You're mixing up methodological and philosophical naturalism. The search for natural explanations is one thing. The assertion that we know natural explanations is all there is or ever was is another.
You remain devoted to appeals to religious (or anti-religious) prejudice. Your point is to call AGW skeptics "flat-earthers" or the equivalent.
You seem to think others are so insecure that you can embarrass them into jumping into the orthodox AGW boat lest they be thought ignorant flat-earthers. Its a fact that Christians created modern science, that Christians created the university back in the Dark Ages, and that until the last century or so, virtually all scientists were Christians, many of them devout, and many scientists are Christians.
Getting back to climate issues:
When one looks at the 10 warmest years of the past century, instead of seeing them all grouped in the past decade or two as one would think if human produced CO2 were driving the earth's climate, we see a big clump of warm years back in the 1930's. Within that cluster of warm years is the earth's warmest year of the past century, 1934. How does one account for this?
Looking back at that time, we see those were the dust bowl years when agriculture had to abandoned in much of the Great Plains from TX to Saskatchewan. Millions of people left the Great Plains in just a few years. The failure and abandonment of marginal farming lands is what one would expect from a real warming trend. Now its certainly true that cultivation practices contributed to the dust bowl problem, but its also true the areas abandoned in the '30's had been farmed for several decades by then, with no dust bowl. Nor have we seen dust bowl conditions in the Great Plains since. Its tough to blame the 1930's warming period on human produced CO2. The auto industry was just getting started. Cities were smaller and there weren't anywhere as many SUV clogged freeways as now. From the 1930's on, warming has actually abated.
Now there is an undeniable gap between what the AGW theory says and predicts and what we see happening in the real world. As long as that is true, skepticism is definitely warranted. |
