Climate Change denial vs History

Welp if you don't completely accept climate change like it's gospel truth, ALLELUIA!, than you're just a science denier.

If you look at those demonic sorces that Satan's deceit has concocted you are being led astry!

Can I get an Amen brother?

 

Gotta love the pseudo scientists on this thread.

I'll got with the real ones

 

The "real ones" are only ever the ones that support your beliefs. Funny i was in a thread earlier explaining to a evolution denier that evolution is science, he gave me nearly a word for word copy of your statement.

A Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

 

The real ones are the 97% who understand that AWG is a real threat to our way of life...from a scintific perspective

 

There is no 97% of scientists who are AGW screamers. AGW is not a real threat to our way of life. There is no credible evidence to the contrary.

 

No I didn't. What are you talking about?

I said: "The difference between temperatures today and those in 1000 and 1200 are so great"
You Responded: "No they aren't. That's just flat false. The differences are minimal."

Here is the message: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ial-vs-history.499408/page-41#post-1067278343

So now you are comparing instrumental measurements with proxy data.

I find it creepy that somebody can be this dishonest.

 

You know I do apologize, I may have been a little rude. However I am a believer in Christ, thus politics requires Him involved. Christians cannot talk about anything related to God, for it is like you told me, "Shoo God bother-er shoo. You are in the wrong thread. Try one of the many threads about religion to do your proselytizing in."

Politics is based off religion, it is principals and morals, and policy and legislation are passed through principals and morals. Politics is religion. For that I'm sorry, but I must stand for what I believe in.

 

Politics may in some sense to be "based off religion" but interjecting your idea of God's intentions into a scientific discussion is nothing less than moronic.

That assumes two things.

A. That God exists (in the way you "believe")
B. That somehow you know God's intentions

Neither is very scientific.

I am not a very religious person but I DO admire the teaching of Jesus as a general way to live my life and I don't believe he ever denigrated knowledge (science) or addressed climate change

 

No you weren't rude, If anyone was rude it was me. What you were was irrelevant and ignorant. Don't worry though, you have your faith and that is all that matters.

 

See I already have to do it.

Anything "scientific" is of God. The problem lays at the feet of scientists who claim science disproves God. What's sad, is few scientists believe this. Most believe in God or at the least a "creator". People through persuasion, propaganda, and other means are the ones putting words in the mouths of scientists.

"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made".

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Through politics, we have the knowledge of good and evil, we lack the knowledge to tell the difference. For now, what is evil is becoming good, and what is good is becoming evil.

20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

 

SHOO

 

Mirabeau has taken action to reduce global warming. He now orders more cubes of ice in his bourbon.

 

Very few scientists claim science disproves God and that's not the topic here.

And I have news for you. The Bible was written by MEN

But that's also not the topic here.

How can you possibly know the will of God and how can you possibly claim he will protect us from Climate Change (or punish us or whatever you claim).

That's religious nihilism. Nothing matters because God chooses everything.

That's NUTS

 

The will of God is for everyone to find Him, acquire a relationship with Him.

1 John 4:8King James Version (KJV)
8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

God is love, He is of righteousness... Here is proof of our Father in Heaven. Watch this through, you will see and feel God.


Notice everybody with money, would not share their food. Yet the homeless man does. Why, because he is rich in Spirit and Love. And God is Love.

 

If science has settled the climate change and how it relates to mankind's actions, then tell me, without man on earth where would the climate be. What percent are humans effecting the climate as opposed to natural earth cycles. You cannot answer this, because it is not settled.



Did you know that Bill Nye the science guy, is not a scientist at all. He's an actor. First hired by Walt-Disney. I only bring this up, just in case your getting your "science" from him.
He has a bachelor in mechanical engineer, and nothing more. He's a paid actor.

 

Shoo

 

Yes you did.

The "using instrumental data" claim, which I did not make, and you made up.

No, I am not. I have in no sense made any such comparison, except to point out that it is invalid and dishonest.

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

It should be easy for you to prove I am the one being dishonest, and not you: just quote where I said, or implied, that the temperatures for 1000-1200 CE were available from instrument data.

Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: you can offer no such quote, because I said no such thing.

 

This video is disgusting because Tucker Carlson's argument is literally RETARDED.

The science says exactly what we observe to happen because of a rise in CO2. And it takes more than 5 minutes of talking to an idiot for even someone like Bill Nye, who educates CHILDREN, to be able to explain it.

 

Well, if a mini ice age is coming anyway, the concerns are premature. Unless, of course, you like to eat lots of peas:

Peas porridge hot;

Peas porridge cold.

Peas porridge in the pot,

Nine days old.

Some like it hot;

Some like it cold...

Some like it

In the pot--

Nine days old.

--obviously by a mini-ice-age sufferer sick of peas (which like to grow in cool weather).

 

See and I side with Tucker. Bill couldn't give him an answer, he was just making stuff up for liberals who are easily persuaded. For one, I think Tucker and I can agree that human activity does play a role, the question is how much? And for two, it's not a problem that government is going to solve. It's a lifestyle that humans choose. That lifestyle would necessarily have to change. Money or government will not fix it. If we keep our same daily tasks, it's only going to get getting worse.

Do we abandoned vehicles, and go back to the horses. Do we give ourselves a limited time for television, internet, or just power (electricity) altogether. Have liberals thought this through? Are they willing to be governed on their daily activity, while the rest of the world continues to s()()t on earth.

Again I think we can all agree that human activity is involved. That's not the question, the question is.......what's the solution?

 

No, the question was a dumb question. Bill's point is that historically climates change over hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

Instead we are seeing changes in tens and hundreds of years.

That's completely valid.

Not only is it irrelevant to claim we don't know what the climate would be minus human impact (which Bill Nye addressed by stating the RATE of change).

But scientists have also approximated that we should be COOLING not warming.

 

That's absurd! Why would anybody want to study a climate scenario that never happened?

 

Oh yes, very easy..... And I did in the message you responded to. There you answered to everything except that.

Here it is for the (what is it?... I lost count) nth time is what you wrote (cut and paste) when I asked how you knew that the difference in temperature between 1000-1200 and now was "minimal"

You responded: "By the modest differences in natural vegetation, as shown by both contemporaneous accounts of weather, climate, farming, etc. and examination of biological deposits such as peat bogs, lake sediments, etc."

Unless... you actually think that that is not proxy data. So I guess your defense is that you are not dishonest but, instead, you just don't know what you're talking about, and you had no idea what "proxy data" meant. If that's what you're trying to prove then all I can say is well played... you made your point.

 

No, you most certainly did not. You are just makin' more $#!+ up to cover the $#!+ you made up before.

No. You have never provided a quote where I said or implied that the temperatures for 1000-1200 CE were available from instrument data, nor will you ever be doing so.

So you have been aware all along that I did not say instrument data were available for the MWP, and knew that your claim that I did say so was false. Thought so.

No, I think it is not INSTRUMENT data. You have been claiming, falsely, that I said there were instrument data.

No, my defense is that you just made $#!+ up and attributed it to me. I can't imagine what kind of defense you might think you can contrive to show that that was not dishonest.

I didn't mention proxy data, except to point out that Mann's commingling of instrument and proxy data in the hockey stick graph was invalid and dishonest.

Again, you are just makin' $#!+ up and attributing it to me because you have no actual facts or logic to offer.

 

But he was objectively wrong about that. History is replete with climate changes happening on decadal scales.

No, climate changes on those time scales are normal, as the MWP and LIA prove.

No, I just proved it's false.

Climate changed far faster at the end of the last Ice Age, and with comparable speed between the MWP and the LIA.

So we should be damn glad of CO2 if it is preventing another Ice Age, or even another Little Ice Age.