Renowned physicist's theory spells trouble for atheists

[MorningGlory]

As one who already KNOWS that God created the universe and everything in it, I really enjoyed this article.  I have seen Dr. Kaku on various programs many times and, believe me, he's no lightweight. 

https://conservativetribune.com/physicist-bombshell-god-like/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=TeaParty&utm_content=2017-12-24&utm_campaign=ttp

[siegi91]

On 12/25/2017 at 8:55 PM, MorningGlory said:

As one who already KNOWS that God created the universe and everything in it, I really enjoyed this article.  I have seen Dr. Kaku on various programs many times and, believe me, he's no lightweight. 

https://conservativetribune.com/physicist-bombshell-god-like/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=TeaParty&utm_content=2017-12-24&utm_campaign=ttp

I believe Prof. Kaku has been misunderstood. 

https://innotechtoday.com/michio-kaku-clears-god-discovery/

By the way, I actually met him once at a conference. He does not believe at all in a personal God and he is a strong believer in anthropogenetic global warming. He told us it was an embarrassment that many people still doubt global warming and his views on God are similar to pantheism and very far away from the classical monotheism of Christianity or Judaism.

As you said, he is no lightweight

So, considering that he is not a lightweight, should we take man-caused global warming and a pantheistic sort of Spinoza's God as seriously as well? Or aren't we, or the web site that misquoted him,  systematically apply selection and confirmation bias to only the parts we like? 

siegi

 

 

Edited December 29, 2017 by siegi91

[MorningGlory]

1 hour ago, siegi91 said:

I believe Prof. Kaku has been misunderstood. 

https://innotechtoday.com/michio-kaku-clears-god-discovery/

By the way, I actually met him once at a conference. He does not believe at all in a personal God and he is a strong believer in anthropogenetic global warming. He told us it was an embarrassment that many people still doubt global warming and his views on God are similar to pantheism and very far away from the classical monotheism of Christianity or Judaism.

As you said, he is no lightweight

So, considering that he is not a lightweight, should we take man-caused global warming and a pantheistic sort of Spinoza's God as seriously as well? Or aren't we, or the web site that misquoted him,  systematically apply selection and confirmation bias to only the parts we like? 

siegi

 

 

Well, if he was misquoted then I guess I need to delete this thread.  It seems you can't depend on anything you read being true anymore.  I do admire Dr. Kaku for his achievments though.

[Guest shiloh357]

14 hours ago, siegi91 said:

I believe Prof. Kaku has been misunderstood. 

https://innotechtoday.com/michio-kaku-clears-god-discovery/

By the way, I actually met him once at a conference. He does not believe at all in a personal God and he is a strong believer in anthropogenetic global warming. He told us it was an embarrassment that many people still doubt global warming and his views on God are similar to pantheism and very far away from the classical monotheism of Christianity or Judaism.

As you said, he is no lightweight

So, considering that he is not a lightweight, should we take man-caused global warming and a pantheistic sort of Spinoza's God as seriously as well? Or aren't we, or the web site that misquoted him,  systematically apply selection and confirmation bias to only the parts we like?

 

One big reason that "science" still continues to support the myth of global warming is because there has been of late, a push to criminalize global warming in the scientific community.  During the Obama administration, it was suggested that scientists who are global warming deniers need to lose their funding and prosecuted and face prison time.   

Scientists on the government dole MUST support the government's agenda. 

The reason that thinking, intelligent people reject global warming is simply because "science" warned us back in 2000-2002 about what would happen in 10 years if we didn't change.   Well it has been 15 years, we didn't change, and so far the apocalypse they predicted and warned about never happened.   Now they have to bully and intimidate compliance with their claims, since they can't point to any correct predictions, such as the disappearance of the polar ice caps, half of the US being under water, the extinction of polar bears and other stuff.

I am sure they have a list of excuses, but the fact is that science is not infallible and is not above scrutiny and question.

[one.opinion]

6 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The reason that thinking, intelligent people reject global warming is simply because "science" warned us back in 2000-2002 about what would happen in 10 years if we didn't change.

What predictions are you referring to? Please provide scientific publications that make these predictions. It is completely possible that some predictions were erroneous, but it would be good to back up sweeping generalizations with fact.

I’m not a climate scientist, but from the data I’ve seen, it is impossible to deny climate change. The only possible debate is whether or not it is anthropogenic. And that is pretty clear-cut, as well (NASA claims about a 95% likelihood).

I don’t know what your trust level is with NASA, but I would suggest they are basing their claims on solid evidence, so their claim is in contrast with the highest levels of administration. Here is a good link to check out for some facts.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

What predictions are you referring to? Please provide scientific publications that make these predictions. It is completely possible that some predictions were erroneous, but it would be good to back up sweeping generalizations with fact.

I’m not a climate scientist, but from the data I’ve seen, it is impossible to deny climate change. The only possible debate is whether or not it is anthropogenic. And that is pretty clear-cut, as well (NASA claims about a 95% likelihood).

I don’t know what your trust level is with NASA, but I would suggest they are basing their claims on solid evidence, so their claim is in contrast with the highest levels of administration. Here is a good link to check out for some facts.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Oh please... The scientific community was making doomsday predictions all of the time in public on the news and documentaries were put out on cable TV and the internet.   Things like the disappearance of the polar ice caps and so on.

And when global warming couldn't be supported any longer, when the predictions didn't come true, "Global Warming"  magically turned into "Climate Change."  

No one is debating that the climate changes.   To say the climate changes is like saying that grass is green.   The bill of goods WE were sold was that it was man-made.    It's why there was such push for green energy and getting rid of oil and coal, and people were being told what kinds of light bulbs and appliances to buy, what kind of cars to buy and so on.   It was all one big fraud.

Of course the climate changes.   Anyone who has been alive since the 70s knows that we were told the earth was cooling and we were headed for another ice age.   Now the the earth is warming.    The earth goes through cooling and heating phases in order to regulate its temperature.  

The whole global warming thing was scam to control us and tell us that we were to blame, and what we had to do to correct it.  

[one.opinion]

5 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Oh please... The scientific community was making doomsday predictions all of the time in public on the news and documentaries were put out on cable TV and the internet. 

So... are you going to cite any of these predictions?

5 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Things like the disappearance of the polar ice caps and so on.

We’ve been over this and I’ve shown you evidence of receding ice. They aren’t going to disappear in the Immediate future, but they are indeed receding.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles

How long do you plan to continue making outdated, unsupported, and/or erroneous claims?

 

[Guest shiloh357]

4 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

So... are you going to cite any of these predictions?

We’ve been over this and I’ve shown you evidence of receding ice. They aren’t going to disappear in the Immediate future, but they are indeed receding.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles

How long do you plan to continue making outdated, unsupported, and/or erroneous claims?

 

The ice caps recede and they come back, and they recede and they come back.   The earth warms and it cools and then it warms again and cools again.  Everyone knows that.

And everyone knows that for over a decade we were told that in just a few years the ice caps wold be gone and half the US would be flooded and so on.  Unless you were living under a rock from 2000-2009, you would know. 

There is no crisis, and climate change is natural and is not man-made.

You can believe in global warming if you want;  I will think for myself and live in reality.

 

[one.opinion]

26 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

And everyone knows that for over a decade we were told that in just a few years the ice caps wold be gone and half the US would be flooded and so on.  Unless you were living under a rock from 2000-2009, you would know. 

So you are again going to make some unsupported claims without regard to fact. I'd really like to see some of these claims that were made. Do you have any references?

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

So you are again going to make some unsupported claims without regard to fact. I'd really like to see some of these claims that were made. Do you have any references?

They were public on TV.   I am not emotionally invested enough in this to spend my time searching for stuff.  Every one saw it, it was on the news and documentaries were made.  It was public knowledge.

In the 70's we were told that the data supported that claim that we were headed for an ice age.  I learned that in elementary school.  I even did a report in class on it in the sixth grade. The data was wrong.

In the 80s acid rain was the big environmental threat and that went away.

In the 90's we warned about the data concerning "man-made ozone depletion" and how the earth was going to burn up.  That didn't happen given that volcanoes were discovered to be a bigger threat to the ozone than all of the smog in LA.

In the 2000's we now have man-made global warming that had to be re-labeled as "man-made climate change" when global warming was simply not true. 

So frankly, science doesn't have a very good track record when it comes to ginning up all this stuff about the environment and I don' need to work too hard given that science has been working for 40 years off of faulty data.

 

Edited December 31, 2017 by shiloh357