What about the church?

The Church knows what it is talking about. Fantasy. Science is beyond their grip until you shove it down their throats. I'm not sure if they have yet apologized to either Copernicus or Galileo for the heliocentric theory, some say they have, I don't.

Historically the Church follows the science. Example the church thought Columbus would sail off the edge of the Earth. Greek scientist had known the Earth was round a thousand years before and had calculated quite accurately the distance around. In fact the scientist of Columbus's day were not concerned with him sailing off the edge but rather that he may not be able to carry enough supplies to make the trip. They would have been pleasantly surprised when two continents were found between them and China.

Today no Church would say the Earth was flat but we still find ourselves trying to fit religious doctrine and ideology into our understanding of the scientific world. Religion has nothing to do with science, but rather is just a part of our primitive selves. Science will continue to explore, explain and prepare humanity for the future. We can embrace it and move forward or become extinct like the dinosaurs.

The last pope, as well as the current one, support measures to protect the environment.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/19/341640...

RaisinCane: 'Climate Disaster' is a phrase. If you want to pick apart phrases which really have no meaning then you should debate something other than climate change. Politics perhaps or maybe law? The phrase 'climate disaster' really has little meaning except in those categories or perhaps the media. The phrase means only what the reader chooses it to mean.

I don't really pay attention to the boatload of 'skeptics' here that call people like me a cultist, a communist, Hitler, an idiot, a moron, stupid, and so on either. Does that make me a bad person because I ignore those that do it often on both sides? I do admit I use to react quite a lot. I use to feed the trolls so to speak. I no longer do. Why? Because being respectful of others and their beliefs, though sometimes wrong, is the door toward a better understanding on both sides. I chose to 'call you out' because you are an intelligent person who has been sidetracked by propaganda. Is that bad? No, as many intelligent people have also been. You more than likely I have been sidetracked as well. You do have a tendency to take statements as insults when they are merely observations though such as someone pointing out something within your field that you chose to ignore. Or statements that the radiative consequences of a warming atmosphere, based on causes and feedbacks, are not based fully on what you have stated here in the past but are based on currently accepted physics.

The following is a link to some of the models which you like to degrade.

http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/

http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/EnergyBalanceMod...

http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/atm-cam/

If you have a problem with them find the codes and determine the errors in those codes and how to improve them.

The church doesn't have a very good track record when it comes to dealing with Science nor with reality.

Edit @ Raisin Caine:

<<Are you perhaps going to reference the Galileo affair??? >>

Not particularly, no.

Religion is an issue of faith whereas science is the complete opposite. Science is verifiable and repeatable. Religion is neither and consists purely on faith and will occasionally conveniently reinterpret some 2,000 year old book to catch up with the latest scientific developments.

The Catholic Church, to name just one religion which is terribly outdated, still believes condoms do not help prevent AIDS and not too long ago it sought excommunication of all those scientists involved in stem cell research. And don't get me started on abortion.

<<But since you claim that religion has a poor track record with science, I would expect you to ONLY go to hospitals with no religious affiliation, because you wouldn't want their religious affiliation to get you killed. Good luck finding one. >>

I do not have any problem whatsoever finding one because where I live there is universal healthcare and the hospitals I can chose from are either 100% state run or run by a corporation but paid for by the state. That being said, the Catholic Church does not particularly have a very good track record in my country, primarily because it sided with a brutal dictator who reigned for 35+ years and under whom the church was able to quietly commit its very own atrocities.

what church, the global warming cultist church, do you mean that church, they already believe, have a devil(co2) a high priest(algore) many bishops(too many to name) and salvation(raising taxes on fuel)and utopia, everyone living like it's 324BC

The last thing I want is for the churches to get involved in this political-driven monstrosity. BTW, Revelations talks about the world ending in fire, not by flooding or climate change. Further, this inherently hits at my HUGE annoyance with warmers. They have allowed this apocalyptic crap to go on. They spend their time correcting the "deniers", who mostly agree with some warming but think it is being extremely exagerrated. In the meantime, they don't ever look at the SOURCE of their problems. They have a bunch of people in their court who are EXTREMELY exagerrating the situation.

Instead of attempting to correct these fear-mongerers, they DEFEND THEM.

Look warmers. This is the crap YOU ARE CAUSING.

I can tell you for certian that even the worst denier that says absolutlely nothing is happening is FAR closer to the truth than the idiots on your side claiming catastrophe. A "science" article comes out talking about most of the earth becoming uninhabitable, and you defend??? You should be the VERY first ones putting the kabash on this crap. You think when some warmer claims snow will become a "rare event" that it makes deniers look bad???

Jeff M,

I note your decided lack of clarification about the "heading for climate disaster" in the context of "mans imminent demise". I also noted your decided lack of critique on Hey Dook's question. The high road you imagine you are taking is not nearly as high as you think.

Gringo,

Care to back your statement up with fact??? Are you perhaps going to reference the Galileo affair???

Galileo was funded by two Catholic Cardinals. Further, it was his fellow scientists who were also employed by the church who pushed for the trial. Why? Because Galileo, unlike Copernicus who first came up with the heliocentric model and never had any problem with the church, was known to be sarcastic and insulting. He actually insulted the pope. He also angered his fellow scientists. Especially since Galileo predicted perturbations that were not present. They were later found to occur to a MUCH smaller degree because the believed distances of the planets were incorrect. BUT at the time, his theory made predictions that were demonstrably false. You heard that right. His fellow scientists SHOWED that his theory made predictions that were not true, and Galileo answered with insults.

Now since ALL SCIENCE of the time was funded by the church, the resolution of this conflict was done through the church. Such things also happen within universities even to this day. The sentence was ... wait for it ...

House arrest.

But since you claim that religion has a poor track record with science, I would expect you to ONLY go to hospitals with no religious affiliation, because you wouldn't want their religious affiliation to get you killed. Good luck finding one.

Jeff M,

I would not try to code a complex model, when simply using the PDO with a linear component does better than all of the models. Overparameterization is not cured by adding more variables. I have literally provided a more accurate, extremely simple model, thus completely justifying the critique. Otherwise I get what you are saying.

Gringo, Since you don't say what country you are from, I cannot answer that. What I can say is that my company uses stem cell from placenta, which has no tie to abortions. Further, while I disagree with the RCC on birth control, this is hardly a science issue. You can kill a bunch of cows in India in the name of science as well. That does not prove hinduism is against science.

As far as faith in religion goes, everything is based upon starting assumptions, including science. The way that most all religions tell one to live has time and time again been tested and shown to lead to a happier, healthier life. The ideas of forgiveness and love found in religion and NOT in science have passed more testing than all tests in all fields of science combined.

Eccl. 1:4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever. KJV

If a religion went according to the bible, you would see that man will never destroy the earth.

Besides, AGW and Climate Change are in themselves a religion. They would be in competition with other religions.

Quote by Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer of UK: “In Europe, where climate change absolutism is at its strongest, the quasi-religion of greenery in general and the climate change issue in particular have filled the vacuum of organised religion, with reasoned questioning of its mantras regarded as a form of blasphemy.”

Quote by Nobel Prize Winner For Physics, Ivar Giaever: “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.”

Even the greenies admit to this environmental action being a religion.

Quote by Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.: "Nature is my god. To me, nature is sacred; trees are my temples and forests are my cathedrals."

Quote by David Suzuki, celebrity scientist, alarmist extraordinaire: “All life on Earth is our kin. And in an act of generosity, our relatives create the four sacred elements for us.”..."We have become a force of nature...Not long ago, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, drought, forest fires, even earthquakes and volcanic explosions were accepted as "natural disasters or "acts of God." But now, we have joined God, powerful enough to influence these events."

Quote by Robert Muller, former UN Assistant Secretary General: "Little by little a planetary prayer book is thus being composed by an increasingly united humanity seeking its oneness. Once again, but this time on a universal scale, humankind is seeking no less than its reunion with 'divine,' its transcendence into higher forms of life."

Quote by Maurice Strong, a wealthy elitist and primary power behind UN throne, and large CO2 producer: "It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature."

They said it, I didn't. The greenies themselves are the ones who call it a religion.

Here is your church