It's only a religious topic to climate change denialists.

fuzzfactor 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not only that but with somewhat less fervor those having fairly strong faith in superstition really add up after a while too.

Combine both and it can be the most bizarre trend in non-cognizance that many have ever seen.

Very often displayed by those who wouldn't recognize the difference between a CO2 spectrum and the brain scan of an accurately diagnosed mentally deficient patient.

Some conditions you just can't fix.

Regardless it makes you wonder what kind of medication some people are on, and if they took too much even if it was to no avail.

▲

t0bia_s 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

By your rethoric, do you consider yourself as climate alarmist?

Maybe try to be honest to yourslef first and then you'll understand, why it is really just about opinions that vary. No need to labeling opposition.

▲

tovej 15 hours ago | parent [-]

So you're labelling me a climate alarmist before I have made a single statements about the climate crisis?

I have also not used any rhetoric that wasn't first introduced by the parent, so you also have no evidence of my rhetoric.

Do you see how that is a dogmatic (some might call it religious) response?

To the point: the evidence is overwhelming, and there is nothing alarmist about reacting rationally to it. Anyone denying human-caused climate change is also doing so in the face of this overwhelming evidence, so the label is rather accurate. I would happily label climate deniers with any negatively charged label you can think of: simpletons, propagandists, accelerationists, fundamentalists, reactionaries, fascists, useful idiots. Depends a little on what their role is which label sits best, but they all apply.

	▲	t0bia_s 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Climate change denialist or alarmist is labeling. You belive in something and other don't. Your arrogance to opposite opinion does not bring anything new to dialogue.