Luciferi Baphomet
Lucifer, is my Liberator
I don't believe that global warming isn't real.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Global warming or global hoax?
- Thread starter Kemosloby
- Start date
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Haha...of course they did.....during the Obama presidency...we will soon see the same Department of Defense change their priorities when PE Donald Trump assumes power.... Surely you are not so naive as to imagine the leftist agw agenda was not fostered on all Government departments during the 8 years of Obama rule... Wait and watch the Donald effect..
Global warming is bigger than Obama. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump flips and becomes a Climate Change supporter, because the "moral authority" calls the shots and wants it that way.Haha...of course they did.....during the Obama presidency...we will soon see the same Department of Defense change their priorities when PE Donald Trump assumes power.... Surely you are not so naive as to imagine the leftist agw agenda was not fostered on all Government departments during the 8 years of Obama rule... Wait and watch the Donald effect..
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Hmmm....what or whom are you referring to as the "moral authority" which calls the shots wrt agw?
Vatican...Google Obama calls pope "moral authority". Vatican secretly controls the UN, UN says climate change is true, So Trump will have to say climate change is true. I mean white tanks, could it be more obvious?
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
The Pope is not the main enabler of the UN, and is only one part of Globalism or NWO as some call it.....and yes, this is the driving force of the agw agenda which is a pretext for furthering a one world government...but it is far from being a "moral authority" imho...
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Well, I'd much rather be "naive" that completely clueless about how science actually works, so let me know when you finally do your homework so maybe then you'll finally be able to conduct an adult conversation. So, until then,...Haha...of course they did.....during the Obama presidency...we will soon see the same Department of Defense change their priorities when PE Donald Trump assumes power.... Surely you are not so naive as to imagine the leftist agw agenda was not fostered on all Government departments during the 8 years of Obama rule... Wait and watch the Donald effect..
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Hey....appealing to authority does not constitute understanding...let the global climate speak for itself, so far the agw predictions are not sound...
I don't really follow politics aside from political theory and philosophy. Certainly, I couldn't care less about what any politician has to say on any scientific subject. I have the background and resources to evaluate the literature in any field I choose to devote the necessary time to, and I do. Climate science deals with multiple fields which overlap with or are more fundamentally those which define my own: complex systems, nonlinear dynamics, synchronization phenomena, emergence, etc. It is perhaps the field I have culled most in my searches for methods and models to understand the dynamics within and among neuronal networks and complex systems more generally.
"They" are not wrong, because "they" include reputable scientists instrumental in the very creation of our temperature record and of AGW theory more generally. Christy & Spencer, for example, were awarded prizes for their development of the satellite record via MSUs allowing the non-localized atmospheric temperature records from about the origins of the anthropogenic warming trend as reflected in the temperature record. Christy was a lead IPCC author and a contributing author to all IPCC reports. Both Christy and Spencer are against AGW. Even amongst the most ardent proponents of AGW we find highly critical remarks regarding the models, methods, and assumptions influencing literature published (at least nominally) in support of mainstream AGW.
I have several computers, as
1) I am involved in multiple different research projects at any given time and these have been for the last few years primarily commercial in nature and
2) I need to run complex analyses using MATLAB, R, SAS, or even Mathematica (among others) which means I need to dedicate one computer to some such analysis and use another.
So even my electronic library (which I don't like, as I much prefer physical journals/monographs/volumes/etc.) is spread out over several computers. I have, nonetheless, taken a few screenshots from two of my laptops:
These are a tiny fraction of the total literature and comments upon the literature (made either by myself or another) that I possess in electronic form (the physical journals, volumes, monographs, etc., are in the main more extensive).
I have been studying these issues and working with or at least requesting the advice/help/guidance of climate scientists and those working in climate science for many, many, many years. I have even consulted twice on projects in the fields of climate research.
So, to answer your question, no, I have not in general checked out these websites as I don't like to rely on popular crap intended for the scientific illiterate. I read the research.
Aha, the mountain of BS. "Global Change" Global warming = Global Change. That pretty much sums it up. Pick whatever BS you need from the mountain of BS to justify the change you want to make. Like Carbon sequestration...paying farmers not to farm. no till farming... Sustainable development..grow your food in the cities and pay the farmers not to farm.I don't really follow politics aside from political theory and philosophy. Certainly, I couldn't care less about what any politician has to say on any scientific subject. I have the background and resources to evaluate the literature in any field I choose to devote the necessary time to, and I do. Climate science deals with multiple fields which overlap with or are more fundamentally those which define my own: complex systems, nonlinear dynamics, synchronization phenomena, emergence, etc. It is perhaps the field I have culled most in my searches for methods and models to understand the dynamics within and among neuronal networks and complex systems more generally.
"They" are not wrong, because "they" include reputable scientists instrumental in the very creation of our temperature record and of AGW theory more generally. Christy & Spencer, for example, were awarded prizes for their development of the satellite record via MSUs allowing the non-localized atmospheric temperature records from about the origins of the anthropogenic warming trend as reflected in the temperature record. Christy was a lead IPCC author and a contributing author to all IPCC reports. Both Christy and Spencer are against AGW. Even amongst the most ardent proponents of AGW we find highly critical remarks regarding the models, methods, and assumptions influencing literature published (at least nominally) in support of mainstream AGW.
I have several computers, as
1) I am involved in multiple different research projects at any given time and these have been for the last few years primarily commercial in nature and
2) I need to run complex analyses using MATLAB, R, SAS, or even Mathematica (among others) which means I need to dedicate one computer to some such analysis and use another.
So even my electronic library (which I don't like, as I much prefer physical journals/monographs/volumes/etc.) is spread out over several computers. I have, nonetheless, taken a few screenshots from two of my laptops:
These are a tiny fraction of the total literature and comments upon the literature (made either by myself or another) that I possess in electronic form (the physical journals, volumes, monographs, etc., are in the main more extensive).
I have been studying these issues and working with or at least requesting the advice/help/guidance of climate scientists and those working in climate science for many, many, many years. I have even consulted twice on projects in the fields of climate research.
So, to answer your question, no, I have not in general checked out these websites as I don't like to rely on popular crap intended for the scientific illiterate. I read the research.
What a load of nonsense from the detractors.
Clearly there is global warming, be it natural
or man made...
how else can you explain rising sea levels, sufficient to flood out Island nations, and remove
long established glaciers ?
Clearly there is global warming, be it natural
or man made...
how else can you explain rising sea levels, sufficient to flood out Island nations, and remove
long established glaciers ?
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
No one here that I am aware of has denied there has been some global warming...but some are questioning how serious or not it is. Fyi, the ocean water levels have been rising and glaciers have been melting since the we came out of the last ice age....and should continue until we go into the next ice age so nothing is new about that. But which island nations are you saying have been flooded out?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But scientists who write in such "popular crap", as you call it, have undoubtedly done much the same. For example, a great many Scientific American writers are research scientists themselves, and they are often "crosschecked" on the next issue if they fall off the turnip truck by jumping to unwarranted conclusions or by writing "crap".
So, I end this with three points, with one of them being that there's sufficient evidence to conclude that human activity is responsible for most of the heating we've seen over the last half-century because other potential factors have been discounted over time, and the second is that it makes much more sense to move on the direction of caution, and the third is that reducing our carbon footprint has other benefits as well.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Sorry to have to inform you Eliab, but anecdotal yarns published in lefty newspapers and internet blogs don't count as scientific evidence. There are no islands being flooded anywhere due to rising water levels....the actual rate of rise is only about 2mm per year......do the sums and work out how long it would take to flood them......
kaoticprofit
Active Member
It took a very long time to get people away from the idea of a flat earth. Even today there are people who believe the earth is flat. I have no problem believing civilization causes the earth to warm. Over the last 20 years, all of the data acquired from satellites, the ISS, the shuttle, and weather balloons, etc. have all concluded we are impacting the planet. The world's top scientist who have studied all of this data also agree.
And the World Bank, Pope and the UN all agree too, mankind is causing global warming and they must take the helm of civilization to lead us to salvation.
kaoticprofit
Active Member
I didn't say anything about the Pope, the UN, the world bank, or the planet needing salvation. I think you have an ax to grind.
Yes you did, you fear global warming, if it's true and the planet warms by 2 degrees we're all up a much deeper S*** creek, and only the pope, UN panel of climate change, money, global taxation, global regulation, global government is going to change it. Oh but seeing your a Catholic you'd have no problem with the Pope at the helm of civilization, blind to anything but the official story perpetrated by those same organization and supported by a mountain of BS commonly known as scientific facts, paid for by said organizations using money printed by the same organizations to create larger organizations for said organizations to create more regulations and evidence on the mountain of BS, to support more global regulation at the expense of people without printing presses to print more money to burn to combat global warming...