Comments for Why I trust God OVER any Scientist when it comes to Man Made Climate Change | Eastern North Carolina Now

The basic nature of Mother Earth is cycles of relationships like air to CO2. Trees are the basic component and if we are too aggressive in cutting without replanting we pollute rivers and streams and the earth heats up without the absorption of the foliage. When we view our humanity as a partner with Mother Earth, we have a long history ahead. Otherwise Mother Earth will get rid of us. . .

Commented: Friday, October 2nd, 2015 @ 5:17 pm By: Gene Scarborough

These are all flawed arguments. I'm working on an article related; be patient.

Commented: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 @ 12:28 pm By: Christopher Maye

Climate Change is big money and to some remarkably stupid people, almost entirely Democrats, i.e. Solyndra. That scandal alone would sink almost any Republican.

And how about the EPA e-mail scandals, their anti-Constitutional enforcement of what may be fake laws - pure lawlessness. And for what - the Religion of Climate Change. As per hypocritical Liberals, "There is a separation of church and state in America". Obviously not for them.

Yes Bobby Tony, follow the money.

Commented: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 @ 10:27 am By: Stan Deatherage

Liberals treat Climate Change as a religion to the point of ridiculousness, with no math, whatsoever, as to the cost, which confirms another scientific hypothesis of mine - Liberals can't do math.

The fraud Al Gore did not help their case in the least.

Commented: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 @ 10:16 am By: Stan Deatherage

Netflix documentary says meat production causes 51 per cent of air and water pollution but the Beef Industry sues everybody who reports this.

Commented: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 @ 5:13 am By: Ted McDonald

Well, then it is not partisan. That's cool.

But, of course, no public money would be involved. And then it is just talk, simply talk.

Commented: Tuesday, September 29th, 2015 @ 8:22 pm By: Stan Deatherage

Exactly, you're trying to claim that a scientific theory (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.)
Just because an issue exists doesn't mean it is, or should be, partisan.

Commented: Tuesday, September 29th, 2015 @ 7:16 pm By: Christopher Maye

Deatherage: This isn't a bipartisan issue, this is a sustainability issue. That argument makes utterly zero sense. Science doesn't care what belief structure you have.

Tony: You are now arguing word choice and possibility of circumstance. The avoidance of the word fact in science is a statement that we don't know everything, where as (idiots) in politics view things in absolute certainty... look where that got us.
I'm writing a really detailed article right now on this subject

Commented: Tuesday, September 29th, 2015 @ 6:21 pm By: Christopher Maye

Good points Christopher, but I was disputing the 97% quoted figure, which would indicate that 97% of all scientist support the thesis. Do not confuse my position with that of Rod. My discussion is on the narrow use of 97%
From your NASA site. "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree". The survey was limited to actively publishing climate scientist agree. I guess my point is that if you surveyed all the Pastors you would find that at least 97% believe in God. Beyond that, there may be a lack of consensus on anything else. The scientific method always ends with a "conclusion" and not a fact. It is subject to change as Neil points out in his clip.
As entertaining as Neil deGrasse Tyson is in your clip, he is not citing studies and facts, but just saying that his sources are better than other people's sources.
Regardless of the minute details, I will agree that mankind has an impact on the climate, what I have some problems with is the idea that we may be the major cause of Global Warming. Since I am not a research scientist, I will await more definitive factual studies. All the projections and past measurements are not based on measurements but on computer models that extrapolate probabilities. The technology to measure global temperatures did not exist until recent history.
I will yield the point to you however, because it is not my area of interest and your inquisitiveness will have more years than I have left to resolve any disagreements between differing scientific viewpoints. Sabine has spoken and I have no choice but to accept others opinions since I am not a research analyst.

Commented: Tuesday, September 29th, 2015 @ 6:04 pm By: Bobby Tony

It cannot be a fact and a theory at the same time. I have no idea or proof either way. But I am a supreme skeptic on all things claimed as fact by people who have a dog in the fight. I merely point out that the 97% figure that is tossed around is a manipulation of numbers to accomplish a purpose. Prudence would dictate that we continue to study the facts but be careful not to extrapolate the data beyond it relevance. Climate Change in and of itself is an overly broad term that has little or no scientific meaning.
"The '97% consensus' article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it." - Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)
www.populartechnology.net

"Ensure your truths are based on facts, not an opinion of fact". Sabine Retlin

Commented: Tuesday, September 29th, 2015 @ 2:35 pm By: Bobby Tony