Is belief in global warming much different than religion?

Tags: al, belief, blind, climate, global, gore, warming

Views: 1659

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

My professional background is in real estate appraisals, which require both a valid data source and a valid verification source.

I will change my mind if shown evidence, but (getting controversial here) right now I see man-made global warming believers like this:

Why don't you give us a list of the data and sources that you have looked at and then we can point you in the right direction.

That's the point. I haven't seen anything to substantiate that  1) there is global warming, 2) it is bad and 3) it is due to human activity.

I'm not trying to disprove anything, I just haven't seen anything to convince me to go along with any of these three proposiions.

Well when it comes to our planet, there are many things we still do not know how to measure. We don't know what's really beneath our feet in the different layers of the earth, but we have a good guess by relying on sound waves. We also have a hard time predicting weather accurately because every air particle plays a role. But the atmosphere basically is pretty easy to understand. Our atmosphere is composed of the mixed of gases that we breathe every moment. The clouds in our atmosphere act as reflectors against the sun's rays to help cool off the earth. Because of the earth's gravity, the air stays around us. Air has a cycle of it's own such as high pressures flowing to low pressures, and hot air flowing to cooler air. Air is a medium for heat and it takes many years for particles to leave our atmosphere naturally. Now if we are producing more heat than natural then of course that extra heat is stuck with us. I don't think it's all about specific statistical data (although that is a really helpful plus) because if you have a general idea of a problem it has to be addressed in the best way possible.

There's no consensus that there is man made global warming, that it is bad, or what to do about it.

I'm just saying that I'm happy to sit this one out, in the absence of good information.

There's no consensus that there is man made global warming...

Of course there is, Andy. 97% of scientific papers published since 1991 that take a position on human-caused climate change agree the earth is getting warmer and people are the cause.

, that it is bad,

It's not all bad news. You didn't know that, did you?

What a pity.

or what to do about it.

Of course there is: reduce emissions, reduce deforestation, fight misinformation and prepare for the impact.

I'm just saying that I'm happy to sit this one out, in the absence of good information.


Note that you're repeating the same unsupported claim: that either no information exists or that the information that does exist is faulty. You can resume that conversation (and continue to ignore your burden of proof) here.

Hey GM,

I'm not taking a position - I'[m sitting this one out. I'm not supporting a position, but I am a freethinker and therefore skeptical of grand claims.

I question your "97% of all paper published since 1991" stat in two ways:

1) The existence of writings to support this claim is not the same as science.

2) There apparently is lots of funding for people to write papers on the subject.

3) Scientific consensus is not proven by writings volumes of material.

4) Have any of those papers been peer reviewed?

5) Are any of those papers disputed?

Believe it or not, I'm not here to offend, but I am on this site to question belief. Your 97% stat is nothing like scientific consensus.

I just read and made a movie of a 4,500 word paper that argues for your argument. I could spend the rest of my days reading and researching all of the papers that have been written to defend your belief in man made climate crisis, but that's not reasonable.

Lastly, I'd be a lot less skeptical if certain 'leaders' weren't making so damn much money off of this belief.

I'm not taking a position - I'[m sitting this one out. I'm not supporting a position,

Of course you've taken a position. You claim that global warming is unsubstantiated. You claim there is no scientific consensus. You claim there is no "good" information available.

but I am a freethinker and therefore skeptical of grand claims.

freethinker is someone who forms opinions on the basis of reason instead of authority; someone who doubts dogma. Scientific skepticism is also based on reason and evidence.

You insist that the science which supports global warming is no good, but you persistently refuse to explain how or why. That is denial, not reason. You are a climate change denier.

I question your "97% of all paper published since 1991" stat in two ways: 

It's 97% of scientific papers published since 1991 that take a position on human-caused climate change, not 97% of all papers.

1) The existence of writings to support this claim is not the same as science.

I don't know what that means. When a scientist completes a scientific research project he or she writes a scientific paper about the findings and publishes that paper.

Specifically, the literature review examined 11,944 climate paper abstracts from 1991–2011 that matched the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. Among those that expressed a position, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. 

2) There apparently is lots of funding for people to write papers on the subject.

Every research project requires funding.

3) Scientific consensus is not proven by writings volumes of material.

Scientific consensus is reached when virtually every expert in that scientific field agrees, which is the case here.

4) Have any of those papers been peer reviewed?

Yes, all of them were published in peer-reviewed publications.

5) Are any of those papers disputed?

Beats me. Even if any of them are, it does not change that the consensus of those who expressed a position professionally stands at 97.1%.

Believe it or not, I'm not here to offend, but I am on this site to question belief. Your 97% stat is nothing like scientific consensus.

You're not questioning, you're denying.

For instance, the 97.1% stat IS the consensus. That is quite literally a quantitative measurement of the agreement expressed in every scientific paper that has taken a position.

Your response? No Gallup, that statistic is nothing like consensus.

That's not reasoning or questioning, it's content-free gainsaying.

I just read and made a movie of a 4,500 word paper that argues for your argument. I could spend the rest of my days reading and researching all of the papers that have been written to defend your belief in man made climate crisis, but that's not reasonable.

I'm afraid I don't put much stock in your sense of what is "reasonable" where climate change science is concerned, Andy.

Lastly, I'd be a lot less skeptical if certain 'leaders' weren't making so damn much money off of this belief.

You've still got it backward, Andy. Who do you think stands to make the most money by funding climate change denial, the solution for which involves a significant reduction in fossil fuel consumption and emissions?

That's the point. I haven't seen anything...

A single Google search on 'Evidence for Climate Change' brings up a vast collection of resources from NASA, NCDC, the US National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and (most importantly) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

You give the impression that you didn't see anything because you refuse to look.

to substantiate that  1) there is global warming, 2) it is bad and 3) it is due to human activity.

Click on the links above and start reading. If you want details, start with the IPCC 5th assessment report, which has the latest aggregated evidence and research, but is over 1550 pages long. If you want brevity, read the Summary for Policymakers, which is a more digestible 28 pages long. 

To answer your question: I don't "believe in" global warming as caused by human activity. Belief isn't necessary when there is evidence. And there is plenty of it. You're free to dispute that evidence, but first you must read it, understand it, specify what you're disputing, and why.

Climate change denialism-- which ignores and resists scientific evidence, spreads disinformation, and is funded by the fossil fuels lobby-- seems more like a religious belief to me.

I appreciate the response, but just as Christians will point me toward doctrine and tell me that it's my job to feel bad and take certain actions, I get the exact same vibe with the climate change movement.

I think I also see the same look in people's eyes, Christians and Climate Change proselytizers.

Setting aside the politicization of the situation, when did scientific studies become 'doctrine'?

I appreciate the response, but just as Christians will point me toward doctrine and tell me that it's my job to feel bad and take certain actions, I get the exact same vibe with the climate change movement.

I pointed you at scientific evidence, not religious doctrine. 

Your claim is that you "haven't seen anything to substantiate" human-caused global warming.

Unsubstantiated means "having no basis in reason or fact". If you claim to have seen no facts or reason that support the science of climate change, that can only mean one of two things.

According to you, either no such evidence or reason exists at all-- which is demonstrably and absurdly false-- or the evidence or reason which does exist is faulty.

That's a claim on your part. The burden of proof is your job.

I think I also see the same look in people's eyes, Christians and Climate Change proselytizers.

You've got our roles backward, Andy.

I'm the reasonable individual citing voluminous scientific evidence and reason which supports a particular position, namely that the earth is getting warmer and that human activity is almost certainly the cause.

You're the crackpot ignoring scientific evidence and reason, and making dishonest, unsupported and misleading claims that the science of climate change is faulty, doesn't exist, is a belief system, or is held in doubt by the scientific community itself. 

Your approach, not mine, resembles what some Christians do when science--  evolutionary biology, cosmology, geology-- confronts a fixed belief.

RSS

Blog Posts

PI = 4

Posted by _Robert_ on September 16, 2014 at 8:53pm 4 Comments

Invictus

Posted by Marinda on September 11, 2014 at 4:08pm 0 Comments

Ads

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service