Global Warming and Belief in God

[Andy]

Okay... How does belief in theism and global warming have any connection?

That was the point of the poll... to see if there was.

 

[Andy]

There should be no sides to science. All scientists need to be on the side of applying observation, reason, fact, and logic to answer questions, not trying to prove an agenda.

I agree. However, that isn't the case. In most cases, there are sides, and one side is normally pushing an agenda.

Real scientists, the ones who do the above, are telling us that global climate change is quite real, that it is accelerating, and that it is likely that human activities are accelerating it. They aren't saying that it will or won't be a disaster, nor are they saying for sure that human activity is accelerating it. They certainly aren't saying that we can reverse it by buying a Prius or a little corkscrew light bulb.

How do you know the 'real' scientist are supporting this view as opposed to the other scientists that support the opposing view?

Besides that, the evidence doesn't support it. The average global temp has been dropping very slowly since 1998, and 2008 has been a record drop in temp.

Science shouldn't be funded on the basis of what the findings are, as that would encourage a particular conclusion.

Yet, the fact is most are.

What I find fascinating about the debate is listening to the moguls of rant radio going on about how global warming is a liberal myth being perpetrated in order to give more power to the government, then going to commercial where we hear that we need to buy a particular air conditioner, light bulb, car, or whatever or leave a desert to our children. Hey, I'm not making that up! I've heard it more than once. Talk about profiteering from a supposed impending disaster, that is the best example I've heard in a long time.

Actually, that isn't exactly the case. Most of the products are billed as money saving. Like Rush endorses the instant tankless water heater. This is billed as saving money. I'm all for using less energy for the purpose of reducing cost.

That said, I know exactly what your talking about. I have heard them myself. One time a talk show was going off about a political ad, and then during a station break, the very ad being discussed came on. What I later found out is with nationally syndicated radio there are two different groups of ad space sold.

One is the national show, which sells ad space which pays for the show. The other local ad space which is sold by the individual radio stations, and goes to the station. The show, or host of the talk show, directly controls the ads it sells space to, but does not control the ad space the local stations sell.

I didn't know this either until I heard about it from (I believe) Dave Ramsey. Dave is not political, he's a guy who helps people with money problems, and teaches people how to not get in debt. He rails against Credit Cards companies constantly.

During one of the shows, someone called in and asked why he sold an ad to a Credit Card company, when he rails against them all the time. Dave asked that they give the name of the station, and the specific ad so that he could contact the station and have the ad removed. He then explained the difference between local ad and the ads the show sells. He has no control over those the local station sells, except that as part of his syndication clause, he can have them removed. But he doesn't get money from them, nor does he even know who those ads are sold to, since it's all done by the local station.

 

[Not Amused]

Andy.

Besides that, the evidence doesn't support it. The average global temp has been dropping very slowly since 1998, and 2008 has been a record drop in temp

Again, this is an aspect that completely pisses me off and compounds my request that the data be put into the public domain.

What happened when the computer models did not take the above into account?

They tweaked the models (how exactly?) and now predict that warming will recommence in 2014. The computer models are only as good as the data being fed into them.

Why is there no mention within the mainstream, that we are currently undergoing a solar minimum for one, which I believe was not actually considered by/entered into the models by the AGW scientists.

If we cannot predict the weather accurately for more than 24 hours, how on earth can the AGW scientists possibly predict what will happen in 2014?

The Earths climate has a myriad of still unexplainable variables, hence the AGW hypotheses requires an immense leap of faith. There is so much at stake here I for one am not willing to take that leap until in house peer review is removed.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

It doesn't require as big a leap of faith as the belief in god.

 

[Not Amused]

It doesn't require as big a leap of faith as the belief in god.

That, my dear Dawkins is most definitely NOT the point; although some scientists (I use that term lightly when the method of arrival at said conclusions, of said hypotheses are fully understood) think they are God.

The fact that if some within the IPCC had their way (look at their past individual belief systems before scoffing), we would be transported back into the dark ages by taking said leap of faith; along with the truly probable, devastating repercussions that go with it.

Those who have taken this great leap of faith already, declare the repercussions for future generations will be catastrophic if we do not 'do something', so will the repercussions, if they are wrong.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Is that the dark ages of medieval religion when you were imprisoned or killed for such wild theorising as the Earth actually goes around the Sun???/

 

[Not Amused]

Is that the dark ages of medieval religion when you were imprisoned or killed for such wild theorising as the Earth actually goes around the Sun???/

Come, come Dawkins.

You know exactly what I am referring to. Lets play fair shall we?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

You live in a nation that does not understand fair.

The US is a bully that presents its hideous acts in colours that the citizens like and can't see beyond.

Take the extradition of the poor unemployed guy from the UK who hacked into the Pentagon.

The US is seeking a lengthy prison term.

But the Pentagon routinely hacks into every countries's IT systemns as a matter of course.

Is that the kind of 'fair' you mean?

 

[Not Amused]

You live in a nation that does not understand fair.

The US is a bully that presents its hideous acts in colours that the citizens like and can't see beyond.

Take the extradition of the poor unemployed guy from the UK who hacked into the Pentagon.

The US is seeking a lengthy prison term.

But the Pentagon routinely hacks into every countries's IT systemns as a matter of course.

Is that the kind of 'fair' you mean?

No Dawkins.

I am not an American and do not reside in the US .

I do agree with you though, regarding the extradition of the guy from the UK who hacked into the Pentagon.

Firstly, we should decide on and implement any punishment here in the UK, as the penal system in the US leaves a great deal to be desired.

Secondly, the Pentagon owe this gentleman a huge debt in my personal opinion.

He has highlighted the vast holes that obviously exist in their overall computer security systems, this terrible 'lapse' with possible highly dangerous repercussions, to my mind is a far more serious offence than the amateur hacking shenanigans of an ordinary Joe Bloggs.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

I never thought we would be in agreemnet on anything but you are right on the money there;-)

I doubt that anyone at the Pentagon is facing prison for deploying digital security that is so poor that an amateur UFO seeker can hack in.

Like nobody was disciplined for 9/11.

But that is because the US Government did it.

 

[palerider]

Palerider.

One aspect that really bugs the hell out of me, is the insistence by many, that any scientist, associated with oil in any way, or form, cannot be a credible source of information.

This is complete madness in my opinion. What such people fail to realize, is that most of the peer review regarding AGW, is actually in house.

This means of course that many of the scientists who believe. I say believe (due to the huge leap of faith involved here) have their own like minded belief systems and as a result, agenda; yet one is not allowed to question their motives.

Why will the scientists involved in the AGW hypothesis not allow the data to be put into the public domain? One cannot help feeling that if the evidence supporting AGW is so completely damning (I use the term evidence lightly) why are they so afraid to do just this? Food for thought I feel.

Well. Maybe not madness but a logica fallacy without any doubt. Arguments built on logical fallacy are worthless and anyone who attempts to make an argument based on logical fallacy should not be considered too bright to begin with.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Unfortunately there is a group in the scientiffic world who will say what they are paid to write.

For example, most of the anti-drugs science is sponsored by the drinks industry because recreational drugs are a big threat to their revenues. The wild claims made against ecstasy are clearly unfounded otherwise people would be dropping like flies in clubs every weekend.

 

[PLC1]

Unfortunately there is a group in the scientiffic world who will say what they are paid to write.

For example, most of the anti-drugs science is sponsored by the drinks industry because recreational drugs are a big threat to their revenues. The wild claims made against ecstasy are clearly unfounded otherwise people would be dropping like flies in clubs every weekend.

You know this,... how again???

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

I have read several studies and seen how the evidence overwhelmingly contradicts the 'research'.

A little bit of digging takes you to the sponsor of said research.

More people die from eating peanuts than from taking ecstatsy.

 

[PLC1]

I have read several studies and seen how the evidence overwhelmingly contradicts the 'research'.

A little bit of digging takes you to the sponsor of said research.

More people die from eating peanuts than from taking ecstatsy.

Ah, so we have the word (unsubstantiated) of Dawkinsrocks. Do we have any actual evidence?