Atheists and climate change

Great Debates
81

I think climatologists and those whose popularize their work have made a serious mistake by calling this ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’. We should be calling it ‘Anthropogenic Climate Change’. It confuses most average people when we see massive snowfalls and deeper than average freezes. I mean, honestly y’all, how can we expect the average American with barely minimal scientific training to understand that an increase in heat energy in the atmosphere could lead to COLDER weather? It is counter-intuitive. Even intelligent but poorly trained (scientifically speaking) people are completely confused. And when that happens, most folks will just say “them dang scientists are full of crap”.

This, not atheism or deism or theism or any other ‘ism’ is why we have a disconnect between what we are observing and what the average voting Joe or Jane in America is experiencing.

As a scientist, I have had to deal with my family and friends distrusting me because of my nonChristian point of view. Honestly, evolution is more of a point of contention than the disaster that is slowly but surely changing our planet. Which is silly, but true. What difference can we make about it? I read recently that we are already over the tipping point and even if we go back to hunter-gatherers (hah like that would happen) we are already screwed. I know National Geographic isn’t a scientific journal, but they did a great job a while back describing how the total amount of greenhouse gases will take thousands of years to be dissipated even if we all migrated to Mars.

http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/greenhouse-global-warming-2774.html

I am but an humble computer scientist (well maybe not that humble), but I study all of science and this FEELS real. I am genuinely frightened for my grandchildren and their progeny.

It can be argued that one of the reasons why Humanity has thrived in the last several centuries, is because of a relatively benign global climate. That is changing. There are few or none climatologists that disagree. Whether it our ‘fault’ is meaningless, because I think even if we completely stop using carbon-based fuels, everything is still going to change.

I could be wrong. I am not a climatologist. But I read the journals. And this is disturbing. The total amount of energy in the system has increased. And there WILL be results.

When I was a younger man, we were concerned that a new Ice Age would be upon us. Nobody expected what is happening now. I suppose being buried under centuries of snow is not preferable to this. At least we can, presumably, still grow crops and make do. But things are really changing and we need to come up with some strategy to handle this change. Just stopping carbon dioxide emissions isn’t going to solve the problem. It might ameliorate the effects, but as I stated earlier, I think we are beyond the inflection point.

I could be wrong.
I sure hope so.

82

Well, you are on some bits.. :slight_smile:

I already pointed out that cold extremes are still coming, but it does not follow that they will be colder than the past averages, as the latest data show, even the coldest years (usually La Nina years) are increasing in temperature.

As mentioned, one can see the expected 3 or more degrees Centigrade of global temperature increase if nothing is done and we will still get cold winters, just a few degrees up on average than the previous ones, but still there. Unfortunately, with more water vapor on the regions that usually get precipitation, that the weather is not a few degrees colder will not be an advantage as the increase in precipitation will make the average storms harsher.

Regarding if we are already screwed, well the issue is a matter of degrees, we are already on pace to get about 2 degrees more of temperature even if we hurriedly do what it is recommended, while many do point out that we will get a lot of problems with a 2 degree increase, they predict even worse outcomes if nothing is done and we get 3 or 4 degrees of increase.

As for the ice age coming when you were young, sigh, you really have to understand that expecting popular media to get the science right is not a sure bet.

83

If all the Atheists left the USA, we would lose 93% of the National Academy of Sciences, but less than 1% of the prison population.

You see, as an Atheist, I do good things because it’s right. I have no fear of hell and no fantasies about heaven. I answer to myself, alone. I need to be able to look myself in the mirror and be proud of what I see. That, to me, is responsibility in its correct form.

84

I’m agnostic, but I support atheist, knowing someday they will come around to my way of thinking.

85

As for the climate thing, that’s a whole different pile of steaming …

86

Either post an argument or leave the thread alone. There was no reason to bump it after a month of inactivity just to say this.

87

Yes.

Yes.

Or they are doing it for more nefarious reasons. In some cases there is a grand conspiracy at work, which is pure evil.

For the religious, no doubt the mistrust of science and hatred for atheist go hand in hand. There is almost a stereotype of the atheist (Godless) scientists, busy destroying the world, for money, with no regard for morals or any concept of decency.

88

My emphasis. That’s not very agnostic of you.

89

Don’t judge me.

90

“If this is a conspiracy it is a weird one, surely at least one of the hacked emails would refer to it”

A lot of that talk would surely be about blocking skeptics papers from scientific literature for no good reason and to do evil. This was not even found on the private emails from the climate researchers.

91

A “grand conspiracy”. Right.

Any evidence you’d like to submit? Or like all “grand conspiracy theories”, is yours also composed of moonbeams and self-induced illusions?
Do you have any evidence (polls, studies, analysis, research) that shows that a significant percentage of religious people believe that “Godless scientists are busy destroying the world”, or that there is an “evil, grand conspiracy of scientist/atheists who are promoting climate change for nefarious reasons”?

Or any reason at all for thinking that this is true?

92

Yes. But that’s just an answer to your question It’s what I think. Just like your question was something you thought of.

Again, I answered your question, by telling you what I think. I mean, it’s what you asked. Like your question, I thought of something, and then wrote it, and posted it.

93

Your response is hilarious. You ask what people think, and then they tell you. Then you try to make a Federal case out of a conversation.

It’s just an answer to a question. If you want a debate, then state what you think, and we can debate that.

94

Well, how about this:

I propose that scientists are NOT busy destroying the world, for money, with no regard for morals or any concept of decency.

I further propose that climate change science is NOT a “grand conspiracy” (which is pure evil)

Finally, I would say that after viewing the responses of various posters, there is NOT a groundswell of religions folk who link atheists and scientists together. It seems to be done rarely and only by the few folks who understand neither science, nor their own religious doctrine.

95

Because they can observe advantages and disadvantages of high energy physics, computer science and chemistry during their lifespan.

Climat changes constantly. It is fairly easy to tell how it looked like 5000 years ago, problem is with predicting how it is going to look like in the future comparing to certainty which allows building nuclear power plants.

You may have some data form the past but it doesn’t mean you will be able to predict how climate is going to look like in the future basing on the data you already have. It may simply not be possible. Usefulness of some scenario about future climate drawn form a scratch (there are lots of types of scientists with various motives) might be next to nothing, but costs money. Climate is more complicated than solar eclipse - use NASA calculator - not only to laypeople but to scientists as well. Lack of data, not conspiration. All you can have so far is short term weather forecast. Otherwise perhaps Nostradamus could help? Any news about future atheism from him?

96

Number one on the hit parade of myths.

Climate’s changed before, some say that should be enough to dismiss what the records say, what do scientists say?

97

My impression has always been its less suspicion about atheism and more suspicion about greenies, ie greenies=hippies=non-christians/pagans=untrustworthy.

They tend to put up videos about deep green types talking to trees and the like rather than harping on the godless atheists aspect in my experience.

Otara

98

That’s not what I said. Let me remind you: …data form the past but it doesn’t mean you will be able to predict how climate is going to look like in the future basing on the data you already have.

It may simply not be possible. Lack of data […] All you can have so far is short term weather forecast.

 As for now all you can have is short term weather forecast and it's a fact. If sicientists could give you more they would give you more with certainty of what will happen. Now what they give you, you cannot test at all.

And please don’t twist my words. I don’t dismiss any data.

99

Just figuring out where you are coming from, what you have there is also another myth not a fact.

100

Aww yeah, sure, bye-bye. See ya in the future.