Climate Denier’s Science Is Flawed

Only 3% of scientific studies in refereed journals express disbelief in man’s contribution to climate change. A group of scientists studied these papers and tried to replicate the experiments using the assumptions of the papers. In every case the experiments in the papers were not reproducible. This is the definition of flawed science.

We all know there have been periods of dramatic climate change. What we know as the Red River Valley of the North was once a frozen mass. That was only 10,000 years ago. Other places that are deserts were plush and green.

Scientists can see both how the climates have changed but also how much and how rapidly they changed. That is where they bring in the only variable that is different between ancient times and today.  The variable is the presence of made man carbon.

In the Bible it says there will be scoffers. And, climate change scoffers there are.

It is hard to convince people of cause and effect. When 9/11 occurred because religion had taken over the government of Afghanistan I thought the President and public would see the folly of religion in government. Instead, the popular conclusion was there is not enough religion in our government.

To think we are wrong is humiliating. Man’s influence on climate change is simply a fact that is, so far as I have seen, indisputable. When someone finds credible sources of man made climate change denial they will share it with the world.

So far they have not done so.

17 Responses

  1. Jinx II

    That is indeed flawed science….flawed hypotheses, methodologies, statistical analysis, etc. Glad you posted this!

    I read an interesting science article about Harvey and Houston. The amount and weight of water Houston received was enough to depress the Earth’s outer crust and Houston has sunk deeper into the earth. I am no geologist but my knowledge of it is pretty good, but I was stunned to hear this.

    Now Irma is on its way, should I conclude that God hates Republican run states? HaHa HA

    1. Jinx II Now Irma is on its way, should I conclude that God hates Republican run states? HaHa HA

      God is really mad at Republicans. He is drowning the properties of Rush and The Donald. God is warning Republicans they must accept homosexual people as moral equals. 🙂

  2. Keith Gilbertson

    What does homosexuality have to do with climate change??? Do you think God considers homosexuals and heterosexuals as moral equals??? If you go by His Book,,,, dont think so.

    1. Keith 9:46 Do you think God considers homosexuals and heterosexuals as moral equals??? If you go by His Book,,,, dont think so.

      There are plenty of Biblical scholars that do not agree with you. It’s humorous that people think Sodom and Gomorrah were made up of homosexual men. Words attributed to Jesus said they were inhospitable, not homosexual. The only explanation would be that back then same sex couples could have babies.

    2. entech

      Keith, you ask a question that is quite commonly directed to Jon and other atheists. The essence of the question is “Do you think God considers … .” The other thing is how atheists are so often critised and derided for not believing in God. If you think about it the two are contradictory. The other is to ask the non-believer why do you “hate” God; As to the believer denial is impossible so the denial is interpreted as Hate.

      The non believer, atheist – meaning without God, and other ways of expressing it should be simply taken as is; in most cases “I do not believe” in my case and the other ignostics it becomes “I do not know what it is that I am supposed to believe”: the ignostic response to “Do you believe in God” is not the “NO”of the atheist but more simply “I do not understand the question”, perhaps viewed as a request for clarification “Please define the term God”.

      Quite rightly you ask “What does homosexuality have to do with Climate Change” which can be expanded to what does it have to do with – Hurricanes, earthquakes, tidal waves, volcanoes, land slides, floods, droughts and so on all potentially catastrophe and all entirely removed from human behavior which Gods representatives would have repent of and cease to take part in for their sake (or their satisfaction in having one of their fsvourite “sins”reduced in indulgence.

      Human behavior has no effect on any of these things or whatever else some people find abhorrent. Human action can however affect many of them climate change included. Examples; a few years ago a huge damn was built in India, invaluable for agricultural but it was found that a few years later the added weight of water had caused some tectonic plate activity giving rise to earthquakes in an area considered immune and having no history of such a thing. other testing atmospheric for example:
      Populations and individuals around the world have been affected by the increase of radioactive materials in the global ecosystem. Cancers, birth defects, genetic damage, lowered immunity to diseases: these are only some of the potential effects of nuclear testing, uranium mining, radioactive waste burial and all the phases of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy production.
      Greenpeace assisted in the evacuation of Rongelap in the Pacific in 1985 — the island had been contaminated by fallout from atmospheric nuclear weapons tests.
      Every human alive now and over the next tens of thousands of years will carry radioactive elements created by nuclear tests, research and deployment, causing an increase – however small – in their lifetime cancer risk. Even the US government has finally acknowledged the link between nuclear weapons production facilities and elevated levels of at least 22 kinds of cancers in workers (at those facilities).

      To repeat none of these environment catastrophes have anything to do with God’s intervention many of them have a lot to do with human intervention in the environment.

  3. Rob

    Scientists think CO2 is responsible for the warming because they cannot pinpoint any other cause. They dismiss the theory it may just be the climate itself changing…good old Mother Nature just doing her thing.
    Regardless, CO2 is the elixir of life on planet earth; rising levels are good for all life in the long run.

    1. Rob 10:09 Scientists think CO2 is responsible for the warming because they cannot pinpoint any other cause. They dismiss the theory it may just be the climate itself changing…good old Mother Nature just doing her thing.

      You are correct in that there is always the possibility of variables no one has ever thought of and no one can see. We could conclude smoking cigarettes does not cause cancer even though there is a powerful statistical link. We could conclude that when a warm low pressure moist region collides which a high pressure cold front and there are thunderstorms allegedly caused by rising warm air there is some other powerful variable we cannot see and are unaware of that is causing it to rain. We rely on basic physics to assign an explanation for the rain but we don’t actually see the warm air rising. One can always argue their are unknown and unseen variables.

      But, what is the point? If there is a variable present that logic concludes can be the one causing change and there are no others we can see, are we helping ourselves? Is scoring points in a political argument so important we should risk the health of the globe?

      1. Rob

        sorry for the delay in my response. Juan hit the nail on the head about it all being political already.
        as far as your smoking or thunderstorm examples, they don’t quite compare, as we can and have witnessed and recorded the life cycles of smokers and the short term weather.

        We have no data going back to an ice age, and we don’t even have all the necessary data collection ability right now to make definitive claims on temps, cloud cover, etc.

        Just because I do not believe man is contributing significantly to climate change, does not mean i’m pro-pollution.

        The political climate change movement is not even about science anymore; it’s about the redistribution of wealth. i.e. from the United States, to everyone else.
        Thank (God/or nothing if you prefer) Trump was willing to stand up to the insanely unfair Paris climate accord and stick up for the U.S.A.

        1. entech

          Don’t worry about the time lapse. You rarely have anything important to say anyway – that is not to say not interesting ??? and not to confuse that with weird.

        2. Rob 10:57 We have no data going back to an ice age, and we don’t even have all the necessary data collection ability right now to make definitive claims on temps, cloud cover, etc.

          Both the claims in those statements are wrong. There were no humans collecting data during the ice age, but there is plenty evidence about what happened. On “definitive claims”, I don’t know what you mean there.

  4. Juan Ruiz

    The subject of climate change left the scientific arena and became principally a political football long ago. Now you have celebrities insisting on regulations and sanctions which they have no intention of applying to themselves. Gore will continue to jet around the world. DiCaprio will continue to make movies. Both oblivious to the fossil fuels they are expending. Their motto is “Good for thee but not for me.”

    1. Juan 10:18 Their motto is “Good for thee but not for me.”

      I’ve never understood why celebs and how they live is always brought up during discussions about man’s contributions to climate change. Either the scientists’ agreement that man has contributed is correct, or, the political arguments against science is correct. Who is on one side or the other doesn’t change the basic truth of the matter.

      1. Juan Ruiz

        “I’ve never understood why celebs and how they live is always brought up during discussions about man’s contributions to climate change. ”

        Because many people resent the “Do as say, not as I do” attitude. George Clooney can stand there and yell about gun control, while surrounded by armed bodyguards. Senators can criticize the 1%, while they are part of the 1%. The LSS brings in refugees, and are paid by the head. But like a green sea turtle laying its eggs, they leave them for communities to pay for them.

        It’s all brought up because people recognize the enormous hypocrisy of people, who have no intention of submitting themselves to what they want others to undergo. DiCaprio flew 8000 miles from Cannes to NYC for and back, for one night. And he moans about fossil fuel consumption.

        1. Juan 11:21 It’s all brought up because people recognize the enormous hypocrisy of people, who have no intention of submitting themselves to what they want others to undergo.

          That there is hypocrisy present does not change a thing about the facts involved. Either man contributes or does not contribute in climate change.

          1. Juan Ruiz

            And the question remains, to what extent does man contribute to climate change, and how much of it is just natural. There was a brief 19th century ice age, before man was a participant. In fact, the earth has warmed and cooled many times during is existence. North Dakota has variously been a frozen wasteland, and has had a shallow inland sea.

            I certainly do not deny any of that. Just as I believe the Alvarez theory that the dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteor. What I DO object to is people wanting to dictate to me my life style, while they themselves continue theirs.

          2. Juan 11:36 And the question remains, to what extent does man contribute to climate change, and how much of it is just natural.

            That is correct. Evidence has been collected from many sources, too detailed to go into here, that the rate and severity of this climate change is greater than those of the past. Only one variable has changed, man produced carbon. The physics of heating and cooling tell us this carbon can alter our climate.

            Now, one can argue the carbon had natural causes in times past, etc., etc. Again, what is the point of doubting? Reducing our carbon footprint will, no doubt, make us mad. Someone, or some group, (usually with more money than us) will get to use up more of it than us. The rich will conclude as they always do that they are more important and those with less deserve less.

            I don’t see the point of this argument. Good citizens make room for future citizens.

Comments are closed.