Global Warming...Fact or Fiction?

**gunnut** · 09 Oct 09,, 20:43

Originally Posted by astralis

hey man, i donno what YOUR teachers did to you, i have to say US public education treated ME just fine...especially compared to the teachers in taiwan.

No doubt about that. But then again, we grew up in the rich neighborhood of the OC. My school never had money problems when I was there. I doubt yours had any. Can you say the same for other schools?

Actually I was just trying to show zara that we can draw many correlations in life. She made the observation that most of the non-believers are religious. You showed the fact that more people in the US today don't believe in evolution. So I correlated that with the advent of the public education in the US.

Do I really believe that? Maybe. We need more study and data. Even then, the correlation is still just a correlation.

**Parihaka** · 09 Oct 09,, 21:15

Heh heh, never mind, I see Wooglin's been slicing and dicing

**Parihaka** · 09 Oct 09,, 21:18

Originally Posted by astralis

7th,

what scares me about them is that those views aren't just fringe. for instance, 60% of republicans and 40% of democrats believe that god created us 10,000 years ago.

Ah, they've pushed the date out then, it used to be four thousand years ago. When you think about it though the majority of humanity believe in some big feller who whisked us up in a mixer and who will judge us when we're done. The rest is just details.

**Parihaka** · 09 Oct 09,, 21:23

Originally Posted by astralis

wooglin,

where did i say that? actually, quite a few scientists hold a religious faith, because religion answers some questions which science by definition cannot.

what i'm saying is that there's a difference in comparing majority opinion among the vast amount of uneducated/sketchily educated people in the world and educated scientists.

for the MOST part, i'll trust consensus in the scientific world over consensus elsewhere.

Where's your evidence that scientists are better educated than non-scientists. Is for instance a qualified builder less generally educated than a scientist? How about a lawyer? A plumber? A freezing worker? A farm labourer? An accountant?

**astralis** · 09 Oct 09,, 21:29

pari,

Where's your evidence that scientists are better educated than non-scientists. Is for instance a qualified builder less generally educated than a scientist? How about a lawyer? A plumber? A freezing worker? A farm labourer? An accountant?

when we're talking about a certain scientific subject, would you generally say that scientists trained in that particular field will be better informed than a a builder, lawyer, plumber, worker, farm laborer, or accountant?

**Parihaka** · 09 Oct 09,, 21:39

Originally Posted by astralis

pari,

when we're talking about a certain scientific subject, would you generally say that scientists trained in that particular field will be better informed than a a builder, lawyer, plumber, worker, farm laborer, or accountant?

I'd argue 1: in their speciality, scientists would know more than a layman, just as a farmworker would know more about crops or lambs, but that wasn't your argument and 2: there's a multiplicity of specialities within science. Would a chemist know more than an accountant about string theory?
My point is respect for 'scientists' is approaching the level of obedience to wandering preachers in the middle ages. As Zara amply but unknowingly demonstrates 'Science' is becoming a faith based religion.

**Wooglin** · 09 Oct 09,, 22:07

Oh well....since this door has already been opened I read this recently:

Climate change beliefs 'like religion'
9:31am Thursday 8th October 2009

By George Gaynor »

An executive sacked from one of the UK's biggest property companies began his defence today of an employment tribunal decision that he can claim he was unfairly dismissed because of his belief in climate change.

Tim Nicholson, 42, from Oxford, says his views on the environment are so strong that they led to clashes with other senior staff at Grainger plc.

In March, employment judge David Neath gave him permission to take the firm to tribunal over his treatment.

But the ruling is being challenged by Grainger on the grounds that green views are not the same as religious or philosophical beliefs.

Representing the company, John Bowers QC said: "A philosophical belief must be one based on a philosophy of life, not a scientific belief, not a political belief or opinion, not a lifestyle choice, not an environmental belief and not an assertion of disputed facts."

The firm claims that environmental concerns are based on scientific fact, whereas philosophy "seeks to answer the fundamental questions of human experience.

"Why are we here? What are the appropriate ethical values to apply to life? Issues on which there cannot be a scientific answer".

Mr Nicholson claims that his views on climate change affect his whole lifestyle.

He does not travel by plane and has renovated his home to be more eco-friendly.

In a witness statement to the previous hearing, he said: "I have a strongly held philosophical belief about climate change and the environment.

"I believe we must urgently cut carbon emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change.

"This affects how I live my life ... I encourage others to cut their carbon emissions and I fear for the future of the human race."

Mr Nicholson stopped working for Grainger as head of sustainability in July last year, having worked for the company since June 2006.

He claimed the company's chief executive Rupert Dickinson showed "contempt" for his concerns and once flew a member of staff to Ireland to deliver his Blackberry that he had left in London.

The judge will give his decision at a later date.

Climate change beliefs 'like religion' (From The Oxford Times)

**ArmchairGeneral** · 10 Oct 09,, 00:15

Originally Posted by Parihaka

I'd argue 1: in their speciality, scientists would know more than a layman, just as a farmworker would know more about crops or lambs, but that wasn't your argument and 2: there's a multiplicity of specialities within science. Would a chemist know more than an accountant about string theory?
My point is respect for 'scientists' is approaching the level of obedience to wandering preachers in the middle ages. As Zara amply but unknowingly demonstrates 'Science' is becoming a faith based religion.

Yes. Said much better than anything I've said. Among the hot ideologies of today, Scientism scares me more than most.

**Blue** · 10 Oct 09,, 00:36

Originally Posted by zara

Leading Scientists Still Reject God

Well here is my two cents worth;

1. There is a difference btwn a belief in God and a religion.
2. You can believe in a God and have no religion.
3. I for one don't believe in anything that I cannot see, touch, feel or otherwise demonstrate scientifically. (please no one bring up the magnetism arguement). HOWEVER, I cannot say with conviction that those things such as a God do not exist, and because for the simple fact of, that I cannot prove/disprove it scientifically.
4. With all that being said, a belief in a God is not a bad thing. It demonstrates faith. Religion on the other hand is completely thing. It is simply dogma.
5. I have no faith, so IMO, there is nothing more than this, make the most of it.

**Blue** · 10 Oct 09,, 00:57

Now back to the topic at hand..............

Seems some companies are leaving the US chamber of commerce over differences in the chambers opposition to the cap and trade(tax and screw) bill.

In what could only be called a growing trend, Apple Computer on Monday became the latest Fortune 500 company to resign from the United States Chamber of Commerce over the chamber’s anti-climate legislation stance.

In a letter to the chamber, Catherine A. Novelli, the vice president of worldwide government affairs at Apple, wrote “we strongly object to the chamber’s recent comments opposing the EPA’s effort to limit green house gases.”

Apple, which recently expanded environmental disclosures on its products, joins three major utilities, Pacific Gas & Electric, PNM Resources, and Exelon, the nation’s largest supplier of electricity, all of which left the chamber in the last two weeks.

Last Wednesday, Nike, the sports apparel giant, announced it would resign from the chamber’s board of directors for similar reasons, while keeping its general membership in the chamber.
Growing Schism

The move highlights a growing schism in the business community over what role government should play in confronting climate change. Legislation introduced in the Senate late last month would create a cap-and-trade emissions credit market to trade carbon credits, among other proposals. The EPA meanwhile has sought to use its authority to impose regulations on greenhouse gases directly.

Many companies, as well as the Chamber of Commerce, oppose virtually all regulations because of the costs they believe it will impose on business. Others support it however, arguing that given the pressing nature of climate change, and the inevitability of some sort of emissions controls, the sooner clear rules are in the effect the better for businesses planning for the future.

The Usual Suspects?

There is some speculation that the reason the utilities left the chamber has at least as much to do with green backs as going green. Many utilities have made serious investments in renewable or carbon-free energy, and the value of those investments would naturally go up with the price of carbon emissions, should cap-and-trade be instated.

But Nike and Apple do not have such investments on the line. Of course, if one had to pick two non-utilities most likely to leave the Chamber of Commerce over a political issue like climate change, progressive and iconoclastic Nike and Apple would certainly be at the top of the list.

But exiting the country’s oldest, and most powerful business lobby is still a dramatic stance, and one apparently taken on principle (regardless of the PR benefits). No doubt both companies are hoping their move will inspire other corporations standing on the sidelines to take the plunge — or force the chamber to pull its head out of the sand.

The utilities, for their own part, cited reports that the chamber wanted Congress to begin a “Scopes monkey trial” of the validity of global warming science, as impetus to jump ship.

Apple Latest to Leave US Chamber of Commerce Over Climate Change | Triple Pundit

**zara** · 10 Oct 09,, 19:29

Originally Posted by Parihaka

My point is respect for 'scientists' is approaching the level of obedience to wandering preachers in the middle ages. As Zara amply but unknowingly demonstrates 'Science' is becoming a faith based religion.

i tried to address that earlier, but i guess i didnt make it clear. my 'faith' in science is not the same as a religous faith as it is falseifyable. It is akin to the 'faith' you have in a mechanic or a doctor to fix you or your car. You know they are falliable but bow to what you percieve as their superior knowledge.

All i am saying is that i dont understand the mechanics of climate change enough to confirm or deny it, so i rely on the advice of the scientific establishment - Which appears to be overwhelmingly in agreement.

This is not the same kind of faith as a religion, which is unfalseifable.

**Parihaka** · 10 Oct 09,, 20:33

Originally Posted by zara

i tried to address that earlier, but i guess i didnt make it clear. my 'faith' in science is not the same as a religous faith as it is falseifyable. It is akin to the 'faith' you have in a mechanic or a doctor to fix you or your car. You know they are falliable but bow to what you percieve as their superior knowledge.

All i am saying is that i dont understand the mechanics of climate change enough to confirm or deny it, so i rely on the advice of the scientific establishment - Which appears to be overwhelmingly in agreement.

This is not the same kind of faith as a religion, which is unfalseifable.

Does the fact that the actual scientists I posted for you belong to the political institutions you cut-and-pasted mean anything to you?

**zara** · 10 Oct 09,, 20:57

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Does the fact that the actual scientists I posted for you belong to the political institutions you cut-and-pasted mean anything to you?

Yes, it means that there are 700 well qualified scientists who disagree with Man made Climate change. I acknowledge the controversy, and I acknowledge the need to challenge the staus-quo in science.

What I would question is your disparaging of the organisations I mentioned as merley political. I could easily make the same charge of those 700 scientists (im not making that charge however).

**Parihaka** · 10 Oct 09,, 22:58

U.S. Global Change Research Program
formerly the Climate Change Science Program

Arctic Climate Impact Assessment

European Academy of Sciences and Arts

InterAcademy Council

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

Joint science academies' statements

16 National Science Academeys

G8 + 3 National Science academies

Declaration at 33rd G8 Summit

Advance statement for the CopenHagen negations

Network of African Science Academies

Royal Society of New Zealand

Polish Academy of Sciences

National Research Council (US)

American Association for the Advancement of Science

European Science Foundation

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

American Geophysical Union

European Federation of Geologists

European Geosciences Union

Geological Society of America

Geological Society of Australia

International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

National Association of Geoscience Teachers

Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London

American Meteorological Society

Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society[/B]

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

World Meteorological Organization

American Quaternary Association

International Union for Quaternary Research

Of those listed, two (U.S. Global Change Research Program, formerly the Climate Change Science Program and the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment)actually undertake research, and I'm sure by their names you can work out what their funding basis is. The rest ARE political.

You will also note the groups of listings often include the same group several times, for instance the National Science Academy of New Zealand is listed twice in separate categories. Unfortunately there is no 'New Zealand National Science Academy'.

Your sources are lying to you.

**Parihaka** · 10 Oct 09,, 23:08

Scratch that, the first two aren't research institutes either, they just pretend they are

These are among the conclusions of a wide-ranging assessment by the US Global Change Research Program, a group of government agency experts and academia.

The Arctic Council is a high-level intergovernmental forum. The members are Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, Sweden, and the United States of America. IASC is a non-governmental organization that facilitates cooperation in all aspects of arctic research in all countries engaged in arctic research and in all areas of the arctic region.