Why do fundamentalist Christians object to the science behind climate change?

TheSuperstringTheory said:
You don't need a control to test. That is only a certain type of test.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Click to expand...

If you want to call it science you do Tamponstring.

Btw from your wiki take a gander at this

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established (when data is sampled or compared to chance).


The warmers aren't so keen on sharing their data. I guess you will give them a pass.

Look you can believe in man made global warming. Just don't call it science. It isn't. It is no less a religion than Islum
 
FactsRStubborn said:
If you want to call it science you do Tamponstring.

Btw from your wiki take a gander at this

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established (when data is sampled or compared to chance).

The warmers aren't so keen on sharing their data. I guess you will give them a pass.

Look you can believe in man made global warming. Just don't call it science. It isn't. It is no less a religion than Islum
Click to expand...

Have the scientists behind the "skeptics" made any predictions we could check?

Do you have proof that Hansen did not share his data?

Hansen made three different predictions to account for the variable he could not control, CO2, levels and had to make some assumptions on how many volcanoes might occur. But his model would have proven accurate at currently accepted sensitivity parameters. The last senteence implies to me that he must have shared his data.

One of my predictions, was that you would not read the source and there is no way you could have in that time. Another was that you would change the subject.

In conclusion, science.
 
Last edited:
TheSuperstringTheory said:
Have the scientists behind the "skeptics" made any predictions we could check?

Do you have that Hansen did not share his data?

Hansen made three different predictions to account for the variable he could not control, CO2, levels and had to make some assumptions on how many volcanoes might occur. But his model would have proven accurate at currently accepted sensitivity parameters. The last senteence implies to me that he must have shared his data.

One of my predictions, was that you would not read the source and there is no way you could have in that time. Another was that you would change the subject.

In conclusion, science.
Click to expand...

I didn't have to read Wikipedia to understand the scientific method. I know how it is supposed to be done. The fact that you want to turn it on its head to support your untenable position doesn't change that Tamponstring.

How did Hanson account for water vapor in his models?
 
FactsRStubborn:1086138 said:
I didn't have to read Wikipedia to understand the scientific method. I know how it is supposed to be done. The fact that you want to turn it on its head to support your untenable position doesn't change that Tamponstring.

How did Hanson account for water vapor in his models?
Click to expand...


No, I am talking about the skepticalscience link. But, you don't understand the scientific method at all.

Ask Hanson how he accounted for water vapor. You are just nitpicking now.

It does not change the fact that the science is testable. How provable it is another issue. But there is no control group available for evolution theories. Are you claiming that is not science? There is an opportunity to make predictions about what the fossil record will show and they have.

If you want SouthernMan, I could do what you did to me, asshole.
 
TheSupertamponstringTheory said:
No, I am talking about the skepticalscience link. But, you don't understand the scientific method at all.

Ask Hanson how he accounted for water vapor. You are just nitpicking now.

It does not change the fact that the science is testable. How provable it is another issue. But there is no control group available for evolution theories. Are you claiming that is not science? There is an opportunity to make predictions about what the fossil record will show and they have.

If you want SouthernMan, I could do what you did to me, asshole.
Click to expand...

First of all you started with the name change thing. Now like a typical liberal your pussy gets sore when it gets shoved back in your face.

No evolution is not science. You cant test it.

You need a control to test something otherwise you introduce substantial bias.

Now get back to charging your Chevy Volt Tamponstring

:rofl2:
 
FactsRStubborn said:
First of all you started with the name change thing. Now like a typical liberal your pussy gets sore when it gets shoved back in your face.

No evolution is not science. You cant test it.

You need a control to test something otherwise you introduce substantial bias.

Now get back to charging your Chevy Volt Tamponstring

:rofl2:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I am talking about pseudonyms. Was SouthernMan a speedreader too? Did you get a new keyboard? The old one was worfless, huh?

What sort of control are you going to use to test the fossil record and evolution? Plate tectonics? You don't know wtf you are talking about. Never stopped you before, though.
 
Oops, I misread. You said evolution is NOT science. Ooookay. Now I know what I am working with.
 
Last edited:
Voltaire said:
Fundamentalist Christians object to the theory of evolution because it conflicts with their interpretation of the Bible. Although this is pathetic, it is understandable to a certain extent. When one's worldview is threatened, the default response is to defend it (unfortunately, Christians defend their worldview in spite of overwhelming, undeniable evidence, but that's another topic altogether). The one thing that puzzles me is the almost unanimous objection amongst fundamentalist and conservative Christians to the science behind climate change. What's their angle, exactly?
Click to expand...

Most Conservitive Christians are ignorant of science.
 
Science literacy is a vaccine against the charlatans of the world that would exploit your ignorance---Neil Degrasse Tyson
 
Well, let me rephrase, for StubbornResistanceToFacts. Are the theories concerning the mechanisms involved in evolution, science? Are they testable?

Again, what about plate tectonics? That is one the climate "skeptics" reference all the time to challenge arguments about the consensus. Not that anyone expects you to to be coherent.

Are you just trying to be a douchebag, as usual?
 
TheSuperTamponstringTheory said:
Well, let me rephrase, for StubbornResistanceToFacts. Are the theories concerning the mechanisms involved in evolution, science? Are they testable?

Again, what about plate tectonics? That is one the climate "skeptics" reference all the time to challenge arguments about the consensus. Not that anyone expects you to to be coherent.

Are you just trying to be a douchebag, as usual?
Click to expand...

I have already answered this question as has Voltaire who has conveniently run from this thread.

Now since this is the second time you have misread one of my posts, you have exhibited a lack of attention to detail making you unworthy of further attention.

You must perform some form if pennance
 
TheSuperstringTheory said:
Dixie, he said FUNDAMENTALIST Christians. That is a qualification. No where does he say that he believes that evolution disproves any chance of creation. Why not ask if that is what he believes and gather more context? No that would waste time when you can make an ass of yourself much more quickly by jumping to conclusions.
Click to expand...

"Fundamentalist" is simply a rhetorical qualifier, intended to bash all Christians. You can see evidence of how this works in the various other responses, like wanderingbear's attributions to "conservative christians." Also in Brent's assertion that 46% of America believes the earth is less than 10k years old. There are, in fact, a very small number of christians who refute the theory of evolution or believe the world is less than 10k years old. I suspect his 46% number comes from a complete misinterpretation of the question or the answers.

I already know what Brent believes, he has posted many threads on the subject. He continually wants to conflate evolution with creationism, as if one would refute the other. The 'abiogenesis' theory is completely different than evolution theory, and has virtually no basis of support in science. It is a theory, plain and simple. It could be correct, it could be totally wrong, we have no idea. This is not like "evolution" where we have documented evidence it has happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top