Global Warming denial an article of religious faith | BBC

[The Magic Pudding]

[i]"People can choose not to believe in [man-made] climate change - but the correct term here is 'belief' - believing is an act of faith, whereas science is a testing of hypotheses and seeing whether they hold up against real world data.

Belief, fuck I don’t want one of those, I think I’ll call it a recognition of possible/probable danger. I don’t see this as faith, more a survival mechanism.

[quote='Welsh cake' pid='151947' dateline='1309948606'] I don’t accept anything on faith, be it the existence of Australia or the sun rising in the morning.

I don’t really believe that is possible, if by faith you mean without evidence you haven’t personally verified. I’m never going to verify the existence of the Amazon jungle but I accept it’s there. I accept the bridges I drive over will support my vehicle.

And I'm a climate-change denier by their reckoning? Really? So if I'm unconvinced by all the god claims and don't believe in god, am I a god-denier?

I suppose you would be, what’s the point?

God botherers say I shouldn’t sleep so long Sundays for nonsensical reasons, I sleep on.
A majority of people smarter than me, without a history of lying, without much to gain from lying say it would be best if we cut greenhouse gas emissions, I think it’s sensible to listen. A few deny for various reasons, self interest, eccentricity and bloody mindedness would explain most of it for me.

No, I reject that statement; I don’t accept anything on faith, be it the existence of Australia or the sun rising in the morning.

So what, do you brush your teeth and do your sums before you go to bed at night?
Australia exists, at least that’s what we call the thing we walk on around here, it all could be a joke at my expense.

IPCC carries out no original research and will be discounted.

I thought their purpose was to review existing research. Can’t we find a better reason to discount their conclusions, sex, bribery, alien interference or red menace?


[quote='Welsh cake' pid='151947' dateline='1309948606'] BBC have been criticised since forever for their basis towards climate change and campaigning on the issue whenever the opportunity arises, so on this issue they are not a trustworthy source

Well that would depend on by who, why and how they have been criticised.

they are seeking to proselytise and scaremonger; they’re not giving me the impartiality on the subject I require.

I don’t think publishing the results of research is proselytising.
Many informed people are scared, some resigned to a future dystopia.
Not giving you impartiality? Well why not read the thousands of papers the IPCC reviewed and come to your own conclusion.

I am not certain beyond reasonable doubt it is happening therefore it would be intellectually dishonest of me and hypocritical to accept the findings without trying to apply scrutiny to them first.

Beyond reasonable doubt is a high level of proof, balance of probabilities will get you dollars in a civil case. The world won’t sit still until you’re satisfied.