Talk:Global warming denialism/Archive8

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

AGW unravelling?[edit]

It really looks more and more cracks are appearing in the AGW foundation. See here "Paper shows solar activity at end of 20th century was near highest levels of past 11,500 years" and "NASA on the sun: ‘…tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate.”...Researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming." -

This shift in the science community is all happening within the context of 17-years of non-warming and failed IPCC ex ante predictions as researchers try to save face and cover their butts. (Actually the UK Met Office is now conceding that there will be 20 years of non-warming: "If the forecast is accurate, the result would be that the global average temperature would have remained relatively static for about two decades" -

It will be amusing to watch the 180-degree flip on this website and the editors revising all the nasty insults and jokes after the science wins out.

Abraxas (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course you know that that will never never happen. There can be no such thing as papal infallibility. Dirk Steele (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I am already preparing for the next ice age. Dirk Steele (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresentations and deliberate fraud. Hipocrite (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

RE: Hierarchy of global warming denial[edit]

Where does "Global warming is happening, [but it’s not caused by humanity]/[and it is in part caused by humanity].... but we probably should still do something about it anyways" fit into the hierarchy? Or is it not listed because it's not a position many people are known to hold? Or that, because it agrees that something should be done, it isn't "denialism" anymore, even if the person holding the opinion doesn't believe it's anthropogenic climate change? Because so far this article seems to just cover either people who say it's absolutely anthropogenic climate change, and that anyone who say it isn't in turn thinks "we don't have to do anything [about it]". -- (talk) 07:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Who in the public eye has actually argued that? Just wondering. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Climate change denialism[edit]

I think the sections about climate change denialism or global warming denialism should be cut to a separate article on this subject. Up to now, these terms were redirects to global warming conspiracy theory, which is a fairly unhelpful list of supposed culprits & motives for hoaxing global warming but says very little about what (pseudo)scientific claims denialists make. I've rerouted these redirects to here instead, as there is a lot more relevant material, but ideally it should be moved to a separate article with this one just covering the basics of what global warming is & what evidence demonstrates it. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

New study suggests recent global cooling, and that CO2 is not the main culprit of past global warming[edit]

What are your thoughts on this? It's one day old. (

"What’s striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined"
I'd like to see where he's getting that. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
CFCs can exacerbate the greenhouse effect. However, just seeing which correlates better with temperature, CO2 or CFCs, is not really a valid way of determining which has had more effect. It ignores other forcings and influences on global temperature, e.g., cooling from aerosols during the mid-20th c., absorption of heat into the oceans, etc. The denialist talking points sprinkled in (no warming since 2002, cosmic rays) also make this suspect. Most likely a mangled press release. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Some BoN about the Bible[edit]

What if the Bible predicts global warming, just like it predicts the major war between good and evil, Armageddon. In Revelation, it states that the waters will be poisoned, changes in the weather will occur, animals will attack, and all kinds of things. Perhaps God is behind global warming? I think the "Left Behind" series is wrong. Most, if not all, denominations of Christianity are wrong. But what if the Bible itself is correct?— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

What if it doesn't?--ZooGuard (talk) 07:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you prove to me that it doesn't?

I'm serious. I don't WANT to believe in the Bible AT ALL. But I have a tremendous fear of this sort of thing. I'm worried that I'll go to hell. But I would prefer to be rational. I'm a vegetarian who loves non-human animals and has a special relationship with them, considering them to be my family and friends, and I'm horrified about what the Bible says about animals. There were animal sacrifices, humans are allowed to dominate the entire Earth and every animal, animals are said to not have eternal souls, etc.

I'm also horrified because I'm Autistic, and I just don't think of things the same way as non-Autistics. The Bible has a sense of morality that I can't relate to, and a sense of "God" that I can't relate to, and everything is written for the Neurotypicals, and I REALLY don't like it. I happen to LOVE being Autistic, I am greatly inspired by the philosophy of Neurodiversity and the Autism Rights Movement. I have a more relativistic idea of things, and I can't stand all of this duality, and the ultimatums found in the Bible. The Bible also wants everyone to pretty much be the same, and obey authority.

As a matter of fact, I'd much prefer to just die than have to settle for this Biblical nonsense. I want to live my life freely. It's not like I'm some sinner that prefers to sin, either. I mean, of course I'm not perfect. I don't really think I WANT to be perfect AT ALL, but that's beside the point. I'm not perfect. But I don't really have any particular sins (in the Biblical sense) that I'm really ATTACHED to, if you know what I mean.

Also, I look different. I dress very differently, Gothic I suppose, and wear a tremendous amount of makeup all over my face. But Christianity is like a cult, where everyone dresses and acts a certain way. I WANT to be different, and I LIKE different ideas about life. I don't like any sort of homogeneous group nonsense, or the "conformist" mentality. I am happy being me.

And what is so wrong with Ego? What's wrong with subjectivity and individuality? What's wrong with having a sense of self, independent from everything else, and asserting that self? Do people just want to be part of something, and have nothing they can call their own? I just don't get it. I happen to LIKE being me. I think ego is IMPORTANT. To live without it isn't freedom at all.

But, has anyone ever disproved the Bible? The Christians ALWAYS have an answer for EVERYTHING. I don't know if the answer is necessarily CORRECT or not, but they ALWAYS have an answer. I just want to be FREE from Christianity. It is very harmful to me, and I'm afraid. And I know that this is irrelevant to the "Global Warming" article, but I just need to vent, and I also need HELP. I've been obsessed with this to point where Christianity is ALL I can think of. I DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE THIS because I realize it's a HORRIBLE belief.

But I can't imagine NOT praying, and it IS nice to have a belief in SOMETHING after you die, even if the belief is pantheism, or the multiverse where you will continue to live infinitely on other universes just like this one. But I don't like the Abrahamic God concept. I like the idea of being able to send a prayer out into the universe and perhaps get an answer in some form, due to EVERYTHING possessing consciousness.

And again, I'm sorry that this is off-topic. Even if it gets moved somewhere, PLEASE don't delete it. I need answers. I'm DESPERATE for answers. I have panic attacks and severe depression over this. It makes me physically ill, and I can't breathe without my chest feeling tight and hyperventilating and getting dizzy and feeling faint. I REALLY NEED HELP WITH THIS. Please help. Thank you. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

The thing is, you can get almost any old book like the Bible to seemingly "predict" certain events. A LOT OF THINGS happen and some of them are bound to fit in with certain interpretations of various verses. But think about all the stuff that happens that isn't predicted by the Bible. There's a lot more. off enough "predictions", most of which are easy to interpret in many ways, into a future of almost unlimited things happening and you're bound to get some positive scores. They mean no more than any number of come-true predictions in other religious texts or even Nostradamous's prophecies. So just relax. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Agree with above. The "predictions" in the bible are pretty vague, and can be interpreted to mean pretty much anything one wants. Additionally, predicting past or current events is not in any way impressive; if there was a specific prediction that the industrial revolution would change the way we live so much that we could end up making the planet uninhabitable, there might be something to it. But the bible doesn't have that kind of prediction in it. Nor does it have any mention of the massive changes in human civilisation that have occurred, such as germ theory and medicine; or the scientific method which allows us to actually determine whether things we're trying have a real, measurable effect; or things like the steam engine and the automobile and airplanes and radio communications and the internet and so on and on. Or the abolishing of slavery, women's suffrage, treating human beings like they're actually human beings even if they have a different skin pigmentation, and so on.
Basically, there's an endless list of massive things that any kind of real "prophecy" should have at least mentioned, and all the "predictions" are based on careful re-interpretations to try to match it to events that have already occurred, which is not in any way, shape or form a prediction.
Then there are real predictions, like the Second Coming, which was supposed to occur within the lifetime of the first disciples, which never materialised. And pretty much every generation of bible-believers since then has been convinced the End Times and the Second Coming were going to occur within their own lifetimes, and it's never happened. So there's no reason to think that "prediction", as vague and malleable as it is, is anything of the sort.
Another thing to consider is all the "predictions" in other religions/cults that you haven't been immersed in. You're only concerned about Christianity and the bible because you're surrounded by it, but that's purely by chance of where you happened to be born (and the chance of historical events -- many other religions with just as much credibility as those based on Christianity didn't happen to take root and were forgotten and discarded).
The threat of Hell is probably the worst thing about Christianity (those sects that believe in it, anyway). Christianity uses the fear of Hell and eternal torment to create a need in people to escape it -- to escape something that was completely made up in the first place. Artificially creating a "need" and then making people dependent on you to fulfil that need is psychological abuse. So maybe you could try channelling the fear into anger instead: anger at those who continue to perpetuate this psychological abuse on people they're supposed to care about. But it goes deeper, because most of the people that do this genuinely think they're doing the right thing, because they themselves have been so scarred by it.
You might want to try watching the Atheist Experience if you don't already; they fairly often talk to people who have left Christianity but still carry around a fear of Hell, that they know is irrational but because they were indoctrinated with it for so long starting at such a young age, it's hard for them to shake. So just knowing you're not alone with that trying to deal with that might be helpful to you.
Maybe this won't help, but I think one of the big things about not being a believer in unprovable, untestable, unfalsifiable "answers" like those the religions give, is to be okay with not knowing things. Indeed, the scientific method is pretty much predicated on this notion: we can devise and test theories that seem to explain what we observe about the natural world, and if we're able to reliably make accurate predictions we can have a high amount of confidence in those theories, but we can never really know that something is "true"; we always have to be open to changing our existing beliefs of the way things work if the evidence shows our current understanding to be flawed. So not knowing where the universe came from is okay; not knowing what happens to us after we die is okay.
Final thought: you like believing in "something" after you die, but you don't like the Abrahamic god. That's okay: realise that the people who invented the Abrahamic god were after the same thing. They wanted to believe in something, and the thing that appealed to them was a petty, tyrannical dictator who demands belief and obedience but refuses to ever give people a good reason to believe or obey him, then punishes those who don't do as he pleases in bizarrely mundane ways. I don't know why such a being would appeal to so many people, but I often think people's conception of God is largely just a reflection of their own insecurities and impotence -- "what would I do if I could do anything and didn't have to answer to anyone?" -- which explains His apparent fascination with the private matters of people, and even their thoughts. If that doesn't appeal to you, then find something that does appeal to you (or make it up).
You already seem to realise that religions are invented by people, and the next logical step is to realise that there's no reason to treat any of them as being more or less plausible than any other. You're not worried about whatever threats of damnation are made by other religions, because you haven't had people telling you those are going to happen to you if you don't do <X> for your whole life. But if you'd happened to be born in a place where that belief was common, you'd probably have just as an irrational fear of it as you do of the Christian Hell. And: if you had happened to be born somewhere where Christianity wasn't prevalent, you wouldn't have that fear. So again: maybe you should just be mad as hell (pun intended) at the people who subjected you to that psychological abuse. And then realise that most (if not all) of them did it because they themselves had been subjected to it, to such a degree that they think damaging others is the Right Thing To Do. --Editor374 (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Nicely put. I think the reason the Abrahamic god became a "petty tyrannical dictator" isn't because that's what people wanted to believe. He became that way through politics and power, driven by a human authoritarian culture. Ajkgordon (talk) 07:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Probably true. But people do continue to believe in the current awful version, so there must be something about it that's acceptable. I think it's that it's comprehensible to the average person. It's actually quite interesting: Christian theology and apologetics is full of fluff like "God works in mysterious ways" and that we, mere mortals, cannot possibly hope to fathom His workings. There's some logic to this -- we're unlikely to be able to understand a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and eternal. (But then, it's a bit of a self-defeating argument, since the whole point of religion is to claim that you understand God at least enough to know What God Wants, and of course there's a lot of disagreement because everyone's just making it up.)
So the "we can't hope to understand His ways" thing is pulled out whenever someone questions why he had an entire city murdered, raped and pillaged because one person or a handful of people in the city displeased him (or any of the numerous other massively immoral acts He either performs or condones). These do indeed seem pretty difficult to understand when viewed through the lens of normal, well-adjusted, caring-for-each-other human morals. Yet if we look at it from the point of view of an insecure and petty dictator, we can understand God's actions very easily: he felt disrespected, and would harm as many people as it took to make himself feel important again. That appeals to the primitive, violent nature of man, I think. We've all had times we felt powerless about getting the short end of the stick, and wanting to get back at those who were responsible for it.
Telling people that disagree with you that your god is going to torment them in hell for all eternity because <whatever trivial issue you disagree about> provides a powerful revenge fantasy outlet for some types of people. Best of all, you don't have to actually do anything to feel like you've "won", in much the same way as praying lets you feel like you've helped someone without actually expending any effort or sacrificing anything. So I guess that's another facet of why the "Hell awaits everyone who doesn't do exactly as I say" thing persists -- some people want to spare people they care about from the worst thing imaginable, and some people want to strongarm others into doing their bidding (while appearing pious and righteous). --Editor374 (talk) 08:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)