Replies are closed for this discussion.
First...you should try and calm down. Second...could you give us a list of what you have actually read (regardless of if it was convincing or not). I really have to know what you've read before I can point you in the right direction.
I'm cool as a cucumber my man, and 've read too much to list.
I'm left with the feeling that you haven't read anything of substance. Could you give us one example of a citable source that you've read? Just one???
I wrote about this in depth some months ago.
Looks interesting. I don't have time to read it right now, but if it's got good data sources and verification sources, I will consider it very informative.
It may be that any belief of this kind, could be called an illusion as there is no proof or evidence that can stand up to the test of reality.
A belief is certainly a mental construct. We're getting into Kant territory, since we only experience the world through our 5 senses. We live in the phenomenal realm, and we can never actually experience the noumenal (actual) one.
I recently watched AronRa make a good point, and I try to follow the lead. I will use my reason, meaning that I can and do change my mind when I come across and verify good information.
In a larger sense, living in the information age also means living in the misinformation and disinformation age.
Right now, it still seems like a lot to swallow: 1) planet is getting warmer, 2) it's due to human activity, and 3) global warming is bad.
But it isn't even called global warming anymore. I've found that euphemisms are used largely by those who want to conceal, rather than reveal truth.
I could be wrong, but it seems like a religious belief to many.
There is little doubt that the globe is warming. The dispute is over the cause(s).
Global warming and cooling are hardly unprecedented. This is easy to understand and feeds the argument that we're just experiencing a natural climate cycle.
On the other hand, the techniques used to attempt to prove that humans are the primary cause involve extremely abstruse science, fraught with assumptions and statistical tweaks often used to smooth over (ignore?) seemingly contradictory data.
I'm not saying that humans are not the cause of global warming. I'm saying that proving it to the common person and even to many non-climate specialized scientists is probably a practical impossibility, leaving us with a "because we say so" from those climate scientists who see humanity as the cause. In other words, the science is hard to understand.
Then "climategate" came along and we discovered that there were climate scientist politics going on. That didn't help.
In fact, there is a group of scientists, the meteorologists, who are skeptical of the climate scientists' data. When I refer to meteorologists, I don't mean that cute girl or guy who talks about the weather on your local TV station. If s/he's a meteorologist at all, s/he's almost certainly not a PhD. I'm talking about professors of meteorology, meteorologists working for NASA, and other real scientists. This article makes an interesting read when it comes to meteorological skepticism.
Then, economist Bjorn Lomborg, not a true climate skeptic, argues that concern for climate change has become out of proportion and that we have many other problems to deal with. Here is his TED talk on the subject:
It's damn near impossible to find a non-controversial data source on the subject.
Or maybe the debate itself has become a "controversy magnet."
I'll go to that link Unseen :)
Here's a nice quote from that article:
"...believing that some warming is occurring is not the same as believing humans are causing a worrisome crisis."