It seems to me that Global Warming is assuming the trappings of a religion, comparable to the position of the RC Church-circa 1200 AD or so. Disbelief (or even a mild challenge) to the official GW line is met by cries of heresy-and demands for the dissenters to be silenced. Even a call for honest debate is met by stoney rage from the high priests of the new religion/cult.
has anyone noticed the same thing? in particular, the “conversion” of celebrities to the new “faith”-smarmey people like Le DiCaprio, John Travolta, etc.
I wonder when the “church” of GW will hold its first inquisition trials? :o
Unlike religion, belief in global warming isn’t based on faith; my salvation depends on your belief; dissent isn’t squelched as you say (just look at this latest story about the hurricane expert criticizing Gore); and people don’t cry “heresy” they cry “you’re ignorant” if you make arguments that are ignorant of science.
But everything else is the same. I, for one, have an elaborate set of rituals that correspond with the release of each new IPCC report. It involves fluorescent faux candles and algae.
What’s the “official GW line”? Where are the “demands for the dissenters to be silenced” a-la the inquisition?
It seems to me (as it always has) that the scientific community does at least a half-way decent job of always allowing dissent, particularly when that dissent comes based on good science (as opposed to, say, based on politics).
Which isn’t to say that science can’t have an agenda, but only that which holds up to intense scrutiny survives. Even scientists with political agendas can be right, doncha know?
When it does, then you can claim that it resembles a religion.
I also would like a cite that an organized group of climate scientists has demanded that “dissenters be silenced” instead of refuting the science involved.
Kinda like the Church of Heliocentrism. I mean, really. No one is allowed to give geocentrism a real debate. The only possible explanation is that heliocentric fanatics shout down the geocentric believers.
Hmm… as far as having the “dissenters silenced” aspect, it seems as if the opposition to climate change fulfills that requirement for a religion:
“WASHINGTON – Federal scientists have been pressured to play down global warming, advocacy groups testified Tuesday at the Democrats’ first investigative hearing since taking control of Congress.”
It’s not so much like the Roman Catholic Church as it is like the opposition to the idea that smoking causes cancer. Right now, we’re about where we were in the early nineties with that argument. A couple executives from oil companies have already admitted what the science demonstrates, and the rest are trying to fight a losing battle against the science with their own housetrained flunkies.
We’ve seen it before; the arguments against Global Warming are terribly similar to the arguments against the carcinogenic effects of tobacco. It’ll go the same way, and in a decade, it’ll be hard to convince kids that anyone seriously disputed the science.
Before data is released to the general public, that paper is peer-reviewed by individuals who are experts in the field. If the data is solid, the article is published. If it isn’t, the reviewer indicates the problems with the data and how to address it. For example, the reviewer may request that immunogold staining be used in lieu of indirect immunofluoresence. Science journals aren’t op-ed pieces and never will be. If you have a scientific opinion, you need to back it up with actual data.
Now, I am curious. Can you post a cite of the manuscript that was denied review? Who was the principal investigator that authored it? What college was/is the investigator from? The interesting thing is that there are a crap load of journals out there that accept submissions. If an individual submitted a manuscript to many journals and was denied then it usually points to something inherently wrong with the science itself.
I think what you are mistaking for challenge and dissent is actually a few people trotting out arguments or evidence which has not withstood the scrutiny in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Scientists and others do get a little testy after a while when they are continually forced to explain various misconceptions and deceptions.
It is, in fact, rather similar to the pile-on that occurs here when someone comes in here and throws out the standard anti-evolution talking-points. Do you think evolution is a religion too?
Folks with a predilection for religious thinking will take a religious approach to Global Warming, just as they do to Curling, or Elvis. This has little to do with Global Warming, Curling, or Elvis, and a great deal to do with the way these people think.
First of all, the models are in fact tested in many, many ways. For example, they are tested to see how well they reproduce current climate and seasonal cycles, how well they “hindcast” climate over the last several hundred years, and how well they predicted the cooling from the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. Also, certain important aspects of the models are tested…For example, how well they seem to be predicting changes in water vapor in the upper troposphere, which is very important since the water vapor feedback is responsible for magnifying the warming beyond what would occur due to the rise in water vapor alone.
Second of all, the evidence for AGW is based on more than just computer models. The idea that increased levels of CO2 leads to warming follows from basic physics and, while it is admittedly challenging to work out the various feedbacks in the climate system, there are various sanity checks that can…and have…been done, such as varying the parameters in the models within plausible ranges and seeing how much the climate sensitivity changes and getting independent estimates of climate sensitivity from various paleoclimate evidence (e.g., the warming from the glacial to interglacial periods).
Third of all, there is the whole field of “detection and attribution” whereby the current change in climate is measured and compared to what would be predicted by estimates of the various known forcings, including those due to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.
No it doesn’t. It requires a provisional acceptance of some assumptions underlying certain computer models while the models are tested, refined and revised. But no climate scientist anywhere is insisting that people should simply use faith in the models as a permanent substitute for experimental testing and observational corroboration, in the way that religious doctrines do.
Did you hold a degree in Climatology? Atmospheric Sciences? Meterology? What in your background gives you the leverage to challenge the scientific methods used by these investigators? Unlike what you think, most these scientists aren’t out here trying to save the world. It is a thankless job that pays pennies compared to doctors, lawyers, and, in some cities & counties, regular school teachers. Do you have any idea how ridiculously hard it is to become a scientist? Not only do you need undergraduate (4 years) and graduate (4-5+) training but before you can get a job doing research, you need to get about (2-3+) years of post-doctoral research. After you jump through undergrad, grad, and post-doc hoops, you have to whore your research ideas to a Universities and hope they hire you. If you do manage to get hired, after seven years, you’re up for tenure in which the University decides whether you can stay or go.
Oh, did I mention that the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, which fund most of the basic research in the United States, haven’t seen increases in their budgets since the Clinton administration? Getting funding as a scientist is becoming increasingly competitive as there just isn’t enough money to go around. Some are moving to California where there are more funding opportunities or going out of the country.
Trust me, anyone who is doing science is doing it because they love it - Not to engineer social change; indeed, getting a degree in law and running for public office is far more effective and less time-consuming than going through the the 20 year process of becoming a researcher.