Alpinism and Religion

Roy Suggett wrote: A bit off the topic, but can we skip the term "Global Warming" and instead use "Climate Change"?  It makes it easier to have an constructive conversation with folks who are not well versed in why warmth in one area of the planet can cause cold in another. And oh yeah, another request, let,s lean in on more constructive conversation please.

The "Global Warming" was tongue in cheek to point out how the scientists were wrong and had to redefine the 'crisis.'  

Not addressed to you Roy, but the bottom line is that scientists (outside the political scientists) don't agree on whether increased CO2 will cause cooling or warming.  If "99% of scientists agree" then I would like to see a reference to that 'evidence' and whether the percentage is increasing or decreasing as new evidence is discovered.  I would also like to see a study done on the effects of the massive forest fires of the last 15 years and how the CO2 released by millions of burned trees which they had been storing it for hundreds of years compares to man-made CO2.  I don't know the answer to that one because I'm just a knuckle-dragging Christian to the know-it-alls who will believe the next fairy-tale the media tells them.

David Baltz wrote:

 the next fairy-tale the media tells them.

something about the ironing being delicious.

David Baltz wrote:

Not addressed to you Roy, but the bottom line is that scientists (outside the political scientists) don't agree on whether increased CO2 will cause cooling or warming.  If "99% of scientists agree" then I would like to see a reference to that 'evidence' [...]

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Nasa: 97% or more.

This climate change argument gets so old.
 I realize it can be hard to accept data based arguments in our current world of widespread deliberate deceit. You have to analyze the methods and motivations of everything. However, the amount of evidence proving human activity is increasing rates of climate change, and that global temperatures are generally rising, is absolutely staggering. You have to be really good at cherry picking and straight up ignoring data to reach any other conclusion.

A very quick outline from NASA: climate.nasa.gov/scientific…*
Some answers to all your skepticism with sources and peer reviewed data: skepticalscience.com
“Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism:” This site debunks common anti climate change arguments made by prominent figures and politicians.
 
But if you’re a hardcore literal Christian who believes God created the earth less than 10,000 years ago (4 in 10 Americans!), then logic, observational, and data based arguments with overwhelming evidence have no effect on you, so if that’s the case you can ignore all this.

It’s ridiculous that this is even in question. The only thing that makes sense to discuss is if we should do something about it, and if so, what and how.

EDIT:  By the way, the guy that made the skepticalscience website is an evangelical christian (and a solar physicist)

Kees van der Heiden wrote:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Nasa: 97% or more.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#6ceb102b4c7c

36%

Tim Lutz wrote:

so believing the evidence from 99% of scientists that global warming is real is 'casting aspersions' with my 'highly exaggerated sense of jingoism' is threatening the very fabric of Christ-centered spirituality?

I don't even know what that means, so it must be some from someone casting aspersions with a highly exaggerated sense of jingoism

in any case, christianity's basic idea is that man is fallible, and needs a savior... yet modern Orange christians can't get their head around the idea that man's fossil fuel consumption could be responsible for humanity's  own demise?

according to Genesis, man's evil ways created the need for flood the first time, and now we are in the End Times...   'fire' this time, created again by man

It's nice to see that when challenged, you clarified your statement.  I'll ignore the incoherent reciprocal attack.

You seem like you might be obsessed with the politics of climate change, and you're unable to converse about religion and spirituality without convolving it somehow with your obsession.  Don't worry though, you're in the majority.

Zack Robinson wrote:

Don't act like I am just walking around bragging about how discerning atheists are. I was specifically responding to a post that said atheists will believe just anything because they don't believe in God.

The political views of atheists are irrelevant to this thread.

Not sure that the political views of atheists are irrelevant because from what I've read on this and other lame MP threads (with the same boring people spraying their boring opinions they got from college) politics are indistinguishable from religion for many folks who, despite their constant claims of independent thought fall squarely into the label of postmodern progressive atheists who have faith only in government.

Faith is blind belief, right?  Most progressive atheists have faith in government.  It's their blind spot, and it's cliche.

This thread sucks because it's predictable:  One or two people with a strong Christian faith patiently defending their religion from attacks from boring people all saying the same thing they were indoctrinated with by their postmodern progressive professors and teachers.
 

  

David Baltz wrote:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#6ceb102b4c7c

36%

This is misleading and you are misintrepeting the point. This paper is talking about the word "crisis." Climate change is obviously happening, and everyone agrees that it is. This paper is talking about if scientists think the changes are a big deal or not. Now you're getting political - I can totally agree that many people blow everything out of proportion to further their agenda and scare people (global warming included, or "crisis" at the southern border, for example). Hence why I said the REAL issue we need to discuss is: should we do anything about it, and if so, what and how? NOT if it's happening or not - that's totally proven.

Don't confuse people discussing if climate change is a crisis with if climate change is even happening...

EDIT:
I don't blame anyone for using that stupid article you posted as evidence climate change isn't real. It was very delibrately misleading, confusing people to think climate isn't happening rather than starting a debate on how important and impactful it is. I'm a geoscientist and work in the industry, and can attest to this

David Baltz wrote:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#6ceb102b4c7c

36%

Check into who the author is and understand your source that you have cited. Also, the consensus has been shifting even more dramatically toward human accelerated climate change in recent years. FYI James taylor is the President of the Spark of Freedom Foundation promoting US economy  using affordable energy over all else.

Matt N wrote: "Science doesn't care what you believe."

Unfortunately, the opposite is also true.

David Baltz wrote:

Tell that to all the scientists who don't buy the 'Global Warming' dogma.  That is, if they still have research jobs.

Thanks for making the point.

When 97% of scientists believe in something from the evidence they've reviewed/gathered/etc... which side do you "believe"?

[geez this thread moved a bit fast with all the BS flying around - I see the 'dogma' has already been addressed]

Roy Suggett wrote: A bit off the topic, but can we skip the term "Global Warming" and instead use "Climate Change"?  It makes it easier to have an constructive conversation with folks who are not well versed in why warmth in one area of the planet can cause cold in another. And oh yeah, another request, let,s lean in on more constructive conversation please.

I actually prefer the term “global warming” because it’s more precise; this is, indisputably, what is happening.  Since climate is a function of temperature and precipitation, it follows that the climate will change accordingly, but that sort of modeling is harder to predict.  Since we know that man made activity is directly contributing to global warming, it’s a much more straight forward model than focusing on the secondary effects.  A number of factors can contribute to climates changing (e.g: deforestation), and it can be easy to conflate these and oversell the effects of global warming/climate change.  I think that if someone is really dumb enough to think that one or two cold days in winter means that climate change is fake, you’re probably not going to get very far with them (nor should they be president, for that matter).

Dankasaurus wrote:
Not sure that the political views of atheists are irrelevant because from what I've read on this and other lame MP threads (with the same boring people spraying their boring opinions they got from college) politics are indistinguishable from religion for many folks who, despite their constant claims of independent thought fall squarely into the label of postmodern progressive atheists who have faith only in government.

Faith is blind belief, right?  Most progressive atheists have faith in government.  It's their blind spot, and it's cliche.

This thread sucks because it's predictable:  One or two people with a strong Christian faith patiently defending their religion from attacks from boring people all saying the same thing they were indoctrinated with by their postmodern progressive professors and teachers.
 

  

But the question of whether god exists is a separate question from how we should structure our political system if there is no god.  The two are related in the sense that our answer to the first question will determine our interest in the second question, but the two issues are separate.

You seem to be opposed to college learning.  That's kind of like me asking you to explain to me the Krebs cycle without using anything you learned in college, even if you were a biology major.  That seems a bit bizarre.  For this topic, the most relevant experts are philosophers.  Philosophers by and large are employed by colleges.  Why exclude the most relevant experts when discussing something?

Have you ever taken a college-level philosophy course?  "Indoctrination" couldn't be further from the truth.  Philosophy professors continually play devil's advocate.  One philosophy of religion course I took covered arguments for god's existence in the first half and arguments against his existence in the second half.  That is par for the course, and I honestly think most people who claim indoctrination is widespread in colleges have either never been to college or are so blinded by their political leanings that they can't see clearly.  

Ted, I am all in...except, we need to SELL the idea to the masses, not just those on this thread.

Wes Martin wrote: 
But if you’re a hardcore literal Christian who believes God created the earth less than 10,000 years ago (4 in 10 Americans!), then logic, observational, and data based arguments with overwhelming evidence have no effect on you, so if that’s the case you can ignore all this.

Very nicely put. A person doesn't have to be a hardcore christian to be more susceptible to ignoring logic, observational, and data based arguments. If a person (any person) practices non fact based decisions on a daily basis (in the case of Christians: God has a plan for me) then they are perfectly used to that and will tend to be more comfortable with that type of argument. 

Roy Suggett wrote: Ted, I am all in...except, we need to SELL the idea to the masses, not just those on this thread.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/11/30/politics/climate-change-monmouth-poll/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

The masses already accept the science, it’s a handful of squeaky wheel Internet trolls and pundits that blow the debate out of proportion, combined with unscrupulous politicians who are willing to sell out the planet for that sweet industry money.  At this point, global warming (or climate change, or whatever) is selling itself; you don’t run into a burning building and get into an argument with a guy in a tin hat about whether the building is actually on fire or if that’s “what the government wants you to think!”

Sorry Ted, in my opinion, if we can't sell science...aka convince based on evidence, to at least some of the Trump base, we will be swimming soon.

^exactly. The 30-40% who "blindly follow" Trump are as unconvincing a group as there could be. Coincidence that they are also anti-science, -education, etc - yeah, not surprising.

Idiocracy was a funny movie, until it became a pre-documentary, then it became sad and scary.  

David Baltz wrote:

The "Global Warming" was tongue in cheek to point out how the scientists were wrong and had to redefine the 'crisis.'  

Not addressed to you Roy, but the bottom line is that scientists (outside the political scientists) don't agree on whether increased CO2 will cause cooling or warming.  If "99% of scientists agree" then I would like to see a reference to that 'evidence' and whether the percentage is increasing or decreasing as new evidence is discovered.  I would also like to see a study done on the effects of the massive forest fires of the last 15 years and how the CO2 released by millions of burned trees which they had been storing it for hundreds of years compares to man-made CO2.  I don't know the answer to that one because I'm just a knuckle-dragging Christian to the know-it-alls who will believe the next fairy-tale the media tells them.

There have been multiple peer-reviewed papers that have pegged the number somewhere near 97%.  Here is Wiki's nice overview comment on it:

Several studies of the consensus have been undertaken.[1] Among the most-cited is a 2013 study of nearly 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990, of which just over 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. Of these, 97% agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused.[2][3] It is "extremely likely"[4] that this warming arises from "... human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases ..."[4] in the atmosphere.[5] Natural change alone would have had a slight cooling effect rather than a warming effect.[6][7][8][9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Scientific_consensus

Here are some direct links to studies:

Oreskes (2004), 100%: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686

Doran (2009), 97%: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2009EO030002

Anderegg (2010), 97% (this one has exceptionally good methodology IMO): https://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107

Cook (2013), 97%: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Carlton (2015), 97%: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025/meta

If 97% of doctors all said that doing X would give you cancer, would you claim they were all wrong because you think you have a better understanding of the biological mechanisms that cause cancer than they do?  Don't fool yourself: this is no less technical.  You are not able to spot what the scientists are "missing."  They know more about this than you do, and they are overwhelmingly in agreement.

David Baltz wrote:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#6ceb102b4c7c

36%

When you follow that link to the original article and read their methods, you will see it was a survey conducted among members of the APEGA (Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta). This association seems to be mostly oil industry people.

So, you could also say, if even 36% of the oil inustry thinks global warming is a crisis caused by humanity, then that is pretty remarkable!