Is it just me,

[☭proletarian☭]

or does AGW continue to look more and more like a religion as time goes by? The blind loyalty to dogma, the the blind faith in the 'prophets' like Al Gore. the way in which they respond to criticism - accusing those who question their story of being duped by the evil industrial powers- all very much like church, no?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

or does AGW continue to look more and more like a religion as time goes by? The blind loyalty to dogma, the the blind faith in the 'prophets' like Al Gore. the way in which they respond to criticism - accusing those who question their story of being duped by the evil industrial powers- all very much like church, no?

Only to those of us sane. The White Smock religion has a new branch.

 

[Si modo]

or does AGW continue to look more and more like a religion as time goes by? The blind loyalty to dogma, the the blind faith in the 'prophets' like Al Gore. the way in which they respond to criticism - accusing those who question their story of being duped by the evil industrial powers- all very much like church, no?

I think it's an apt analogy, except I would generalize it more by calling it a faith. Religion implies more structure around that faith. So, calling it a faith would include both those groups who are structured in their beliefs (advocating for Copenhagen and Kyoto, for example) and those who have faith that AGW is real.

So, I go with a faith. Faith is the set of ideas for which there is no proof or even adequate support, so it applies. Faith is more based on an emotional thought process than a rational thought process.

 

[Caligirl]

Look, any policy position is going to have its crazies. Most moderates "believe" in some form of AGW and in reducing GHG emission. The reason it looks more crazy to you now than it did before, is that us moderates don't have to be vocal anymore, things are moving in the right direction. SO the only people still being vocal are the crazies.

If Bush was still in office and snubbing Copenhagen or something like this, there'd be a heck of a lot more peopl being vocal about it, not just the crazies.

 

[uscitizen]

AGW is not anti-global warmers?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

AGW is not anti-global warmers?

Anthropogenic global warming - What does AGW stand for? Acronyms and abbreviations by the Free Online Dictionary.

 

[Si modo]

Look, any policy position is going to have its crazies. Most moderates "believe" in some form of AGW and in reducing GHG emission. The reason it looks more crazy to you now than it did before, is that us moderates don't have to be vocal anymore, things are moving in the right direction. SO the only people still being vocal are the crazies.

If Bush was still in office and snubbing Copenhagen or something like this, there'd be a heck of a lot more peopl being vocal about it, not just the crazies.

As AGW is not based on fact, it is a belief. So, advocating for policy based on one's beliefs (faith) in AGW is little different than advocating for legislation based on faith in a deity.

 

[uscitizen]

AGW is not anti-global warmers?

Anthropogenic global warming - What does AGW stand for? Acronyms and abbreviations by the Free Online Dictionary.

Thanks.

I was thinking the anti warmers seem to be at least as much of a religion as the warmers are.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Skepticism is not an assertion

 

[Si modo]

Skepticism is not an assertion

A point often lost on many.

 

[uscitizen]

Many assertions are not assertions either.

 

[Mr Natural]

It makes about as much sense as any other religion.

 

[Caligirl]

Look, any policy position is going to have its crazies. Most moderates "believe" in some form of AGW and in reducing GHG emission. The reason it looks more crazy to you now than it did before, is that us moderates don't have to be vocal anymore, things are moving in the right direction. SO the only people still being vocal are the crazies.

If Bush was still in office and snubbing Copenhagen or something like this, there'd be a heck of a lot more peopl being vocal about it, not just the crazies.

As AGW is not based on fact, it is a belief. So, advocating for policy based on one's beliefs (faith) in AGW is little different than advocating for legislation based on faith in a deity.

AGW is evidence-based, like all science. You are either (1) convinced by the evidence, (2) not convinced by the evidence, or (3) unsure. And your position can change.

THis shouldn't seem particularly threatening, so your tone is a little odd.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

or does AGW continue to look more and more like a religion as time goes by? The blind loyalty to dogma, the the blind faith in the 'prophets' like Al Gore. the way in which they respond to criticism - accusing those who question their story of being duped by the evil industrial powers- all very much like church, no?

10's across the board!

 

[uscitizen]

The anti warmers have at least cult status.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Global warming is the biggest fraud in the history of mankind. Those that truly believe in this poop are not as bright as they would like for others to believe they are.

 

[xsited1]

or does AGW continue to look more and more like a religion as time goes by? The blind loyalty to dogma, the the blind faith in the 'prophets' like Al Gore. the way in which they respond to criticism - accusing those who question their story of being duped by the evil industrial powers- all very much like church, no?

I take it you didn't pay Al Gore $1200 to shake his hand.

 

[Si modo]

Look, any policy position is going to have its crazies. Most moderates "believe" in some form of AGW and in reducing GHG emission. The reason it looks more crazy to you now than it did before, is that us moderates don't have to be vocal anymore, things are moving in the right direction. SO the only people still being vocal are the crazies.

If Bush was still in office and snubbing Copenhagen or something like this, there'd be a heck of a lot more peopl being vocal about it, not just the crazies.

As AGW is not based on fact, it is a belief. So, advocating for policy based on one's beliefs (faith) in AGW is little different than advocating for legislation based on faith in a deity.

AGW is evidence-based, like all science. You are either (1) convinced by the evidence, (2) not convinced by the evidence, or (3) unsure. And your position can change.

THis shouldn't seem particularly threatening, so your tone is a little odd.

Perhaps because my tone is one that involves the logic of scientific discovery. A theory is accepted as valid (one based on science) if it (1) falsifiable, (2) supported with valid science, and (3) has not been falsified. All must be met. AGW meets none of those conditions.

 

[Caligirl]

As AGW is not based on fact, it is a belief. So, advocating for policy based on one's beliefs (faith) in AGW is little different than advocating for legislation based on faith in a deity.

AGW is evidence-based, like all science. You are either (1) convinced by the evidence, (2) not convinced by the evidence, or (3) unsure. And your position can change.

THis shouldn't seem particularly threatening, so your tone is a little odd.

Perhaps because my tone is one that involves the logic of scientific discovery. A theory is accepted as valid (one based on science) if it (1) falsifiable, (2) supported with valid science, and (3) has not been falsified. All must be met. AGW meets none of those conditions.

(1) AGW is certainly falsifiable.

If CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) are responsible for warming, therefore reducing GHGs should lead to a reduction in global temperatures. If reducing GHGs does not lead to reduction in global temps, then AGW has been falsified.

That is one way to falsify AGW, therefore AGW is falisfiable.

(2) AGW is supported by valid science. If there are bad reports in the mix as well, that does not invalidate the valid reports. In fact it would be odd in any field to not have bad reports in the mix. The bulk of evidence is weighed by individuals, consensus, etc etc. YMMV, but it is wrong to say that AGW is not supported by valid evidence.

"anthropogenic global warming" - Google Scholar

(3) I am not aware of AGW being falisified.

How about this: If AGW has been falsified (as you say), then by definition AGW is falsifiable, therefore your assertion that none of the three has been met.... is wrong.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

AGW is evidence-based, like all science.

AGW suffers from a distinct lack of evidence and anyone who points that out soon finds it's political, not scientific.