News1 min ago
Global warming and religious belief
18 Answers
The connection between believing in man made global warming and being on the left is well known, but is there any evidence/knowledge whether it is more prevalent in religious believers vs atheists as well? I would have thought so but has anyone ever looked?
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by David H. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Interesting question. You know, when thinking about the types of people who are most vocal regarding the phenomenon of global warming, I have always associated religious whackaloons with the most vocal climate change sceptics. This is probably because I am sure I have heard Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck proclaiming their religious zealotry alongside their fervent disbelief in the idea of global warming.
I am probably guilty of stereotyping :)
I am probably guilty of stereotyping :)
It seems to be a similar affinity with realism and lack of emotional ideology that should work with both. Although the religious right is another area to consider they may be the exception that proves the rule as they only represent a fairly narrow type. But the element of faith required to accept something from higher authorities that you can't see or test directly and generates fear and control over the masses seems very applicable to both. Those who reject authority with their own judgement seem largely immune from both.
I would put it the other way.
It's well known that proportionally more global warming skeptics are right wing middle aged men who are not technically educated,and comfortably off.
The notion of "believing" in man made global warming and believing in a religion are quite different.
Believing in religion requires a source of authority with no visible means of support
"Believing" in man made global warming relies on a wealth of mutually supporting independant scientific data and opinion
On the contrary I find that the belief of Global warming Skeptics is more religious in nature.
Why? because of the principle of falsifyability - I have yet to meet one who is willing to give me the evidence that he would require in order to change his mind.
That is the basis of irrational belief
It's well known that proportionally more global warming skeptics are right wing middle aged men who are not technically educated,and comfortably off.
The notion of "believing" in man made global warming and believing in a religion are quite different.
Believing in religion requires a source of authority with no visible means of support
"Believing" in man made global warming relies on a wealth of mutually supporting independant scientific data and opinion
On the contrary I find that the belief of Global warming Skeptics is more religious in nature.
Why? because of the principle of falsifyability - I have yet to meet one who is willing to give me the evidence that he would require in order to change his mind.
That is the basis of irrational belief
I won’t get too involved, jake, as you know my views on this matter.
However, some of the sceptics may have their opinions modified by the fact that all the great “human disasters” that have been forecast by a wealth of experts over the last 50 years or so have proved to be so manifestly false. Furthermore, the number of people forecast to be slain by these events has proved to be widely shy of the mark. I cite (as a few examples among many), AIDS, bird ‘flu (and virtually every other sort of seasonal ‘flu), acid rain, and not forgetting the more recent ludicrous over reaction to the forecast of deaths from pig ‘flu.
Some people, without getting bogged down in the facts, may well ask “Why should I believe this forecast in particular?” As I’ve said before, usually you can ignore such claptrap and it eventually goes away when the experts turn their attention to the next disaster they have identified.
This time it hasn’t
However, some of the sceptics may have their opinions modified by the fact that all the great “human disasters” that have been forecast by a wealth of experts over the last 50 years or so have proved to be so manifestly false. Furthermore, the number of people forecast to be slain by these events has proved to be widely shy of the mark. I cite (as a few examples among many), AIDS, bird ‘flu (and virtually every other sort of seasonal ‘flu), acid rain, and not forgetting the more recent ludicrous over reaction to the forecast of deaths from pig ‘flu.
Some people, without getting bogged down in the facts, may well ask “Why should I believe this forecast in particular?” As I’ve said before, usually you can ignore such claptrap and it eventually goes away when the experts turn their attention to the next disaster they have identified.
This time it hasn’t
i believe in mans contribution to global warming, but that the overall climactic effect is a naturally occurring one. perhaps we are accelerating it somehow, but my guess would be that at some time the earth (with or without our help) will either go cold again or warm again, this time round its warming up.
Well NJ 's lack of faith in "experts" is interesting
I have little doubt that he believes them when they reinforce his own previously held convictions.
Unfortunately most people get their information not from experts - whether it is bird flu or AIDS or Climate Change - but through the media - and that's normally where the trouble begins because journalists always go for the most dramatic story
People are left with an impression that the world is going to end and when it doesn't they rarely blame the newspapers.
But yes - the forecasts are at the heart of this and it is that which is uncertain
Man is definately affecting the climate - but what the effect will be is uncertain - it could just be one degree by the end of the century which would be pretty bad - especially for marginal areas like North Africa, Southern Spain, South Western US etc.
It could be 4 or 5 degrees in which case we'd all be in a sea of pooh
We do know that we are putting lots of CO2 in and that the planet can't take out the amounts that are going in.
And we also know that it heats the atmosphere and we are seeing that rise.
On the plus side (for us at least) the UK is predicted to be one of the least badly affected countries by climate change - If I had to pick a country to shelter from it's effects I'd pick here.
I have little doubt that he believes them when they reinforce his own previously held convictions.
Unfortunately most people get their information not from experts - whether it is bird flu or AIDS or Climate Change - but through the media - and that's normally where the trouble begins because journalists always go for the most dramatic story
People are left with an impression that the world is going to end and when it doesn't they rarely blame the newspapers.
But yes - the forecasts are at the heart of this and it is that which is uncertain
Man is definately affecting the climate - but what the effect will be is uncertain - it could just be one degree by the end of the century which would be pretty bad - especially for marginal areas like North Africa, Southern Spain, South Western US etc.
It could be 4 or 5 degrees in which case we'd all be in a sea of pooh
We do know that we are putting lots of CO2 in and that the planet can't take out the amounts that are going in.
And we also know that it heats the atmosphere and we are seeing that rise.
On the plus side (for us at least) the UK is predicted to be one of the least badly affected countries by climate change - If I had to pick a country to shelter from it's effects I'd pick here.
I have seen two radically different connections between religion and AGW. Some say that the Bible does not describe climate change so it won't happen. Others say it is Armageddon itself.
Those who don't believe there would enormous consequences of adding almost 100 million tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere every day just through the burning of fossil fuels alone are ignorant of the science.
Half the extra co2 due to all human activity has been added since 1977. We have increased the content of co2 by more than one quarter. About half of the co2 emitted annually is absorbed by the ocean but this proportion continues to fall. The remainder stays in the atmosphere for many centuries and continues to trap heat.
The Arctic ice cap shrinks 14,000 square km annually but it is thinning even faster. Now it has been discovered that large tracts of the ice are full of holes and very prone to melting.
Those who don't believe there would enormous consequences of adding almost 100 million tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere every day just through the burning of fossil fuels alone are ignorant of the science.
Half the extra co2 due to all human activity has been added since 1977. We have increased the content of co2 by more than one quarter. About half of the co2 emitted annually is absorbed by the ocean but this proportion continues to fall. The remainder stays in the atmosphere for many centuries and continues to trap heat.
The Arctic ice cap shrinks 14,000 square km annually but it is thinning even faster. Now it has been discovered that large tracts of the ice are full of holes and very prone to melting.
I would go along with new judge here, as the actual problems we've been warned about turn out to be virtually all not just in the future but so far away few of us will be likely to know about it. But if Nigel Lawson's summary is correct (as it should be as he lectures based on it) the IPCC report says the worst case scenario at 6' we'd only be 8 times better off rather than 9. Whereas the measures taken right now are making us all worse off. The range of genuine studies claiming -the range of error by the IPCC is ten times greater than the possible range of temperature -the Hungarian expert from NASA who says the greenhouse effect is stable and adding CO2 can't make a difference as he's measured it directly and peer reviewed by an IPCC member, and the simple fact 95% of greenhouse gas is water vapour, a little of the remainder is CO2 and man creates 3% of that. Bearing in mind just this list of variables I think it takes the same level of religious belief to accept the case made by Al Gore etc which is then followed by 'errors' which sneak out one by one, while being so well protected I would also imagine they are just a small proportion of the total.
Add to that how easy it is for competing climatologists to claim every figure of temperature, sea level and ice coverage is wrong and why tells me what Philip Stott says (who should know), the climate is far too complex to be fully understood and the effect from small additional factors would be currently impossible to measure. So overall once you look closer and closer to me the whole theory seems to fall apart, and when communicated to said believers every single point I've made is dismissed without reference, besides questioning the sanity of the scientists who produced such reports, which again is more religious than scientific.
Add to that how easy it is for competing climatologists to claim every figure of temperature, sea level and ice coverage is wrong and why tells me what Philip Stott says (who should know), the climate is far too complex to be fully understood and the effect from small additional factors would be currently impossible to measure. So overall once you look closer and closer to me the whole theory seems to fall apart, and when communicated to said believers every single point I've made is dismissed without reference, besides questioning the sanity of the scientists who produced such reports, which again is more religious than scientific.
I don't adjust the amount of credence I give to the "experts", jake.
Since just about everything they have told me about potential catastrophic disasters has proved to be wildly exagerrated, I just ignore them all whether their prophesies align with my philosophies or not.That way, Im neither surpised nor disappointed.
I just wish everybody else would do the same, particularly with regards to this particular issue. Then I could use light bulbs that do not make the room appear darker when they are switche on.
Since just about everything they have told me about potential catastrophic disasters has proved to be wildly exagerrated, I just ignore them all whether their prophesies align with my philosophies or not.That way, Im neither surpised nor disappointed.
I just wish everybody else would do the same, particularly with regards to this particular issue. Then I could use light bulbs that do not make the room appear darker when they are switche on.
/// the simple fact 95% of greenhouse gas is water vapour, ///
Yes most of it is water vapour. Without that we wold be frozen at temperatures much closer to the -270 degrees Celcius of space.
/// a little of the remainder is CO2 and man creates 3% of that. ///
False and profoundly misleading. Human activity is directly responsible for about one quarter of the co2 in the atmosphere today. We produce 100 times the co2 due to volcanos.
Yes most of it is water vapour. Without that we wold be frozen at temperatures much closer to the -270 degrees Celcius of space.
/// a little of the remainder is CO2 and man creates 3% of that. ///
False and profoundly misleading. Human activity is directly responsible for about one quarter of the co2 in the atmosphere today. We produce 100 times the co2 due to volcanos.
/// Add to that how easy it is for competing climatologists to claim every figure of temperature, sea level and ice coverage is wrong ///
Skeptics have largely stopped diputing these facts because they are very well established. Most now are trying to claim the effectas are not caused by human activity.
/// and why tells me what Philip Stott says (who should know), ///
Stott has no qualifications in climatology. Skeptics typically quote anyone that supports their bigotry without regard for their expertise.
//the climate is far too complex to be fully understood and the effect from small additional factors would be currently impossible to measure. ///
Climate modelling continues to become more accurate as more factors are quantified and understood. A vast amount of data is incorporated.
/// So overall once you look closer and closer to me the whole theory seems to fall apart, and when communicated to said believers every single point I've made is dismissed without reference ///
You choose to see it fall apart because of your religious conviction to climate change denial. You provide no references or at most vague mentioning of unqualified people. The vast majority of the science supports the hypothesis.
Skeptics have largely stopped diputing these facts because they are very well established. Most now are trying to claim the effectas are not caused by human activity.
/// and why tells me what Philip Stott says (who should know), ///
Stott has no qualifications in climatology. Skeptics typically quote anyone that supports their bigotry without regard for their expertise.
//the climate is far too complex to be fully understood and the effect from small additional factors would be currently impossible to measure. ///
Climate modelling continues to become more accurate as more factors are quantified and understood. A vast amount of data is incorporated.
/// So overall once you look closer and closer to me the whole theory seems to fall apart, and when communicated to said believers every single point I've made is dismissed without reference ///
You choose to see it fall apart because of your religious conviction to climate change denial. You provide no references or at most vague mentioning of unqualified people. The vast majority of the science supports the hypothesis.
To be fair, the Green lobby were right to criticise the dash for gas powered eletricity stations in the 80s, is the only prediction I can recall that came true.
As I undertand it a lot of the data on MMGW is based on computer models, although in truth I don't know enough to hold hard and fast beliefs either way.
I watched a debate the other week and the sceptic won hands down, which was impressive as two were against him the professor Richard Lynton springs to mind, I've also heard a fellow called Dr. Roy Spencer and another one called Piers Corbyn, I wouldn't know who is for or against in that group.
I feel that climate change falls under two camps, those that believe it's natural and those that don't.
The scientific types are strongly of the opinion that even if it's natural it requires a catalyst to make things change, when the sceptics produce a verifiable alternitive to the current viewpoints the computer models etc will preside.
As I undertand it a lot of the data on MMGW is based on computer models, although in truth I don't know enough to hold hard and fast beliefs either way.
I watched a debate the other week and the sceptic won hands down, which was impressive as two were against him the professor Richard Lynton springs to mind, I've also heard a fellow called Dr. Roy Spencer and another one called Piers Corbyn, I wouldn't know who is for or against in that group.
I feel that climate change falls under two camps, those that believe it's natural and those that don't.
The scientific types are strongly of the opinion that even if it's natural it requires a catalyst to make things change, when the sceptics produce a verifiable alternitive to the current viewpoints the computer models etc will preside.
beso, as long as articles continue to appear like this http://www.americanth...ate_change_onsla.html no one can convince me.
This illustrates it very nicely in fact. Religion is based on an unseen god, only known by reports of those above (who could tell the climate was warming if they used their own observations?), is mainly based on a future armageddon (the second coming), and apparently blind to all suggestions they may not be quite reliable (see above link and then the reactions to it and all similar that 'the science is settled'). Mantras are also very much part of religion, so 'the climate is the most serious thing happening to the planet' (not chemical/sewage pollution, disease, war, hunger etc?), 'ice is at its lowest level ever' (no, that is zero), and 'hottest year ever' (since records began being taken directly, by thermometers in 1860 and satellites in 1979).
When faced with these points the believers throw out computer projections, rebased graphs etc, as if fiddling around with the data and trying to guess the future makes it wrong. No scientist worth a BSc would dare to dismiss such obvious issues with fudging, they'd admit their theory is still not perfect and is 100% impossible to pin any actual weather event on global warming as it simply can't be done. But they still try to. Not that different from sacrifices for a good harvest, when it happens then you keep sacrificing, if it doesn't, you don't stop but think you didn't do enough and sacrifice even more. That's religion.
This illustrates it very nicely in fact. Religion is based on an unseen god, only known by reports of those above (who could tell the climate was warming if they used their own observations?), is mainly based on a future armageddon (the second coming), and apparently blind to all suggestions they may not be quite reliable (see above link and then the reactions to it and all similar that 'the science is settled'). Mantras are also very much part of religion, so 'the climate is the most serious thing happening to the planet' (not chemical/sewage pollution, disease, war, hunger etc?), 'ice is at its lowest level ever' (no, that is zero), and 'hottest year ever' (since records began being taken directly, by thermometers in 1860 and satellites in 1979).
When faced with these points the believers throw out computer projections, rebased graphs etc, as if fiddling around with the data and trying to guess the future makes it wrong. No scientist worth a BSc would dare to dismiss such obvious issues with fudging, they'd admit their theory is still not perfect and is 100% impossible to pin any actual weather event on global warming as it simply can't be done. But they still try to. Not that different from sacrifices for a good harvest, when it happens then you keep sacrificing, if it doesn't, you don't stop but think you didn't do enough and sacrifice even more. That's religion.
Even more specific, an interview with Rajendra Pachauri who admits they can't always find a quantitative base for their predictions, and are many uncertainties built in they can't pin down. Pushed further he admits that rather than a scientific body (which it never was) the IPCC is policy driven.
Well tell me something I didn't know, yet the 'believers' would manage to turn round and whistle.
Well tell me something I didn't know, yet the 'believers' would manage to turn round and whistle.
1 to 18 of 18
Latest Posts
Crosswords3 mins ago
Crosswords7 mins ago
News14 mins ago
ChatterBank28 mins ago
Jobs & Education37 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.