The new religious order of climate change.Believe or Deny!

[WWWTT]

Like all other belief based threads, this one is appropriately placed under "religion"!

I really should even petition the moderation at this forum that ALL threads about climate change should be under the religion heading! (but I better not because I've got enough warning points as it is!)

Climate change believers have all the hallmarks of belonging to a religious order.

Lets start with the so called evidence.

From what I have read, it seems to be more like a detailed meteorological documentation of weather patterns. No smoking guns!

Along with the never ending arguments about the so called evidence. Usually when a crime is committed, there is evidence that can be held, examined, debated, etc, etc. But in this case, the debate is about if the evidence even means anything is abnormal!

Coupled with the fact that the measuring devices used to collect meteorological data has improved, rendering past evidence to a sub standard, there is too little to draw conclusions from.(heresy)

And like many religions, there is the good and the evil!

And this religion is all about the EVIL devil known as man made CO2 or fossil fuels!(anthropogenic)

If you use fossil fuels, you are harbouring the DEVIL!(infidel) You are part of the problem and you must change your ways!(heretic) Be more green!(puritans)

And if you do not believe in climate change/global warming, you are a denier! You are not looking at the religions data on climate change! You are ignoring the severe weather and YOU are making it worse! Repent your evil ways or we are all doomed!(prophesy)

Ya well I'm calling their bluff and I'm not joining your religion!(heresy)

http://ca.yhs4.search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7oo8y9FSUwQAsekXFwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTBybjFrcjVnBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNARjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=11t5c9rtk/EXP=1389509564/**http%3a//www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm

http://ca.yhs4.search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7oo8y9FSUwQArekXFwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTByMTNuNTZzBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=14tv13u6k/EXP=1389509564/**http%3a//www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/john-howard-global-warming-cause-is-adopted-as-a-substitute-religion-8924587.html

http://ca.yhs4.search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7oo8y9FSUwQAq.kXFwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTBybnZlZnRlBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=12qevc8it/EXP=1389509564/**http%3a//uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index%3fqid=20110826124001AAP1eTQ

WWWTT

[-1=e^ipi]

Climate change isn't a religion. If you want to argue that climate alarmism or eco-radicalism is a religion the fine, but please use a different term than what you are using.

I really should even petition the moderation at this forum that ALL threads about climate change should be under the religion heading! (but I better not because I've got enough warning points as it is!)

So any discussion of the science related to climate change must now be considered religious discussion?

And if you do not believe in climate change/global warming, you are a denier! You are not looking at the religions data on climate change! You are ignoring the severe weather and YOU are making it worse! Repent your evil ways or we are all doomed!(prophesy)

Well if you don't believe that increasing atmospheric CO2 in the atmosphere (by a few hundred ppm) from burning fossil fuels increases global temperatures (since CO2's absorption spectra is more opaque to black body radiation from then earth than the black body radiation from the sun) then you are a denier.

[WWWTT]

Climate change isn't a religion.

God, gods or Jesus are also not religions!

But guess what Christianity is?

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Well if you don't believe that increasing atmospheric CO2 in the atmosphere (by a few hundred ppm) from burning fossil fuels increases global temperatures (since CO2's absorption spectra is more opaque to black body radiation from then earth than the black body radiation from the sun) then you are a denier.

I rather use the term "infidel" thank you!

I am an infidel of your holy belief that the planet is warming due to our sinful lust for fossil fuels!

WWWTT

[Bob Macadoo]

I rarely get involved in these discussions as these aren't in my opinion much in the air of debate. Either you want to do something or you don't and you'll take whatever stance meets your level of action. I guess that gives it a similarity to religion as much as aetheism I guess.

Something I always think about was how man-made depletion of the ozone layer was denied by "infidels" from the time it was postulated in the mid-70s until well after it was definitively measured a decade or so later. Then accepted as fact and great that we acted globally on it. Now new lines are being drawn, which side is it safer to be on?

[TimG]

Something I always think about was how man-made depletion of the ozone layer was denied by "infidels" from the time it was postulated in the mid-70s until well after it was definitively measured a decade or so later.

Nothing was done until cost effective alternatives were developed. There are no cost-effective alternatives to CO2 emitting energy so nothing will be done about emissions no matter what the science says.

Now new lines are being drawn, which side is it safer to be on?

The sides in this debate are between the pragmatists who understand that the lack of alternatives means we have to live with the effects of more CO2 whatever those happen to be and the fanatical zealots who insist we must make futile sacrifices so they can feel better about themselves. Edited January 12, 2014 by TimG

[Bob Macadoo]

They used to say economies would crumble if we stopped using CFCs. They being the oil companies. Then alternatives were found by oil research and enviro social change combined. Now which came first? Profit robbing R&D? Let you guess.

There are a large group of agnostics out there who are willing to "buy a few rosary beads" but not join the monastery. We never hear from them as the Jimmy Swaggerts (both sides) drown everyone else out.

[BubberMiley]

I am an infidel of your holy belief that the planet is warming due to our sinful lust for fossil fuels!

On what do you base your reasoning?

[TimG]

Then alternatives were found by oil research and enviro social change combined. Now which came first?

There was no treaty until the alternatives were developed. Once the alternatives were found industry got on board and the politicians followed. Regulation cannot lead R&D it can only follow. Politicians can't make the sun rise in the west by passing a regulation nor can they create CO2 free energy. The two are equally difficult. Edited January 12, 2014 by TimG

[Bonam]

Politicians can't make the sun rise in the west by passing a regulation nor can they create CO2 free energy. The two are equally difficult.

Not really. Building nuclear power plants is a heck of a lot easier than reversing the Earth's rotation.

[TimG]

Not really. Building nuclear power plants is a heck of a lot easier than reversing the Earth's rotation.

You still need a replacement for mobile power sources. But it was a rhetorical exaggeration.

[Bob Macadoo]

There was no treaty until the alternatives were developed. Once the alternatives were found industry got on board and the politicians followed. Regulation cannot lead R&D it can only follow. Politicians can't make the sun rise in the west by passing a regulation nor can they create CO2 free energy. The two are equally difficult.

Original treaty in 1987. Complete alternatives didn't exist, but controlled sprawling phaseout did begin much to the chagrin of industry. Guess what we adapted and evolved.....hmmmm another kick at the religion comparison.....life doesn't end at the bottom of a balance sheet.

[-1=e^ipi]

God, gods or Jesus are also not religions!

This is correct.

But guess what Christianity is?

A religion. Unless you are Bill O'Reily in which case Christianity is a philosophy, not a religion.

I rather use the term "infidel" thank you!

You are a climate change denier and a climate alarmist infidel, but not a climate change infidel. Does that satisfy you?

Yay, now I get to argue with climate change deniers in this thread in addition to the climate alarmists in the other threads.

Either you want to do something or you don't and you'll take whatever stance meets your level of action.

False dichotomy. Some people think decisions related to what we should do with respect to climate change should be based on evidence, science and reasoning and do not take a dogmatic approach.

I guess that gives it a similarity to religion as much as aetheism I guess.

If atheism is a religion then not playing hockey is a sport.

[TimG]

Original treaty in 1987. Complete alternatives didn't exist

Your history is self serving:

In conjunction with other industrial peers DuPont sponsored efforts such as the "Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy" to question anti-CFC science, but in a turnabout in 1986 DuPont, with new patents in hand, publicly condemned CFCs.[9] DuPont representatives appeared before the Montreal Protocol urging that CFCs be banned worldwide and stated that their new HCFCs would meet the worldwide demand for refrigerants.

The treaty passed because alternatives were found in the years before. They may not have been ready for mass production but the major corporations were convinced they were viable and that was enough. If these breakthroughs had not been found there would have been no treaty.

As I said, regulators can only follow. They cannot lead.

Edited January 12, 2014 by TimG

[Bob Macadoo]

But HCFCs are ozone depleting as well, that must've knocked those industry leaders when those bans came out, and each alternative and so on until today. Again solution wasn't in hand, but change came all the same. Stick and weave, we'll beat mother nature yet.

Your history is self serving: The treaty passed because alternatives were found in the years before. They may not have been ready for mass production but the major corporations were convinced they were viable and that was enough. If these breakthroughs had not been found there would have been no treaty.As I said, regulators can only follow. They cannot lead.

False dichotomy. Some people think decisions related to what we should do with respect to climate change should be based on evidence, science and reasoning and do not take a dogmatic approach.

Good for you and those some people, the ones making decisions are enjoying the heating frog pot I described and think.....meh I could use a hot tub anyway. Edited January 12, 2014 by Bob Macadoo

[-1=e^ipi]

They used to say economies would crumble if we stopped using CFCs. They being the oil companies. Then alternatives were found by oil research and enviro social change combined. Now which came first? Profit robbing R&D? Let you guess.

Did you really just try to imply that stopping CFC emissions is comparable with stopping CO2 emissions?

Politicians can't make the sun rise in the west by passing a regulation nor can they create CO2 free energy. The two are equally difficult.

No they are not equal at all. To change the rotation of the Earth, you would either have to violate conservation of angular momentum or somehow magically transfer all that angular momentum to somewhere else. It would be far easier to start a new ice age, create a nuclear global holocaust, send space colonies to colonize other star systems or turn the moon into a giant disco ball than what you propose.

I'll show you how impossibly hard it would be.

-The solar irradiance from the sun at the distance the earth is from the sun is 1366 W/m^2.

-The radius of the earth is 6371 km. This means that if we caught 100% of the solar power that falls on the earth from the sun we would absorb 1.74 x 10^17 W of energy.

-Let us suppose that we converted this energy into photons and emitted photons at the earth's equator in a direction opposite of the rotation of the earth in an effort to reverse the rotation. The momentum of a photon is simply it's energy divided by the speed of light, so at the earth's equator this means that we would cause the earth's angular momentum to change at a rate of 3.70 x 10^15 kg m^2/s^2.

-The Earth's moment of inertia is roughly 8 x 10^37 kg*m^2. Given an orbital period of 24 hours (so angular frequency of 7.3 x 10^-5 s^-1), this means that the Earth's angular momentum around it's axis is 5.84 x 10^33 kg*m^2/s.

-This means that it would take 1.58 x 10^18 s or 5.00 x 10^10 years = 50 billion years.

Congrats! Even if we magically take all the sun's solar output and convert it into photons that we emit at the Earth's equator to try to reverse the location it would take nearly 4 times the age of the universe. Of course the Sun's solar out put would rise, the Sun would go red giant and devour the Earth, and then get super nova and die long before then.

The lack of scientific understanding here is painful.

[TimG]

But HCFCs are ozone depleting as well, that must've knocked those industry leaders when those bans came out

But they were not banned until alternatives were available. Regulators cannot move faster than industry. Regulators cannot ban something and hope industry will magically produce a solution. They need to know it can happen before the regulation passes.

[-1=e^ipi]

For the record, turning the moon into a giant disco ball would be pretty cool.

[TimG]

No they are not equal at all. To change the rotation of the Earth...

It is a lot easier than you think. West is an arbitrary reference point relative to north. Governments could declare that the south pole is now the north pole and the sun would now rise in the west.

That said, I could have just said getting rid of CO2 emissions is next to impossible.

Edited January 12, 2014 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

It is a lot easier than you think. West is an arbitrary reference point relative to north. Governments could declare that the south pole is now the north pole and the sun would now rise in the west.

Why not just admit your comparison was ridiculous rather than try to redefine what you meant?

[TimG]

Why not just admit your comparison was ridiculous rather than try to redefine what you meant?

It was not ridiculous if I meant to say getting rid of CO2 emissions is impossible.

[Bob Macadoo]

Did you really just try to imply that stopping CFC emissions is comparable with stopping CO2 emissions?

No. I said the exact oil backed experts said doing something about CFCs would be futile, just like they do today. Voilà profiteers were right again....oh wait.....well they helped so we should just believe them again next time. Edited January 12, 2014 by Bob Macadoo

[-1=e^ipi]

It was not ridiculous if I meant to say getting rid of CO2 emissions is impossible.

It isn't impossible. Stupid, yes. Impossible, no.

[-1=e^ipi]

No. I said the exact oil backed experts said doing something about CFCs would be futile, just like they do today.

You are saying that oil backed experts are saying that doing something about CFCs today is futile?

Too bad douchiness wasn't CO2 free, there's enough of it happening to keep the world spinning I'm betting.

Douchiness does not have an angular momentum nor does it contain CO2 or any matter.

[ReeferMadness]

Like all other belief based threads, this one is appropriately placed under "religion"!

I really should even petition the moderation at this forum that ALL threads about climate change should be under the religion heading! (but I better not because I've got enough warning points as it is!)

Climate change believers have all the hallmarks of belonging to a religious order.

Lets start with the so called evidence.

From what I have read, it seems to be more like a detailed meteorological documentation of weather patterns. No smoking guns!

Along with the never ending arguments about the so called evidence. Usually when a crime is committed, there is evidence that can be held, examined, debated, etc, etc. But in this case, the debate is about if the evidence even means anything is abnormal!

Coupled with the fact that the measuring devices used to collect meteorological data has improved, rendering past evidence to a sub standard, there is too little to draw conclusions from.(heresy)

And like many religions, there is the good and the evil!

And this religion is all about the EVIL devil known as man made CO2 or fossil fuels!(anthropogenic)

If you use fossil fuels, you are harbouring the DEVIL!(infidel) You are part of the problem and you must change your ways!(heretic) Be more green!(puritans)

And if you do not believe in climate change/global warming, you are a denier! You are not looking at the religions data on climate change! You are ignoring the severe weather and YOU are making it worse! Repent your evil ways or we are all doomed!(prophesy)

Ya well I'm calling their bluff and I'm not joining your religion!(heresy)

http://ca.yhs4.search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7oo8y9FSUwQAsekXFwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTBybjFrcjVnBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNARjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=11t5c9rtk/EXP=1389509564/**http%3a//www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm

http://ca.yhs4.search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7oo8y9FSUwQArekXFwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTByMTNuNTZzBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=14tv13u6k/EXP=1389509564/**http%3a//www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/john-howard-global-warming-cause-is-adopted-as-a-substitute-religion-8924587.html

http://ca.yhs4.search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7oo8y9FSUwQAq.kXFwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTBybnZlZnRlBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=12qevc8it/EXP=1389509564/**http%3a//uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index%3fqid=20110826124001AAP1eTQ

WWWTT

Y' know - in a way you're right. The climate is a complex system. Nobody can possibly know for certain what the long term effects of changing the atmosphere will be. But here's the thing. You have 95% of the scientists on one side and 5% on the other. And many of the holdouts have established ties to oil companies. So, who are the real "true believers" in this equation - those who accept that the 95% are more likely to be right or those who desperately look for the few scientists who tell them what they want to believe?

But here's what really gets me. There is one undeniable fact and that is that we are changing the composition of the atmosphere, the very thin, very finite, very precious layer of gas that all life depends upon. If I were caught dumping an unknown substance into the water supply, I'd likely be arrested. And likely so. And yet, you are insisting that it is your God-given right to keep on changing the composition of the atmosphere upon which all life depends. And somehow, it is up to those of us who object to prove that there is harm rather than on you to prove there isn't. Whatever happened to the precautionary principle? I suppose it has no chance against the forces of greed and the arrogance that supports it.

So, go ahead. Be a useful idiot to the oil companies. Keep on driving your SUV. Hopefully, you have no kids or grandkids who will pay for your arrogance, your wastefulness, your thoughtlessness.