religion and global warming

hiwayman

Climate change has been compared to religion in the past, but is it now becoming official?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6494213/Climate-change-belief-given-same-legal-status-as-religion.html

hiwayman

I should add, that I feel anyone who leans to the green side may find themselves discriminated against in a job application for fear that they may not be willing to carry out duties that may present some treat to the environment and may have a right to take such a position.

cnocbui

Of course it is a religion. You even have zealots calling for non-believers to to be put on trial for their blasphemy.

A U.S. based environmental magazine that both former Vice President Al Gore (http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2006/9/19/11408/1106?show_comments=no ) and PBS newsman Bill Moyers, for his October 11th global warming edition of “Moyers on America” titled “Is God Green?”
(http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/index.html ) have deemed respectable enough to grant one-on-one interviews to promote their projects, is now advocating Nuremberg-style war crimes trials for skeptics of human caused catastrophic global warming.
Grist Magazine’s staff writer David Roberts called for the Nuremberg-style trials for the “bastards” who were members of what he termed the global warming “denial industry.”

.

http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568

homer911

Interesting post over on the Christianity Forum referring to a survey in the Irish times the other day - "Green Party Members least likely to attend church"

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055728753

djpbarry

cnocbui wrote: »

Of course it is a religion.

For some, yes. For others, it is no more mystical or spiritual than physics or chemistry.

SeanW

Global warming would be an Orwellian dream, as it gives legitimacy to supranational institutions, as well as a whole array of new taxes (to expropriate wealth from the lower and middle classes) and regulations (governments and bureaucrats love these) in different countries. It would also make Al Gore one of the first eco-Billionaires, as he and other political elites have large stakes in carbon exchanges and other shaky/worthless ventures that depend on global warming views being taken as gospel.

That and when you consider the reactions of most environmental group leaders to the one energy generation technology proven to be able to displace filthy options like coal, i.e. nuclear, its all hysterical opposition and scaremongering the likes of which would make Bush, Cheney and Co. look like amaeturs, and propoganda (usually making liberal use of children to evoke and emotional, rather than logical response ... gee I wonder why).

At least one poster on these boards has called for a government intervention to elimitate population and economic growth altogether. I've read extreme talk of mandatory vegetarianism in places.

Even if I still felt that nuclear energy was a bad idea, I would find that position impossible to maintain if I thought the extreme measures above were necessary to stave off imminent global climate-disaster.

Given all of the above, it would really not surprise me if the whole climate change thing is a scam. It wouldn't surprise me if there were some one-world'ers pushing Greenpeace's buttons to whip up anti-nuclear frenzy, since this technology is the only reliable way to generate clean energy and would give the people of the world an end-run around the myriad of carbon taxes and carbon exchanges and carbon-related laws that are being planned.

Most religions are glorified fraud, and it wouldn't surprise me to see Global Warming being among them.

Macha

SeanW wrote: »

At least one poster on these boards has called for a government intervention to elimitate population and economic growth altogether. I've read extreme talk of mandatory vegetarianism in places.

Every movement has it's extremists. It's very easy but ultimately pointless to try to dismiss the whole movement by focusing on the lunatic fringe.

SeanW wrote: »

Most religions are glorified fraud, and it wouldn't surprise me to see Global Warming being among them.

Except that climate change is based on fact, not dogma.

hiwayman

taconnol wrote: »

Except that climate change is based on fact, not dogma.

Climate change is based on scientific evidence and theory much of which is questionable (as all scientific theory should be) but many would argue that their religion is FACT!

Macha

hiwayman wrote: »

Climate change is based on scientific evidence and theory much of which is questionable (as all scientific theory should be)

All scientific theory should be questionable? Tell me, do you consider the science of physics to be questionable when you get on a plane?

hiwayman wrote: »

but many would argue that their religion is FACT!

Actually, many religions revel in the fact that so much of what they're about is mystical and beyond explanation. ie, dogma.

cnocbui

taconnol wrote: »

Except that climate change is based on fact, not dogma.

The UK Met office has for some years been treating CO2 driven global warming as dogma and factroing it into their models. I find it interesting that their long term seasonal predictions over tha last several years have been spectacularly wrong.

I found some rather interesting tid bits where religion and global warming were mentioned in the same breath. Particularly the second one where the head of the UK Met office Hadley centre seems to be engaged in rallying thr faithful to help with his crusade:

Eco-guilt is a first-world luxury. It’s the new religion for urban populations which have lost their faith in Christianity. The IPCC report is their Bible. Al Gore and Lord Stern are their prophets.’

http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/3755623/part_3/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml

Nothing more tellingly reflects the Met Office's partisanship, however, than the fact that its present chairman is Robert Napier, a green activist who previously ran WWF UK, one of the most vociferous of the climate change lobby groups. Mr Napier now helps run not only the Met Office....He is also a director of the Alliance of Religions and Conservation, a pressure group dedicated to using the world's religions to push the same agenda.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6257987/What-makes-Met-Office-long-term-forecasts-so-wrong.html

djpbarry

cnocbui wrote: »

The UK Met office has for some years been treating CO2 driven global warming as dogma and factroing it into their models. I find it interesting that their long term seasonal predictions over tha last several years have been spectacularly wrong.

Examples?

hiwayman

taconnol wrote: »

All scientific theory should be questionable? Tell me, do you consider the science of physics to be questionable when you get on a plane?

If God appeared on earth in person and declared himself and preformed all kinds of astonishing miracle, then we would have proof of his existence. No need to question our faith anymore :rolleyes:
Likewise, when we see airliners takeoff from airports every day, I think it proves the science. I haven't heard of anyone questioning such science, but I have heard scientists question GW.

hiwayman

this is an exert from the guardian yesterday.

A British judge has decided that belief in human influence on climate has the status of religious conviction. This is being celebrated as a success by some activists. As a scientist who works on climate change, I find it deeply alarming. Is Jeremy Clarkson similarly entitled to protection if he declares himself a conscientious objector and wants to keep his 4x4?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/05/climate-change-ruling-beyond-belief-religion

cnocbui

djpbarry wrote: »

Examples?

The second link in my previous post detailed them:

forecast that Britain would enjoy a "barbecue summer" this year was only the latest of a string of predictions that proved wildly off-target. Three years ago it announced that 2007 would be "the warmest year ever", just before global temperatures plunged by 0.7 degrees Celsius, more than the world's entire net warming in the 20th century. Last winter, it forecast, would be "milder and drier than average", just before we enjoyed one of our coldest and snowiest winters for years. And in 2009 it promised us one of the "five warmest years ever", complete with that "barbecue summer", when temperatures have been struggling to reach their average of the past three decades.

djpbarry

hiwayman wrote: »

...I have heard scientists question GW.

How many climatologists are among those "scientists"?

cnocbui wrote: »

The second link in my previous post detailed them:

It would appear The Telegraph is confusing weather with climate.

ConsiderThis

djpbarry wrote: »

It would appear The Telegraph is confusing weather with climate.

Although I am an avid reader of newspapers from around the world (thanks Mr. Internet), I know enough about journalism to treat most stories with a hefty dose of scepticism.

While I may laugh quietly, or sometimes even out loud, when I realise that the middle classes drive to the bottle bank in their SUV's, or that Al Gore flies around the world in his private jet airliner scolding everyone else about their carbon footprint, (and apparantly leaving on all the lights at home), I really don't know whether man is overly responsible for climate change, or whether its all part of the natural cycles of the world.

It seems to be a fact that the predictions by some who accept that man is responsible for climate change have not come true, and that others seem to cling to the number of polar bears or the like, claiming it to be evidence, I am still not convinced either way.

It's often the case that the belief of the many is not always right, and the heretic if often proved right in the end.

I'm not sure that will be the case with global warming, but I am also not convinced that the doom mongers are also right. The evidence is just not there yet.

hiwayman

djpbarry wrote: »

How many climatologists are among those "scientists"?

According to some polls about 18% of climatologists question AGW. 82% say we play some roll.

http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html

Now I know you'll find lots in that link to argue the AGW case, but its not the point.
The point here is that the science is questioned By qualified people who are risking the careers and reputations to do so.

astrofool

taconnol wrote: »

All scientific theory should be questionable? Tell me, do you consider the science of physics to be questionable when you get on a plane?

The science of physics is very questionable, and will be for a long time to come, we are only beginning to scratch the surface of what may be possible, and have many unanswered large questions to answer to explain why exactly our universe is the way it is.

Global warming will never be able to be proven factually, we lack a control system without us existing to compare against, and thus will never know would the effects have occurred otherwise, we can say, statistically, that we are very likely to be the cause, but factually, as in, I ate a sandwich today, no.

And even going back to planes, if the physics of planes wasn't questionable, then the Boeing 787, costing billions to design, would be flying passengers right now, rather than trying to figure out how to keep it's wings attached at high loads.

djpbarry

hiwayman wrote: »

According to some polls about 18% of climatologists question AGW. 82% say we play some roll.

I would imagine that about 100% of climatologists question climate change on a daily basis – that’s their job after all. But, the fact remains that the published scientific evidence strongly supports the anthropogenic global warming theory. This shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, given the elementary physical basis for the theory.

hiwayman wrote: »

The point here is that the science is questioned By qualified people who are risking the careers and reputations to do so.

I’d be extremely concerned if ‘the science’ was not being questioned, particularly by those who work in the field - that’s the very essence of science.

astrofool wrote: »

The science of physics is very questionable, and will be for a long time to come, we are only beginning to scratch the surface of what may be possible, and have many unanswered large questions to answer to explain why exactly our universe is the way it is.

Perhaps so. However, we still possess sufficient understanding of the physical laws of the universe to derive a mathematical description of, for example, the behaviour of a satellite when launched forth into the solar system. Such simulations have so far been demonstrated to be remarkably accurate. I therefore find it somewhat puzzling that the application of mathematical modelling to the study of the Earth’s climate is so derided.

astrofool

djpbarry wrote: »

Perhaps so. However, we still possess sufficient understanding of the physical laws of the universe to derive a mathematical description of, for example, the behaviour of a satellite when launched forth into the solar system. Such simulations have so far been demonstrated to be remarkably accurate. I therefore find it somewhat puzzling that the application of mathematical modelling to the study of the Earth’s climate is so derided.

Well, look at it this way, we can send a probe slingshotting around the solar system, mostly automated, and reach it's destination, but we usually completely fail to predict tomorrow's weather

ConsiderThis

astrofool wrote: »

Well, look at it this way, we can send a probe slingshotting around the solar system, mostly automated, and reach it's destination, but we usually completely fail to predict tomorrow's weather

WHy is that surprising? One is mathematically worked out, and the other is, in your own words, "predicting"

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

Perhaps so. However, we still possess sufficient understanding of the physical laws of the universe to derive a mathematical description of, for example, the behaviour of a satellite when launched forth into the solar system. Such simulations have so far been demonstrated to be remarkably accurate. I therefore find it somewhat puzzling that the application of mathematical modelling to the study of the Earth’s climate is so derided.

there is a massive difference between the behaviour of one satellite and prediciting its oribtal path, and trying to establish an accurate model of the earths climate.... they are on two completly different levels.

the number of reference points and information needed to predict the cliamte is staggering when compared to one satellites orbit. I am sorry but you cannot compare the two.

hiwayman

I started this thread because of the slippery slope of science moving towards religion. Its amazing how people can get off track!!

djpbarry

astrofool wrote: »

Well, look at it this way, we can send a probe slingshotting around the solar system, mostly automated, and reach it's destination, but we usually completely fail to predict tomorrow's weather

Weather is notoriously difficult to accurately predict, yes. But of course, climate and weather are not the same thing.

ConsiderThis wrote: »

WHy is that surprising? One is mathematically worked out, and the other is, in your own words, "predicting"

I would use the term ‘projecting’ (implying a probable outcome) rather than ‘predicting’ (which implies a possible outcome).

robtri wrote: »

the number of reference points and information needed to predict the cliamte is staggering when compared to one satellites orbit.

Perhaps, but the number of variables required depends largely on the resolution of the model – climate change projections for Ireland are likely to be less accurate than global projections. This also raises the question of how accurate climate models need to be – what margin of error between projection and observation is acceptable?

djpbarry

hiwayman wrote: »

I started this thread because of the slippery slope of science moving towards religion. Its amazing how people can get off track!!

You began the thread by stating that climate change (not science) had been compared to religion - a discussion of the underlying science was inevitable. What exactly were you expecting?

ConsiderThis

hiwayman wrote: »

I started this thread because of the slippery slope of science moving towards religion. Its amazing how people can get off track!!

here's what I think; I think climate change sceptics probably agree that its akin to a religion, and climate change believers probably don't.

(ducks and runs for cover....)

hiwayman

djpbarry wrote: »

You began the thread by stating that climate change (not science) had been compared to religion - a discussion of the underlying science was inevitable. What exactly were you expecting?

Climate change is supposed to be scientific is it not, or perhaps you dont think so! Anyway the argument about GW has been hammered out here before, whether or not its natural or human caused, The issue as to becoming like a religion is a separate issue.

Rosette

Since 2006's UN report on Global Warming, those who deny climate change are part of the fringe. How do participants of this thread feel about being part of the consumer capitalist religion, the one where participation in the good of community is destroyed in favour of the appetite of the individual?

People slavishly follow Murdoch's publications, X-Factor, tacky magazines, and (my pet hate) Top Gear's middle-aged baggy bellies. If anything is a religion, X-Factor shows the power of branding and herd mentality that a proper religion exemplifies. Jedward are the new gladiators in the Colloseum before Rome fell.

About two years ago I realised that the world was not going to use this opportunity to tackle inequality and poverty, but that climate change would just accentuate and accelerate the inequality of distribution of resources, leaving some kids to live in shantytowns and some kids to inherit the world.

In the Middle Ages, a series of plagues led to a big drop in the workforce in England, leading to a shortage of workers, known as serfs, effectively slaves. Lords from neighbouring estates started to compete with each other for workers, eventually giving people notions of freedom and property by the formation of the US and the French Revolution. With the rising global population, the financial crisis of 2008/09, and of course, the struggle for resources such as oil, water and land, we are reversing these freedoms. Witness biometric passports and anti-terror legislation like the Patriot Act. We don't properly recognise the effects of climate change and resource struggles that are happening now.

After the inaction to the UN report on Climate Change in 2006, I accept that we humans are 98% chimpanzee and the other 2% is nothing special. Tabloid science won't make you smart.

ConsiderThis

Rosette wrote: »

People slavishly follow Murdoch's publications, X-Factor, tacky magazines, and (my pet hate) Top Gear's middle-aged baggy bellies. If anything is a religion, X-Factor shows the power of branding and herd mentality that a proper religion exemplifies. Jedward are the new gladiators in the Colloseum before Rome fell.

I know Rupert Murdock is one of the middle classes favourite people to hate, but all the things you list are choices we all have to make for ourselves. I have never seen X-factor, don't buy tacky magasines, and used to like Top gear when it was about the cars and not about the presenters, with the cars taking a back seat. So I haven't watched Top Gear for years.

I recognise something in what you say about the herd mentality, and also recognise that, when it comes to climate change, there is a sort of unpleasantness directed at many who question.

Remember, people who can think for themselves usually are proved right in the end. I prefer thinking to herd following any day!

Caoimhín

Sure the whole "Green" movement is a sort of a religion, complete with high priests and "holier than thou" mentality.

ConsiderThis

Caoimhín wrote: »

Sure the whole "Green" movement is a sort of a religion, complete with high priests and "holier than thou" mentality.

I'm guessing you are a sceptic?