Padre Mellyrn wrote:
Oh well, if the number of scientist who have successfully plotted the changes and show they have a viable model doesn't convince you, then I am afraid your just using "belief", and there is no room for belief here.
This is an excellent example of the standard Global Warming
shifting the burden of proof, whereby the religiously devout simply assume that Global Warming
dogma is true and then without providing any science they demand that non-believers prove that their unfalsifiable faith is not true. It's equivalent to the retort "Prove to me there is no Christian god." The number of scientists who have developed falsifiable Global Warming
models is exactly zero
. Legion is the number, however, of gullible individuals who will readily believe that Global Warming
is supported by science, without so much as demanding to see any of this supposed science. Of course, as with all religiously devout, they demand absolute scientific proof from any dissenting view.Global Warming
is a particularly nasty religion because it is based entirely on the rhetorical error of shifting the burden of proof. In traditional religions, the dogma admits to its faith-based nature. Global Warming
dogma, however, claims to be science (and environmentalism as well), and has its congregation erroneously believing that the dogma has been scientifically scrutinized. In fact, they believe their religion is actually "settled science." They therefore believe that they don't need to provide any support for their assertions; that their dogma is necessarily true and that Global Warming
." Global Warming
is both a religion and a scam.
Padre Mellyrn wrote:
Whether one wishes to admit that our actions as humans have caused this, there is room for doubt, but the actually happening is not. People are entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts.
...and you won't be presenting any facts today, am I right? You won't be supporting your dogmatic assertions today, am I right? You won't be presenting any science today, am I right? In fact, all we can expect you to offer is more shifting of the burden of proof, i.e. the assumption on your part that Global Warming
dogma is true and that non-believers (heathens, infidels, deniers) must show that it is not true. Sorry. You are mistaken. The ball is in your court to support your assertions. Until you provide some science, your assertions are not
presumed to be true.
That humans have caused much pollution is not in doubt,
Unfortunately the Global Warming
congregation has extensively warped the meaning of the word "pollution" away from actually meaning pollution to meaning life-sustaining substances. Actually, the Global Warming
congregation has rendered the term completely meaningless in their stretch to get CO2 listed as "pollution" so that it would carry the negative connotation. Their dishonest rationalization is that CO2 is a poison if in sufficient quantity. There you have it. Everything is a poison, including oxygen and water. More importantly, the top three essentials for life on earth are now considered "pollution" by the Global Warming
zombies. This is but one of the reasons that Global Warming
dogma is the single largest threat to environmentalism.
that Global warming is happening whatever the cause is also not in doubt.
Religiously speaking, the Global Warming
congregation does not doubt its own dogma. Scientifically, however, Global Warming
isn't even defined. "Climate
" isn't defined. Nothing about Global Warming
dogma is falsifiable and that is why nothing about Global Warming
resides in the body of science. Those who bought into the religion under the promise that they were being handed science should demand their money back.
The only real question is, what will be the result of Global Warming?
Isn't there a "Revelations
" equivalent in the Global Warming
dogma somewhere that answers that question? Scientifically, the earth is heading into an ice age so there is little doubt among astronomers about our impending cooler climes. As for Global Warming
prophecies, your best bet is to ask the IPCC or contact Al Gore's office.
Rather than a wasteland it is more likely that Global Warming will lead to a 'Garden of Eden' like world, provided that man can let it develop naturally, and not screw it up.
That's an interesting theory. Do you have a falsifiable model that explains why a "Garden of Eden" is "probable?"