And many of us wonder if YOU can even think ?!
When you present "papers" purportedly discrediting proper science, written by people on the payroll of fossil fuel companies, you will be called out.That's nice. Do you know why the northern hemisphere is so critical in determining the climate of the planet? Or maybe I should ask are you aware that the northern hemisphere is critical in determining the climate of the planet, and if so, why?
This is the relevant empirical climate evidence from the geologic record for discussing the planet's current climate.
When you can challenge the content that was presented, let me know.
And many of us wonder if YOU can even think ?!
Your OP fails right out of the gate because you confuse belief in a "God" with belief in a form of religion or religious dogma.
Which God, Gods, Gawd are you referring to ?
Which religion(s) past to present are you referring to ?
As for "climate change"; Natural or anthropogenic (Human caused) ???
When you start with vague, imprecise terms it is nearly impossible to engage in precise, specific dialog.
I'd rather climate change experts challenge the paper, but that'll never happen when the "paper" is "published" by a gang of hacks operating out of somebody's shed.
Because atheists only believe in a material existence.
Can you dispute anything that was presented? Can you dispute the IPCC uses temperature readings from urban stations? Can you dispute the IPCC only use the low variability solar output dataset? Can you dispute that excluding readings from urban stations and using the high variability solar out put dataset leads to an opposite conclusion?
The difference is there is plenty of evidence of God; No evidence of human-caused global warming.
Yes because they see no evidence for anything else.
I won't bother, as I said I'd like to see a review of the paper by a climatologist, see what objections they raise, can you show me one?
No. They see the same evidence we all see. They reject the evidence.
No one has refuted their claims yet because their claims are accurate. The IPCC does include data urban temperature stations, so that cannot be refuted. The IPCC does use the low variability solar output dataset instead of the high variability solar output dataset, so that cannot be refuted. Using the aforementioned datasets does lead to different conclusions, so that can't be refuted either.
That's not what atheists say, they claim that there's no evidence for God. What evidence do you think they "reject"?
Nobody's read it except conspiracy fantasists, as I said it's not serious science if it is not peer reviewed.
Yet despite this claim that the paper represents reasonable interpretations and makes different assumptions, the paper is not peer reviewed, that means something and that something is pseudoscience.
I am not a God denier nor am I a climate change denier, I use the same overall reasoning in both cases, evidence.
It seems to me you have no good reason for either of those beliefs, other than you are accepting it on the authority of others. Whereas I have good reason to believe the planet is warming because the northern hemisphere is deglaciating like it always does after a glacial period has ended and before the next glacial period is triggered by disruption of heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic.
They are wrong; all creations are tangible evidence. Even if you don't know who or what created it.
I'm not moving beyond your inability to challenge the content of the paper you rejected without even reading.
