.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the [supposed] consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the “primary” cause of warming, but it doesn’t require any belief or support for “catastrophic” global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
This is what Al Gore calls “unanimous agreement?” This is the “scientific alarm” that leads every Democrat on earth to call for massive government legislation to deal with the “problem?”
27 users commented in " What do actual scientists who publish research papers on climate change think about Global Warming? Not what Al Gore thinks they do… "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackUnfortunately, the conservatives blew their moral authority when it came to challenging people who “stand for science”.
For too many years, they’ve been the primary supporters of creationist nonsense. This crowd rails night and day against “materialism”, “reductionism” and any non-supernatural view of the functioning of nature. An author I respected wrote some ridiculous article calling people like me who believe that the universe obeys natural laws, and came to exist through natural processes a “poison in our society”.
With friends like these, who needs enemies? Especially if you now want to challenge doom prophecy being done in the name of science?
I suppose what I object to most in the creation/evolution debate are the flat out trivially absurd arguments, distortions, and lies, made over and over again. Once you’ve shown that you don’t give a rats ass about whether or not something is [i]true[/i], that you’ll grab any straw that bolsters your point of view (“I don’t have to make sense, I just have to win”, to quote Chomsky), then how can you be trusted in other cases? That and these people treat you like some sort of traitor if you happen to agree with evolution.
ams: Okay, maybe I am not understanding what you are saying here. I am reading here that if someone does not agree with your particular belief as to the creation of the universe generally, and the evolution of man specifically (my words, not yours), then they can not possibly be right about anything.
Correct me if I misunderstood here.
Throughout the history of man, many, if not most of our greatest scientists accepted something at least akin to what we would call “Creationism, or Intelligent Design.” In fact, thousands still do.
Does that make their discoveries, or researched opinions in other areas less valid?
Sigh… how did a post on the scientific debate over Global Warming morph into Creationism vs. Evolution?
The two are not mutually exclusive. Believing either one does not invalidate either your morality or your intelligence. People of great moral authority and monumental intelligence have come down on both sides of the issue.
Forget the “creation” of the universe for a moment. Think about it’s very “existence”. If you dig down deep into the whole existential analysis of the universe, you (or most people anyway) eventually conclude that it’s just weird that the universe exists at all. The millenia old debate about “first causes” has not been, and is not likely to be, solved. Most folks don’t even think about the fundamental nature of how ANYTHING can exist at all. Be it a random collection of fundamental particles, or an omniscient, omnipotent God. When you start attempting to use logic to explain either, you eventually get to the most fundamental conundrum that I believe the human mind can fathom, which is “Why does anything exist at all?” If you can’t answer that, then don’t expect me to put a whole lot of credence on any description you have of “what” exists, or “how” it came to be. “WHY” it came to be is far more puzzling and important to me.
CC: Sorry…but I didn’t start it…was just curious at what I was reading. The comment mentioned creationism, so that was the subject I used in response. I am not arguing either side on the deal, because I have my own opinion (which of course is copletely correct…I learned a long time ago that there is no need to convince someone that your opinion is correct…just knowing it is, is satisfaction enough).
The question I should have asked is: Just because a scientist (or just Joe Blow) is wrong about one thing, does that make him wrong about everything?
That was the impression I got from what ams wrote. So please don’t sigh…it’s Friday afternoon ahead of a holiday weekend…
CC: Oh, I forgot…I could not agree with you more on… “The two are not mutually exclusive. Believing either one does not invalidate either your morality or your intelligence. People of great moral authority and monumental intelligence have come down on both sides of the issue.”
“Just because a scientist (or just Joe Blow) is wrong about one thing, does that make him wrong about everything?”
No it doesn’t. But it does make it more difficult to make your case if you have a history of grabbing any half-formed sophmoric argumetn to make your case. (And I’m not saying anything about anyone here either)
I was just POed about some recent things I was reading, including a condemnation of “arrogant materialism” and the “ridiculous” assertion that humans and apes have a common ancestor. Throw in some insults to our “shallow” intelligence and call us a “poisonous influence” on society.
I get this sort of crap from conservatives all the time. How are they supposed to make a stand against the global warming crowd when they’ve already convinced everyone who’ll listen that they’ll deny everything that doesn’t fit their worldview?
The AGW guys are a bunch of fanatics, but can you trust the right wing to offer up a coherent or factual refutation of them?
I don’t know. I’m not a leftist because I believe in individual liberty and capitalism, and am pro-American. I’m just about as far from the greens as it is possible to be – believing that as humans, our first loyalty should be to human flourishing and prosperity.
I’m not at home on the right either – I happen to believe in a universe that follows natural laws and isn’t some sort of stage prop in a biblical morality play. And I’m not convinced that there are all that many “rational conservatives” either. I can agree with most of them, right up until the point they start savaging naturalism and secularism.
ams: Sorry that some claiming Christianity have thrown out those terms that PEOD you. Not all Bible believers will savage naturalism, or secularism. I am a Bible believer, but I learned a long time ago that “savaging” anyone’s belief is a fools errand.
You end up spending way too much time telling someone how stupid they are, and hearing from them how stupid you are. In the end, they just hate your guts…time wasted…possible relationship spoiled…truly idiotic!
I’m not a leftist, or a righty…I am a FAR RIGHTY…much further than anyone I know.
It doesn’t matter who is throwing up the facts to refute the nutjob global warming crowd. A wise man once said, “Facts are stubborned things.” There are atheists out there refuting the Al Gore crowd. Facts are stubborned things.
Thanks ams…you have given me good food for thought.
The problem with “faith” is that it exists independent of objective fact, indeed, could not exist if all things were known, there being no need to “have faith” in something when you have the answer to everything.
The notion that it is “conservatives” who argue for the creationist view, especially those who argue for it to be the EXCLUSIVE view…even going so far as to say that the world is only 5,000 years old and other such drivel, rather than fundamentalists who share all political views, is simply incorrect.
While I can certainly agree that one will likely find MORE of them in “conservative” parties than in “liberal” ones simply because of the OTHER things for which those parties stand, this is not a POLITICAL view held by members of a single party (or philosophy), but one held by people across the political spectrum as it is one based solely on “faith.”
It is difficult to attach “moral authority” to things scientific. Either the theory passes the “sniff test,” or it doesn’t. Right now, the alarmists, such as Al Gore, are spouting a theory which simply doesn’t pass the “sniff test.” It doesn’t matter WHO is spouting WHAT theory, thinking people should be able to distinguish between which of them are rational or not.
Of course, there is no requirement to be a “thinking person” to vote….
Sigh.
Drax: I agree almost completely with your comment. I have one exception though.
You wrote: “The problem with “faith†is that it exists independent of objective fact.”
I believe that faith does not exist independently from facts.
The reason that I came to my “faith” in the Jesus of the Bible was from all of the “facts” that surrounded me. It is a long story that I will not bore you with.
I know that (by definition) “faith” is something that we do not see, yet believe deeply. But I have allowed myself to test my “faith” with universal realities and facts, and it only grows stronger.
Back to global warming…the Al Goreite theories smell like piles of horse dookie to me. Not only do they not pass the sniff test for thinking people…it worries me some that so many people accept them, and are willing to “follow the leader” on this stuff.
My Dad was born in 1935. That was one of the hottest years on record…I think the year of the great Galveston Hurricane, etc. Every day I hear the weather reports, and no matter how hot it is here the weather guy says “well, we are not going to break the record today…that was back in 1935, or 1875, etc.”
I wonder if I am the only human on the planet that realizes that it always gets hot in the Summer, and that it has been hotter before (without air conditioning I might add).
Many rational types (like myself) find it difficult to understand faith because it is so antithetical to our way of viewing the world. It is fair to say that everyone has to have faith in SOMETHING in order to have a basis for rational thought at all (for example, you have to have faith that rationality is actually rational), but the difference between a rational zealot like myself and someone who is devoutly faithful is that although I recognize that some faith is needed, I specifically attempt to reduce what faith IS needed to understand the universe to the absolute minimum. Which is why I find it easier to believe in the currently generally accepted cosmology instead of fundamentalist creationism.
However, that does not mean I have no respect for faith. I really do. In part because I find it so difficult myself, I have a ton of respect for people who can adopt something like Christianity and attempt to live by its values. I see the power of that sort of faith, regardless of whether it is based on objective reality or not. The problem is that many people who view the world the way I do sneer at any other worldview. And I would be lying if I did not admit that I have done my share of sneering in the past.
But as I said before, there is something fundamentally, profoundly weird about our existence, and anyone who thinks they have it figured out is simply fooling themselves.
Andy: What I meant by that sentence is that one can have faith in something which cannot be verified by any objective means, thus, faith exists independent of objective fact.
The answer to the question “Does God Exist?” is one of those answers which requires a fundamental leap of faith as it cannot be independently verified, only inferred from what we experience, and each and every piece of evidence which leads us to the inference that “Yes, God Exists” can lead another person to an entirely different answer.
Drax: Thanks for clearing that up…makes perfect sense now. I was reading something into it that you didn’t write.
CC: You are dead on the mark right. Everyone has faith in something. Life as we know it is impossible without faith (even if only minimally). Even the atheist has faith, either in his atheism, or in himself, etc.
You talk about respecting people that pursue a doctrine, such as Christianity. I believe that most people (even non Christians) live their lives along that pattern. Most people don’t intentionally lie, cheat, kill, steal, and for the most part they treat others as they want to be treated. Most people are generous, kind, patient, and tolerant, regardless of their “faith.”
Therein lies the problem…the non-Christian sees the Christian as a hypocrite when he fails, but sees himself as just, well…normal. In fact, I know many non-Christians that I would want in my corner any day over some that claim Christ. The world sees Christian failings, and it turns them off.
I have no idea what this has to do with the global warming hoax…sorry.
There is something fundamentally weird about our existence. And I guess I am one of those idiots that are “fooling themselves,”…because I have got it figured out.
Interesting conversation…thanks.
Andy:
“Fooling oneself” doesn’t make one an idiot. Sometimes it’s a conscious decision. I have talked with more than a few people of faith who say they chose to believe that faith because they couldn’t “know” the truth, so they went with what they considered to be the least risky option. This is so common, in fact, that it has become a Christian talking point that goes something like this. “If I’m wrong and you are right, we both just end up dying. But if you’re wrong and I’m right, I end up in heaven and you end up in hell for eternity.”
What amazes me is how deeply cynical this perspective is. My standard response to this sort of argument is “If I were God, the last folks I would let into heaven would be those who turned their faith into a cynical enterprise of self protection.”
There’s actually a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon that captures this very well, but it puts “Santa Claus” in the role of “God.” Watterson was far more clever in many of his strips than most people realize.
When it comes to faith and God and the afterlife, I’ve pretty much reconciled myself to my fate. I have considered as many of the implications of faith and works as I can, and I’ve come to the conclusion that any God who puts as the primary (or singular) test of another being’s worth that they worship (or even acknowledge) God above all else is a God who is so deeply selfish and arbitrary that He is not worthy of respect, and worship is far beyond respect in my book.
My biggest problem with faith and worship in general is that I have never been able to differentiate between what religions preach to the masses and the most fundamental wish-fulfillment of 99% of human beings. This makes me suspect rather strongly that religions develop to fulfill that wish fulfillment because that is what attracts followers. Not because of any objective reality.
To put it another way, if there is no God at all, I would expect human beings to have created more or less exactly the bewildering assortment of religions and cults I see on this planet today. Because every one of them fulfills our powerful need to believe in the most basic, fundamental “truths” in order to get by.
It may be (remotely) true that ONE of them (out of the tens of thousands in human history) got it “right” but I have never seen the slightest bit of evidence, nor have I experienced anything directly in my own personal life, that leads me to believe any one of them is “right” and the others are wrong.
So I tend to apply the most fundamental tenet of my own “faith” (rationalism) which is Occam’s Razor, and ask myself, “what is more likely to be true?” And the answer I get to that every time I apply it is “It is most likely to be true that religions were created by man, not that man was created by religion.”
And that’s where I pretty much am today. Of course in my advancing age I see the powerful stimulus that I call the “Old person wanting to get into heaven” syndrome that leads to a lot of late-life conversions. It’s very, very frightening to think that when you die, you just die. But that is precisely why I think religions survive and thrive. Nobody has ever gone broke appealing to the most basic desires of the human race.
CC: Excellent explanation of your current “take” on life (and beyond). Clear, concise, and powerful. You should be a writer…well, I guess you are.
Man, I get so frustrated with the reality that: “Nobody has ever gone broke appealing to the most basic desires of the human race.”
Religions were created by man. I hope that I am “irreligious,” relying on my faith in Jesus and his teachings, and not which “Church-house” I show up in on a Sunday. (I sure hope that works, because there ain’t one anymore).
Thanks for laying that out for me.
Oh, thanks also for letting me off the hook of “idiocy.” I would rather believe that I am just “fooling myself” than that I am an idiot. However, if a vote were taken among those that know me…well…
CC: Oh, I forgot…you wrote about never experiencing anything in your personal life that convinces you, etc.
Just a think piece: What if you had lost your night vision…unable to see anything after dark, and barely see anything in your house without “spotlights”?
Then, a man puts his fingers on your eyes and prays for you. When you open your eyes they are a different color, your vision is perfect, and you can drive after dark, see and read again, etc.
Would that be the kind of experience that would cause one to question their beliefs, and try to figure out what this guy that prayed for you believes?
Interesting topic this global warming hoax, huh?
Andy:
Religion is a deeply personal thing. And discussing it publicly is almost guaranteed to make someone angry. Dadman has suggested in the past that here on this blog people of faith are treated unfairly. And he’s got a point, there have been some comments that I also find to have been condescending and insulting towards people of faith. Some of my own comments have been unfair. So talking about this with people who I know are deeply devout and who have had powerful personal experiences that they know validate their own beliefs is a difficult thing to do.
But I will try to answer your question as honestly as I can and hope it is not taken in the wrong way.
Let us say that there is a medically documented case of the type you describe. For the sake of this argument I will accept it exactly as you described it. But I will add to this something you did not say, and that is we will assume that this was documented in a rigorous scientific manner with all of the scientific method behind it.
Would I then assume that the healing had occurred due to the intervention of an omnipotent, omniscient deity as described in some book that is thousands of years old?
Probably not. The first thing I would do is try to duplicate it. Not just for the scientific value, but because if that power exists and someone can actually control it, well, we’ve got a lot of people to heal, and we should get started right away. Let us assume for the sake of argument that the power to heal in this fashion does not seem to be something that the person can do at will. I know of no historically documented case of anyone being able to do so, so I think this is not a bad assumption.
Next I would see if I could find others who have demonstrated this same power. In fact if I do so, and trust the word of the people affected, I will soon find that these miracles are replicated by Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu and cultists of many stripes. So now I have to reconcile this power, as ephemeral as it seems to be, is also not connected to any one dogmatic interpretation of deific power. In other words, it seems to work just as well invoking the name of Buddha as it does invoking the name of Christ.
This immediately makes me suspicious of the source of the phenomenon being directly related to any singular faith. If every miracle ever reported were only reported by Christians, that would be one thing. But that’s not the case. They are reported by all faiths. In fact virtually every faith uses these miracles as the very “proof” of their faith being the “one true faith.” So now I have to assume one of three things. Either they are all wrong (perhaps self-deluded, perhaps self-hypnotized), They are all telling the truth, or only some of them are telling the truth. I see no way to fashion any sort of experiment that can prove any of these. So I fall back on Occam’s Razor again and I conclude that it is more likely that they are all wrong, or that they are all right (some of the events actually happened), than that only one religion is the source of these miracles.
Now, let’s assume that we accept that these miracles do in fact happen from all religions. That points to some source of the power that is religiously indiscriminate. Since religion by its very nature is fundamentally discriminatory, this leads me to believe that the power, if it exists at all, exists in a way that can be called upon by anyone of sufficient faith, for the right person, at the right moment, regardless of religious affiliation.
That doesn’t sound to me like the likely action of a singular deity. In fact it sounds like something that may not be connected with dogma at all, but instead reflects some connection with the universe that goes beyond what we commonly call the “natural world” and that connection is based more on faith, will and circumstance than on the actual religion.
And that leads me to believe that, IF these “miracles” happen, then they are more likely to be some natural manifestation of universal laws that we simply have not figured out yet. So even this sort of story does not compel me to believe in God, believe in any particular dogma, or give me any more reason to believe God actually intervenes in human affairs in this way.
I’m not sure that’s even understandable, but that’s about as well as I can describe my perspective on such things.
And I have to be honest, even if I were to personally experience a “miracle” of this sort, it is more likely that I would find this to be proof of the general existence of miracles than I would immediately assume that God himself healed me for any particular purpose.
CC: Don’t worry a bit man…I didn’t take it in any way wrong. I understand clearly where you are coming from. That is as honest an answer as any I have heard to a proposition like that. Man, you should be a writer.
By the way…If you didn’t pick up on it, I am the guy that was healed.
CC: I forgot. You mentioned something about people of faith not being treated fairly on the blog.
1) I haven’t noticed that. Of course I have not been visiting for very long, but I haven’t felt that.
2) Not dissing anyone here…I learned a long time ago that a challenge to your faith is a good thing. If your faith can’t withstand challenges then it will be useless to you when you meet the real struggles and trials of life.
3) I had my “feelings” surgically removed years ago. I enjoy interaction with people that don’t necessarily share my faith. I hope I have learned to share it with a straightforward tolerance and like of others.
I hope you don’t think that I am just trying to get the “last word” in on this…in fact, if you reply, I promise that I will shut up! I just wanted you to know that I think you are doing valuable work here…and you guys are a hoot!
CC: You would also have to take into account those who experience unexplained, spontaneous remission without the intervention of any (known) diety…
Drax:
Yes, that also is relevant to the analysis.
Wow. I sure can derail a thread.
The best threads are those which are de-railed…mostly because it ends up being about what the posters WANT to talk about….
Hey, I could take that personally, you know. Implicit in that statement is the assertion that the original posts are never about what you all want to talk about.
Of course, posting privileges are generally available for the asking. If you think you can post more interesting stuff.
CC: Heh. That wasn’t what I meant in the least. However, if you’ll take a look at many threads, you’ll see a ton of activity (relatively) in those threads which stray “off course.”
This is because, the original thread sparked something which, while not exactly on point with the original thread, got someone excited, and they posted something about it. This post gets someone else excited (sometimes) and….away we go….off on a tangent….but sparked by the original thread.
Make more (less insulting…) sense?
Leave A Reply