Here is some information from a catastrophic climate change denier that at least seems based somewhat in science.
And here is what some catastrophic climate change believers think of his work.
Here is a wikipedia site dedicated to him.
Of course there is the question of his religious beliefs and how that impacts his scientific findings.
And here is what some catastrophic climate change believers think of his work.
Here is a wikipedia site dedicated to him.
Of course there is the question of his religious beliefs and how that impacts his scientific findings.
"Spencer is a signatory to "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming",[32][33] which states that "We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history."[34] "Thoughts?
16 comments:
If God is such an intelligent designer, how come we have appendixes?
--Hiram
Because they likely serve a purpose we don’t yet fully understand.
Moose
‘The main arguments for global warming being manmade go something like this: “What else COULD it be? After all, we know that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations are sufficient to explain recent warming, so what’s the point of looking for any other cause?”’
When you start by misstating the main argument, I’m not going to read or trust the quality of the rest of your “research”.
Moose
If we can't understand something, how can we believe it is the product of intelligence?
==Hiram
Hiram, that’s illogical.
There are countless people who don’t understand how works, but it’s obviously a product of intelligence.
Moose
Most people do not understand how a toilet works, yet everybody thinks they do, because we have them. Some of us know how a transistor works, but couldn't for the life of us build one.
John, credit for digging up Spencer. Notice how he has shown a way to consider clouds in climate modeling, something the IPCC models admit to NOT handling (I know a brilliant young man working on that). Credit for admitting that his math is believable.
Now if you would just notice that "skeptical science" are a collection of lies and proopaganda, maybe we can make progress.
Jerry, You are so cute... :-)
For example, one well-credentialed scientist over at Skeptical is known as "dana1981." I couldn't find his CV online.
As usual, you can agree with me, or you can be wrong.
Apparently Dana1981 is...
"Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area. He has a Bachelor's Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master's Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis.
Dana has been researching climate science, economics, and solutions since 2006, and has contributed to Skeptical Science since September, 2010."
He was even thanked by the Yale folks for his assistance here.
And he seems to be brilliant...
As usual, you can agree with me, or you can be wrong.
For myself, I hold many, but by no means all, of my opinions because they are right. Logic fans might infer from that that I believe that those who differ from me are wrong. But aren't most of us that way. Are there really a lot of people who hold opinions that they believe are wrong?
--Hiram
I think the question is:
How tightly does one hold on to their belief / opinion?
There are a few core beliefs / opinions that I hold very dear and solidly...
Most I am happy to re-evaluate at the drop of a hat...
Some folks are less willing to do that... :-)
More than a few...
Agreed...
How tightly does one hold on to their belief / opinion?
In my case, not very. This is the result of my phenomenal ignorance as much as anything. There are huge areas of health care policy, where my opinions are tenuous at best, and remain open to being convinced.
In the media, I think a lot of people cling more tightly to their positions than their beliefs. On TV, for example, commentators never waver because they are paid to advocate the positions that they do. Their personal beliefs, however much they might differ from their public positions are irrelevant.
I hold lots of opinions that I don't think are right in some abstract sense, but simply because they are better for people I identify with. I think moral and political non relativists don't understand that. They think they are right about a lot more stuff than I do. And they think people are wrong about a lot more stuff than I do.
--Hiram
Post a Comment