Scientists Enlist The Big Gun to Get Climate Action: Faith

[Freewill]

Has not the whole debate been predicated on faith? If you are a believer your faith is based in a data set that you have no idea what has been done to it. Thus you go by faith that what the "experts" are telling you. The faithful can't even walk outside and see proof for themselves.

PARIS (AP) -- The cold hard numbers of science haven't spurred the world to curb runaway global warming. So as climate negotiators struggle in Paris, some scientists who appealed to the rational brain are enlisting what many would consider a higher power: the majesty of faith.

It's not God versus science, but followers of God and science together trying to save humanity and the planet, they say.

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL....is this the new strategy?

 

[Freewill]

LOL....is this the new strategy?

What is new is that they are admitting it.

 

[saveliberty]

I have called them Faithers for years...

 

[konradv]

It's not faith; it's science. If GHGs keep going up, an increase in temperatures is inevitable. It's the logical consequence of the Law of Conservation of Energy.

 

[Freewill]

It's not faith; it's science. If GHGs keep going up, an increase in temperatures is inevitable. It's the logical consequence of the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Could you elaborate on how this logical consequence of yours?

The conservation of energy is a fundamental concept of physics along with theconservation of mass and the conservationof momentum. Within some problem domain, the amount of energy remains constant andenergy is neither created nor destroyed.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Has not the whole debate been predicated on faith? If you are a believer your faith is based in a data set that you have no idea what has been done to it. Thus you go by faith that what the "experts" are telling you. The faithful can't even walk outside and see proof for themselves.

PARIS (AP) -- The cold hard numbers of science haven't spurred the world to curb runaway global warming. So as climate negotiators struggle in Paris, some scientists who appealed to the rational brain are enlisting what many would consider a higher power: the majesty of faith.

It's not God versus science, but followers of God and science together trying to save humanity and the planet, they say.

Not a bad idea. Conservatives abhor science, but convince them their sky fairy believes in global warming and they'll join the cause right away.

 

[saveliberty]

Poor Faithers never learned about the climate cycle.

 

[konradv]

Could you elaborate on how this logical consequence of yours? The conservation of energy is a fundamental concept of physics along with theconservation of mass and the conservationof momentum. Within some problem domain, the amount of energy remains constant andenergy is neither created nor destroyed.

Of mine? LOL!!! This a basic physics. Since CO2 and other gases absorb infrared radiation, logically 50% of that radiation will be re-emitted back towards earth. If gas levels keep rising, so will that radiation. Since energy doesn't just disappear, it has to be doing something.

 

[konradv]

Poor Faithers never learned about the climate cycle.

Poor denialists never learned about Conservation of Energy.

 

[Freewill]

Could you elaborate on how this logical consequence of yours? The conservation of energy is a fundamental concept of physics along with theconservation of mass and the conservationof momentum. Within some problem domain, the amount of energy remains constant andenergy is neither created nor destroyed.

Of mine? LOL!!! This a basic physics. Since CO2 and other gases absorb infrared radiation, logically 50% of that radiation will be re-emitted back towards earth. If gas levels keep rising, so will that radiation. Since energy doesn't just disappear, it has to be doing something.

The law of conservation of energy, a fundamental concept of physics, states that the total amount of energy remains constant in an isolated system. It implies that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can be change from one form to another.

It has absolutely nothing to do with Global warming.

 

[Freewill]

Poor GW fear mongers, a constant reminder of the conservation of stupidity.

 

[konradv]

The law of conservation of energy, a fundamental concept of physics, states that the total amount of energy remains constant in an isolated system. It implies that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can be change from one form to another. It has absolutely nothing to do with Global warming.

The Law is a basic concept of physics which can be applied to any system in which energy is a component, including Global Warming. Do a little research and then get back to us.

 

[Billy_Bob]

It's not faith; it's science. If GHGs keep going up, an increase in temperatures is inevitable. It's the logical consequence of the Law of Conservation of Energy.

in a word... NO! There are many laws governing equilibrium of the earth.. Its when you focus on a minute and insignificant gas that you fail to observe and look around you...

Time to take off your blinders.

 

[konradv]

It's not faith; it's science. If GHGs keep going up, an increase in temperatures is inevitable. It's the logical consequence of the Law of Conservation of Energy.

in a word... NO! There are many laws governing equilibrium of the earth.. Its when you focus on a minute and insignificant gas that you fail to observe and look around you...Time to take off your blinders.

In a word, NO? What Law of physics are you quoting? At least give me something that indicates you have a clue.

 

[Kosh]

It's not faith; it's science. If GHGs keep going up, an increase in temperatures is inevitable. It's the logical consequence of the Law of Conservation of Energy.

in a word... NO! There are many laws governing equilibrium of the earth.. Its when you focus on a minute and insignificant gas that you fail to observe and look around you...Time to take off your blinders.

In a word, NO? What Law of physics are you quoting? At least give me something that indicates you have a clue.

And this post clearly shows you do not have a clue what so ever other than religious dogma..

 

[Billy_Bob]

It's not faith; it's science. If GHGs keep going up, an increase in temperatures is inevitable. It's the logical consequence of the Law of Conservation of Energy.

in a word... NO! There are many laws governing equilibrium of the earth.. Its when you focus on a minute and insignificant gas that you fail to observe and look around you...Time to take off your blinders.

In a word, NO? What Law of physics are you quoting? At least give me something that indicates you have a clue.

And this post clearly shows you do not have a clue what so ever other than religious dogma..

He is having issues with the laws of thermal dynamics and our complex atmosphere. He doesn't have a clue how the law of conservation applies to it. I am finding it more and more common with our alarmist friends.

 

[Kosh]

It's not faith; it's science. If GHGs keep going up, an increase in temperatures is inevitable. It's the logical consequence of the Law of Conservation of Energy.

in a word... NO! There are many laws governing equilibrium of the earth.. Its when you focus on a minute and insignificant gas that you fail to observe and look around you...Time to take off your blinders.

In a word, NO? What Law of physics are you quoting? At least give me something that indicates you have a clue.

And this post clearly shows you do not have a clue what so ever other than religious dogma..

He is having issues with the laws of thermal dynamics and our complex atmosphere. He doesn't have a clue how the law of conservation applies to it. I am finding it more and more common with our alarmist friends.

Well it is like teaching science to creationists..

 

[Billy_Bob]

It's not faith; it's science. If GHGs keep going up, an increase in temperatures is inevitable. It's the logical consequence of the Law of Conservation of Energy.

in a word... NO! There are many laws governing equilibrium of the earth.. Its when you focus on a minute and insignificant gas that you fail to observe and look around you...Time to take off your blinders.

In a word, NO? What Law of physics are you quoting? At least give me something that indicates you have a clue.

And this post clearly shows you do not have a clue what so ever other than religious dogma..

He is having issues with the laws of thermal dynamics and our complex atmosphere. He doesn't have a clue how the law of conservation applies to it. I am finding it more and more common with our alarmist friends.

Well it is like teaching science to creationists..

I am a creationist! but I differ in the area that i do not believe the time lines that hard line creationists use. The earth is most certainly greater than 6,000 years old. The Bible warns about placing god in a box defined by man. I have always looked outside of the box for answers. I laugh each time someone disses me and then I ask them to define a day in GOD's Terms.. They no longer laugh at me. A day in God's terms could be millions of years.

 

[konradv]

I am a creationist! but I differ in the area that i do not believe the time lines that hard line creationists use. The earth is most certainly greater than 6,000 years old. The Bible warns about placing god in a box defined by man. I have always looked outside of the box for answers. I laugh each time someone disses me and then I ask them to define a day in GOD's Terms.. They no longer laugh at me. A day in God's terms could be millions of years.

I laugh every time someone says AGW is false and then refuses to discuss the science.