Are God deniers and climate change deniers equally flawed?

Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature.

So theories are a part of science but without confirmation of predictions, theories remain unsubstantiated.
The theories used for climate modelling are not controversial.

1738085178084.png


This is old school theory, used to design steam engines, rockets, building heating/cooling systems, space stations and so on, it's old hat. Why trust the theory for all these things then start doubting the theory when used for some other problem? If this theory was wrong then nothing we have built over that past five hundred years would work - but they DO work.
 
Look at cosmology, all the predictions and going back in time to the Big Bang is done with computer models, why don't you reject those?
Based upon Einstein's field equations which have been proven in a myriad of ways. Climate modeling has not. So you are making an apples to oranges comparison.
 
The theories used for climate modelling are not controversial.
The application of their models are controversial. For starters they assume all warming is due to CO2. That no natural warming can occur. They include urban temperature stations which capture urban heat island effect, they use low variability solar output datasets instead of the high variability solar output datasets. And I'm just scratching the surface here.
 
Based upon Einstein's field equations which have been proven in a myriad of ways. Climate modeling has not. So you are making an apples to oranges comparison.
Einstein's GR for cosmology requires computers, the partial differential equations are not soluble by normal mathematics we need numerical solutions derived by computational methods and the same is the case with climate models - both cosmology and climatology need computer base numeric solutions.

Each of these problems involves iteration, computing a result then putting that result back in, that's how we model the passage of time.
 
You don't know what atheists believe? really? OK.


View attachment 1071753

That's the SAME reasoning climate change deniers give.
I think stating what atheists believe in the negative is a poor way of stating what atheists believe. It is much better to state their belief in the affirmative. The affirmative way of saying what atheists believe is that atheists only believe in a material existence.
 
This is old school theory, used to design steam engines, rockets, building heating/cooling systems, space stations and so on, it's old hat. Why trust the theory for all these things then start doubting the theory when used for some other problem? If this theory was wrong then nothing we have built over that past five hundred years would work - but they DO work.
The difference is the level of complexity. So this is just another apples to oranges comparison.

We trust things that have been proven to work. Mind you none of what you listed started off as old hat. They had to be developed through trial and error. They had to be proven.
 
The application of their models are controversial. For starters they assume all warming is due to CO2. That no natural warming can occur.
Actually they compute that if CO2 concentration increases then temperatures will rise - do you dispute this?
They include urban temperature stations which capture urban heat island effect, they use low variability solar output datasets instead of the high variability solar output datasets. And I'm just scratching the surface here.


Old models are being borne out, predictions made years ago are close to what we see today.

The researchers compared annual average surface temperatures across the globe to the surface temperatures predicted in 17 forecasts. Those predictions were drawn from 14 separate computer models released between 1970 and 2001. In some cases, the studies and their computer codes were so old that the team had to extract data published in papers, using special software to gauge the exact numbers represented by points on a printed graph.

Most of the models accurately predicted recent global surface temperatures, which have risen approximately 0.9°C since 1970. For 10 forecasts, there was no statistically significant difference between their output and historic observations, the team reports today in Geophysical Research Letters.
 
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.
No,.

There are mountains of mutually supportive evidence for what is the most robust scientific theory in history: anthropogenis climate change theory.

There is not a shred of evidence for the existence of any gods, fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, et cetera.
 
No,.

There are mountains of mutually supportive evidence for what is the most robust scientific theory in history, climate change theory.

There is not a shred of evidence for the existence of any gods, fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, et cetera.

Ask any God denier - perhaps you - they see absolutely no evidence for any kind of supernatural God.
Ask any climate denier - perhaps someone here - they see absolutely no evidence for any kind of man made impact on climate behavior.

These are true statements, this is what these people say.
 
Ask any God denier - perhaps you - they see absolutely no evidence for any kind of supernatural God.
Ask any climate denier - perhaps someone here - they see absolutely no evidence for any kind of man made impact on climate behavior.

These are true statements.
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.
 
Einstein's GR for cosmology requires computers, the partial differential equations are not soluble by normal mathematics we need numerical solutions derived by computational methods and the same is the case with climate models - both cosmology and climatology need computer base numeric solutions.

Each of these problems involves iteration, computing a result then putting that result back in, that's how we model the passage of time.
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.
 
Actually they compute that if CO2 concentration increases then temperatures will rise - do you dispute this?
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.



1632186412722.png



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
 
Last edited:
God denial and climate change denial are based on the same arguments - a lack of convincing evidence.
The lies over the last near 60 years from the globalists pushing "climate agendas" is a disgrace. The real truth is, if the world was going to collapse from climate this would have been forced on us many many years ago. The technology alone on solar panels for homes after many decades with the money invested should be massively better than now. Someone needs to make a profit and something free is not accepted.
 
Actually they compute that if CO2 concentration increases then temperatures will rise - do you dispute this?



Old models are being borne out, predictions made years ago are close to what we see today.
"...In the global climate models (GCMs) most of the warming that has taken place since 1950 is attributed to human activity. Historically, however, there have been large climatic variations.Temperature reconstructions indicate that there is a ‘warming’ trend that seems to have been going on for as long as approximately 400 years. Prior to the last 250 years or so, such a trend could only be due to natural causes..."

"...GCMs are not sufficiently reliable to distinguish between natural and man-made causes of the temperature increase in the 20th century. Some of the predictions from GCMs are accompanied by standard errors, as in statistical analysis. But since the GCMs are deterministic models one cannot interpret these standard errors in the same way as in statistics. GCMs are typically evaluated applying the same observations used to calibrate the model parameters. In an article in Science, Voosen (2016) writes; “Indeed, whether climate scientists like to admit it or not, nearly every model has been calibrated precisely to the 20th century climate records – otherwise it would have ended up in the trash”. Unfortunately,models that match 20th century data as a result of calibration using the same 20th century data are of dubious quality for determining the causes of the 20th century temperature variability. The problem is that some of the variables representing sources of climate variability other than greenhouse gases are not properly controlled for during the calibrations. The resulting calibration of the climate sensitivity may therefore be biased. Further critical evaluations are given by several authors, such as Essex (2022)..."

"...As mentioned in the previous section climate can also change owing to internal processes within the climate system even without any variations in external forcings (chaos). In the GCMs the source of chaos is the nonlinearity of the Navier-Stokes equations. If the initial conditions are not known exactly for a dynamic model based on the Navier-Stokes relations the forecast trajectory will diverge from the actual one, and it is not necessarily the case that small perturbations have small effects. In fact, slightly different initial conditions can yield wildly different outputs..."

"...In order to assess the uncertainty due to internal variability, researchers use so-called ICE (Initial Condition Ensembles) simulations. This means that outputs of GCMs are simulated starting from slightly different initial conditions. As the climate system is chaotic, slightly different initial conditions lead to different trajectories..."

"...Subsequently, we have summarized recent work on statistical analyses on the ability ofthe GCMs to track historical temperature data. These studies have demonstrated that the timeseries of the difference between the global temperature and the corresponding hindcast from theGCMs is non-stationary. Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2..."

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf
 
The software is a means of solving many intricate differential equations, these are well known equations called the Navier Stokes equations. They are derived from the laws of thermodynamics which we use to design and build rockets, jet engines and so on.
Cool. Then it should be easy for you to prove manmade climate change.
 
Read it again. I said you need to provide evidence that sea levels rising is a result of man.

The whole theory of “Climate change” is that man is causing all the bad weather things to happen.

This is the great cop out climate hoaxers always do. You try to use evidence of natural of occurring events and attribute it to man made causes. Yet you have no scientific evidence to prove it.
As we can see, climate hoaxer Sherlock Holmes cannot answer this challenge.


Show us how much sea levels have risen over the last 150 years, ever since mankind started polluting the world.

Then show us how much it was rising before that. Then prove the sea rising levels are a result of man made causes and not from the natural warming of the earth since the last ice age.


What’s the hold up?
 
The theories used for climate modelling are not controversial.

View attachment 1071754

This is old school theory, used to design steam engines, rockets, building heating/cooling systems, space stations and so on, it's old hat. Why trust the theory for all these things then start doubting the theory when used for some other problem? If this theory was wrong then nothing we have built over that past five hundred years would work - but they DO work.
With all those models, why do they keep getting false predictions?

Al Gore keeps saying we only have 10 years left for the last 40 years.

Personally, I have no issue with climate change, because that is what climates do. Nor do I take issue that man impacts it in some way. It is common knowledge that cities are warmer, for example, during the winter months because of all the human activity.

The real question becomes, are the horrific predictions true as to the end result unless we give all our money and freedoms to those in government to save us? That is the issue I take issue with.

For example, no one with a functioning brain really believes that the government forcing us to drive EV's that are powered by carbon producing energy is really saving the planet. That is just pure retardation only believed by AOC and company. The government wants you to believe they can control the weather when they can't even control inflation or put out a fire in California. Hilarious!

As for belief, that is pretty much all we have as proving things outside a math class is not really possible. Belief is all we really have.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom