Global Warming Debate

[craigimass]

Science and religion have about as much to do with each other as the idea that "mind can move mountains" has to do with a bulldozer.

The two are NOT mutually exclusive, but at the same time they have very little to do with each other. One is a province of thought and spirit and the other is a method for discovery of the physical world around us.

I would question any religion which does not accept science when it comes to the things outside of their purview.

You have to look at the religion of scientists based on their time and place. For instance, Da Vinci was a Catholic..since most everyone in Italy was! Galileo was also catholic, of course, and he got in trouble with the church for his outlook on science, specifically his idea that the bible should not be taken literally. He was CONDEMNED for his views - and as you can see by this quote, the church did not believe in science:
"The Holy Tribunal in Galileo's condemnation states: "The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture."

Moving up in time we have Einstein, who although he was born Jewish , said this about organized religion:
"About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith."

Moving even closer to today, we find Dr. Francis Collins, who is head of the Human Genome Project and a very devout Christian. He 100% believes in God....BUT, 100% believes in evolution (against Creationism) which is evident by his quotes or listening to him:
"evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things."

In summary, a person can have faith and belong to an organized religion - and also 100% accept every tenet of science. No conflict at all.

But when people start using their faith to create their "science" (and it is NOT science then), that is a whole 'nother story. After all, the earth was created 6,000 years ago and the universe revolves around the earth, right?

[erps]

Global Warming Ruled a Religion by British Judge



Global Warming Ruled a Religion by British Judge

[camaraderie]

Originally Posted by erps

Thanks for the additional info. I'm not preaching guys, I'm just passing along an article that I read.

Erps...didn't think you were preaching. The science is what this is supposed to be about and yours was a good article that deserved looking in to and a response. I hope some real scientists without an agenda, look into this further as all we have now is speculation.

[craigimass]

To put such a complex topic down in two words (Global Warming) IS a religion. Rather than just one GW, there are dozens of related subjects which have to do with climate change (man made and natural), pollution, holes in the ozone layer, etc.

It's not the scientists who have a problem. Most scientists are very focused on one small part of the science. It's those in the political or business spectrum who try to wrap the entire mess in ONE wrapper.

While I "buy" most of the science, I do not need things simplified for me and brought forward as PR. Complex issues require complex thinking and difficult solutions.

At the same time, the "anti GW" crowd probably is even MORE religious in the sense of clinging to their views. Most "antis" I know don't want to hear ANYTHING about the science. They simply look for an article which mentions there might be a question about GW, and point to that as indisputable FACT.

While there are many facts involved, that is surely not one of them!

[craigimass]

Originally Posted by erps

Thanks for the additional info. I'm not preaching guys, I'm just passing along an article that I read.

But we want to hear some good ole fashioned preaching......

How the heck did you get the name "puddin head"? My wife calls everything cute "puddin". Our dog is puddin, the runt baby fox in our yard is "little puddin", etc.

[erps]

How the heck did you get the name "puddin head"?

Dad called me that for 40 years. I never really determined whether it was a term of endearment or a description of my intelligence.

To put such a complex topic down in two words (Global Warming) IS a religion.....

I didn't say it, a judge did. If you like lots of words, I left a link to the article.

[camaraderie]

Originally Posted by craigimass

To put such a complex topic down in two words (Global Warming) IS a religion. Rather than just one GW, there are dozens of related subjects which have to do with climate change (man made and natural), pollution, holes in the ozone layer, etc.

Global Warming IS a religion among the non-scientists and politicians. One that is conveniently used to forward personal agendas as well as environmental agendas that have NOTHING to do with warming.
If you want to talk about pollution, ozone or some sort of climate change that has nothing to do with global warming...please start a different thread.
This is the global warming thread and from your remarks, you appear to know little to nothing about the science.

[JohnRPollard]

The Untied States Global Change Research Program just issued it's latest report, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. According to their website, "the [USGCRP] coordinates and integrates federal research on changes in the global environment and their implications for society."

Here is a summary of their key findings:

1. Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced.
Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. (p. 13)

2. Climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow. Climate-related changes are already observed in the United States and its coastal waters. These include increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the ocean and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows. These changes are projected to grow. (p. 27)

3. Widespread climate-related impacts are occurring now and are expected to increase. Climate changes are already affecting water, energy, transportation, agriculture, ecosystems, and health. These impacts are different from region to region and will grow under projected climate change. (p. 41-106, 107-152)


4. Climate change will stress water resources. Water is an issue in every region, but the nature of the potential impacts varies. Drought, related to reduced precipitation, increased evaporation, and increased water loss from plants, is an important issue in many regions, especially in the West. Floods and water quality problems are likely to be amplified by climate change in most regions. Declines in mountain snowpack are important in the West and Alaska where snowpack provides vital natural water storage. (p. 41, 129, 135, 139)


5. Crop and livestock production will be increasingly challenged.
Agriculture is considered one of the sectors most adaptable to changes in climate. However, increased heat, pests, water stress, diseases, and weather extremes will pose adaptation challenges for crop and livestock production. (p. 71)

6. Coastal areas are at increasing risk from sea-level rise and storm surge.
Sea-level rise and storm surge place many U.S. coastal areas at increasing risk of erosion and flooding, especially along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, Pacific Islands, and parts of Alaska. Energy and transportation infrastructure and other property in coastal areas are very likely to be adversely affected. (p. 111, 139, 145, 149)

7. Threats to human health will increase. Health impacts of climate change are related to heat stress, waterborne diseases, poor air quality, extreme weather events, and diseases transmitted by insects and rodents. Robust public health infrastructure can reduce the potential for negative impacts. (p. 89)


8. Climate change will interact with many social and environmental stresses.
Climate change will combine with pollution, population growth, overuse of resources, urbanization, and other social, economic, and environmental stresses to create larger impacts than from any of these factors alone. (p. 99)

9. Thresholds will be crossed, leading to large changes in climate and ecosystems. There are a variety of thresholds in the climate system and ecosystems. These thresholds determine, for example, the presence of sea ice and permafrost, and the survival of species, from fish to insect pests, with implications for society. With further climate change, the crossing of additional thresholds is expected. (p. 76, 82, 115, 137, 142)


10. Future climate change and its impacts depend on choices made today.
The amount and rate of future climate change depend primarily on current and future human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases and airborne particles. Responses involve reducing emissions to limit future warming, and adapting to the changes that are unavoidable. (p. 25, 29)

[camaraderie]

Yep...now try to find the science in that report rather than the predictions.

PS...I've downloaded the full report and will see if there is any new data or claims.

[craigimass]

Ah, so science is only stuff that already happened?

So when the wind gusts to 50 mph, and we know a hurricane is on the way, predicting that the winds will hit 100 is just pure folly?

You can't tell people to read the science and then say the facts, predictions and conclusions of thousands of the leading scholars is bunk. It certainly is not!

As you said yourself, it is politics and PR and religion only with those on the outside - meaning you (and me - to some degree).

However, since my career is in energy, I do have at least a basic interest in keeping up with these things.

As I said, the deniers are...IMHO....just as religious or MORE as the folks who say the sky is falling. Actually, the science does show that the sky is falling, but as always most of the people on the planet will not be living to reap the whirlwind. So who cares, right?

The GW debate reminds me a lot of the nuclear radiation one. It is proven beyond a doubt that radiation causes cancer - LOTS of it. It can be easily measured over time. BUT, you can never actually point to one particular exposure of low level radiation and say "that one caused that cancer"....and you never will. So the folks who don't care about a couple more million cancers just say "but you can't prove it". And, like GW, the cancers often occur 20-30 years after the radiation.

Science tells us "just because YOU can't see something does not mean it is not happening".