every time you turn around there in another letter added, why can the not just say not straight, or other than straight or something, I mean the amount of ink and re-printing as well as confusion this creates....
So I propose the term Not Straight.
I propose they just shut the fuck up. |
|
|
|
It just depends on how the media reports on it. Muslim attacks are categorized as terrorism. American attacks when someone shoots up a school or theatre is categorized as mentally unstable. American military attacks on foreign soil is categorized as defense.
What? No, that's nonsense. This is why we have phrases such as "Islamic extremist terrorist." Other issues are described differently. Words matter. So absolutely, it's not "how the media reports on it." What part of that is nonsense? ..... What part? The part that tries to redefine words to create moral equivalence. Look at what I said. I suggested using words that are accurately descriptive. |
|
|
|
It just depends on how the media reports on it. Muslim attacks are categorized as terrorism. American attacks when someone shoots up a school or theatre is categorized as mentally unstable. American military attacks on foreign soil is categorized as defense.
What? No, that's nonsense. This is why we have phrases such as "Islamic extremist terrorist." Other issues are described differently. Words matter. So absolutely, it's not "how the media reports on it." |
|
|
|
In many religions there are terrorists and petty criminals, but among Muslims there are more terrorist groups that do a lot of harm to civilians. In general, because of religion, there are many murders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism#Prevalence_relative_to_other_forms_of_terrorismOne ideology that plays a role in terrorism by using the name of Islam, is Wahabism.[40][41][42][43][44] Wahabism and its allies including Salafism (Salafi jihadism) supports war against any one and every one who is not like them. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, al-Qaeda, Al-Shabaab (militant group), Boko Haram, Indonesian Mujahedeen Council, Taliban, Sipah Sahaba, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Hizbul Mujahideen follow intolerant Wahabi or Salafi ideology which is opposed by other Muslims.[44][45][46] Non-Muslims, Sufis, and Shias are attacked by hard-core Wahhabis, Deobandis, and jamaatis in the same way that socialists and other leftist proletarians were assaulted by Mussolini's bandits, Jews and others by the Nazis, and "bourgeois," "kulak," intellectual, Jewish, "Menshevik," and "Trotskyist" dissenters were assaulted by Stalinists.[47] In India, Wahabism was spread in the name of Deobandi movement,[48] which was opposed by more tolerant Sufi oriented Indian Muslims.
Transnational Islamist ideology, specifically of the militant Islamists, assert that Western policies and society are actively anti-Islamic, or as it is sometimes described, waging a "war against Islam". Islamists often identify what they see as a historical struggle between Christianity and Islam, dating back as far as the Crusades, among other historical conflicts between practitioners of the two respective religions. Osama bin Laden, for example, almost invariably described his enemy as aggressive and his call for action against them as defensive. Defensive jihad differs from offensive jihad in being "fard al-ayn," or a personal obligation of all Muslims, rather than "fard al-kifaya", a communal obligation, that is, some Muslims may perform it but it is not required from others. Hence, framing a fight as defensive has the advantage of both appearing to be a victim rather than an aggressor, and of giving the struggle the very highest religious priority for all good Muslims. |
|
|
|
......
Are you really sure about that, "mate"? Seeing as you keep talking and acting no better than a human living in the 16th century I'm not sure I can believe that you are more developed than me. But if you think that violence, hate and ignorance is the way to go and helps you think that you are worth more than others, go ahead. You will surely have a great life.
Ironic that you'd choose the century where the muslim invasion of Europe and other places was at its height. I wonder if you know how many centuries it took the Spanish to drive out the muslim horde? That's probably about all he knows of history, lol.... |
|
|
|
.....Why are you so afraid of something that is just different? That's all it is, different. Not better or worse, as we are in no place pass that judgement.
No, that's not all it is, "different." And yes, we are in a place to pass judgement. Oh? Please do educate me on what it is more other than just being different? Are you too afraid of a different culture too? Are you afraid to learn more, to know more than what you already do? Why is it so? Where were you brought up that you were taught to keep a narrow mind and only focus on your path not being willing to include others, regardless of who they are or where they come from? Pretty quick to jump to Ad Hominem logical fallacies in your argument, dude. That means what, that you really don't have an argument. Of course, that was obvious. |
|
|
|
.....Why are you so afraid of something that is just different? That's all it is, different. Not better or worse, as we are in no place pass that judgement.
No, that's not all it is, "different." And yes, we are in a place to pass judgement. A religion that teaches it's people that they will take over the world and establish a Islam theocracy including through force, is not just different, it's a direct threat to established and peaceful nations and people who are "just different," and who intend to stay "just different." A religion that teaches its people that lying is okay - Takiyya - has some obvious problems. .....
It is quite funny to see that you keep getting stuck on certain things that I write and that you are unable to give me a proper reply that concetrates on the issue at it's whole. I'm not sure I should keep engaging is this conversation with you as you seem to be set in your ways and unable to develop as a human. Shame, can't save them all though. Enjoy your life.
You mean, he doesn't buy into your bullshit? How about that? You are on the Internet, where you don't control the conversation. "unable to develop as a human..." yeah, we've heard that from religious fanatics before "Save them all..." what a joke. You enjoy your life too! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
