I think there are "religious-like" believers on both sides--that is, people who are simply accepting the word of some authority they trust, without in any way either analyzing the trustworthiness of the source, or analyzing the data itself. However, for those who do go from blind acceptance to actual analysis, the vast majority accept AGW to at least some degree. So, it necessarily follows that denialists act more like religious believers than realists, as a whole.
But, I have rarely if ever seen realists say that denial of AGW is a religion. I have frequently seen denialists accuse those who accept AGW of belonging to a cult.
And I think the two are related. Since we can't see into other people's heads, we tend to think other people think more or less like we do, unless we have evidence to the contrary. And people who accept things on blind faith in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary tend to not be that great at examining evidence. So, it follows that most people who accept that AGW is false on blind faith will assume that people who accept AGW are also accepting it on blind faith. And since AGW "believers" are all saying the same thing--that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming--it must be because they're members of a single "religion".
It does not matter how many decades of consensus there is about AGW, or how much of it is peer reviewed, the simple fact is that the entire knowledge base of AGW has been poured into over 20 climate models and they all failed miserably. Meanwhile we (us skeptics) have to listen to all of the insane predictions published that will all fail soon or already have failed such as Children will not know what snow is, the Arctic will have ice free summers, Tornadoes are getting worse, Hurricanes are getting worse or my favorite, Hansen taken to jail numerous times, while making claims that sea level will rise by over one and a half feet by the middle of this century. No predictions have came true about Global Warming, and to continue to believe in these prophesies based on failed theories definitely defines you as a cultists, in the broadest definition, one who will always believe in this subject because you are not guided by science anymore, you are basing your belief in faith, faith in the predictions of others.
Most skeptics take the general stance that the brief warming in the 80's and 90's are primarily the result of natural cycles and at the turn of the century the climate will begin a cooling trend that will last for at least 30 years. And that increasing CO2 levels have added some energy to the climate system but probably not enough to detect, and that is what appears to be happening. Believing that history often repeats itself is not a religion especially when those predictions have actually occurred right on queue.
The only "consensus" is that some warming is occurring and caused by man placing CO2 in the atmosphere. The amount of warming that has and will occur hardly fall within a "consensus". Fruther, I have yet to read anything that would indicate a consensus on the models used to determine future warming.
So, when "deniers" pretend that there is no warming caused by man, they are not doing so based upon sound science. BUT, when warmers pretend that just because some aspects of AGW are agreed upon that BOTH the actions to be taken and the future impact of AGW is known, they are also not doing so based upon sound science.
It's the deniers who more often use the word, "religion" as an ad hom, but it is the deniers who act more like a religion. They tend to be uncritical about sources that support their agenda, such as Maxx' great Swindle movie and Sage's video of a graph taped to a see-saw, yet they either ignore evidence that doesn't support their agenda, or call the evidence lies.
They also make a huge deal about any cold weather event, and yet ignore heat waves, even though both are weather. It is long term trends of global average temperature that counts. And if one glacier, somewhere is growing, all of the glaciers that are shrinking do not get a vote.
mick t
I doubt that you can find where the IPCC or the UK met office made such a claim, partly because I doubt that they made such a claim. But if they did, then you can say that the IPCC and the met office are both wrong.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...
This is yahoo answers, I no longer EXPECT a reasoned debate on any subject, but occasionally I am pleasantly surprised and some of the time I am mildly amused. It is like watching an episode of John Steward and just as predictable.
I am not a scientist, however I do accept the science that is clearly settled I.E., that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that we have increased the amount of CO into the atmosphere by 40% and that if nothing else changes this will cause earth to retain more heat. I realize that this has benefits, but also that it will cause serious hardship for people, including those who contributed far less to the problem then I do. I am sceptical that it will be catastrophic on a global scale, although in fairness none of the regulars here are claiming that it will be.
Rather then trying to group people I would like to point out two individuals.
One of the most extremist denier, Sagebrush, sounded to me what I would expect from a KKK member, so recently I went to their forum to see if I could find similar rhetoric and spot him, I was surprised to see that even amongst those racists, he would be an extremist, as most of the comments there are more like the average denier here and in the 30 minutes I spend there, I did not see one comment suggesting genocide because people voted for the "wrong" politician.
On the other hand, Raisin Caine, has a valid point, he has even proposed to do away with fossil fuels and offered at least one non fossil fuel alternative. (One I disagree with because I see no purpose in limiting ourselves to single solutions.) There certainly have been answers that have little to do with the science (including most of mine) I don't know why his comment is voted down.
There clearly are exceptions, but any one who spend some time in the religion and spirituality section would realize that more people on the denier side are behaving more like your definition of a religion and some are outright bullies with their name calling.
Both the IPCC and UK met office agree that there has been no warming for at least 15 years. The climate models predicted a 0.3C increase for this time.
It is a rule in science that if the data does not support the theory, the theory is wrong, regardless of how may people support It, or how powerful and influential they are. Consensus is irrelevant in science as it has been wrong too many times
Sticking to the AGW hypothesis when the data doesn't support it is a matter of religious or political belief.
A Masters In Ecology and 30 years professional experience
To climate realist
The statement about no warming for at least 15 years is in the IPCC's fifth assessment report (AR5) working group 1. Professor Jones (Head of the Met office Climate research Unit) admitted that there had been no warming in a BBC interview last year. Rejecting the data makes you a denier of the science.
In legitimate science, when the data does not support the theory, the theory is rejected. It seem that for some climate scientists, when the data does not support the theory, the data is rejected. This is characteristic of a religious faith.
I now see where Hey Dook has been misled. He is relying on the IPCC summery for policy makers. This is a summery of the political agenda of the IPCC, not a summery of the science. The statement about no warming for 15 years is in the scientific report, but is excluded from the summery. The last thing the IPCC want the public to realise is that here has been no warming for 15 years despite an 8% increase in global CO2 emissions
...and is there a connection between (a) and (b)?
Good answers will include sources and/or links.
Realists = those who accept the 20+ year-old scientific consensus on climate change, as reflected for instance in the IPCC report summaries.
Deniers = those who deny the existence, history, fundamental characteristics, and basic conclusions of that climate science.
Religion = (in this context), being dogmatic, closed-minded, relying more on faith than on facts and logic, and actively seeking to persuade others using methods other than honest factual evidence or reference to well-established knowledge.
Deliberately anti-science answers are not wanted here, and posters thereof may be subject to blocking.
