The Church of Climatology

100% stop pollution can't be done. (especially if you include C02 as a pollutant).
We can do a lot better.
We can do it best 1 person at a time.
Don't buy things produced by the big polluters for a start.
And don't, don't, don't go around being a 'pushy' green. Its just as annoying as the Bible thumpers.

ya, but you can apply this same measure on anything, political partys, conspiracy groups, etc.

Anything seems religious when you dont believe their side of the story.

Calling things a religion when you want to dismiss something is a shortcut to critical thinking

reply to post by SaturnFX


Saturn, did you read my entire OP or did you just skim it.

Read through it again and think about what you have seen over the past 10 years. Read through a couple of the posters here. Skim through those links.

And then tell me this is not a religion.

reply to post by Chett


Yes it can, some of these nut jobs would like to see mankind wiped out.

Some of them think we should go back to living in huts.

Some VERY POWERFUL nut jobs would like to see a world population of 500 million.

There are wackos in the world and this religion is sweeping them into a frenzy.

reply to post by guidanceofthe third kind

Let's not forget to get fellow ATSers up to speed if they are unfamiliar with the smug problem:
Smug Alert

What a illogical thread.
Let's bash those who actually want to make a change and help the planet. You don't have to believe in Global Warming, you can just love Earth Day and still get bashed by right wingers. I'll never understand it.

The planet is in trouble and it sickens & disturbs me when many individuals laugh at that fact.

I may not agree with the government's way of handling the climate issue but I assure you, something needs to be done in order to help this planet and help our existence.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Calling things a religion when you want to dismiss something is a shortcut to critical thinking

This would only represent bad critical thinking if endisnighe was claiming that because global warming is a religion, then their theory is not true. I did not see any such claims. Rather I think he is just claiming 1. An observation about the nature of the current global warming system of belief by the public, 2. Given that it has taken on the characteristics of a religion anyone trying to critically address the religions held beliefs will face considerable practical obstacles in the form of closed mindedness by the members of that religion, And 3. That this new global warming religion has taken the form of not just any mundane religion but rather a fanatical sect resembling the church during the time of the middle ages inquisition.

The result of this global warming religion has resulted in the intimidation of anyone with refutational evidence such that a denier possessing such evidence may feel intimidated from releasing it for fear of facing such things as professional ridicule and denial of grant money for research. Then in reality it is more so the deniers that are analogous to Galileo and it is the Global Warming Faithful who are likely to refuse to look through the equivalent of Galileo's telescope and see the moons revolving around Jupiter. However in this case the refutational evidence might be something more like increasing ice thickness at some locations on the poles or historical ice cores that indicate that during preindustrial warming events the correlation between increased carbon and past warming indicated that the increased carbon was the effect rather than the cause of the warming.

I'm far from sure about the nature of any long term anthropomorphic effects on the climate but I am concerned that the religious nature of the debate will thwart attempts to look at the question of global warming from a rational epistemological standpoint but instead politicians will base national and international environmental policy decisions on pure dogma and special interests.

reply to post by GorehoundLarry

What a illogical thread. Let's bash those who actually want to make a change and help the planet. You don't have to believe in Global Warming, you can just love Earth Day and still get bashed by right wingers. I'll never understand it.

First, what an illogical thread.

Do you want to debate the topic or just attack than put me in the right wing box.

Thank you for proving my point or would you like to debate?

The planet is in trouble and it sickens & disturbs me when many individuals laugh at that fact. I may not agree with the government's way of handling the climate issue but I assure you, something needs to be done in order to help this planet and help our existence.

Okay, the planet is dying, what is your solution? Tax everyone into oblivion for the welfare of the governments and elite?

Discussion and debate I guess is over. Just as the people behind this movement have said since the beginning. You are only proving my point.

Do you know the techniques of avoiding an argument or debate? You can find a very good one here on ATS regarding what you and others are doing on this thread.

Also, read this members response. It is very pertinent to what I was trying to point out.

reply to post by QtheQ


Here is just a snippet of how things are done. Discussion and response.

This would only represent bad critical thinking if endisnighe was claiming that because global warming is a religion, then their theory is not true. I did not see any such claims. Rather I think he is just claiming 1. An observation about the nature of the current global warming system of belief by the public, 2. Given that it has taken on the characteristics of a religion anyone trying to critically address the religions held beliefs will face considerable practical obstacles in the form of closed mindedness by the members of that religion, And 3. That this new global warming religion has taken the form of not just any mundane religion but rather a fanatical sect resembling the church during the time of the middle ages inquisition.

My two cents:

For people who choose to 'believe' in global warming yes it's a religion. They misunderstand the scientific method and approach global warming like they do God, hoping its proponents can show them the way. There's nothing wrong with this really, it's just a waste of a perfectly good brain.

But, for those of us who choose to 'accept' the theory of human-enhanced warming because the preponderance of evidence leads us there as well as the preponderance of scientific modeling over time it's not a religion.
To me it helps explain why Kilimanjaro's ice melt is disappearing, or the fact that the Northwest Passage is now seeing commercial traffic during the summer months.

I hope someone comes up with a better reason because if they don't we're royally tooling ourselves. But so far, I hate to say it, but all evidence points to it being a natural warming cycle, that is being artificially enhanced by our activities. I wish I were wrong. I don't believe it, I grudgingly accept it and do my own little part to help stop it.

reply to post by QtheQ


Glad to see critical thinking amongst the quagmire of confusion.

I swear I am going to bookmark your comment because you hit everything, exactly as how I would have written it, for a research paper conclusion.

I did try to make it less complex to allow the readers to see my flow of thought. The initial links were only necessary to skim to help with the correlation.

I have numerous threads started on this subject, because to put it all into one thread would make it a book.

Thank you for your response.

OP, I've noticed you have a lot of "anti" (for lack of a better term) global warming threads as of late. I'm having trouble understanding exactly what your stance is.

Are you saying that global warming doesn't exist at all?

Are you just upset about the way those who believe in global warming caused by humans are going about trying to rectify it?

Do you think anyone who advocates for personal responsibility in how you affect the environment is part of this "religious" group you are discussing?

I'm just trying to understand you more before I make my comments. I don't want to be presumptuous about anything I might say before I have a better understanding about exactly what it is your trying to accomplish with these threads.

Thanks!

reply to post by kenochs


Actually, I hate to even post this, because someone is going to misquote me. I hope to hell it is caused by man. Because if it is, we can reverse or change it. But by the evidence thus far presented, on both sides, I find it very unlikely that we are even causing .5% of the warm up.

Someone had posted the temp ranges for the last 500,000 years on another thread. These temperatures were derived from ice cores.

What it had shown was that the warming periods only last about 3000 years. But the cooling periods last last much longer. We actually may very well be heading for the next cooling period.

Now this current warming period, that actually only lasted 20 of the last 30 years, has actually plateaued for the last 10. If you want to see the cooling hysteria of the 70's, just go to my home page. The hockey puck graph is bull in my eyes. This is the fail on their total theory.

I still feel that all of this CO2 MMGW is just getting us to take our eyes off the ball of very severe pollution problems. C'mon CO2, what about all the other pollutants we are putting into the atmosphere and in other locations. How about the Australia size oil and garbage slicks in the Pacific.

Thanks for posting and giving me your point of view.

Originally posted by kenochs


I hope someone comes up with a better reason because if they don't we're royally tooling ourselves. But so far, I hate to say it, but all evidence points to it being a natural warming cycle, that is being artificially enhanced by our activities. I wish I were wrong. I don't believe it, I grudgingly accept it and do my own little part to help stop it.

This is how I feel. I don't understand the data. I can't debate for or against it with cold hard facts, but this is how I've always felt things are "going down".

However, I don't think there's much we can do about it. Even if we took very drastic measures to limit how much we are affecting the possible natural cycle going on right now. I think we've crossed the point of no return. This is based purely on my opinion given the limited information I have on the subject and, well, to be quite honest, intuition.

Regardless of my belief that we are unable to cull the progression of climate change, I still think that we have no excuse for the irresponsible way we have been stewards of this planet. Being the dominant species, I think it's our duty to make sure we do as little harm as possible without also sacrificing our comforts.

I think if the Earth was a Grocery Store and we were it's managers, when the owner came back after a few months, we'd be fired for the way we managed things.

reply to post by nunya13


Okay, have you read through the OP. And have you read any of my other threads.

Where I am coming from is a 40+ year old that had gone through the Global Cooling hysteria of the 70's. We were bombarded by the doom and gloom of the Ice Age rhetoric.

So I naturally distrust doomsayers for weather.

I actually have been having fun with these threads.

Thank you for actually asking before attacking as so many others have.

I believe we are on a general warming trend. I have not seen any data to show me ANY rise in the oceans. This is just a little weird since I am sure with all of the threats of 18' rises in ocean levels, maybe some research would have been put into that.

As for this thread, give me your take on the atmosphere of actual scientific debate over the past decade? Has it been debate, or has it been rabid shut the hell up denier?

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by kenochs

 

I still feel that all of this CO2 MMGW is just getting us to take our eyes off the ball of very severe pollution problems. C'mon CO2, what about all the other pollutants we are putting into the atmosphere and in other locations. How about the Australia size oil and garbage slicks in the Pacific.

Ahhh, I'm starting to understand where you are coming from better. Thanks!

I fully agree. I'm not too sure as to why we only focus on CO2 either. I watched a show on PBS that was discussing the effects of over fishing. In Africa, for instance, over fishing was responsible for increasing in poaching. When the fish populations were low, the people turned to hunting wild animals, many of which are endangered.

Over fishing near England was responsible for a sharp increase in some kind of plankton. The populations of which were producing large amounts of methane gas into the air.

Problems such as this and many others are things that I think can't be denied and must be stopped. It starts with education and should be encouraged by positive reinforcement, not negative such as taxing a manufacturing plant.

reply to post by nunya13


Hey, nunya, say hello to my brother, niece and nephew. Just seen you are in Boise. I swung through their last September on my way back from Fresno. Back in the home state of Wisconsin.

What is funny, I have a friend on YouTube, M4GW Minnesotans for Global Warming. They have some pretty funny videos on this whole issue. With being where I live, I would not mind a little Global Warming.

reply to post by endisnighe

First off, maybe we are enhancing warming by only 0.5 percent, but if I accept that number (and I'm not sure I do) what I don't know is how to extrapolate the larger effect that .5+ increase has on the way the world works. Maybe that small impact manifests itself in changes that seem much greater.

Oh any by the way, the fact that we're able to effect the planetary climate at all has large implications, none of them very good as far as I can tell (my opinion).

What I do know by simple observation is this, greenland is melting:
www.sciencedaily.com...

Kilimanjaro Icecap is melting
www.latimes.com...

The Northwest Passage is open
www.cbc.ca...

Glaciers are melting
www.thesun.co.uk...

This is all observational evidence, but I also see the modeling (and please don't bring up climategate, it's a paper tiger) and it supports a powerful increase over time.

What scares me is not necessarily small term warming in the short term, but the short term warming that effects fresh water supplies. I think the implications for lack of fresh water is (arguably) one of the most destabilizing elements in current international policy and its due in part to changing weather patterns(thanks to global warming) and in part to population.

I'm no scientists, but again, this is where science leads me. If science proves me wrong I'll say so, and breathe a sigh of relief... Right now, I hold my breathe and worry for my son and daughter.

reply to post by nunya13

You may be right Nunya, but as I always say to the kids, 'we always try.' What choice do I have really, if I accept the science? Head in the sand isn't really the example I'm trying to set.
KE

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by nunya13

 

As for this thread, give me your take on the atmosphere of actual scientific debate over the past decade? Has it been debate, or has it been rabid shut the hell up denier?

To be honest, I'm actually confused. Being one who is always weary of the motives of politicians, it's hard for me to reconcile the "shut the hell up believers" attitude of the Bush administration with the "shut the hell up deniers" attitude of this administration.

But I do think that some people are just as adamant about denying global warming all together as there are those who are adamant about having others believe that global warming is caused solely by human activity. I think both are equally reliant on pure emotion and the beliefs of their favorite politician/tv show host and most likely ignore scientific data altogether.

I think that just like religion, both sides do it out of fear. The deniers are afraid to believe that something negative could happen to Earth that effects all life. The believers are afraid that "the world is going to end" and want to believe it's 100% reversible if only people would stop causing it.

I think these are people who completely lack the ability to look at the facts (as skewed as some of them may be) and make their own mind up. I've found that people who are so strongly set in their beliefs are so because they are incapable of being open minded and making up their own mind without having someone tell them how to think be it a family member, friends, religious leader, politician, tv/radio show host.

Just like religion, it's all based on ignorance. I'll admit that I'm a bit ignorant on the data, but because I'm aware of that ignorance, I know that I have no right to attack someone for having a different opinion.

Being that the data is tampered with, I think that just like religion, this issue of global warming can only be chalked up to being one of opinion at the moment. Therefore, pushing your opinion on someone in the form of legislation and public policy is something I have a huge problem with.

Me? I don't think the world is going to end. I think there is climate change going on (whether it's warming or cooling I honestly don't know). I don't know how bad it is or isn't going to be. But I do know that we should change our ways even if the worst that happens as a result of this change is the melting of the polar ice caps.

reply to post by kenochs


Yes, and have you heard of the theories and hypothesis behind how that much fresh water in the world's oceans may change the engine that runs the weather of the world?

But of course the best way to stop all of this Global Warming is by taxing the people more.

It is always the best way to control weather, by taxation. /s

Just being a little snippy.

Thanks for commenting.