Correlation does not necessarily always indicate causation, but very often it does imply it.
Otherwise, the whole of science becomes impossible, because every result you observe could just be coincidence.
What do the dems have to gain by global warming?
Bush shows Republicans will lie for their own interests even if hundreds of thousands of people die as a result. If you dispute this show me the WMDs in Iraq?
Name one recent (since the 90s) democrat lie that big.
It’s interesting you bring this up, because there is a strong anti-AGW contingency that uses their religious faith as a justification for ignoring (or simply dismissing) the weight of scientific evidence–anywhere from “God wouldn’t allow this to happen because we’re in charge” to “What difference does it make? We’ll be swept up in the Rapture, soon”, with a healthy dose of “You can’t trust those secular scientists anyway!”
I haven’t claimed otherwise.
Maybe so, but I want to understand one or two of these so-called “tests.”
Sorry, but I think that’s a cop-out. If AGW has been tested extensively, it ought to be possible to identify a couple tests and cite specifics.
I think it’s the “I want to take offense even when none was offered” fallacy, on your part. I never said that YOU were part of a global anti-AGW consortium, merely that one exists. And it does, in fact, exist- remember when it was found that Exxon was offering to pay scientists to publish anti-AGW papers?
For the record, I’m probably more involved in the anti-AGW cabal than you are, despite your brother’s career- I get a monthly check from an oil company for the natural gas wells on my land.
Oh, bullshit. There’ve been plenty of links offered in this thread and the countless others we’ve had on the 'Dope. I think what you mean is “there has not been one shred of proof that I’m willing to believe.”
Sez you. Climatologists (you know, people who actually study the subject and went to college and stuff), however, seem to disagree with you on that point. I’m more inlined to trust them than I am you.
But the problem isn’t with the magnitude of the fluctuation; it’s with the unusually short interval in which the fluctuation is taking place.
Taking my example even further: normally when the temperature fluctuates, it does so gradually (day to night to day) - it never jumps directly from 70 F to 105 F. However, when I went from my house to the outside, the temperature did fluctuate that quickly, hence why I noticed my ice cream melting so quickly.
So, how do you explain the unusually short interval in which we’re currently seeing the temperature fluctuate? If your answer does not involve the term “CO2”, then you need to explain why the increase in CO2 hasn’t had an effect on this.
LilShieste
OK, well, I think you’re probably reaching a bit with some of those comparisons and deciding on the basis of a few tenuous similarities, that the two things are the same.
People have reacted collectively to AGW in much the same way that they react collectively to many things - sport, fashion, celebrity, politics and yes, religion. So I think it can only be said that AGW is religion if everything else is too.
Is the argument;
-
Non-religious folks look down on religious people for taking things on faith.
-
But non-religious folks take many things on faith, for example, AGW.
-
Hypocrites.
Just wondering, really. This seems to be getting pretty tangent-y.
You know, kanicbird- since you seem to be unwilling to listen to the arguments presented in this thread, you could just say, “I know AGW is a religion, and that it’s false, and nothing will change my mind.”
'Cause then we could just stop wasting our time.
How many degrees Celcius over how many years?
I explained this earlier. Let me clarify:
AGW: Provable (although complex). There are facts that support it, and facts that don’t. The supporting facts are far stronger. No faith is required to accept the existence of AGW; merely an analysis of the conflicting information. There is no “sin,” as that’s a subjective concept unsupported by fact.
Religion: Unprovable. There are few facts in evidence. Faith is required to accept it. Everything is subjective.
How can you make generalizations this gross with a straight face? Because GWB acted on bad information (I’ve still not seen it proven that Bush knew the WMDs were gone from Iraq–it’s pretty clear he wanted to believe they were still there, but you have to knowingly state an untruth for it to be a lie), you conclude that Republicans are willing to lie for self-interest and cause thousands of deaths, but Democrats aren’t? The actions of one man (or even one administration) apply to tens of millions of other Republicans, including the ones that don’t support that man?
Here is a graph of the global temperature anomaly, in recent years:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/new_Fig.A2_lrg.gif
LilShieste
What you point out is part of it, some other parts:
-
Man is hardwired to have a ‘God’ (IIRC there was a thread here about that)
-
Man will invent one if man does not find one
-
Man will bow down to that God and worship him/it
-
To the point that even things that are obviously not gods are used
-
Non/antireligious people will claim that religion is used to control the masses, this is what is exactly what is happening with AGW (purposly inventing a false God knowing that man will worship it). It’s like the AGW folks designed this as a religion for that very reason.
and I’ll throw this one in:
- With AGW there is great political and economic interests on either side, a lot of time people can be influenced, not everyone, but some may fall victim to a bribe to change some data, or perhaps move people off a project, and a small change by a few people can cause major problems for a truely scientific study. Because of the enormous effects of the outcome and the powers in play I think the whole study is highly suspect.
Only because it’s all we have. It seems to me for every scientist that says it’s happening there’s another who says it isn’t. Who’s correct ?
More like: “for every 10,000 scientists that say it’s happening, there’s 1 who says it isn’t. Who’s correct?”
LilShieste
I’m not sure this analogy fully follows through. After all, AGW isn’t a totem that people are happy about or sacrifice to; it’s a bad thing. It would probably work better to say that “continued existence/similar weather patterns/whatever” (depending on that particular person’s views) is the false god, sacrificed to, while AGW itself is a false hell, a thing to be avoided.
Getting into actual opinions though, eh, i’m not totally convinced. After all, there are religious people who believe AGW is real. If this hardwiring was such that people are “made” to believe in a god, they for one already have them. Most people in the world follow one religion or another, so while I have no data I would not be surprised if most AGW supporters were religious. It seems reasonable to say that in most cases, people don’t agree with AGW because of the hardwired-religious thing.
Another point is that in order to accept something as a false religion, logically, people should see it as being similar. The idea is that something appears like a religion, and thus gains followers who have a need for that kind of thing and so flock to it. Yet many people in this thread (not a really representative group, sure) are saying they don’t really see the similarities. Logically, if it’s similarity to religion that entices people, they would not be likely to claim that they don’t see them as similar. But, like I said, this forum isn’t representative, so I can’t claim that’s a flaw that totally breaks your argument.
Religious people will claim that too, though generally about religions other than the one they follow. But other than that, certainly, this is a possibility. I would consider it an impressive conspiracy, but it’s certainly something that’s possible. But, as I said, I don’t think the “it’s like a religion” idea totally holds water, so I would suggest that while people may indeed have made things up in order to appear that way, I don’t think you could count the success as being due to religious hardwiring. You should probably stick to bribes. 
But as far as I can tell, you don’t think the “whole study” is highly suspect. If you thought the whole area was riddled with such problems, you would logically have no view one way or the other, since both the pro- and anti-sides would seem hopeless to you. Bribes, moving people, and all those flaws are things that could equally happen the other way as well, of course. Logically if one’s view was that the problems were inevitable as a result of the scientific process itself being flawed, you should reject *all * scientific findings.
AGW stops people from going to church? How so? I’m not really sure I understand you. Science isn’t religion’s enemy you know. You can have both. People on both sides try to make it one.
Science is natural philosophy tested with the scientific method. Religion is belief in the untestable. They’re not even in the same scope, man. it’s like a rivalry between auto mechanics and metallurgy.
Couldn’t say the same thing for lots of things?
Say auto mechanics
Sin:not changing oil regularly
Repentance: using some engine flush to get all that gunk out
Indulgence: going an extra 1,000 miles or so on old oil.
End time prophecy: dramatically shortened engine life ultimately ending amongst whaling of cylinders and gnashing of pistons.
Now I’ve personally never seen a car engine fail from lack of decent oil first hand, but I keep the faith and anoint the oil pan regularly with the SAE WD30-5 the good book, the inspired word of Pontiac it’s self, the owner’s manual recommends.
Control them to what ends? Religion will try to control such private matters as who you love, which gender you find attractive, how you raise your kids, how you eat, when you sleep, how you work, how you play.
AGW just affects the engine in your car, where the electric company taps for power, and various manufacturing things.
Things we should be worrying about anyway as the cheap oil won’t hold forever.
Only if you’re willing to water down the definition of the word “religion.”
And these superficial similarities are all that it takes to declare something a religion?
[Even though we’re using a definition of religion that you don’t find fitting in this instance? Which really throws me for a loop - cuz here you are, apparently arguing a case you don’t really think is valid.]
Yes, exactly.
And, afaict, kanic has already disavowed the very definition of religion he’s using.
I think if you were to find the actual statistics you find that the ratio’s not 1:1.
True - though not provable, except in a loose sense.
Religion is not falsifiable. If a God came down and did some good tricks, that would be convincing, given the quality of the tricks. Faith is only required for religion today because of the lack of this evidence. Did the Hebrews need faith after crossing the Red Sea?