Cli=Sci: the lid who vane late to class and thinks he knows the answers

Yet you believe in God.

Cli-Sci [my moniker for Climate "Science"] came late in the game to class, only some 200 years ago, when the seniors in class have been here for thousands of years. What makes Cli=Sci [I put "sciemce' in quotes for a reason I'll shortly explain] think it ranks among the senior class?

I asked some questions a while ago that were never answered. I'll ask again. The criticality is simply this: science depends on careful, accurate, repeatable data collection. Anybody disagree with that?

Fine, let's proceed: Data depends on measurement, and that depends on the right tools for the job. The care and keeping of those tools is the critical matter here, and the subject of my questions. They are;

How many measurement stations are there? 

Are they all using the same measurement equipment for the same measurement need? 

Is the equipment used the optimum equipment for the measurements required? 

Is all measurement equipment used of an accuracy that is 10 times the required tolerance specified to assure data is valid within specified tolerances? 

How accurate and timely are all their calibrations performed and recorded on all specified measurement equipment [including just a straight edge ruler]? 

Are those who conduct the measurements all properly trained in the function of the measurement equipment used?

Are all who perform calibration of measurement equipment also adequately trained as above? 

Is the training verified as effective with follow up by the trainers? 

Do the measurement operators all use the same measurement process technique?

Unless all these questions can be answered correctly and accurately, the data collected is garbage, and I don't believe Cli-Sci is yet up to the task, for instance, of just measurement of sea level temperature around the world ay multiple stations, let alone any other more complicated measurement.

OK Kanuna, please apply your criteria for belief to the LDS church and tell me what you get?

1. How can you verify that an angel named Moroni visited Joseph Smith, how do you know the Golden Plates ever existed, and where are they now?

1. On what scientific basis do you believe that God has a physical body, that He had sex with Mary, and now lives on a planet named Collab.

1. What observations or evidence exist for the process of exaltation, where men can become a God.

1. What evidence is there that there are an infinite number of Gods managing infinite universes.

1. What evidence is there that wearing Temple garments provide spiritual protection from evil?

1. What independent archaeological, historical, or scientific evidence that the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations existed in North America?

1. What evidence is there that Native Americans are descendants of ancient Jews, specifically the "Lamanites".

1. What DNA evidence is there to link any Native American group to ancestry from the ancient Near East?

Unless all these questions can be answered correctly and accurately, then by your own stated standards, your belief in the LDS Church is completely unfounded.

Your questions, by the numbers, in your post #3

1. Book of Mormon, Moroni 10: 4, 5 - "4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." I call this "Moroni's formula. It is a process like any other; a means to encounter any problem with an open mind, and attempt first to reach a solution on one's own, then. ask God. It is a step-by-step process, applying faith in Christ. It is a means to know what is true, because faith only directs to truth. In that sense, faith is a greater source of truth than mere belief, because belief imposes no action to find the truth. one can believe whatever they want, but truth takes perseverance. The evidence you seek on all the following mattress uses this process of Moroni's formula.
2. I don't try to use science to discover the truth of spitrituasl matters such as the attributs of God. S for Mary, we have the ability of onvitro fertilization with sex. I don't know, but I suppose God is aw2are of an even better process than we have. And, no. Kolob is a star, and God's place is near to it.
3. Holy Bible, Matthee 5: 48 - "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect." Start with simple tasks; perfect the simple processes, and gradual increase difficulty. Perfection is not a destination; it is a never-ending process.
4. See #1
5. See #1 That one is too sacred of a concept to discuss outside the temple walls.
6. See #1
7. Not ancient Jews, which are of the house of Judah. The Book of Mormon indicates that the Nephites & Lamanites were descendants of Menasseh, son of Joseph, the son of Jacob who was sold to Egypt by his brothers, Judah, Reuben, and others. And that can be confirmed by #1.
8. Mitochondrial DNA - a matriarchal link which changes very little through many generations.

I do. Is that a problem?

You continue to try and discredit the work of climatologists.

And no doubt continue to promote the idea that the scarecrow in the fedora has provided us with non-problematic and inexhaustible supplies of fossil fuels.

Hmmmm...I not sure that your hypotheses are backed up with a whole lot of credible evidence Faux.

And...I'm not sure that the global climatological community is made up of bozos, with equipment they threw together, made with bits that they found in a junkyard.

You continue to try and discredit the work of climatologists.

The scientific community is engaged in a vast conspiracy of course.

And no doubt continue to promote the idea that the scarecrow in the fedora has provided us with non-problematic and inexhaustible supplies of fossil fuels.

What choice do we have, you certainly can't have wind turbines ruining the view from the golf course.

Hmmmm...I not sure that your hypotheses are backed up with a whole lot of credible evidence Faux.

If Trump said it, we don't need no stinking evidence.

And...I'm not sure that the global climatological community is made up of bozos, with equipment they threw together, made with bits that they found in a junkyard.

It's all a distraction, desperation to deny the truth, which is he believes what Trump tells him to believe.

Nothing else matters.

Yet you believe in God.

Oh I didnt know he was on that pathway. I believe he is cult Trumpeteer, tho hopefully not in line with those even further ultra-right behind the scenes. God help us if they continue to gain power.

Unfortunately he is not the ones on the religious non-sense God pathways, while there are many share the morals etc, yet that have logical, common sense critical thinking when it comes to most scientific data.

Over the course of Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history, the climate has changed a lot, this is true. However, the rapid warming we’re seeing now can't be explained by natural cycles of warming and cooling. The kind of changes that would normally happen over hundreds of thousands of years are happening in decades. 

Global temperatures are now at their highest since records began. In fact, the 10 warmest years on Earth, since 1880, have occurred since 2014. And just last year, in 2024, our world got hotter than ever before, temporarily going beyond the 1.5C climate threshold for the first time.

So, when people talk about climate change today, they mean anthropogenic (human-made) climate change. This is the warming of Earth’s average temperature as a result of human activity, such as burning coal, oil and gas to produce energy to fuel our homes and transport, and cutting down trees to produce the food we eat.

You mis-read most of what I've said in this string, and let's just agree that we're on opposing sides of this issue, and that, likely, neither of us is going to budge from those positions.

But, insisting that God is a scarecrow, or the screaming blue spaghetti monster, or whatever, maligns what we are. As Yoda once said: "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter."

I've already told you the means to experience justice [in this instance, that is synonymous with evidence].

Did I say climstologfists are bozos? No, that was yours, my friend. I said theirs is a 200 year-old science compared to physicsists and mathematitians and chemists, et al; thousands of years of experience. And I did not say their equipment was "equipment they threw together." That was yours, too. 

I said by my questions in the initial post of this string that they ignore whether the equipment they use is adequate to the tasks they put it to, and that said equipment must be 10x the accuracy of the tasks they put it to, and that they train the operators who measure adequately, and that they calibrate that equipment with proper technique and training, and, finally, that they verify said training to assure it was successfully taught ands learned. Most industries fail act one or more, usually more, of these proper measuring equipment handling needs. I am not maligning the equipment; I malign the processes employed to use it. I've spent a 45-year career observing, correcting, and teaching these principles in 30 countries.

I'm glad that China is working on a fusion reactor to generate electricity. My Chinese friends are the smartest people I know.

I don't understand. This claim is yours or a mormon doctrine.

Hmmmm.

Some people have conditioned expectancies, and new data input perhaps has a tendency to destabilise.

Thing is, if Faux is all that he claims to be, then he doesn't need to be so fearful of a few degrees increase in average global temperature and neither does he need to deny or attempt to discredit as he does.

But, I think that you're correct in suggesting a certain element of selective social coercion in such thought processes.

So Faux.

All manner of relatively modern everyday equipment that we largely take for granted, will come with inbuilt temperature monitoring functions.

Are you suggesting that, given it's modernity and high probability of lack lustre quality control, then none of this equipment can be relied upon to be reasonably accurate.

So my refrigerator is buzzing away at the moment and showing a temperature of 4 degrees...What range of inaccuracy should I apply to such data...Am I wasting electricity, or should I be fearful of microbial proliferation.

None of the above. Measurement equipment is what it is. I'm not necessarily talking about manufacturing measurement equipment, although it is wise to choose equipment made for longevity, but it's appropriate use for the task assigned to it, and the proper training of the personal who measure with, and who calibrate that equipment. It includes choosing the right measurement equipment of all equipment available that will accomplish the measurement of product required accurately and repetitively.

None of the above. Measurement equipment is what it is. I'm not necessarily talking about manufacturing measurement equipment, although it is wise to choose equipment made for longevity, but it's appropriate use for the task assigned to it, and the proper training of the personal who measure with, and who calibrate that equipment. It includes choosing the right measurement equipment of all equipment available that will accomplish the measurement of product required accurately and repetitively.