Are God deniers and climate change deniers equally flawed?

[Stryder50]

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.

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.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

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 present "papers" purportedly discrediting proper science, written by people on the payroll of fossil fuel companies, you will be called out.

Can you not find something in a peer reviewed scientific publication?

 

[ding]

When you present "papers" purportedly discrediting proper science, written by people on the payroll of fossil fuel companies, you will be called out.

Can you not find something in a peer reviewed scientific publication?

When you can challenge the content that was presented, let me know.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

Ask an atheist why they are an atheist then come back here and tell me what their answer was.

But why waste my time, you'll not do that, so I'll do it for you:

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

When you can challenge the content that was presented, let me know.

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.

The authors are not credible, find some who are.

 

[ding]

Ask an atheist why they are an atheist then come back here and tell me what their answer was.

But why waste my time, you'll not do that, so I'll do it for you:

View attachment 1072127

Because atheists only believe in a material existence.

 

[ding]

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.

The authors are not credible, find some who are.

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?

 

[Mashmont]

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.

The difference is there is plenty of evidence of God; No evidence of human-caused global warming.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Because atheists only believe in a material existence.

Yes because they see no evidence for anything else.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

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?

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?

I'm confident the paper is flawed, if I was prepared to spend a week checking everything in it I could probably raise some solid objections, of course you'd dismiss those and my time will have been wasted.

So let's eliminate the cranks and pseudoscience and show me a paper claiming the same thing that's been published in a peer reviewed journal, why can't you do that? by authors not paid by an oil company, why can't you do that?

 

[ding]

Yes because they see no evidence for anything else.

No. They see the same evidence we all see. They reject the evidence.

 

[ding]

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?

I'm confident the paper is flawed, if I was prepared to spend a week checking everything in it I could probably raise some solid objections, of course you'd dismiss those and my time will have been wasted.

So let's eliminate the cranks and pseudoscience and show me a paper claiming the same thing that's been published in a peer reviewed journal, why can't you do that? by authors not paid by an oil company, why can't you do that?

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.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No. They see the same evidence we all see. They reject the evidence.

That's not what atheists say, they claim that there's no evidence for God. What evidence do you think they "reject"?

 

[marvin martian]

That's not what atheists say, they claim that there's no evidence for God. What evidence do you think they "reject"?

You're not an atheist, you're just a Christophobe.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No one has refuted their claims yet because their claims are accurate.

Nobody's read it except conspiracy fantasists, as I said it's not serious science if it is not peer reviewed.

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.

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 can go and find for you, umpteen papers published on the web that run counter to accepted scientific opinions, how do you decide if these are valid science of pseudoscience?

Tell me, is this writer right or wrong?

Proving Relativity Wrong (Part 1) – Introduction – Steven B. Bryant

stevenbbryant.com

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You're not an atheist, you're just a Christophobe.

I am not a God denier nor am I a climate change denier, I use the same overall reasoning in both cases, evidence.

I've never heard the term "Christophobe".

 

[ding]

I am not a God denier nor am I a climate change denier

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.

And I have good reason to believe in God because I have studied what he has created.

Whereas you take both of your positions on blind faith.

 

[ding]

That's not what atheists say, they claim that there's no evidence for God. What evidence do you think they "reject"?

They are wrong; all creations are tangible evidence. Even if you don't know who or what created it.

They reject what the physical laws of nature, the biological laws of nature and the moral laws of nature tell us about the creator. In other words... they reject the evidence of creation itself, existence itself.

 

[ding]

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 can go and find for you, umpteen papers published on the web that run counter to accepted scientific opinions, how do you decide if these are valid science of pseudoscience?

Tell me, is this writer right or wrong?

Proving Relativity Wrong (Part 1) – Introduction – Steven B. Bryant

stevenbbryant.com

I'm not moving beyond your inability to challenge the content of the paper you rejected without even reading.

Not to mention the numerous other posts you chose to ignore by me. It's the ocean, dummy. The geologic record does not lie.

 

[Sparker]

Just casual observation can be enough to see the climate changing. The two basic options are adapt to a new climate or move to a preferred climate zone. Picking one of those two can be done without consciously acknowledging climate change. "I'm tired of all this rain, I'll move to that area that is famous for sunny weather." But then a vocal and connected minority started using it for end of the world fantasies, demands for political action and restrictions on what people are allowed to buy, subsidy dumpsters, etc. The deniers may be reacting to the demands and subsidies more than the climate changing.