Has climate change science morphed into a religion?.

[tankbug]

Wrong, some might others may have other sources which they would provide as basis. It also depends entirely on whom you are speaking about.

The point is that religion is based on faith, and it's impossible to prove by our current standards. I'm not talking about some priests claim to be all-knowing, where as other priests encourage to read religious texts for yourself.

No they also won't either, because again it all depends, rarely have I run across a scientist that speaks in a lot of definitive, some things they do, but most things they don't.

Not sure what you're trying to say, but nobody's saying there isn't hubris and arrogance among scientists.

Much of science is a trend thing now and revolve around buzzwords made popular like "Facts" or "The Truth" and the Truth is many people who have way too big of an ego, watched too much YouTube or Discovery Channel, like a lot other discipline like "The Law" or "Medicine" and make claims they shouldn't based on assumptions they got WRONG.

Ignorant people blindly believing in something is a problem, but that doesn't damage the integrity of science. At any rate, it's better that they mindlessly follow global, expert scientists, than leaders that would reject science to gain power and money for themselves.

[Deleted]

This thread reads like as if a blind guy is explaining color to a deaf person.

OT, Yes and no, no climate change science has not morphed into a religion, but yes, people who have little understanding off the subject often use things they heard but not understand in a religious/zealot manner.

[ipaq]

Yes it has as you can't even discuss it without zealots damning you by screaming essentially "non believer".

In before lock.

Oh there will be no lock, the mmo-c mods are trumpists.

And are denying climate change.

Enjoy.

[Lollis]

So we plant more trees, I don't see the problem here seriously. Just Plant more trees.

How many times do you need telling?

Just planting more trees isn't enough. Trees take years to grow, decades and even centuries for them to get to optimal size. You also have to think about deforestation happening, as well as the whole space to grow shit thing.

Planting trees everywhere, it would be lovely if it was all we had to do, but it quite simply isn't enough.

[Thunderball]

Yes, we can. By reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, which is our main cause of released CO2. We can preserve more forested areas, which will take CO2 out of the air. We can stop polluting our oceans, as believe it or not, the ocean is a pretty good CO2 sink. We can eliminate a lot of our impact.

What you just said is akin to "Well, it is too expensive to switch away from lead pipes, so we just have to deal with the lead poisoning."

1) Human related CO2 emissions are 12-16% of the total. I have not seen any conclusive research on how much the emissions have to change to have any meaningful impact. People also have to understand that even removing humans from the planet wont stop or reverse the process.
2) Let's talk realistic here. Reducing dependence on fossil fuels - that's just talk, there is nothing that can replace fossil fuels right now. All the sources of "clean" energy and either too inefficient or unable to provide sufficient power to replace fossil fuels. Realistically we can reduce emission by 20% in 10 years, no more than that. I very much doubt that it's going to have any effect.
3) Pollution honestly doesnt have anything to do with the topic, but again, let's be realistic here: all of that crap is done because it saves money for the industry, not because they are evil. Most states are not going to do anything about it because those industries are their main source of tax income. I honestly feel that while modern society is driven by profit nothing is going to change.

[Doctor Amadeus]

The point is that religion is based on faith, and it's impossible to prove by our current standards. I'm not talking about some priests claim to be all-knowing, where as other priests encourage to read religious texts for yourself.

I agree lots of things we can't prove or aren't capable of proving yet. As I said the problem is the process of thought, which ironically is the one thing many hate being told how to do.

The discipline is gone.

Not sure what you're trying to say, but nobody's saying there isn't hubris and arrogance among scientists.

Actually most scientist don't seem arrogant at all they seem pretty humble.

Ignorant people blindly believing in something is a problem, but that doesn't damage the integrity of science. At any rate, it's better that they mindlessly follow global, expert scientists, than leaders that would reject science to gain power and money for themselves.

I think you can do have both, and I wouldn't call them scientist, I would call them con artist.

[baskev]

It seems that climate change science has morphed into a quasi-religion for especially atheists and otherwise non religious people. Is climate change science paganism? and if so should there be a separation of church and state?

Nope.....
It has become a victim of anti vs pro people. Left vs right. etc.

[Lollis]

1) Human related CO2 emissions are 12-16% of the total. I have not seen any conclusive research on how much the emissions have to change to have any meaningful impact. People also have to understand that even removing humans from the planet wont stop or reverse the process.
2) Let's talk realistic here. Reducing dependence on fossil fuels - that's just talk, there is nothing that can replace fossil fuels right now. All the sources of "clean" energy and either too inefficient or unable to provide sufficient power to replace fossil fuels. Realistically we can reduce emission by 20% in 10 years, no more than that. I very much doubt that it's going to have any effect.
3) Pollution honestly doesnt have anything to do with the topic, but again, let's be realistic here: all of that crap is done because it saves money for the industry, not because they are evil. Most states are not going to do anything about it because those industries are their main source of tax income. I honestly feel that while modern society is driven by profit nothing is going to change.

1. Put a glass of water under a tap. Make a small hole in the bottom and turn the tap back on.
2. So because clean energy isn't efficient enough yet we should disregard it completely?

3. Places like Beijing are why we acted to put regulations in place in western countries.

[Nerovar]

So we plant more trees, I don't see the problem here seriously. Just Plant more trees.

Why not build a wall to keep the bad CO2 out? Or a wall that protects cities that are endangered by the rising sea levels?

1. Put a glass of water under a tap. Make a small hole in the bottom and turn the tap back on.
2. So because clean energy isn't efficient enough yet we should disregard it completely.

3. Places like Beijing are why we acted to put regulations in place in western countries.

Beijing isn't always full of smog! Look, there are even smog forecasts! It's cyclical, dude. Nothing we can do about it.

Climate change is a construct that a few select humans choose to believe in. Same as your everyday Mohammed Ahmed Al'Shahadi believing in Allah.

Same freaking thing.

For every piece of "proof" they provide, the very same scientific demographic comes up with proof that this is an integral part of the Earths natural cycle. If God wills it that CO2 levels go up, there must be a reason, as his actions are way too mysterious for us to even attempt to comprehend.

Don't play god kiddos.

[Radaney]

Yeh man, the solution to global warming is to just plant more trees. You're a genius, get this guy an award.

He's figured it out guys, it was so easy all along.

[Aggrophobic]

Climate change is a construct that a few select humans choose to believe in. Same as your everyday Mohammed Ahmed Al'Shahadi believing in Allah.

Same freaking thing.

For every piece of "proof" they provide, the very same scientific demographic comes up with proof that this is an integral part of the Earths natural cycle. If God wills it that CO2 levels go up, there must be a reason, as his actions are way too mysterious for us to even attempt to comprehend.

Don't play god kiddos.

Posts like this makes my head hurt.

[tankbug]

That is not correct. There are published works in any religion that you can read and find out for yourself - you don't even need a priest unless you have a problem or don't want to read. And scientists don't recommend reading most of the time, they just tell you with authority how things are and majority of people just believes them, because reading science is hard, really hard. There were/are very few good science publicists who can make science easy to understand. Most of them are dead by now. Like Sagan and Feynman. We have Neil DeGrasse Tyson taking the charge right now. That's it.

The point is that the priest, or the church if you will, will provide you with all the knowledge, even though it doesn't come from a single priest's preach. You can't prove a deity by researching old texts, which means that you want to believe what religion teachers, you have basically have to take their word for it.

As I said, science is hard, but it's not history or locked away. If a whole field of science is bullshit, it will be debunked, if it hasn't already. Like homeopathic medicine and astrology. Well, people are getting more education, the internet brings a lot of complex fields of science to the public, so I'm quite optimistic about the future.

[Draco-Onis]

It seems that climate change science has morphed into a quasi-religion for especially atheists and otherwise non religious people. Is climate change science paganism? and if so should there be a separation of church and state?

Outside the United States the vast majority of people believe in Climate change, the Vatican, oil, cigarette companies believes in it. Only nut jobs think it's a myth usually the same type of people that believe the earth is flat

[Doctor Amadeus]

Outside the United States the vast majority of people believe in Climate change, the Vatican, oil, cigarette companies believes in it. Only nut jobs think it's a myth usually the same type of people that believe the earth is flat

If the earth isn't flat how come I have brand new shoes?

[baskev]

Climate change is a construct that a few select humans choose to believe in. Same as your everyday Mohammed Ahmed Al'Shahadi believing in Allah.

Same freaking thing.

For every piece of "proof" they provide, the very same scientific demographic comes up with proof that this is an integral part of the Earths natural cycle. If God wills it that CO2 levels go up, there must be a reason, as his actions are way too mysterious for us to even attempt to comprehend.

Don't play god kiddos.

Question: Who gave you the internet?? Your electricity, your medication????? your welcome.
The whole field is not bullshit. They know theories might get debunked. And its good. They do not find answer straight away. sometimes mistakes are made but lead to the real answer.

As for the part that scientist say its a part of the normal cycle is correct....but you leave out some big information:
A. it was not supposed to be this soon.
B. And it was not happen this fast.

Kinda standard for you anti climate people to leave out half the info

Not enough proof: record temps being broken, ice shelf getting smaller each year, more ( and bigger) natural disasters etc....

As for god: Yeah lets believe a guys words that has been twisted by the church for the last 2000 years .

[Doctor Amadeus]

The point is that the priest, or the church if you will, will provide you with all the knowledge, even though it doesn't come from a single priest's preach. You can't prove a deity by researching old texts, which means that you want to believe what religion teachers, you have basically have to take their word for it.

As I said, science is hard, but it's not history or locked away. If a whole field of science is bullshit, it will be debunked, if it hasn't already. Like homeopathic medicine and astrology. Well, people are getting more education, the internet brings a lot of complex fields of science to the public, so I'm quite optimistic about the future.

Reading all them words in books is hard, if it's a YouTube under 30 seconds with lots of colors and animation, but. I do watch this real smart guy on YouTube who says he is a scientist and uses the F word a lot.

[Dezerte]

So we plant more trees, I don't see the problem here seriously. Just Plant more trees.

Bro-science to the rescue, thanks.

[baskev]

1. Put a glass of water under a tap. Make a small hole in the bottom and turn the tap back on.
2. So because clean energy isn't efficient enough yet we should disregard it completely?

3. Places like Beijing are why we acted to put regulations in place in western countries.

( you could also add that beijing ( china in general) is doing way more then most of the big superpowers in clean energy stuff )

[Deleted]

1) Human related CO2 emissions are 12-16% of the total. I have not seen any conclusive research on how much the emissions have to change to have any meaningful impact. People also have to understand that even removing humans from the planet wont stop or reverse the process.
2) Let's talk realistic here. Reducing dependence on fossil fuels - that's just talk, there is nothing that can replace fossil fuels right now. All the sources of "clean" energy and either too inefficient or unable to provide sufficient power to replace fossil fuels. Realistically we can reduce emission by 20% in 10 years, no more than that. I very much doubt that it's going to have any effect.
3) Pollution honestly doesnt have anything to do with the topic, but again, let's be realistic here: all of that crap is done because it saves money for the industry, not because they are evil. Most states are not going to do anything about it because those industries are their main source of tax income. I honestly feel that while modern society is driven by profit nothing is going to change.

1 It is not just CO2 that is problematic tho, things like methane and NO are big contributors too. I do agree with you that it really doesn't matter to the cycle if we are here or not, it will happen regardless. The question is though, at what rate? There is a number (im not claiming to know what that number is, just saying there is one) when there is to much stuff pumped into the air to start causing serious problems. This is not something we want to fix, this is something we want to prevent.

2 That is simply not true, we have plenty of ways to reduce fossil fuels, the problem is just that up until now there has been very little funding going to the right programs. Things like thorium reactors are still not a thing while they are much safer in design, produce far less waste and produce just as much power as nuclear power plants. This alone would go a far way in not needing fossil fuels, but when you really get into things you can do much more. Things like glass windows producing solar power or capturing methane from live stock in order to convert it into electrical power are just in their infancy, but would really help in the need to use fossil fuels and reduce pollution at the same time.

3 Industry fucking over nature to save a buck is evil if you'd ask me, so yea they do it to be evil. And ultimately having big factories complying to nature regulation only means a bigger economy. By having to spend money on extra steps in their production process they contribute to the economy, as that money is earned by someone else and spend again and this goes on and on.

[Grimbold21]

First: its a Hooked thread
Second: you should all be ashamed to have taken the bait
Third: To give the troll the benefit of the doubt, the most remoteless serious thing i can say is: you cannot reason with someone who is unwilling to change his mindset from the get go