=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
God demands emissions?
Log In to post a reply
55 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

Edited May 09, 2006, 23:46
Re: God demands emissions?
May 09, 2006, 23:44
Well I'm sorry you found my "nitpicking" disappointing. But I was responding to what I consider ill-informed twaddle. So perhaps it's no surprise that you aren't pleased with what I wrote. And as long as you compare climate scientists who claim the existence of anthropogenic global warming to people who claim the existence of santa claus or the tooth fairy, then I'm afraid I'll consider your grasp of scientific principles to be rather tenuous.

You describe yourself as "someone trained in science" but make statements like:
>
> "The belief that carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for
> global warming is about as much of a faith position as belief in
> god."
>
That's plain ridiculous. There is a vast amount of scientific data which supports the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. There is no equivalent body of evidence to support the existence of god. To describe both beliefs as 'almost equivalent acts of faith' is to discount completely the role that empirical evidence plays in establishing truth.

And lest you decide to patronise me again and suggest I don't understand you; let me state this clearly: I understand completely what you are saying. You are claiming that anthropogenic global warming is a matter of faith and not scientific reality. That unless something can be reproduced, isolated, under laboratory conditions that it is not "proven". That without "absolute proof" the belief in man-made global warming is delusion (equivalent to a belief in the tooth fairy).

It's a nonsense. It's not even scientific absolutism, as you are discounting the existence of huge amounts of empirical data, which an absolutist position would at least grant was relevant and elevates one belief far beyond another.

Also, I find it a bit rich for you to lecture me about "reading some books" when I'm the one providing references, quotations and the titles of the books which support my position while you dismiss anything you don't like with patronising sneers about people being deluded or beliefs in Santa Claus.

But ultimately, leaving aside your dubious views on the scientific method, I find your attitude dangerous and itself delusional. When a theory is supported by an overwhelming body of evidence. When - despite extraordinary time and resources being spent by vested interests to gather contradictory data - none can be found which stands the test of peer-review. When the vast majority (over 98% of the IPCC) of the world's climate scientists draw identical conclusions. When those conclusions point towards the possibility of widespread human death and suffering should they be borne out; then those who describe attempts to ameliorate the problem (however misguided the methods may be) as "deluded" because "we just don't know" are promulgating a dangerous line.

As has been already pointed out...

* We know the atmosphere contains carbon dioxide.

* We know atmospheric carbon dioxide retains heat that would otherwise be lost from the atmosphere.

* We know that more atmospheric carbon dioxide will induce more warming (even taking into account the several negative-feedback factors that have been identified).

* We know that the burning of fossil fuels emits carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

There is perfectly adequate scientific proof of all four assertions. To claim otherwise is deluded.
In reply to:
Re: God demands emissions? (DarkMagus)		 Replies:
Re: God demands emissions? (DarkMagus)
Re: God demands emissions? (Rolling Ronnie)
Topic Outline:
U-Know! Forum Index