Do you have another explanation for the incredibly rapid global temperature increase? On the one hand, we’ve got CO2 which is known to be a greenhouse gas, and which is produced in astounding quantities by humans. On the other hand, we’ve got… what?
I hear Occam makes a great razor.
Where does it say that?
I don’t think “faith” is the right word, though. It’s more like “experience”. If scientists were casting about randomly for theories, or had a history of not getting anything correct, then accepting their claims to be true would indeed be “faith”. Now, scientists often do get things wrong, but it’s the method that’s important, and as long as people are open to changing their minds when new data becomes available, I don’t see how “faith” has anything to do with it.
I do think there is a fringe group of folks (maybe some on the extreme right and extreme left) who more or less revel in this news, as it supports their agenda that modern, industrial society is somehow evil and needs to be curtailed. I suspect that they may launch into this on “faith”, and not be very open to different ideas. But I don’t see anything in the general populace that I’d call “faith”.
Sure: it’s all the fault of the Flying Spaghetti Monster[sup]1[/sup].
“What?” I hear you say. “Where’s your proof?” I hear you say. Well precisely.
Just because I - or anyone else - don’t have another (this time sensible) explanation at this time doesn’t mean there isn’t one.
Have you heard of Euler’s Conjecture? Euler lived in the 18th Century and his Conjecture. It stood for nearly 200 years before being proved false.
If you’re making a claim, you must be prepared to prove it. Otherwise you’re operating on belief.
What evidence would you like them to produce?
But what if there is a good explanation that fits with both the available data, the dreaded model, and with theory? Isn’t that superior to the “I don’t know it just is” answer that you propose?
That’s up to them: they’re making the claim, but models aren’t evidence.
I don’t think anyone disputes that CO[sub]2[/sub] levels have increased due to human activity. The dispute is the degree to which the increased CO[sub]2[/sub] levels are responsible for the observed warming, if at all.
Your cite shows a pie chart, showing estimated released quantities of various gases over the next century, weighted by their effectiveness as a greenhouse gas compared to CO[sub]2[/sub]. (E.g. CO[sub]2[/sub] recieves a weighting of 1, methane a weighting of 23, etc.) Even assuming that the estimated releases over the next century are correct, all it shows is that CO[sub]2[/sub] will be the most significant greenhouse gas out of the gases being considered.
The cite assumes that greenhouse gases are the cause of observed warming, it doesn’t show it. Showing that is rather more difficult.
Implied in the OP subject:
My contention is that most people are not scientists, and also I make a further contention that even most scientists are not involved in the scientific study of AGW.
Most people are not bullfighters. Do you want to know what they think?
I’ll take the scientists’ word for it.
You can call it faith if you want.
Most people, to varying degrees, have the ability to read and understand what the scientists are talking about though.
I suppose if I was to take any part of your assertations to task, it would be the fact that you say “totally on faith” and discount any independent digestion of the existing studies and research.
Even if we were to link it to religion, if someone came up to me and professed a belief in Creationism using the standard array of dinosaur footprints and breaks in the equine fossil record and the rest of it, I wouldn’t say his belief in Creationism was “totally on faith”. I might disagree with how he chooses to interpret the available evidence but I’d acknowledge that he’s basing his beliefs on something other than a reading of Genesis.
Emphasis mine (band name!).
It was proven wrong. It wasn’t discredited by a global consortium whose best argument consisted of “We just don’t know enough yet”.
I’m always interested in what bullfighters think, but the real point as I see it is:
The layperson (non-scientist), is taking the word of mainly the media and educational systems as to the ‘reality’ of AGW, accepting the concept only on faith and some comparison to how hot a car gets with the sun on it with the windows shut. Yes they can look into it themselves, but more don’t have the time or interest and just blindly accept it.
Unlike taking the word of the authorities on things like the theory of evolution, believing in AGW and acting to ‘prevent it’ can cause significant changes in one’s lifestyle. So people are willing to accept a lifestyle change based solely on faith.
Well, most people in our modern society do rely on the expertise of others. When I get into a plane, I trust in the expertise of the pilot…so I don’t find it necessary to read up on how to fly jet aircraft. When I go to the doctor, I trust in his/her expertise.
When I accept the determinations of another field of science, I rely on the expertise of those scientists and a trust of the scientific process, which I understand firsthand even though I may not have applied it in that field. In some cases (like climate science), I may be interested enough that I delve into it in more depth. And, doing this can be rewarding…although it is best to do so with quite a bit of humility. I.e., when you don’t understand something outside of your field, it is usually not wise to jump very quickly to the conclusion that those in the field are wrong. It is better to investigate why they say what they say.
Now, taking a religious doctrine on faith is rather different in that you are trusting not in the scientific process but in the process by which that religion has determined what is true. And, while nobody can say that this is the wrong thing to do, it certainly doesn’t work for me when I see how religious truth is determined.
Faith has usually been defined, at least around here, as “belief in things without evidence,” or “belief in things not seen.” Your definition would require that no one enter a building they had not personally witnessed being built, for fear that it may collapse. Or never fill a gas tank from a gas pump without testing the contents first. Ad infinitum.
It is possible to make an informed decision on a particular topic without doing primary research.
Sure. Natural fluctuations.
And that’s part of the problem with the AGW hypothesis. Not only has it not been tested, but there are other reasonable explanations for what has been observed.
Not to mention that, according to you, a layperson “looking into it” doesn’t count.
This is a good example for the"Have you ever changed your opinion with additional information?" thread.
First, let’s define a term or two. Nobody has to take Global Warming on faith (unless you have trouble believing the integrity of climate records). It’s warmer than it used to be. This is fact, not opinion.
We’re talking specifically about Anthropogenic Global Warming, which the OP doesn’t mention. The “faith” question is about whether humans are causing the (inarguable) climate change.
When first confronted with the question, my reaction was “climates change.” Early last year, I decided not to read anything about AGW anymore unless the author had scientific credentials. I don’t lay the burden of proof on one side of an issue and take the other position as a default. I look at the evidence both ways before making a decision: and the evidence has led me to believe that AGW is real.
Religion is different. There is ample evidence on one side, and naught but faith on the other. It simply can’t be compared to an issue like AGW with evidence on both sides from which one can draw a logical conclusion.
No…They are willing to do it based on other people’s expertise. Just like my getting in a plane is a lifestyle choice I make based on the expertise of the pilot.
I see the opposite problem occurring than what you seem to be worried about. I see a situation where some people pronounce their opinion on the science of climate change without having made the huge investment of time and learning that would be necessary to actually have an informed opinion. When this opinion contradicts the informed opinions of those who have actually studied the issue in depth, I don’t see why these people believe their opinion counts for much. I think that if you haven’t made the investment of time and energy necessary, you should defer to the general collective opinion of the experts or at least have very coherent reasons for doubting them.
It is sort of democracy taken to the extreme. Just because everybody is entitled to their own opinion on something doesn’t mean that all opinions are equally worthy…or that a person can expect others to value their opinion when it is based on ignorance.