What do you REALLY think of the statement that global warming must be a religion?

Question

People care deeply about the environment and human suffering, but how on earth could people confuse an issue of science with religion? Is gravity also a religion? Or buoyancy?

Answer 1

What happens on this earth or elsewhere is because of the one who controls us - this is the basic logic in religion. Those people who believe in religion take global warming as His wish.

Answer 2

Well, since the overwhelming body of scientific evidence supports the theory of AGW,  I would say it must be the deniers who have a religious belief.

There is never absolute proof of any scientific theory, there is only the preponderance of evidence to either support it or not.  In the case of AGW the preponderance of evidence supports the theory.  Absolute proofs only happen in mathematics.  So yes, Jello,  we know somewhat what gravity does, but no one knows what it is.

Skeptic argument and Jello's argument

" ...Since modern computer models cannot with any certainty predict the weather two weeks from now, how can we rely upon computer models to predict what the Earth's climate might be like a hundred years from now? They can't! Yet people like Al "Carbon-Credit" Gore want you to believe that these models can predict the future. I bet I can do at least as well with a crystal ball (source: Kowabunga"

Answer:

"This argument betrays a misunderstanding of the difference between weather, which is chaotic and unpredictable and climate which is weather averaged out over time. While you can't predict with certainty whether a coin will land heads or tails, you can predict the statistical results of a large number of coin tosses. Or expressing that in weather terms, you can't predict the exact route a storm will take but the average temperature and precipitation will result the same for the region over a period of time.

"Climate prediction is a difficult and ever refining art. There's the problem that future behaviour of the sun is very difficult to predict. Similarly, short term perturbations like El Nino or volcanic eruptions are difficult to model. Nevertheless, climate scientists have a handle on the major drivers of climate. "

"James Hansen's 1988 climate predictions

Way back in 1988, James Hansen projected future temperature trends (Hansen 1988). Those initial projections show remarkable agreement with observation right to present day (Hansen 2006). "

  And Jazzman, many of the denier scientists really are shills for the oil companies, through propaganda outlets like the Heartland Institute.

And when you eliminate them, there aren't many left.

Skeptic argument. Lots of scientists disagree.

"People that say this often have little or no grasp of the science and are using denial to avoid having to face a danger. Fix the denial mechanism by showing them this list of sustainable/green technologies. Then make them read this consensus and say the following quote out loud: "I don't know anything about science, so given the choice of trusting 99.9% or 0.1% of the experts, I'll go with the 0.1%". If still they don't think that sounds silly and they don't start to ask questions then you are wasting your time trying to educate them. This ratio is correct because there are 12,301-14,305 members of the AGU and who knows how many European experts on climate. As Eli Rabbet says "if you ain't a member of the AGU you ain't no d**n climate scientist in the US, just like the AMA". Also keep in mind that with the tens of thousand of climate change skeptics on the planet if only %1 of them are corrupted by the $10,000 payment (or bribe) currently being offered by Exxon through AEI then you will have at minimum 200 skeptics/deniers. So far 200 skeptics/deniers have not turned up."

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_ar...

And are the scientists alarmists? Hardly.

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

"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."

  Skeptic argument :  Scientists are pressured by political pressure.

The most powerful political pressure I see is on the other side of the argument. You have the Wall St. Journal publishing phony stories about how the scientific proof against AGW has surfaced.

Their source was a manuscript, that had not been presented to other scientists for review. Real scientists present their data to other scientists, not the public, throught the popular media, so they can sway public opinion. If they had done so, it never would have been published as a scientific paper, because it wouldn't have passed scientific scrutiny. And you have Sen Inhofe calling AGW a hoax on the senate floor, based on his phony list of skeptics.

The theory is over 100 years old. The theory has been heavily researched since the mid 70s, at least.

Here's how the skeptics usually argue.  First they say there are many scientists who disagree on AGW, then when you show them the huge number of scientists who do agree, they accuse them of collusion at best, a hoax or scam or communist plot at worst.   And then when that doesn't work, they call the scientists religious believers.  Get real.

Answer 3

It really isn't a religion.  It's a fact.  so is gravity.  science is and opinion though.  in a few years, they might find out that for example, a certain medicine isn't very effective.

Answer 4

All science is a religion, because the Bible says so.

lol

Answer 5

The statement is stupid.

Answer 6

Gravity is a natural law.  I can drop an object and at any time during the fall tell you how fast the object is traveling, the rate of acceleration, and how much time is left before it hits the ground.  This works if I'm on Earth, the Moon, Jupiter, or the Sun.

No one can tell you if it will be warmer or colder next week, 1 year, or 5 years from now.  You can only believe that it will be warmer or colder, based on your opinions and belief system.

If you have to believe, it's faith.  Better to be discussed by the mystics than scientist.

Global warming is a religion.

Answer 7

I think its quite accurate.  The average joe assumes there is warming because the media says so.  They use faith alone, to believe there really is warming, when in reality, they havent actually seen, with their own eyes, evidence for warming.  Pictures of melting ice doesnt prove anything because it happens every year, all you have to do is take a picture of some mountain glaciers in the winter, and in the summer, and you will convince the dumbest of people with the difference between the two.   Anecdotal incidences, such as, " Ive lived here for 23 years, and this is the first time Ive seen *********", dont mean anything either because the timespans are too insignificant.

Its similar to a religion in that people believe it without even questioning it, because that is what they are told.  I, for example, dont believe in God because there is no reason/evidence of Gods existence.  I also dont believe in global warming, because there is no reason/evidence to think it is real.  The urban heat island effect is the major factor, s******g up all the averages.  In reality, there is no warming, our land use is causing an apparant warming.

Sure, the GISS can claim there is a strong warming in northern siberia, where no one lives, where they only have about 6 temperature stations in a 12000 square mile area, which I can only assume are NOT well maintained ( the stations need paint, bare wood radiates more heat in the sun, according to an experiment done, http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/tes... ).

Dont tell me the GISS used satellites, because they left out about 40% of the earths surface on their map, labeling it "No data".  Right.

Answer 8

I think it's exactly backwards.  I think everyone here knows by now that the AGW theory is based on scientific evidence rather than faith.  Some may not want to believe or admit it, but the AGW proponents who frequently answer here almost always provide sound scientific evidence to support their claims.  Some people obviously think this scientific evidence is flawed, and that's their perrogative, but the scientific evidence is obviously there.

Global warming 'skepticism' (denial) is basically based on a conspiracy theory.  Deniers think that scientists are all perpetrating a massive hoax in order to make it a bit easier to obtain grants a little more easily.  They think that some magic cycle that we don't understand is causing the planet to warm.  They're one step away from calling it 'the hand of God'.

Reading eric c's answer, Crichton actually makes a few interesting comparisons between environmentalism and religion.  The problem is that as is often the case with Crichton, he's missing a key difference - religion is based on fiction and faith, whereas environmentalism is based on science.

Crichton tries to claim otherwise with 2 examples - global dimming and ice core samples.

1) He claims the theory that aerosol dimming caused global cooling from 1940-1970 is unsubstantiated, that it may even be the case that human aerosol emissions peaked in the 1990s.  Typical example of poor research by Crichton.  The UK passed Clean Air Acts starting in the 1950s and the US in the 1960s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_A...

And human aerosol emissions have decreased since 1980, peaking in about 1975 (see pages 12-14 in the link below).  Right about the time global warming took over - what a coincidence!

http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/ext...

2) He claims the '800 year lag' disproves that CO2 has caused warming in the past.  That explaining the 800 year lag is "[finding] a way to rationalize their theory".  We've discussed this issue here dozens of times.

Crichton simply doesn't seem to understand how science works.  Generally those who compare AGW to religion don't.

Answer 9

Religion is over used.  Although, the Global Warming "following" as I call it is pretty crazy.  Look at coldest temperatures in most states and you have to go back 100+ years to the time they first recorded them.  FYI this is before Cars/pollution existed.  It's a huge government grant for research scientist to make a living by causing mass hysteria just like the rest of the Dumbocrates (oh sorry democrates) make a living causing mass hysteria.  FYI Obama and his church are more racist than any white/blac/purple/yellow person I have ever talked to.  Can you believe he's actually being considered for President?!?!

- Todd Charske

Answer 10

I don't agree either. I don't think people who believe in AGW are stupid or wackos or that it's a religion. It's sad that the debate is so contentious and I think all or most of us would agree on moving away from a petro-based civilization. I think one reason is that anyone who doesn't agree completely with AGW theory or whatever the latest iteration of it is that day, they're labeled an oil-company stooge or stupid or a denier (a'la Holocaust Denier). That sounds a lot like the old policy on heresy held by many religions so that might be the genesis of this idea.

I don't think it's a religion but I don't think we fully understand what causes heating and cooling on Earth and giving me a list of scientists and politicians who are on the consensus gravy-train won't convince me. Scientists are always sure of themselves, yet they've been wrong countless times before and only a fool would put complete trust in them, even if they say "this time we're really really sure". They're not evil but they are human and fallible and some have agendas that may influence their findings, even if unintentionally. If your funding is from a source that believes in global warming, wouldn't it be a risk to speak too loud about any doubt you may have or publish something that may end any future funding?

Answer 11

What the statement really demonstrates is that the writer has nothing of real substance to support their position.  When they can't adequately discuss the science of global warming, they have to revert to baseless accusations.

Answer 12

It is not global warming that is a religion, it is environmentalism. I think this idea may have been put forth by Michael Crichton.  Here are some excepts from a speech:

"I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people---the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious."

Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

  Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.

And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.

You can read his complete speech here:

http://sharpgary.org/ChrichtonCommonweal...

Let me give you an example, global dimming.  After the second world war just as co2 emissions started to rise, temperatures cooled for four decades.  The explanation given is sulphate aerosols.  I was given no link to prove that sulphates is the cause.  One article that I did read said they may have peaked during the early eighties, or  during the 90's.  But believers chose to believe the former, why?  Never mind that temperature started to rise during the mid seventies before sulphate levels peaked.  

Another example is the ice core samples.  When they first came out it was proof positive of their theory.  Upon closer examination when it was determined that co2 lagged temperatures.  They still found a way to rationalize their theory.  Now think critically and say where is the proof.  The natural force that cause temperatures to rise for 800 years while co2 fell did it stop?  if not, should you not see an acceleration of temperatures once co2 and temperatures move in the same direction? I have not seen any proof.  But you belief is based not on logic, but on faith.

And if you do not understand something, how do you rationalize your feelings? I might not understand it, but if all of the experts say it is true then it must be.  Opinion polls given that show not all of the experts agree, are rationalized and dismissed without evidence.  That is faith.

Answer 13

I thinks it's hysterically funny.

The religion is global warming skepticism.  The basic argument of the skeptics is that science isn't valid.  

"The data is bad".  "Mathematical models don't work".  "All the scientists are lying".

They're EXACTLY like New Earth Creationists.  Faced with any scientific evidence New Earth Creationists simply dismiss it with "God faked that to test our faith".  Skeptics are equally dismissive of the mountain of scientific evidence that proves global warming is real, and mostly caused by us.

Answer 14

What idiot made that statement? Obviously I dont agree.

Answer 15

no its not a religion they are crazy thats all.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=564...

Answer 16

With Al Gore`s group? Yes it is all about con-trowing power and money. They already are messing with our children minds in school by changing to the federal curriculum's. Defining the curriculum's as themes witch are more religiously and politically motivated. Undermining national sovereignty, redefining natural rights, minimizing natural laws, promoting environmentalism with a for left view, requiring multiculturalism, restructuring the ideals of government, and redefining education as job skills.

You also find the liberal media work and promoting the same indoctrination to the public.