I am a Climate Change (human caused) agnostic.

[grantcart]

344. Sometimes you just have to break it down so it can be digested by a sixth grader.

1) Since my reply was questioning your ability and commitment to seriously study data and scientific theory based on your methodology I was signaling that I have zero interest in discussing the substance of the matter with you, because obviously I don't have any respect for your methodology. So I was questioning your overall personal commitment to serious thought.

2) The fact that you put the subject matter of the scientific proof of something as part of your 'belief' system is actually very humorous. It shows not only that you don't know science but also that your epistemology for your metaphysical system is something akin to a junior high student reading their astrology chart to find out how they are going to do on their math test. So I was questioning your overall ability to follow intellectual processes.

3) I am not a scientist but I do understand the scientific method and the process of peer review. In climate change those that were opposing the interpretation of the data and giving the climate change deniers the appearance of scholarly support have now reexamined their methodologies and are now siding with the rest of the climate change community. So I gave you some hints in the links to tip you that the whole climate denier world has just had rather major setbacks and I was questioning whether or not you even bothered to follow it at the 'Reader's Digest' level.

4) That you would put so much commitment into something that you have spent so little effort grasping is reminiscent of the many people who I have met who really really really believe that the New Testament makes a very strong case on the Virgin Birth of Jesus. They can really believe whatever they want but having studied it at the peer review level I know that the case is almost not existent and there is little scholarly doubt on the subject. So your OP shows that you not only don't know much about the science of the subject that you write about but that you also are completely careless in the things that you profess to believe in, and I was questioning your whole approach to metaphysics.

5) Your reply shows that you didn't get any of the rather harsh criticisms that were implied in the reply revealing yet another level of your sciolism but then you take it two steps further. First the "more redundancy" is an apparent reference to something but it isn't a reference to anything in our discussion. Apparently you either assume that everyone has read everything you have written on the subject or you are talking to yourself.

6) Finally your remarks about the chart. Did you really think it clever? Are you really that obtuse? To begin with the chart shows that there is harmony between the data used by the various schools and how that even those that used to argue about the data no longer do so, only those that don't know how the data is gathered.

And here is the ultimate metric of how worthless your opinion is on scientifically known facts. You glibly laugh at peer review data stating that the earth is "a billion years old". Are you now favoring us with another of your beliefs? Your belief that the world is one billion years old is as nonsensical (in some ways more careless) than those that are suggesting that it is 7 days old. The earth's age is known to be 4.5 billion years old. It is not a randomly picked number and it is not rounded. Specifically it is The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%). So while you may believe that it is one billion years old there is, very much like your belief in the ambiguity of climate change certainty, no peer review dissent on the subject.

And this was a fact that my daughter had to get right before they let her out of the 6th grade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Age