Is belief in global warming much different than religion?

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

Views: 1805

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.

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.

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 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'm done doing research. I've seen it from both sides, and I haven't seen anything resembling a consensus.

I'm moving on to other subject.

I feel like the townsfolk who all went running when the boy cried "wolf." After the first few false alarms, people tuned out the boy...

First off, "man made" and "global warming" are misnomers. It's more like "Human Assisted" "Climate Change."

Did we start it, or cause it? No. We have geological and archaeological evidence that suggests there were many ancient climate shifts. Did we make it worse? Almost certainly, emphasis on the almost. There's no way to know absolutely for sure, but the odds are good that we've made the climate shift accelerate due to our habits of pollution.

The thing that bothers me about this issue, is that it always gets hung up on "did we do it?" Who the fuck cares? Human beings are notoriously bad at taking responsibility for their fuckups, and it's not like anyone is going to be punished for 100  years of coal-electrical plants, internal combustion engines, and freon. They can be punished for ignoring the evidence now, but not for not knowing then.

Nearly every year, here in Texas, we set record high temperatures. There's a gasoline plant in the town where I live that covers the entire area in the smell of burning rubber, and I have noticed several thunder storms that are supposed to pass directly over the main intersection in town never even darken the sky. Of course, correlation is not causation, but the suggestion is unmistakeable.

This is a very big topic, not difficult to under stand, just a lot to take in. it covers several different fields of study, including Meteorology and Marine Ecology, and has become it's own field of study, Climatology.

Another hang up is when people asked "What caused it?" Nothing. Not one thing caused it. Let me rephrase that, Not one Big thing caused it. Hundreds of thousands of little things, little problems piling up, making small shifts here, small changes here, are what we are dealing with. Like wise there isn't just one big thing we can do to combat it. We're passed the point of being able to reverse it, now it's just how long can we last. There are thousands of little things we can do. Little cultural and lifestyle changes we can make. Things like driving electric cars, Using Solar power, using Biodegradable products, and shunning all those who are too much of a testosterone laden man to even think about an electric car. The way I see it, If Tesla Motors can make an electric car go 0-60 in 4 seconds, then you can find a way to make one pull a tractor through the mud. Stop being such a wus and come tackle this difficult problem with us.

Yes, there are problems with these new technologies. There always are. I would be suspicious if everything went according to plan. The batteries aren't manufactured in a clean way yet. But the lifetime of the battery is such that we can afford to invest in finding a cleaner way to make it. We need better ways to farm, we need better ways fish, and we need to get every one on the same page, because I'd rather not see my grandchildren develop skin cancer on the playground because my neighbor is too much of a man to even think about recycling.

Thanks for the post.

I don't think there is a consensus that there is global warming - otherwise I don't think the euphemism 'climate change' would have been invented. I don't even know what is meant by that - climate change. Yes, climate is change, chaos if you ask me.

To some of us, it's come to look like this:

There are volumes of papers (doctrine), spouted by experts (clergy) who tell the informed (flock) about this knowledge (belief) to drive a Tesla (good deeds) in order to prevent a disaster/ crisis (end days). Beware of those who argue with you, since they are shills of Big Oil (The Devil) and have been fooled (deceived). Avoid use of capital (reason).

I am bothered by the people who say that there is nothing left to learn, that there is one true belief, regarding climate change and religion.

I am open to receive another good summary or two, but pointing to hundreds of documents and telling me to read and believe does not work for me. It's why I left church.

Quite different as AGW is a matter of physical science whereas religion is, well, not at all. The basic theory is accepted as fact since first proposed by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.

That said, there is certainly climate hysterics which are no better than religious fundamentalists. In addition, the effects of AGW are uncertain and . However, none of those points detract from the fact that the planet is warming due to human activity. 

None here will be able to convince you if your mind is set, but I've found science journalist Peter Hadfield has put together a very pedagogic series which goes through many of the points and objections providing all the sources for his arguments.

Andy, with you doing real estate appraisals and my owning some land, we can speak the same language.

I tell people I will acknowledge human-caused climate change, and especially the resulting rise in sea levels, AFTER I sell off my oceanfront land.

Except, I'm joking.

RSS

Events

Services we love!

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service