Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Since all the evidence that you presented says that is not the case why would I? I offered to go over it since you obviously did not understand it. Why do you like him anyway?
-
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!
Writer claims Trump raped her
- Thread starter Riders
- Start date
Since all the evidence that you presented says that is not the case why would I? I offered to go over it since you obviously did not understand it. Why do you like him anyway?
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
So let us look at the term "science denier" you use for climate scientists who are skeptical of the more alarmist of the agw predictions. How does it make sense to you that a climate scientist is a denier of climate science short answer is..it doesn't! They are however skeptical of dodgy science of whatever color, and some climate scientists exaggerate the amount of projected increase in warming and thus in the eyes of the more conservative climate scientists who are skeptical of this exaggerated warming claim, are causing alarm among many people (such as yourself), hence they are referred to as alarmists. Naturally if you believe some of the more dire predictions such as....the world has another 12 years to save itself from catastrophe...then of course you will expect everyone to be as alarmed as you are at the prospect, but I think most people don't buy into the fear and just live their lives with normal priorities. That doesn't make them a denier, they just don't know one way or the other or they don't think much past tomorrow and don't care.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Just because you do not understand something does not make it "dodgy". And once again you need to learn what a skeptic is. Skeptics go by evidence. The evidence support AGW. You already got caught using science deniers once that made foolish claims that were easily refuted. Would you care to try again?
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
You really are a denier, not just a mere skeptic, but a full blown denier. I like his stand on some issues, such as global warming alarmism, globalism, and draining the swamp for instance, otoh I do not like his stand on regime change in Venezuela, Syria, and Iran. I see him as a destabilizing force against the considerable momentum built up by the globalists in the move towards a one world order socialist government, and this could result in unseen real problems for the world going forward. But heck, someone has to do it, and DJT appears to be the man.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Go to a skeptic climate science web site and learn first hand what a skeptic is, they are scientists too. I recommend Dr Judith Curry... Climate Etc.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, I understand the evidence that you have produced. You don't. It really is just that simple. That is why I offered to explain the evidence that you did not u understand, but like all good deniers do when confronted,you ran away.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, not really a skeptic. A bit confused. What about her?
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
When I need a closed minded partisan to explain my own evidence, you will be the first one I will think of...
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
What do you mean, she is a climate scientist, and skeptic of agw alarmism.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Don't lie about others. It is not nice. I offered to go over the evidence with you. You can away. That indicates you knew that you were wrong.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, she is not a skeptic of AGW. And please don't use the word "alarmist" since you clearly have no clue. She thinks that there is more uncertainty than other scientists do, but she is usually out of her depths when she makes those claims.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
I think you may have a problem, you are not making sense to me...who are the others that I lied to? And don't give me that "I offered to go over the evidence with you" B/S, no hard feelings but you have no idea, you really are out of your depth.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
What are you talking about, your interest is obviously not climate science, the agw alarmists call her a denier, get with agw alarmism 101. Deal, I will stop using "alarmist" when you stop using "denier", that's how serious discussions should precede, name callers are not interested in hearing what the other side is saying,
Oh, you two....
Try less personal criticism.
Try less personal criticism.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Hear hear...
ecco
Veteran Member
My emphases in quoted comments.
The article in your link was authored by Alex Epstein.
Alex Epstein (American writer) - Wikipedia
Alexander Joseph Epstein (/ˈɛpstaɪn/) is an American author, energy theorist, and industrial policy pundit.[1] He is the founder and president of the Center for Industrial Progress, a for-profit think tank located in San Diego, California. Epstein is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and a former fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute.[6][7]
No qualifications for judging climate science.
No qualifications for judging scientific papers.
Believing his comments on AGW is no different than believing the comments regarding evolution found on sites like Answers in Genesis.
ecco
Veteran Member
Ah, Dr. Judith Curry. The darling of the AGW deniers. She is like the "scientists" tobacco companies dragged out to explain that nicotine was not addictive.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Those are opinion pieces, not scientific sources. With opinion pieces, one can "find out" that the Earth is flat and that Elvis is walking hand-in-hand with Hitler.
Maybe actually try using scientific sources next time, such as "Scientific American", "National Geographic", NOAA, NASA, the NAS, and even our own DoD, etc. Each of them, if you spend time to google them, say that climate change is real and that human endeavors are mostly to blame.
ecco
Veteran Member
I went to your linked site. Most of the articles are by Curry. Here are excerpts from one by Garth Paltridge
There is still a distinct possibility that much of the observed rise in global temperature may be the result of natural (and maybe random) variability of the system.
For what it is worth, one possible theory is that mankind (or at least that fraction of it that has become both over-educated and more delicate as a result of a massive increase of its wealth in recent times) has managed to remove the beliefs of existing religions from its consideration—and now it misses them. As a replacement, it has manufactured a set of beliefs about climate change that can be used to guide and ultimately to control human behaviour.
For what it is worth, one possible theory is that mankind (or at least that fraction of it that has become both over-educated and more delicate as a result of a massive increase of its wealth in recent times) has managed to remove the beliefs of existing religions from its consideration—and now it misses them. As a replacement, it has manufactured a set of beliefs about climate change that can be used to guide and ultimately to control human behaviour.
That leads me to wonder if anyone has done a study to determine how many Evolution deniers are also AGW deniers. I'm guessing that there would be a significant correlation.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Good question, and I think you're likely to be right with your guessing. Many churches, especially fundamentalist Protestants, teach from basically an anti-science position, and I used to belong to one of them many decades ago but left in my mid-20's.