Climate Change Hysteria and Old Earth Beliefs
If you step up on the hill for a bigger picture, you can see that a great deal of the excitement over the next ice age/global warming/global climate change has old earth philosophies embedded in its foundation. In addition to this, they use a passel of circular reasoning.
People who promote anthropogenic (man-made) global climate change tend to deny that we have a Creator who is in control and makes the rules. The world will indeed end, but on his terms, not ours. Don't be disunderstanding me! There is no reason to be cavalier about the environment because we are to be good stewards of it. But there is no reason to panic because atheists, old Earth religious folk, and leftists want to restrict our activities based on faulty science, you savvy?
Many climate change adherents appeal to consensus groupthink, and even punish those within their cult who disagree. Indeed the entire scientific process for this is contrary to real science, The narrative drives the research in climate change much the same as it does in fish-to-fool evolution. Contrary evidence is ignored or suppressed to keep the faulty climate science and leftist agendas going.
"Did you say cult, Cowboy Bob?"
You betcha. If you study on it and use the helpful links, you can see that many global climate change proponents appeal to emotion and manipulation, twist scientific facts, and have an overall cultic approach. Ever try to get a cultist to read a Christian tract? Same with these types, but religious cultists do not tend to get as overwrought as the climate folks.
It is dangerous to tamper with things that are not fully understood and to act on one aspect. For example, the The Great Chinese Famine was caused in part by Mao's insistence on killing millions of sparrows, and this had severe repercussions. Climate change activists want to change carbon dioxide. Plants need that so they can survive, and they gleefully give us oxygen. Climate is complicated, old son.
Old Earth believers and climate change people base their beliefs on several areas that include computer models that use insufficient information and the Milankovitch (astronomical) theory. Evolutionists, cosmologists, and others prefer to keep their narratives going, so they rely on bad theories because they have nothing better to use. The Milankovitch theory and papers supporting it are poor science, using assumptions and circular reasoning; deep time is assumed and skewed data are used, so deep time results are achieved.
 |
| Modified from an image at Clker clipart |
Many climate change adherents appeal to consensus groupthink, and even punish those within their cult who disagree. Indeed the entire scientific process for this is contrary to real science, The narrative drives the research in climate change much the same as it does in fish-to-fool evolution. Contrary evidence is ignored or suppressed to keep the faulty climate science and leftist agendas going.
"Did you say cult, Cowboy Bob?"
You betcha. If you study on it and use the helpful links, you can see that many global climate change proponents appeal to emotion and manipulation, twist scientific facts, and have an overall cultic approach. Ever try to get a cultist to read a Christian tract? Same with these types, but religious cultists do not tend to get as overwrought as the climate folks.
It is dangerous to tamper with things that are not fully understood and to act on one aspect. For example, the The Great Chinese Famine was caused in part by Mao's insistence on killing millions of sparrows, and this had severe repercussions. Climate change activists want to change carbon dioxide. Plants need that so they can survive, and they gleefully give us oxygen. Climate is complicated, old son.
Old Earth believers and climate change people base their beliefs on several areas that include computer models that use insufficient information and the Milankovitch (astronomical) theory. Evolutionists, cosmologists, and others prefer to keep their narratives going, so they rely on bad theories because they have nothing better to use. The Milankovitch theory and papers supporting it are poor science, using assumptions and circular reasoning; deep time is assumed and skewed data are used, so deep time results are achieved.
The real issue in the climate change debate is climate sensitivity. If the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere were to double while everything else stayed the same, the increase in global average surface temperatures would be small, only about 1°C (less than 2°F).4
. . .
Scientists worried about climate change tend to think climate sensitivity is very high. Those who are less concerned believe climate sensitivity is low. If we ignore questionable research, there are two main reasons some researchers think climate sensitivity is high.To read the entire article, click on "Climate Alarmism and the Age of the Earth". You may also like this series of short articles on global warming from the Bible-Science Guy (note that the list is in reverse, the newest is at the top).