I'm a denier denier

[Habeed]

I deny that any sentient being who is capable of speech and wiping their own arse can deny that major, unquestionable historical events happened at all.

I deny that Holocaust deniers exist - no one with the ability to speak can possibly think you could fake killing 11 million people.

I deny that 9/11 deniers exist - if the planes didn’t take the building down, how did tons of explosives get planted and nobody noticed? No one who is still smart enough to type can possibly think you could fake that.

I deny that Moon landing deniers exist - you can aim a laser at the moon and confirm the reflectors exist…

Hence, I’m a denier denier. Deniers don’t exist - it’s all a big conspiracy of the mainstream media keeping us as sheep. Wake up to the truth, man. Don’t be a sheep. Anyone disagree?

[Robert163]

does this include denying global warming deniers?
people who claim the world is 6,000 years old?

[Morgenstern]

I’m going to deny reading this.

[GIGObuster]

Aaah!.. if only that was the case we could ignore deniers forever. In a perfect world they would not be ever in positions of power.

154: Beliefs - explain xkcd

[Girl and a professor stand together, with another figure in the distance.] 
Girl: Professor, that man claims the earth is 6,000 years old! 
Professor: So? Just use your head and don't concern yourself overmuch with what other people think. 

Girl: But he says the fossils in the mountains were put there in a flood! 
Professor: Well, evidence suggests that they were not. 
Girl: But he-- 

[A mountain landscape.] 
Professor: A million people can call the mountains a fiction, yet it need not trouble you as you stand atop them. 

[Girl and professor again.] 
Girl: But he believes the silliest things! 
Professor: So? 

Professor: The universe doesn't care what you believe. The wonderful thing about science is that it doesn't ask for your faith, it just asks for your eyes. 

Girl: But he's a US senator! 
Professor: Ah, then yes, we do have a bit of a situation. 

Unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world, we have to confront them where it is important.

[Habeed]

@Robert163

does this include denying global warming deniers?
people who claim the world is 6,000 years old?

Of course. Who can deny that Venus is hot and that adding 29 billion tons of C02 to the atmosphere every year will have some effect on the climate? I deny that anyone can be that stupid. They must be all trolling.

Ditto with the 6k figure - the bible is a “book of parables” after all.

[Chefguy]

I’m the dernier vernier denier denier.

I consider that to be a measured response.

[GIGObuster]

@Habeed

Of course. Who can deny that Venus is hot and that adding 29 billion tons of C02 to the atmosphere every year will have some effect on the climate? I deny that anyone can be that stupid. They must be all trolling.

Ditto with the 6k figure - the bible is a “book of parables” after all.

Of course I can agree with that, but you know what trolling actually means? Many of the people they ensnare are willing to elect them to important political offices.

[AHunter3]

How do you feel about patriarchy deniers?

[running_coach]

@AHunter3

How do you feel about patriarchy deniers?

Stupid muthas.

[Habeed]

@AHunter3

How do you feel about patriarchy deniers?

I deny only deniers who deny an unquestionable, unchallengeable fact. “The patriarchy” posits that men have all the power and women have none, when this is self evidently not true now and has never been true as long as humans have existed as a species. If men had all the power, they wouldn’t fight among each other to impress women, as they could just demand that women give them what they want…

“Climate change” is undeniable - you might attempt to argue the planet will cool instead of warm, but you cannot deny that adding 29 billion tons of CO2 year after year for decades is going to do something.

[Robot_Arm]

I don’t believe that the fineness of silk, rayon, or nylon yarn can be measured.

[Claverhouse]

This is enormously courageous of you, in such a place and at such a time.
I bet you deny those witchcraft deniers too. Hunt down those murderous old crones !

[Trinopus]

Denier sou livre – which is Latin for “follow the money.”

[watchwolf49]

I deny the denial of denialism

[watchwolf49]

@Habeed

… you cannot deny that adding 29 billion tons of CO2 year after year for decades is going to do something.

It transports the food supply for the 4 billion people who live in cities … just saying …

[Terr]

@GIGObuster

Girl: But he’s a US senator!
Professor: Ah, then yes, we do have a bit of a situation.

I am sorry, but for the sake of the argument, if a Senator believes the Earth is 6,000 years old, how exactly does that create “a bit of a situation”?

[Habeed]

@Terr

I am sorry, but for the sake of the argument, if a Senator believes the Earth is 6,000 years old, how exactly does that create “a bit of a situation”?

Because if he doesn’t believe in the existence of facts, or math, or logical reasoning, how can he be expected to make wise decisions when he governs? The only way you can conclude that the earth is that age is either to (a) deny the existence and effectiveness of most scientific reasoning and methods (b) believe that God himself is faking the evidence/personally intervening to make this “biblical truth” the actual truth. If that’s so, then…

Maybe he doesn’t believe in the existence of dangerous enemy soldiers, so he votes for a war, figuring the enemy will surrender in a week. Maybe he doesn’t believe that borrowing money has long term consequences like having to pay it back. Maybe he doesn’t believe that shutting down the government disrupts lives for ordinary Americans, because he doesn’t believe government services are useful to most people. (especially if he has private equivalents to all those services as a wealthy man) Maybe he doesn’t believe that God will allow the Earth to warm up/cool down as a result of disrupting the climate with gigantic injections of C02 over a period of decades.

[Terr]

@Habeed

Because if he doesn’t believe in the existence of facts, or math, or logical reasoning, how can he be expected to make wise decisions when he governs?

I believe one can have a belief that Earth is 6000 years old (or that Moon is made of cheese, or that we all live in a Matrix) and still know math, and have solid logical reasoning in all other matters. Why are the two related?

Maybe he doesn’t believe in the existence of dangerous enemy soldiers, so he votes for a war, figuring the enemy will surrender in a week.

Maybe he doesn’t. But maybe he does. How do you know? It is not related to his belief that Earth is 6000 years old.

It’s kinda like we were constantly assured during Clinton years that a politician can be a complete cheating sleazeball in his personal life but that is not related to his actual political persona. Not related.

[watchwolf49]

@Habeed

Because if he doesn’t believe in the existence of facts, or math, or logical reasoning, how can he be expected to make wise decisions when he governs?

Why wouldn’t coal mining districts send climate change deniers (if they actually exist) to the US Congress? We have recall, and we know how to us it, either Senator is unemployed if they don’t back the Obama administration. Democracy in action, Pennsylvania is entitled to her say …

[GIGObuster]

@Terr

I am sorry, but for the sake of the argument, if a Senator believes the Earth is 6,000 years old, how exactly does that create “a bit of a situation”?

It is when they are supposed to make decisions that have to rely on science and it does not help when the bible is used to make choices for all Americans.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44958.html

Shimkus drew snickers from the left in March 2009 when he quoted an exchange between God and Noah in Genesis during a subcommittee hearing on adaptation policies for dealing with climate change. His critics have rehashed the congressman’s remarks now that he’s entered the internal GOP campaign to take charge of the House panel with direct oversight of global warming and other environmental and energy policy issues.

“I’m glad that John Shimkus can sleep at night, faithful that that God’s word is ‘infallible, unchanging, perfect,’” Salon blogger Andrew Leonard wrote on Wednesday. “But for those of us who are less confident in humanity’s ability to keep from massively screwing up, the thought that the Bible will be determining government energy policy is massively ulcer inducing.”

Watch a US senator cite the Bible to prove that humans aren't causing global...

To understand the craziness that just went down on the floor of the US Senate, you first have to understand the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. It’s pretty simple, actually: The planet is getting warmer, largely because humans are releasing heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide. Or, as the world’s leading climate scientists put it in a recent report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal,” and it’s “extremely likely”—that is, at least 95 percent certain—“that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”

These are well established scientific facts, but congressional Republicans have had a hard time accepting them. So on Wednesday, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), sought to put his colleagues on record by having them vote on a simple measure declaring it the sense of the Senate that “climate change is real and not a hoax.”

When Whitehouse first introduced this amendment a couple days ago, he made clear that by “climate change,” he was referring to “what our carbon pollution…is doing to our atmosphere and what it is doing to our oceans.” But the amendment didn’t literally say that, and the Senate’s most outspoken climate science denier saw this as an opportunity. James Inhofe—an Oklahoma Republican who has previously pointed to the Bible as evidence that human-caused global warming is a hoax—urged his fellow senators to support the amendment.

Addressing his Senate colleagues before the vote, Inhofe once again cited the Bible to argue that the climate does indeed change but that humans aren’t the cause.

But they weren’t done. Next, Republicans brought up their own climate amendment, which stated that climate change is indeed “real” and that human activity “contributes” to it. This amendment got 59 votes (one short of the 60-vote threshold for passage), but just 15 of the chamber’s 54 Republicans supported it.

And of course, the scientific consensus isn’t merely that human activity “contributes” to climate change. Rather, scientists say that humans are the “dominant cause” of the recent warming. That was the subject of a third amendment, from Democrat Brian Schatz (Hawaii), which stated that human activity “significantly contributes” to climate change. That was too much for Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who objected specifically to the word “significantly.” Murkowski, an Alaska Republican who chairs the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, urged her colleagues to vote no. In the end, Schatz’s amendment received just 50 votes, and only five of those came from Republicans.

On Thursday morning, the Senate began discussing yet another amendment, from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). This one declares that climate change is real, that it is caused by human activity, that it’s already causing significant problems, and that it is “imperative” that we actually do something about it—specifically, that we transition our economy away from fossil fuels. We’ll see how many GOP votes that one gets. Update: Zero. Sanders’ amendment received zero Republican votes.