[QUOTE=AmalgramFour]
However, that doesn’t make it a good analogy if you agree that ultimately science is not dogmatic.
[/QUOTE]
It depends on what the analogy is supposed to illustrate.
What do you think it is illustrating, and how is it a worthwhile analogy?
[QUOTE=AmalgramFour]
What do you think it is illustrating, and how is it a worthwhile analogy?
[/QUOTE]
I think it helps to show why AGW has caught on so widely. Suppose you tell people that some Unpleasant Future is coming; that they are sinners; that they should accept some kind of personal sacrifice; that they should support you and your crusade; that if they join you, they can feel smug and superior.
It’s a classic formula.
It also helps to show why AGW is so worthy of skepticism. Whenever you hear some sort of pitch like the above, you need to be very cautious and skeptical because there’s a good chance you are being scammed.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
I think it helps to show why AGW has caught on so widely. Suppose you tell people that some Unpleasant Future is coming; that they are sinners; that they should accept some kind of personal sacrifice; that they should support you and your crusade; that if they join you, they can feel smug and superior.
It’s a classic formula.
It also helps to show why AGW is so worthy of skepticism. Whenever you hear some sort of pitch like the above, you need to be very cautious and skeptical because there’s a good chance you are being scammed.
[/QUOTE]
I think it’s a very weak argument. People don’t derive much benefit from believing in global warming, certainly compared to, say, the promise of eternal life. You really think the opportunity to feel “smug and superior” is that much of a draw? Most people I know who believe it feel concerned and guilty (because they aren’t actually prepared to sacrifice their quality of life to do much about it).
Personally, I don’t feel smug. I don’t have a gas-guzzling car, and do a few things to save energy. Am I helping to ‘save the planet’? Bollocks I am. If climate change is a serious risk I’m simply doing slightly less damage than I might. I’d be delighted if it turns out that the dangers have been exaggerated, I just see little grounds for optimism on that point.
[QUOTE=AmalgramFour]
I think it’s a very weak argument. People don’t derive much benefit from believing in global warming, certainly compared to, say, the promise of eternal life. You really think the opportunity to feel “smug and superior” is that much of a draw?
[/quote]
Sure, and the opportunity to feel that they are helping to save the world.
Sure, and a classic tactic of scammers is to make people feel concerned and guilty.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
Sure, and a classic tactic of scammers is to make people feel concerned and guilty.
[/QUOTE]
So who exactly are the scammers?
[QUOTE=AmalgramFour]
So who exactly are the scammers?
[/QUOTE]
You can start here:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html
The carbon trading shambles really has nothing to do with whether the theory of human induced climate change is correct or not. Of course, some people have will make a personal gain (financial or political) from promoting global warming, but the theory itself comes from the scientific community.
[QUOTE=AmalgramFour]
The carbon trading shambles really has nothing to do with whether the theory of human induced climate change is correct or not.
[/quote]
So what? Your claim was that AGW is not analogous to religion. One striking similarity is scammers who take your money in exchange for absolving you of sin.
Do a web search for “carbon indulgences”
[QUOTE=brazil84]
So what? Your claim was that AGW is not analogous to religion. One striking similarity is scammers who take your money in exchange for absolving you of sin.
[QUOTE]
AGW started life as a scientific theory, it wasn’t devised by people in the financial sector so they could make a profit from it.
Also, ‘scam’ and ‘shambles’ do not mean the same thing. A scam is a planned deception, carbon trading is a half-assed attempt to reduce emissions. It went wrong when the EU flooded the market with carbon credits and the market collapsed, at the moment it’s cheaper for companies to buy more carbon credits than it is for them to spend money reducing emissions.
Again, so what? Do you think that Christianity was started with indulgences in mind?
Do you claim that nobody is selling carbon offsets that don’t live up to the seller’s representations?
The theory of AGW itself is a different subject from it’s political consequences. If I sell you snake oil as a cure for cancer, it doesn’t change the fact that cancer is real.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
Sure, and a classic tactic of scammers is to make people feel concerned and guilty.
[/QUOTE]
This is a syllogism. You are saying that because AGW makes people feel concerened and guilty, and because scammers make people feel concerned and guilty AGW, then AGW might be a scam? No, it may make people feel concerned and guilty for other reasons.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
And it’s possible that aspects of science can become more religion-like.
Ideally, a scientist should be like a prosecutor. He or she should be equally open to evidence that will undermine or support his or her position. Just as a prosecutor must turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense attorney, a scientist should disclose all aspects of his or her research to the public.
However, as the example of Mike Nifong shows, some prosecutors fall short of the ideal. They fall into the all too human trap of looking only for evidence that will confirm their position while ignoring and supressing evidence that undermines their position.
And sometimes scientists fall short of the ideal too.
[/QUOTE]
So, in this context, “some” equals “about 90%”?
[QUOTE=Miller]
So, in this context, “some” equals “about 90%”?
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure, but I am reminded of something Max Plank allegedly said:
[QUOTE=AmalgramFour]
The theory of AGW itself is a different subject from it’s political consequences. If I sell you snake oil as a cure for cancer, it doesn’t change the fact that cancer is real.
[/quote]
Perhaps, but so what? The question is whether AGW is analogous to religion.
Essentially, yes. Anytime somebody tries to make me feel concerned and guilty, I pat the pocket that holds my wallet.
That’s possible. But yet again, so what?
The question is whether AGW is analogous to religion.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
The question is whether AGW is analogous to religion.
[/QUOTE]
The answer is no because AGW is based on evidence while religion is based on personal revelation. That’s a pretty fundamental difference.
[QUOTE=AmalgramFour]
The answer is no because AGW is based on evidence while religion is based on personal revelation. That’s a pretty fundamental difference.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sure you could find religious people who will tell you that their beliefs are based on authority and documentary evidence (e.g. the Bible).
[QUOTE=brazil84]
I’m sure you could find religious people who will tell you that their beliefs are based on authority and documentary evidence (e.g. the Bible).
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but I’m certain you won’t find a scientist who relies on personal revelation in their work. Faith is the cornerstone of religion and evidence underpins science.
[QUOTE=AmalgramFour]
Yes, but I’m certain you won’t find a scientist who relies on personal revelation in their work. Faith is the cornerstone of religion and evidence underpins science.
[/QUOTE]
That may be so. I won’t deny that there are differences between AGW and religion. But there still are many similarities.
A few posts back, I explained why I thought religion was a worthwhile analogy to AGW and I stand by that post.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
False.
Cite: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/MM2005.gif
[/QUOTE]
Wrong:
That is the graphic from the 2004 McKitrick and Michaels paper: