[QUOTE=PatriotX]
Perhaps many people lump germs in with Our Lord?
[/QUOTE]
And on the eight day, God created e-coli. And he saw that it was bad. But meh, what’s a god to do?
[QUOTE=Jophiel]
I personally wouldn’t claim that my belief in the probable existance of AGW is based on faith. I’ve read numerous studies on it in the fancy peer-reviewed science journals (mostly in the course of other debates) and, while I’m not a climate scientist, what I’ve read and understood leads me to believe that the evidence is firmly stacked on the AGW side.
There’s always the chance that I’m basing my belief in poorly understood or mistaken evidence but that’s not the same as believing “just because”.
[/QUOTE]
May I suggest that from what you post you are exactly taking AGW on faith, you may be insulted by that term, but it’s not meant as such, but a accurate description of what you described.
I think part of the issue is that many non-religious and anti-religious people associate taking things on faith as simple minded and they do not wish to associate themselves with that term.
“Don’t take the scientists word on AGW, go out and look for yourself!”
I’ve never understood this stupid argument. I’m not a climate scientist. I don’t have the time or inclination to become a climate scientist, which I imagine involves some pretty complicated math, climate being such a chaotic phenomenon. The only way for me–or any of you for that matter, unless you happen to be a climate scientist–to determine the truth or falsity of AGW is to look at what the majority of scientists say, just like with any other scientific statement.
On the one hand we have a whole alphabet soup of reputable scientific agencies stating that global warming is true. On the other hand we have some well funded lobbyists and a handful of cranks saying it’s false.
“Argument from authority! Fallacy!”
Of course it’s an argument from authority. Nearly everything you believe is an argument from authority. My personal experience tells me the sun goes around the earth. I just take people’s word that they’ve got the observations that show it’s the other way round. If you believe in neutrinos or plate tectonics (I suppose I’d better not mention evolution :rolleyes: ) all of you–almost all–believe it because you’ve read about it.
“But it’s all models.”
Well yeah, it would be nice to have an experiment, but since we happen to be living in the petri dish, the experiment–keep going and see what happens–is a little risky. It would be great if we could make some predictions and say “Well, if these things happen they would corroborate AGW, if they don’t the theory’s falsified.” Unfortunately while that would be ideal from a logical standpoint, from a practical standpoint it could be a disaster.
[QUOTE=Larry Borgia]
“Don’t take the scientists word on AGW, go out and look for yourself!”
[/QUOTE]
For what it’s worth, I have been doing my own experiment on global warming. Every day since late December I’ve been tracking the local temperature. Guess what the trend has been?
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
May I suggest that from what you post you are exactly taking AGW on faith, you may be insulted by that term, but it’s not meant as such, but a accurate description of what you described.
[/QUOTE]
This is an asinine definition of “faith” - you’ve diluted the meaning of the word down to “taking anybody’s word for anything.” I would have thought that the basis of your entire belief system be more important to you than that.
[QUOTE=tdn]
And on the eight day, God created e-coli. And he saw that it was bad. But meh, what’s a god to do?
[/QUOTE]
Shit happens. :eek:
[QUOTE=tdn]
…what, pray tell, is the motivation behind this great AGW conspiracy? What do the evil scientists stand to gain?
[/quote]
Some explanations** I’ve heard elsewhere on the internet:[ul][li]AGW is actually a ploy by a shadowy cabal of academics whom have realized that, as long as they can dupe various institutions and governments into believing that the issue is worth studying, they can secure funding indefinitely and avoid the drudgery of “honest work.”[]AGW is actually a ploy by a shadowy cabal of politicians who’ve strong-armed the academics into providing them with the necessary ammunition to foist their world (possibly Marxist) government on us all.[]Mix/match the above details as required for the conversation. Flavor with Al Gore or any other “liberal” to suit your taste.[/ul][/li]
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Laypeople take AGW totally on faith at first, some are satisfied with that, some look into it, study it, some find it to be true, some find it to be false, some remain undecided.
Same for religion.
[/quote]
I don’t suppose you’ve a link to the mountain of peer-reviewed data supporting the “Truth of Religion”, do ya? I’d love to see what that would even look like. (Well, other than a picture of a banana-- but let’s not bring Ray Comfort into this.)
**I’m not attributing any of these views to myself, kanicbird, or anyone else on the SD.
[QUOTE=Quartz]
There’s absolutely no actual evidence for the A in AGW. Lots of models but no actual evidence. The recent discussion between Intention, Jshore, and Kimstu has recently demonstrated this vastly better than I ever could.
[/QUOTE]
When CO2 is the main cause of the warming, and the increase in CO2 is man made.. It has to be said is not true at all to say that there is absolutely no actual evidence.
The discussion was mostly about the vality of modeling, as I noticed in the last discussion, there was little evidence to discount their value:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/index.html
I’m going out surfing off the Yucatan peninsula this morning, because Hurricane Dean is just predicted to come this way, but that is based on models, and we won’t know for sure unless it actually happens, you know?
I’m not a man of faith, so I’m not going to believe this meteorological religion.
Whoa! Surf is really up today!
[QUOTE=Lamar Mundane]
I’m going out surfing off the Yucatan peninsula this morning, because Hurricane Dean is just predicted to come this way, but that is based on models, and we won’t know for sure unless it actually happens, you know?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and who ever got hurt by a model?
Well, I did have this model of the Millenium Falcon when I was a kid. If that had fallen on my head, it could have hurt.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
When CO2 is the main cause of the warming
[/QUOTE]
This has not been shown.
To some extent I think kanicbird is correct - lots of people take AGW on faith. Many people don’t have the time to truly study it, and others don’t have the ability. But there is a big difference between this and religious faith. (BTW, this is why I and other never say we believe in evolution. The data is there to convince anyone with an open mind, so belief is not necessary.
I suspect that no scientists working in the field take AGW on faith - however theologians and clergymen take God on faith. As I study any scientific theory in more detail, the more I’m convinced of its validity. The more I study religion in detail, the less I’m convinced. That’s exactly how I became an atheist.
In a world where everyone had the ability and the time to study AGW, many fewer would take it on faith. In a world where everyone had the time to study religion, the amount of faith would not change, and I think the level of atheism would increase. (But that’s a conjecture.)
[QUOTE=Quartz]
This has not been shown.
[/QUOTE]
CO2 Is transparent to ultraviolet radiation and opaque to infrared. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more heat is trapped. Do you doubt this?
[QUOTE=Quartz]
This has not been shown.
[/QUOTE]
PDF files:
Emissions of CO2 from fossil-fuel burning; rapid rise since 1950
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/slide11.pdf
Drivers of CO2 emissions: population and energy use
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/slide13.pdf
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: rapid rise due to human activities
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/slide14.pdf
CO2 is the major contributor to global warming
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/slide17.pdf
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
May I suggest that from what you post you are exactly taking AGW on faith, you may be insulted by that term, but it’s not meant as such, but a accurate description of what you described.
[/QUOTE]
You may, but I’d suggest that you are wrong and/or misapplying the term. As other have noted, by your definition virtually everything is being taken on “faith” except for that which we can, ourselves, expertly prove beyond doubt.
I’m not insulted by the term any more than I’d be insulted by someone telling me that my belief in the existance of Iraq (which I have never visited) is based purely on faith and its influence in my voting means that I’m making political decisions based on faith. I’d find you a bit confused but not insulting.
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Yeah, and who ever got hurt by a model?
[/QUOTE]
I have.
She stood me up. Twice.
[QUOTE=tdn]
I have.
She stood me up. Twice.
[/QUOTE]
[hijack]
Reminds me of a couple amusing anecdotes. One was one the American Physical Society was looking for some pithy slogans (perhaps in celebration of the centennial of the society) and my friend submitted, “Physicists do it with models!”
Another was several years ago when I was conversing with a group that included a friend’s teenage daughter and mentioned something about doing modeling and she said with an incredulous tone of voice, “You do modeling!?!” [Fortunately, the computer doesn’t seem to notice that I am 5’5" on a tall day and don’t exactly have the looks of Brad Pitt.]
[/hijack]
I used to be skeptical about it, but then my best guy friend did a report on global warming and lent me a copy of An Inconvenient Truth (the book) and I believed, let me tell you. Poor polar bears.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
This is getting off topic, but suppression of the middle class to lower classes, lowering the standard of living so only the rich can live a comfortable live, in short it’s about concentrating control to the few who can afford it.
[/QUOTE]
There you go, bringing class into it again.
[QUOTE=Larry Borgia]
CO2 Is transparent to ultraviolet radiation and opaque to infrared. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more heat is trapped. Do you doubt this?
[/QUOTE]
Gigobuster claimed that CO[sub]2[/sub] was the main cause of the warming. The rise in CO[sub]2[/sub] levels is well documented. But correllation does not imply causation. Let him prove his claim.