Would skeptics of Global Warming be skeptical of God's existence as well ?

Question

Well known scientists have proven that GW/CC is caused by man whilst on the other hand, there is no proof as to the existence of God.

Answer 1

lol dude wtf. were you drunk and incoherent when u wrote this?

Answer 2

How exactly have they "proved" that global warming is man made?

Answer 3

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy."Richard Feynman

"I think I can safely say that no one understands quantum mechanics."

    Richard Feynman

Feynman won the 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics.

Neither science nor religion disprove the other.

Quantum physics describes a universe that is much stranger than the mechanistic scientific model that most people concieve, as defining reality.  

Some interesting books.

"The Spiritual Universe"         - Fred Alan Wolf PhD

"Taking the Quantum Leap"   - same

"The Tao of Physics"             -  F. Capra

Both authors are theorectical physicists.

As far as scientific consensus, the evidence for AGW is overwhelming.  There are very few legitimate climate scientists who are skeptics, and their numbers are falling.

The 3rd Assessment report, on global climate change  from the IPCC, has been called the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history.

"Scientific skepticism is a healthy thing. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge, improve their understanding and refine their theories. Yet this isn't what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and yet eagerly, even blindly embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog, study or 15 year old that refutes AGW"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

"The global warming is a hoax believers don't understand the difference between informed opinion, uninformed opinion, misinformed opinion and totally ignorant opinions."

from comments at  gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/236...

posted by LeeAnnG

"Honest skeptics persist at trying to convince their colleagues of alternative conclusions, and they do it by submitting their manuscripts for publication. If they do not get published, then it is because their data, their arguments, their assumptions, and their conclusions did not stand up to careful scrutiny, not because reviewers were predisposed to a different opinion. Oh sure, some reviewers can be opinionated and have their own political ax to grind, but with persistence, you can find enough fair academics to get any legitimate conclusion published. My years as a journal editor, as a reviewer, and as an author of scientific articles validates my position that most academics will give a valid minority position a fair evaluation."

http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n08/...

Here's where some of the dis-information comes from, that sways skeptics to believe doubtful information.

"The conclusions reached by Robinson et al., upon which The Wall Street Journal news item was based, in my opinion and that of my class, cannot stand the scrutiny of objective peer-review. Our judgement notwithstanding, The Wall Street Journal presented an unpublished manuscript as actual science to a gullible business world. Giving support and credence to an unpublished manuscript certainly reflects poorly on The Wall Street Journal and its standards of reporting and objectivity. We know The Wall Street Journal’s science reporting cannot be trusted if they don't know the difference between opinion and science, or worse, if they do know the difference, then they're just dishonest."

http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n08/...

And please don't forget that anthropogenic global warming has been for a century 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...

That's right, it started in 1896.

"A handful of "contrarian" scientists and public figures who are not scientists have challenged mainstream climatologists' conclusions that the warming of the last few decades has been extraordinary and that at least part of this warming has been anthropogenically induced. What must be emphasized here is that, despite the length of this section, there are truly only a handful of climatologist contrarians relative to the number of mainstream climatologists out there."

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...

Great site showing overwhelming support for IPCC findings.

"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."

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

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics".

Dr. James Baker - NOAA

Answer 4

It would suffice to say that there is perhaps a correlation between the two, i.e. the state of skepticism might carry over from one thing to another; but that does not indicate that there is a direct connection.  Although as I said, the state may carry over from one thing to another.

Answer 5

Some will acknowledge that climate change is caused by man and caused by other factors too.

Would you call those skeptics? Well, yes then, I guess some of us might also be skeptical that anyone really knows anything definitive about God.

Now you know that your question is intended to divide skeptics, those who know there is a God and all about the God they know, from those who do not. You know this is similar to linking Skepticism  with any disliked attitude, to divide those who happen to be inherently skeptical.

Remember that when you wander down the divide and conquer path, you encourage others to do so for your side. It is a very poor choice of tactics. Like a person living in a glass house throwing stones.

Answer 6

There's no connection in the two matters, especially in the way you put it. I won't refute your questionable claims but suffice to say; I'm an atheist and as for my position on global warming and environmental issues the best action I believe is no action, atleast on my part- there will always be people who care and work at saving the environment, etc. but humanity has much higher echelons to climb.

Answer 7

My sister is a devout Christian and refutes human-induced climate change as a theory.

I'm agnostic and I am convinced that humans have impacted the globe's air and natural resources so greatly that we are promoting horrific changes in the planets climate.

Answer 8

I am skeptical of neither

Answer 9

when god created the world there was no such thing as global worming that is induced by non natural consequences.When man began to to populate the earth they begin to cause dist ruction and construction and war and pestilence.God gave haven on earth to man and they destroy it for reasons not for the sake of god but for the unending desire to be kings and rulers of the universe.Dist ruction comes in many forms and the worst now is causing the imbalance in nature which god created for the survival of man.Man do not create any thing.When they first appear on earth .Everything is there for them to use and enjoy.They abuse and they now suffer.

Answer 10

Are you proposing that we have faith in the AGW theory? That is not scientific.

Answer 11

Here is a thing about the existence of God, can you see oxygen? No. Can you see atmos? No. Yet scientists say there are these things. You don't always have to see things to know that they are there

Answer 12

I like how as soon as people see "God" in a question they pipe up because they fear the worst: That God is real and I might be in trouble! Read "The Bible Code". It's a non-fiction book that may make you wish it was fiction. Some people will be dumb-founded and/or in denial. Some people will say "The Bible's all I need to believe". Still it's going to change people one way or another when they read it. Some people might not even finish it.

Answer 13

LMFAO! There is no proof.

Answer 14

so let me think... the only time the global temperature has risen above its normal cycle of hot and cold (this time by a huge level) is since the existence and consequential industrialization of humans and their co2 emissions.

global warming shows a higher level of scientific probability than the existence of GOD. those who believe in GOD don't read into statistics well, so.... lets turn this around.

prove that GW isn't real and that GOD isn't real either...

in short...

YES, yes they would. and DO.

Answer 15

Would people who like "Honey Nut Cheerios" be inclined to like mystery novels?

Answer 16

no proof what the hay are you saying there is plenty of proof  if there is no god than why are you talking oh i know you think you came from a/an ape right I guess there is no talking to you you know every thing right now as we say ........................................... wait helo how are you your name is Jehovah God and your son is Jesus ......did you here that oh you dont think there is a God right..........

Answer 17

No, not at all. It is well known by Christians that God exists and has the power to act and rescue his people. His son Jesus while on earth rebuked a storm Matthew 8:26. If God's creation was being threatened by harm done to the environment those with faith rest assured it's under control. You don't deny the existence of Jesus do you?

Answer 18

Have some kool-aid

Answer 19

not really sure where you are going with this logic. however i personally am not skeptical of God's existence but i am skeptical of global warming. not too long ago the scientific community was squawking about global cooling so give them a few years and they will change their minds again.

Answer 20

The existence of God cannot be scientifically proven.

Answer 21

Just as many scientists (or more) have signed public statements that your so called "well-known" scientists have it all wrong (http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declaration... http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.ht...

On the other hand, Jesus appeared to more than 500 people after he had died and was buried.  Despite strong opposition efforts their testimony has remained convincing for 2000 years.  Compared to the few decades of Global warming theory, this is quite a track record!