Global Warming is a religious belief

Meteorologist Likens Fear of Global Warming to 'Religious Belief' By Marc Morano CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer December 02, 2004

Washington (CNSNews.com) - An MIT meteorologist Wednesday dismissed alarmist fears about human induced global warming as nothing more than 'religious beliefs.'

'Do you believe in global warming? That is a religious question. So is the second part: Are you a skeptic or a believer?' said Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen, in a speech to about 100 people at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

Despite the fact that we Americans (putatively) are among the best (formally) educated people in the world, we've still come to believe that all information is partisan, and that science, like art, is a matter of opinion. It's especially depressing to find a professional willing to characterize a vitally important and evolving scientific debate as faith-based or faith-energized.

RPD / Cambridge (the education center of America) Facts can be your friends if you treat them right.

Really? Have you come across plate tectonics? The 'Everybody Knows'

Reunite Gondwanaland - GLF

...

Actually, in a recent thread elsewhere, I wrote at length about the theories of evolution and of plate tectonics, noting that as with the theory of global warming, the confirmatory luxury of repetitive experimentation under controlled conditions is denied us. Because controlled experiments aren't possible, some people hope to conclude that evolution, plate tectonics, and global warming are each beyond the reach of science and systematic understanding.

RPD / Cambridge Facts can be your friends if you treat them right.

Just who are these 'some people' you talk about? so far there has been NO ONE in this news group who has made such an ridiculous, only you by way of

science that can not be experimented under 'controlled conditions' but we still mange to discover laws that apply!. Don't think so, then how do we know anything at all about the weather? We sure as hell can't control it! Yet!

'Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and be proven so!'

end

'R Philip Dowds' < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it > wrote in message

Well, I guess I misread some posts, and we're all much closer to agreement than I first supposed. Under these more congenial circumstances, we'll never have cause to introduce insults into our exchanges. This brightens my day.

RPD / Cambridge Facts can be your friends if you treat them right.

Glacial cycles aren't a part of 'religious belief'. They're based on evidence. There's some data over recent decades that indicates that we may be in a warming trend within an overall glacial cycle 'warm' period. How far and long that warming trend might carry on is arguable. Whether man is having much causal effect on it is also arguable. Whether a warming trend is preferable to a cooling trend - probably a warming trend is better for future generations versus going into a new glacial advance. What people really want is no change at all from where we are now, and that is unlikely. If you look at paleo temperature data over the last few hundred thousand years, the last 10,000 years has been anomalously stable. This stable warm period allowed the rise of human civilization. If we knew we were heading into a cooling period, it would probably be smart to pump out lots of CO2 etc. to slow it down. Since we're apparently heading into a warming, it's probably smart to reduce warming emissions. There's nothing religious about this - it's just that we don't know enough about something very important to us. The same is true of cancer - is that 'religious' too?

While they're not formal controlled experiments, we have observations of organisms evolving. For instance, we have created 'super' germs over recent decades through the use of antibiotics and germicidals. Look at the variety of dog breeds that man has created. I'm sure there are other examples.

In the 1800's, one of the burning questions was the age of the earth. Geologists using qualitative logic versus Kelvin defined 'scientific' quantitative methods and repeatable experiments came up with a WAY more accurate estimate. Of the trhee 'methods used, geology was No. 1 by a huge margin; then physics; and third was religion.

As far as glacial cycles go, we are in a cooling cycle. That is one reason that the current warming is so worrying. It must be due to the change in CO2, and it is already enough to override the natural glacial cycles.

Cheers, Alastair.

Doing it. Here:-