re: Doesn't it strike you as awfully coincidental? (Science vs Religious Belief)

quote:

---

If you aren't a climate scientist why would you want to play amateur detective and try to disprove something that you don't have any credentials to evaluate?

---

AGW has been around for decades. And their predications have been highly inflated. And as they want my money and to change my way of life, I'm a skeptic. Lastly they refuse to allow human intervention to remake the environment as they choose. So which is it: we can control the environment or we can't?

quote:

---

As a matter of fact, I would argue that if you take an honest look at the MONEY as it pertains to climate science, the MONEY is EASILY on the side of energy companies.

---

You really have no clue. Conservation is GREAT for oil company profitability. All of the majors have taken positions affirming "climate change".

quote:

---

The motive has ALWAYS been there.

---

And you think government is immune from motives? No one has more to gain from taxation and regulation than government.

quote:

---

In light of who really has the motive and power in the realm of climate science its a wonder we're even having this discussion.

---

Or you could... you know... look at the actual modeling techniques and data, rather than creating an ad hominem around who funded it...

You still have not made a single scientific argument...

quote:

---

One of the things I find funny about the whole religion vs science thing is the religious like to project their views onto the opposition.

---

Yeah. No projection in the OP. Nope. None at all.

quote:

---

Yeah. No projection in the OP. Nope. None at all.

---

What I'm saying is still true

And it's almost an admission that the religious think their own thought process is rather absurd. It's admitting that faith is essentially silly to an extent.

quote:

---

One of the properties in physics is that all matter goes toward chaos. Things go from organized to unorganized, not the opposite.

The complexities of human beings are far greater than the two examples above. Therefore, I must conclude that there has to be a creator to have designed and built us.

---

This is a total misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics. Entropy is always increasing, which just means that the free energy available to do work is always decreasing. In the meantime, while energy is abundantly available, work is constantly done, atoms come together to be organized into stars, nutrients and the energy from the sun come together to be organized into blades of grass (why you think that an overgrown lawn is an example of disorganization is beyond me), and cells develop and divide and organize into people.

quote:

---

Jesus, as the word is credited with creating all things. Jesus, didn't need hearsay to know what he had created. If you want to be logically inconsistent because the pope says it's ok, or because it doesn't fit your narrative, just say so. But don't pretend that your illogical rational about Jesus is true simply for convenience sake.

---

Jesus didn't need hearsay but the Bible quoting him is hearsay. That's an indisputable fact you choose to ignore. You also choose to ignore the ridiculous stories of the Old Testament such as the story of Lot.

And I can give you more problems with the New Testament besides Christ's resurrection, which you also ignored. For example, Herod died 4 BC. How could Herod order the deaths of all male babies born at the time of Jesus' birth when he was dead at the time? Why were Jesus' disciples perplexed and even didn't believe that Jesus had risen when he foretold he would rise?

Then there's the story of Paul. If the teachings of Paul to the Gentiles, which is so important to the christian church, was so important, why didn't Jesus tell his disciples this? Why did Jesus wait until after his death and resurrection to tell Paul, a man he never met? Why not tell Peter, the man he told to build his church?

My beliefs are not "for convenience sake" but you ignoring logical inconsistencies is.

To believe that God is this jealous being existing to be worshipped and capable of destroying cities and killing thousands is to believe that God is as insecure as you are. And I'm not willing to believe that.

quote:

---

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!

Yea you're right, oil company execs are highly motivated to ensure the continued abandonment of their fricking product. In fact, they're probably lobbying for congress to outlaw its use!!! GENIUS! I know that its the dream of every multinational exec for the scientific community to find that their product is a threat to human existence.

---

Seriously, you'd do better listening more, and yammering a bit less.

quote:

---

Wow talk about "faith" vs science. Money poured into climate science is on the order of 1000:1 for those giving trying to prove AGW vs against.

---

Your concept of science is flawed to begin with, as it begins with the presumption that all scientists are shills. The denialists don't have to spend a lot of money because maintaining blogs and shill websites is cheap.

quote:

---

Where did I say anything about abandonment? Read what's there. I said conservation. And it's undeniable that it lowers the cost-of-goods-sold to stretch out existing reserves as long as possible.

It's damn expensive to find, produce, and market new sources of oil. Lower expenses = higher profit.

---

Yes, thats all quite nice, but unfortunately it completely ignores my argument about monetary motivation. The undeniable fact is the findings of current science is NOT a good thing for any product on earth.......therefore the motive of oil company execs would be to contradict those scientific findings. Thats pretty straight forward.