G****l w*****g defined as a religion: noun Any practice that someone or some group is seriously dev**ed to. noun A particular variety of such belief, especially when organized into a...

Bevvy

noun Any practice that someone or some group is seriously dev**ed to.

noun A particular variety of such belief, especially when organized into a system of doctrine and practice.

noun A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Kevyn

Bevvy wrote:

noun Any practice that someone or some group is seriously dev**ed to.

noun A particular variety of such belief, especially when organized into a system of doctrine and practice.

noun A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Your understanding would mean fishing or golf was a religion. Making decisions on a personal, local, state, national and international level. Based on current and evolving scientific consensus and fact is in no way a religion, it is common sense. Belief in a myth, something without proof or even testable evidence on the other hand is often religion.

BIRDMAN

Kevyn wrote:

Your understanding would mean fishing or golf was a religion. Making decisions on a personal, local, state, national and international level. Based on current and evolving scientific consensus and fact is in no way a religion, it is common sense. Belief in a myth, something without proof or even testable evidence on the other hand is often religion.

woodguru

Bevvy wrote:

noun Any practice that someone or some group is seriously dev**ed to.

noun A particular variety of such belief, especially when organized into a system of doctrine and practice.

noun A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

You just defined trumpism and religion

woodguru

Bevvy wrote:

noun Any practice that someone or some group is seriously dev**ed to.

noun A particular variety of such belief, especially when organized into a system of doctrine and practice.

noun A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Religion is those beliefs that people take on faith versus science and facts

Gatsby

Kevyn wrote:

Your understanding would mean fishing or golf was a religion. Making decisions on a personal, local, state, national and international level. Based on current and evolving scientific consensus and fact is in no way a religion, it is common sense. Belief in a myth, something without proof or even testable evidence on the other hand is often religion.

But in seeking to understand recent warming, we also have to consider the natural factors that have regularly warmed the climate prior to the industrial revolution and, indeed, prior to any human presence on the earth. After all, the geological record shows a persistent 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling extending back at least one million years.

In identifying the burning of f****l f**ls as the chief cause of warming today, many politicians and environmental activists simply appeal to a so-called “scientific consensus.” There are two things wrong with this. First, there is no such consensus: An increasing number of climate scientists are raising serious questions about the political rush to judgment on this issue. For example, the widely touted “consensus” of 2,500 scientists on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on C*****e C****e (IPCC) is an illusion: Most of the panelists have no scientific qualifications, and many of the others object to some part of the IPCC’s report. The Associated Press reported recently that only 52 climate scientists contributed to the report’s “Summary for Policymakers.”

Likewise, only about a dozen members of the governing board v**ed on the “consensus statement” on c*****e c****e by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Rank and file AMS scientists never had a say, which is why so many of them are now openly rebelling. Estimates of skepticism within the AMS regarding man-made g****l w*****g are well over 50 percent.

The second reason not to rely on a “scientific consensus” in these matters is that this is not how science works. After all, scientific advances customarily come from a minority of scientists who challenge the majority view—or even just a single person (think of Galileo or Einstein). Science proceeds by the scientific method and draws conclusions based on evidence, not on a show of hands.

But aren’t glaciers melting? Isn’t sea ice shrinking? Yes, but that’s not proof for human-caused warming. Any kind of warming, whether natural or human-caused, will melt ice. To assert that melting glaciers prove human causation is just bad logic.

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/global-warming-manmade-or-natural/

elledee

Kevyn wrote:

Your understanding would mean fishing or golf was a religion. Making decisions on a personal, local, state, national and international level. Based on current and evolving scientific consensus and fact is in no way a religion, it is common sense. Belief in a myth, something without proof or even testable evidence on the other hand is often religion.

Your usual word salad pseudo intellectual spin

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

woodguru wrote:

Religion is those beliefs that people take on faith versus science and facts

Blind faith is never required to be a Christian. Blind faith is always required to be a neo-Marxist Progressive Democrat like you & your mob.

BIRDMAN

Gatsby wrote:

But in seeking to understand recent warming, we also have to consider the natural factors that have regularly warmed the climate prior to the industrial revolution and, indeed, prior to any human presence on the earth. After all, the geological record shows a persistent 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling extending back at least one million years.

In identifying the burning of f****l f**ls as the chief cause of warming today, many politicians and environmental activists simply appeal to a so-called “scientific consensus.” There are two things wrong with this. First, there is no such consensus: An increasing number of climate scientists are raising serious questions about the political rush to judgment on this issue. For example, the widely touted “consensus” of 2,500 scientists on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on C*****e C****e (IPCC) is an illusion: Most of the panelists have no scientific qualifications, and many of the others object to some part of the IPCC’s report. The Associated Press reported recently that only 52 climate scientists contributed to the report’s “Summary for Policymakers.”

Likewise, only about a dozen members of the governing board v**ed on the “consensus statement” on c*****e c****e by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Rank and file AMS scientists never had a say, which is why so many of them are now openly rebelling. Estimates of skepticism within the AMS regarding man-made g****l w*****g are well over 50 percent.

The second reason not to rely on a “scientific consensus” in these matters is that this is not how science works. After all, scientific advances customarily come from a minority of scientists who challenge the majority view—or even just a single person (think of Galileo or Einstein). Science proceeds by the scientific method and draws conclusions based on evidence, not on a show of hands.

But aren’t glaciers melting? Isn’t sea ice shrinking? Yes, but that’s not proof for human-caused warming. Any kind of warming, whether natural or human-caused, will melt ice. To assert that melting glaciers prove human causation is just bad logic.

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/global-warming-manmade-or-natural/

But in seeking to understand recent warming, we al... (show quote)

Very interesting

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Kevyn wrote:

Your understanding would mean fishing or golf was a religion. Making decisions on a personal, local, state, national and international level. Based on current and evolving scientific consensus and fact is in no way a religion, it is common sense. Belief in a myth, something without proof or even testable evidence on the other hand is often religion.

Like he said, it is a religious myth that man can stop g****l w*****g if it even is warming, a myth that man is causing it, a myth that it isn't natural, a myth that CO2 could be the sole cause of warming if the myth that it is warming turns out to be true.

Religion.

Gatsby

Birdmam wrote:

Very interesting

Check this out. Plate Climatology is getting a lot of attention lately.
http://www.plateclimatology.com/

This Too! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX1e_uU5u3A

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Gatsby wrote:

Check this out. Plate Climatology is getting a lot of attention lately.
http://www.plateclimatology.com/

This Too! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX1e_uU5u3A

Great website!!

BIRDMAN

Gatsby wrote:

Check this out. Plate Climatology is getting a lot of attention lately.
http://www.plateclimatology.com/

This Too! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX1e_uU5u3A

Thanks

Gatsby

Birdmam wrote:

Thanks

You're welcome. Makes a lot more sense to me than their CO2 quackery.

currahee506

Gatsby wrote:

But in seeking to understand recent warming, we also have to consider the natural factors that have regularly warmed the climate prior to the industrial revolution and, indeed, prior to any human presence on the earth. After all, the geological record shows a persistent 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling extending back at least one million years.

In identifying the burning of f****l f**ls as the chief cause of warming today, many politicians and environmental activists simply appeal to a so-called “scientific consensus.” There are two things wrong with this. First, there is no such consensus: An increasing number of climate scientists are raising serious questions about the political rush to judgment on this issue. For example, the widely touted “consensus” of 2,500 scientists on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on C*****e C****e (IPCC) is an illusion: Most of the panelists have no scientific qualifications, and many of the others object to some part of the IPCC’s report. The Associated Press reported recently that only 52 climate scientists contributed to the report’s “Summary for Policymakers.”

Likewise, only about a dozen members of the governing board v**ed on the “consensus statement” on c*****e c****e by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Rank and file AMS scientists never had a say, which is why so many of them are now openly rebelling. Estimates of skepticism within the AMS regarding man-made g****l w*****g are well over 50 percent.

The second reason not to rely on a “scientific consensus” in these matters is that this is not how science works. After all, scientific advances customarily come from a minority of scientists who challenge the majority view—or even just a single person (think of Galileo or Einstein). Science proceeds by the scientific method and draws conclusions based on evidence, not on a show of hands.

But aren’t glaciers melting? Isn’t sea ice shrinking? Yes, but that’s not proof for human-caused warming. Any kind of warming, whether natural or human-caused, will melt ice. To assert that melting glaciers prove human causation is just bad logic.

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/global-warming-manmade-or-natural/

But in seeking to understand recent warming, we al... (show quote)

Agree. A recent example of how fanatical these followers of the "c*****e c****e religion" are is singularly exemplified in Don Lemon's desire to have the Florida weatherman attribute his weather report to "c*****e c****e." He wouldn't;t do it because it had no relevance.