Environmentalism and Religion

Pompey Magnus

I have been recently been thinking about this topic and I think it might be worth starting a thread on it to see what people's opinions are. I have started reading up on the topic of climate change as it is a topic I sadly admit to not knowing enough about but as I read on the subject (especially from those who are skeptical on the topic) I began to get that feeling that I got when I was 20 and first read The Selfish Gene, that perhaps that which I assumed as a given may not be quite so certain and straightforward.

Something in paticular struck me when reading "Global Warming and Other Bollocks" by Profs Stanley Feldman and Vincent Marks. Whilst most of the book was kind of hit and miss what I found interesting was their comparison between the modern Environmentalist movement and a religion. I think it is worth me providing the relevant passage:

"In many ways, it [the green movement] has replaced religious belief with the green chatechism. Like the church, it has given rise to many splinter organisations, each interpreting this chatechism in its own peculiar way. Like the church, it defies detailed analysis of its beliefs and labels disbelievers as heretics. It has enormous influence and it proselytises constantly. It claims to be the only true faith and one that has universal approval. It ruthlessly suppresses the opinions of those who disagree with its dogma; it labels hose who oppose its views as 'deniers' or in the py of sinister multinationals; it positively seeks to influence democratically elected governments and to make supranational decisions over the heads of soverign states. It is truley a global empire of enormous power.

Now of course the obvious objections jumped to my mind, environmentalism has no god, so no god means no religion, but I think of some of the older pagan religions which worshipped the Sun and the Earth as gods in the return for good harvests and reliable weather, they did not have personified gods that we take as a given nowadays, and to my mind there is some similarities here at least. Then there is the issue of the afterlife, any mention of which is of course absent from the green movement, but again this is not a major obstacle as historians are coming around to the conclusion that many (or even most) pagans in the Roman Empire did not believe in an afterlife, people worshipped the gods for help in this life and once they died that was it.

Environmenalism, like religion, has its prophets of doom, those who tell us that the end is nigh, that for our sins we will be drowned in a great flood or starve in a famine of Biblical proportions etc. It tells us what foods are kosher and what are forbidden (eg GM crops). It tells us what we should do in the privacy of our own bedrooms (instead of bearing fruit and multiplying we must have smaller families as the world is becoming overcrowded). It feeds its followers with a Heaven and Hell type scenario, act as we tell you and Earth will return to its pristine state, ignore us and the Earth with be an barely habitable desert void of much of its current biodiverstity.

I watched an interview with Michael Crichton and he compared the Judeo Christian creation myths with the myths of the environmentalists, that there originally was some green and beautiful Eden, but along came humans and ruined that Eden, Christians teaching that humanity can be saved through belief in Christ, environmentalists teaching that humanity can be saved through sustainability.

I have been reading about the green movement's succesful attempts at banning the pesticide DDT on nothing more than supposition and unsubstantiated beliefs which have led to the deaths of millions of people from vector borne diseases such as malaria. This brings to mind the Catholic Church's attitude towards condoms and the suffering that this has caused. Also its unscientific objection to GM crops even though so many people are starving due to lack of food or failed harvests is just as criminal.

So, coming to my point (finally), would it be possible to identify environmenalism as a modern variant of traditional religion, a kind of pseudo-religion, or perhaps something more, a proto-religion, a successful modern alternative to religion just as Christianity was a successful alternative to the polytheism of it's day.

(Sorry if I rambled on a bit or if the post is a bit untidy, its something I have been considering for a while and just decided to get it down in writing to see what people's opinion is)

Húrin

I am involved in climate change campaigning myself so I have thought much about and have a lot of opinions on this topic. I think that's what you all really mean when you say "environmentalism", yes?

I think that a lot of climate change campaign literature uses apocalyptic imagery because this is a post-Christian culture. Such stuff was also until recently widely assumed to motivate people to take action though this is not the case.

Rachael Carson, author of Silent Spring first highlighted the problems with DDT. Killing birds and bees is not in the human interest for obvious reasons. She also highlighted the benefits of DDT in killing malarial mosquitos, and thus never advocated a total ban.

Like the church, it defies detailed analysis of its beliefs and labels disbelievers as heretics.

It has enormous influence and it proselytises constantly. It claims to be the only true faith and one that has universal approval.

It ruthlessly suppresses the opinions of those who disagree with its dogma; it labels hose who oppose its views as 'deniers' or in the pay of sinister multinationals;

it positively seeks to influence democratically elected governments and to make supranational decisions over the heads of soverign states. It is truley a global empire of enormous power.

The objections I have to this analysis is not the lack of a God, but that it's just slanderous and wrong. I address them thus:

The climate science that forms the motivating reason for the climate justice movement is available for anyone to read and is mostly peer-reviewed.

Enormous influence? Since people started talking about climate change, our world's CO2 emissions have done nothing other than rise and rise.

The theory of anthropogenic global warming does indeed enjoy universal scientific approval.

Ruthless suppression? How was the above published then? People who deny AGW are not necessarily in the pay of sinister multinationals (though plenty of such people have been exposed), but you don't get to be called a sceptic unless your position is based on science. People who oppose AGW because they don't like "hippies" or liberals (US Republicans), or they love cars (Jeremy Clarkson) are not sceptics, they are deniers.

Of course we seek to influence governments. All political movements made up of ordinary concerned citizens do.


TBH I would take people like Crichton, Stanley Feldman and Vincent Marks with a big pinch of salt.

Turtwig

Charco wrote: »

I have been recently been thinking about this topic and I think it might be worth starting a thread on it to see what people's opinions are. I have started reading up on the topic of climate change as it is a topic I sadly admit to not knowing enough about but as I read on the subject (especially from those who are skeptical on the topic) I began to get that feeling that I got when I was 20 and first read The Selfish Gene, that perhaps that which I assumed as a given may not be quite so certain and straightforward.

Something in paticular struck me when reading "Global Warming and Other Bollocks" by Profs Stanley Feldman and Vincent Marks. Whilst most of the book was kind of hit and miss what I found interesting was their comparison between the modern Environmentalist movement and a religion. I think it is worth me providing the relevant passage:



Now of course the obvious objections jumped to my mind, environmentalism has no god, so no god means no religion, but I think of some of the older pagan religions which worshipped the Sun and the Earth as gods in the return for good harvests and reliable weather, they did not have personified gods that we take as a given nowadays, and to my mind there is some similarities here at least. Then there is the issue of the afterlife, any mention of which is of course absent from the green movement, but again this is not a major obstacle as historians are coming around to the conclusion that many (or even most) pagans in the Roman Empire did not believe in an afterlife, people worshipped the gods for help in this life and once they died that was it.

Environmenalism, like religion, has its prophets of doom, those who tell us that the end is nigh, that for our sins we will be drowned in a great flood or starve in a famine of Biblical proportions etc. It tells us what foods are kosher and what are forbidden (eg GM crops). It tells us what we should do in the privacy of our own bedrooms (instead of bearing fruit and multiplying we must have smaller families as the world is becoming overcrowded). It feeds its followers with a Heaven and Hell type scenario, act as we tell you and Earth will return to its pristine state, ignore us and the Earth with be an barely habitable desert void of much of its current biodiverstity.

I watched an interview with Michael Crichton and he compared the Judeo Christian creation myths with the myths of the environmentalists, that there originally was some green and beautiful Eden, but along came humans and ruined that Eden, Christians teaching that humanity can be saved through belief in Christ, environmentalists teaching that humanity can be saved through sustainability.

I have been reading about the green movement's succesful attempts at banning the pesticide DDT on nothing more than supposition and unsubstantiated beliefs which have led to the deaths of millions of people from vector borne diseases such as malaria. This brings to mind the Catholic Church's attitude towards condoms and the suffering that this has caused. Also its unscientific objection to GM crops even though so many people are starving due to lack of food or failed harvests is just as criminal.

So, coming to my point (finally), would it be possible to identify environmenalism as a modern variant of traditional religion, a kind of pseudo-religion, or perhaps something more, a proto-religion, a successful modern alternative to religion just as Christianity was a successful alternative to the polytheism of it's day.

(Sorry if I rambled on a bit or if the post is a bit untidy, its something I have been considering for a while and just decided to get it down in writing to see what people's opinion is)

It's not really religion if it's based on evidence.

Of course that depends on the environmentalist you're referring to. i.e
those idiots who think green energy is harmless and clean, or those idiots who recognise that green energy is both dirty,damaging and difficult but most definitely needed to save the standards of human life that are currently in place.

I fall into the latter idiot btw:p

Dades

Interesting food for thought there, Charco.

Malty_T wrote: »

It's not really religion if it's based on evidence.

That depends - if there's disagreement about what the evidence means, and what exactly constitutes evidence then there are similarities. But of course environmentalism is not a religion - it's a movement. There are certainly similarities that can be drawn however.

btw, State of Fear is Micheal Crichton's fictional vehicle for his thoughts on the environmentalism movement. An 'interesting' read, but merely as a supplement to actual scientific publications.

Turtwig

Dades wrote: »

Interesting food for thought there, Charco.

That depends - if there's disagreement about what the evidence means, and what exactly constitutes evidence then there are similarities. But of course environmentalism is not a religion - it's a movement. There are certainly similarities that can be drawn however.

I disagree:P

It could be described as religion if you're considering the people that have environmental ideas based on personal opinions and no evidence, and sadly, there are many:(. However, when the consensus is reached based on a whole plethora of evidence from various source and disciplines then I doubt it could be classed as religion. In fact, I think it's shameful to compare the latter type to religion.

Dades

Malty_T wrote: »

I disagree:P

...I doubt it could be classed as religion. In fact, I think it's shameful to compare the latter type to religion.

What exactly are you disagreeing with? This?

Dades wrote: »

But of course environmentalism is not a religion - it's a movement.

Turtwig

Dades wrote: »

What exactly are you disagreeing with? This?

:o
*Needs a coffee to wake up*
:o

Tabnabs

Charco wrote: »

Something in paticular struck me when reading "Global Warming and Other Bollocks" by Profs Stanley Feldman and Vincent Marks. Whilst most of the book was kind of hit and miss what I found interesting was their comparison between the modern Environmentalist movement and a religion. I think it is worth me providing the relevant passage:



Now of course the obvious objections jumped to my mind, environmentalism has no god, so no god means no religion, but I think of some of the older pagan religions which worshipped the Sun and the Earth as gods in the return for good harvests and reliable weather, they did not have personified gods that we take as a given nowadays, and to my mind there is some similarities here at least. Then there is the issue of the afterlife, any mention of which is of course absent from the green movement, but again this is not a major obstacle as historians are coming around to the conclusion that many (or even most) pagans in the Roman Empire did not believe in an afterlife, people worshipped the gods for help in this life and once they died that was it.

Very interesting topic but to add some balance. A lot of popular "understanding" of pre christian religion is taken from the romatic era where the thinking of the day was used to explain the myth, legends and sagas that are so readily available, written during or recently after conversion to christianity. I would dearly love to see the sources used to put forward the theory that "historians" are coming to the conclusion that many (or even most) pagans in the Roman Empire did not believe in an afterlife. In my experience there is usually one or more possibilities in the afterlife throughout pre christian religions. Also the worship of the sun and earth is never as simple as it sounds. A more than cursory knowledge of many belief systems would show how complex the understanding of the relationship with mankind, divinity and the planets/stars/sun.

So I would 100% challenge the paragraph you quote and say that it is the product of poor research used to prop up the argument being put forward by the authors.

robindch

Charco wrote: »

So, coming to my point (finally), would it be possible to identify environmenalism as a modern variant of traditional religion, a kind of pseudo-religion, or perhaps something more, a proto-religion, a successful modern alternative to religion just as Christianity was a successful alternative to the polytheism of it's day.

While there are certainly a few people out there who produce green-talk as energetically and as free-of-evidence as the most fiery religious fundamentalist, I don't believe that this specific thing is all that widespread and I don't think the comparison is apt.

What's certainly not in doubt is that there are a lot of religious people out there who are successfully declaring that climate-change/global-warming is a religion, the better it seems to rubbish it. The creationist movement is feeding into this too, with people like our good friends in AIG are running one of their usual dishonest campaigns to encourage the gullible and clueless to reject the findings of the world's climatologists, much as they encourage the same people to reject the findings of the world's biologists. Our own homegrown Alive 'zine also takes a vigorous, evidence-free position against climatology too -- most issues have at least one article rubbishing the idea of global-warming, and this month's issue is no different (page 8).

The central problem with the entire AGW debate is that if one is to accept that it's true, then one's going to have to give up some of the smarties that modern civilization has provided.

People don't want that, so it's simply easier to declare that the messenger is a competing religion and therefore worthy only contempt, rather than actually engage with any of the unhappy facts.

.

Dr Pepper

Charco wrote: »

"Global Warming and Other Bollocks" by Profs Stanley Feldman and Vincent Marks.

Not sure how seriously you can take any claim in a book with a title like this.

* I know, I know.. Never judge a book by it's cover. :rolleyes:

I think you would have to be wearing pretty big blinkers to deny that humans have had a fairly devastating effect on the environment of this planet (especially in the past 200 years). Although not sure if this book is actually denying that, so much as seeking to ridicule the people who are trying to do something about it!

Joe1919

'So, coming to my point (finally), would it be possible to identify environmenalism as a modern variant of traditional religion, a kind of pseudo-religion, or perhaps something more, a proto-religion, a successful modern alternative to religion just as Christianity was a successful alternative to the polytheism of it's day. ' (OP)

I agree very much with the original poster, in that most of the 'naturalist' and pre-christian religions and Gods were concerned with the sun or the Earth and with other concepts such as 'fate' (the random nature of life) and fertility.

Much depends (IMO) on your defination of religion and of Gods. If you take the wider view that all 'belief systems', Gods and 'truths' are in a sense human creations of the mind, ( an idealist and post-modern view) then the original poster is right.

Also most religions have a 'telos' and some type of moral aim and enviormentalists fit well into this category.

Pompey Magnus

Dr Pepper wrote: »

Not sure how seriously you can take any claim in a book with a title like this.

* I know, I know.. Never judge a book by it's cover. :rolleyes:

I was the same but apparently it was a decision by the publishers, the original title the authors intended was something like "Challenging Dogma" but was not regarded as sexy enough so it was changed.

I am not fully advocating the book though, I managed to spot a glaring error that the authors and proof readers all seem to have missed when they claimed that the Earth's population only reached 250,000 at 0 CE, that is out by a factor of a thousand I would guess and I cannot imagine how educated people like these could not spot how ridiculous this statement was. Perhaps it was a typo but it was bad.

That said I think most was well researched and seems credible (btw I am not totally new to the topic as I covered the subject in my Geography course in college).

Dyflin wrote:

I would dearly love to see the sources used to put forward the theory that "historians" are coming to the conclusion that many (or even most) pagans in the Roman Empire did not believe in an afterlife.

I will get back to you on this later on, however I do believe this is a recent development based on inscriptions from pagan tombstones that are coming to light rather than assumptions from the Romantic era.

Húrin

I would charge that using "environmentalism" as synonymous with "climate change activism" is neither true nor productive.

Joe1919 wrote: »

Also most religions have a 'telos' and some type of moral aim and enviormentalists fit well into this category.

So do a lot of political campaigns. Climate change activism resembles political campaigns of the past much more than religions of the past.

Joe1919

Dyflin wrote: »

... I would dearly love to see the sources used to put forward the theory that "historians" are coming to the conclusion that many (or even most) pagans in the Roman Empire did not believe in an afterlife. .....

There are important historical sources that suggest that many believed that the 'soul' was mortal. i.e. It died along with the body.
I can think of a few quick sources offhand.

For example, Aristotle's in De Anima states 'That is why we can wholly dismiss as unnecessary the question whether the soul and the body are one: it is as meaningless as to ask whether the wax and the shape given to it by the stamp are one,...(BookII part1)
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/soul.html

Lucretius famous 'On the nature of things' believes in the Epicurean annihilation of the soul on death.
http://www.epicurus.info/etexts/introlucretius.html


In late medieval times this became a big issue and can be seen by the writings of Pomponazzi.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Philosophy_and_Psychology_of_Pietro_Pomponazzi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietro_Pomponazzi

A papal bull was issued in 1513 making the immortality of the soul official dogma.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pomponazzi/

As far as I know also , the early Jewish religion did not really believe in any afterlife.

Dades

^^ I know the question was asked, but let's not veer too far off-topic, thanks!

Joe1919

Húrin wrote: »

I would charge that using "environmentalism" as synonymous with "climate change activism" is neither true nor productive.



So do a lot of political campaigns. Climate change activism resembles political campaigns of the past much more than religions of the past.

The point that I am making is about 'belief' in the 'wider' sense. Is there a clear seperation between 'religion' and our other general economic and political and moral and scientific etc. beliefs?
Are they all not just 'beliefs'?

Pompey Magnus

Húrin wrote: »

I think that a lot of climate change campaign literature uses apocalyptic imagery because this is a post-Christian culture. Such stuff was also until recently widely assumed to motivate people to take action though this is not the case.

Could you clarify this please, because it seems that you admitting that the environmentalist movement intentionally exaggerates it claims of impending disaster in order to scare the public into supporting it.

I also wonder just why this apocalyptic imagery no longer works? Could it be due to the fact that every generation for the last 2,000 years has had its "The End Is Nigh" prophets, and every single one of them has been wrong. Could it be that some people have just grown immune to these proclaimers of doom and recognise the Environmental movement as just a modern day version?

Rachael Carson, author of Silent Spring first highlighted the problems with DDT. Killing birds and bees is not in the human interest for obvious reasons. She also highlighted the benefits of DDT in killing malarial mosquitos, and thus never advocated a total ban.

That she never advocated a total ban is completely unimportant. The fact is that she released into the public domain supposed "facts" relating to the health and environmental dangers of DDT based on anecdotal evidence with no tests ever having been carried out to show its affect of humans. The repercussion of her book, intended or not, was that DDT (which is believed to have saved 50,000,000 human deaths from fever between 1940-70) was banned. In 1963 there were 17 cases of malaria in Sri Lanka, in 1968 (after the banning of DDT) there were over a million. Rachel Carson is guilty for releasing the book without having facts to back her up and the environmental movement is guilty for accepting the claims without checking the evidence.

As the author Dick Taverne put it, a total ban would be "a victory for the conscience of the the rich world, invoked without regard for the facts, at the expense of the lives of the inarticulate poor".

The theory of anthropogenic global warming does indeed enjoy universal scientific approval.

This is absolutely incorrect, global warming is still a theory and there are plenty of eminent experts who disagree with it. At any rate you misunderstand how science works, science is not based on consensus, it is based on evidence and proof.

About 50 years ago there was a massive consensus among scientists was that the earth's continents were fixed and that geological features such as mountain ranges were formed by verical movement of the Earth's crust, this had not been proven but was assumed true. Plate tectonics was a small, new fringe movement since the laste 19th Century which was scoffed at until the evidence behind it became overwhelming and there was a paradigm shift. Anthropogenic global warming has not yet been proven and should not be taken as "Gospel".

but you don't get to be called a sceptic unless your position is based on science. People who oppose AGW because they don't like "hippies" or liberals (US Republicans), or they love cars (Jeremy Clarkson) are not sceptics, they are deniers.

Yes there are people such as these among the anti AGW movement who do not base their opposition on science, just as there are those among the environmentalist movement who similalry do not rely on the evidence but instead have a personal distaste for all things progressive, industrial and western, modern day luddites who want us to go back to some fictional Utopia when man and nature lived in harmony. So there is no need for you to misrepresent the opposition to score points, remember the saying about people in glass houses?

You conveniently ignore those who oppose (or at least are not yet convinced about) AGW because they do not feel the science behind the claims is conclusive. I look at the predictions of those who are behing the AGW claims and I am not impressed. In 1988 there was a model published which predicted that within a century there would be an increase in temperature of 12°C, a few years later the increase was expected to be 6°C, then 4°C, then 3°C.

Getting back to religion, this constant changing concerns me and reminds me exactly of Christian claims. For example Jesus predicted that some of those standing before him would not die before the Kingdom of God had arrived. 2,000 years later is pretty clear that Jesus' prediction has failed miserably but does this bother the true believer, clearly not. They look for other meaning behind what he said, they ignore the prediction and make it say things that Jesus did not say. Just as how they ignore all the passages in the Old Testament which explain how to recognise the true Messiah and instead take passages such as those of the suffering servant in Isaiah which do NOT refer to a Messiah and they claim that in fact it does.

So too with those believers in AGW, they look only at the evidence that supports them and they ignore the evidence that casts doubt on what they want to believe. Now I am trying not to do the same, I admit that some of the evidence for AGW is quite convincing, but I'm still in doubt. I see graphs showing a 30 year drop in temperature between 1940-1970 whilst CO2 levels were constantly increasing and I get suspicious, just as I get suspicious when I see the evironmentalist movement constantly dropping the predicted rise in global temperature in the future and even more so when I see the media bandwagon jumping on the claims of AGW.

I am a former believer (although not an activist) turned agnostic when it comes to the topic of AGW, I am not convinced and am not going to live my life with the assumption that it is real. I no longer feel guilty about not recycling despite the protests of many of my friends (in fact I feel a little good about not doing it once I discovered how ineffective recycling actually is) just as I no longer feel guilty about not attending mass despite the similar protests of my family. I don't feel like I am a bad person because I do not intend to change my lifestyle to suit the moral code set by the Green movement to achieve some higher goal and in part my decision to reexamine my attitude was based on my taking a step back and recognising the similarities between the modern environmental movement and the religious cults of the past.

Goduznt Xzst

Interesting argument about global warming I watched a few years back:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oi8651Acu4

Basically, regardless of if global warming is naturally occurring or not, or if our actions will have any impact on it, the only logical course for moving forward is to continue with our actions to try and stop/slow it.

Even if these actions are futile, they are still preferable to inaction.

pts

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Even if these actions are futile, they are still preferable to inaction.

Goduznt Xzst using Pascal's wager to argue a point, now I've seen it all.....

Goduznt Xzst

pts wrote: »

Goduznt Xzst using Pascal's wager to argue a point, now I've seen it all.....

Yes well, inherently it is Pascal's wager re-jigged for global warming, and sadly it does suffer from some of the same flaws (although not the most important caveats, which are in regards to an omnipotent deity)

Instead of the question "Which God do we believe in?" the question is now "Which actions do we take?"

I agree that "Action" is preferable, but a definition of what we should and should not invest our time and energy into is still a gray area.

EDIT: Also, I dare say, we know more about this planet than we do about heaven and hell, so given the options of trying, even in vain, to help the world that I know to survive, or working towards securing myself a position in a heaven that I don't know, the former is still far more preferable.

Turtwig

Charco wrote: »

This is absolutely incorrect, global warming is still a theory and there are plenty of eminent experts who disagree with it. At any rate you misunderstand how science works, science is not based on consensus, it is based on evidence and proof.

Charco, without going into the finer details over 90% of the worlds scientists agree that AGW is a real and valid theory. Just like Evolution has it's minority opponents, so too has climate change and these people get just as much share time as if the argument was 50:50 when it's not.
One of the major disadvantages of the media I guess.

Also, I've underlined that bit of your post, because you do not seem to understand what is meant by a scientific theory. Dispute it if you want, but not on the grounds of it being just a theory.

Personally, I think AGW denial is like a religion, because it doesn't sound good and means changing our lifestyles we'll just look the other way by listening to the doubters.

Pompey Magnus

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Interesting argument about global warming I watched a few years back:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oi8651Acu4

Basically, regardless of if global warming is naturally occurring or not, or if our actions will have any impact on it, the only logical course for moving forward is to continue with our actions to try and stop/slow it.

Even if these actions are futile, they are still preferable to inaction.

A very poor argument IMO. I could put forward the proposal that a intergalactic war is just around the corner and we should invest heavily in Earth's defenses because the cost associated with not investing far outweighs the costs associated with building up our military and that spending time deciding whether intergalactic war is likely is just wasting time. The world is not as simplistic as this guy assumes and to think that we should all jump behind his cause and risk ruin is crazy.

At any rate he made one massive assumption which was not supported by the facts, he thinks that massive investment will actually solve global warming. He is incorrect, in the completely far fetched idea that the Kyoto protocol had been successfully adhered to by every nation on Earth it would have cost the global economy $180 billion per YEAR and after a century it would have postponed the effects of global warming by 5 years.

Charco, without going into the finer details over 90% of the worlds scientists agree that AGW is a real and valid theory. Just like Evolution has it's minority opponents, so too has climate change and these people get just as much share time as if the argument was 50:50 when it's not.
One of the major disadvantages of the media I guess.

Also, I've underlined that bit of your post, because you do not seem to understand what is meant by a scientific theory. Dispute it if you want, but not on the grounds of it being just a theory.

Do you think that opposition to global warming gets as much publicity as the pro AGW lobby? Personally I wouldn't have thought so.

I understand very well what is meant by a scientific theory, I am not disputing AGW because it is "just a theory" but what I am saying that it is far from being as supported by scientific evidence as gravity or evolution.

Personally, I think AGW denial is like a religion, because it doesn't sound good and means changing our lifestyles we'll just look the other way by listening to the doubters.

That is about as credible an argument as saying atheism is a religion. People who doubt AGW are living their lives no differently to how they lived prior to the scare stories of the Earth's costal cities being swallowed by the sea and the polar ice caps being rapidly melted away. There was no change in behaviour or attitude so I don't see where you are coming from.

Goduznt Xzst

Charco wrote: »

A very poor argument IMO. I could put forward the proposal that a intergalactic war is just around the corner and we should invest heavily in Earth's defenses because the cost associated with not investing far outweighs the costs associated with building up our military and that spending time deciding whether intergalactic war is likely is just wasting time. The world is not as simplistic as this guy assumes and to think that we should all jump behind his cause and risk ruin is crazy.

Am I right in thinking you don't accept global warming is happening AT ALL. I've watched my fair share of energy summits (nuclear ftw tbh) and while the jury is out on if global warming is caused directly by humans, there is a wide consensus that global warming IS happening.

Now this is completely different to your "proposal", because there is no evidence to support it. It is not some hair brained belief thought up by some but wildly discredited by the majority. Now if a fleet of Alien spacecrafts where approaching Earth, this may be comparable to arguing whether we should invest in weaponry or assume it is a peaceful envoy.

Global Warming is happening, whether it is anthropogenic or not. Now I can understand that you are looking at this from a fiscal standpoint, but if you had paid attention to the argument, which camp you sit in is irrelevant. You believe AGW supporters are risking the financial and economic ruin of society, but have you bothered to take into account what your viewpoint is risking?

This is the crux. Which risk is greater, regardless of viewpoint? Supporting AGW or ignoring it.

Also, you seem to be assuming the position of a Prophet, do you know for a fact that if the Kyoto protocol had been universally adhered to that it would only of postponed the effects of GW for 5 years?

pts

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Yes well, inherently it is Pascal's wager re-jigged for global warming, and sadly it does suffer from some of the same flaws (although not the most important caveats, which are in regards to an omnipotent deity)

Instead of the question "Which God do we believe in?" the question is now "Which actions do we take?"

I agree that "Action" is preferable, but a definition of what we should and should not invest our time and energy into is still a gray area.

EDIT: Also, I dare say, we know more about this planet than we do about heaven and hell, so given the options of trying, even in vain, to help the world that I know to survive, or working towards securing myself a position in a heaven that I don't know, the former is still far more preferable.

I know it's not the same, I'm just pulling your leg

ChocolateSauce

I don't deny it is happening, but I do question the wisdom of trying to stop it. Now, I do think that reducing pollution is an end in itself and should be done, but the climate of the earth changes all the time, and sometimes radically quickly. There is such a vast body of evidence on the subject, and it doesn't all agree with any one single hypothesis.

I find that the majority (certainly not all, but a solid majority-maybe 60%) of people who are really into climate change are either scientifically illiterate or looney lefties, and while I'm not mentioning this in any way to speak against action on climate change, it does hold important sway over the notion that the movement is dogmatic and resembles a religion.

aidan24326

Húrin wrote: »

The theory of anthropogenic global warming does indeed enjoy universal scientific approval.

Not necessarily. While there's no denying that humans have had a negative overall impact on the environment, there's a number of credible scientists who question the role humans have played in global warming. The earth has a history of climate and temperature fluctuations that long precedes humans so to think it's all down to a century or two of our CO2 emissions might be a bit naieve.

eoin5

I think it resembles religion because its exponents want it in the hearts as well as the minds of people all around the world.

Pompey Magnus

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Am I right in thinking you don't accept global warming is happening AT ALL. I've watched my fair share of energy summits (nuclear ftw tbh) and while the jury is out on if global warming is caused directly by humans, there is a wide consensus that global warming IS happening.

I know full well that the Earth is experiencing a warming phase, that does not bother me at all however. I would be much more surprised if the Earth was not experiencing any climate change whatsoever, as climate change has basically been a constant feature of the planet since its creation.

We are in an interglacial period, which means the planet has warmed significantly compared to the preceeding glacial period, if it were not for the causes of global warming such as greenhouse gases and the Milankovitch cycle we would never have such favourable conditions and earth would be stuck in a constant ice age.

Global Warming is happening, whether it is anthropogenic or not. Now I can understand that you are looking at this from a fiscal standpoint, but if you had paid attention to the argument, which camp you sit in is irrelevant. You believe AGW supporters are risking the financial and economic ruin of society, but have you bothered to take into account what your viewpoint is risking?

Sure, there are risks if AGW is real and human technology remains unchanging for the next century (an extremely niave thought for those that hold it), however I would much prefer to let humanity keep on our current path of advancement whilst spending just a fraction of the money positively in researching and developing cleaner technologies (which is what we are doing currently) instead of wasting the money negatively in the policies suggested at Kyoto

This is the crux. Which risk is greater, regardless of viewpoint? Supporting AGW or ignoring it.

By this I take it that you are implying the absolute worst case scenario of 20 meter rise in sea level and global desertification, resulting in massive extinction of most of the Earth's flora and fauna and the loss of all the Earth's low lying coastal cities? Well then yes this would be a much greater risk.

However I know that I certainly do not believe the ridiculous doomsday scenarios proposed by many of the environmental zealots. I expect the future effects of global warming to be much milder and less destructive and so in my opinion the money can be much better spend on current human suffering that we know is happening today instead of on educated guesses and ever changing models describing the potential problems coming in 100 years.

Also, you seem to be assuming the position of a Prophet, do you know for a fact that if the Kyoto protocol had been universally adhered to that it would only of postponed the effects of GW for 5 years?

A successful Kyoto protocol would have resulted in global temperature, by 2100, increasing by 4.4°F, had the protocol been completely ignored the Earth would increase its temperature by 4.7°F. However with Kyoto the Earth would have then made up these 0.3°F by 2105.

robindch

Malty_T wrote: »

Charco, without going into the finer details over 90% of the worlds scientists agree that AGW is a real and valid theory.

Back in April, the Nobel prize-winner John Sweeney from the Department of Geography, Maynooth gave a talk here in Dublin at which AFAIR he said that the figure was higher than 90% -- probably closer to 95% or 98%. And likewise for the confidence levels of those people that AGW is real -- it's around that level too.

Malty_T wrote: »

Personally, I think AGW-denial is like a religion

I agree -- it's an emotional argument, not a rational one; it makes people feel comfortable; it's funded and promoted by small groups of people whose influence completely outweighs their numbers; it characterizes its opponents as being religious fanatics; it has no basis in reality.

There's a new book out which looks into the whole denialist movement:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/09/john_mashey_recommends_climate.php

BTW, agnotology is a new one on me, but prolly worth remembering.

Goduznt Xzst

Charco wrote: »

I take it that you are implying the absolute worst case scenario of 20 meter rise in sea level and global desertification, resulting in massive extinction of most of the Earth's flora and fauna and the loss of all the Earth's low lying coastal cities? Well then yes this would be a much greater risk.

Well then we are in agreement. We should assume AGW is true, and begin reducing the factors that we believe are causing it

Charco wrote: »

However I know that I certainly do not believe...

Stop right there. You are failing to remove yourself from your own opinion and look at the issue objectively.

If you where a neutral observer, who had no knowledge of Earth and you where posed the argument by someone for and against AGW, you have already admitted that the greater risk lies with not accepting AGW. This is a fact.

Regardless of the evidence to support either camp, RIGHT NOW, we need to be acting as if AGW IS true. You don't need to be convinced that your opinion is wrong, you only need to recognize which risk is greater.

Pompey Magnus

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Stop right there. You are failing to remove yourself from your own opinion and look at the issue objectively.

Sorry, I disagree. Humans make decisions made on judgement and cost benefit analysis, they do not decide that there is a potential risk here or there and then throw their entire effort behind the cause. There are hundreds of possibile calamities that threaten humanity. We have super-volcanoes, asteroids, famine, terrorism, global warming, nuclear war, pandemics, geomagnetic solar storms etc etc etc. All of these could causes massive hardship and disturbances to humanity.

You are urging us to throw our collective weight as society behind one paricular cause, which nobody actually knows how it is going to play out.

If you where a neutral observer, who had no knowledge of Earth and you where posed the argument by someone for and against AGW, you have already admitted that the greater risk lies with not accepting AGW. This is a fact.

No. It is only the greater risk is you accept the scare tactics at face value. I don't. I look for the evidence behind these horror stories and see that the evidence and science does not back it up. There won't be a 20 foot rise in sea level as the evidence that Al Gore cited says, a more recent estimate according to the UN is that it won't be much more like 1 foot.

Regardless of the evidence to support either camp, RIGHT NOW, we need to be acting as if AGW IS true. You don't need to be convinced that your opinion is wrong, you only need to recognize which risk is greater.

Regardless of the evidence? Seriously? In my opinion evidence and proof is everything and to rush headlong into something on emotion and inaccurate models without first knowing the facts is proposterous IMO.

As in the case of the sea level rise, had we just acted as if this was fact when the particular data predicted a 20 foot rise was expected we would have rushed to build sea defenses for areas which were never actually under threat, a complete waste of money and effort.

When it comes to environmental issues it is my opinion that emotion and scare tactics should have no place in the debate. Cold, unemotive science should be given time to work things out. Yes, the majority of scientists predict AGW is real and will cause serious calamity, maybe they are right. But before I accept their models of a non-linear, chaotic system like climate going 100 years into the future I first want to see them accurately predict what will happen in 5 years time, so far they have failed to achieve this.

bnt

I think it's possible to over-analyse the situation a bit. My view: you have groups of people who look to outside authority for guidance on what to do, rather than deciding for themselves based on available evidence. So, to get them to "do the right thing", you make it a religious prescription. It worked thousands of years ago, when pork couldn't be handled safely like other meat, so the only way to be safe was to not eat pork at all. Since then we've learned how to cure pork (in bacon, ham etc.), but the old "no pork" rules are still in force in places.

So I think it can work again: tell the sheep* to look after the environment, to save them the bother of figuring it out for themselves. What, the Bible says that the Earth is there to serve Man, so we can do what we want with it (Genesis 1:28)? Just add it to the list of Bible verses you ignore, just above Judges 19 and most of Leviticus. :rolleyes:

* yes: sheep, just it is written in Psalm 23.

Goduznt Xzst

Charco wrote: »

Regardless of the evidence? Seriously? In my opinion evidence and proof is everything and to rush headlong into something on emotion and inaccurate models without first knowing the facts is proposterous IMO.

Again, you don't understand. There isn't conclusive proof to support either hypothesis (there is a very strong case FOR AGW though, but I digress). What we are dealing with here is a black box scenario. We don't fully have all the details about what will happen and why it's happening. We only know it is happening.

I agree that the scare tactics for GW are on par with those of religious fanatics, creaming the most extreme studies off the top for their propaganda. But then I'm not siding with either camp in the debate on this one.

What is curious is that even though you speak of the "evidence" and "proof" as being critical factors for forming an opinion, you seem to already be biased into accepting the AGW denial camp.

A logical standing would be to assume a neutral position given the gaps in our current understanding. From this position you should view initiatives that accept AGW as equal to those against it. You clearly do not. You have already resigned yourself to accepting that GW is naturally occurring and that any money and time we pour into trying to slow or stop it is wasted. This to me is a religious viewpoint, because you basing your faith in your belief on evidence that has yet to be discovered.

Personally, my main motivations for finding AGW initiatives preferably to the alternative is that they aren't merely concerned with climate change but also weaning our dependence on fossil fuels.

Húrin

Joe1919 wrote: »

The point that I am making is about 'belief' in the 'wider' sense. Is there a clear seperation between 'religion' and our other general economic and political and moral and scientific etc. beliefs?
Are they all not just 'beliefs'?

Yes. But some are more materialistic than others.

Charco wrote: »

Could you clarify this please, because it seems that you admitting that the environmentalist movement intentionally exaggerates it claims of impending disaster in order to scare the public into supporting it.

The movement is made up of thousands of groups. Some of them use the most pessimistic studies to base their propaganda on. (The studies I refer to predict a future so miserable that you couldn't really exaggerate.) But most groups base their positions on the most widely accepted science, which is naturally conservative in making predictions about the future.

I also wonder just why this apocalyptic imagery no longer works? Could it be due to the fact that every generation for the last 2,000 years has had its "The End Is Nigh" prophets, and every single one of them has been wrong.

Yes, I would say so.

Could it be that some people have just grown immune to these proclaimers of doom and recognise the Environmental movement as just a modern day version?

I wouldn't say "recognise" so much as "mistake". In our culture, we have the deeply ingrained belief that tomorrow will be an upgraded version of today (since for the last fifty years, that has happened). We instinctively dismiss anything that challenges that.

The fact is that she released into the public domain supposed "facts" relating to the health and environmental dangers of DDT based on anecdotal evidence with no tests ever having been carried out to show its affect of humans.

You might be right. I haven't read her book, and it is unrelated to this discussion which appears to be about climate change.

As the author Dick Taverne put it, a total ban would be "a victory for the conscience of the the rich world, invoked without regard for the facts, at the expense of the lives of the inarticulate poor".

That is a good description of the kind of ineffective deals hammered out to "deal" with climate change, such as the Kyoto Protocol.

This is absolutely incorrect, global warming is still a theory

So are gravity and evolution.

and there are plenty of eminent experts who disagree with it

Not nearly as many climate scientists as agree with it.

At any rate you misunderstand how science works, science is not based on consensus, it is based on evidence and proof.

How do you think consensus comes about? The peers of the scientist proposing a hypothesis poke holes and ask questions until the hypothesis is discarded as flawed, or built up on evidence into a theory.

About 50 years ago there was a massive consensus among scientists was that the earth's continents were fixed and that geological features such as mountain ranges were formed by verical movement of the Earth's crust, this had not been proven but was assumed true.

That was quite proper; there was not enough evidence at the time to support plate tectonics.

Plate tectonics was a small, new fringe movement since the laste 19th Century which was scoffed at until the evidence behind it became overwhelming and there was a paradigm shift.

Of course, it is proper for scientists to be conservative about what hypothoses they approve.

Anthropogenic global warming has not yet been proven and should not be taken as "Gospel".

Scientific theories are generally not proven. But AGW has enough evidence for it to convince the great majority of climate scientists and institutions that it is the most likely explanation for the observed warming.

there are those among the environmentalist movement who similalry do not rely on the evidence but instead have a personal distaste for all things progressive, industrial and western, modern day luddites who want us to go back to some fictional Utopia when man and nature lived in harmony.

This is the stereotype of environmentalists but I have never actually met one of these people. Most climate activists I know are proficient and enthusiastic about the achievements of the modern world such as science and the internet.

So there is no need for you to misrepresent the opposition to score points

I didn't try to misrepresent climate sceptics. I was just differentiating between sceptics and deniers.

You conveniently ignore those who oppose (or at least are not yet convinced about) AGW because they do not feel the science behind the claims is conclusive.

There are very few such scientists still around.

I look at the predictions of those who are behing the AGW claims and I am not impressed. In 1988 there was a model published which predicted that within a century there would be an increase in temperature of 12°C, a few years later the increase was expected to be 6°C, then 4°C, then 3°C.

Yeah, that's what happens when you collect new evidence. Your predictions become more accurate.

Getting back to religion, this constant changing concerns me

Better dump modern geology then and reject plate tectonics!

For example Jesus predicted that some of those standing before him would not die before the Kingdom of God had arrived. 2,000 years later is pretty clear that Jesus' prediction has failed miserably but does this bother the true believer, clearly not. They look for other meaning behind what he said, they ignore the prediction and make it say things that Jesus did not say.

People think these things for good reasons but now is not the time to get into them.

So too with those believers in AGW, they look only at the evidence that supports them and they ignore the evidence that casts doubt on what they want to believe.

The "believers" are of no concern to me. The scientific opinion matters to me. AGW has gone through the trial of peer review. The evidence against it has been considered, but AGW has survived it. I very much doubt that there are many people who want such a bad news story as AGW to be true.

Now I am trying not to do the same, I admit that some of the evidence for AGW is quite convincing, but I'm still in doubt. I see graphs showing a 30 year drop in temperature between 1940-1970 whilst CO2 levels were constantly increasing and I get suspicious

That cooling was due to atmospheric sulphur particles from industry blocking out sunlight. As industry shifted from burning coal to burning oil, the particle content of the atmosphere reduced.

just as I get suspicious when I see the evironmentalist movement constantly dropping the predicted rise in global temperature in the future and even more so when I see the media bandwagon jumping on the claims of AGW.

The rise is not only predicted, but has been observed already to be happening.

I am a former believer (although not an activist) turned agnostic when it comes to the topic of AGW, I am not convinced and am not going to live my life with the assumption that it is real. I no longer feel guilty about not recycling despite the protests of many of my friends (in fact I feel a little good about not doing it once I discovered how ineffective recycling actually is) just as I no longer feel guilty about not attending mass despite the similar protests of my family.

That's good. I don't think that people should feel guilty. The problem is not with individuals, it's with our entire unsustainable economy. People should see themselves as part of the solution not part of the problem, and feel and act accordingly. That is, not obsess about "living green" in an economy that makes this feat nearly impossible. But rather, working to change that economy and society to be more sustainable.

Húrin

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I don't deny it is happening, but I do question the wisdom of trying to stop it.

Why would one not try to stop it? Runaway climate change presents a scenario of a planet 6 degrees hotter than it is today; a future of unimaginable future misery. We as a species have to throw everything we have got at this problem if we want to maintain even half our current living standards, population numbers, and dominance over the Earth.

Now, I do think that reducing pollution is an end in itself and should be done, but the climate of the earth changes all the time, and sometimes radically quickly.

As far as we know, there is no period in earth's history when the temperature changed as fast as is is changing today. In geological terms, a change of four degrees over 5,000 years is rapid; we're looking at that possibility in just 100.

I find that the majority (certainly not all, but a solid majority-maybe 60%) of people who are really into climate change are either scientifically illiterate or looney lefties, and while I'm not mentioning this in any way to speak against action on climate change, it does hold important sway over the notion that the movement is dogmatic and resembles a religion.

Isn't the purpose of division of labour so that we as a society can be more successful at getting what we want? Not everyone can be a scientist. We need to look to the scientists to get the information we need on the future of the climate. What to do with that information concerns many other professions, including activists (not a profession I know, but the point stands).

eoin5 wrote: »

I think it resembles religion because its exponents want it in the hearts as well as the minds of people all around the world.

Of course that is desirable. Mere information often does not make people act. We have to accept the reality in our "hearts" to cause action on the facts.

Charco wrote: »

I know full well that the Earth is experiencing a warming phase, that does not bother me at all however.

Why not? Don't you think that a rapidly warming planet, whatever the reason, is causing us problems?

Sure, there are risks if AGW is real and human technology remains unchanging for the next century (an extremely niave thought for those that hold it), however I would much prefer to let humanity keep on our current path of advancement

Technology will never stop advancing and I never want it to, but the current mode of advancement is fuelled by cheap oil, which will soon be unavailable. We need this cheap energy to roll out renewable energy to a desirable degree.

By this I take it that you are implying the absolute worst case scenario of 20 meter rise in sea level and global desertification, resulting in massive extinction of most of the Earth's flora and fauna and the loss of all the Earth's low lying coastal cities? Well then yes this would be a much greater risk.

That's some pretty extreme predictions that few scientists subscribe to. Even the more mainstream, conservative estimates predict mass migration, economic destruction, natural disasters, social upheaval and war.

Opponents of AGW theory say that making policy based on this theory will cause economic destruction.

However I know that I certainly do not believe the ridiculous doomsday scenarios proposed by many of the environmental zealots

That is good. Believe scientists instead.

I expect the future effects of global warming to be much milder and less destructive and so in my opinion the money can be much better spend on current human suffering that we know is happening today instead of on educated guesses and ever changing models describing the potential problems coming in 100 years.

Why do you expect only mild effects of warming? Why do you ignore the fact that much of the suffering in the world today is caused by the warming that is taking place now. It's not all about what's happening in 100 years. It's about what's happening now, and in 10, 20 and 40 years. In other words, within my lifetime and I'll certainly care about that.

A successful Kyoto protocol would have resulted in global temperature, by 2100, increasing by 4.4°F, had the protocol been completely ignored the Earth would increase its temperature by 4.7°F. However with Kyoto the Earth would have then made up these 0.3°F by 2105.

That just demonstrates how ineffective Kyoto was. I criticise agreements that are not in line with the demands implied by mainstream science. (that is pretty much all of them) Remember, such agreements not only take science into account but unfortunately also political expediency and big business conservatism and unwillingness to change.

Húrin

Charco wrote: »

Sorry, I disagree. Humans make decisions made on judgement and cost benefit analysis, they do not decide that there is a potential risk here or there and then throw their entire effort behind the cause. There are hundreds of possibile calamities that threaten humanity. We have super-volcanoes, asteroids, famine, terrorism, global warming, nuclear war, pandemics, geomagnetic solar storms etc etc etc. All of these could causes massive hardship and disturbances to humanity.

It is a cost-benefit analysis. Most such analyses have found that the cost of failing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is greater than the benefit of failing to reduce emissions. Ever heard of Nicholas Stern?

Global warming affects all of these issues, except asteroids, super-volcanoes and geomagnetic solar storms from which we couldn't do anything to protect ourselves anyway.

You are urging us to throw our collective weight as society behind one paricular cause, which nobody actually knows how it is going to play out.

Nobody knows for sure but we have a fair idea. A common denialist position: because we don't know everything, we should act as if we know nothing. Half a loaf is the same as no bread.

No. It is only the greater risk is you accept the scare tactics at face value. I don't. I look for the evidence behind these horror stories and see that the evidence and science does not back it up. There won't be a 20 foot rise in sea level as the evidence that Al Gore cited says, a more recent estimate according to the UN is that it won't be much more like 1 foot.

You don't have to accept scare tactics or a dramatic sea level rise to understand that the effects of climate change will be severe enough to warrant action. What I find most frightening is the melting of the Himalayan glaciers that irrigate the agriculture of India and Pakistan - both of whom have tha bomb.

Ever noticed how deniers talk about Al Gore much more than anyone else? Al Gore and his creations and opinions have no effect on the facts of anthropogenic global warming.

Yes, the majority of scientists predict AGW is real and will cause serious calamity, maybe they are right.

If climate scientists aren't right about climate, who is?

But before I accept their models of a non-linear, chaotic system like climate going 100 years into the future I first want to see them accurately predict what will happen in 5 years time, so far they have failed to achieve this.

Nonsense. They predicted that the global temperature would rise in the first decade of the 21st century, causing gradual shrinking of the Arctic summer ice. That is exactly what happened.

robindch wrote: »

BTW, agnotology is a new one on me, but prolly worth remembering.

Ammo for use in the other forum?