Global warming is the new religion of First World urban elites

[American]

Link

Geologist Ian Plimer takes a contrary view, arguing that man-made climate change is a con trick perpetuated by environmentalists
By Jonathan Manthorpe, Vancouver SunJuly 29, 2009 3:47 PM

The Canadian oilsands industry has been getting a rough ride in recent months in the U.S., where many politicians have lined up to urge restrictions on imports of Canada's 'dirty oil.' California is moving to a low-carbon fuel standard, big-city mayors have targeted oilsands as a driver of global warming, a Photograph by: Tim Fraser/Calgary Herald, Canwest News ServiceIan Plimer has outraged the ayatollahs of purist environmentalism, the Torquemadas of the doctrine of global warming, and he seems to relish the damnation they heap on him.
Plimer is a geologist, professor of mining geology at Adelaide University, and he may well be Australia's best-known and most notorious academic.
Plimer, you see, is an unremitting critic of "anthropogenic global warming" -- man-made climate change to you and me -- and the current environmental orthodoxy that if we change our polluting ways, global warming can be reversed.
It is, of course, not new to have a highly qualified scientist saying that global warming is an entirely natural phenomenon with many precedents in history. Many have made the argument, too, that it is rubbish to contend human behaviour is causing the current climate change. And it has often been well argued that it is totally ridiculous to suppose that changes in human behaviour -- cleaning up our act through expensive slight-of-hand taxation tricks -- can reverse the trend.

Thoughts?

 

[nkgupta80]

I agree, the question of global warming has become too politicized. Healthy debate in the scientific community is important. I hate when people look at me as if I said something stupid when I question global warming.

 

[OxymoronP]

Global warming is a fact!

Whether it is human made is another animal all together. There is no evidence that humans are responsible for this current climate change, one of the countless that the Earth has exprienced through its geological history.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

The article reads like an editorial. However, the assertion it makes is rather absurd.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a religion, its a scientific theory. You see there is a big difference between a scientific theory like Anthropogenic Global Warming, Evolution, or Plate Tectonics, and a religious belief such as Christianity, Islam, or Judaism.

A Scientific Theory is constructed from elementary theorems that consist in empirical data about observable phenomena. A scientific theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.

A Religious Belief is a belief one holds as to certain aspects of human nature, a deity, and the origins and purpose of life that is largely if not entirely based upon faith rather than empirical observation.

Just because the majority of educated individuals in the developed world (those first world elites) have accepted the prevailing science on climate change does not mean that its a religion for them. That is not to say that on the extremes there are not some literal earth worshipers out there, but they represent a tiny portion of the populace. Just the same, for that small minority, these beliefs are as much faith as just the acceptance of prevailing science.

However, there are also plenty of very hard core right wingers that have a knee jerk reaction to all things science and specifically anything related to conservation and environmental protection. That reaction is the fruit of a philosophy rather than any empirical observation as any avid outdoorsman knows that human beings undoubtably can and have significantly altered large portions of the earth's environment.

I am all for vigorous scientific debate, but you cant have a scientific debate when you describe a prevailing scientific theory as nothing more than a religious belief.

 

[sam_w]

The article reads like an editorial. However, the assertion it makes is rather absurd.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a religion, its a scientific theory. You see there is a big difference between a scientific theory like Anthropogenic Global Warming, Evolution, or Plate Tectonics, and a religious belief such as Christianity, Islam, or Judaism.

A Scientific Theory is constructed from elementary theorems that consist in empirical data about observable phenomena. A scientific theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.

A Religious Belief is a belief one holds as to certain aspects of human nature, a deity, and the origins and purpose of life that is largely if not entirely based upon faith rather than empirical observation.

Just because the majority of educated individuals in the developed world (those first world elites) have accepted the prevailing science on climate change does not mean that its a religion for them. That is not to say that on the extremes there are not some literal earth worshipers out there, but they represent a tiny portion of the populace. Just the same, for that small minority, these beliefs are as much faith as just the acceptance of prevailing science.

However, there are also plenty of very hard core right wingers that have a knee jerk reaction to all things science and specifically anything related to conservation and environmental protection. That reaction is the fruit of a philosophy rather than any empirical observation as any avid outdoorsman knows that human beings undoubtably can and have significantly altered large portions of the earth's environment.

I am all for vigorous scientific debate, but you cant have a scientific debate when you describe a prevailing scientific theory as nothing more than a religious belief.

Excuse me, but we ALL know that Plate Tectonics is a hoax put out by the leftist earthquake lobby. Now excuse me, but I have to catch a flight to Gondwana.

 

[Arch Enemy]

Anything that undergoes wide spread acceptance and holds metaphysical properties (i.e. uncertainties and speculations) will form it's own cult/religious identity.

 

[nkgupta80]

The article reads like an editorial. However, the assertion it makes is rather absurd.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a religion, its a scientific theory. You see there is a big difference between a scientific theory like Anthropogenic Global Warming, Evolution, or Plate Tectonics, and a religious belief such as Christianity, Islam, or Judaism.

A Scientific Theory is constructed from elementary theorems that consist in empirical data about observable phenomena. A scientific theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.

A Religious Belief is a belief one holds as to certain aspects of human nature, a deity, and the origins and purpose of life that is largely if not entirely based upon faith rather than empirical observation.

Just because the majority of educated individuals in the developed world (those first world elites) have accepted the prevailing science on climate change does not mean that its a religion for them. That is not to say that on the extremes there are not some literal earth worshipers out there, but they represent a tiny portion of the populace. Just the same, for that small minority, these beliefs are as much faith as just the acceptance of prevailing science.

However, there are also plenty of very hard core right wingers that have a knee jerk reaction to all things science and specifically anything related to conservation and environmental protection. That reaction is the fruit of a philosophy rather than any empirical observation as any avid outdoorsman knows that human beings undoubtably can and have significantly altered large portions of the earth's environment.

I am all for vigorous scientific debate, but you cant have a scientific debate when you describe a prevailing scientific theory as nothing more than a religious belief.

The point is that for the layman (which includes the "first world elite"), it is not a scientific topic but a social topic. Therefore, the average person who supports the global warming theory will have a knee-jerk, dogmatic reaction to criticism. I guess its understandable considering the implications of global warming.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

The point is that for the layman (which includes the "first world elite"), it is not a scientific topic but a social topic. Therefore, the average person who supports the global warming theory will have a knee-jerk, dogmatic reaction to criticism. I guess its understandable considering the implications of global warming.

I think it depends on the source of the criticism though. If its someone like John Christy in an NPR interview, well they will probably see at least some merit to his arguments. However, if its someone like Glenn Beck, then no, they are probably not going to be very open minded.

The fact is, its not the middle or the left that is anti-science, the anti-evolution, pro flood geology, anti-conservation / environment, anti-climate science crowd who are largely hard core right wingers. They see all these scientists as just a bunch of egg heads trying to disprove religion and bring about socialism and the like. Look at the terms they use "Al Gore's Global Warming" as though Anthropogenic Global Warming was a political agenda invented by Al Gore rather than a scientific theory accepted by the majority of the scientific community.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Global warming is a fact!

Whether it is human made is another animal all together. There is no evidence that humans are responsible for this current climate change, one of the countless that the Earth has exprienced through its geological history.

No.

Global warming WAS a fact.

Now global cooling is a fact.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Yeah.

EVERYONE, and mean ABSOLUTELY 100% of the people who don't support the unfounded proposition that anthropogenic global warming is going to kill us, are religious fanatics who eat the brains of their three week old babies.

Not a real scientist or engineer in the bunch. Just God's Little Lunatics over here, boy.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Calling it religion denigrates religion and religious people. IMHO. YMMV

 

[rebelbuc]

There is an aspect of religion to the AGW promoters. Note what happens when competent scientists disagree with so-called consensus such as that touted by the IPCC. They are brushed off as a christian group might balk at a disbeliever in the trinity. Let's say that 50% of a polled group believes in AGW while the remainder ranges from disbelief to uncertainty. I have no doubt that the vast majority of those voting FOR AGW would do so with little knowledge of the pro/con argument merely because the mainstream media, NEA and others push that view. For one to question AGW in this politically correct world takes one to dig into the issues!

 

[Slainte]

Link



Thoughts?

People like Pilmer used to be of great concern for those of us who wanted serious action to tackle climate change.

Now they are basically an irrelevance, the world has the passed them by and their influence on policy making is very small. I guess it is still disappointing, but if he wants to persist in his battle there is not much else that can be done...

 

[monkeyloveafight]

Global warming is a fact!

Whether it is human made is another animal all together. There is no evidence that humans are responsible for this current climate change, one of the countless that the Earth has exprienced through its geological history.

This comment here is more an example of a religious belief.

Our correspondent above acknowledges that there has been observed warming of the earth in recent decades. But instead of acknowledging that all available scientific evidence indicates that anthropogenic emissions are responsible for the observed anomalous warming, he prefers to ignore evidence and pretend that the warming is all some big mystery. A strange and mysterious "natural" thing that us mere humans cannot understand. Like a fundamentalist Christian closing his eyes to the evidence of evolution and an earth that is more than 4000 years old, our friend above simply has "faith".

Of course the Earth has experienced countless climactic changes throughout its geological history, and will continue to do so. There are numerous causes which are responsible for these climactic shifts. Orbital variations, variations in solar intensity, plate techtonics, volcanic activity, meteor strikes etc etc... But which of these, or any other causes is responsible for the observed warming anomaly of recent decades? Could you identify that for us? Could you explain how it is possible that a significant increase in one of the atmospheric gasses that directly impacts on climate could not have a subsequent impact on global temperature? Or do you just have "faith" that it doesn't?

 

[monkeyloveafight]

There is an aspect of religion to the AGW promoters. Note what happens when competent scientists disagree with so-called consensus such as that touted by the IPCC. They are brushed off as a christian group might balk at a disbeliever in the trinity.

Who are these "competent scientists" that are claiming that AGW is not occurring, and why aren't they publishing any actual research to support their opinions?

 

[nkgupta80]

Who are these "competent scientists" that are claiming that AGW is not occurring, and why aren't they publishing any actual research to support their opinions?

I don't ever like using numbers as a way to justify truth, just because the bulk of the scientific community believes one thing does not mean it is correct.

That said, I am not using that as a proof that AGW is unfounded, but I am sure there are competent scientists who do not think global warming is man-made. The problem is that research funding is not oriented towards them.

The problem is that this scientific issue has social and political consequences. But, whats the big deal if people start stressing environment? This is one of the negative feedback loops we need to get people more aware about environmental problems.

 

[monkeyloveafight]

That said, I am not using that as a proof that AGW is unfounded, but I am sure there are competent scientists who do not think global warming is man-made. The problem is that research funding is not oriented towards them.
.

Of course you are right. The poor coal and oil companies don't have two cents to rub together do they, to spend on any sort of research :roll:. It's all hookers, cocaine and money-bags however for those evil climatologists!

 

[nkgupta80]

Of course you are right. The poor coal and oil companies don't have two cents to rub together do they, to spend on any sort of research :roll:. It's all hookers, cocaine and money-bags however for those evil climatologists!

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming]List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

this doesnt prove that agw is wrong...

all this shows is that scientifically there are weak links in the theory that competent scientists find skeptical.

The problem is that this issue is politicized, and politics becomes a double-edged sword. For one thing, people are becoming more environmentally conscious which is a good thing. However, politicizing the issue harms the scientific process by causing bias and providing misaligned incentives in the scientific community.

Let us for the moment assume that AGW is true. Even at that point, the alarmism is harmful, because people will begin to fall for unlikely predictions about disaster, and undertake unnecessary protective measures.

I am skeptical of the certainty with which people (mainly non-climatologists) flaunt this issue, but my motivations don't stem from ideological qualms with environmentalism or ties to oil companies. my field is statistics, and I grow tired of people citing faulty statistics from politicized articles to "prove" to me that global warming is caused by CO2. This I find dangerous because people can get away with overprediction and bad data analysis. If it looks good in a news article, the research gains reputation, and the scientific community has little incentive to really delve deep in the research.

 

[Apocalypse]

Global warming exists.
The winter was longer last year, it was way colder last summer.
Denying this is simply bizarreness.

One could argue however whether the end of the world is near or not, I think we have a few billion years before that happens.

 

[Orion]

I've noticed that the only people who tend to compare AGW to something as subjective as religion are those from the U.S., as that is where the biggest anti-AGW campaign comes from thanks to the corporate lobby.

Most other places in the world have accepted reality and are actively changing their fuel policies. But keep on touting the propaganda machine. It makes no difference to me if you prefer to live in a smoke stack.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

The article reads like an editorial. However, the assertion it makes is rather absurd.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a religion, its a scientific theory.

No.

AGW is a failed scientific theory hijacked by people with a need for religious fervor who reject traditional religion.

You see there is a big difference between a scientific theory like Anthropogenic Global Warming, Evolution, or Plate Tectonics, and a religious belief such as Christianity, Islam, or Judaism.

Outside of the difference in ages, there's little difference except in details. AGW Devotees take many things that aren't true on faith and the strength of their emotions, and there's the required cadre of cynical charlatans, let's call them the Algores, willing to cash in on their gullibility. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all fit the same general pattern.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Who are these "competent scientists" that are claiming that AGW is not occurring, and why aren't they publishing any actual research to support their opinions?

Why don't atheists have their own chapters in the Bible?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I've noticed that the only people who tend to compare AGW to something as subjective as religion are those from the U.S., as that is where the biggest anti-AGW campaign comes from thanks to the corporate lobby.

Most other places in the world have accepted reality and are actively changing their fuel policies. But keep on touting the propaganda machine. It makes no difference to me if you prefer to live in a smoke stack.

Reality is that the globe has been cooling for more than half a decade now, and not a single one of the AGW theories can account for it, because those theories are wrong.

Reality is that the present centuries long warming trend commenced before global industrialization, for causes not known, and hence it's completely improper to discuss "Anthropogenic" global warming.

Reality is that the con-men dropped the Global Warming label when it became apparent that the globe was cooling, but they still want to implement the same ecnomy-destroying recommendations they wanted when the globe was allegedly on the verge of burning up.

Tell us, in the real world if you broke your right leg, you'd wear a cast on your right leg. If, six months later, your broke your left arm, you'd wear a cast on your right leg, right?

You wouldn't? But you still have faith in the conmen pushing AGW, with their one solution fits everything scam?