It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Man Made Global Warming. A Religous Topic?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 12:03 PM
I was casually listening to a radio talk show at work the other day when the topic of global warming popped up for a second. Currently, I find it a likely possibility that human intervention is capable of having at least some effect on the ability for Earth to repel radiation from the sun through the depletion of the ozone layer causing a steady rise in temperature. From an uneducated standpoint in the topic, it rationally makes sense.

What got me about the radio talk show was that the host consistently stated "the religion of global warming" over and over (probably 10 times within a span of 2 minutes). Being a very active Atheist in a respectful, friendly religious debating community, some folks weasel through and propose the exact same statement on a number of things like Atheism (Evolution, "Darwinism", and so on). Of course, when that statement gets thrown around it usually means there is a massive bias and/or ignorance behind the person throwing the phrase about the topic their referring to.

Another incident would be in the documentary Jesus Camp, where a parent was quizzing their child on Global Warming and asked "why is global warming not real" and the child responded "because they say that it's only changing by half a degree, or one degree, and it's so small that it wouldn't make any difference". This type of statement/indoctrination into a belief at such a young age is usually a clue to the fact that actual religion and anti-global warming positions may have a tendency to gravitate towards each other much like we see with anti abortion positions.

My last point on religious connection would be due to the fact that both the individuals I work with closely are extremely religious, and my boss is also very very religious. In the same tone as the radio talk show host, they asked me if I "also believe that garbage" Indicating that they also had a aggressive stance on the topic. When I asked why they believe that it couldn't happen (separately), they all stated the same thing the child in the religious documentary stated. "It's such a small change, it would make no difference" and "the world is so big that there is no way we could have an effect on it" and so on and so on.

Another interesting fact is that all my fellow employees (but one) litter to an extreme, and they all over-use the objects around them (small things like too much dish soap, keeping the water running, wasting material at work, using far too much paper towel to clean up a small mess, and so on).

That last point was not to say all religious folks do this, but that may too be a possible connection to some individuals with an anti-global warming position. This too, does not mean that all people who do not believe in global warming (or anti-abortion) are religious or because this seems like an apparent connection means that they are all incorrect. However, it does mean that there is a possible bias in their opinion due to their need to keep loyal to their faith in some way. When there is a bias, opinions tend to become warped in a way that bends facts to aid a specific cause, rather than portray a correct answer.

This makes the matter even more confusing for me as I do not see how this possibly relates to any religious individuals and their faith much like abortion may. (ps: this topic isn't about abortion or debating it. I'm simply using it as a reference to other like-wise connections)

I don't often talk about global warming for a number of reasons, mainly that I don't know enough about it to really have a strong argument behind my position. However, my opinion seems quite strong as it makes perfect sense to me how our emissions from just about anything, and how the materials we use to both make and fuel things we create and run can have a detrimental impact on our environment, ecosystem, and planet.

I'm not quite sure, really, how anyone could really think otherwise (not because I'm most definitely correct in my view, but because I simply do not know the other position and the evidence that supports it). Or - at the very least - believe otherwise to such an extreme and with such an extreme distaste for it shouting out "Are there really still people out there that believe in this nonsense!!?! Those people are CRAZY!!!"

So my question here is, why - in your opinion - is man induced global warming such an atrocious possible phenomena in your mind (to the ready who believes it does not exist).

(To the reader who believes it does exist) Why do you believe that within the other position there are a number of individuals who have such an offensive standpoint?

Out of pure curiosity, may you also state if you are religious or not? (not absolutely necessary, I'm simply curious)
edit on 2/3/13 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 12:11 PM
read up on gaia theroy that should sort your questions out
I posted in another thread an analogy using a seesaw to show how how a small amount of co2 can greatly upset the balance of the carbon cycle.

Originally posted by minor007
its not too difficult to see how small amount of man made co2 can upset the balance.

here3s how to see it... imagine a seesaw say 10 metres long and perfectly balanced. On the ends of the seesaw we have an equal amounts of co2 when one is equal to the other the seesaw is balanced but nature is not like this. at times one end of the seesaw might have more or less carbon than the other this makes the seesaw rock as one ends lowers till the other end will rise. Nature wants to balance it out but takes time to do it. Now imagine more co2 is being added to one end (this is the co2 from locked carbon that was safely underground and not part of the general carbon dioxide cycle) this throws the seesaw way off balance and one the side that has more co2 will take even longer now to reach an equilibrium. and in the meantime that co2 is not going anywhere soon.

a very simple analogy
sorry i am not going further as i am tired of trying to explain the big picture to those wearing blinkers

btw theres a very good website called skepticalscience and a very good source for debunking claims by the deniers
edit on 2-3-2013 by minor007 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 12:15 PM

As nobody will do anything REAL to curb pollution, all you really need to understand is that the only solution that will be pushed is the Carbon Credit Scam.

Yes, it is a solution to consolidate money and power that must have a problem to implement. Whatever the causes of "climate change", don't be fooled into falling for the Carbon Credit Scam solution.

Global Warming / Climate Change Hype Is All About Implementing The Carbon Credit Scam:
edit on 2-3-2013 by infolurker because: add links

edit on 2-3-2013 by infolurker because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 12:19 PM
Yes, that's exactly why I feel that it seems so obviously true. What I don't understand is the opposing position. I'm not quite sure I understand why they feel so against such an assertion. Ironically, like the radio talk show host, (although without such aggressive words) I too didn't think there was anyone who believed in the opposite position as mine... great now I feel arrogant for saying that.

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 12:20 PM
Global warming or now how is call "clima change" because the profiteers could not sell global warming when historical it doesn't show that is been made by man is a hoax to tax nations and make money

If you are good with history you will know that the last time we had an ice age was between 110 and 10 thousand years ago, before the Ice age, we have a period of warming where the arctic was actually not frozen as it is today, during that time men was just starting to populate the earth, men didn't cause the ice age at that time, so why now? because now is money to be made

Earth is a very interactive thing that will have cycles regardless of life or not life, plain and simple.

Global warming is a hoax, clima change is happening and will happen regardless is just an earth cycle.

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 12:24 PM
reply to post by Ghost147

i think the above thread proves the point lol. Goes to show how people twist the truth to meet their own truth lol

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 12:25 PM
reply to post by Ghost147

There are other theories out there. Pay attention to the graph on co2 emmisions vs temp. rise.

edit on 2-3-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 12:25 PM
reply to post by infolurker

Ah yes, that's another issue that I've noticed. It always makes be weary seeing government intervention over something that is potentially fear inducing and creating a tax-like connection to it. Any strong government action that includes getting money from their citizens puts me on high alert.

This, however, makes me even more confused. I trust the government so little that their involvement in the matter makes me question if it's real or not, or if they are simply trying to get money from citizens because it's the current hype. Ironically, you see many (if not most) politicians saying that global warming is not real, yet they want to tax carbon emissions.

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 12:29 PM
Personally, I believe the 'religion' of man made global warming is the epitome of Hubris with a capital H. The planet is not only a VERY VERY big place that man occupies a small % of, it's a place of infinitely complex systems we're barely starting to comprehend on a meaningful level.

It's worth noting that humans are starting to make a footprint ...but overall? Still a small % of this planet by physical presence.

In terms of Earth's systems which leave me saying it's Hubris to think we could break or measurably impact them, so quickly on a planetary scale? The oceans are perhaps the most critical element of Earth's climate stability.

The simple and overly basic version ..which most of us have heard variations of and makes it sound so easy to imagine pollution being cause and effect for travel and spread to other things we see in the world:

. . . compared to the actual, physical version of what is happening out there ...and how infiinitely complex it is for interaction and dependencies.

That isn't to say pollution isn't an important thing to stomp out. I don't like seeing my air or smelling my water any more than anyone else. I like the idea of dying from it, even less. Pollution is nothing to tolerate or reach a point of not working to reduce for 'acceptable' levels being reached. much damage in the pursuit of that is a fair trade? That's a fair debate.

Planetary or Globally though? (ahem) They wish. Literally, as we look to Mars, they wish they could create planetary change in any direction by deliberate and repeatable action, IMO. After all, everything we say Man is doing here for bad impact is what they'd WANT to recreate on Mars to make it livable and friendly for vegetation. (Co2 is Oxygen for plants, after all.)

I think it's also important to note, the Earth has been radically different and not that long ago. (Perhaps less than some think, too). Man had nothing to do with the last Ice age..

Previous Ice Age coverage

... Or to end it. The thing that is also worth considering is this. Earth is billions of years old, we assume. What if, by ignorance of most of that 4 billion years, we're actually at the HIGH point of Earth's cycles and habitable stage? What if bitter cold and beyond man's tolerance is actually the more normal average state over that long period? I think it's the natural cycles as the force causing change that scare scientists the most. Nothing of note could be done ...and extreme takes on ALL new meaning by what has been a factual state of our planet before.

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 12:29 PM
I don't think it's a religion.

I think it's a business model- economic predation through fear.

Do I discount the possibility of AGW? Not at all. It's just clear that too many monkeys have played with the data and made it nearly impossible to discern the truth.

Eventually, we'll get to the bottom of it.... But along that path, lot's of folks will have well-lined pockets.

edit on 2-3-2013 by loam because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 12:34 PM

Originally posted by marg6043
If you are good with history you will know that the last time we had an ice age was between 110 and 10 thousand years ago, before the Ice age, we have a period of warming where the arctic was actually not frozen as it is today, during that time men was just starting to populate the earth, men didn't cause the ice age at that time, so why now? because now is money to be made

Earth is a very interactive thing that will have cycles regardless of life or not life, plain and simple.

Global warming is a hoax, clima change is happening and will happen regardless is just an earth cycle.

Although I do agree that we have a steady record of natural-based climate change, I would say that the assertion that humans cannot have an effect now because we didn't have an effect between the Paleolithic and Mesolithic periods is rather a redundant statement due largely to the fact that not only has our population grew by billions, our ecological footprint was quite different back in the hunting/gathering days than now.

Is that not a problematic entity?

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 12:35 PM
The now renamed Global warming to Clima change is a hoax, I can never imagine how can this be linked to religion unless you are a young earth believer meaning you believe that earth is 6 thousand years old

Now we know that in earth history a warming period is the warning of an ice age.

That is what we are facing right now, while global warming is a lie and a hoax, clima change is real and happening right now.

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 12:37 PM
reply to post by Ghost147

We are more into draining resources than causing a clima change, clima change will happen regardless and will cause also more declining of resources.

No big mystery here at all.

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 12:41 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

You are right, I see this way, as the areas in the earth that were off human habitation are opened up due to melting of ice more areas will be in pristine conditions to start farming and gathering or new resources to sustain life.

Then when the ice age comes back again only a few will survive to start a new cycle of abundance.

I see it like that, no big, we are just part of the earth life and like any other species before us we can be extinct in no time to open the door for new species to thrive.

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 12:54 PM
reply to post by Ghost147

Take some time to educate yourself on the subject. That is the only way you are going to find the truth of anything, global warming or otherwise.

The only thing you will get in answer to your question here is uneducated, tired old arguments about how AGW is a scam, from people who lack the attention span to read a postage stamp.

If something is true but slightly offensive, is it still ok to say it..? Apologies if what i said upsets anyone, mods delete at your pleasure..

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 12:55 PM
reply to post by Ghost147

Just my $.02 here, but it is religious in nature, only not on the deniers side, it is religious in nature on the pro side.

1. The earth n akes more co2 in a day than man has made in its entire existance. Yet the earth can somehiw deal just fine with its own, but add even one extra drop into the ocean and boom, magically the world cant seem to deal? I call bs. No natural system is so easy toppled, if it were, we wouldnt be here, as the co2 was thiusands of tikes higher in history yet no out of control warming occcured, yet somehow because man is involved raising a barely existant trace gas by a tenthousandth of a perc ent if the end of the world? Lol ok:-D

How about the suppossed consensus, where they never polled all the scientist in the first place to even know what most thought, which means the phrase itself is bs, and anuone believing it lacking in mental faculty.

How about the fact ot was all based solely on climate models that are still to date not able to acurately able tonpredict the weather tomorrow, so how could they predict climate in hundreds of yearz, off incomplete data, fixed and cherry picked data etc....

Please one of you warmers, call me out about climate and weather being different, be cause I kmow they Re, weather is way easier to understand than climate, which is my point, they dont even have the easiest part down, pet alone the far more complicated part.

I grew up in the 80s, I was front row for this my entire 35 years so far, not one prediction has ever occured, or even beeen close.

Climate change is the new snake oil, I got some swamp land in florida for ya too, great price better get in fast before it is all gone.

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 12:57 PM
Very interesting rockymcgilicutty All of the information in the video you've posted makes much sense, this video has helped me a great deal with the additional information I was looking for, thanks the the post!

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Yes, completely agree with you. As I've posted before, I agree that the planet goes through natural climate changing cycles. But, It would not seem too obscure to say that humans are pushing that cycle to a certain degree (as you've also stated). I would also say too that it would be incorrect for me to say "man-made global warming" as you've pointed out. Where we differ may lay within in the percentage of which we are having an effect. I suppose that is the true debate.

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 01:00 PM
If anything, I would say that refusal to accept that human activities are affecting the climate to the detriment of man (and other life) is akin to religious belief.

Religion accords as supernatural explanation for observed phenomena, without need for proof. AGW is the opposite - an explanation based on scientific analysis, without preconception (whatever some may want you to think). And open always to falsification (indeed, science is all about trying to falsify what we current think to be true: the very opposite of religion).

And it's perhaps no coincidence that many of the most vocal 'deniers' - and their financial supporters - hold strong Christian religious views (I'm not aware it's the same with followers of other religions, though I may be wrong).

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 01:04 PM
reply to post by inverslyproportional

I tell you what, even when it was just a sarcastic comment about the land in Florida, you bring a very big and important point.

If the government was so worry about the "clima change" and the melting of the Arctic poles causing massive flows, why is not the governments around the globe doing something to start getting people away from the coastal easy to flood areas?

Interestingly every year people in expensive coastal areas get flooded with weather systems hitting the coast but they just get tax payer money to keep rebuilding the shores.

What a joke.

I see more of money geared scaremongering than anything else.

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 01:10 PM
reply to post by inverslyproportional

Oh ya, sorry op forgot about my views on religion, does one say anyone who believes the lies of an institution that thinks a flawed man has the ability to kick them out of heaven, or any of hundreds of other nonstarters in every religion, while adding ebough disgust and contempt for it to meet their actual fellings, without offending affor mentioned fairytell zombie folowers?

I dont know either, so I try not to discuss this, because if I do, I might convert one or several even, as I know enough dirt about all 3 of the major religions to topple all but the most zealotous followers. I am not in the business of telling others what or how to think, though at times I do enjoy pointing out how idiotic a lot of these beliefs ( climate change included) are to anyone who is smart enough to simply say" wait , god made us, then did all these miracles for cavemen, yet now when we might understand and see through those same " miracles" it is suddenly that the " time of miracles was in the past".

So in effect, ignorant savages can see miracles on the daily, that is cool, but thousands of years kater without any sign at all, we are all gonna burn, even though we get no proof at all ever? Ya right, thats the biggest heap of......see II cant do it.

So suffice to say, I am not religious in any aspect, I dont follow, especially not blindly, I make my own way through information and endeavor, I have yet to recieve a thing from god, except a bunch of ignorant answers from brainwashed masses that think they see him in everything good, and the devil in everything bad, reminds me of the oracles from ancient times, sorry meant. Drugged out hallucinating adolescents.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in