I’ve discovered several articles lately that talk about the Religion of Global Warming. What a great way to describe the passion that some feel for this subject. My kids laugh when I express skepticism about the theory of Global Warming since it’s so widely accepted. It’s good to know that there are others who share my views, including Rush Limbaugh.
By the way, what’s up with all of the record setting cold weather this year?
Global Warming Controversy - Wikipedia
The Religion of Global Warming - Wisdom From The Realm, February, 2008
The Religion of Global Warming - Tom DeWeese, February, 2005
Global Warming Hype Website - March, 2008; Lots of links to other articles
Gore’s Global Warming Religion - Ann Coulter, March, 2007
Environmentalism as Religion - Michael Crichton, September, 2003
Why Liberals Fear Global Warming More Than Conservatives Do - Dennis Prager, June, 2006
The Arguments Against Global Warming - Another interesting resource.
Petition Project - 22,000 scientists, engineers and physicians signed a petition by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which opposes adoption of the Kyoto Protocol.
Criticism of Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth - Check out this link.
The point that I’m trying to make is that there is another side to this serious subject. Some are not even aware that scientists disagree (they really do). Yes, the climate is changing but is man really to blame? Maybe this is just another cycle in the life of our planet and there is nothing we can do about it. If you agree or disagree, feel free to post a comment (like Ed).
Filed under: Environment | Tagged: Al Gore, Environment, Global Warming, Religion, religion of global warming, rush limbaugh
Some would say the cold weather is from global warming because it messes with everything, not just heats up the earth. I believe I heard some thing about the owner of the weather channel claiming global warming is a hoax. As for my stance, a mentor of mine stated it best. “Global warming or not we have been placed on this planet to be stewards of it. No matter your religion or lack there of it is our duty as the ruling inhabitants of this world to care for it and use it’s resources wisely. Regardless of a scientific theory we shouldn’t wait for a situation like this to move us to action, if we take care of it to begin with we have little to worry about.”
Hail Lord Crimson! You are an ever-replenishing well to your people, milord! A thousand thanks.
Great post – I agree that it is a religion. When people believe so strongly in something that it shapes their entire world view… what else can we call it?
“Global warming or not we have been placed on this planet to be stewards of it. ”
Nothing like having the first commenter inadvertently confirm the thesis of your post.
Well done threehugger Chris.
You might add Tom Nelson’s website to your list. He keeps a daily updated and ongoing list of articles that dispute the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) orthodoxy.
Tom Nelson link.
I think the argument has become, as is typical in our culture, has become black and white. Global warming is a fact. In fact, planetary scientists will tell you the entire solar system is warming.
A separate question, and one clouded by the global warming advocates, is whether humans can be proven to be responsible and whether we can do anything about it.
There is a chance we are c ontributing, but this planet (by many ot the same scientists admission) has gone through dramatic climate changes in the past.
Drive out to central Kansas and you can find rock formations that once were under the ocean. Greenland was called Greenland by the Vikings because it was Green when they arrived just before 1000 AD.
The ice melting there today, citied as a strong indicator of global warming, is just as likely a return to pre Little Ice Age status.
Bottom line is that we should do all that is sensible to take care of our planet, because the global warming folks are correct it is the only one we have. However, we also need a more holistic view of what is happening than what is offered by the true believers.
If you don’t know the difference between science and religion, I suppose all of science appears as a mystical realm dominated by great wizards!
I’ve noticed that skeptics of science and global climate change frequently mistake concepts. It reminds me of the guy who wrote of his vacation to the Grand Canyon. Defending the creationist view of geology of the Canyon, that it was cut in a few days a few thousand years ago after Noah’s flood, he commented on the layers of sediment he saw on his trip to the bottom of the Canyon, aboard a “burrow.”
He confused “burro” with “burrow.” One is an ass, one is a hole in the ground, and if you can’t tell the difference, you have no business commenting on such matters.
How is the view from your burrow?
Interesting. I guess everyone who doesn’t agree with Ed (previous comment) is an idiot and gets insulted. Is this the scientific method?
Ed’s just being a ornery mule today. He’s caught enough donkey plop from pseudo-scientific Creationists to fill several lifetimes, and it makes his long ears twitch, is all.
Say, Ed. You know better than most that the Framers didn’t want government aping religion any more than they wanted religion aping government. As government is in the science business, I salute you as a patriot for stripping the religionists of their monkey suits. I hope you’ll recognize similarly that because government must not be in the religion business, some of us make it our business to try to keep scientists from doffing their lab coats and stepping out at night dressed in canonical cassocks. If you continue to guard the Establishment Clause from the one rampart, I’ll help guard it from the other one.
Which part of concern about global warming is “like religion?” NPR carries another report today on water problems in South America — the Andean glaciers that have provided water to many towns and villages for 300 years are rapidly disappearing. This year’s La Nina event produced floods in those same villages, and so skeptics of climate change argue the water problem is solved. Meanwhile, the villages flooded a few weeks ago can’t get help to get water over the summer.
Which part of that problem is caused by Al Gore’s faith? (By the way, you’re aware Gore is a Southern Baptist who once aimed to be a preacher, right? He’s well aware of what religion is, and isn’t. We should all be so aware.)
Or how about the air pollution issue? Should we work to contain CO2? We’ve spent billions and a hundred years working to control air pollution, and now, after many successes, such concerns are deemed to be “religious?” The thousand or so people who died in the London Fog of ‘52 — was it the Fog Deity who killed them? Or were they really priests of the competing religion, and they died from the smoke of Elijah’s fires? How about the 1948 Donora Pennsylvania disaster? Do we blame that on Jason, or Freddy (it DID happen on Halloween . . .)
Ann Coulter’s writings on science leap far from reality, far from fact, far from the truth. Whenever I see her cited as an authority, I know that position is in error. Check the the sources for “climate warming as religion” above, and notice Ann Coulter’s name there (did she plagiarize these views, or are they really hers? Who can tell?).
It’s an insult to science, to scientists, and as impossible as it sounds, an insult to hack politicians, to claim climate change as a “religious issue.” And you accuse me of insulting? If you don’t want to get insulted, don’t insult first.
And don’t come to the fight unarmed.
Crichton? Crichton the M.D. is cited as an expert against climate change? Alas, I’ve come to view him as a fool, too. Here’s why:
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/10/28/michael-crichton-hysterical-for-ddt/
It’s an effect of global warming. Of course, if one doesn’t understand that “global warming” is short-hand for a lot more energy in the atmosphere, one will probably miss that a counter-intuitive effect of global warming is more violent weather, with more violent and radical swings. We should get higher highs and drier dries, but also lower lows and wetter areas, too. Much of the cold and excess snow is from lake effect snows and lake effect weather patterns. The lake effect? That’s where the water stays warmer than usual, and consquently injects more vapor into the atmosphere, producing more precipitation, especially more snow in the winter.
Now, find a record snowfall in the past four years that cannot be attributed to lake effect, to global warming. Or better, find the one glacier on Earth that is expanding, and tell us why.
Now, what about all the other glaciers?
What I’m curious about is how you can put a smiley after a key effect of global warming, and then ignore the facts you cited yourself, and accuse scientists of acting as religionists. I mean, such denial is not a part of a reality-based philosophy, and can only be attributed to religion, isn’t it?
Point that scripture the other way, will you?
Touche Ed. Good arguments–very articulate. I agree that our climate is changing and we are seeing lots of affects all over the world. I just disagree that man is the cause. Not all scientists are in agreement about Global Warming like Al Gore and others would have the world believe.
I agree with another person who posted a comment saying that we all need to be responsible about protecting the environment. Thanks for your comments.
[...] either a skeptic or a fundamentalist-nut every time you open your mouth these days. I came across this post as I made my rounds through the blogs today. Now, (because I always try to give full disclosure) [...]
Ed, please click on the second link, the one for the string of February 08. We’re not making the assumptions you impute to us.
I agree with you about M.D.s—and biologists and politicians—who dable in specialized fields not their own. Vide the Nobelists Helen Caldicott and Herb Abrams on national security, or the late Stephen Jay Gould on cosmology or the Nobelist Al Gore on climatology.
And then there’s the recent case of Governor Sibelius, Giver of Weather. Vote her way, she demanded, and the Congressional leadership will turn down the world’s thermostat in under a year.
It’s all power lust, Ed. When we don’t like it, it’s politics or insanity. When we do, it’s Science. (See Caldicott, supra.) As always, it’s the EXCESSES that tell. It’s the stepping out of the bounds of scientific rigor grounded in hard data, and into the bounds of social control and officiousness.
Nobody’s arguing the weather.
Right on brotha!
We are too quick to agree with majority perspective without laying out the facts.
Global warming may be happening, but we haven’t studied weather patterns long enough to predict the long term outcome of warming or cooling. And, we are far from understanding the root cause of it (if global warming is real).
It is quite irresponsible to disseminate the idea that there is serious disagreement in the scientific community. The opinion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is considered to be widely accepted among respected, peer-reviewed scientists in the field. Quote:
“Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.”
and when they say very likely that is not to be interpreted as very likely but possibly not…This sounds strikingly similar to the Origin of the Species controversy, or more correctly lack of a controversy.
Kurt R.,
It isn’t too difficult to find a climatologist that disagrees with IPCC.
I’d be interested in finding some evidence that proves the OoS theory as fact.
I love those that simply read one perspective without ever once considering the alternative. I guess you would have thought the Earth as flat at one time, right?
You can’t be serious. I fail to see how you could possibly know what perspectives I have or have not considered. It is not so difficult to find skepticism in any modern science simply because it is inherent to the process, but these debates are perverting the evidence and the message of scientists. This is undeniable. I have been taught by and listened to experts in atmospheric science and not one of them would unequivocally refute the possibility of anthropogenic cause. This does NOT mean they actually think there is a possibility that humans have not caused this. A person can do this with any theory, that is the point, you are completely missing the point!
Also, if you would like evidence that proves the theory of evolution you simply need to take a look at a few textbooks from the fields of archeology, behavioral ecology, biochemistry, and genetics of course. The concept of disputing a canon of correlating evidence from many different fields, and the work of thousands of excellent scientists is borderline insanity. To do this is not exhibiting freethinking or some finding the truth to some kind of conspiracy. If you disagree with natural selection because of religious beliefs than the conversation is not really necessary. To take aim at such a heavyweight of science is just not really possible, just as I could not possibly do all of the evidence justice. Also I hope people on each side of the argument can learn to have a discussion, rather than trade insults or attack the credentials of your opponent.
Kurt, there’s a lot more evidence supporting evolution than human produced global warming.
Global warming “theory” essentially argues that CO2 is a green house gas and it has been going up a lot since the industrial revolution. The recorded global average temperature has gone up since 1976. Therefore, humans are the cause.
It’s a hypothesis at best. What makes global warming seem like a religion to us “deniers” is the venom and smugness of global warming zealots.
It comes across as a religion because of the reaction its believers have to those who “don’t believe”. Non-believers are considered heretics and insulted, patronized, and even physically assaulted at times. Sounds like the actions of a religions zealot.
A lot of us do know the facts. Have done the research. Are scientificaly oriented. And we aren’t convinced that humans are the cause. That doesn’t mean we can’t be convinced, but we don’t find the existing evidence compelling.
Worse, the typical “believer” has done little more “research” into the matter than watch Al Gore’s movie — as if that suddenly makes them an expert. And given how quickly the “believers” become smug and obnoxious on the issue tells me that their belief has more to do with emotional satisfaction — a trait of religion — than scientific merit.
I would agree with you thoroughly about the religious analogy.
It is sad that people merely watch An Inconvenient Truth, the problem I see is when laymen pervert rigorous science.
It is established within the scientific community that there are in fact old school skeptics, as this is healthy and would be expected. The mounting evidence is part of the scientific process and, as you know but others may overlook, it is professional to withold one’s personal opinion or state your conclusions as fact. Many scientists have begun to try and express this nuance to the public by overstepping professional mores. Alarming milestones such as the recent Arctic sea ice studies and imagery are terrifying to people who understand the long term potential consequences.
All in all this as with so many things comes down to communication and politics. And I would bet many would agree that politics perverts many things including factual communication and science.
I think Kurt R. is really getting down to it. Yes, it’s as though Climatology needed to fire its P.R. flack (I suppose that might be Gore) and hire a communications firm with consultants from e.g. political science, rhetoric, religious philosophy, marketing, sociology of religion, philosophy of science, and possibly semiotics.
The fantasy scenario, for me, would be one in which the “Science Community”—whatever that really means, given all their own politics and jockeying and career infighting, not to mention their substantive disputes over methodology and interpretation of data—makes a clean break from this botch job of public education on climate change, and starts afresh.
This time they could stick to the rules of science and not run off the reservation; address the lay public respectfully in clear and direct terms, and present evidence candidly, in the context of the degree of certainty for each conclusion drawn. They might also set out, at the beginning, the scientific tenet that nothing in science is ever irrefutable, but that science provides practical certainties that often warrant human action.
It should go without saying that the general public does not wish to despoil the environment. (In American society since 1968 there have been tremendous changes in social perception and conduct viz the environment. and Americans have proved in this regard that they can be very quick studies indeed; talking down to them is egregious and frankly abortive. Gallup shows huge support, across the board demographically, for accelerated initiatives in enviro. tech., for example.) A new initiative should build positively on what the U.S. has: a savvy, skeptical and resourceful citizenry that didn’t just fall off the turnip truck.
Whatever consensus has been reached by scientists on climate change, it does not represent a beginning, but rather the beginning of a new stage or level, of U.S. environmental consciousness and concern. The attitude that it only the beginning—such that the country requires RUDIMENTARY or even REMEDIAL lessons—should be a hanging offense. And hands off the children. No using children as Trojan horses! (I think the pedantic overstepping in the schools—like the public schools could even handle science ed. very well before adding AGW components—has caused much of the public suspicion and anger.)
See? This kind of advice. A good communications firm could do this sort of thing really well and, working with e.g. the Academy of Scientists, they could help Science immensely to get the job of “public education” done right. A good objective might be just the opposite of Gore’s “case closed” diktat; it might be to get the whole country discussing and debating the issues around e.g. climate change, CO2 and AGW.
You know, like in the democracies. Would that be such a big threat to the elite status of center-stage scientists? Tough.
Sorta like Nero disagreed that the burning of Rome was a bad thing?
While self-proclaimed, generally ill-informed skeptics are railing falsehoods about Al Gore, the planet warms and it costs us billions of dollars annually, a few tens of thousands of lives, and doing nothing about it invites disaster.
Dr. Bumsted makes the point here:
http://ykalaska.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/where-is-bethel-hardiness/
Follow her links, and see the Arbor Day Foundation’s Flash animation showing the changes in USDA hardiness zones in the U.S. in the last 30 years. Regardless how good Nero fiddles, farmers are losing their farms, diseases spread, natural systems fall apart at the seams, and such changes tend to invite economic and physical disaster.
Living things make better indicators of things like climate change (or radiation doses) than other, non-living physical measurements.
The climate is changing. Are you gonna sit there and fiddle, or are you going to do something to help stave off disaster?
“Follow her links, and see the Arbor Day Foundation’s Flash animation showing the changes in USDA hardiness zones in the U.S. in the last 30 years. Regardless how good Nero fiddles, farmers are losing their farms, diseases spread, natural systems fall apart at the seams, and such changes tend to invite economic and physical disaster”
Thirty years is a sign of Human Induced Global Warming??
That’s an extremely myopic view. Was there a Little Ice Age? Why was is so cold in 1816?
Is there any evidence inconsistent with AGW?
Sure, there’s evidence inconsistent with climate change. A 10- or 15-year cooling period would be significant. The climate zones used by farmers and horticulturists reversing direction for 50 years would be significant. The temperature charts reversing direction while the greenhouse gas charts continue to climb, or better evidence, the reverse, without any intervening explanation (global dimming, which we haven’t even considered here, another significant eruption from Pinatubo, and so on).
Of course, there’s no such evidence that actually exists. There are a lot of quibbles about data, and data accuracy, especially with regard to temperature measures on the ground. But there is no significant challenge to the fact that warming continues. Pat Frank at Stanford makes an outstanding case that we cannot conclude from the information we have that the warming we see is directly connected to human activities (catch it at Skeptic Magazine’s site).
But, of course, neither can we deny that the warming is connected to human activities, and as Dr. Frank notes in various places, that we don’t have good enough data to draw the conclusion does not, cannot change the fact that warming is present.
30 years is what the Arbor Day Foundation maps show. The actual changes can be charted back to about 1600. The Little Ice Age can be traced directly to volcanic action, and has been.
How hot does it have to get before the warming skeptics admit there’s an issue?
Note this morning’s remarks at the National Press Club by Czech President Vaclav Klaus. He called the recent excesses of political environmentalism, bolstered by speculative science, a state religion on a par with Soviet Communism; and a different animal altogether from environmental protection per se.
Klaus’ comparison of Gore to totalitarian communists is probably some sort of code, don’t you think? Either he’s signalling that he’s not serious, or he’s gone around the bend on the issue. I suspect his speech is much more nuanced — got a copy?
Also odd: On one hand he says Gore is wrong; on the other hand, he endorses carbon credit trading in a free market, one of Gore’s proposals and projects.
I think he is not so much opposed to climate change as worried about government regulation.
I understand he met with Cheney. Klaus says Obama’s right about opening talks with opposing nations, parties and interests, even terrorists. Did Cheney’s automatic defibrillator get a workout?
There’s another, deeper and more serious issue. Klaus rails against the communist view that climate could be controlled. What he fails to see is the difference between Gore’s desire to protect air and water resources, versus the Soviet desire to exploit them. I think Klaus may be seriously misled.
Consider cotton production, for one example. Gore opposed spraying DDT to expand cotton production, as environmentally irresponsible. The Soviet Communists nearly drained the Aral Sea to increase cotton production in the desert. If Klaus can’t see the difference in those two approaches, he’s not paying attention.
I’m working on it, Ed, but can’t finish just now. The whole thing was CSPANned, and I’m hoping to post the video at least. From the excerpts I’ve viewed and read so far, I’d say that he was not disputing climate change and our subsequent charge to redoubled stewardship, but rather was saying that the claims have saved European Greenism from its marginalization, and have emboldened totalitarian elitists with a fresh pretext for controlling not so much climate, as every department of our lives; so, a new rationale for social control by dint of the central planning of elites—all of it justified, as in 1917 and 1933, by speculative science.
Please separate the two issues, Ed. I’ll get back ASAP with the unvarnished text or video.
The datum you seek, Ed, President Klaus’s complete remarks before the NPC Tuesday, can be found at C-SPAN’s website: http://www.c-span.org/
Cold weather in one year is incosequential when looking at climate change over a geological time period
Now that we know the last decade was the warmest ever, I wonder even more about the premise of this post. It seems from my view that it’s a religious belief that warming is not caused by humans. That runs contrary to the physics and the evidence.
I’ll wager a large majority of anti-AGW “believers” are exactly that, believers. I’ll wager a majority are also creationists.
Once people get in the habit of rejecting science regardless the evidence, evidence just doesn’t pack as much wallop for them any more.