Why Does the Global Warming Faith Claim to be Science?

AProudLefty said:
I have a degree in mathematics. I know all about the groups and rings.
Click to expand...
Awesome! ... but wait ... why haven't you explained how those religions are not isomorphic? I mean, shouldn't you be able to prove that I cannot have a one-to-one and onto mapping of Christianity to Global Warming?

(guess what I have in my hip pocket)

AProudLefty said:
Your irrational utterances are dismissed.
Click to expand...
As they all should be. Fortunately, I haven't made any. Meanwhile, everything of yours that isn't answering my question is being summarily dismissed, which is everything thus far.

AProudLefty said:
If science is based on faith,
Click to expand...
It's not. Your religion, which you are calling "thettled thienth" is based purely on a very WACKY faith.

AProudLefty said:
Science is based on observations, researches, evidence and such.
Click to expand...
Your style of EVASION involves injecting some totally irrelevant point into the discussion and then stealthily shifting the discussion away from the main topic to your irrelevant point. Consciousness not being needed to not express anything has no bearing on whether living humans should be killed for someone's convenience. Similarly, it not mattering that science isn't "based on" anything does nothing to somehow transmute your WACKY religion into science.

AProudLefty said:
Yes you are correct that theories are falsifiable.
Click to expand...
All science theories are falsifiable. All religions are unfalsifiable. Let me pull out my pocket one-to-one and onto mapping here and ... yes, it shows quite clearly that Global Warming and Climate Change are completely unfalsifiable, just like their isomorphism Christianity.

AProudLefty said:
Are you claiming that Newton's law of gravitation is not based on observation?
Click to expand...
A much better question is how you claim to know on what a science model is based. Let's take a look at it:

g = [m1 * m2] / d^2

It looks like math is the only basis you can claim with certainty. I notice that you are attempting to derail the discussion with this irrelevant and inconsequential philosophical point about a model's "basis." If we are going to go down this road, would you mind explaining to me the following:

1. Why should anyone care what constitute's a model's basis?
2. How do you assert that the "basis" for any model can be known?
3. How does knowing this "basis" somehow affect the science in question?
4. What human activity does not involve "observation" somehow?
5. Why do you believe that science is somehow a human activity rather than a falsifiable model? (models don't need any observations)
 
IBDaMann said:
Awesome! ... but wait ... why haven't you explained how those religions are not isomorphic? I mean, shouldn't you be able to prove that I cannot have a one-to-one and onto mapping of Christianity to Global Warming?

(guess what I have in my hip pocket)


As they all should be. Fortunately, I haven't made any. Meanwhile, everything of yours that isn't answering my question is being summarily dismissed, which is everything thus far.


It's not. Your religion, which you are calling "thettled thienth" is based purely on a very WACKY faith.


Your style of EVASION involves injecting some totally irrelevant point into the discussion and then stealthily shifting the discussion away from the main topic to your irrelevant point. Consciousness not being needed to not express anything has no bearing on whether living humans should be killed for someone's convenience. Similarly, it not mattering that science isn't "based on" anything does nothing to somehow transmute your WACKY religion into science.


All science theories are falsifiable. All religions are unfalsifiable. Let me pull out my pocket one-to-one and onto mapping here and ... yes, it shows quite clearly that Global Warming and Climate Change are completely unfalsifiable, just like their isomorphism Christianity.


A much better question is how you claim to know on what a science model is based. Let's take a look at it:

g = [m1 * m2] / d^2

It looks like math is the only basis you can claim with certainty. I notice that you are attempting to derail the discussion with this irrelevant and inconsequential philosophical point about a model's "basis." If we are going to go down this road, would you mind explaining to me the following:

1. Why should anyone care what constitute's a model's basis?
2. How do you assert that the "basis" for any model can be known?
3. How does knowing this "basis" somehow affect the science in question?
4. What human activity does not involve "observation" somehow?
5. Why do you believe that science is somehow a human activity rather than a falsifiable model? (models don't need any observations)
Click to expand...

Oh my goodness. You are truly insane.
 
AProudLefty said:
Oh my goodness. You are truly insane.
Click to expand...
Just tipping your king is sufficient.

wp4a740dcf.gif
 
I highly doubt that any of us on this forum have the requisite scientific training or skill to question anthropogenic climate change. Most people who claim climate change isn't "real science" have no scientific training themselves past junior high school.
 
AProudLefty said:
So you agree that it's not based on faith? Good.
Click to expand...
You would do well to brush up on your grammar. The correct word is "they," not "it.". They, the studies, involve research, and their conclusions are determined by political agenda.

If you are going to use the pronoun "it" then you need to express the antecedent first, whatever that is.
 
NovoJank said:
I highly doubt that any of us on this forum have the requisite scientific training or skill to question anthropogenic climate change.
Click to expand...
No technical training is required to question anything, much less a religion, much less a stupid religion.

Also, you would be mistaken in assuming that I am not an expert in the physics and math that is violated by those preaching their Climate Change dogma. Feel free to preach. and I will pick apart your dogma using science and math. You will claim that I should listen to preachings from your clergy because they explain it so much better. I will then pick apart the preachings of your clergy using science and math. All for free.

It's a public service that I provide.

Let's begin. Preach to me the main tenet of this anthropomorphic climatic gobbledygook and let's get started.

By the way, you were close. Most people who fall for the claim that climate change is "real science" have no scientific training themselves past junior high school. That's why they are so willing to preach really stupid crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top