Thread: Global Warming, the new religion.

I'll see your disgruntled NASA scientist (upset about red tape and government oversight) supported by Greenpeace and raise you:

1 Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, 2 Senators threatening congressional censure of supporters of skeptics, and 8 State Attorneys who are setting Global Warming Policies themselves.

All of this only seems to prove my point. It's not about discussion anymore, it's "us vs them". A new religious crusade has started and if you are not for them you are against them.

Grumble Grumble Grumble

This issue isn't so much a Religions crusade, (that is, unless you consider the worship of $$$ a religion), ultimately boils down to MONEY...

For a government to actually address the issues of Global Warming, would require a reallocation of government goals and funding, changes to the tax structure, and major changes to the world economy. The disruptions that would be caused by this are not only undesirable to persons and companies in position of power and influence, they represent a threat for their ability to make $$$. So it's not surprising that they would try to deny or suppress research that is counter to their position...

Now scientist who disagree, this is the natural state of Science. Ideas and data MUST be discussed and debated, and the majority consensus will agree on the most correct ideas and information. As a comparison to your Exxon researchers, the link that first connected tobacco products to lung cancer was first discovered in the late 1950s, yet Tobacco company sponsored researchers claimed up to only a few years ago that the scientific data was invalid and that there was no cancer link to tobacco...

And I see your 8 Attorney Generals with the Supreme Court case concerning the EPA and Greenhouse gases...
Global warming debate hits Supreme Court - CNN.com

In some ways it has become like religion in a sense that you either believe it or you dont.

But then again isn't that the case with most scientific debate? One scientist believes one side global warming - because of "evidence". And the other scientist think different because of a piece of "evidence" that states otherwise.

Though I can't think of one right now, debates like this have happened in the past.

Slowly but surely, more an dmore scientist are realising global warming is a real threat. I think the debate will probably move more towards the better way of fixing/preventing it.

but like hassun said - if religion is needed to help then go ahead, something needs to be done!

Of course it all boils down to cold hard money. We ARE capitalists after all.
If the industrialists backing the government don't agree it's just not going to happen.
I think it's safe to say (like LenMiyata has proven) that the general consensus in the USA is to diminish the importance of global warming.
This was also visible when the Kyoto protocol crashed and burned without the support from the USA (and -to a lesser extent- Australia).

Originally Posted by LenMiyata

Grumble Grumble Grumble

This issue isn't so much a Religions crusade, (that is, unless you consider the worship of $$$ a religion), ultimately boils down to MONEY...

For a government to actually address the issues of Global Warming, would require a reallocation of government goals and funding, changes to the tax structure, and major changes to the world economy. The disruptions that would be caused by this are not only undesirable to persons and companies in position of power and influence, they represent a threat for their ability to make $$$. So it's not surprising that they would try to deny or suppress research that is counter to their position...

Now scientist who disagree, this is the natural state of Science. Ideas and data MUST be discussed and debated, and the majority consensus will agree on the most correct ideas and information. As a comparison to your Exxon researchers, the link that first connected tobacco products to lung cancer was first discovered in the late 1950s, yet Tobacco company sponsored researchers claimed up to only a few years ago that the scientific data was invalid and that there was no cancer link to tobacco...

And I see your 8 Attorney Generals with the Supreme Court case concerning the EPA and Greenhouse gases...
Global warming debate hits Supreme Court - CNN.com

I will agree that there are governments who are against this subject due to economics. There seems to be some agreement that it would cost 1% of a countries GDP to put the measures they wish into effect. That doesn't sound like a lot until you realize that the US's GPD is $12.31 trillion so it would take $123.1 billion. If you think that would have an impact imagine what kind of effect 1% of the GDP in a poorer country would do to them?

Butttt... at least the economists are talking about it. They are not the ones I am referring to. It's the ones who won't discuss it that I am pointing at. Which makes it really funny that Alan Thorpe has challenged skeptics to a debate and it is all over the place. Yet I have been reading of challenges from the skeptics for over 10 years and it's never made it past minor publications or editorials. I will be interested to see if he follows through or if it is just another sound bite in the war of ideals.

Cubz provided some really good points earlier. Why doesn't someone try his suggestion and go to a University and tell people that global warming is just a natural occurrence. See what happens. I've only called it in question on another forum and was accused of being in "in denial until the bitter end".

Originally Posted by Arrianna

I will agree that there are governments who are against this subject due to economics. There seems to be some agreement that it would cost 1% of a countries GDP to put the measures they wish into effect. That doesn't sound like a lot until you realize that the US's GPD is $12.31 trillion so it would take $123.1 billion. If you think that would have an impact imagine what kind of effect 1% of the GDP in a poorer country would do to them?

Butttt... at least the economists are talking about it. They are not the ones I am referring to. It's the ones who won't discuss it that I am pointing at. Which makes it really funny that Alan Thorpe has challenged skeptics to a debate and it is all over the place. Yet I have been reading of challenges from the skeptics for over 10 years and it's never made it past minor publications or editorials. I will be interested to see if he follows through or if it is just another sound bite in the war of ideals.

Cubz provided some really good points earlier. Why doesn't someone try his suggestion and go to a University and tell people that global warming is just a natural occurrence. See what happens. I've only called it in question on another forum and was accused of being in "in denial until the bitter end".

I don't know which university you people go to but if I tried that at the university over here they would organize a debate evening about it with students and every teacher who's willing to attack/defend the statement.

In fact, there recently was such a debate (although the original subject was the Kyoto protocol).
Most teachers agreed that the human effect on global warming is not to be underestimated (heavy industry and traffic being major problems) and that regions in Europe could be in danger because of the temperature increase.

E.g.
Most of The Netherlands is located under sea level, because the ice of the North Pole is melting there is a serious threat of floods. If the dikes can't hold then most of the country will be flooded.

Spain could be facing an even more troublesome problem. The Sahara in northern Africa is moving to the north. If global warming increases at this rate there is a large possibility that the desert will start claiming land from Spain.

Ok, I want to know the name of your University so my kids can go there. I don't know a single University where you wouldn't get a reaction if you tried that. If you test it and you are right I will pay the money for my kids to get in.