Do AGW deniers see the irony in calling those who support AGW theory religious?

This is one of my biggest peeves with the AGW denial movement.

Regardless of whether you accept or reject the scientific evidence behind AGW (or are unaware of it, like neoimperialistxxi and CO2 Expeller), the fact is that the evidence is there. Don't take my word for it - spend a few hours doing some climate science searches on Google Scholar. There are hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers containing evidence supporting the various aspects of the AGW theory.

Maybe you think all this evidence is somehow flawed, or the tens of thousands of climate scientists who collected it are all frauds and scam artists whose only goal is to create a One World Order and make Al Gore rich. Whatever your beliefs, the fact is that the AGW theory is backed by immense amounts of scientific evidence.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html

Science is the opposite of religion. Religion operates on blind faith while science operates on empirical evidence and the scientific method. Thus it could not be more wrong to claim that AGW is a religion. AGW is based on massive amounts of scientific data and evidence - no blind faith whatsoever is required. There is of course the possibility that the theory is wrong, as is the case with any scientific theory. But no scientific theory requires blind faith, nor is any scientific theory equivalent to religion. Either you are sufficiently convinced by the scientific evidence that the theory is correct, or you are not.

On the contrary, those who reject the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting AGW rarely have any scientific basis for doing so. They've rarely done any significant amount of research into the subject, but rather put their faith in what certain politically-motivated individuals tell them. There's no question that AGW denial is far more like a religion.

As a side note, anyone who says "I've looked at the science very carefully...the real issue is what is causing [global warming]" - I'm sorry, no. You haven't looked at the science very carefully at all, or you would realize that the cause of the current global warming is well-established.

*edit @ eric* "Look at Judith Curry, she does not even dispute AGW, but says that the IPCC is overestimating the uncertainties, and for that she has received the wrath of AGW supporters."

Wrong as usual. Nobody criticizes Curry because of her comments about the IPCC. Tons of climate scientists criticize the IPCC. There was an entire scientific panel devoted to finding ways to improve the IPCC.

People criticize Curry because she's said some really, really stupid things. For example, see her comments on the RealClimate criticism of the Montford book.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010...

There are many, many more examples of Curry saying really stupid things.

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/10/cant_think_o...

http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/10/judith-...

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2010/11/wheres-b...

Your problem is that you can't distinguish between criticizing a person for their motives vs. criticizing their statements. You think that anytime anybody criticizes a 'skeptic', it's only because they're a 'skeptic'. If a person says something stupid, they're going to get criticized whether or not they're a 'skeptic'.

In fact you're engaging in psychological projection, because you attack anybody who criticizes a 'skeptic' because you think it's heresy to attack 'skeptics'. Once again, it's denial which is much more akin to religion.

While I will concede that you can define most people's opinion as a form of faith, I will not simply accept AGW because someone says I should. The data, more specifically, their modeling habits and time projections, do not connect in a manner that would allow me to just outright agree with their statements. Quite simply, the reason why I see it as religious is not because I disagree with the tenet that the world is warming, but more because the AGW people proselytize the same way a baptist church might (and furthermore, the denouncing of us carbon "sinners" is also annoying).

Religion can be defined as:

"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar%E2%80%A6

Based on this definition, you can clearly see that those who agree with AGW are religious in nature. So do you think that maybe supporters should reconsider the magnitude of their "faith" in believing in science?

Ok so the copy and paste and switching a few words is lazy and mean. But twisting words around is exactly what you attempted. I wanted to demonstrate it is frivolous and lacks content.

However for one to throw faith and belief in a scientific argument is really childish and quite frankly ignorant.

You demean the scientific method by comparing it to faith. Likewise you demean faith by applying the scientific method to it.

One can follow the scientific method and still believe in God. Knowing when and where to separate the two is a personal choice.

In science I seek Validity.

In God I seek the Truth.

Neither goal is a easy to recognize as you suggest.

Perhaps it is because people like yourself who think that evidence of 0.74 degree increase in the last 100 years is evidence of 7 degree rises in the next 100 years and impending doom. OR the fact that you take the last 50 years of rise which is similar in nature to the rise from 1880-1930 and say some silly tripe about it being the largest change ever seen on the face of the earth and is going to cause the end of the world. When we point out things like this, you simply pay homage to your priest and pretend as if they support your silly assertions. You point to a very flawed survey to pretend as if 97% of scientists agree with you, when the fact is that the questions asked would place me in that list of agreement. You constantly use the phrase "denier" when you know it to be an insult, similar to asking a heathen why they are a heathen (good way to start a conversation, no?).

In other words, you have completely disregarded science for a warm fuzzy that you are helping the world. You do so by ignoring the data which is clearly showing that the models are grossly overestimating future warming. You do so by pointing to flawed logic of correlation equals causation. You do so when you pretend that a flawed survey means you have consensus to whatever you say, as if consensus is the new standards for scientific truth.

Not at all. Proponents of both views believe they are right, that theirs is the rational conclusion. That would make those on the other side wrong, irrational, led astray by charlatans, duped, and even "religious." Regardless of which side you happened to be on.

Edit: Well said, E3. I, too, believe in God, but I don't believe in AGW, yet I understand there is a lot of scientific evidence to support that believe. To accuse the other side is ignorant, believing only out of blind faith is the "I'm right you're stupid" fallacy. Let the scientists debate rather than call each other names.

In R&S it's a common argument from the overtly religious that atheism is a religion. In some obscure way (lost to all mankind) this is supposed to be an insult or foundational argument. For obvious reasons, trying to label the opposition's argument as tantamount to your own is logical suicide in that if you succeed in degrading their position it must follow that your own is just as worthless. Assuming this type of situation, of course they do not see the irony.

I would discuss the situation in which they don't display overtly religious behaviors, as you described, but delineating a completely hypothetical situation that has no basis in observational reality is a waste of time.

No, deniers don't see the irony because they simply can't look at things objectively. They're constantly trying to define science, even though not a single one of them is a scientist, they don't go to scientific conferences, and they get their scientific information from right wing blogs, Fox News and TV and radio weather personalities. Let's face it, you have to be downright stupid to get your science from a site that (honestly) calls itself "junkscience," yet deniers quote that all the time. There is simply no intellectual honesty in the denial camp. There are deniers on here that have little, if any, training in science past the undergraduate level, but profess to know more and be better equipped to judge science than those with doctorates, holding chairs at prestigious universities, doing research and writing papers. Anyone that disagrees with their own denial of AGW is labelled a leftist or socialist or communist or political hack. It never enters their minds that someone just might know more about geology or climate science than they do.

EDIT: I see that once again Eric is expressing his love for Judith Curry. Did he support her when she said that William Gray suffers from "brain fossilization"? Unfortunately Curry is always saying things without thinking much about them. As I've said before, she is a decent scientist, although I thought her papers on the connection between hurricane strength and warmed oceans were a stretch (do you believe those Eric?) , and the book on atmospheric thermodynamics by she and her husband is fine, although not my favorite on the subject.

Anyone who one the one hand says yes there are uncertainties in climate science, clouds, aerosols, and but thinks that the balance of evidence supports AGW is not religious. But people who say that global warming is real as sure as day will turn into night are religious.

People who treat the IPCC as dogma are religious. “Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from.” Look at Judith Curry, she does not even dispute AGW, but says that the IPCC is overestimating the uncertainties, and for that she has received the wrath of AGW supporters. That is not science, that is religion.

http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/25/heresy-and-the-c...

You believe that we are heading for catastrophe based on what computer programs say. When observations do not fit what the computer program tells us, you claim that there is something wrong with the data (missing hot spot being one of many examples). You are implying that if we did have proper data, it would tells us exactly what the computer program says it would. That is not science, that is religion.

Pegminer: It is human to make mistakes. But I respect people who admit their mistakes. She has admitted that this name calling with Gray was a mistake and made amends. I respect people who do not turn science into dogma. I respect her for being alarmed when the IPCC overstated the confidence levels of its hurricane forecasts and stated this publicly. I respect her for being smart enough to realize when you turn science into dogma you alienate a lot of people and you create mistrust with the general public.

Religious global warming fanatics have dehumanized skeptics. They view us in the same way the Nazi viewed the Jews. We are vermin to them. That is why hundreds of people who made the 10:10 video saw nothing wrong with blowing up skeptics. Because in their minds they were not blowing up humans, but vermin. There is nothing wrong with killing vermin is there?

Not at all. I've looked at the science very carefully. There is some evidence that the climatic temperture may be "trending up" but precious little else. There's some stuff that supports various theories about it all but the real issue is what is causing it. Again, there are various schools of thought about that and each has a bit of evidence. However, the idea that man is responsible is at this time merely presumptive. I'm a lot less interested in constant proofs that the climate is changing in various ways and a lot more interested in evidence related to cause, because evidence of the former is not evidence of the latter.

I am not a religious man in the least.

No, Baccheus you have to show how all of that directly PROVES anything at all about man's culpability. You guys are just great at inventing evidence of warming itself, which is what your examples are all about, but conclusions regarding the anthropogenic nature of the alleged changes are merely PRESUMPTIVE. BTW, you are being diesngenuous when you gloss over the fact that CO2's value as a greenhouse gas is limited and very likely has already maxed out.

Dana, it is only well established in your mind. You don't have a single shred of direct evidence of man's culpability and you darned well know it.

Bob, thanks for posting the Steven Goddard site. 'Nuff said.

In the beginning God said I will create the gift of intelligence and give it to Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, Bohr, Schroodinger, Heisenberg, Pauli, Dirac, Darwin and many others who will use the scientific method to discover what I have created and write down the laws of nature. And it was so.

When you are a member of a cult, it is natural to think that your beliefs are correct and logical and supported by evidence. Doomsday cults have been with us since the Babylonians. The AGW cult is just one of the latests.

It is the warmers that have the burdon of proof and they have failed. They have attempted to elevate their computer models to scientiific testing but they have failed. Their models are over-simplified. They have exaggerated their knowledge and pretend their assumptions are fact. This isn't done by scientists. This is done by people with an agenda. There is no evidence that the recent trends are different from the past natural trends. There is no evidence that the warming is harmful and in fact a 3rd grader could give numerous reasons why it is beneficial.

When you have a belief system that forbids you from enjoying warm day, that isn't science.