Did you know that if the Republicans win the majority of US Senate seats in November -- which looks quite possible, since 21 of the seats up for reelection are held by Democrats and only 10 by Republicans -- that James Inhofe will be the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Environment?In other words, Inhofe -- who just said it was an "outrageous" idea that "human beings, would be able to change what [God] is doing in the climate...." would hold the position that is perhaps the biggest determinant of the future climate of the planet.
Now if that's not a hoax on God's part, I don't know what is.
He can't pay attention here. G-- is too busy ensuring a "virgin" quarterback has just the right release point to ensure that he throws for a perfect number of yards to quote scripture.
ReplyDeleteBest,
D
Is believing in God that different than believing that climate models can predict the future?
ReplyDeleteYes, there's a difference: The existence of God has yet to be disproved.
ReplyDeleteYou cannot prove that something doesn't exist (except for well-defined logical systems).
ReplyDeleteIs believing in God that different than believing that climate models can predict the future?
ReplyDeleteDo tell us about the future. Tell us how off the models are. While you are at it, tell me the winning Lotto numbers for Wednesday. But not here, e-mail me instead.
snork Denialists crack me up.
Nonetheless, the fact that a number of models can hindcast gives confidence they can be OK going forward, like we have already seen.
Best,
D
Dano says, "Nonetheless, the fact that a number of models can hindcast gives confidence they can be OK going forward, like we have already seen."
ReplyDeleteReally? Where does he find such faith in models? I went to the IPCC's climate bible and when I read the fine print, including the passage below, I came to a quite different conclusion than him regarding climate models.
"In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm
It seems that even though I agree with the IPCC climate bible that long-term climate prediction is impossible, I will likely still be accused of being a denialist by the Danos of the world.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletefaith climate bible the IPCC climate bible the Danos of the world.
ReplyDeleteDecade-old refuted but still parroted "arguments" notwithstanding,
All this hand-flapping, and no mention of the topic of visiting the future, whether hindcasting predicts utility, and is the perfect the enemy of the good.
Next they'll be whining about "projections" with no sense of irony.
Ah, well. Some. Must. Cling. To. Old. Talking points. To. Keep. Self. Identity.
Best,
D
the senator seems to be applying christian science to the environment. going to the hospital interferes with god's plan. he may be on to something. it appears that flood and fire having failed,god is allowing us to destroy ourselves. that having been done, the rest of god's creation will heal itself. the promise is ''world without end''. notice , no specifics.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteIs believing in God that different than believing that climate models can predict the future?
DirkH said...
Yes, there's a difference: The existence of God has yet to be disproved.
David Appell said...
You cannot prove that something doesn't exist...
- - - - - - - - - -
Correct, David.
But did you notice the effort to convert by definition (of the term 'God')? This fallacy of equivocation is happily also called the bear's hug.