On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 19:10:03 -0500, in alt.atheism
"Sue Doenim" <suedoenim572@yahoo.com> wrote in
<Zf-dnRr4rqi81avanZ2dnUVZ_tyknZ2d@comcast.com>:

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:m6dcj3tskr401e850lgokeedmtklucliu4@4ax.com...

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:45:31 -0500, in alt.atheism
"Sue Doenim" <suedoenim572@yahoo.com> wrote in
<COGdnbi93-zAqavanZ2dnUVZ_ournZ2d@comcast.com>:

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:te4cj3pegeft3c2bl1hee8gjkmvca3e36d@4ax.com...

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:24:34 -0500, in alt.atheism
"Sue Doenim" <suedoenim572@yahoo.com> wrote in
<vfadnaWP7vWtmKvanZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@comcast.com>:

"Robert" <robpar@netportusa.com> wrote in message
news:uoubj3d563cvt5detm15ul0brhd2pcfuf4@4ax.com...

On 10 Nov 2007 09:01:01 -0600,

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 23:40:38 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/


There are 2 sides to every story

LOL, John Coleman background is in journalism, not science and is no
longer welcome to work at his own weather channel because of his
anti-science views.

Did you not read the article, that you indicated?
Quote from article;

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political
positions of either party. However, Global Warming, I.e. Climate
Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a
religion. It is not something you believe in.
It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of
life-long expertise.

Not Journalism. But meteorology.

And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured
crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won't
believe
a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award
and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be
it.

He thinks global warming is wrong, because he thinks so. He doesn't
have any better reasons than that. Apparently Rupert Murdoch paid
him
well enough to say so.

No many intelligent people reject the belief in global warming for
the
same reason we reject all religions. Lack of credible evidence
supporting the belief. Which has all the signs of a major scam.

Really? How much of the scientific evidence have you read? Which
journal
articles?

Exactly. Have you noticed that in a discussion of global warming, no
one
ever seems to understand or discuss any real science on either side of
the
debate. Most proponents discard any opposing rationale and simply
spew
a
belief system akin to a religion.

What science is there to support the claim that there is no
anthropogenic effect on the climate?

Interesting argumentum ad ignorantium..

I am already somewhat familiar with the evidence for anthropogenic
climate change. I asked for science that shows that people have not
affected it. That, as you know, is not argumentum ad ignorantium. It's a
request for information, information that you apparently cannot provide.

I am already familiar with evidence for the existence of God.

There is no evidence for the existence of God. You cannot be familiar
with something that does not exist.

I am asking
for information that shows that God does not exist. As I said, you are
simply spewing a belief system akin to a religion. Thanks for proving my
point.

You lied. You lost. Your point is shown to be wrong.

..as an atheist you should be well
aware that the burden of proof is always on the claim that X exists
rather
than on the claim that X does not exist.

And the scientists have met the burden. That is why there is no serious
question in science about the effect of human activity on the climate.

And the theologists have met the burden. That is why there is no serious
question in theology about the existence of God.

Theology starts with the assumption that God exists if that is the
assumption of the religion that is using the theology. Theology is not a
science and it doesn't care about evidence. Of course the theology of
Hinduism or Buddhism is contrary to the theology of some Christian sect
or Islam.

Now, reread my comment. I
never said a thing about scientists, or consensus in science (which does
not
in fact exist...but this is tangential to the thrust of my remarks
anyway).

You didn't? So, implying things doesn't count if you get caught. Fine.

I said that no one ("no one"...in context obviously meaning the average
lay
person) on either side of the debate ever discusses any real science.

And that is false. Scientists do discuss the real science, which is why
they came down overwhelmingly for the conclusion that human activity is
affecting the climate.

They
simply spew a belief system akin to a religion. Thanks for proving my
point.

You lied. You lost. Your point is shown to be wrong. You chose to ignore
the science so you can falsely equate the questions.

If I said that Martians were
causing global warming and you disagreed, would it be logical for me to
ask
what science there is to support the claim that there is no Martian
effect
on the climate, or should the standard be that I prove my claim?

The claim of human action has been supported in the scientific
literature. The mechanism and the results have been demonstrated. The
know-nothing opponents now have the duty to show that this is wrong or
to admit that they are. I note that you offered nothing when I asked
about scientific journal articles. Have you ever read one?

The claim of the existence of God has been supported in the holy
literature.

Which, as we all know, is not evidence.

The know-nothing opponents now have the duty to show that this is wrong,
or
admit that they are. I note that atheists haven't produced any
counter-holy
literature. Thanks for proving my point, once again. You sound exactly
like a theist spewing a belief system..

What nonsense you spout.

(Btw, and fwiw, I am an atheist.)

I don't believe you. You might be some sort of modern worshipper like a
Randian 'Objectivist' or Republican or some other sort of unthinking
worshipper of ignorance, but calling yourself atheist is far too
generous to yourself.