Global warming deniers like to make the argument that AGW is just like a religion or church. Yet it’s the AGW proponents who provide scientific evidence.
The deniers frequently make false unsubstantiated claims like ":global warming has stopped":, ":the planet is cooling":, ":1934 is the hottest year on record":, ":global warming is always natural":, ":humans can’t impact climate":, etc. Because these claims have no supporting evidence, it requires blind faith to believe them.
Which side of the global warming ‘debate’ do you think is truly more like a religion, and why?
I think it comes down more to individuals. Some doubters are clearly religious in their views, but so are some believers. I generally analyze an individuals religiosity on the subject as follows:
Those who are religious in their view tend to:
1) Frequently use words like liberal/conservative as an insult
2) Mention Al Gore frequently, in an attempt to discredit or support AGW
3) Don’t post links to scientific research organizations
4) Trust op-ed pieces or personal blogs (which agree with them) by people that aren’t climate scientists, and try to cast doubt or ignore peer reviewed scientific journal articles (which disagree with them)
5) Try to lump everyone who disagrees with them into 1 category (e.g. everyone who accepts AGW is a ":liberal": or everyone who questions AGW is ":anti-environment":)
6) Try to paint things in simplistic or absolutist terms (e.g. AGW is catastrophic or it’s a hoax).
Those who are more rational and not religious in their AGW view tend to:
1) Frequently cite peer reviewed journal articles
2) Quote actual climate scientists from actual scientific research organizations
3) Acknowledge areas where there is still debate on AGW without suggesting such factors discredit the entire theory
4) Admit they aren’t as knowledgeable on the subject as those scientists who actually work and publish in the field
sick supply you the jist of the two aspects a million. liberals who attempt to cajole each physique that the climate is changing so they purchase ":eco-friendly": products that illedgedly save the earth even with the undeniable fact that it takes greater capability to lead them to like that then they save and that they decide so which you would be able to purchase them so they could get money and greater administration over human beings using international warming. 2. is the conservative area that the earth is going via organic heating and cooling cycles (thats why there are ice a while and spots between ige a while formerly human beings existed) the earth is getting warmer statistically yet its not being led to by guy its a organic cycle, i cant undergo in innovations which volcano they say it became yet while it eruoted it shot greater pollutents into the eair when you consider that guy invented fireplace. so as that could desire to enable you recognize its not led to by guy. So incredibly the eco-friendly domicile impression seems good in concept yet there is not any data that it exists. the earth gets of course warmer and cooler. additionally the ":data": of it comes from experimetns that have been replaced so as that human beings ought to get what they decide for to take heed to out of it and what they had to take heed to became that international warming is actual.
Tom P, your very use of the word ":believer": speaks for itself.
Like a religious fanatic, deniers categorically ignore any evidence contrary to what they believe.
Like a religious fanatic, deniers ignore the misdeeds of their leaders, even when they lie, exaggerate, misrepresent, or otherwise mislead.
Like a religious fanatic, deniers condemn anyone who disagrees with them, regardless of the reason.
Like a religious fanatic, deniers promote their agenda without providing any truth.
Like a religious fanatic, deniers attack those who do not follow their beliefs by calling them names, such as believer or ":goreite":.
Like a religious fanatic, deniers are not open to being wrong – skeptics are open to being wrong, we just need more reliable science.
Like a religious fanatic, deniers do not actively try to disprove their belief. Scientific method dictates that we try to disprove theories, not look for supporting evidence, even if that evidence only comes from blog sites.
I see people on both sides of the debate who make unintelligent and uninformed statements, yet you only recognize skeptics as making unintelligent statements. How many believers cite consensus as being truth which is a logical fallacy. Cite CO2 levels increased, then the temperature went up therefore CO2 caused global warming – also a logical fallacy. How many deniers ask – ":haven’t seen Al Gore’s movie?": as if that is proof AGW doesn’t exist.
There are plenty of people on both sides who do not cite scientific evidence, yet you only attribute this to one side.
Many of us skeptics do cite scientific evidence, which is always refuted by consensus. Deniers like to play ":I have a scientist": or ":My scientist is twice the age (87) than your scientists":.
I don’t think there is any question what group most resembles a religion, and you (Tom P) support my position every time you call a supporter of science a believer.
Both sides have their zealots like any large debate, but on average ":believers ": tend to post links to genuine data and information, while many deniers just make statements (jello) with little or no supporting evidence or post links to blogs like the ‘Watts’ site or the hundreds of other similar sites that seem to have sprung up recently and seem to exist to quote each other with sourceless of mis-quoted data.
Stating that ":scientific consensus": should not be trusted makes no sense who else is going to give the facts most of the rest of the world doesn’t know one end of the climate from the other.
well there’s a few ways to look at it.
the mayans and some others believed that the earth floated on something similar to a river, and at the end it would fall, and a new earth would appear
now some people believe that god would never flood the earth again and it’s all just a rumor and stuff
i definitely believe in global warming i mean if it doesn’t hit us something else will i mean i watched that special on the discovery channel…there is so many challenges coming our way…kinda scary
I think any individual that ":believes": or ":doesn’t believe": in global warming is taking a somewhat religious perspective on global warming. They are putting their faith in a belief that is not always based on science or fact. It doesn’t take faith or belief to read the literature and look at the facts — just a little time and effort.
People who think that AGW will cause great destruction but naively believe that alternative energy is viable at the moment and refuse to consider nuclear energy are religious.
So now Ken has concluded that I am religious because I correctly point out that alarmists are almost always from the left, i.e. liberal in the modern sense (in other words socialist). I would love to have odds in Vegas that you, Ken, and Bob all are going to vote Obama. That would be easy money. Just when you think alarmists couldn’t get any more absurd with thier claims, they come up with something new.
Being skeptical of a religion isn’t the same thing as being religious. In fact it is nearly the opposite: however, I do think there are athiest that behave in an irrational way that may be analogous to some blindly religious people but then again those types probably mostly believe in AGW also. I have been around for a while and during that time, I have realized that having a belief system seems to be fundamental to the human psyche. Do some alarmist behave like they are blindly religious, basing most of their facts on faith, forming their opinions based on a belief system, and trying to push their faith on others? Of course. Are their skeptics of global warming that are also religious? It is a much harder argument to make IMO.
There’s no religion in being a skeptic. We know that global warming isn’t happening. However, the alarmist cult is there for sure. Obnoxious and loud, even though they’re outweighed in numbers by a large margin. It’s incredible what people will do to make socialists richer!
The only evidence that the AGW religion will allow to be presented is that which has been reworked to fit the articles of faith just as St. Paul reworked the little he knew of the teachings of Jesus to match what he wanted to teach. If data streams do not match the Co2 rise you faithful reject them as false. If they have been through the Mann/Hansen conversion program that resolves them to agree with the Co2 charts then you will accept them.
This is why the AGW charts that have been blessed as agreeing with the articles of faith are so far off from real life temps that NASA is verifying all temperature records that Hansen might possibly have altered to justify his fraudulent claims.