Quote:.

 


 
One CLAIMS to have a basis in science. A scientific theory requires predictions that can be falsified. When you falsify the predictions of a religion, they just vaguely adjust the religion so that it includes the observations. This is exactly what CliSci is doing.


 
No warming? No problem. It needs to be for at least <del>10</del>, er <del>15</del>, er <del>17</del>, er 25 years before our theory is wrong. Or it's hidden in the deep ocean (miraculously bypassing the top layers) and ignoring that if the deep ocean can absorb the warming there's no problem. Or it's because of Chinese aerosols. Or we'll just make another adjustment to the data and voila! "see it's still warming." How is this any different than getting all of your followers to give you their worldly possession and wait in a field for the rapture, and when there's no rapture claiming a slight miscalculation, "but it'll happen next year?"


 
How is this science? Because those who expound this call themselves scientists and give each other PhDs?


 
And while several of the skeptics here are religious, I have yet to see an argument against Global Warming based on religion. I'd expect religious people to disagree with other religions. That's hardly hypocritical, or however you see it as being humorous.


 

 


 
Wrong! None of those arguments apply to skeptics of catastrophic global warming. Where have skeptics demanded that everyone make sacrifices? Where have skeptics limited the argument to a chosen few?
 Skeptics have always asked for the chance to debate. The believers refuse because they haven't won these debates in the past. Skeptics accept raw data, they don't adjust it to fit their beliefs.