The Theistic Mind and Global Warming

Over at UD, pav posted a chart and claimed that it proves that AGW does not exist. Without getting into a discussion about AGW, I am interested to see if the theists here interpret this chart differently than the atheists. And if they do, why?

image

57 thoughts on “The Theistic Mind and Global Warming

  1. Acartia: Excellent description of ID.

    It’s how it seems to work on the phoodoo decisions thread. They can’t explain how decisions are made in their worldview, and because there is no full explanation of consciousness available from the materialists they claim victory by default. Without any explanation of their own, however incomplete. And nothing about that seems odd to them apparently.

    Mung has unwittingly supported that point. Thanks Mung!

  2. It’s tough to understand why they think this way. Can they not turn their oh-so-clever Pascal’s wager to climate change?

    I think it not comporting to biblical end-times prophecy is the key issue. Making them a death-cult.

  3. Richardthughes: Can they not turn their oh-so-clever Pascal’s wager to climate change?

    I have remarked on this disconnect for some time, but I had not thought of how well that relates to Pascal’s Wager.

    Given the explosion of new industries working in sustainable energy and pollution reduction, it appears to me that the only demographic that stands to lose any money from the effort to reduce AGW is the top few percent of the management hierarchy at Exxon-Mobil.

  4. Me too!

    Where’s the downside in switching to renewable energy, cutting back on the burning of fossil fuel? Inquiring minds need to know!

  5. [latexpage]

    colewd:
    Acartia,

    350 thousand years ago carbon levels went from 200 ppm to 700 ppm in about 25k years.What was the cause then?

    I’m 66. My first year (I was 11) in Grammar school (High school in USian?), I was taught atmospheric $CO_2$ level was 260 ppm. Today it is around 400 ppm. That’s a 140 ppm increase in just over fifty years.

  6. RoyLT: It’s tough to understand why they think this way. Can they not turn their oh-so-clever Pascal’s wager to climate change?

    Ask your buddy Patrick.

  7. Alan Fox,

    I’m 66. My first year (I was 11) in Grammar school (High school in USian?), I was taught atmospheric CO_2 level was 260 ppm. Today it is around 400 ppm. That’s a 140 ppm increase in just over fifty years.

    No doubt man is increasing carbon levels. The question is, are carbon levels causing warming or is warming causing carbon levels to rise (from the ocean) ? If you look at Gore’s original charts it looks like warming happens before carbon rises.

  8. colewd: No doubt man is increasing carbon levels.

    OK, we agree.

    The question is, are carbon levels causing warming or is warming causing carbon levels to rise (from the ocean)?

    Don’t see the need for an “or” here. Why not both?

    If you look at Gore’s original charts it looks like warming happens before carbon rises.

    I’ve been glancing at various charts, NASA, NOAA etc. What charts are you looking at? Do you have a link?

  9. colewd:
    Acartia,

    350 thousand years ago carbon levels went from 200 ppm to 700 ppm in about 25k years.What was the cause then?

    This is exactly the difference I have seen between theists like Barry and pav, and the atheists I know. The theist looks at the graph and sees that the earth has had peaks of temperature in the past, before humans could have an impact, and conclude that all of these peaks must therefore be independent of human impact. The atheists look at the graph and notice the very strong correlations between temperature and CO2 (and methane). They look at the fact that there was a rapid decline after each of the previous peaks, but not the current one.

    Using Barry’s logic, the fact that volcanoes are natural and produce sulfur dioxide means that we should not be concerned about producing sulfur dioxide. Rather than making childish hand gestures behind the head of a ceremonial guard in China, he should live in Beijing and breath the air for a few years.

  10. colewd:
    Acartia,

    350 thousand years ago carbon levels went from 200 ppm to 700 ppm in about 25k years.What was the cause then?

    A cause that is not in operation right now. You know scientists know how to control for confounding factors right? What could cause massive CO2 rise? Release from the oceans due to decaying organic matter. Or volcanic degassing. Or a host of other similar causes. It’s none of those. It’s been measured now for half a century, and it’s just not a natural cause.

    We know how many cars there are, how many trains there are, how many humans there are, how many powerplants and machines and so on… the CO2 rise matches the output of human civilization. It’s due to human civilization. It’s time to get over it and do something about it.

  11. My first post on TSZ, 18 comments. My second, 21. At this rate I will have to post 160 more posts before I get 500 comments. I am game as long as Myng is.

  12. I generally approach these things sideways.

    I think civilizations are hive minds, and my personal opinion doesn’t change anything.

    But i prefer to be optimistic, and I think we’ve passes the tipping point. The world is going toward wind and solar, and it’s increasingly driven by economics. I can’t think of any realistic scenario that would speed things up. Th change is accelerating anyway.

    The bad news is we’re boned for the next century. Some costal cities will survive by building dikes. Others will not.

  13. Acartia: My first post on TSZ, 18 comments. My second, 21. At this rate I will have to post 160 more posts before I get 500 comments. I am game as long as Myng is.

    🙂

    Change your name and come back as an ID supporter.

  14. Mung:

    Change your name and come back as an ID supporter.

    Nah. Tried that, bought the T-shirt, dated your sister.

    But seriously, I am interested as to why two groups of people (atheists and theists) can look at the same graph and see different things.

    I am sure that pav honestly looks at it and sees a refutation of AGW. I see the opposite. Obviously we aren’t both correct. But why?

  15. Acartia: But seriously, I am interested as to why two groups of people (atheists and theists) can look at the same graph and see different things.

    You’d have to poll all theists and all atheists. As for me, I think some theists accept AGW and some atheists do not accept AGW. I have no facts to support that intuition.

  16. Acartia: I am interested as to why two groups of people (atheists and theists) can look at the same graph and see different things.

    Whilst it does seem that doubt about climate change does show some correlation with religious affinity, it is worrying to note the low priority people give to the issue.

    But it saddens me that there is so much misinformation, spin and propaganda on an issue that affects us all and will continue to affect the lives of our children and their children.

  17. Mung: You’d have to poll all theists and all atheists. As for me, I think some theists accept AGW and some atheists do not accept AGW. I have no facts to support that intuition.

    That’s why I asked the question here. There are theists here who are never shy to voice their opinions, and, rumour has it, there are one of two atheists here who aren’t shy. As a theist, why don’t you say what you see in this graph?

  18. Got up this morning to another clear sky and no promise of rain. It hasn’t rained here effectively for three months.

    Anyone else noticing apparent climate shifts in their own backyard?

  19. Alan Fox:
    Whilst it does seem that doubt about climate change does show some correlation with religious affinity, it is worrying to note the low priority people give to the issue.

    But it saddens me that there is so much misinformation, spin and propaganda on an issue that affects us all and will continue to affect the lives of our children and their children.

    It seems to me that much of the dissension stems from the politics of how to address the issue. The perception on the political right in the U.S. is that the political left is using AGW as an excuse to increase government power. They’re not wrong in that, although they do tend to ignore the statist transgressions of the people they vote for.

    There is, of course, also the whole “dominion over the Earth” set of religious beliefs to contend with, as well.

  20. Patrick: There is, of course, also the whole “dominion over the Earth” set of religious beliefs to contend with, as well.

    I think this is the main thing. ‘That’s not how it goes in the book!’

  21. Alan Fox: Anyone else noticing apparent climate shifts in their own backyard?

    I tend to avoid the “my lawn is brown ergo AGW” argument since it is so easily countered by “it snowed in Florida last year”. It’s easy to adjust your resolution to get the result you want. Hence the chart in the OP shows a range of 400,000 years with a nice consistent cycle. However, atheist AGW proponents like myself assert that only the last 200 years are relevant to the current discussion.

    As Richard’s cartoon suggested, I’d rather err on the safe side as opposed to taking bets on an overarching cycle which cannot be confirmed for another 120,000 years or so.

  22. Rumraket,

    A cause that is not in operation right now. You know scientists know how to control for confounding factors right? What could cause massive CO2 rise?

    So your claim is that a cause that existed for the last 300k years suddenly ceased to exist over the last 100 years?

  23. Patrick: It seems to me that much of the dissension stems from the politics of how to address the issue.

    Except that many politicians are still feeding us the line that climate change is a myth. And some of those politicians are persuaded, not by examining data and trying to look at the implications, but by lobbying from large wealthy corporations with a vested interest in perpetuating such a myth. The same sort of considerations that led to the unholy alliance of right-wing politicians and fundamentalist religious leaders has led to the economic alliance of right-wing politicians and multinationals.

    The perception on the political right in the U.S. is that the political left is using AGW as an excuse to increase government power.

    Politics seems to spread to extremes and unfortunately within limits, the sloganising, demonizing and spinning is successful in the short term. The extreme left seems a spent force in Europe, even as it attempts to attract the young unemployed. The concept of party politics with a manifesto that can be applied to all problems (rather like looking for answers in a holy book) seems doomed.

    They’re not wrong in that, although they do tend to ignore the statist transgressions of the people they vote for.

    The idealism of the Libertarianism doesn’t stand a chance, either. The one-size-fits-all-situations approach needs a strong dose of pragmatism. Infrastructure, at the very least, cannot be left to individuals, nor can social security, in my view. Unless, of course you want to see breakdown of civilized society. People will put up with a lot to retain stability and security but being rich and powerful and spending the next generation’s birthright can ony continue while the young acquiesce. It’s not so easy to stay powerful as you age and need help dressing.

    There is, of course, also the whole “dominion over the Earth” set of religious beliefs to contend with, as well.

    I’m an outsider there so can only offer advice. You need to convince religious folks that true secularism guarantees freedom of thought for all members of a society.

  24. RoyLT: I’d rather err on the safe side as opposed to taking bets on an overarching cycle which cannot be confirmed for another 120,000 years or so.

    Indeed. Especially as there is no downside to expanding renewable energy. I also think we have the expertise and technology to develop safe nuclear energy these days.

  25. Alan Fox:
    . . .
    I’m an outsider there so can only offer advice. You need to convince religious folks that true secularism guarantees freedom of thought for all members of a society.

    I don’t think that’s their goal.

  26. colewd:
    Rumraket,

    So your claim is that a cause that existed for the last 300k years suddenly ceased to exist over the last 100 years?

    Who has suggested this. But, based on the cycle seen in the chart, wouldn’t we be expecting a significant cooling cycle? Do you not understand how an unnatural event can affect a natural cycle?

  27. colewd:
    Rumraket,

    So your claim is that a cause that existed for the last 300k years suddenly ceased to exist over the last 100 years?

    No of course not. Obviously volcanoes still exist, and obviously the ocean still exists. And obviously organisms still die and their decaying remains release CO2 and so on.

    But none of those factors, even if all of them are combined, are enough to account for the observed CO2 rise. That the natural sources that have caused CO2 rise thousands of years ago are currently not outputting enough CO2 to cause the currently observed CO2 rise, and that we DO know a cause that DOES account for the observed CO2 rise. That cause is human industry.

    Look at this: What’s warming the world?

    The number of power plants, factories, cars, trains, airplanes and the number of humans that use them have all been climbing enormously in the last 100 years. But solar output, volcanic activity, ocean CO2 release etc. etc. have all remained relatively stable.

    That’s what I’m saying.

  28. RoyLT: I tend to avoid the “my lawn is brown ergo AGW” argument since it is so easily countered by “it snowed in Florida last year”.

    Yup. Climate is long-term (a couple decades by usual definition, if I recall correctly).

  29. Patrick: I don’t think that’s their goal.

    Amen. I read an op-ed recently stating that the Religious Right is not looking for Freedom of Religion but for a continuation (and indeed an increase) in the special status enjoyed by mainstream Christianity in the United States. I should mention that I agree with the opinion 100%.

  30. RoyLT: read an op-ed recently stating that the Religious Right is not looking for Freedom of Religion but for a continuation (and indeed an increase) in the special status enjoyed by mainstream Christianity in the United States. I should mention that I agree with the opinion 100%.

    Were you in a position to decide, what kind of regime would you enforce?

  31. Alan Fox: Were you in a position to decide, what kind of regime would you enforce?

    I don’t personally believe in enforcing any sort of agenda. I am a firm believer in the value of democracy, warts and all. If enough of the electorate gets tired of not being able to buy Michelob on Sunday or of having to present a birth-certificate before entering a public restroom, then they can do something about it at the ballot box. Until then, the squeaky wheel will continue to get the grease.

    The will of the people, even it that will be mindless apathy, is a much more trustworthy moral compass than the cynical ponderings of a single flawed human mind such as mine.

  32. Patrick: I don’t think that’s their goal.

    It’s all about gaining political control over public institutions. The campaign is basically to assert their religious beliefs as objective truths. “If my religious beliefs are true, then they’re the truth, not just my religion.” That is why we hear as much from them about objective morality as we do about objective evidence of design. That is why they are constantly putting on pretenses of having arrived at conclusions, on the basis of reason and evidence, when they actually began with conclusions [religious beliefs].

    Not a well developed thought. But I have to leave it at that for now.

  33. Tom English: The campaign is basically to assert their religious beliefs as objective truths.

    From Aquinas to William Lane Craig, the campaign and the arguments have changed little and progressed even less.

  34. Alan Fox: I’m 66. My first year (I was 11) in Grammar school (High school in USian?), I was taught atmospheric level was 260 ppm. Today it is around 400 ppm. That’s a 140 ppm increase in just over fifty years.

    Indeed, we are well outside the range of natural variability. The only other known precendents in the Earth’s history for warming as rapid as we’ve observed over the past couple centuries were catastrophic geological events.

Leave a Reply