Global warming - facebook conversation

I posted this link: Polar Ice Rapture Misses Its Deadline
blogs.forbes.com
Global warming alarmists have more explaining to do.

Harold Camping isn't the only alarmist making false predictions...


S.B.: so, Rich -- do you deny that the earth's climate is warming? or that mankind bears a significant share of the responsibility? Just curious what your point is here...

Me: My point is that false predictions aren't confined to religous kooks.

S.B.: No, neither is sensationalistic reporting of fringe people and issues. I know very few Christians who took the whole Harold Camping thing serious in the least -- I think it got coverage primarily because it became such a big internet meme, and hence a part of popular culture that far outstripped its actual importance.

The same happens from time to time in science. There's no doubt about that -- having worked in science for 27 years, attended literally hundreds of scientific conferences and listened to and read thousands of scientific papers, I can tell you that most scientists don't know how to get media attention, and most don't really crave it. That makes it easy for those who DO, to get attention that exceeds the import of what they have to say.

Though, make no mistake -- while the extreme predictions are just that -- extreme predictions -- the facts are that polar ice, particularly in the arctic, IS melting, WILL have serious consequences, and will cost us dearly. The extreme weather events of the past few weeks are a good example -- while they cannot be tied directly to global warming, they are consistent with what happens even under relatively mild warming that is occurring. What this means is that we can expect, with statistical certainty, that they will occur MORE often, and with more severity, as the earth continues to warm.

Some talk about the cost of dealing with global warming, but they generally fail to acknowledge that there is a huge cost, too, of inaction.

Me: Perhaps you didn't read the article. Alarmists have predicted specifically and directly that the polar ice cap would totally melt, not that it will someday, or that it is in the process.

My remarks are confined to that and that alone.

S.B.: no, I read the article. But the author does what many climate change skeptics do (and I suppose, religious skeptics do, as well -- I don't know because I don't pay much attention to them -- I am a non-believer myself but have no desire to dissuade others of their Faith) which is to attempt to taint the legitimate science with the hyperbole of the extremists.

When the author says "The list of failed predictions regarding global warming raptures is no less extensive than the list of failed predictions regarding Christian church raptures. There is one important difference, however. The Harold Campings of the world reside outside the Christian mainstream. Among global warming alarmists, the serially wrong rapturists define the mainstream." he is clearly using the fringes of science to do this. By reposting the blog, you are essentially doing the same.

I'm simply pointing out that you can ignore the science all you wish, but it doesn't change the facts of the matter that global warming IS occurring, it IS having severe, real-time, current day impacts on people, economies, ecosystems, and will continue to do so, at an accelerating pace, so long as we chose to ignore it.

Me: you just admitted that the story took on a life of its own. Why do you think that was? Clearly it was to brand all Christians as kooks and extremists.

I guess the issue is, whose ox is being gored.

S.B.: I don't think I agree with your characterization, Rich. I had plenty of Christian friends who were ridiculing the predictions while simultaneously disavowing themselves and their Faith from Camping. I don't know if you've noticed, but people are also making fun of the Incan predictions for the end of the world in 2012 -- part of a world-wide conspiracy to brand all indigenous peoples as kooks and extremists?

Or simply some gallows humor for dark times?

Me: But the rapture is a mainstream belief of a large portion of Christianity. And the polar ice caps melting is a widely held tenet of global warming.

That places them on the same footing, and ridicule of each is fair game.

S.B.: Rich, if you REALLY think that religious/spiritual predictions and scientific ones ought to be held to the same degree of scrutiny, or even discussed as remotely similar -- I think we understand both world views quite differently from one another.

The similarity between the two is quite superficial, and I think you're smart enough to know that. But if you want to claim an equivlance here, then I'll cede the point, because I can't argue with a red herring argument.

Me: You consistently want to take this to a higher level of analysis that is not warranted by the context. The sole basis of your objection seems to be that science is somehow sacrosanct, while religion doesn't rise to the level of intelligent thought.

I don't accept the premise that global warming alarmists can't be mocked because it is science.

S.B.: If you read my earlier post, I said that I have no argument that some extreme predictions are not worth mocking. But the author goes beyond that and in the quoted section suggests that the extremists ARE the mainstream

And that is bullshit, and deserves to be countered.

R.W.: I want to jump in but am enjoying the discussion too much to ruin it.

B.R.: Ditto.

Me: I guess the profanity seals the argument.

S.B.: no, just expresses my frustration at the effort to equate science and religion too closely, Rich. They are entirely different ways of dealing with the world, and attempts to treat them too much alike does neither of them any favors.

Science's JOB is to make predictions about the world -- and it does it very well. We can make accurate predictions about the position of a sattellite, even accounting for relativistic effects, and that allows us to use that sattellite as a channel for communications -- if the predictions made by science (and it's cousin, technology) weren't right nearly all of the time, then we wouldn't be having this discussion right now because we'd have no way to reliably exchange information.

Religion doesn't have such a track record. Perhaps one day we'll find that the predictions it DOES make, turn out to be true -- but it exists largely in a sphere outside/beyond proof.

So while science is not sacrosanct, and certainly scientists do make errors in both fact and judgment -- it has proved remarkably effective at making predictions about the world that are both verifiable, and incredibly precise.

I think if anything, one of the things that brought Camping so much attention and ridicule is his effort to predict, with scientific precision, that which most Christians will tell you the Scriptures say cannot be predicted: the time at which the end arrives.

Me: I have resisted your efforts to "...equate science and religion too closely..." I have made no assertions regarding the issues of veracity. I have made no claim about religion.

It is you who wants to conflate the two on the simple basis that someone is mocking your sacred cow.

Scott, there is no part of science that should not be mocked. Certainly no part of religion has escaped mocking.

I really don't care how good science is at predicting things. It is irrelevant to the conversation. I really don't care if religion hasn't demonstrated scientific rigor. None of it matters.

Science has assumed this mantle of unquestionable veracity and gravitas that is worthy of parody. Indeed, this untouchable status is ultimately bad for science as dissenters are beat down and silenced.