Has climate change science morphed into a religion?.

[Flarelaine]

I would like to see more Empirical evidence that Humans are causing Global Warming.
The Climate has changed throughout the Geological period.

There has even been a mini Ice Age and a Medieval Warm Period between the 1300s to 1800s
And this was well before the Human Industrial Society.

This graph by xkcd puts it into perspective nicely. (I'm not embedding it, it's huge.)

[Sliske]

Not a religion, its just surrounded in elitism from people who don't know what they're talking about.

To convince other people of reality, you have to reason with them, not talk down to them. On top of this, a lot of the people supporting the fact that the climate is changing don't even know anything about it, yet routinely spout off 'facts' that they heard on Twitter.

Every time a denier says "global warming? LUL it snowed last week" we all understand how retarded that is, yet every time a supporter says "see, climate change! it rained really hard today!" no one says shit.

[Flarelaine]

Not a religion, its just surrounded in elitism from people who don't know what they're talking about.

To convince other people of reality, you have to reason with them, not talk down to them. On top of this, a lot of the people supporting the fact that the climate is changing don't even know anything about it, yet routinely spout off 'facts' that they heard on Twitter.

Every time a denier says "global warming? LUL it snowed last week" we all understand how retarded that is, yet every time a supporter says "see, climate change! it rained really hard today!" no one says shit.

It's more complicated than that. An example from water management where I used to work: Levee heights are specified to withstand a flood that is statistically expected once a century, based on past measurements which go back a century and a half, maybe two centuries in most of Europe (I suspect the Dutch have older records). With disrupted weather patterns, those once-in-a-century floods have been repeatedly approximated and occasionally exceeded in recent years so previous calculations have to be re-done.

[Eazy]

This is the second most stupid thing I've read.

And that means a lot in Off-Topic section on the MMO.

[Deleted]

For some it sure seems to become a religion.

Also in the sense that people blindly believe everything that is labelled as "science".

[Estherna]

There is so much confusion there. Sure, everyone can't understand how climate change works, because the climatic system of Earth is one of the most complicated thing that exist and we simply don't have the calculators and the models to simulate perfectly what's going on.

However, it's not that hard to understand how scientific methodology works and to see that if there is scientific consensus about something, there is pretty strong chances that it's mostly true. Or at least that it is what the facts tells us.

The reason why science isn't a religion is the way research and establishment of truth is done. Religion will try to prove that what it thinks is true. Science will try to prove that what it thinks is false. That's why dialogue between Science and Religion is pretty much impossible. You add to that the fact that leaders will often use Religion to justify their positions easily (which doesn't mean that Religion is bad by itself. The use of it by people in position of power is more problematic) and you have this opposition between Religion and Science.

[Deleted]

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?

In what way is it like a religion? It's a big topic because it's a big problem, and as long as there are people actively working against the solution of the problem, it will remain a big topic.

[Eggroll]

I always thought those who are in denial of climate change are the religious types... Also, what harm can possibly come from limiting pollution of the environment?

[Xarathan]

In what way is it like a religion? It's a big topic because it's a big problem, and as long as there are people actively working against the solution of the problem, it will remain a big topic.

its like a religion because scepticism is mocked and treated similar to blasphemy etc.

questioning the authority on climate change is not allowed, even though questioning authority is one of the biggest values of science.

[Estherna]

its like a religion because scepticism is mocked and treated similar to blasphemy etc.

questioning the authority on climate change is not allowed, even though questioning authority is one of the biggest values of science.

Contesting climate change based on facts will not be mocked. Contesting climate change on "Well, in my opinion, that's not true" will not be considered. But given that most people don't even know what is a scientific fact and what is a proof, that debate is going to be very long.

You don't "believe" in Science. You try to understand what it says and if you want to contest it, you do it according to its rules. Because it's how it is done. It is not opinion versus opinion, it is cooperative built research and statements based on reliable and relevant proof.

[s_bushido]

its like a religion because scepticism is mocked and treated similar to blasphemy etc.

questioning the authority on climate change is not allowed, even though questioning authority is one of the biggest values of science.

Re-read your second sentence, and then reconsider the validity of what you've just said.

Climate scientists question each-other's findings all the time. That's how peer-review works. It's not their fault that the strawman you've erected here is so popular among deniers skeptics.

Skepticism about climate change is mocked in the same way creationists and flat earth dipshits are mocked. If a person wants to cling to nonsensical beliefs, they don't really have much room to then complain that their ideas aren't taken seriously.

[Hooked]

Contesting climate change based on facts will not be mocked. Contesting climate change on "Well, in my opinion, that's not true" will not be considered. But given that most people don't even know what is a scientific fact and what is a proof, that debate is going to be very long.

You don't "believe" in Science. You try to understand what it says and if you want to contest it, you do it according to its rules. Because it's how it is done. It is not opinion versus opinion, it is cooperative built research and statements based on reliable and relevant proof.

What facts?, Climate change is believing in something without any proof what so ever. You cant measure any CO2 can you?. That's called blind faith, the exact same as religion.

[Surfd]

Yeah just like people should trust their priest right?, what is the difference?.

Might have something to do with the fact that no priest can prove god exists, yet hundreds of millions of scientists can prove that science works.

[Hooked]

Might have something to do with the fact that no priest can prove god exists, yet hundreds of millions of scientists can prove that science works.

Ok how did they prove it?, and can we replicate what they have proven here in our homes?

[Eldar45]

It is kind of like a religion in the idea that "If you deny this you are a horrible, evil, life hating corporate scumbag and should be punished severely!" (Seriously, Bill Nye has talked about jailing people for denying man made climate change.)

Science is about debate, discussion on empirical facts, and nothing should be off limits from criticism.

I've only ever heard one actual Ecologist talk about Climate Change, he said it is far blown out of proportion and entirely inaccurate. That's Dr. Patrick Moore by the way. One of the guys that founded Greenpeace. I've heard a few others criticize non-climate scientists for politicizing the issue and using it for political gain. Which is basically the big problem with the entire thing. If at our current rate of CO2 production we would cause massive flooding on coastal regions in 3000 years then it isn't a major problem right now that needs sweeping policy changes to fix. What it needs is progression in technology, not forcing people to stop using cars.

If climate change isn't man made then we need to worry more about preparing for the inevitable flooding than worrying about how much CO2 our cars are putting out.

My problem isn't whether or not Climate Change is man made or not, it is whether or not governments should be used to force a change. If there was a real, immediate existential threat to our lives then I would probably agree to immediate policy changes. However, since most models don't predict any extreme side effects for thousands of years then I don't see why we can't just let technological advances take their course. I mean Coal based power is much more efficient now than it was in the 1980s and we have already started working on Electric Cars. Soon enough we will have clean, pollutant-light energy. Stop freaking out about it.

[Doctor Amadeus]

You have a person that have been diagnosed with cancer.

One doctor says "You have 6 months to live."
Going for 2nd opinion, another doctor says "7months."
3rd one says "5 months".

So, average is 6 months so to say.

1 year passes by.... 2 years! passes by and that person is alive. On 3rd year they are claiming "cancer is in remission!".

It's high likely that person will say "God had his hand in this and he saved me!" and not that 3 other doctors were complete idiots with wrong diagnosis.

This comes from a PHD Astrophysicist who claims that he knows that these doctors were not very smart people because he had chance to teach this people with "side-subject" that he was lecturing.

What is good in all of "this"???

Nothing is good when a process fails scientific or otherwise, but the remedy isn't to go "Oh well, science you know or modern conventional wisdom can be wrong, so meh" Science gets it wrong, things to get missed even by the most brilliant and best of intentions, however just mistakes happen, or a system breaks down, doesn't mean it's time to throw darts at a board and see where it lands.

No, you need to take it a part, find out where the failure took place, so that it can be fixed, the basic mechanics for life itself.

[Hooked]

Ok wouldn't the best thing to counter CO2 be to plant millions of large trees?. Even billions of trees because they would also suck up all the extra water. Imagine an extra 5 billion large trees, how much water and co2 would they displace?.

[Surfd]

What facts?, Climate change is believing in something without any proof what so ever. You cant measure any CO2 can you?. That's called blind faith, the exact same as religion.

Umm, no. Especially not considering that we can, infact, measure CO2, and have been doing so for decades..........

This is Blind Faith:
God created the world in 7 days. The Book Says So. The Book Is Never Wrong. We have absolutely no other poof except the book (and several dozen different scientific disciplines contradict pretty much everything about the theory with pretty impossible to counter facts), but you must believe us, because we say so.

This is Science:
We have hundreds and hundreds of in-depth studies, millions upon millions of datapoints, and hundreds of thousands of professionals who have made it their life's work to model this shit in ways we can analyze and understand. The VAST majority of it all points to seriously bad things happening with our climate, a good chunk of which is directly influenced by man. We don't claim to have all the information, but all the information we have seems to point to the same conclusions, as independently reviewed and verified by thousands of different people from all sectors of the scientific community. If you can find evidence that contradicts this, and back it up with verifiable data, we will accept this new information and adjust our models accordingly.

If you can't tell the difference between the two of these things, you might as well just stop talking right now.

[Estherna]

What facts?, Climate change is believing in something without any proof what so ever. You cant measure any CO2 can you?. That's called blind faith, the exact same as religion.

Why are you clinging on that ? Does temperature rise in average every year since the last century, at a pace never ever recorded in the climatic history of Earth? Yes it does, and there is proof of that. Does water level rises? Yes it does, and there is proof of that.

Maybe are you trying to go with the theory of "It's not mankind, it's natural". The thing is that we never recorder such a rise in all the history of Earth. Not as fast. And there is something call the Ockham Razor. The easiest explanation is the best. We know that gazes like CO² are responsible for global warming. We know that coal and petrol based combustion creates CO². We know that there is more and more rejects of CO² in the air.

The most obvious explanation is the best, untill it can be proved wrong. It's how you do Science.

[Surfd]

Ok how did they prove it?, and can we replicate what they have proven here in our homes?

Exactly what have you proven in your home? Please, do tell.