Why do fundamentalist Christians object to the science behind climate change?
- Thread starter Rationalist
- Start date
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Do explain how you think the above are all agreeing that Man is the primary cause of the warming?
Once again moron, I did not address the OP's fucking paper. That is your pathetic strawman.
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
Sorry but that is not testing according to the accepted scientific method. Allow me to give you a hint. It involves a control which means you would need another planet earf.
BTW I can change your name too
What you are saying has many implications. Allow me to provide an example. Creationists argue that since we've never observed a Kuiper Belt object becoming a comet, we cannot infer that it is the origin of short-term comets. The fact that their aphelion crosses through the Kuiper Belt and that their composition is identical to that of other KBOs is irrelevant to Creationists. The logical implication of this is that it was unreasonable for Galileo to assume that the Earth revolves around the Sun based on his observations of Jupiter and its four largest moons. After all, he couldn't directly observe the Earth circling the Sun, so how would he know?
Do explain how you think ANY of them address THAT issue. They don't. Strawman.
Ad hom. No, you ignored the topic just as you ignored Mott's comments and mine and instead insist that we support your strawmen. It's not gonna happen.
If you want to change the subject to the things those comments ACTUALLY and SPECIFICALLY address then do so with new threads or you can accept the fact that none of us sees anything that glitters in your pile of poo that we wish to defend. I don't support Kyoto. I don't even support cap n trade, though I might if I thought there were reasonable safeguards against gaming this MARKET based system. Mott (and Mott please feel free to correct me if I misunderstood) said he does not yet feel comfortable enough with the science to make policy proposals.
I am NOT discussing solutions here. That cannot happen until we get past the mental roadblocks that have stopped you and others from acknowledging the problem.
I give up on trying to sway you. You are CERTAIN you know the answer and it is based on some nonsense that I and everyone who disagrees is part of some sinister plot.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Did you change your name to keep from being called tamponstring? How thenthitive.
You said the key word about evolution and global warming. They are theories. I have a theory that you are a dipshit blowhard. But I can't say I can prove it scientifically. Believe in man made global warming with all of your heart but do not claim it is science and do not claim it is testable because it is not. Without a control, you cannot control for all of the variation. Hell the fuckers don't even know everything that effects out climate so to say that you know with certainty that any change in climate is caused by man is the height if arrogance and in and of itself not science
No, I changed it for the statement.
Oh wow, it's a theory. You really pwned me. lol
Plenty of data and the predictions made upon the data supports the theory. There is very good reason to assume that the REASONABLE predictions made are relatively accurate.
You offer no predictions except that the world will follow you into your state of fear, where your old coins and guns will somehow keep you safe.
WE can remove YOUR sense of anonymity if WE want then maybe bring in a few a more unannounced guests that hide behind their veils.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
again moron... they specifically address the comments Mutt made. NO ONE HAS EVER DISPUTED WHAT YOU SEEM TO WANT THEM TO DISPUTE. YOU FUCKING RETARD.
Again moron, the topic was global warming. Mutt made comments on global warming. I highlighted those and addressed those. You are a fucking idiot and the only one that is creating straw men.
NO ONE SAID YOU DID
NO ONE SAID YOU DID
YES, MUTT said that. That was not the point of his that I disputed. AGAIN MORON, I HIGHLIGHTED SPECIFICALLY WHAT I DISPUTED. YOU SIMPLY ARE NOT INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO GET IT.
NO ONE SAID YOU WERE
and HERE moron is your problem. My entire point is that you are basing your religious belief upon the so called 97% who think man is the primary cause. You then IGNORE every credible professional that points out why the '97%' is WRONG. You completely... 100%... IGNORE it.
the only thing I am certain of is that the so called 'consensus' is wrong, given that the models they based their decisions on are WRONG.
and yet another straw man from you... how quaint
You did not dispute my assertion? Are you sure? Do you need to dice up my comments a little more and season with more straw? Sniff sniff, still smells like flying monkey poo.
Who are you attempting to fool at this point?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
yes, I am quite sure. You cannot grasp the difference. Can you?
You need to learn what a straw man is. I diced up your comments because you can't seem to comprehend paragraphs. I was trying to make it easy for you.
Speaking of straw men... did you notice how many you tried to create? How many times did I have to inform you that NO ONE SAID what you were being defensive about?
You have offered nothing to prove the 97% is wrong, which is what you just claimed in red above. Tom offered proof that someone misrepresented what was said.
All you did was post some quotes out of context and without crediting the orignal source. None, of it countered the consensus. It only addressed policy proposals and conclusions based upon what they said.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
You have offered nothing to prove the 97% is wrong, which is what you just claimed in red above.
Yes, everything you have posted has indeed been BS. Thanks for the warning that more was to follow.
I have indeed offered up proof that the 'consensus' was wrong. You continue to ignore it.
This is where you are confusing yourself. You are talking about a quote... not the consensus opinion that man is causing global warming.
No moron... the quotes were in context and I did source them. Maybe not on this thread, but I did on the original. So once again you are lying out of your ass.
As for the quotes only addressing policy proposals and conclusions, you are yet again either a liar or a moron. You tell us which it is.
Post 62 on this thread moron.... read it again. It addresses the validity of the models, the methodology of the fear mongers, the absence of transparency, the non scientific method of the IPCC, the lack of scientific evidence, the problems with the CO2 theory due to saturation...
Are you really to ignorant to read all of that?
You have offered nothing to prove the 97% is wrong, which is what you just claimed in red above. Tom offered proof that someone misrepresented what was said.
All you did was post some quotes out of context and without crediting the orignal source. None, of it countered the consensus. It only addressed policy proposals and conclusions based upon what they said.
It's funny how simplefreak huffs and puffs and thinks he is blowing your house down. It is nice to see someone blowing holes all through his bullshit.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
well to be honest....the fact that the same thing is happening that happened a hundred thousand years a go and two hundred thousand years ago and three hundred thousand years ago might make the average person conclude that since man made greenhouse gases didn't have anything to do with it the other three times, they might not have anything to do with it this time either.....
At what rate did it happen back then and weren't there more volcanoes erupting to promote the greenhouse effect?
Yes, the average person that has not considered all the factors affecting climate or developed theories to explain the variations might conclude that. That is, non climatologists.
They may also conclude it is due to an angry god and throw you in a volcano.
Last edited:
So what you are saying is the 3% really exists? Okay, I am sorry if I SEEMED to disagree. You might be right.
I have addressed the validity of one set of predictions. If your guys have good scientific theories, and I am not saying they do not, then they will be able to make some predictions or be able to better explain past climate change. Where is that? And no I am not going to go do your leg work anymore.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
You don't listen. You don't want to listen because you are a liberal and like all liberals you are married to your ideology.
When bested on the available evidence you crawl into a corner and screech "where are the skeptics predictions?" As if a lack if weather predictions is proof your side is right. What is astounding is that you think that passes for an argument.
What is astounding is that you think people who can't accurately pick the weather more than a week out can predict climate 10 years out. You are funny
I am convicted the Tamponstring here is a troll lefty trying to pass himself off as a libertarian
You have not bested me on anything. You have not offered any evidence against my position or in support of your own.
The request for some predictions are NOT proof of the position I have taken. I made it quite clear that was NOT my intent. My intent is to show that the faux skeptics have NOT shown much effort to further the science that surrounds their hypothesis. As far as I can tell the "skeptics" have not moved past the state of forming a hypothesis. Until they do that the weight of the science will remain against them. That does not mean they are wrong or that someone else is right. It means they have not done much work to support their position.
Your accusations of troll are not going to work. I have been with this community too long. If anything they will grow suspicious that you are my troll. I have no clue what your angle is, but it cannot be the promotion of your stated ideas.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
their position is that YOUR position is WRONG. it requires no hypothesis it requires no predictions. It just requires debunking your bogus data
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
Look, global warming is a religion to you, I will have as much chance of converting you from it as I would of converting OWEbama from a muslime to a christian