Interbane wrote:Hey, you started that one.

What are you thoughts on the Pope's encyclical? Is he merely jumping on a bandwagon, or has he done his homework?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/world ... .html?_r=0

oh the Pope believes global warming.., sorry, I mean climate change, is caused by man?
then it must be true!

he wouldn't be trying to be politically correct here. he must have found it in the Bible!

thanks!

ant wrote:oh the Pope believes global warming.., sorry, I mean climate change, is caused by man?
then it must be true!

Must it be true?

How do you think he arrived at his conclusion? Just going with the consensus? Faith? A whisper from god?

Interbane wrote:

ant wrote:oh the Pope believes global warming.., sorry, I mean climate change, is caused by man?
then it must be true!

Must it be true?

How do you think he arrived at his conclusion? Just going with the consensus? Faith? A whisper from god?

Random thought here:

It's quite interesting how Atheism has somehow created its own Grand Inquisitors on behalf of naturalism.

The Crichton piece is really quite well written; I have used it in some of my English rhetoric classes in the past.

I agree with Crichton that the consensus argument is used when the science isn't settled. And, yes, I remain skeptical about some aspects of climate change and all the political claptrap that is frequently lumped with it. But on the other hand, it's entirely reasonable to reduce our carbon emissions. And to say "I believe" recent climate change is not human-driven is just as spurious as claims that the science is settled. I think it's important to emphasize that the science isn't settled, but we still sometimes have to make judgment calls based on what we have thus far.

Thanks, Interbane for bringing up the Pope's encyclical. I started a new thread to discuss that.

http://www.booktalk.org/the-pope-s-ency ... 19815.html

And to say "I believe" recent climate change is not human-driven is just as spurious as claims that the science is settled.

That's not what I quite said, right?

Are you attempting to manipulate my words to accuse me of being spurious?
Let's be clear, okay?

Here's what Ant wrote:

I do not believe Man is the primary contributor to climate change

very different from your inaccurate paraphrase (if that's what you were attempting - if not, I appoligize)

I sort of was paraphrasing you, inaccurately as it turns out.

geo wrote:I sort of was paraphrasing you, inaccurately as it turns out.

Yeah, you were dead wrong.
And I anticipated someone mischaracterizing what I've said here.
It's happened many times before.

But thanks for being honest about it.

ant wrote:It's quite interesting how Atheism has somehow created its own Grand Inquisitors on behalf of naturalism.

You think they were created? Or perhaps they arose on their own, with the personal conviction that their worldview is the only one that makes sense.

I find it interesting that you attack atheism more ferociously than Dawkins attacks religion, yet you claim to hold the middle ground.

I find it interesting that you attack atheism more ferociously than Dawkins attacks religion, yet you claim to hold the middle ground.

Nothing to worry about here:

Dawkins has 1.19 million followers on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/richarddawkins


I have just you and yorky.

Here in this thread I presented thoughts about what actually is "consensus science" from a historical perspective and I introduced some recent scientific findings that refute imate models that conclude the planet is warming at an alarming rate - which is the primary argument of climate alarmists.