Why Does the Global Warming Faith Claim to be Science?

[AProudLefty]

This statement implies that you find the study of Climate Change valid.

Correct. You can observe the weathers over time. You watch the weather news for forecasts.

One cannot validly study the supernatural except as a believer of that religious faith. Can the Christian God be studied and researched? Christians claim to do it all the time, but then again, they are believers of that religious faith.

Correct. Not sure why you are repeating what I said.

Your claim that Climate Change can be studied and researched shows quite clearly that you are a believer of that religious faith.

Wrong. Weathers can be observed and measured. You can even do it with experiments. I suggest you try that.

So we reach the point where you want to claim that your religion is real and supported by science, i.e. that it isn't some religious faith. Great. Give me the science of this science.

You are trying to gaslight me on it being "my religion". It doesn't work.

Give me the religion of this religion.

 

[IBDaMann]

It is not a belief. It is a branch of science, just like meteorology and physics.

Incorrect. There's a reason you can't provide any such science. None exists. All you have is your WACKY religious dogma demanding that you believe all of it to be thettled thienth.

This thread is still devoid of any such science ... because none exists.

I read the researches and studies.

You read the church literature. Neither research nor study is science. Only science is science. Perhaps you should learn what science is.

Just like I read the researches and studies in physics.

This doesn't make any sense. You don't know what science is. It's no wonder that you believe your religion is a branch of science.

The global climate is an overall climates and weathers over time.

That makes no sense. You are babbling the gibberish you have been ordered to regurgitate.

If there were any science to your faith, you'd have no trouble providing the unambiguous definition for the global climate, as well as the falsifiable models that comprise the science.

We both know that that cannot ever happen ... precisely because your WACKY religion is not supported by any science whatsoever.

A question to you.

Sure. Fire away.

Do you believe that the Ice Age occurred? (Y/N)

No. I have never been afforded any unambiguous definition of "ice age" and certainly no rational basis for believing that any ever occurred.

If anyone has such a rational basis, I'm all ears, but until that point, the whole idea sounds stupid and defies physics. Note: I fully accept the possibility that large areas of Earth might have been covered in ice at one or more points in the past, but I don't believe that anyone has omniscience concerning unobserved events of the distant past. I also do not buy the popular notion that geologists are omniscient superheroes who can "read" rocks and fossils and divine unrelated and unrecorded data of the distant past.

Let me know if you require any additional clarification.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Oh jeeeezus, Sybil. Stop trying to play scientist.

You post like you. might be 35-ish, living at home with your parents. Possibly bipolar schizophrenic. Another "Sybil" I see.

Give it a rest, Sybil.

Perry Phimosis

The only other person I see using the name "Sybil" as much as you do is @Doc Dutch. Why is that? What is the attraction of the name?

Are you a fucking moron or just insane, Sybile? Seriously? That's my main interest with you. There are a lot of stupid people on this forum, which makes them boring. The insane ones hold more interest for me.

Considering the scope of your manifesto, I truly believe you are not stupid.

BTW, dumbass, you're wrong:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/about.aspx
As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

^^^ See how he waffle's and dances instead of admitting he was wrong? A good sign of a very weak man or, IMO, one who isn't completely whole.

Wrong on interpretation, Sybil, as previously proved, but fun to see you move the goal posts on "change the Constitution". That's correct.

So am I. How does that make you more sane, Sybil?

Sybil, ask your doctors for a medication change because whatever they are giving you isn't working.

Which Sybil?

Perry Phimosis=Doc Dutch

 

[AProudLefty]

Incorrect. There's a reason you can't provide any such science. None exists. All you have is your WACKY religious dogma demanding that you believe all of it to be thettled thienth.

So it is your belief that it is not a branch of science? Why?

This thread is still devoid of any such science ... because none exists.

Your say so does not make it disappear. Not sure why you are trying to gaslight rational people.

You read the church literature. Neither research nor study is science. Only science is science. Perhaps you should learn what science is.

What church? I do not go to any church.

That makes no sense. You are babbling the gibberish you have been ordered to regurgitate.

Who ordered me? Name that person.

No. I have never been afforded any unambiguous definition of "ice age" and certainly no rational basis for believing that any ever occurred.

Are you not aware of the perfectly preserved mammoths and others?

If anyone has such a rational basis, I'm all ears, but until that point, the whole idea sounds stupid and defies physics.

There is no rational basis in your question.

Note: I fully accept the possibility that large areas of Earth might have been covered in ice at one or more points in the past, but I don't believe that anyone has omniscience concerning unobserved events of the distant past. I also do not buy the popular notion that geologists are omniscient superheroes who can "read" rocks and fossils and divine unrelated and unrecorded data of the distant past.

You are locked in a paradox.

1. The Ice Age didn't happen.
2. The Ice Age did happen.

Which one is it, dude?

Let me know if you require any additional clarification.

I need no more clarification that you are irrational and that your question is irrational.

 

[IBDaMann]

Correct. You can observe the weathers over time. You watch the weather news for forecasts.

Your attempt to pretend that "climate science" is meteorology is ignored. Yes, meteorology is science. Your religion is not.

Correct. Not sure why you are repeating what I said.

I am agreeing with you. Your religion cannot be validly studied. We can declare this as our patch of common ground.

Wrong. Weathers can be observed and measured.

I realize that you think no one will notice your sleight of hand, i.e. quickly switching from discussing "climate science" (a religion) to discussing "weather science" (i.e. meteorology, a science).

You need to stick with "climate science" and at some point you need to provide the unambiguous definition of the global climate.

You can even do it with experiments. I suggest you try that.

This is humorous as well. You don't know what experiments are.

You are trying to gaslight me on it being "my religion". It doesn't work.

I would never try to gaslight you. I might mock you (yes, I do that a great deal to many people; it's kind of my style). You are welcome to show any of my statements to be erroneous, but beyond making lame, unsupported declarations, you still haven't provided any science support for your beliefs or formulated any coherent argument that shows any of my statements to be false. I'm also getting the distinct impression that you aren't very proficient at formal logic. I would much rather you ask for help than to totally botch your arguments, albeit on your own.

Give me the religion of this religion.

I'm not a member of that religion; you are. You understand the doctrine and you are the one affirmatively claiming that this doctrine is somehow supported by science. This is where you make that quantum leap and provide that science ... after unambiguously defining "global climate" of course.

If you want the doctrine of Christianity, you're in luck. gfm7175 is quite knowledgeable in that area. It's quite the privilege to discuss Christianity with him; he explains everything and has plenty of patience for atheists like me. However, you wouldn't want to ask me necessarily because I'm not a member of that congregation, just like I'm not a member of your congregation.

If you want to ask me about science, well, that's a different matter. I'll talk to you all day about that.

 

[AProudLefty]

Your attempt to pretend that "climate science" is meteorology is ignored. Yes, meteorology is science. Your religion is not.

Climatology includes the study of meteorology.

I am agreeing with you. Your religion cannot be validly studied. We can declare this as our patch of common ground.

I have no religion. Not sure why you insist that.

I realize that you think no one will notice your sleight of hand, i.e. quickly switching from discussing "climate science" (a religion) to discussing "weather science" (i.e. meteorology, a science).

As I have stated above, climatology includes meteorology.

You need to stick with "climate science" and at some point you need to provide the unambiguous definition of the global climate.

See above.

This is humorous as well. You don't know what experiments are.

Okay I'll humor you. What are the experiments?

I would never try to gaslight you.

You have been doing that the whole 15 pages. Chanting does not make it more true.

I might mock you

A perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

You are welcome to show any of my statements to be erroneous

Already did repeatedly.

I'm not a member of that religion; you are. You understand the doctrine and you are the one affirmatively claiming that this doctrine is somehow supported by science. This is where you make that quantum leap and provide that science ... after unambiguously defining "global climate" of course.

If you want the doctrine of Christianity, you're in luck. gfm7175 is quite knowledgeable in that area. It's quite the privilege to discuss Christianity with him; he explains everything and has plenty of patience for atheists like me. However, you wouldn't want to ask me necessarily because I'm not a member of that congregation, just like I'm not a member of your congregation.

If you want to ask me about science, well, that's a different matter. I'll talk to you all day about that.

More gaslighting. Why do you think trying to gaslight me will work? It doesn't.

You are in a cult.

 

[IBDaMann]

So it is your belief that it is not a branch of science? Why?

There are no falsifiable "climate science" models within the body of science. The reason nobody can produce science supporting Global Warming or Climate Change is that there simply isn't any. Both are completely unfalsifiable religions.

What church? I do not go to any church.

Is your reading comprehension that far in the dirt that you cannot discern from the context that I was speaking of a group of people/congregation and not a physical building? Could you not simply read my use of the word "congregation" and home in on the correct semantics?

Who ordered me? Name that person.

Unless you divulge who it is that bends you over furniture and reams you into submission, you and he/they will be the only ones that know.

Are you not aware of the perfectly preserved mammoths and others?

I'm definitely aware. Are you aware of polar bears that are actually fully alive? How about snowshoe hares perhaps

You are locked in a paradox.

I can't be contradictory for simply not believing something.

1. The Ice Age didn't happen. 2. The Ice Age did happen.

You have misrepresented my position ... and you erroneously used the definite article "the", i.e. "the ice age", without ever defining what constitutes "the ice age."

My position is: I do not believe that an undefined "ice age" buzzword occurred.

 

[gfm7175]

Love this thread. Duhhhh science is dumb duhhhhhhhhhh

Oh, so you're here to present the science regarding Global Warming?? What have ya got for us, champ?

 

[gfm7175]

I wasnt discussing anything with you.

Yes you were. You made a post onto a public discussion forum. I am part of that public, hence I am included in the discussion and will offer my two cents whenever I deem it appropriate.

 

[AProudLefty]

There are no falsifiable "climate science" models within the body of science. The reason nobody can produce science supporting Global Warming or Climate Change is that there simply isn't any. Both are completely unfalsifiable religions.

You did not answer my question. Try again.

Is your reading comprehension that far in the dirt that you cannot discern from the context that I was speaking of a group of people/congregation and not a physical building? Could you not simply read my use of the word "congregation" and home in on the correct semantics?

A church is a building where people assembly to worship their deities.

Unless you divulge who it is that bends you over furniture and reams you into submission, you and he/they will be the only ones that know.

Please try to answer my questions.

I'm definitely aware. Are you aware of polar bears that are actually fully alive? How about snowshoe hares perhaps

What do the polar bears and the snowshoe hares have to do with anything. Are you trying to deflect?

I can't be contradictory for simply not believing something.

You either believe that the Ice Age occurred or you do not. It is quite simple. You need to resolve the paradox of your own making.

My position is: I do not believe that an undefined "ice age" buzzword occurred.

So what did happen to those poor creatures? Aliens did it?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Perry Phimosis=Doc Dutch

Perry PhD = Jank, dumbass.

Will you join me in condemning Pedo Nazis, Matt? Do you agree all Pedo Nazis belong in prison?

 

[IBDaMann]

Climatology includes the study of meteorology.

Christianity includes the study of meteorology as well. It's the part that is not meteorology that is religion.

Let's confirm. @gfm7175, does Christianity deny meteorology, or does Christianity include meteorology and other sciences? If I were to ask a Christian what will happen if an object is heated to a specific temperature, will he be more likely to respond that the object will radiate thermally to the fourth power of the temperature (modified by some constants, of course) ... or will he more likely respond "Nothing can happen because the event does not glorify God." Thanks in advance.

@AProudLefty, you can point to the entire body of science and claim that your religion "includes it" ... but that begs the question about the part of your religion that is above and beyond any science you claim is included. So I'm happy to narrow it down for you. Only give me the science of "Climate Science" that is not included in meteorology, or chemistry, or anything else that has a name that is not "Climate Science."

I have no religion. Not sure why you insist that.

Global Warming and Climate Change are your religion(s). I'm not sure why you deny this.

Actually, I am sure of the reason why. It has to do with you being too embarrassed to admit that you were gullible and were hornswoggled. It's too late for you to break your fetters and go free. Your religion has you cold. Once you start down the path to the dark side, forever will it dominate your destiny.

Okay I'll humor you. What are the experiments?

It's a concept you are going to have to learn someday, along with acquiring an understanding of the scientific method. Until that time, you're going to be a rhetorical pinata if you ever decide to venture into a science discussion.

By the way, I am intrigued by your comment that I am in a cult. Would you care to explain or is this simply another testament to your deficiency in formal logic?

 

[gfm7175]

A church is a building where people assembly to worship their deities.

In part, yes. I can't speak for other physical church buildings for other faiths, but with regard to Christianity, a physical church building serves not only as a place to assemble to worship God, but also to praise God, to pray to God and otherwise fellowship with God, to receive holy communion, to baptize children (and even adults), to join a man and a woman together as one body, and even provides a place for before/after-service fellowship amongst likeminded brothers/sisters in Christ.

What do the polar bears and the snowshoe hares have to do with anything. Are you trying to deflect?

It seems that there are quite a lot of polar bears and snowshoe hares around, doesn't it? Pretty soon I'll have to join you on your quest to "end global warming" or else there'll be wayyyyy too many polar bears and snowshoe hares running and hopping around, eh?

You either believe that the Ice Age occurred or you do not. It is quite simple. You need to resolve the paradox of your own making.

There is no paradox. Define "the Ice Age". What distinguishes "it" from any other event of a certain amount of ice covering a certain amount of the planet at any particular time?

So what did happen to those poor creatures? Aliens did it?

What poor creatures?? You really do seem to know quite a lot about the events of many moons ago. You must be one reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally old dude by now, exceeding the lifespan of any human on record, knowing meticulous details about events that occurred even before recorded history. IMPRESSIVE!!! I suppose you're now going to try telling me that your beliefs are somehow thettled thienth rather than religion, eh?

 

[AProudLefty]

In part, yes. I can't speak for other physical church buildings for other faiths, but with regard to Christianity, a physical church building serves not only as a place to assemble to worship God, but also to praise God, to pray to God and otherwise fellowship with God, to receive holy communion, to baptize children (and even adults), to join a man and a woman together as one body, and even provides a place for before/after-service fellowship amongst likeminded brothers/sisters in Christ.

Correct.

It seems that there are quite a lot of polar bears and snowshoe hares around, doesn't it? Pretty soon I'll have to join you on your quest to "end global warming" or else there'll be wayyyyy too many polar bears and snowshoe hares running and hopping around, eh?

Yes there are many of them there. Not sure what the relevancy is.

There is no paradox. Define "the Ice Age". What distinguishes "it" from any other event of a certain amount of ice covering a certain amount of the planet at any particular time?

What caused those creatures and plants to freeze rapidly?

What poor creatures?? You really do seem to know quite a lot about the events of many moons ago. You must be one reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally old dude by now, exceeding the lifespan of any human on record, knowing meticulous details about events that occurred even before recorded history. IMPRESSIVE!!! I suppose you're now going to try telling me that your beliefs are somehow thettled thienth rather than religion, eh?

Apparently you are not aware of the perfectly preserved mammoths and others. Did aliens put them in freezers?

 

[IBDaMann]

You did not answer my question. Try again.

Denial on your part. You quoted my thorough answer and then proceeded to claim that I did not provide an answer.

A church is a building where people assembly to worship their deities.

So this is a case of your English proficiency not being up to snuff. Fair enough.

A church is a group of people under a common religion, much like a nation is a group of people with a common socio-political culture.

Please try to answer my questions.

Please get to providing the science behind your beliefs or admit that your religion is based on unfalsifiable dogma and nothing more. We're 16 pages in and you have provided bumpkis, despite your ongoing insistance to the contrary.

What do the polar bears and the snowshoe hares have to do with anything.

They evolved "cold weather" features, as did wooly mammoths. Why did you ask if I was aware that wooly mammoths existed?

You either believe that the Ice Age occurred or you do not.

Incorrect. My position is characterized by what I do not believe.

Pro Tip: If you are going to try to break my argument, you have to break the argument I am making, and not some argument that I am not making. You need to retain all the negations that I include.

One more time: I do not believe that any such undefined "ice age" event ever occurred. Would you like to provide clarification as to what you mean by an "ice age" or are you planning on continuing this futile effort of scrutinizing the undefined?

 

[AProudLefty]

Denial on your part. You quoted my thorough answer and then proceeded to claim that I did not provide an answer.

There is no denial. You did not answer my questions.

So this is a case of your English proficiency not being up to snuff. Fair enough.

A church is a group of people under a common religion, much like a nation is a group of people with a common socio-political culture.

You do not get to redefine "church" and expect us to just accept it.

Please get to providing the science behind your beliefs or admit that your religion is based on unfalsifiable dogma and nothing more. We're 16 pages in and you have provided bumpkis, despite your ongoing insistance to the contrary.

Please answer my questions.

They evolved "cold weather" features, as did wooly mammoths. Why did you ask if I was aware that wooly mammoths existed?

I did not ask you that. Why are you lying at this point?

Incorrect. My position is characterized by what I do not believe.

Now we're cooking.

Pro Tip: If you are going to try to break my argument, you have to break the argument I am making, and not some argument that I am not making. You need to retain all the negations that I include.

You have made an argument that climatology is a religion with a church where people congregate to worship.

One more time: I do not believe that any such undefined "ice age" event ever occurred. Would you like to provide clarification as to what you mean by an "ice age" or are you planning on continuing this futile effort of scrutinizing the undefined?

Is your claim that those frozen animals and plants are fake?

 

[gfm7175]

Christianity includes the study of meteorology as well. It's the part that is not meteorology that is religion.

Let's confirm. @gfm7175, does Christianity deny meteorology, or does Christianity include meteorology and other sciences?

Christianity accepts meteorology and other sciences (it sees no reason to "war with science"). Christianity also accepts logic and mathematics, seeing no reason to deny any of those things either. Having said that, the underlying belief of Christianity, that Jesus Christ exists and is truly the Son of God as described in the Holy Bible, is not science but is rather a belief that Christians accept on a faith basis (and a belief that the Church of No God rejects on a faith basis), as it cannot be proven nor disproven.

If I were to ask a Christian what will happen if an object is heated to a specific temperature, will he be more likely to respond that the object will radiate thermally to the fourth power of the temperature (modified by some constants, of course) ... or will he more likely respond "Nothing can happen because the event does not glorify God." Thanks in advance.

I would say that the object radiates thermally to the fourth power of the temperature (w/ noted mods).

@AProudLefty, you can point to the entire body of science and claim that your religion "includes it" ... but that begs the question about the part of your religion that is above and beyond any science you claim is included. So I'm happy to narrow it down for you. Only give me the science of "Climate Science" that is not included in meteorology, or chemistry, or anything else that has a name that is not "Climate Science."

Global Warming and Climate Change are your religion(s). I'm not sure why you deny this.

Actually, I am sure of the reason why. It has to do with you being too embarrassed to admit that you were gullible and were hornswoggled. It's too late for you to break your fetters and go free. Your religion has you cold. Once you start down the path to the dark side, forever will it dominate your destiny.

Bingo.

 

[AProudLefty]

Christianity includes the study of meteorology as well. It's the part that is not meteorology that is religion.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Let's confirm. @gfm7175, does Christianity deny meteorology, or does Christianity include meteorology and other sciences? If I were to ask a Christian what will happen if an object is heated to a specific temperature, will he be more likely to respond that the object will radiate thermally to the fourth power of the temperature (modified by some constants, of course) ... or will he more likely respond "Nothing can happen because the event does not glorify God." Thanks in advance.

Christianity does not concern itself about the weathers.

@AProudLefty, you can point to the entire body of science and claim that your religion "includes it" ... but that begs the question about the part of your religion that is above and beyond any science you claim is included. So I'm happy to narrow it down for you. Only give me the science of "Climate Science" that is not included in meteorology, or chemistry, or anything else that has a name that is not "Climate Science."

I have no religion. You do.

Global Warming and Climate Change are your religion(s). I'm not sure why you deny this.

You are in a cult. I am not. Not sure why you deny this.

It's a concept you are going to have to learn someday, along with acquiring an understanding of the scientific method. Until that time, you're going to be a rhetorical pinata if you ever decide to venture into a science discussion.

And yet you refuse to answer my questions again. Why?

By the way, I am intrigued by your comment that I am in a cult. Would you care to explain or is this simply another testament to your deficiency in formal logic?

Because you think science is a religion.

I will change two words in your question again.

"Why should any rational adult believe as gravityzombies and gravity lemmings believe?"

Do you see how silly your question is?

 

[IBDaMann]

Nope. There is no deities, miracles and the supernatural in climatology.

Now we're back to your denial. The deities were listed for you on several occasions.

But now I'm going to leave your definition and simply recognize that any set of beliefs that have no rational basis can be called a religion. You show that your beliefs have no rational basis, you merely claim that your beliefs are not beliefs, i.e. you resort to word games.

Your Global Warming and Climate Change beliefs form your religion, with deities and wondrous miracles included. I hope your faith brings you comfort.

 

[AProudLefty]

Now we're back to your denial. The deities were listed for you on several occasions.

You only listed buzzwords. There are no deities to worship in climatology.

But now I'm going to leave your definition and simply recognize that any set of beliefs that have no rational basis can be called a religion. You show that your beliefs have no rational basis, you merely claim that your beliefs are not beliefs, i.e. you resort to word games.

You are the one who is playing word games. You created buzzwords and claim that climatology is a religion. You claimed that it is my religion.

Your Global Warming and Climate Change beliefs form your religion, with deities and wondrous miracles included. I hope your faith brings you comfort.

I have no religion.

I hope your cult brings you comfort.