Where do religious folk who are climate deniers reconcile this?

Dr Grump

Platinum Member
Apr 4, 2006
31,625
6,434
1,130
From the Back of Beyond
Not too sure if this is current events (climate change) or religion (Christianity).

Climate deniers are always rambling on about empirical evidence not being available on humans causing climate change (even though scientists use the well-proven and peer-reviewed modelling method that show unequivocally that we are having a negative effect), yet there is absolutely zero evidence of a god. Only faith. It seems - and I'm only going on anecdotal evidence on this board - that almost all climate-change-is-being-caused-by-humans deniers are conservatives, and quite a few are Christians. Seems hypocrisy to me...
 
Peer reviewed computer modeling...suspect to many....we believe a God powerful enough to create us this planet and the universe would not make it so easy to destroy...a few hundred years of us and the world can't take it?...the whole idea is laughable at best that us puny humans can save the planet if we all change the way we live...the way they tell us to live....no thanks I need more than a computer model to do that....
 
Peer reviewed computer modeling...suspect to many....we believe a God powerful enough to create us this planet and the universe would not make it so easy to destroy...a few hundred years of us and the world can't take it?...the whole idea is laughable at best that us puny humans can save the planet if we all change the way we live...the way they tell us to live....no thanks I need more than a computer model to do that....

If it's laughable that man could destroy the world after just a few hundred years, why do you think he caused a flood to kill everybody and everything except just a few people and animals? How many hundred years do you think it was between what you think was the creation, and what you think was a world wide flood?
 
Not too sure if this is current events (climate change) or religion (Christianity).

Climate deniers are always rambling on about empirical evidence not being available on humans causing climate change (even though scientists use the well-proven and peer-reviewed modelling method that show unequivocally that we are having a negative effect), yet there is absolutely zero evidence of a god. Only faith. It seems - and I'm only going on anecdotal evidence on this board - that almost all climate-change-is-being-caused-by-humans deniers are conservatives, and quite a few are Christians. Seems hypocrisy to me...

You will never get the experience to know that there really is a God if you only go looking for evidence.

Through faith you will.
 
even though scientists use the well-proven and peer-reviewed modelling

By definition..."peer-reviewed" is NOT science!

Before columbus it was "peer-reviewed science" that the earth was flat.

Science is PROVABLE! You create a valid test and every time you run it, you get the same results...if somebody else runs the exact same test...THEY get the same results...THAT is science!

Not to mention...why wont they tell me what their evidence is?

I keep hearing how all scientists agree...the science is settled...the argument is over...and yet they wont even tell me the nature of their so called "science".

Phooey on that!
 
Not too sure if this is current events (climate change) or religion (Christianity).

Climate deniers are always rambling on about empirical evidence not being available on humans causing climate change (even though scientists use the well-proven and peer-reviewed modelling method that show unequivocally that we are having a negative effect), yet there is absolutely zero evidence of a god. Only faith. It seems - and I'm only going on anecdotal evidence on this board - that almost all climate-change-is-being-caused-by-humans deniers are conservatives, and quite a few are Christians. Seems hypocrisy to me...
Many skeptics do not deny the greenhouse effect. They object to how the issue is politicized and hyperbolized in order to reach a desired political and social effect desired by the IPCC and it's daddy, the UN itself. It's all a question of degree being claimed by NGOs and governmental entities.

And I would say, and many respected physicists and other scientists, would consider all of the cosmos as real tangible proof of God.
 
Last edited:
Many articles on Orbital Climate Change if one takes the times to look.

How do the Milankovitch cycles affect climate change? | Socratic

www.duncansteel.com › wp-content › uploads › 2014/09 › EOaCCC
[PDF] Earth's Orbit and Contemporary Climate Change - Duncan Steel
Contrary to the supposition of many, apsidal precession occurs quite quickly, shifting ... is the fact that perihelion, in its 21,000-year precession cycle, was aligned ... the same day-of-year on the preceding orbit, and so the solar power to the ... globally-averaged temperature, the effect of Earth's shifting orbital axis is greater in.



2 Kings Chapter 20
20:8
And Hezekiah said unto Isaiah, What shall be the sign that the LORD will heal me, and that I shall go up into the house of the LORD the third day?
20:9
And Isaiah said, This sign shalt thou have of the LORD, that the LORD will do the thing that he hath spoken: shall the shadow go forward ten degrees, or go back ten degrees?
20:10
And Hezekiah answered, It is a light thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees: nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees.
 
By definition..."peer-reviewed" is NOT science!

Before columbus it was "peer-reviewed science" that the earth was flat.

Science is PROVABLE! You create a valid test and every time you run it, you get the same results...if somebody else runs the exact same test...THEY get the same results...THAT is science!

Not to mention...why wont they tell me what their evidence is?

I keep hearing how all scientists agree...the science is settled...the argument is over...and yet they wont even tell me the nature of their so called "science".

Phooey on that!
Agreed. "Peer reviewed" means a group of scientist all agree something is "right" but that isn't the same as proving scientifically a theory is actually demonstrably true. The flat earth example and an earth-centric "solar" system are good examples of peer reviewed so called science.
 
Not too sure if this is current events (climate change) or religion (Christianity).

Climate deniers are always rambling on about empirical evidence not being available on humans causing climate change (even though scientists use the well-proven and peer-reviewed modelling method that show unequivocally that we are having a negative effect), yet there is absolutely zero evidence of a god. Only faith. It seems - and I'm only going on anecdotal evidence on this board - that almost all climate-change-is-being-caused-by-humans deniers are conservatives, and quite a few are Christians. Seems hypocrisy to me...

Life itself is proof God exists. Science cannot explain the creation of life from lifeless elements. Scientists have absolutely no clue how to create even the simplest life form artificially, much less explain how it would be created in nature.

Climate change has been going on since long before humans were around. Do humans have a negative impact on the environment? Yes.

Does that mean I am going to buy into a bunch of Marxist garbage in a supposed attempt to “fix” the environment? No.
 
Even if man made climate change was real...there ain't jack we could do about it (short of mass suicide).

Stop using coal, oil, and nat-gas? Well then we'd have no food...hell there wouldn't be a single item in any store. No heat or AC...no way to cook unless we cut down trees (GASP)!

No running water if we didn't pump it up into the water towers...and guess what those pumps run on?
 
Life itself is proof God exists. Science cannot explain the creation of life from lifeless elements. Scientists have absolutely no clue how to create even the simplest life form artificially, much less explain how it would be created in nature.

Climate change has been going on since long before humans were around. Do humans have a negative impact on the environment? Yes.

Does that mean I am going to buy into a bunch of Marxist garbage in a supposed attempt to “fix” the environment? No.

Yeah, there does seem to be this train of thought that all these scientists are after money. What a load of phooey. Anybody who thinks that doesn't know scientists.
 
You will never get the experience to know that there really is a God if you only go looking for evidence.

Through faith you will.

Exactly. Faith. And it just so happens if you are born in Israel, your God is the only one. If you are born in Saudi Arabia, allah is the one and Mohammad the prophet. And if you are born in the Bible Belt Jesus is the one yadda, yadda yadda. You do realise a lot - and I mean an absolute shitload - of allegories surrounding Christianity for example such as the virgin birth and turning water in wine etc - are from other religions preceding Christianity. You do know that right?
 
even though scientists use the well-proven and peer-reviewed modelling

By definition..."peer-reviewed" is NOT science!

Before columbus it was "peer-reviewed science" that the earth was flat.

Science is PROVABLE! You create a valid test and every time you run it, you get the same results...if somebody else runs the exact same test...THEY get the same results...THAT is science!

Not to mention...why wont they tell me what their evidence is?

I keep hearing how all scientists agree...the science is settled...the argument is over...and yet they wont even tell me the nature of their so called "science".

Phooey on that!
Fair enough. Take out peer-reviewed and just leave modelling. Plenty of examples of modelling having proven to be working.
 
The 'climate' always changes. 'Climate Change' is nothing but a term that can mean anything anyone wants it to mean. Talk about faith, 'Climate Change' advocates also operate on faith that climate models (created by humans) are infallible. Sounds like a religion to me.
 
Not too sure if this is current events (climate change) or religion (Christianity).

Climate deniers are always rambling on about empirical evidence not being available on humans causing climate change (even though scientists use the well-proven and peer-reviewed modelling method that show unequivocally that we are having a negative effect), yet there is absolutely zero evidence of a god. Only faith. It seems - and I'm only going on anecdotal evidence on this board - that almost all climate-change-is-being-caused-by-humans deniers are conservatives, and quite a few are Christians. Seems hypocrisy to me...
Many skeptics do not deny the greenhouse effect. They object to how the issue is politicized and hyperbolized in order to reach a desired political and social effect desired by the IPCC and it's daddy, the UN itself. It's all a question of degree being claimed by NGOs and governmental entities.

And I would say, and many respected physicists and other scientists, would consider all of the cosmos as real tangible proof of God.

Interesting POV. I don't think it is the climate scientists who have politicised it. It is the rabid right in the US that has. They think it is some sort of conspiracy theory from the UN etc, which is laughable.

The cosmos is not tangible proof of a god at all. I know a shitload of scientists. A couple are muslims and christians. Vast majority are atheists. I find it inexplicable that those with a religious bent can't believe scientific reasons for the evolution of the cosmos, but when you apply the same principles to 'where did god come from', the answer is 'he's always been there'. I can't think of a bigger cop out than that.
 
The 'climate' always changes. 'Climate Change' is nothing but a term that can mean anything anyone wants it to mean. Talk about faith, 'Climate Change' advocates also operate on faith that climate models (created by humans) are infallible. Sounds like a religion to me.

You make fair points. To counter them though I would make these points:
1) Those that know that man made climate change is happening have never denied that the Earth's climate changes over time with or without the help of man. In fact, almost all scientists agree it does. What concerns them, is the pace it is happening is not within norms.
2) When different scientists model climate change in different parts of the world and come to similar conclusions then I think it pertinent to listen.
 
Interesting POV. I don't think it is the climate scientists who have politicised it. It is the rabid right in the US that has. They think it is some sort of conspiracy theory from the UN etc, which is laughable.
Well you can believe the IPCC and all their revolving predictions of doom or you can try to find a reputable climatologist who will back their Chicken Little propaganda (millions will die, NY under ten feet of water, polar bear become extinct, etc.)
I find that Bjorn Lomborg strikes a happy medium, more or less. Bjørn Lomborg: the dissenting climate change voice who changed his tune

The cosmos is not tangible proof of a god at all.
A guy named Albert Einstein disagrees and
and a more modern voice, physicist Michio Kaku, echos much of what Einstein said (not that they are the only two voices).
World Famous Physicist Says He’s ‘Found Evidence That God Exists’
If you believe nothing is without a source it's only common sense.


I know a shitload of scientists. A couple are muslims and christians. Vast majority are atheists. I find it inexplicable that those with a religious bent can't believe scientific reasons for the evolution of the cosmos, but when you apply the same principles to 'where did god come from', the answer is 'he's always been there'. I can't think of a bigger cop out than that.
Obviously God is not constrained by what governs and accounts for the rest of the universe and is outside your ability to understand.
It's very difficult to conceive of a being like God. It's even more difficult to believe the universe, all the billions of stars, planets, etc and the laws that governs it all, just happens to exist...like a Sears washing machine that just happens to sit on the backside of Mars.
 
The 'climate' always changes. 'Climate Change' is nothing but a term that can mean anything anyone wants it to mean. Talk about faith, 'Climate Change' advocates also operate on faith that climate models (created by humans) are infallible. Sounds like a religion to me.

You make fair points. To counter them though I would make these points:
1) Those that know that man made climate change is happening have never denied that the Earth's climate changes over time with or without the help of man. In fact, almost all scientists agree it does. What concerns them, is the pace it is happening is not within norms.
2) When different scientists model climate change in different parts of the world and come to similar conclusions then I think it pertinent to listen.

When it comes to Earth's climate, we really don't know the 'norms' because there is no measuring stick provided that monitors the whole Earth. Only humans establish climate 'norms' based on an inadequate population of data that is enhanced by human-created climate models.

The 'models' are human created and therefore are biased toward human activity. The extent to which humans can affect the Earth's climate is unknowable.

Climate around the world should be monitored completely objectively without the presumption that humans are affecting it. That way we can perhaps at least try to predict the worst climate changes which would be ice ages or an expanding Sun.

We are just starting to study the climates of other planets which can give us some insight as well.
 
Last edited:
The 'climate' always changes. 'Climate Change' is nothing but a term that can mean anything anyone wants it to mean. Talk about faith, 'Climate Change' advocates also operate on faith that climate models (created by humans) are infallible. Sounds like a religion to me.

You make fair points. To counter them though I would make these points:
1) Those that know that man made climate change is happening have never denied that the Earth's climate changes over time with or without the help of man. In fact, almost all scientists agree it does. What concerns them, is the pace it is happening is not within norms.
2) When different scientists model climate change in different parts of the world and come to similar conclusions then I think it pertinent to listen.
Most of those scientists do not get their degrees and jobs without climbing aboard the Prog Socialist Globalist agendas. And most pollution is separate from any climate change/cooling/warming/ or whatever is made up next to blame humans for it if it exists at all.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top