Is global warming alarmism about theology rather than science?

Question

"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything." G.K. Chesterton

Answer 1

Yes.

Answer 2

Global warming alarmism is like the alarmism about asbestos, leaded fuel, smoking....   All fake, feel good ideas cooked up by some cookes trying to take away your rights.

Answer 3

Does your fantasy of being smarter than the members of the National Academies of Science (of all the G8 countries) come from theology?  Because I'm pretty sure it doesn't come from science.

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/clim...

Answer 4

No, I don't think so because I fail to see a connection.

Answer 5

No.  Global warming SKEPTICISM is religion.

The scientific facts say global warming is real and mostly caused by us.

Global warming skeptics can't deal with that so they say faith based things like the data is bad or the scientists are lying.

They're exactly like Creationists, who, faced with any scientific evidence say, "God created that (fossils, the Grand Canyon, etc.) to test our faith".

If you don't believe in science you can deny scientific fact.  That's what the skeptics do.

Answer 6

No, that's just one of the fascist jibes they use when they run out of bogus "proofs".  Wasn't it Emerson who coined the phrase "The last refuge of scoundrels"?

Answer 7

Yes, science is not about consensus.

Science is about provable theory and they can't prove squat.

They just believe so much that it has to be true otherwise how else would they seperate all the rotten capitalist pigs from their hard earned money to give to their oh so wonderful hand picked socialist causes.

Have to stop now my heart is bleeding so profusely that my keyboard is getting damp, wait, nope those are tears of laughter over those oh so funny loony lefties.

Answer 8

Global warming has been compared to another persistant human mythology.

That of Atlantis.  This ancient mythology suggests that a great culture and civilization was brought down by human irresponcibility.  Their cities were flooded.

Poeple beleived this mythology was fact at the time and they supported their beleif with their best scientific facts of the time.

We still do the same thing.

Jerry

Answer 9

how many journals can you source? so far you have only ranted.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...

Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years -- Crowley 289 (5477): 270 -- Science

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu...

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

http://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0709/...

Polished predictions : article : Nature Reports Climate Change

Answer 10

I'll stand by Ken's answer.  The opposite is closer to the truth.  The overwhelming body of scientific evidence says the AGW theory is valid.

And what are you basing your skepticism on?

The alarmists at this point seem to be the skeptics.  That's why they use the public mass media to try to debate the subject, instead of presenting any new findings to the other climate scientists for peer review, the way real science is done.

All kinds of conspiracy theories but no much in the way of scientific theory.

"And please don't forget that anthropogenic global warming has been for a centruy the underdog theory, it is only very recently that the mountains of research have dragged a generally conservative scientific community inexorably to a very unpleasant conclusion"

from http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10...

Yeah that sounds real alarmist to me.  

" The big difference I have with the doubters is they believe the IPCC reports seriously overstate the impact of human emissions on the climate, whereas the actual observed climate data clearly show the reports dramatically understate the impact."

"One of the most serious results of the overuse of the term "consensus" in the public discussion of global warming is that it creates a simple strategy for doubters to confuse the public, the press and politicians: Simply come up with as long a list as you can of scientists who dispute the theory. After all, such disagreement is prima facie proof that no consensus of opinion exists."

"So we end up with the absurd but pointless spectacle of the leading denier in the U.S. Senate, James Inhofe, R-Okla., who recently put out a list of more than 400 names of supposedly "prominent scientists" who supposedly "recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called 'consensus' on man-made global warming."

"As it turned out, the list is both padded and laughable, containing the opinions of TV weathermen, economists, a bunch of non-prominent scientists who aren't climate experts, and, perhaps surprisingly, even a number of people who actually believe in the consensus."

"But in any case, nothing could be more irrelevant to climate science than the opinion of people on the list such as Weather Channel founder John Coleman or famed inventor Ray Kurzweil (who actually does "think global warming is real"). Or, for that matter, my opinion -- even though I researched a Ph.D. thesis at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography on physical oceanography in the Greenland Sea."

"What matters is scientific findings -- data, not opinions. The IPCC relies on the peer-reviewed scientific literature for its conclusions, which must meet the rigorous requirements of the scientific method and which are inevitably scrutinized by others seeking to disprove that work. That is why I cite and link to as much research as is possible, hundreds of studies in the case of this article. Opinions are irrelevant."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/0... The Cold Truth about Global Warming by Joseph Romm

Here's the kind of scientific conferences that the skeptics hold.

"Over the past days, many of us have received invitations to a conference called "The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change" in New York. At first sight this may look like a scientific conference - especially to those who are not familiar with the activities of the Heartland Institute, a front group for the fossil fuel industry that is sponsoring the conference. You may remember them. They were the promoters of the Avery and Singer "Unstoppable" tour and purveyors of disinformation about numerous topics such as the demise of Kilimanjaro's ice cap. "

"A number of things reveal that this is no ordinary scientific meeting:"

"Normal scientific conferences have the goal of discussing ideas and data in order to advance scientific understanding. Not this one. The organisers are suprisingly open about this in their invitation letter to prospective speakers, which states:"

"The purpose of the conference is to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science, and that expensive campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or cost-effective."

"So this conference is not aimed at understanding, it is a PR event aimed at generating media reports. (The "official" conference goals presented to the general public on their website sound rather different, though - evidently these are already part of the PR campaign.) "

"At the regular scientific conferences we attend in our field, like the AGU conferences or many smaller ones, we do not get any honorarium for speaking - if we are lucky, we get some travel expenses paid or the conference fee waived, but often not even this. We attend such conferences not for personal financial gains but because we like to discuss science with other scientists. The Heartland Institute must have realized that this is not what drives the kind of people they are trying to attract as speakers: they are offering $1,000 to those willing to give a talk. This reminds us of the American Enterprise Institute last year offering a honorarium of $10,000 for articles by scientists disputing anthropogenic climate change. So this appear to be the current market prices for calling global warming into question: $1000 for a lecture and $10,000 for a written paper."

" At regular scientific conferences, an independent scientific committee selects the talks. Here, the financial sponsors get to select their favorite speakers. The Heartland website is seeking sponsors and in return for the cash promises "input into the program regarding speakers and panel topics". Easier than predicting future climate is therefore to predict who some of those speakers will be. We will be surprised if they do not include the many of the usual suspects e.g. Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and other such luminaries. (For those interested in scientists' links to industry sponsors, use the search function on sites like sourcewatch.org or exxonsecrets.org.)

Heartland promises a free weekend at the Marriott Marquis in Manhattan, including travel costs, to all elected officials wanting to attend.

This is very nice hotel indeed. Our recommendation to those elected officials tempted by the offer: enjoy a great weekend in Manhattan at Heartland's expense and don't waste your time on tobacco-science lectures - you are highly unlikely to hear any real science there."

by Amanda Lang

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

Here is who these skeptics are accusing of just not getting it, having no clue, etc.

Regarding the IPCC report on climate change.

"The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by ..."

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)

Royal Society of Canada

Chinese Academy of Sciences

Academié des Sciences (France)

Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)

Indian National Science Academy

Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)

Science Council of Japan

Russian Academy of Sciences

Royal Society (United Kingdom)

National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)

Australian Academy of Sciences

Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts

Caribbean Academy of Sciences

Indonesian Academy of Sciences

Royal Irish Academy

Academy of Sciences Malaysia

Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

"In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)

American Geophysical Union (AGU)

American Institute of Physics (AIP)

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

American Meteorological Society (AMS)

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

I suppose you expect us to believe that all these scientists are somehow part of a hoax or conspiracy or some other delusional conspiracy theory. The AGU alone has about 14,000 members.

"This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world."