Creationism and Climate Change

[cnm]

But, the debate centers around the degree of damage and the whether the long range results will be catastrophic and devastating enough to cause extinction and a tremendous lose of life, both human and plant life.

How can continuing global warming be anything other than catastrophic as the Antarctic ice cap melts, for one?

 

[cnm]

It's the part of evolution absent a creator. And, there are those that believe there is no such thing as a God or creator. They believe everything just evolved.

You, apparently, are saying evolutionists believe the universe evolved from nothing. What a load. The OP is amply demonstrated.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Good luck trying to link AGW to real and actual science..

The scientific consensus is that human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change. Scientific consensus is how science works, it defines what a group of peers agree is the best available knowledge in any area of nature.

Apart from which, the theory of greenhouse gases predicted rising temperatures, rising temperatures were observed. What is more scientific than that?

Consensus is another way of saying "we have no lab work"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And, they forget quickly that the Earth is in constant change, and has been since the beginning. The Earth has gone through many periods of change, and will forever change. The Earth is not stable, nor will it ever be. And, if there is such a thing as "global warming", it's just more change following suit, no biggie. Besides, who knows, we might be frozen over 10,000 years from now. Did you read recently about the depth of the ice on both poles getting thicker and deeper?

That's totally untrue. No one that believes in AGW forgets that conditions have changed over time. What the deniers forget is that they're talking about changes that happened over tens of to hundreds of thousands of years. AGW theory is basically the study of what's been happening over the last 200 years, e.g. since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

And, likewise, the other side has as much data to show a different opinion. Both sides are presently in debate, and neither side has slammed the door on the other.

You slammed the door by declaring that AGW theorists forget simple things like past changes on earth. There's no equivalence here. We know that CO2 absorbs energy. We know its concentration been going up for ~200 hundred years. Given those two facts, what happens to the energy all that extra CO2 absorbs, if not to heat the earth? If anyone forgets anything, it's the deniers forgetting that they DO have to account for the Law of Conservation of Energy, if they're to be given any credence at all.

CO2, the only molecule that "Absorbs energy"

 

[SwimExpert]

Bullshit. A couple of papers or newspaper articles taken up by mouth breathers. Most scientific papers in the 70s predicted warming.

So post a couple.

 

[cnm]

Consensus is another way of saying "we have no lab work"

Absolute bullshit. Scientific consensus represents the best present knowledge. The greenhouse gas theory is accepted science. Temperature increases were predicted, temperature increases were observed.

Butt hurt ideologues cannot accept having their policy positions shown to be untenable, therefore reality is dismissed.

 

[SwimExpert]

Climate change will kill off the huge mass of humanity, solving the problem of overpopulation. Out of the desolation will evolve the new, weather-resistant human.

And how do you figure that? Humans evolved in warm climates and are naturally built for the same.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Consensus is another way of saying "we have no lab work"

Absolute bullshit. Scientific consensus represents the best present knowledge. The greenhouse gas theory is accepted science. Temperature increases were predicted, temperature increases were observed.

Butt hurt ideologues cannot accept having their policy positions shown to be untenable, therefore reality is dismissed.

Show me the lab work.

Show me the experiments that control for a wisp of CO2

 

[cnm]

CO2, the only molecule that "Absorbs energy"

Why do you say that? It is important because it has persistence in the atmosphere.

 

[SwimExpert]

Scientific consensus represents the best present knowledge.

Absolute bullshit. Consensus represents consensus. That a consensus exists has no bearing on the soundness of reasoning that led individuals to their consensus.

The greenhouse gas theory is accepted science.

Really? And what exactly is that theory? That some environmental gases have a greenhouse effect? Well gee wiz. That is still light years away from the conclusions of AGW.

Temperature increases were predicted, temperature increases were observed.

Temperature increases and decreases are observed on a daily basis.

Butt hurt ideologues cannot accept having their policy positions shown to be untenable, therefore reality is dismissed.

Finally, you seem to understand the AGW bullshit for what it is.

 

[Votto]

Polls show that an astounding 42% of Americans literally believe in the Biblical story of creation, rejecting the science of evolution. There seems to be a very close correlation between these people and folks who deny the facts of climate change. Since they reject the undeniable scientific fundamentals of evolution how can anyone take them seriously on any issue concerning science? Why would their opinions matter?

In U.S. 42 Believe Creationist View of Human Origins

Their opinions don't matter. Hadn't you noticed, Congress only has an approval rating of about 10% and Obama is now under 50%, yet these folks keep getting elected anyway.

These same people helped elect Obama, the man who pleasures himself at the thought of aborting babies and have gays marry and taxing us to death all in the name of destroying carbon on earth.

It would seem these people are not very bright.

 

[cnm]

So post a couple.

You can track them down from here if you like.

Who sparked the global cooling myth?

Short Sharp Science Who sparked the global cooling myth

A few climate scientists have now scanned through the research literature of the time. For 1965 to 1979, they found seven articles that predicted cooling, 44 that predicted warming and 20 that were neutral. The results are being published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
You can also read summaries on RealClimate and on ScienceNews, though if you're interested in how the myth of global cooling was turned on its head, it is well worth reading the researchers' own version, which is freely available (as a PDF).​

 

[cnm]

Absolute bullshit. Consensus represents consensus. That a consensus exists has no bearing on the soundness of reasoning that led individuals to their consensus.

It means that scientific peers acknowledge it as the best present knowledge.

 

[cnm]

Temperature increases were predicted, temperature increases were observed.

Temperature increases and decreases are observed on a daily basis.

And on multi year bases as well...

 

[cnm]

Really? And what exactly is that theory? That some environmental gases have a greenhouse effect? Well gee wiz. That is still light years away from the conclusions of AGW.

That human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change?

How is that light years away from the greenhouse gas theory?

 

[cnm]

Show me the lab work.

Show me the experiments that control for a wisp of CO2

The greenhouse effect was predicted in the 1960s, at least. Its effects have been observed. What more do you want?

But if you want to ignore science in pursuit of ideology, here is some more you can dimiss.

Climate change - New Scientist

 

[Discombobulated]

Survey says 42% of Americans believe in ghosts. Almost the same as man made global warming. Is there a correlation?

I'm saying that the 42% of people who don't believe in the science of evolution have no opinions that matter on any kind of science.

 

[Flopper]

And, they forget quickly that the Earth is in constant change, and has been since the beginning. The Earth has gone through many periods of change, and will forever change. The Earth is not stable, nor will it ever be. And, if there is such a thing as "global warming", it's just more change following suit, no biggie. Besides, who knows, we might be frozen over 10,000 years from now. Did you read recently about the depth of the ice on both poles getting thicker and deeper?

That's totally untrue. No one that believes in AGW forgets that conditions have changed over time. What the deniers forget is that they're talking about changes that happened over tens of to hundreds of thousands of years. AGW theory is basically the study of what's been happening over the last 200 years, e.g. since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

And, likewise, the other side has as much data to show a different opinion. Both sides are presently in debate, and neither side has slammed the door on the other.

The only way of discrediting the theory of evolution, as with most scientific theories is to propose another scientific theory backed up by scientific evidence, and experimentation, that better explains the origin of the species and the diversification we see today.

Almost all those that seek to discredit the theory, do so by pointing out yet unexplained biological anomalies which represents a very small portion of the animal and plant kingdom. Add in some unexplained geological phenomena, which is not covered by the theory of evolution, some mumbo jumbo about cosmological theories, lace it all together with a healthy dose of the bible and you have the fundamentalist Christian's answer to Evolution.

A theory that is so widely accepted in the scientific community, backed up by over 100 years of scientific research by thousands of scientists in a dozen different field is not going to be overturn by anything other than starling new scientific evidence, that better explains the origin of the species and the diversity of life. A closer examination of the Bible ain't gonna do it.

 

[SwimExpert]

Really? And what exactly is that theory? That some environmental gases have a greenhouse effect? Well gee wiz. That is still light years away from the conclusions of AGW.

That human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change?

How is that light years away from the greenhouse gas theory?

1 - Because there's no such thing as "greenhouse gas theory."

2 - Because your description of things betrays the fact that you don't actually know what you're talking about. You're just filling in the blanks in a 2nd grade Weekly Reader level of comprehension.

What you are describing is AGW theory. Calling it "greenhouse gas theory" is like calling evolution "natural selection theory." However, AGW theory claims far more than what you seem to comprehend. Falsely, of course.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGW has all the markers of a Fraud: Altered data, add in imaginary "Warming of the deep ocean" to get overall warming, threaten the career of any scientists who even dares to question methodology; it's not even in the same Universe as real science.

Here's how real scientists test their theories

^ CERN can replicate condition a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang

^ Here are the MIT "Scientists" at MIT. No, that's not a joke. That's their efforts. I'm still amazed that scientists who do real work don't boot these frauds off campus. It's a scientific embarrassment no matter how much government money they get for scamming us