MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science

MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Phydeaux -> MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/3/2013 8:51:00 PM)
http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/29/mit-professor-global-warming-is-a-religion/ Highlights: Global alarmists are increasing their prophecies of doom while scientist are scaling back theirs. Serious breaches of science. No warming in 15 years. Religion. Not. Science.

DomKen -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/3/2013 9:37:05 PM)
Another guy who used to deny that smoking causes cancer who now denies climate change. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen

Phydeaux -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/3/2013 9:41:25 PM)
From your quote: Joel Achenbach wrote in the Washington Post in 2006 that "of all the skeptics, MIT's Richard Lindzen probably has the most credibility among mainstream scientists, who acknowledge that he's doing serious research on the subject."[2] Regarding tobacco and science: "In a 2001 profile in Newsweek, journalist Fred Guterl wrote that Lindzen "clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking."[14] James Hansen recalls meeting Lindzen whilst testifying before the Vice President's Climate Task Force: "I considered asking Lindzen if he still believed there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer. He had been a witness for tobacco companies decades earlier, questioning the reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems. But I decided that would be too confrontational. When I met him at a later conference, I did ask that question, and was surprised by his response: He began rattling off all the problems with the date relating smoking to helath problems, which was closely analagous to his views of climate data." [15] You seem to have difficulty understanding what science actually is. Does smoking cause cancer. Absolutely. Does the methodology of any particular study prove it - perhaps or perhaps not. Understanding what statiscally significant is, and what the holes are in the treatment of data is what science is supposed to be about. I would hope anyone claiming to be a scientist had a sceptical view of a hypothesis. Thats one of the differences between science and religion.

DomKen -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/4/2013 2:43:26 AM)
Skeptical is fine. Adjusting his beliefs to who is paying him is not. Back in the 70's and 80's he took money from the tobacco industry and he's saying smoking doesn't cause cancer. Now he's taking money from the oild energy industry and he's a climate change denier which is a curious pattern with several prominent climate change deniers. But of course since you agree with his positions, despite the vast majority of climate scientists disagreeing with him and his own claims on why climate change won't happen being disproven by the actual evidence, you won't question whether a guy who was so wrong on tobacco might also be wrong on anything else

Politesub53 -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/4/2013 3:09:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/29/mit-professor-global-warming-is-a-religion/ Highlights: Global alarmists are increasing their prophecies of doom while scientist are scaling back theirs. Serious breaches of science. No warming in 15 years. Religion. Not. Science. Religion........ Are you serious ?.......... Fuck, sadly I think you are.

thishereboi -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/4/2013 4:45:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/29/mit-professor-global-warming-is-a-religion/ Highlights: Global alarmists are increasing their prophecies of doom while scientist are scaling back theirs. Serious breaches of science. No warming in 15 years. Religion. Not. Science. Religion........ Are you serious ?.......... Fuck, sadly I think you are. Actually it was the guy in the article that called it religion, but don't let that stop you from jumping the op.

thishereboi -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/4/2013 4:50:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Another guy who used to deny that smoking causes cancer who now denies climate change. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen I think it is funny as hell that anyone who questions the great Al Gore and his minions is automatically labeled a climate change denier. I am beginning to think you don't know what climate change even is. But it was a fun link. My favorite line was this one "In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. " Seems to me that the climate being cooler in 20 years is a change and yet in the same sentence they claim he is skeptical about change. Personally I don't know if it will be cooler or hotter in 20 years or 200 but I do know it will change because history has shown me that it already has in really big ways. Perhaps if you were not so quick to judge and label people your posts would be taken more seriously.

Yachtie -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/4/2013 4:54:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi Perhaps if you were not so quick to judge and label people your posts would be taken more seriously. Then again, perhaps not[:D]

Zonie63 -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/4/2013 6:12:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/29/mit-professor-global-warming-is-a-religion/ Highlights: Global alarmists are increasing their prophecies of doom while scientist are scaling back theirs. Serious breaches of science. No warming in 15 years. Religion. Not. Science. I think the "religious" aspects come from the political values and ideologies we live under. However, it's difficult for those of us who are laymen and non-scientists to really get a handle on this. I don't really doubt what scientists are saying about global warming, and the only real dispute seems to come into play is how much is caused by man and how much is caused by nature (at least as I understand it). But a lot of this issue really goes beyond science. I suppose it's the politics of the issue which tends to bother me. The scientists are only relating their interpretations of observed phenomena, and sometimes, it seems the politicians and other laymen are the ones twisting it all around. I don't blame the scientists for that; it's not their fault. Sure, they're human and can make mistakes, and some might even be inclined towards dishonesty and corruption. But overall, I think they're mostly just trying to do their job as best they can (and even that may not be good enough in the long run). The political issue is what should we do about it. What can we do about it? We live in an industrial society, and with a world of nearly 7 billion all wanting (and some even demanding) the same comforts and benefits provided by industry that we enjoy, what are we going to do? Sometimes these discussions remind me of the old joke: "Everyone always talks about the weather, but no one ever does anything about it!"

thompsonx -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/4/2013 6:53:38 AM)
quote: I think it is funny as hell that anyone who questions the great Al Gore and his minions is automatically labeled a climate change denier. I think it is funny as hell that anyone who is a climate denier would cite al gore as a source. Al gore is a politician not a scientist.

leonine -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/4/2013 7:04:50 AM)
Well, obviously it's a religion. After all, Big Oil's tame scientists have demonstrated to the absolute satisfaction of Fox News that CO2 isn't increasing, that even if it is increasing the climate isn't changing, and even if the climate is changing it's not due to anything we're doing or can control, QED. And yet, the CO2 count keeps going up and the Arctic keeps melting. Since it can't possibly be due to the simple physical mechanism known as AGW, because that doesn't exist, it must be a miracle. All those AGW worshippers praying for climate change so they can bring down capitalism and install the Illuminati World Government... That explains everything.

thompsonx -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/4/2013 7:06:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/29/mit-professor-global-warming-is-a-religion/ Highlights: Global alarmists are increasing their prophecies of doom while scientist are scaling back theirs. Serious breaches of science. No warming in 15 years. Religion. Not. Science. From wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article,[61] "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." However, he believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming.[61] Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001,[7] and offered more support in a 2009 paper,[46] but today "most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited" according to the Times article.[61] Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained "some stupid mistakes" in his handling of the satellite data. "It was just embarrassing," he said in the Times interview. "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque."[61]

leonine -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/4/2013 7:20:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/29/mit-professor-global-warming-is-a-religion/ Highlights: Global alarmists are increasing their prophecies of doom while scientist are scaling back theirs. Serious breaches of science. No warming in 15 years. Religion. Not. Science. I think the "religious" aspects come from the political values and ideologies we live under. A religion is a faith held for reasons other than physical evidence. The big problem the deniers have is the vast amount of evidence built up over the past forty years; since they can't disprove it, they either call it faked (which requires them to believe that every meteorologist and geographer in the world is in the conspiracy, but true believers don't have trouble with that,) or simply deny that it exists at all, on the safe assumption that most people haven't the time or the interest to do their own checking. quote: However, it's difficult for those of us who are laymen and non-scientists to really get a handle on this. I don't really doubt what scientists are saying about global warming, and the only real dispute seems to come into play is how much is caused by man and how much is caused by nature (at least as I understand it). You understand wrong. There's full-on denial (climate change isn't happening, the Arctic melts all the time, it's just a natural cycle,) and denial-lite (climate change is happening for some weird reason nobody knows - sunspots? Martians? - and the fact that it's happening just the way the AGW theorists have predicted for thirty years is pure coincidence.) Both are unsupported by the evidence, but the second is easier to defend these days when anyone can see that world climate is going crazy. quote: But a lot of this issue really goes beyond science. I suppose it's the politics of the issue which tends to bother me. The scientists are only relating their interpretations of observed phenomena, and sometimes, it seems the politicians and other laymen are the ones twisting it all around. I don't blame the scientists for that; it's not their fault. Sure, they're human and can make mistakes, and some might even be inclined towards dishonesty and corruption. But overall, I think they're mostly just trying to do their job as best they can (and even that may not be good enough in the long run). The political issue is what should we do about it. What can we do about it? We live in an industrial society, and with a world of nearly 7 billion all wanting (and some even demanding) the same comforts and benefits provided by industry that we enjoy, what are we going to do? Sometimes these discussions remind me of the old joke: "Everyone always talks about the weather, but no one ever does anything about it!" That joke stopped being funny when the politicians had a solid scientifically based description of what was happening and what needed to be done, and decided not to do it because their corporate backers wouldn't allow it. Now it's not a joke, it's the epitaph for industrial civilisation.

JeffBC -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/4/2013 8:24:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi Perhaps if you were not so quick to judge and label people your posts would be taken more seriously. Is there anyone on this board who's posts are taken seriously? Is there anyone who takes someone elses posts seriously? I'm going to guess not. To this particular point, so once again we have a lone wolf being rebranded in a what appears to be a right-wing blogosphere. My own assessment is that the right's campaign to destroy science is doing well and this is a major win. The more they can turn science into a carnival show the less people will believe that it has any actual meaning. That, of course, will please everyone... even the democrats although they won't admit that. But let's be clear. The best and most docile sort of sheep are the ignorant ones.

joether -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/4/2013 1:26:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/29/mit-professor-global-warming-is-a-religion/ Highlights: Global alarmists are increasing their prophecies of doom while scientist are scaling back theirs. Serious breaches of science. No warming in 15 years. Religion. Not. Science. I find it amusing that someone that takes to being against the Theory of Climate Change, base their entire argument on faith rather than any actual understanding of science or the Theory of Climate Change. And I don't mean this MIT Professor either, Phydeaux. How about you take some time out of your 'busy life', go to a place of learning (i.e. the public library) and take a few weeks to understand what 'is' and 'isnt' science. After that, take some additional time to understand what 'is' and 'isnt' being debated by the scientific community on the subject of Climate Change. Yes, I know, its easier for you to simply be ignorant and push drivel supporting a political position that pushes faith over facts. The good doctor has made,,,,just a few mistakes....in his career. We as humans make mistakes big and small; and for that, scientists are generally a more forgiving lot than conservatives. An that is the difference between science and religion. Since anyone that were to recreate his experiments would be more likely to come up with different results. An they would contact the good doctor, explaining the results they got and see how he performed all the steps. One of the elements that science does get wrong is explaining science to the completely ignorant. Children are given the 'kid gloves' in understanding they do know how what 'is' and 'isnt' science. Adults however, whom hold at the very least a high school diploma or G.E.D. are expected to know the basics. I can read that article you posted and understand what the man is trying to express. Unfortunately the reporter and apparently yourself, do not know what he's trying to express. What he is expressing is people taking science as a religion. When you ask people the following question: "Do you believe in the Theory of Climate Change?" Yes, from pollsters down to the every day dude at the bar asks this question. The problem is, the question is not asking if you understand science. 'Believe' and 'belief' are concepts of religion, not science. And when someone replies that 'yes' they do; they are also taking science on faith that its right. More likely they have not sat down and tried to understand it. Better to go along with the crowd than be mocked and teased for being ignorant, right? I would answer the question in the following way: "Based on the evidence so far gathered and studied, the concept and definatition of Climate Change seems to be the best understanding to my knowledge." WOW! That's much longer of an answer than simply 'yes', right? That is the difference between those that understand science and those who do not. I base my viewpoint on what is known, understood, tested, and debated by those who study the subject. Do I read material about Climate Change? Of course I do. Have I witness climate change take place? I would have to say based on facts I've observed and trying to eliminate all variables that could possibly set conditions to what I'm observing, that yes Climate Change could be playing an important factor in to what I am observing.

Yachtie -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/4/2013 1:55:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether I find it amusing that someone that takes to being against the Theory of Climate Change, base their entire argument on faith rather than any actual understanding of science or the Theory of Climate Change. Theory. Interesting word. the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another. A plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>. Not quite bedrock as 2+2=4 or the log of 2 is .3, but such is what climate change "we have to do something" advocates argue it is. Climate change, as advocates argue it, may be plausible and even a scientifically acceptable general principle. But fact it is not. Thus there has to be an element of faith in the principles advocated. Not to the degree that no faith need be had for the hard fact that 2+2=4, or the hard math and engineering that keeps the 747 aloft, but climate change, as advocates argue it, does not come close to such certainty. It's now easy to argue climate change advocates, given their vocal and endless proselytizing about it, as closely resembling religion. Even "Based on the evidence so far gathered and studied, the concept and definatition of Climate Change seems to be the best understanding to my knowledge," doesn't come close to 2+2=4. QED

mnottertail -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/4/2013 2:12:46 PM)
Keep the addtion and subtraction of whole numbers (integers) away from climate change. If you can make your argument using chaos theory mathematics, or Georg Cantors set theory (remember, all mathematics are theorems) then you may use a QED.

DomKen -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/4/2013 2:14:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: joether I find it amusing that someone that takes to being against the Theory of Climate Change, base their entire argument on faith rather than any actual understanding of science or the Theory of Climate Change. Theory. Interesting word. the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another. A plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>. Not quite bedrock as 2+2=4 or the log of 2 is .3, but such is what climate change "we have to do something" advocates argue it is. Climate change, as advocates argue it, may be plausible and even a scientifically acceptable general principle. But fact it is not. Thus there has to be an element of faith in the principles advocated. Not to the degree that no faith need be had for the hard fact that 2+2=4, or the hard math and engineering that keeps the 747 aloft, but climate change, as advocates argue it, does not come close to such certainty. It's now easy to argue climate change advocates, given their vocal and endless proselytizing about it, as closely resembling religion. Even "Based on the evidence so far gathered and studied, the concept and definatition of Climate Change seems to be the best understanding to my knowledge," doesn't come close to 2+2=4. QED It does in science. In science theory is as good as it gets. The basis of chemistry is Atomic Theory. Physics relies on the Theories of Relativity and the Theory of Quantum Dynamics. In science a theory is the present best understanding of the underlying mechanic of an observed event. And in most cases the best understanding is so well understood and observed that it being wrong is simply impossible. Physics falls under that category and physics says adding CO2 to the atmosphere will warm it.

JeffBC -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/4/2013 2:14:46 PM)
Let's run with that then Yachtie. I totally agree. A "theory" never becomes a fact in the absolute sense. However, since there is only one test case for this particular theory I think we can agree it is fact upon one successful test. The only rub with that is I don't WANT a successful test that involves massive loss of life and human suffering. So other than the actual, after-the-fact, reality what might convince you?

splatterpunk -> RE: MIT Prof: Global Warming is Religion - not science (9/4/2013 2:21:23 PM)
wow thanks really makes you think lol quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/29/mit-professor-global-warming-is-a-religion/ Highlights: Global alarmists are increasing their prophecies of doom while scientist are scaling back theirs. Serious breaches of science. No warming in 15 years. Religion. Not. Science.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875