What's with this "Warmon religion" nonsense?

Question

Even in cases where someone is manifestly scientifically wrong--flat-Earthers, people who think vaccines are a conspiracy instead of a breakthrough in healthcare, people who think the sun goes around the Earth, moon-landing deniers--we tend not to call the scientifically incorrect members of a "religion" just because they're believing really bad science. Nutcases, completely whackadoodle, just plain wrong, sure. The "church" of the flat Earth, not so much.

The only case I'm aware of besides AGW where people's scientific viewpoints are painted as being a "religion" would be evolution. A lot of creationists, who reject evolution for religious reasons, like to pretend (or even genuinely believe) that people who *accept* evolution are also doing so for religious reasons, and are members of the "Church of Darwin" or somesuch.

So, even if all those climate scientists are wrong; even if the planet is not warming, or humans aren't causing it; even if every person claiming that our greenhouse gas emissions are causing warming is completely wrong: what's with the creationist tactics, deniers? Why pretend that people's views on AGW are a matter of blind faith, instead of a scientific conclusion, whether or not it's a correct scientific conclusion?

Answer 1

It is bumper-sticker politicking. It is very difficult to reject that the earth is warming because of human activity using science.



If you frame the problem as a religion and falsely claim that people who follow the science and agree that AGW is a problem are following a religion, you'll confuse those who do not follow the issue closely. This confusion will lead to split political support, which leads to inaction.



Inaction means big fossil fuel companies can make billion per quarter for another quarter, externalizing the costs of warming to taxpayers. It is a transfer of wealth to big fossil fuel companies in the end by avoiding competitive free market rules. That way, the rich get richer when the poor have to pay more to fix the problems that warming will cause because of excessive fossil fuel use - the fossil fuels are under priced and do not reflect the costs of mitigating problems that burning them causes. This suppresses the development of alternatives that could be an alternative.

Answer 2

The story of the creation, does not state how earth was created. It states who created the earth and how long it took him, that simple. For something to be creaated, there needs to be creator. For example, it took for someone to invent the cell phone. How hard is it for people to under this. I not saying people do not under this, but there are people who do not get this.



I do not know one christian who beleives that earth is flat, since whe have proof that the earth is round. In addition, I do not know a christian, that does except science. Afer all, it is because of science that we are able to live longer.



If you ask anyone create life or any object from nothing, it spimply cannot done. This exactly why, there has to be supreme being that created the unverise



Now, adressing climate change. I do think the earth is getting warmer and getting colder in other places and more than likely due nautural events such as volocano erupting. I highly doubt that man has high impact as some scientist claim. I have seen eveidence on both sides and until there is conclusive proof that proves either side, I will not state one be true over the other, but will I belive to most likley true.

Answer 3

There is no troposphere hot spot, even though all of the computer models say there should be one. Alarmists counter that by saying we do not have proper instruments to measure it. But you are certain that if we did have, it will be there. Is that based on science or faith?



There is the topic of missing heat. You claim that it is hidden in the deeper oceans. The studies that base this claim is back up with very uncertain data and still does not account for all of the missing heat. Is this based on science or faith?



Then we have human aerosols. Our understanding of them is very low. There are peer review studies that say that the effects are overstated because they do not take into account the warming effects of black carbon. But yet you are certain that this is the cause for the mid century cooling and the lack of statistically significant warming over the past 15 years. Is that based on science or faith?



The whole concept of how much the earth should warm is based on computer programs, also known as computer models. But any lack of significant warming that these models predicted over the past 15 years is accounted by denying this fact; or claiming that aerosols are the culprit (see above). Is that based on science or faith.



You treat "deniers" the same way religious fanatics treat heretics. There is a saying that if you put five experts in a room, and ask them their opinion about a subject, they will give you seven opinions. But you think that anyone who questions your religion is a big oil stooge.



Then there are those who accept the "science" behind global warming but say that adaptation is better than mitigation eg Bjørn Lomborg (the Copenhagen consensus). He is also treated as a heretic.



Have a listen to Micheal Crichton for his explanation



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv9OSxTy1aU

Answer 4

I don't think you have characterized some issues correctly. Complete and utter denial applies directly to those who are flat-earthers or moon landing hoax believers. They are denying facts. Those who oppose the Theory of Evolution aren't quite in the same category.



However, if you have a problem with Evolution, then the scientific approach is to present a viable alternative. And to be frank, even though I believe the current mainstream Theory of Evolution, intelligent design is a possible alternative. However, there is absolutely no evidence for it so it is a highly unlikely alternative given what we know today compared to natural selection.



And I believe that equating the above paragraph to AGW is a poor analogy. The alternative to CO2 warming is natural warming. And there is plenty of evidence for that. So putting aside the attitudes and actions of the people when they speak about AGW, I don't the think the comparison or link you are trying to make is apt.



Now getting back to calling AGW a religion, we can't say it is belief without evidence because there is some evidence. I think that has to be conceded. And I wouldn't call believing that AGW will be harmful is a singularly religious type of belief. On the other hand, those who believe in AGW often also believe in a long list of other similar thoughts like overpopulation, running out of resources, destroying the Earth environmentally, uncontrolled economic and industrial growth, etc. I think these people tend to weave AGW into those beliefs and by expressing concern and loudly initiating calls to action they tend to (appear to) act religiously whether subconsciously or not.



For AGW, we can tie many aspects to the formula for religion. We have the sin of "polluting" the atmosphere with CO2. We can find absolution or pardon from this excess pollution by buying carbon credits. There is the constant seeking of converts to the AGW belief. There are demagogues who are held up as tellers of the truth. The "Hockey Team" comes to mind as do a variety of other prominent AGW believers like James Hansen. Skeptics are represented as infidels who deny this belief. Prophecy is the predictions of climate models which outline the trouble we may be headed towards. Curiously, sinners could be called those who emit CO2 although some of the more prominent AGW believers probably emit many more times CO2 than I do.



The god is Gaia. The premise is that we displeasing or even destroying Gaia. And again this extends beyond AGW although the previous paragraph relates directly to it.



And by far the most telling evidence is that people who believe dangerous AGW will hate me for writing what I just did. And they would want me to not speak as I do (here and other answers and questions). And it would be more than a little disturbing if they tried to force my silence even if I try to treat others with respect.

Answer 5

Well simply put because it requires faith without proof, just like religion. It has it's prophets and preachers and it's doomsday scenario if more ain't converted to believers. The unbelievers are deniers who don't believe in the jewish holocaust and are obviously anti semites. Of course 1 of the commandments is to never see it as a religion and everyone else is too dumb to not see the light as you see it clearly shining.

No matter the evidence your faith is unwavering.

No warming since 98-not a problem,

glaciers not melting-not a problem,

Polar bears increasing-not a problem

sea levels nor rising-not a problem

Faked data-not a problem,

The solution that to tax energy,relocate industry and make people pay more to run their homes will affect the climate!!! (so laughably ridiculous) -not a problem.

you need to deprogram yourself girl.



To answer question tho, Warmon is a play on words ,it's kinda like mormon which is a another religion-- really funny don't you think?



yeah, sorry for speaking the truth, I'd forgotten how you hate your religion questioned.xx



jyuschy : no warming since 98, I'm only repeating the official statement from East Anglia Uni's Phil Jones (the data fixer). Are you turning against 1 of your own priests?

Answer 6

Science is about whether a given belief is ACCURATE.

Religion is about whether a given belief is BENEFICIAL.



The Science of Evolution explains the Evolution of Religion. Namely that Natural Selection favors beliefs which enhance the believers probability of survival, rather than 'truth'. Religion is not about Truth, it's about putting wealth & power in the hands of Believers.



Truth is nice. It certainly helps if your beliefs are true. But understand that in the competition of life, the POINT is Power, rather than Truth.



However by definition, a belief is what you THINK is True, so whether you are Scientifically Searching for Truth or Religiously Searching for Empowerment...

... you always BELIEVE you are searching for Truth,

(Even though the default for humanity is to search for Power.)



So if you CLAIM to be searching for TRUTH,

But people sense you are really just searching for POWER.

They will call your beliefs a Religion. Fair enough?



So what does believing in vaccine & moon landing conspiracies get you?

How much money & power do you get from believing the Sun orbits the Earth?

Nothing right? It's just bad Science. It's a faulty search for Truth.



But Warmonism is about controlling CO2 & CO2 is how mankind MAKES Power.

The quest of the AGW movement to control everyone's use of Power makes it a Religion regardless of the 'truth'



Of course Skeptics like me don't think it's any more a Science, than you think Creationism is one. Scientific elements, sure - actual honest quest for Truth...NOPE.



1860-1940 the temperature rose ~0.4 °C while CO2 rose about 3ppm/decade

1940-2010 the temperature rose ~0.4 °C while CO2 rose about 14ppm/decade



This is just not compelling evidence that the MGT is sensitive to CO2.

In fact the rational conclusion would be that it infers the opposite.



Just THINKING the climate is sensitive to CO2 does not make AGW a Religion.



It becomes a Religion when you feel this BELIEF absolutely entitles you to control the use of POWER on a Global scale.

It's a Religion when the TRUTH of your beliefs are UNQUESTIONABLE,

when the Science is Settled, when doubt is heresy against the righteous saviors of mankind...



THAT is what makes AGW a Religion.



When I was a Skeptic, AGW was a Science.

When I became a Denier, it became a Religion.

The Church of the Latter Day Heat is open for business.

Carbon Indulgences on sale now.`



EDIT:

@ Eric C - THANK YOU! Micheal Crichton is spot on.

AGW BECOMES a Religion when believing in it gives meaning to your life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv9OSxTy1…

Answer 7

Some people want to think that a few cold days is overwhelming evidence against global warming and if we continue to believe in global warming after these few cold days, that we believe in global warming in spite of the evidence. But the truth is that the evidence says that global Global warming is happening

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/images/warmingindicators.jpg

And we are causing it

http://planetsave.com/2010/08/18/humans-cause-global-warming-10-indicators/



I will also look at the supposed evidence against global warming presented by Pindar.







Incorrect. Global warming did not stop in 1998. 1998 was an outlier year.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2012.png







OK! So not all glacier are melting. But most are melting.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing-intermediate.htm







Polar bears doing fine now means that it is not to late to save them. But to say that they are in no danger at all is a logical fallacy. On August 5, 1945, the people of Hiroshima were doing fine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki







A one year drop does not equal a trend.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-fall-2010-intermediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/SkepticsvRealists.gif







Evidence, please. And no, Bob's links are not evidence. His first link is a picture of a graph on a see-saw. His other links are to unsubstantiated allegations.







Phil Jone never said anything like that.



Here is the actual quote.



"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming



"Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Phil-Jones-says-no-global-warming-since-1995.htm



He was asking a question about 1995, not 1998. He also didn't say that it wasn't warming since then, only that the timeframe was too short to draw conclusions. Which might have been a big deal is thermometers were only invented in 1995, but we have data from time frames which is long enough to draw conclusions.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Answer 8

Warmon is kind of funny but I would probably not use it because I wouldn't want to smear mormons. I kind of like warm mongers but in any case it is less offensive than denier.



When someone believes in something and no amount of evidence will shake that view, it is like a religious view.



When someone believes in something so much that they are willing to accept obvious exaggerations, such as any warming must be bad, it is more like a religious than scientific view. You can't get any admission of benefits of warming from 90 per cent or more of alarmists. If they do it is a reluctant admission of some farm in Siberia but even that would have a caveat.



Most alarmists do have a blind faith. That is precisely what it is IMO. It isn't completely blind. It is just blind to anything that threatens a belief in man made catastrophic warming.

Answer 9

It is an intentionally dishonest tactic used by people (who mostly do not understand the concepts of either religion or science) trying to defend a belief system that has no basis in the reality-based world. It is intended to frame the debate on an emotional level because the position of those who use it is intellectually and empirically vacuous.



The irony of it is that you have a group of scientifically illiterate, philosophically zealous, and/or pathological liars who are predominantly religious slinging the 'religion card' as if it is an insult. Go figure.



=====



Quill --



>>Science is about whether a given belief is ACCURATE.<<



Science is about KNOWLEDGE.



The only belief (assumption) involved is the belief that objective human knowledge is real that everything we need to acquire it can be found in the physical universe.

Answer 10

It's just a term someone made up to describe the religious belief in the CAGW theory. Skeptics look at factual evidence to argue against CAGW while Warmons look at predictions or prophecies to justify their faith in it.

Answer 11

That must be new.. I haven't herd that term. But it would be just as valid as the denier term.

Answer 12

Hardcore liars are often quick to call other people liars; hardcore hypocrites like to call those they disagree with hypocrites.



The "Big Lie" of the anti climate science deniers is that deep concern about global warming and strident, exaggerated, or even blind ignorant passion about it = science.



Deniers thus assume that the "alarmists" they see behind every bush are as morally decrepit as they are, and then they equate tens of thousands of scientists around the world going back many decades with the local "alarmist" "warmer" tree-hugger they most despise. In their own cult of delusions, the first principle is that the science they hate (often because they are too lazy or feebleminded to understand it if they even tried) is really just a cult (of "socialists" "environmentalists" "liberals," etc.).



As for "Warmon," we are dealing here at YA with mostly fourth rate wannabes and twisted copy-cats.



Edit: Re Ottawa's thoughtful and straightforward answer which nonetheless reveals what a complete BSing con man he has been all along. The revealing statement is this one: "The alternative to CO2 warming is natural warming. And there is plenty of evidence for that." What is outrageous about this innocent-SOUNDING claim is that THIS is EXACTLY what thousands of scientists have spent a century exhaustively studying ALREADY !!! (i.e., that AGW is a minor phenomenon compared to naturally-caused global climate change). Ottawa utterly denies this science, and given that this has been pointed out to him thousands of times here, the inescapable reality is that he is deliberately, flagrantly and incessantly misrepresenting that science! Indeed such conscious and interminable deception is quite evidently the main reason why he spends so much of his life here. And let it also be acknowledged, and stressed, that he is almost certainly one of the LEAST offensive and least morally bankrupt of the regular anti-science deniers here.



And, I must add, that if this answer is vaporized as "violation" so be it, but Yahoo ANSWERS is an abomination for allowing, enabling and frankly ENCOURAGING the lying fake questions and non-answers that dominate this category in the first place. NOBODY should have to be even dealing here with the kind of endless anti-knowledge sabotage that the deniers are perpetrating on this site.



Here once more for the record is the science and history of science that the anti-science deniers lie about (on the rare occasions when they even acknowledge it):



SCIENCE:

U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782&page=1

“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”

http://nationalacademies.org/morenews/20100716.html

“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”

http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/

“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”



HISTORY BEHIND THE SCIENCE:

http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200602/backpage.cfm

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

Answer 13

When you can't win with evidence, you have to resort to smear tactics.



You may have not seen it, but some antivaxxers really do refer to the medical establishment as a religion.



I've pointed out to global warming "skeptics" that they use identical tactics as creationists and antivaxxers. None of them ever respond. I wonder why?

Answer 14

It's a sad attempt at trolling by the denial crowd. They only do it to rile their opponents up. And they do it because they know they don't have any scientific grounds to stand on.



Edit: As the current temperature data only goes back to 1880 that is what I took the follolwing graphs from.



Gistemp - http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1860/to:2012/plot/gistemp/from:1860/to:1940/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1940/to:2012/trend



HadCRUT4 - http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1860/to:2012/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1860/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/to:2012/trend



Looks like PQ is making his numbers up. If we look at sunspot activity from 1880 to 1940 we see that solar output has been in a steady increase. However if we look at it after 1960 we see that it has been steadily decreasing. Both of these need to also be factored in the warming.



SIDC - http://woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1880/to:2012/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1880/to:1940/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1960/to:2012/trend



http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html

Answer 15

There is no scientific proof that man is causing warming. There is plenty of evidence that data has been faked.

http://www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-fake-temperatures.html

http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/01/noaa-climate-scientists-gone-wild-bizzaro-temperature-data-fabrication-continues.html

http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/01/24/noaa-accused-of-fabricating-temperature-data/

So when their is a mountain of evidence that AGW data has been faked (ie the conclusions are wrong) and people still claim to believe in it then that is more of a religion. What else to religions do. They want people to give their hard earned money to the church. That is also what the AGW crowd wants to to. But they want to force people to give up their money though taxes.

Answer 16

I kind of think it's funny.



There is a bit of truth to it in that there is an almost religious zeal to some of the environmental movement.



However, using it in reference to science is a pathetic attempt to marginalize the evidence. Comparing evidence based science to myth based religion is a farse. I think they know that but they also know it gets under "our" skin so they play off it as much as possible.

Answer 17

Just a BS term deniers use to refer to those who accept the reality of climate change. Primarily Ottawa Mike.does this.



Careful with your questions, this is a borderline rant.