Saturday, as you may or may not know, was the National Day of Climate Action. I decided to celebrate by attending the event on the steps of Texas’ state capitol in Austin. It was an extremely windy day, and a crowd of about 70 huddled together to listen to speeches by local environmentalists and politicians. And then there was this guy:
For Saturday’s crowd, this sign was little more than a convenient wind-block. But the rhetoric is perplexing. How do we confuse science with religion?
The language of climate-science-as-religion is echoed by global warming dissenters over the internet. For example, this article asks if teaching global warming in classrooms is “preaching indoctrinating [sic] to the next generation” and another says Al Gore is acting like “an Old Testament prophet.” And more blatantly, the author of “The New Religion is Global Warming” states, “Global Warming has become a religion that the faithful have vowed to follow no matter what the true facts may show.”
I have to admit I’m confused. In my understanding, religion is based on faith and science is based on data, measurements, and evidence. Scientists don’t make references to faith and the IPCC report is not the equivalent of a sermon. The system of metaphors and allusions are deeply flawed. The more I try to make sense of them, the more I confuse myself.
I traced the trend back to a 2004 speech by Richard Lindzen, one of the most frequently skeptic-cited scientists. His reasoning is that not questioning global warming is like not questioning a belief in God. Okay, but still: I think scientists would encourage people to question and understand global warming.
So my head is still in a global warming cloud about this. If anyone has any theories or good metaphors explaining this… please enlighten me.
It seems to me that, until recently, those who did not believe in anthropogenic global warming were saying that there was no “consensus” among scientists on this subject.
Consider one of the links that Lindsay provided in this post … Tom DeWeese in his 2005 article called The New Religion is Global Warming,
wrote, “In particular, my [earlier] article stated that there is no scientific evidence to support claims of man-made global warming. I pointed out that there is division among scientists and that there is no ‘consensus’ among them.”
Now the IPCC has provided the very consensus that global warming skeptics said was lacking.
And now that scientific consensus clearly exists, we hear that “consensus doesn’t matter” and that “science doesn’t operate by consensus.”
Personally, I think these arguments - “no consensus,” “global warming is religion,” consensus doesn’t matter” - are all just (if you’ll forgive the expression) so much hot air.
Deborah
I agree, the arguments of skeptics keep shifting as the evidence of global warming mounts.
Perhaps the term “skeptic” is a misnomer, since the die-hard deniers of global warming aren’t operating from a skeptical mindset, but are rather dogmatically convinced of their positions and frequently parrot half-baked arguments or recycle debunked myths.
A skeptic is someone who wants to examine all the evidence before believing outlandish claims. In this sense the IPCC is composed of skeptics, and that is what it has taken such a long time to reach a clear consensus on the matter.
Should we be talking about “Global Warming”? I say yes, just as we should be talking about anything that effects our life. Some say that this weather change is only a cycle, such as the “little Ice Age” of some years ago (before I was around). I only know one thing. Since I moved “up North” the winters have been, on the average, warmer. I’m a weather observer for National Weather Service, so maybe I notice this more than others. I don’t know how much warmer, but you would have be asleep not to notice the difference. Not to discus this concern is no more than hiding your head in the sand or under the covers,( a little safer). It’s here, it’s not a religion, it is an observable fact. What causes this phenomenon, and what (if anything) can be done about it should be (or must be) discused by all concerned. thats my 2 cents worth.
Walt (the trouble maker)