Where do religious folk who are climate deniers reconcile this?

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Cite models that show the dire predictions made about catastrophe just a few years ahead...... Cite the Models that show the sea rise in 100 years and then explain why they can not get one right for 10 years but we should believe the 100 year model..... Cite the model that show runaway heat in 100 years then explain how they can not even predict what the heat will be world wide in 10 years and explain why we should believe the models. Better yet just cite the model where scientists can plug in the KNOWN temperatures and conditions for say the last 20 years and then show that computer model can model the world wide global conditions over that period using the claims they say are settled.

 

[satrebil]

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?

Gosh, I sure do love it when the atheists try to tell us what our religious texts REALLY say. Read closely, dumbfuck, because I'm about to educate your stupid ass: Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are ALL what are called Abrahamic religions, and ALL have the same God - whether he's referred to as God, Allah, or Yahweh.

But here's the differences, and clearly what you DON'T know:

1) You bring up Israel. Most Jews do not believe in Christ - aka CHRISTianity. Of the entire world population of Jews (estimated at 14.5 million) only about 350,000 are "Messianic Jews" who could be considered 'Christians'. (Messianic Jews – Facts & Truth about Israel) If you had the foggiest fucking clue what you were talking about, you might know that it was Jews who killed Christ by labeling him a false Messiah, thereby typically positioning Christianity and Judaism at odds with eachother.
2) In Islam Jesus is considered a prophet as opposed to the Son of God, and therefore a minor figure in the grand scheme of Abrahamic religion. Islam is definitively NOT Christian.
3) In Christianity, which encompasses Methodists, Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, Protestants, and a host of other smaller sects - Christ is the Son of God and divine in his own right.

Next time you decide to go off on an anti-religious tirade try knowing what the fuck you're talking about first.

FFS. You totally missed my point. And you have taught be nothing I didn't already know. Jaysus....

I missed nothing. You tried equating the world's major religions and I kicked your ass and handed it to you. You didn't even know that "God" is one and the same to most all of us. Better luck next time.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Go back to 1900 and cite for us the prediction of how much the earth would warm. Then show us that in 2000 that was WAY off.

 

[DOTR]

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Sounds more like AGW alarmist extremists who rely on propaganda in lieu of objective scientific observation tend to be mostly atheistic in keeping with Marxism.

more conspiracy shit, nothing to back it up..

Conspiracy? You mean AGW alarmism? You can’t define a non-existent.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

Really,

Pray tell....tell us what we should know.

I work with many of them.

They live in the clouds.

 

[Aletheia4u]

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...

Well There is physical evidence that the Bible is accurate. But there is a dark sinister being that is preventing the truth from coming out.

 

[westwall]

Modeling is not data. Non scientists can't seem to understand this simple fact.

Computer models are FICTION.

And yet time and time again (not talking climate change in particular here) scientists model certain things and say "in five years time such and such will happen if this, this and this occurs." And lo and behold, it happens. Accidental maybe? Lucky?

And they are always wrong. Go figure. Read any climatology "study" and they will say "we used a simple model"..

So, how good is that simple model? Let us compare those simple models with the most complex models on the planet. Namely computational fluid dynamics models as used in Formula 1 racing.

They cost tens of millions of dollars to buy, and cost millions to operate. They are working with very few variables. They are designing new aerodynamic parts for the race cars 24/7, and they design thousands of parts every week.

Out of all of those parts two or three warrant manufacture and testing in a wind tunnel. Of those tested parts one in 1000 actually gives a benefit. That is a success rate far below 1%.

So you think that a simple model, run by grad students is going to give you meaningful information?

Get real.

 

[2aguy]

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...

No, they don't use modeling methods that work...since they can't reproduce even past climate changes......but do go on......

No...it is science...the science does not support man made global warming.......the models are flawed...the old, garbage in, garbage out issue......

 

[2aguy]

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.

Remember when Red Meat was bad for you? Or eggs........or coffee....... they can't even come to a consensus on that.....with the limited factors they have to deal with with Red Meat and human biology.....

 

[Pilot1]

The man made climate change alarmists use flawed and corrupted science to get the outcomes and conclusions THEY want. It is an income and wealth redistribution hoax and scam. When people tell me the "debate is over, and "the science is settled" it becomes OBVIOUS.

Science is NEVER settled, and they don't want debate because they are hiding lies and a hoax.

 

[2aguy]

The man made climate change alarmists use flawed and corrupted science to get the outcomes and conclusions THEY want. It is an income and wealth redistribution hoax and scam. When people tell me the "debate is over, and "the science is settled" it becomes OBVIOUS.

Science is NEVER settled, and they don't want debate because they are hiding lies and a hoax.

I'll start to get interested when the high priests of the man made global warming religion stop buying mansions on the coast, give up their private jets, and start driving smart cars...as their only automobiles......not their 30th kept next to all of their gas guzzlers..........

 

[cnm]

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

Another deplorable shows his scientific and historical illiteracy.

We have known that Earth is round for over 2,000 years

We have known that Earth is round for over 2,000 years

Long before anyone circumnavigated the globe or went into space, the ancient Greeks had figured out that the Earth is ball-shaped, rather than flat​

 

[cnm]

And they are always wrong. Go figure. Read any climatology "study" and they will say "we used a simple model"..

How small a strawman do you need to build in order to defeat it? Note that observed global temperatures are in the predicted range.

Updated version of IPCC AR5 Figure 11.25b with the HadCRUT4.6 global temperature time-series and uncertainty (black). The CMIP5 model projections are shown relative to 1986-2005 (light grey) and 2006-2012 (dark grey). The red hatching is the IPCC AR5 indicative likely range for global temperatures in the 2016-2035 period, with the black bar being the assessed 2016-2035 average. The blue lines represent other observational datasets (Cowtan & Way, NASA GISTEMP, NOAA GlobalTemp, BEST). The green axis shows temperatures relative to 1850-1900 (early-industrial period).
Comparing CMIP5 & observations | Climate Lab Book

 

[2aguy]

And they are always wrong. Go figure. Read any climatology "study" and they will say "we used a simple model"..

How small a strawman do you need to build in order to defeat it? Note that observed global temperatures are in the predicted range.

Updated version of IPCC AR5 Figure 11.25b with the HadCRUT4.6 global temperature time-series and uncertainty (black). The CMIP5 model projections are shown relative to 1986-2005 (light grey) and 2006-2012 (dark grey). The red hatching is the IPCC AR5 indicative likely range for global temperatures in the 2016-2035 period, with the black bar being the assessed 2016-2035 average. The blue lines represent other observational datasets (Cowtan & Way, NASA GISTEMP, NOAA GlobalTemp, BEST). The green axis shows temperatures relative to 1850-1900 (early-industrial period).
Comparing CMIP5 & observations | Climate Lab Book

Yeah....sell it to left wingers...they are dumb enough to believe you....

 

[cnm]

The man made climate change alarmists use flawed and corrupted science to get the outcomes and conclusions THEY want.

Dead right. It's a global scam adhered to by nearly every government and scientific agency on earth merely in order to get rightard yanks to pay for climate scientists' lunch. They'd like sushi.

 

[fncceo]

Where I live, the average temperature goes from below freezing in Jan to a hundred in July.

Not in 50 years, but in six months... and, somehow, we've been able to survive as a community for nearly 200 years.

I'm not sure anyone is going to notice another degree in a human lifetime.

 

[westwall]

The man made climate change alarmists use flawed and corrupted science to get the outcomes and conclusions THEY want.

Dead right. It's a global scam adhered to by nearly every government and scientific agency on earth merely in order to get rightard yanks to pay for climate scientists' lunch. They'd like sushi.

Of course you stupid moron, they are in it for the POWER.

Just how stupid are you?

 

[cnm]

Of course you stupid moron, they are in it for the POWER.

They'd like sushi, thanks. And they'd like you to tip the server as well.

 

[cnm]

Where I live, the average temperature goes from below freezing in Jan to a hundred in July.

Not in 50 years, but in six months... and, somehow, we've been able to survive as a community for nearly 200 years.

I'm not sure anyone is going to notice another degree in a human lifetime.

Won't be noticeable...