You're mixing up methodological and philosophical naturalism.
Perhaps you are confusing naturalism with "methodological materialism" which is what creationists like to claim scientists think the scientific method is. Creationists are always trying to paint scientists as atheists, hence science is a "religion" or some such nonsense. If anything, I'd say philosophical naturalism is the philosophy behind methodological naturalism. The latter is just the practice of the former. Neither denies that supernatural things might exist, its just that they don't enter into explanations of the natural world, its more that the supernatural world is not relevant to either this philosophy or its practical application.
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.
No, many ignorant people are very secure, that is partly why they stay ignorant.
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.
You seem to be forgetting Greeks and Arabs both of whom contributed a very substantial foundation which western science later built on.
There is no inherit problem in Christians being good scientists. Only some Christian groups have decided that science is in direct conflict with their beliefs, and have chosen to turn their backs on scientific knowledge. Much the same happened in the Arab world, which had quite the headstart on science compared to Europe in the Dark Ages. There is a good object lesson in that.
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?
Please do show me such a graph. See my previous post, 2'nd graph. Please note that even this is just NH, but the SH lacks as much data, so the reconstructions are rather less reliable there. I don't see the hottest years in the 1930's. Why would you make such a odd statement?
Why are you chattering about the dust bowl? That was in N. America only. Are you clueless that as you look at smaller and smaller geographic areas, you will find more and more anomalies. I'm pretty sure that you can find all sorts of locations in the USA which had their average hottest year on all sorts of different years, not just the 1930's or the 1990's. Does this surprise you? You can likely also find the average coldest years for small areas on any given year of the last century. So what?
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.
Once again, you assert simplistic ideas without looking into any of the issues. This is why I keep bashing you guys about being "creationist" knockoffs. You think everything is a mystery. Find me the AGW basher equivalent of this graph, and I'll give you a bit more credit:
From here:
en.wikipedia.org
Please note the relative effects of different sources, and how some of them (sulfates and volcanos) have been doing a pretty good job of helping to mask GHG. Yet you clowns are always laughing at the stupid scientists who predicted global cooling back in the 1970's as though they were clueless. No, you are clueless. |
