Climategate - Round 2. How will the AGW proponents justify this one?

Which statement(s) most accurately reflects your opinion?

  • Global warming is happening and mostly human caused. We can fix it.

    Votes: 3 10.3%
  • AGW is a myth supported by those who profit from it.

    Votes: 15 51.7%
  • Global warming is happening but we are powerless to stop it.

    Votes: 5 17.2%
  • Humankind should be researching how to adapt to natural climate change.

    Votes: 7 24.1%
  • We should be more concerned about an impending ice age.

    Votes: 3 10.3%
  • Climate change is natural and inevitable.

    Votes: 19 65.5%
  • None of the above and I'll explain in my post.

    Votes: 1 3.4%

  • Total voters
    29
CLARIFICATION: There is no such thing as a climate "Atheist" unless a person is absolutely ambivalent about climate change and holds no opinions pro GW or AGW or in opposition to that. That would pretty much rule out anybody who bothers to post on a climate change thread.

When we speak of 'religionist' on this topic, we are referring to 'religion' as defined by Merriam Webster here: "4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."

So much of the GW and AGW 'scientific' data HAS to be taken on faith because there is no experience or conclusive evidence to guide us. But the GW and AGW 'religionists' are passionate, vocal, and persistent in promoting that 'religion' just the same and seem to be developing their own 'religious' rites and liturgy that is repeated over and over and over. And, those of us who don't subscribe to that 'religion' are frequently consigned to 'hell' or 'eternal damnation' or branded with scarlett letters as evil or heretic or wayward.

In our local library, just inside the main door, is a sculpture with an inscription: "A mind can function only when it is open." As in the evolution debates, racism, various theories of economic policy, and other ongoing national conversations, an open mind is the only way we will get to the truth of anything.
 
I don't. Your religion mandates it however.

I'm an atheist.


I never made such a claim.


Many are.
So?
On the other hand, your religion states very emphatically that CO2 is the sole driver of temperatures and yet the CO2 rises ever higher and just like WE SAID the temps are level and may be dropping.

Again I don't have a religion, I'm an atheist. Some might call me an optimistic agnostic, but technically I am an atheist as I have no theology.





Wrong, you are a worshipper at the cult of AGW. So? So? You claim to be a physicist and you don't know or understand Occam's Razor.:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I don't worship in any cults, sorry.

I do understand Occam's Razor quite well, thanks.

I will not be receive my doctorate until December 16th, so you're right, I'm not yet a physicist, merely a student of physics.
 
CLARIFICATION: There is no such thing as a climate "Atheist" unless a person is absolutely ambivalent about climate change and holds no opinions pro GW or AGW or in opposition to that. That would pretty much rule out anybody who bothers to post on a climate change thread.
An atheist is a person who has no theology, not a person who has no opinions. You seem to not understand what words mean.
 
CLARIFICATION: There is no such thing as a climate "Atheist" unless a person is absolutely ambivalent about climate change and holds no opinions pro GW or AGW or in opposition to that. That would pretty much rule out anybody who bothers to post on a climate change thread.
An atheist is a person who has no theology, not a person who has no opinions. You seem to not understand what words mean.
That is an agnostic. An atheist is convinced that there is not even a possibility of a god.

Just a point on accuracy.
 
I'm an atheist.


I never made such a claim.


Many are.
So?


Again I don't have a religion, I'm an atheist. Some might call me an optimistic agnostic, but technically I am an atheist as I have no theology.





Wrong, you are a worshipper at the cult of AGW. So? So? You claim to be a physicist and you don't know or understand Occam's Razor.:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I don't worship in any cults, sorry.

I do understand Occam's Razor quite well, thanks.

I will not be receive my doctorate until December 16th, so you're right, I'm not yet a physicist, merely a student of physics.





If you understand Occam's Razor then please inform the class how it is relevent to the statement I made.
 
CLARIFICATION: There is no such thing as a climate "Atheist" unless a person is absolutely ambivalent about climate change and holds no opinions pro GW or AGW or in opposition to that. That would pretty much rule out anybody who bothers to post on a climate change thread.
An atheist is a person who has no theology, not a person who has no opinions. You seem to not understand what words mean.
That is an agnostic. An atheist is convinced that there is not even a possibility of a god.

Just a point on accuracy.

Yeah, good point too. I should have used 'agnostic' instead of 'Atheist'. A climate "Atheist" would be insisting that there is no such thing as natural climate change at all. :)
 
CLARIFICATION: There is no such thing as a climate "Atheist" unless a person is absolutely ambivalent about climate change and holds no opinions pro GW or AGW or in opposition to that. That would pretty much rule out anybody who bothers to post on a climate change thread.
An atheist is a person who has no theology, not a person who has no opinions. You seem to not understand what words mean.
That is an agnostic. An atheist is convinced that there is not even a possibility of a god.

Just a point on accuracy.
Atheism in its broadest sense simply means the rejection of theology.

You may call me an agnostic if you prefer, that is also accurate.

Though I suppose the definition of an "agnostic atheist" from wikipedia explains my position the best:
Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact

I do not hold a belief in a God - but nor do I claim a God does not exist. It is simply unknowable.
 
Wrong, you are a worshipper at the cult of AGW. So? So? You claim to be a physicist and you don't know or understand Occam's Razor.:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I don't worship in any cults, sorry.

I do understand Occam's Razor quite well, thanks.

I will not be receive my doctorate until December 16th, so you're right, I'm not yet a physicist, merely a student of physics.





If you understand Occam's Razor then please inform the class how it is relevent to the statement I made.



You want me to explain how my claim that I understand it is related to your claim that I don't? What are you, a fuckin imbecile?
 
An atheist is a person who has no theology, not a person who has no opinions. You seem to not understand what words mean.
That is an agnostic. An atheist is convinced that there is not even a possibility of a god.

Just a point on accuracy.
Atheism in its broadest sense simply means the rejection of theology.

You may call me an agnostic if you prefer, that is also accurate.

Though I suppose the definition of an "agnostic atheist" from wikipedia explains my position the best:
Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact

I do not hold a belief in a God - but nor do I claim a God does not exist. It is simply unknowable.

In this discussion, however, the issue of whether there is or is not a supernatural deity is not at issue. Here 'religion' and 'religionist' is as I defined it above. And those who seem to have developed their own 'theology' along with a standard 'liturgy' to go with it and it all seems to be based on faith are advocates of the 'religion' of global warming as well as AGW. And it is a very authoritarian 'religion' at that as 'heretics' of any sort must be diminished, demeaned, ridiculed, or destroyed.

That seems to be true in most of the scientific community and it seems to be true for many on message boards.
 
I don't worship in any cults, sorry.

I do understand Occam's Razor quite well, thanks.

I will not be receive my doctorate until December 16th, so you're right, I'm not yet a physicist, merely a student of physics.





If you understand Occam's Razor then please inform the class how it is relevent to the statement I made.



You want me to explain how my claim that I understand it is related to your claim that I don't? What are you, a fuckin imbecile?




No, but clearly you are. I made the statement that all weather "events" as defined by your high priests, have occured in the past absent mans influence. Your response was "so what".
Now, based on Occams Razor, tell the class the relevence of my statement.
 
In order for alleged improper behavior on the part of climate scientists to be a logical and effective rebuttal of AGW, it would be necessary that this behavior represent a universal conspiracy among thousands of scientists and on the part of all academic climate science establishments in every university and every scientific journal on the planet. That is a preposterous notion that has no plausibility at all and is sheer tinfoil-hat stuff.

What's more, if it were true, the same factors (quest for research grants from government) are at play in all areas of scientific research, which means that this indictment would be an indictment of all of science from one end to the other. That is even less plausible, even more tinfoil-hat stuff.

It's important that improprieties on the part of scientists be dealt with properly, and we should always remember that scientists are human beings, not demigods of objectivity. Other than that reminder, "Climategate X.0" (in this or any future edition) proves nothing, and inherently CAN prove nothing.

I just wanted to let you know that: I agree.
 
In order for alleged improper behavior on the part of climate scientists to be a logical and effective rebuttal of AGW, it would be necessary that this behavior represent a universal conspiracy among thousands of scientists and on the part of all academic climate science establishments in every university and every scientific journal on the planet. That is a preposterous notion that has no plausibility at all and is sheer tinfoil-hat stuff.

What's more, if it were true, the same factors (quest for research grants from government) are at play in all areas of scientific research, which means that this indictment would be an indictment of all of science from one end to the other. That is even less plausible, even more tinfoil-hat stuff.

It's important that improprieties on the part of scientists be dealt with properly, and we should always remember that scientists are human beings, not demigods of objectivity. Other than that reminder, "Climategate X.0" (in this or any future edition) proves nothing, and inherently CAN prove nothing.

I just wanted to let you know that: I agree.





Of course you do little one...of course you do!:lol:
 
In order for alleged improper behavior on the part of climate scientists to be a logical and effective rebuttal of AGW, it would be necessary that this behavior represent a universal conspiracy among thousands of scientists and on the part of all academic climate science establishments in every university and every scientific journal on the planet. That is a preposterous notion that has no plausibility at all and is sheer tinfoil-hat stuff.

What's more, if it were true, the same factors (quest for research grants from government) are at play in all areas of scientific research, which means that this indictment would be an indictment of all of science from one end to the other. That is even less plausible, even more tinfoil-hat stuff.

It's important that improprieties on the part of scientists be dealt with properly, and we should always remember that scientists are human beings, not demigods of objectivity. Other than that reminder, "Climategate X.0" (in this or any future edition) proves nothing, and inherently CAN prove nothing.

Follow the money.....:eusa_whistle:
 
In order for alleged improper behavior on the part of climate scientists to be a logical and effective rebuttal of AGW, it would be necessary that this behavior represent a universal conspiracy among thousands of scientists and on the part of all academic climate science establishments in every university and every scientific journal on the planet. That is a preposterous notion that has no plausibility at all and is sheer tinfoil-hat stuff.

What's more, if it were true, the same factors (quest for research grants from government) are at play in all areas of scientific research, which means that this indictment would be an indictment of all of science from one end to the other. That is even less plausible, even more tinfoil-hat stuff.

It's important that improprieties on the part of scientists be dealt with properly, and we should always remember that scientists are human beings, not demigods of objectivity. Other than that reminder, "Climategate X.0" (in this or any future edition) proves nothing, and inherently CAN prove nothing.

Follow the money.....:eusa_whistle:

That's the inconvenient part of this debate that the GW and AGW religonists never seem to want to get into. :)
 
In order for alleged improper behavior on the part of climate scientists to be a logical and effective rebuttal of AGW, it would be necessary that this behavior represent a universal conspiracy among thousands of scientists and on the part of all academic climate science establishments in every university and every scientific journal on the planet. That is a preposterous notion that has no plausibility at all and is sheer tinfoil-hat stuff.

What's more, if it were true, the same factors (quest for research grants from government) are at play in all areas of scientific research, which means that this indictment would be an indictment of all of science from one end to the other. That is even less plausible, even more tinfoil-hat stuff.

It's important that improprieties on the part of scientists be dealt with properly, and we should always remember that scientists are human beings, not demigods of objectivity. Other than that reminder, "Climategate X.0" (in this or any future edition) proves nothing, and inherently CAN prove nothing.

I just wanted to let you know that: I agree.





Of course you do little one...of course you do!:lol:

Of course you had to include a laughing emoticon just so I know that you are actually laughing at me. Now me feelings are extra hurt.
 
Last edited:
CLARIFICATION: There is no such thing as a climate "Atheist" unless a person is absolutely ambivalent about climate change and holds no opinions pro GW or AGW or in opposition to that. That would pretty much rule out anybody who bothers to post on a climate change thread.

When we speak of 'religionist' on this topic, we are referring to 'religion' as defined by Merriam Webster here: "4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."

So in other words, the weakest, most general and vague definition of the word available.
 
If you understand Occam's Razor then please inform the class how it is relevent to the statement I made.



You want me to explain how my claim that I understand it is related to your claim that I don't? What are you, a fuckin imbecile?




No, but clearly you are. I made the statement that all weather "events" as defined by your high priests, have occured in the past absent mans influence. Your response was "so what".
Now, based on Occams Razor, tell the class the relevence of my statement.


You tell us the relevance of your statement. That's why I said "so what". You seem to be assuming that because climate was influenced only by nature in the past, it is therefore some physical law of nature that it is impossible for man to ever influence it in the present or future. Is that not what you are saying?
 
In order for alleged improper behavior on the part of climate scientists to be a logical and effective rebuttal of AGW, it would be necessary that this behavior represent a universal conspiracy among thousands of scientists and on the part of all academic climate science establishments in every university and every scientific journal on the planet. That is a preposterous notion that has no plausibility at all and is sheer tinfoil-hat stuff.

What's more, if it were true, the same factors (quest for research grants from government) are at play in all areas of scientific research, which means that this indictment would be an indictment of all of science from one end to the other. That is even less plausible, even more tinfoil-hat stuff.

It's important that improprieties on the part of scientists be dealt with properly, and we should always remember that scientists are human beings, not demigods of objectivity. Other than that reminder, "Climategate X.0" (in this or any future edition) proves nothing, and inherently CAN prove nothing.

Follow the money.....:eusa_whistle:

Repeat the cliches
 
CLARIFICATION: There is no such thing as a climate "Atheist" unless a person is absolutely ambivalent about climate change and holds no opinions pro GW or AGW or in opposition to that. That would pretty much rule out anybody who bothers to post on a climate change thread.

When we speak of 'religionist' on this topic, we are referring to 'religion' as defined by Merriam Webster here: "4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."

So in other words, the weakest, most general and vague definition of the word available.

No, the most appropriate definition of the word as it applies to global warming.
 
CLARIFICATION: There is no such thing as a climate "Atheist" unless a person is absolutely ambivalent about climate change and holds no opinions pro GW or AGW or in opposition to that. That would pretty much rule out anybody who bothers to post on a climate change thread.

When we speak of 'religionist' on this topic, we are referring to 'religion' as defined by Merriam Webster here: "4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."

So in other words, the weakest, most general and vague definition of the word available.

No, the most appropriate definition of the word as it applies to global warming.

That particular definition can apply to anything. You also have yet to make a point.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top