I think there are three categories of Warmists.
1) Those that are legitimately fooled by it, they are forgivable.
2) Those that deep down know it's wrong but they can't admit it because they have invested all their credibility into it. Their pride won't allow them to admit their error, not even to themselves.
3) Those that know it's wrong but they have something to gain by advocating it. (these are the really despicable ones, this is all or nearly all the big public advocates)
-----------------------
Definition of faith "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing" [1] And by that definition yes, I mostly agree.
P.S. If you are a free marketeer then I advise you to take heartland institute with a pound of salt. A free market requires an educated and informed population in order to function properly and the heartland institute has a proven history of providing disinformation on behalf of industry.. [2]
It amazes me that people use Heartland, Iceagenow, Notrickszone Wattsupwith that, etc. as sources. They might as well use "Imagullibleidiot" as a source.
To be fair, though, in another question Ian gave a link that had the proper definition for "GIGO", but unfortunately he still didn't understand what it meant.
EDIT: Ian, your question about GIGO did not seem to have anything at all to do with the input data to the models, if that's really the reason that you have problems with climate models, you should have addressed that, but you didn't and never seemed to get that point. "Garbage In" refers to input data, not to the model code or physics.
There is no 'faith' involved. Climate dynamics are based on data and established science and physics. 'Faith' involves belief in 'things unseen'. Climate science is based on measurable phenomenon. Why this is so difficult for people to grasp is possibly a 'science' in itself.
Creationism is faith-based.
Evolutionary science is faith-based.
Science in general is faith-based.
Climate science provides evidence (right or wrong doesn't matter to them) based on the premise "CO2 causes Global Warming" with no regard to what causes "Global Cooling". Concentrating on the warming part of temperature is where the alarmism comes from. When they add their own opinions as to where the Planet is going in the future (as far as temperatures are concerned), this is where the alarmism is dominant.
Calling it "Climate Change" gives them a more variable answer to critics. It perpetuates the "grey area" and gives them cover for mistakes they have misrepresented about the climate and their research.
Temperature doesn't matter anymore when they call it "Climate Change". As long as the climate continues to change (as it always has), then they are absolutely right about their science. The IP CC is based on CO2 warming the Planet. That is their faith and belief.
No I do not agree it is based faith. It is based on political reality. The reality is to get anything done in politics you need to push the public's hot buttons. So scientists who understand the problem, and how slow and subtle and hard to understand it is, and how only a world wide change is any use in slowing or stopping it, they can sometimes exaggerate things to make their point.
Remember the phrase, do not argue about politics or religion, that is because they are based on faith not facts and evidence, any debate of those subjects are bound to result in name calling and abuse, intelligence goes out the window, when emotion steps in the door.
Well I see exactly the same now with AGW, I no longer see any quiet rational arguments, and it is mainly the AGW people who are the most abusive, which leads me to conclude that AGW must have some religous connotations to it.
It looks like the Heartland Institute is making nothing but ad homs against the IPCC. Post a link to the IPCC site, and let people judge for themselves whether the IPCC is using science or faith.
Madd Maxx
I think there are three categories of denialists.
1) Those that are legitimately fooled by denialism, they are forgivable.
2) Those that deep down know AGW is true but they can't admit it because they have invested all their credibility into it. Their pride won't allow them to admit their error, not even to themselves.
3) Those that know AGW is true but they have something to gain by dismissing it. (these are the really despicable ones, this is all or nearly all the big business advocates)
Guess which one I think you are in.
You're really using heartland as a source? I might as well not bother going any further here.
Heartland=Big oil supported denial machine
There are very few alarmist statements made by real climate scientists As a rule, blog links are very useless and frequently dishonest. Too bad you couldn't present a real website. Not surprising however
http://blog.heartland.org/2013/11/faith-based-ipcc-turns-science-into-sin/
Belief without evidence = faith
Faith = religion
And only religions have deniers.
the real alarmists are the deniers and many of them are fundamental christians
the real alarmists think there's a huge conspiracy going on in the scientific community
So C, people who give alarmist statements are therefore not valid climate scientists and should not be taken seriously, correct?
