"Faith," of course, is belief in something that lacks proof. It's pretty clear then that worry over global warming isn't a matter of faith, but of reason.
And if we're going to point out a group of people who cling to an idea that not only has no proof, but contradicts accumulated evidence and scientific inquiry, then we'll have to admit that it's the deniers who are acting on faith. Faith that Big Energy's efforts to influence the debate isn't profit driven. Faith that there's a 100% chance everything's going to be hunky-dory - after all, if there's even, say, a 10% chance global warming is man-made and as cataclysmic as conservative predictions make it out to be, it would be folly, or even criminal, to ignore it. Faith that the myopic views of a tiny number of politically-and economically-motivated commenters are what represents "reality."
If there's a religion here, it's in the denial of the problem.
Hmm, so belief in something that hasn't happened yet is proof of the statement, but not believing the statement is heresy? What is this, the Spanish Inquisition of the 21st Century?
But then Jay attempts to shred Craig of MTPolitics for his reporting on the makeup of the Climate Change Commission that the Gov himself handpicked.
Speaking of deniers, I just want to quickly comment on Craig's post equating Exxon funding of denier science with non-profit funding for policy groups. Again...I'm not sure the logic here. Exxon has a profit motive to misconstrue the debate and encourage us to make decisions that are self destructive; the groups listed in Craig's post seem to be interested in...well...preserving the environment and stopping global warming.
Jay either is blissfully unaware, or is active in denial of the idea that some people are using the hysteria of climate change as a tool to reorient society into their own image. Restructure the entire political and financial system, and apparently you are operating out of self interest. Point out the obvious flaws and you are a dupe of Exxon.
But what are the facts? Facts are easy, because they have occurred. That means they may be open to interpretation but they still exist. Predictions are not facts, by virtue of not being yet proven. Using "sophisticated computer models" does not change a fiction into a fact. It just means that you are using a model. When they can get the weather right in 10 more days, I will be closer to accepting their argument. But ten days out is impossible right now. Why someone thinks that 100 years out is more accurate is delusional. But surely, we can look to the past, since that has happened, right? Of course, when was the thermometer invented? Apparently in 1714. So, how widespread was its use? And how accurate were the observations that were made using these thermometers? But we are better than that now, aren't we? What do the data show, since the fact that it has occurred means that it is observable and testable.
Some reports are that 2006 is the warmest year on record, Others say that it was the 5th warmest. Of course, others say that 2007 is the seventh warmest year on record.
And still others say that it was the second warmest year on record.
At least a few show that the data relied upon is corrupt. In fact, in spite of the above assertions, some say that the warmest years on record was 1934, not 1998 or 2006 or 2007.
But that is to be ignored in this new Calvinist society, where we are all sinners, and not all of us are qualified for salvation. Only the true believers will be allowed into Paradise. I am sure that Jay believes that he will be one of the saved. Just like all the Calvinists before him.
Guess that explains why I am a Lutheran.
Oh, and Jay, if you doubt me, just put your hands on your desktop tower, and feel the warmth of God's love coming through to you.
Or is it climate change?