Craig Steiner: Global Warming Debunke...

Craig Steiner: Global Warming Debunked by Intelligent Design

There are 13 comments on the Townhall story from Aug 5, 2012, titled Craig Steiner: Global Warming Debunked by Intelligent Design. In it, Townhall reports that:

Global warming has long been used to justify burdensome regulations that increase costs, increases unemployment, increases dependency on government, and reduces our individual freedom.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Townhall.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#1 Aug 10, 2012
The stupid! IT HURTS!

“His noodlyness astounds!”

Since: Feb 09

You tell me

#2 Aug 11, 2012
Ah yes. Debunking science with completely un-scientific apologetics.I'm right there with ya LG.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Level 2

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#3 Aug 15, 2012
Made me laugh...

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#4 Sep 13, 2012
The reason Intelligent Design is false, because any experiment that uses a Supernatural Being as a variable can be duplicated without resort to the Supernatural. So Occam's Razor render's God out of the equation.

There are no experiments for climate change mitigation, so anything goes. That's the difference between science and faith; objective test.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#5 Sep 13, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
The stupid! IT HURTS!
Not as much as it does kittens.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#6 Sep 13, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
The reason Intelligent Design is false, because any experiment that uses a Supernatural Being as a variable can be duplicated without resort to the Supernatural. So Occam's Razor render's God out of the equation.
There are no experiments for climate change mitigation, so anything goes. That's the difference between science and faith; objective test.
Yes, of course. The old "well, we can't do an experiment on how to fix this climate change spiral towards extinction we're going through, so why worry about the sort of world our grand children will have" argument from personal greed and laziness.

Good going Brian_G, if nothing else, you're consistent in your "I don't give a damn, I'll be dead anyway" attitude.

Hope you don't have any grandkids or great grandkids.

BTW just for your own education, scientifically, an objective test can be inside of a test tube or a good computer model. Objective test does NOT mean that we humans have to actually be able to change the entire Earth climate overnight.

You sound just like the "fundamentalist christian creationists" who won't believe in evolution until SCIENCE can actually demonstrate the process from self replicating organic compounds all the way through to humans before their eyes and inside of twenty minutes or so.

In your case it would be "I don't believe in climate change mitigation until someone can actually change the entire planets climate in front of my eyes and before the next commercial break".

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#7 Sep 13, 2012
There are hundreds of thousands of experimental tests of experimental evolution but not one single experimental test of climate change mitigation. That's the difference between faith and science.
LowellGuy

United States

#8 Sep 13, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
There are hundreds of thousands of experimental tests of experimental evolution but not one single experimental test of climate change mitigation. That's the difference between faith and science.
Reality disagrees with you.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#9 Sep 14, 2012
Google scholar agrees and finds almost three million articles:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar...

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#10 Sep 14, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
Google scholar agrees and finds almost three million articles:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar...
http://scholar.google.com/scholar...

5,980 articles.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#11 Sep 15, 2012
Would you please cite the most compelling experiment you've found that supports climate change mitigation?

That's all I ask.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#12 Sep 15, 2012

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#13 Sep 20, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
There are hundreds of thousands of experimental tests of experimental evolution but not one single experimental test of climate change mitigation. That's the difference between faith and science.
Worth noting (again) that the planet's been trending warmer since the end of the Maunder Minimum, about 1715.

"Oh, noes! It's the Sun! It's the Sun!"

I live in Florida - I coulda told 'em, if they'd asked me.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 36 min Frindly 861
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 48 min Ben Avraham 77,048
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Frindly 32,268
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr The FACTory 162,511
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr The FACTory 222,017
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) 21 hr Dogen 4,321
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) Mon The FACTory 101
More from around the web