addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcredit-cardcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobe--smallglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1launch-new-window--smalllight-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

The Denver Atheists Meetup Group Message Board General Discussion › Is blind belief in scientists (not "science") different from any o

Is blind belief in scientists (not "science") different from any other blind beliefs?

A former member
Post #: 12
Goodness, what's this - a history re-writing session?

That was the major talking point of AGW alarmism at first - throughout the past, we see that increased CO2 is accompanied by warming, therefore this time around increased CO2 is dangerous and would lead to runaway warming.

When the "accompanied by warming" became "lags warming", there was much gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands, and they came out with "but it COULD be happening the other way around" and wrote it up on WikiPedia and realclimate and skepticalscience, which was of course swallowed whole by the faithful, thereby heroically saving the billions of dollars in funding.

They of course SUDDENLY discovered this information. The "CO2 follows warming" paper only came out in March, 2003 and had totally irrefutable and simple mathematics. Before that, they were preaching the opposite.

Btw, I don't know if facts and definitions matter much here, but strictly speaking "oil funded deniers" is what would be a "conspiracy theory". "Government funded alarmists" is a matter of record and verifiable fact and numbers.
user 4078182
Denver, CO
Post #: 68
Please explain the following paper from 1990:


(Please look at the paper itself to confirm that it was from 1990.)

They state clearly that the ice cores support the orbital theory of ice ages (p. 140, first paragraph). They weren't proposing that CO2 initiated the climate change. They are contending that it prolonged and amplified it.

So no, it wasn't the case that climatologists changed their position as a knee-jerk response to data that showed that CO2 lagged temperature.

"'Government funded alarmists' is a matter of record and verifiable fact and numbers."

Again, no. Because you haven't demonstrated that climatologists are supporting AGW to obtain funding. You have stated that this is the reason, but provided zero evidence. There is zero evidence that any climatologist was paid by the government to promote AGW. Hence, what you are presenting is a conspiracy theory.

A former member
Post #: 13
I am not sure what's your point, they say right after the para you quoted, that "greenhouse gases have HAD a significant role in explaining the magnitude of past global temperature changes" (uppercase mine) and they use a very high value for the forcing in fact (meaning they are even beyond the cuckoo figure from alarmists that I posted at http://mukeshprasadus...­)

This is the very position that was completely refuted by the lead/lag research, and that's why they had to change their position in a knee-jerk reaction and come up with excuses like "it still COULD cause warming".

You also misunderstood my point about funding. This was a take on your "conspiracy theory" comment. Strictly speaking, according to correct English meaning of words, a "conspiracy theory" would be "shadowy interests are funding deniers".

Whereas "Government is funding alarmists" is a matter of record, so calling this a "conspiracy theory" is Humpty Dumpty (Alice in Wonderland) Logic, where words mean whatever you (alarmists) want them to mean, no more, no less. ["'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'] Clearly, Humpty Dumpty foreshadowed AGW :-)

Here is data from government:­ See Table 1 on page 5.

Do those numbers look like zero to you? Or is CBO a part of some major conspiracy?
user 4078182
Denver, CO
Post #: 69
"I am not sure what's your point, they say right after the para you quoted, that "greenhouse gases have HAD a significant role in explaining the magnitude of past global temperature changes" (uppercase mine) and they use a very high value for the forcing in fact (meaning they are even beyond the cuckoo figure from alarmists that I posted at http://mukeshprasadus...­

The point is that from the very beginning they acknowledged that CO2 didn't necessarily initiate the warming. It still remains the case that CO2 did have a role in amplifying and extending the duration.

"You also misunderstood my point about funding. This was a take on your "conspiracy theory" comment. Strictly speaking, according to correct English meaning of words, a "conspiracy theory" would be "shadowy interests are funding deniers".

Uh... no. It was your claim that the reason we have such broad agreement among climatologists for AGW is that they wanted to ensure funding. That requires a conspiracy. For your claim to be true, it requires them to all secretly pretend that there is evidence for AGW when there really isn't.

"Do those numbers look like zero to you? Or is CBO a part of some major conspiracy?"

Again, you haven't a clue what you are talking about. I haven't said anything about government not attempting to mitigate climate change. But that is a reaction to the science. (And by the way, we are doing far, far too little.)

That is different than your claim. You are saying that the science was shaped to support AGW in order to ensure funding. And again, you have provided zero evidence for that claim.

I've tried to keep this focused on the science. You are the one that wants to chase this tangent about funding. So if you want to make this claim stick, show me where, specifically, any climatologist or climate organization has been paid off and told that they must make the results fit a predetermined conclusion. Until you can do this, and it is pretty clear you can't, all you have is a conspiracy theory.

A former member
Post #: 3
Mukesh, whoever you are. It's now very apparent that you don't have a clue as to the actual definitions of "faith", "believing" or "atheism". Until you actually understand the definitions of those terms, you are just blowing a bunch of hot air around, no pun intended.
Let me explain it to you:
FAITH: that would be believing something WITHOUT EVIDENCE. There IS real, verifiable, testable, repeatable evidence for climate change. There is ZERO evidence for any supernatural being. Do you understand the difference?
BELIEF: NO ONE "refuses" OR "chooses" to "believe" ANYTHING. Either someone is convinced for a particular reason that something is true based on something they've seen/experienced, or they are not convinced. NO ONE "decides" to believe anything, it's not a choice- it happens or it doesn't happen.
ATHEISM: The disbelief in a "god" due to lack of evidence.
Now, start the conversation over using the correct definitions of those words and see how much sense you are making! You should be using the words "hard-core skeptic", NOT "atheist" in this ridiculous discussion. "Skepticism" in a variety of things is a common characteristic of "atheists": but it does not define then, nor invalidate an atheist if he/she isn't skeptical 100% of the time about 100% of things.
A former member
Post #: 14
John, You have a very deep FAITH that there is EVIDENCE for client change. Your "god" is "whatever scientists say", without any evidence.

You have merely replaced one comforting faith by another.

That's not atheism, except in a very narrow and useless sense. You may as well start defining atheism by rejecting this denomination vs. that denomination's version of god!

Please understand, I am differentiating strongly between "science" and "scientists". If you like to think scientifically, that's great. However, at NO point will a science textbook tell you "Then we go out and poll the scientists, and if 97% of them say X, then X is true". That's totally outside of science. And that's, essentially, religion. So if you think something is true because 97% of scientists say it is, your thinking is totally unscientific in fact. You can define atheism in a way to include that kind of thinking. But I see that kind of thinking merely as a replacement religion.

There is no real meaning to being an atheist if you simply are participating in building yet another faith-based authoritarian religion.
A former member
Post #: 15
Kyle, That's not how science works - nature doesn't know that a warming was "started" by CO2 or not. At any given point of time, there is X temperature, Y molecules of CO2 in atmosphere, they have an impact or not. At that point. Basing your whole defense upon "who started what" immediately disproves your case from first principles.

Re funding: I have to expect a certain amount of common sense here for a reasonable discussion. If the government is paying scientists 7 billion dollars every year to "study" and "mitigate" climate change, I think it should be obvious that if they start saying climate change is false, that money will have to stop.
John S.
user 45991572
Denver, CO
Post #: 4
I started a discussion in the meetup about AGW, that went a little too long for meetup comments, so I want to open it up here to see if there is any interest in discussing this.

The assertion is - scientists are human, and can lie. Peer reviewers are human, and can get into groupthink. They all may be getting paid to support one side of a position, and may be corrupt.

In particular, with regards to Climate Change, there is a lot of money supporting the alarmist position. For instance, Exxon has paid several hundreds of millions of dollars to alarmists. Many prominent climate change deniers are on record claiming that they have never received money from oil or coal industry etc (a few have, but it's invariably in thousands of dollars, as opposed to tens and hundreds of millions of dollars for alarmists), and no journalist has been able to say otherwise, except for innuendo and suggestion.

So anyway, atheists refuse to believe in deities. But isn't "scientists" simply a term for a new plural deity for many people? Note that this is different from "science". Science is a way of thinking. Trust and faith in "scientists" is just trust and faith in scientists.

Is any atheist that believes in AGW without studying the science, just because 97% of scientists say it's true, any different from any true believer of Christianity or Islam?

So why should AGW believers be considered atheists? Haven't they just replaced one kind of superstitious blind faith by another? Isn't blind faith and trust in scientists, simply a pure replacement for earlier religions?
Science is an investigative program, not a belief system. No doubt there are a lot of people who consider consensus of the opinions of scientists to be a measure of confidence in a particular scientific result. I would not call that "blind belief" in most cases, for the simple reason that a "consensusist" is following the pack, and will change his or her opinions as the scientific consensus changes.

What is your point, really?
A former member
Post #: 16
Authoritarianism, dogma, faith-based thinking, growth of entirely religion-like belief structures using the words "science" and "atheism" inappropriately...

The situation is basically this:

1. The US government pays scientists over 7 billion dollars a year to study and mitigate AGW. It should be obvious to normal people that this is a massive corruption scenario. Such a level of funding leads to massive lavish jet-setting lifestyles, and they will have to be extremely honest to say that their free ride should be cut. (Maybe 3% of them are indeed extremely honest.)

However, a large segment of the population doesn't consider it obvious, and considers all scientists beyond corruption. Basically, a priestly segment whose divine honesty cannot and should not be questioned.

2. The situation is not normal science and consensus, it's something different now. The science of AGW has been thoroughly refuted and falsified, and both sides on the issue with sufficient scientific knowledge know this. However, the AGW side has discovered that a large segment of the population is highly authoritarian in their thinking, and as long as they get journalists to say "scientists say X", this large segment will back them up uncritically and thoughtlessly. With so much money flowing, it is not difficult to get journalists to say this. Journalists are mostly crooks who will say (with great subtlety) whatever the big money wants them to say. See the Salon article I referenced earlier.

So basically, AGW stands not upon science, but upon a large number of authoritarian blind-believer majority within the US.

Turns out, paradoxically, this blind-believer majority consists of a large number of people who like to think of themselves as "atheists" and "skeptics". This is a misappropriation of the labels, a blind-belief in a supernatural power is the same, whether the supernatural power is called "god" or "allah", or is some sort of a "Simon says" where whatever comes prefixed with "Scientists say" in popular media, must be believed (and defended) with the intensity of a belief in any other god.

Those who label themselves "atheists" and "skeptics" but are merely blind-faith people looking for a religion-substitute, are harming the society at large by their superstitious blind belief and faith.
A former member
Post #: 4
Mukesh, if you insist on re-defining the terms "atheist" and "god", it is a waste of time for all of us to discuss this with you any further. Perhaps you should contact the people at Merriam Webster and tell them they have it all wrong.
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy