Global Warming?

[rrobs]

This is like the pinacle of selfishness.

Ignorance is bliss.

Are you talking about me or you? It seems to fit you much more than myself.

 

[ChristineM]

Have you read the research from scientists who don't believe GW as it is being presented to the masses? Dogmatism is a two way street, you know.

I have asked before and you ignored it, what scientists (the discovery institute does not count as credible)?. I do not think there are any credible scientists left who ignore the data.

 

[Windwalker]

Would you say that science if 100% right about the future, that there is no possibility whatsoever that they are wrong? That in itself is not good science. It is in fact terrible science. I thought science was always open to new data. We don't know what the data will be 500 years from now. To say we do is another example of bad science.

You cannot go from saying science cannot be 100% certain, to saying it's not reliable at all and should not really be taken seriously. That conclusion is absolutely not supported by the facts, or the actual expectation of what real science is and can do. If science says, GW is in fact happening, and has tons of data to support that as a fact, which it does, then you can't say that means little or nothing. Science may refine its understanding of what is happening as more data comes, but it's not going to reverse what it already has solid evidence to support.

It is funny that Christians are accused of denying science. I think a case can easily be made for the opposite. It seems many treat science as infallible, that if science says it, it is true and will always be true.

I don't think people accuse Christians of denying science. I don't deny science. I know many Christians who don't deny science. I think you mean to say fundamentalists are prone to deny science. That's true. But fundamentalism does not define Christianity. It's an offshoot of it, stuck in the nostalgic premodern, prescientific age. It resists modernization. Christianity does not defacto do that, nor need to do that.

And yes, there are those who treat science as infallible. A lot of them, I believe, are former fundamentalists themselves who think in black and white terms, that if something is not 100% true, it's 100% false. Those who look for Answers with a Capital A, be that with their Bible or their Science, are two sides of the same coin. The problem isn't science, but the believer. Likewise the problem isn't religion, but the believer. The common factor, is the person and their mindsets. I don't share that mindset. Most don't.

Do you know how much science in the past has been dis-proven and a new theory developped?

Disproven is a strong word. If you mean our ideas about something, say, how evolution works, has changed and earlier notions of how it worked are no longer accepted as plausible, that may be true. But that in no way "disproves" evolution. Again though, you can't go from self-correction, to unreliable in one breath. To attempt to do so, shows desperation to not believe. That shows strong emotionally motivated bias.

More of it than not. By it's very nature, science is fluid. Those who are convinced otherwise may be in for a surprise as time marches on. Maybe no, maybe yes. It's the maybe part that leaves different possibilities.

It leaves for different possibilities, but none which lack evidence. While it may be "possible" the moon is actually a cardboard cutout hung up there by space-aliens, the probability of that is as close to zero as you can get. The reliability of science to tell us about the moon, is thousands of orders of magnitude more trustworthy and reliable, then some arm-chair theologian reading his King James Bible on his porch swing.

The scriptures are not at all like that. If they say it, it is true and it will stay true.

But again, you cannot overlook the fact that the same verses you read today as saying what you think it says, were read and seen as saying something entirely different before. You complain about changes in science making it unreliable, which it isn't, but ignore the unreliability of theology. You have 40,000 different denominations all arguing with each other, but in science you have the actual means to settle disputes - testing, experimentation, etc. That lacks in the KJV theologian's opinion from his porch swing out in the woods somewhere.

That is why I know GW will not be the catastrophe we are led to believe.

Because you interpret the Bible that way? The sad reality is, what teams of highly qualified researchers and scientists are saying is happening, will in fact happen, and that interpretation of scripture will end up in the trash heap of other speculations based upon an individual's interpretation of an ancient text, written long ago, to a different audience who knew of no such things as global warming, or modern science. It's a losing position to take.

Does it not strike you as odd that there is very little we hear about that gives us comfort, that most scientific revelations spell doom and gloom?

And doesn't it strike you as odd, that like in the days of Noah when the warnings went out, and were ignored by the deniers, that the flood came anyway?

A fearful population is easy to control.

Like when you say, "Fires are raging in the woods and heading straight for your homes," that that is about controlling populations? Perhaps it is, but it is to warn them for their own damned safety!

Anyway, armed with the scriptures one need have no fear.

Faith in one hand, and reason and facts in the other, are the best combination. Armed with scriptures, while denying science, is a sure bet for one's own destruction. Don't listen to the experts. Just trust your interpretation of scripture is better than their science! That makes zero sense to me.

Why do you think most totalitarian regimes get rid of Christians? It's because they have independent thoughts.

Those who say our current systems of world government are corrupt and harming people, are the ones who get persecuted by governments. Not those who listen to science and heed their warnings. Do you ever look at the weather reports before going out for the day on the lake? That does not make you subversive. It makes you intelligent.

 

[rrobs]

I have asked before and you ignored it, what scientists (the discovery institute does not count as credible)?. I do not think there are any credible scientists left who ignore the data.

This reminds me of the verse that says they wouldn't believe even if one rose from the dead.

You cannot go from saying science cannot be 100% certain, to saying it's not reliable at all and should not really be taken seriously. That conclusion is absolutely not supported by the facts, or the actual expectation of what real science is and can do. If science says, GW is in fact happening, and has tons of data to support that as a fact, which it does, then you can't say that means little or nothing. Science may refine its understanding of what is happening as more data comes, but it's not going to reverse what it already has solid evidence to support.


I don't think people accuse Christians of denying science. I don't deny science. I know many Christians who don't deny science. I think you mean to say fundamentalists are prone to deny science. That's true. But fundamentalism does not define Christianity. It's an offshoot of it, stuck in the nostalgic premodern, prescientific age. It resists modernization. Christianity does not defacto do that, nor need to do that.

And yes, there are those who treat science as infallible. A lot of them, I believe, are former fundamentalists themselves who think in black and white terms, that if something is not 100% true, it's 100% false. Those who look for Answers with a Capital A, be that with their Bible or their Science, are two sides of the same coin. The problem isn't science, but the believer. Likewise the problem isn't religion, but the believer. The common factor, is the person and their mindsets. I don't share that mindset. Most don't.


Disproven is a strong word. If you mean our ideas about something, say, how evolution works, has changed and earlier notions of how it worked are no longer accepted as plausible, that may be true. But that in no way "disproves" evolution. Again though, you can't go from self-correction, to unreliable in one breath. To attempt to do so, shows desperation to not believe. That shows strong emotionally motivated bias.


It leaves for different possibilities, but none which lack evidence. While it may be "possible" the moon is actually a cardboard cutout hung up there by space-aliens, the probability of that is as close to zero as you can get. The reliability of science to tell us about the moon, is thousands of orders of magnitude more trustworthy and reliable, then some arm-chair theologian reading his King James Bible on his porch swing.


But again, you cannot overlook the fact that the same verses you read today as saying what you think it says, were read and seen as saying something entirely different before. You complain about changes in science making it unreliable, which it isn't, but ignore the unreliability of theology. You have 40,000 different denominations all arguing with each other, but in science you have the actual means to settle disputes - testing, experimentation, etc. That lacks in the KJV theologian's opinion from his porch swing out in the woods somewhere.


Because you interpret the Bible that way? The sad reality is, what teams of highly qualified researchers and scientists are saying is happening, will in fact happen, and that interpretation of scripture will end up in the trash heap of other speculations based upon an individual's interpretation of an ancient text, written long ago, to a different audience who knew of no such things as global warming, or modern science. It's a losing position to take.


And doesn't it strike you as odd, that like in the days of Noah when the warnings went out, and were ignored by the deniers, that the flood came anyway?


Like when you say, "Fires are raging in the woods and heading straight for your homes," that that is about controlling populations? Perhaps it is, but it is to warn them for their own damned safety!


Faith in one hand, and reason and facts in the other, are the best combination. Armed with scriptures, while denying science, is a sure bet for one's own destruction. Don't listen to the experts. Just trust your interpretation of scripture is better than their science! That makes zero sense to me.


Those who say our current systems of world government are corrupt and harming people, are the ones who get persecuted by governments. Not those who listen to science and heed their warnings. Do you ever look at the weather reports before going out for the day on the lake? That does not make you subversive. It makes you intelligent.

Way to twist almost everything I wrote!

 

[Secret Chief]

Last decade was Earth's hottest on record as climate crisis accelerates

>>>

"The past decade was the hottest ever recorded globally, with 2019 either the second or third warmest year on record, as the climate crisis accelerated temperatures upwards worldwide, scientists have confirmed.

Every decade since 1980 has been warmer than the preceding decade, with the period between 2010 and 2019 the hottest yet since worldwide temperature records began in the 19th century.

The polar regions of the Arctic and Antarctic experienced their second hottest year on record. The loss of ice from the poles is helping push sea levels upwards, imperiling coastal cities around the world.

Greenhouse gas levels hit their highest level ever recorded in 2019. Concentrations of these planet-warming gases, including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, are now higher than any period measured by modern instruments or ice cores dating back 800,000 years."

 

[Heyo]

Christians speak definitively

That's the problem. If you speak definitively you are making a claim (about reality). That's an invitation to criticism.
Start your speech with "I believe ..." and you'd not only be correct but also shielded from justified criticism. (Not from criticism overall, some people will criticise wrong believes but I don't think they are justified.)

 

[Windwalker]

Way to twist almost everything I wrote!

Did I? Where?

 

[Mitty]

You want me to do all your homework?

It's your fantasy story, however, not mine!!!

 

[Mitty]

Have you read the research from scientists who don't believe GW as it is being presented to the masses? Dogmatism is a two way street, you know.

Are you the research scientist who you claim doesn't believe in the reality of GW as shown by the other scientists? And if so, have you read the research from the other scientists who have shown that GW is a reality?

 

[ChristineM]

This reminds me of the verse that says they wouldn't believe even if one rose from the dead.

So after ignoring the post once (no doubt in the hope it will go away) and then attempting to ridicule it we can assume that you have no answer but will still continue to hype your discredited claim. Fair enough

 

[rrobs]

That's the problem. If you speak definitively you are making a claim (about reality). That's an invitation to criticism.

Sounds like you're speaking rather definitively.

Start your speech with "I believe ..." and you'd not only be correct but also shielded from justified criticism. (Not from criticism overall, some people will criticise wrong believes but I don't think they are justified.)

LOL. Somebody else here just castigated me for beginning a sentence with, "I believe...."

 

[rrobs]

Last decade was Earth's hottest on record as climate crisis accelerates

>>>

"The past decade was the hottest ever recorded globally, with 2019 either the second or third warmest year on record, as the climate crisis accelerated temperatures upwards worldwide, scientists have confirmed.

Every decade since 1980 has been warmer than the preceding decade, with the period between 2010 and 2019 the hottest yet since worldwide temperature records began in the 19th century.

The polar regions of the Arctic and Antarctic experienced their second hottest year on record. The loss of ice from the poles is helping push sea levels upwards, imperiling coastal cities around the world.

Greenhouse gas levels hit their highest level ever recorded in 2019. Concentrations of these planet-warming gases, including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, are now higher than any period measured by modern instruments or ice cores dating back 800,000 years."

All may be true, but Genesis is equally true. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. We can have warmer temps and still have seed time and harvest.

 

[rrobs]

Are you the research scientist who you claim doesn't believe in the reality of GW as shown by the other scientists? And if so, have you read the research from the other scientists who have shown that GW is a reality?

You know, when you get right down to it, I don't think I've ever said the climate is not changing. I just said it will not change to the extent that humans will become extinct. That's what Genesis declares.

 

[rrobs]

Did I? Where?

Pick a sentence, any sentence you wrote.

 

[rrobs]

It's your fantasy story, however, not mine!!!

Thanks for the credit, but I'm not the author of Genesis.

 

[rrobs]

So after ignoring the post once (no doubt in the hope it will go away) and then attempting to ridicule it we can assume that you have no answer but will still continue to hype your discredited claim. Fair enough

Any comment on the OP?

 

[ChristineM]

Any comment on the OP?

Already commented, apparently you didnt like it and chose to go into good Christian mocking mode. And after that you chose to ignore several posts, and of those you replied to the answers were straw men. So what is the point? You are not going to reply

 

[Mitty]

All may be true, but Genesis is equally true. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. We can have warmer temps and still have seed time and harvest.

What is true about Genesis, and how many gods and goddesses discussed creating a male person in the image and likeness of the male creator god and creating a female person in the image and likeness of a goddess 6000 years or so ago (Gen 1:25-26)?

 

[Mitty]

Thanks for the credit, but I'm not the author of Genesis.

So what is your evidence that the writer of Genesis was a research scientist and not just a fantasy writer?

 

[Valjean]

Have you read the research from scientists who don't believe GW as it is being presented to the masses? Dogmatism is a two way street, you know.

I've read, or watched videos and debates and by quite a few of these dissenters. Most have an obvious bias, a religiousor industry affiliation, work in fringe disciplines, use faulty data or simply misrepresent the facts.
They're constantly being debunked by real experts.