Are God deniers and climate change deniers equally flawed?

[westwall]

There are many theories, we usually call them "models" though, these are - in effect - theories, like all theories they enable us to predict future state:

View attachment 1071747

Models are not theories. Models are computer programs that try and recreate the physical world. They fail 99.9995% of the time.

 

[ding]

You tell me, you deny it - why?

Because the evidence from the geologic record shows that for the last 3 million years it's how the ocean distributes heat to the northern hemisphere that determines the planet's climate. Do you know why?

 

[ding]

Can you cite evidence for God?

Existence itself.

 

[Votto]

If the Climate cult was really serious about what they preach, they would all turn to nuclear power because it is the only viable carbon free energy source that will meet the needs of the planet.

But alas, those same folks hate it.

I am then left to conclude that the climate cult consists of two types of people. It consists of idiots who believe that if they give all their money and power and freedom to government as they drive their Joe Biden EV's that are powered by carbon producing energy, that they will save the world. The other group, however, only uses the rhetoric to control the masses for their own devices.

 

[ding]

So if there was evidence that sea levels are rising, you'd admit climate change is real?

Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last glacial period. Just like sea levels will fall at the end of this interglacial period. The data from the last 3 million years shows that when the northern hemisphere glaciates, the planet cools and when the northern hemisphere deglaciates - like it is doing today - the planet warms.

The question isn't is the planet warming and are sea levels rising. The question is how much of that is from natural climate variation and how much is from an incremental 120 ppm of CO2.

So does any of this sound like I have no basis for my beliefs?

 

[marvin martian]

It struck me recently while interacting with devoted climate change deniers, that their reasoning has much in common with atheists - those who deny that God exists.

Both positions claim "there's no evidence" for God/climate and when asked what would they consider as evidence, they start to go around in circles.

How many Trump supporting "Christians" realize that they are climate atheists? I wonder, I wonder if they ever think for themselves.

I've often wondered why "atheists" spend so much time thinking about Christianity. Any insight?

I also wonder why you're not asking this question of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, or Buddhists. I'm pretty sure I know the reason, and I'm pretty sure I know you lack the integrity to answer honestly.

 

[ding]

That depends on the standard we set for regarding something as evidence, we choose that standard, we all do.

That's not exactly how it works. Evidence is evidence. The debate is over what the evidence means or is telling us. Standards would apply to how the evidence was collected or how the evidence was analyzed/tested, but that's it.

Think of a court of law where the evidence is presented and each side has a different explanation for the evidence. The judge or jury must decide how much weight to give the evidence and what that evidence is proving. Standards would apply to how much proof is required (i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt or a preponderance of evidence) but not to the evidence itself as long as it was collected and tested properly.

 

[Votto]

I've often wondered why "atheists" spend so much time thinking about Christianity. Any insight?

I also wonder why you're not asking this question of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, or Buddhists. I'm pretty sure I know the reason, and I'm pretty sure I know you lack the integrity to answer honestly.

I believe there to be far much more evidence for God than to believe that mankind will destroy the earth with carbon emissions.

There is a reason that the Bible says that the person who denies that God exists is a fool.

Perhaps if Sherlock spent more time in the religious forum he would hear some of that reasoning, but alas, I think his only interest is pushing the climate cult and could care less about the existence of God.

In fact, if God exists, would he allow mankind to destroy himself knowing that time and time again God has intervened in the Bible in the past to save mankind like God did during the great flood? God even says in Revelation he will return to once again save man from himself, something Potatoe head Joe and company could never do. In fact, Joe can't write pardons fast enough to try and save his own sorry arse.

 

[ding]

Loading…

agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com

And your point being?

 

[marvin martian]

I believe there to be far much more evidence for God than to believe that mankind will destroy the earth with carbon emissions.

There is a reason that the Bible says that the person who denies that God exists is a fool.

Perhaps if Sherlock spent more time in the religious forum he would hear some of that reasoning, but alas, I think his only interest is pushing the climate cult and could care less about the existence of God.

In fact, if God exists, would he allow mankind to destroy himself knowing that time and time again God has intervened in the Bible in the past to save mankind like God did during the great flood? God even says in Revelation he will return to once again save man from himself, something Potatoe head Joe and company could never do. In fact, Joe can't write pardons fast enough to try and save his own sorry arse.

Leftists feel safe attacking Christians for their beliefs, but they won't pull the same shit with other religions. I think that says so much about our grace, compassion, and love as believers in Christ.

 

[Votto]

Leftists feel safe attacking Christians for their beliefs, but they won't pull the same shit with other religions. I think that says so much about our grace, compassion, and love as believers in Christ.

No, the reason they hate Christianity is because it is the biggest rival to their religion.

But when you look at Joe Biden who claims he is a Christian, along with a lot of other people on the Left, it becomes more clear that Christianity is just fine with them so long as Jesus bows his knee to DNC ideology 100% of the time. So long as Jesus agrees that such things as abortion are great, it is Ok, but once you assess just one of their ideologies or actions to be at odds with God, then you must be destroyed.

There is also the prophecy in Revelation about the state putting the mark on the right hand or forehead to be able to buy or sell to control the populace. It is a prophecy they detest and one day they know they will have to confront, because that is exactly what they want to do.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

So what? The god denier is objectively correct, and the cilmate science denier is objectively wrong. These two true statements do not rely on my credibility or yours.

In each case the person in question bases their position on a perceived absence of evidence. I did not say either view is right or wrong only that their justifications are the same - a perceived absence of evidence.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The Big Bang theory was first proposed in 1927 by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian cosmologist and priest. The modern version of the theory was developed in 1948 by Russian-American physicist George Gamow. No computers were necessary.

Gamow and his colleagues Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman proposed that the Big Bang occurred about 13.7 billion years ago. They also predicted that the remnants of the Big Bang would still be present today as cosmic microwave background radiation.

The CMB radiation was discovered by chance in 1965. Penzias and Wilson, two radio astronomers in the United States, registered a signal in their radio telescope that could not be attributed to any precise source in the sky. Because it came from everywhere with the same intensity, day or night, summer or winter. They concluded that the signal had to come from outside our Galaxy. Still no computers necessary.

You are making another apples to oranges comparison.

Modern cosmology relies on computer models to achieve numerical solutions to nasty differential equations as does climate change.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yes. I dispute that. They assume all warming is due to increased CO2. Their models are calibrated to match the data and they assume all warming is from CO2 and in part it's because of the datasets they chose to use.

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

That's a lengthy paper, very lengthy and I will not be reading it though I did scan over it, suffice to say the origin of the paper leaves me very suspicious.

For example what exactly is the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences ?

Willie Soon’s Home-Made Report Can't Even Defend Its Own Claim That The Sun Causes Climate Change

A headline in the far-right culty conspiracy site Epoch Times recently proclaimed that a study found the “Sun -- not CO2-- may be behind global warming.” A similar story ran in the oft-viral but rarely-right electroverse, also suggesting that really...

www.dailykos.com

But it gets worse, here's more - this guy is one of the authors of the paper you cited:

Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher (Published 2015)

Newly released documents show the extent of the links between corporate interests and the published work of Wei-Hock Soon, a Smithsonian-affiliated scientist who has tried to debunk the consensus about global warming.

www.nytimes.com

Read all about "Willie" here:

Willie Soon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So bang goes your street cred, this is abysmal and I'm surprised you thought you could fool me - those two writers who participated in that paper have accepted money from the API !!!!! tell me, how much are they paying you?

American Petroleum Institute - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You are advised to post that paper in USMB's pseudoscience area if we have one here, really, you trumpanzees really will stop at nothing to mislead the gullible.

Climate change denial is fashionable amongst the extreme right, trumpanzees embrace conspiracy theories all the time, stuff like Trump actually won in 2020 and Trump's prosecution and conviction by a jury, of fraud is "politically motivated" and immigrants are eating pets

You'll have to try harder, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can never fool Sherlock Holmes.

 

[ding]

Modern cosmology relies on computer models to achieve numerical solutions to nasty differential equations as does climate change.

And you believe that because of that you should accept the results of GCM's too? Even if those models have been calibrated to 20th century climate records?

How can models that match 20th century data as a result of being calibrated to 20th century data be able to determine the causes of the 20th century temperature variability? Wouldn't that just be proving their starting assumption that all warming is from an incremental 120 ppm of atmospheric CO2?

And why is it 2C cooler than the last interglacial period which had 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 and 26 ft higher seas?

 

[ding]

That's a lengthy paper, very lengthy and I will not be reading it though I did scan over it, suffice to say the origin of the paper leaves me very suspicious.

For example what exactly is the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences ?

View attachment 1071810

Willie Soon’s Home-Made Report Can't Even Defend Its Own Claim That The Sun Causes Climate Change

A headline in the far-right culty conspiracy site Epoch Times recently proclaimed that a study found the “Sun -- not CO2-- may be behind global warming.” A similar story ran in the oft-viral but rarely-right electroverse, also suggesting that really...

www.dailykos.com

But it gets worse, here's more - this guy is one of the authors of the paper you cited:

Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher (Published 2015)

Newly released documents show the extent of the links between corporate interests and the published work of Wei-Hock Soon, a Smithsonian-affiliated scientist who has tried to debunk the consensus about global warming.

www.nytimes.com

Read all about "Willie" here:

Willie Soon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 1071813

So bang goes your street cred, this is abysmal and I'm surprised you thought you could fool me - those two writers who participated in that paper have accepted money from the API !!!!! tell me, how much are they paying you?

American Petroleum Institute - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You are advised to post that paper in USMB's pseudoscience area if we have one here, really, you trumpanzees really will stop at nothing to mislead the gullible.

Climate change denial is fashionable amongst the extreme right, trumpanzees embrace conspiracy theories all the time, stuff like Trump actually won in 2020 and Trump's prosecution and conviction by a jury, of fraud is "politically motivated" and immigrants are eating pets

You'll have to try harder, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can never fool Sherlock Holmes.

You don't need to read it. I summarized it for you. Is there anything you disagree with from my short summary?

 

[ding]

View attachment 1071810

Willie Soon’s Home-Made Report Can't Even Defend Its Own Claim That The Sun Causes Climate Change

A headline in the far-right culty conspiracy site Epoch Times recently proclaimed that a study found the “Sun -- not CO2-- may be behind global warming.” A similar story ran in the oft-viral but rarely-right electroverse, also suggesting that really...

www.dailykos.com

But it gets worse, here's more - this guy is one of the authors of the paper you cited:

Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher (Published 2015)

Newly released documents show the extent of the links between corporate interests and the published work of Wei-Hock Soon, a Smithsonian-affiliated scientist who has tried to debunk the consensus about global warming.

www.nytimes.com

Read all about "Willie" here:

Willie Soon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 1071813

So bang goes your street cred, this is abysmal and I'm surprised you thought you could fool me - those two writers who participated in that paper have accepted money from the API !!!!! tell me, how much are they paying you?

American Petroleum Institute - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You are advised to post that paper in USMB's pseudoscience area if we have one here, really, you trumpanzees really will stop at nothing to mislead the gullible.

Climate change denial is fashionable amongst the extreme right, trumpanzees embrace conspiracy theories all the time, stuff like Trump actually won in 2020 and Trump's prosecution and conviction by a jury, of fraud is "politically motivated" and immigrants are eating pets

You'll have to try harder, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can never fool Sherlock Holmes.

When people can't argue facts, they do what you just did. Not a good look. Be better.

 

[ding]

You'll have to try harder, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can never fool Sherlock Holmes.

I believe the proponents of AGW have fooled you. Not to worry though... the 3 million year trend of glacial cycles and the role the ocean plays in northern hemisphere glaciation says that when heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic switches off, the majority of the climate community will be exposed as fools.

Deep Atlantic Circulation During the Last Glacial Maximum and Deglaciation

How has deep ocean circulation changed in the past, and how have the changes affected Earth's climate? Reconstructing ocean circulation and climate history using geological records.

www.nature.com

 

[ding]

Climate change denial is fashionable amongst the extreme right, trumpanzees embrace conspiracy theories all the time, stuff like Trump actually won in 2020 and Trump's prosecution and conviction by a jury, of fraud is "politically motivated" and immigrants are eating pets

That's nice. Do you know why the northern hemisphere is so critical in determining the climate of the planet? Or maybe I should ask are you aware that the northern hemisphere is critical in determining the climate of the planet, and if so, why?

This is the relevant empirical climate evidence from the geologic record for discussing the planet's current climate.

 

[Orangecat]

It struck me recently while interacting with devoted climate change deniers, that their reasoning has much in common with atheists - those who deny that God exists.

Both positions claim "there's no evidence" for God/climate and when asked what would they consider as evidence, they start to go around in circles.

How many Trump supporting "Christians" realize that they are climate atheists? I wonder, I wonder if they ever think for themselves.