Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because science isn't religion, there is always something new to be studied in science.
While we agree that there is global warming, the effects it will have is something we still need to study more. We know how many planets are in our solar system, yet we keep studying them to learn more about them, that is how science works.
If you want a one and done thing, religion is what you want where people worship a book written thousands of years ago without ever questioning its contents.
I agree with that in principle except for two points
1) While it is ideal to advance our knowledge on a subject, we are being told that we are in imminent danger and have to act fast. Shouldn't ALL of our studies and effort be towards reducing energy usage and mitigating the damage? I'd be fine with measuring glaciers and drilling more ice cores to advance our understanding but not when we are being told that we are in huge danger with very alarmist language.
2) "religion is what you want where people worship a book written thousands of years ago without ever questioning its contents."
I am very skeptical that ANY research is being done that seriously questions the AGW premise
You seem to think that science is based on picking a conclusion, selectively ignoring dissenting proof, and attempting to marginalize those in the opposition. That's called politics, my friend.
No, that's not what I think science is but sadly what our practice of it has devolved to
Global warming is big business. It's also a religion to many. The study of climate is indeed a real science to some, but if they present evidence suggesting climate change is not real they are excommunicated (see comments on global warming beig a religion to many). Even while this thread was just a few posts old someone made a personal attack on the OP for having the audacity to question the legitimacy of global warming/climate change/whatever we are calling it this week. I guess the OP insulted that poster's religion.
You are aware climate change is real, no one should be debating that it isn't. I think what you meant to say is that you think global warming isn't real even though there is plenty of data proving that it is. Though you are welcome to debate the effect man has had on global warming and the effect man could have to change the effects of global warming.
I agree with that in principle except for two points
1) While it is ideal to advance our knowledge on a subject, we are being told that we are in imminent danger and have to act fast. Shouldn't ALL of our studies and effort be towards reducing energy usage and mitigating the damage? I'd be fine with measuring glaciers and drilling more ice cores to advance our understanding but not when we are being told that we are in huge danger with very alarmist language.
2) "religion is what you want where people worship a book written thousands of years ago without ever questioning its contents."
I am very skeptical that ANY research is being done that seriously questions the AGW premise
There is research being done all the times on if global warming is happening or not and if man has any effect on it. The need for acting fast is a way to promote people making better choices, like cars with high gas mileage and reducing pollutants in our air, food, and water. As well as learning what steps we can take as human to best prepare for any changes.
You are aware climate change is real, no one should be debating that it isn't. I think what you meant to say is that you think global warming isn't real even though there is plenty of data proving that it is. Though you are welcome to debate the effect man has had on global warming and the effect man could have to change the effects of global warming.
Do you realize how much like a religious zealot you sound like? Climate change is as much a religion as is Islam, Judaism, or Christianity.
Here is what I believe: the Earth's climate changes. I believe it is a natural cycle with waves of generally warmer or cooler temps lasting several years at a time. I believe we should take steps to be responsible for the planet we live in. I object to the religion of climate change being forced upon me.
Please find me one person who claims that Global Warming is their religion.
They don't have to identify it as a religion. Not calling it a religion does not make it not a religion, though. It's the behavioral pattern that makes it a religion.
Do you realize how much like a religious zealot you sound like? Climate change is as much a religion as is Islam, Judaism, or Christianity.
Here is what I believe: the Earth's climate changes. I believe it is a natural cycle with waves of generally warmer or cooler temps lasting several years at a time. I believe we should take steps to be responsible for the planet we live in. I object to the religion of climate change being forced upon me.
It doesn't matter what you believe, my friend. That's not how science works.
Your whole religious projection is quaint but entirely of your own imagination. Either that or you watched Ben Stein's movie too many times.
Do you realize how much like a religious zealot you sound like? Climate change is as much a religion as is Islam, Judaism, or Christianity.
Here is what I believe: the Earth's climate changes. I believe it is a natural cycle with waves of generally warmer or cooler temps lasting several years at a time. I believe we should take steps to be responsible for the planet we live in. I object to the religion of climate change being forced upon me.
So you agree climate change is real based on your response. No one is forcing anything upon you, I personally don't care what you do and don't believe, and I am well aware this planet doesn't care if people believe climate change is real or not.
So you agree climate change is real based on your response. No one is forcing anything upon you, I personally don't care what you do and don't believe, and I am well aware this planet doesn't care if people believe climate change is real or not.
I believe the Earth's climate changes. That is not the same thing as believing in man-made climate change.
@entropy: I am not the only person to make the comparison. MIT professor Richard Lindzen has made it as well. Famed author Michael Chrichton also connected the two. Several Op-Ed writers have made the link. Professionals have suffered persecution at the hands of the church. Nicholas Drapela, professor at Oregon State Univesrity, was fired over his skepticism of AGW. The same thing happened to dr. James Enstrom at UCLA.
Silencing of dissent is not scientific. It is political and it is religious. I know you'd like to believe that guys like me are alone in our skepticism, but it is simply not the case. Many qualified minds rightly question the idea of AGW and some go as far as to identify it as a religion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
