Believers in denial

Kert1

The comment was a little over-compressed...

The world can sustainably support only a billion of the likes of you and me, but ten times the number of our impoverished neighbours. Culling one of us could save ten of them.

Of course the right answer is to try and live in a substantially less greedy way over one-time only resources and get the likes of the Roman Catholic church out of trying to out-reproduce the Muslims.

"If the population needs to decline to save the maximum number of souls who would be the most effective in allowing these people a decent life?"

FLIPRIM,
I'm not sure what you are saying here but I would appreciate you just coming out and saying it. I get very nervous when people start talking about population control and the good for the maximum number of people. This almost certainly means that certain people will be suffering greatly and has often led to genocide.

Excellent article once again, Ms Kirby. For those wondering where sea levels might be rising at a level to cause real concern, look no further than Kiribati.

Wow, PK. Its like the evidence comes to you. Respect.

"I am very skeptical of man made global warming and I will give some good reasons why as a Christian."

Come clean, Paula, you posted this didn't you? No? I knew you didn't. You don't have a personal opinion to defend. You go with the scientific consensus based on the corroborated evidence of the world's climatologists. (Oh, when will they discover God's clear word on the issue???)

Kert 1

Those third world nations need not stay in poverty. If the population needs to decline to save the maximum number of souls who would be the most effective in allowing these people a decent life? Maybe the most squandering, outrageously selfish people on the planet need to do the "Christian" thing and come to their senses. That's you and me mister.

KERT1,

congratulations. Your five points add 5 exclaimation marks to the end of Kirby's piece. Obviously it was unintentional but nonetheless good job!!!!!

It’s odd that 10 years ago we also had less than 10 years to change before disaster was eminent. I also kind of remember some other impending disasters that are a little overdue. Maybe they should happen soon.
This seems like the normal article that puts down your opponents without understanding or explaining why you disagree with them. Of course, her science is correct and everyone else’s is wrong. She also pigeonholes all Christians into beliefs that I don’t hold to. You can easily find ignorant people to, who don’t understand things well, and win an argument. I much more respect people who at least confront the real arguments and respect them with intelligent answers. There are good points on both sides and they should be addressed.

With the recent revelation that many climate scientists may have less than honest, the Global Warming Alarmists are reeling a little. This is good. We should see if there is any real basis for what they have been presenting. I am very skeptical of man made global warming and I will give some good reasons why as a Christian.

1. As Christians we worship the Creator, not the creation. This has always separated believers, since the beginning of time. We marvel in the creation and we protect it because we are supposed to but we don’t become overly concerned as things change. Creation will change over time and this should not be a problem. If global temperatures change, this is natural and to be expected. We should not be alarmed by this alone.
2. People are the most important thing. We are not only part of creation (aka the environment), we are the most important part. All other concerns are a distant second. All concerns over change to the environment should be viewed in how they relate to humanity. We will certainly affect our environment and this is not in itself a problem.
3. There are many scientists who don’t believe that global warming is a problem or is real. We know we aren’t living in the warmest time in history and we should view these things in their entirety. If people want us to believe in global warming they need more facts and less insults.
4. Solutions should not prevent progress or oppress poor nations. Telling third world nations they must stay in poverty to prevent global warming is not a good option. It is possible global warming may cause harm (although we need proof). Preventing nation from becoming modern will hurt people. There is no doubt.
5. There is currently no way to limit green house gasses the way climate scientists want without decreasing the population. This is scary to think about and scarier that many people are trying to do this. This relates directly back to point 2.

Climate freaks don't need to panic. Oil will become obsolete whether we like it or not. New cleaner and cheaper technologies will replace it sooner than you think.

Man's stupidity will destroy half of mankind. Not the climate.

Here's a fact climate freaks should know :

In the winter time the ocean around Antarctica freezes for thousands of miles in all directions.

When all these ocean ice melts, sea elevation will subside. Plain and simple.

If measurements point that sea level is rising, it's is probably because it's getting colder in Antartica. Somebody could be tampering with temperature data there.

Hi Farnaz,

Thanks and Merry Christmas :)

Paula Kirby doesn't have it exactly right. For one thing, there is a younger generation of evangelicals who have broken with their elders on the subject of environmentalism, who see caring for the Earth as an example of Christian stewardship.

It would be more accurate to say of those evangelicals who oppose environmentalism that, in the words of C. S. Lewis, they have accorded to their merely political views the same level of certitude usually accorded to their faith. They've succumbed to that temptation to the extent that they've lost the ability to disentangle their religious beliefs from their political prejudices. And, unhappily, they're perfectly content with that.

Spidermean,

Is that you, Spiderman? Long time! Miss you on Jacoby's thread, where believers are outnumbered by hysterical atheists like yours truly. Your fellows in faith could use a hand!

Stop by when you have a moment, but pleez try not to call folks "stupid." Rightly or wrongly, you know how they get. :0

Regards,
Farnaz

I am sure that here are a few fundamentalists whose use magical thinking for almost every moment of decision. The original protestant reformers decried such thinking as Catholic “popery.” Of course what most people call science is just a rigorous form of decision making that we all apply every day. I don’t think that fundamentalists walk in to busy traffic or off high pediments, solely trusting God to keep them safe. They make conjectures based on observations just like the rest of humanity.

But the modern scientific establishment seems to have become a power center of a social and political force that they deem hostile to their values. The commercial goods that science has provided have engendered the emancipation of people who might not have had such choices in earlier generations.

If you adhere to an ideology that cannot tolerate questioning, any outside mode of thinking based on questioning has to be viewed as innately hostile. This dismissal invites the dismissal from others. For me though, the real question is why do the defenders of science take that bait? Does Paula Kirby really think that she can change someone else’s mind through ridicule and name calling? Maybe a little charity on her part would show why St. Paul called it the greatest gift, ahead of faith and hope.

From TheOneFisher:

"I appreciate your opinion, but the facts don't support it. The polar ice caps have been thickening for almost 4 years now. The temperature has not increased since 2000."

I could not agree more with you've clearly stated.
Thank God for the Communist,they are not nearly so naive and guillible as our confused Sunday Christians. The Ones lost in Medieval Europe are as much a conundrum as the Dalia Lama running a theocratic serf institution for hundreds of years. Then espousing his love for democracy, whilst he is charged with Religious Persection in the Indian High Courts for persecuting the D

A well-written piece. Too well-written, in fact, as I was trying my best not to think about what an uphill climb this country (and hence, world) faces in combatting this threat given how prevalent these 15th-century-resident people are in our country.

But it is a childish mindset that all the deniers have, regardless of whether they cling to a Bronze Age book for their comfort. The religion-based deniers believe that "daddy in heaven will do what's right for us" and we don't have to grow up and take responsibility down here. The secular right wing is equally childish. Their attitude is "okay, maybe it really is happening, but I'll let someone else make the changes in lifestyle because ain't nobody gonna take away my PWECIOUS Chevy Suburban."

So, it's a maturity issue on both sides of the conservative nutcase wing in this country.

Here here. great article.

If the Palinesque fundies put even a minisule amount of the same type of evidential thought into their religion as they do about AGW then they would surely come to the conclusion that virgons can not have kids and that snakes can not talk. The story thus is bogus.

Consistency is all we ask for really.

The major problem is that absurdly large numbers of fundamentalists take literally the admonition in Genesis that they should "subdue the earth" and see no reason to show stewardship of the earth for future generations because they believe that the world is going to come to an end soon so there won't be future generations and that it is their responsibility to hasten it. The fact that they tend to believe in a Calvinist gospel of prosperity, which calls for them to exploit whatever and whomever they can, simply builds in to this.

James G. Watt, Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Interior, deserves the credit for epitomizing this psychopathology. A Pentacostalist, James Watt resisted setting land aside for conservation and in fact advocated opening about 125,000 square miles of public land to exploitation. He was also notorious for refusing to add to the Endangered Species list. He is reported as having said, "“We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand.” His boss, Ronald Reagan, of course, notoriously said, "Trees cause air pollution."

It is very convenient for fundamentalists that they can rationalize their greed and selfishness with their theology.

I appreciate your opinion, but the facts don't support it. The polar ice caps have been thickening for almost 4 years now. The temperature has not increased since 2000.

Maybe the reason people don't believe in global warming is because it isn't happening. It's a liberal farce to build a bigger government and take away more of your freedoms.

FORREST3 ~ Sarah's opponents are, of course, people of low character.

I'd like to call your attention to the pukes who attacked her baby.

You people have got a lot of crud to clean up first ~ and I don't care what you do to them, but it's your problem not mine.

Good grief, what an uninformed person. The head of the UN's IPCC is a devotee of an incredibly "fundamentalist" Hindu sect that believes that the "Sun(god)" is immutable and unchangeable.

Under his administration the IPCC issued a report (based on virtually no evidence of any kind) that variations in energy from the Sun have no effect on Earth temperatures or other climate variables.

He also let Climategate spiral out of control, and even Dr Hansen at NASA is telling us it would be better to simply cancel the Copenhagen event and REDO the science.

'nuf said about "fundies".

Now, what about uninformed opinion leaders published in the WarshPost ~ don't they owe it to their readers to keep up to date on climatological theories.

BTW, there are plenty of climate models out there that report all sorts of dire outcomes, but they depend on now questionable coding structures (that fudge the data) as well as now questionable source data ~

With Antarctica showing ever more ice and the Arctic sea-ice clearly on the way back, the polar ice caps are certainly not melting before our very eyes.

Nor are vast stretches of low-lying land being reclaimed by the rising seas ~ in fact, vast stretches of low-lying land is still on the way UP rebounding from the loss of its more normal 2 mile deep ice sheet.

What bothers me most about our opinionists thoughts is that he's telling us that more and more species are teetering on the brink of extinction as they find themselves ill adapted to the changing environment around them.

A recent major study of the horse genome (with comparisons to SNPs in zebra and asses)(in the same genus) reveals that there've been only a handful of horse species, and that as far as anyone can tell with the available source materials horses, if they "evolve" at all, change strictly within species ~ and those changes can be enormous. Check Science News for Dec 5 2009.

All at once it's seen as probable that failure to adapt is probably not why a species goes extinct ~ and there goes the old DEMIGOD of "Natural Selection".

BTW, the horse and human genomes are 90% congruent (according to the same sources) ~ which was surprising.

So, is not global warming a kook religion?

It's times like this that fundamentalists seem scarier than usual. The delusions about the latest Y2K ("End-Times" in 2012) can at least provide material for comedians. But the denial of climate change makes them even more dangerous. Since the days of James Watt, it has been fundie chic to say that the environment doesn't matter because the big return is coming anyway. PLEASE pass health care reform so these people can get medication.

...I beleive in global warming

Really, "believing in .." global warming .. how is that different from believing in anything? This is what the fundamenatalist christians do, the funamentalist muslims, the True Believers of any kind.

Believing in such things, as opposed to studying, learning, researching ... arguing the evidence for and against ... the climate changes for natural reasons. The number of volcanoes spewing carbon dioxides and sulfuric acids, the movement of tectonic plates changing the ocean currents, the precession of the equinoxes, the elliptical orbit of our planet ... all such things affecting the Thermohaline Circulation of ocean currents on our planet ...

Let us be cognizant of the kind of language we choose to use in this war of ideas. If we use "beliefs", as the fundamentalist christians do, they can turn this into a holy war. Holy wars are won, generally, by those with the best weapons, the best generals, the largest number of adherents - matters complete separate and distinct from the intelligence of the arguments for / against.

Facts and evidence, methods of inquiry, all the empirical methods we understand .. let us argue the data instead.

Do not fall into the "belief" trap as the fundamentalist dol.

Global warming is cool. It's His pad and he can do what He wants with his thermostat. Nothing to wuwwy about, he'll turn it down in a bit and we'll have a nice ice age. That'd be really cool. Besides, a lot of christians are looking a bit pale these days.

I checked the internet. Last year, sea levels rose less than 3 millimeters. This may be significant. But it hardly reflects "low-lying land is already being reclaimed by the rising seas."

Why does debate in this country have to reject any nuance or complexity? Why is everbody skewing the truth to exaggerate their point?

This writer is as far from the truth on the left as Palin is from the right. She skims over the facts so she can get to her real point -- attack the character of her opponents. Yeesh!

LET'S ASK YOUR CEO, JESUS H. CHRIST HIS OPINION. NO ANSWER. FUNDALMENTALISTS, DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE WITH YOUR LIVES, LIKE ENDING THEM.

What "low-lying land is already being reclaimed by rising seas?"

I may be wrong, but this strikes me as an almost hysterical exaggeration. I beleive in global warming, but misrepresenting the facts only hurts the cause.

Scientists can gather, analyze, and share data, and if it's warranted, change their minds and move on from there.

Fundamentalists, however, by their very nature, cannot change their views--to them that would disqualify them as Christians. So arguing with them is futile, and therefore frustrating as h*ll. As a teacher, it's really hard for me to let them reside in their ignorance.

I'm grateful to those of you here--believers, skeptics, or whatever--who are trying to provide a reasoned, fair-minded debate.

Excellent job by Paula. It's important to recognize actual reality -- not the pretend kind -- because that is where we actually live. I'm sure this makes the fundamentalists see red, but it's time to start moving back in the direction of paying attention to science and the real world in which we live.

"This is really a thoughtless, shallow post. Pathetic, in fact."

And an equally empty comment to match your view of the post.

Skinner, how DO you sustain an anti science belief system, specifically amongst the majority of climate scientists?

How is it that the majority of a country with the most energy squandering population can collectively see so clearly, that carbon dioxide's thermal opaqueness has no consequences, whatsoever? The educational standards here are, clearly, pretty darned impressive for the general public. Pitiful for the scientists, though. Shame.

Do you imagine for a minute that these fundamentalists, given a sufficiently charismatic preacher, wouldn't gather together in torch-carrying mobs to set fire to the climate scientists, the evolutionists, the atheists who are promoting this concern?

These people are capable of swallowing whole the most barbaric, primitive beliefs of their ridiculous religion. This is incontrovertible proof of their insanity.

Why should we listen to them, why should we pay attention to anything they have to say?

There are a lot of them, but the ignorant peasantry have always outnumbered the educated, the intelligent, the thinking few.

Let us not simply naturally select ourselves out of existence, in the name of "tolerance", in the mistaken idea that giving all voices an equal moment of attention is giving all ideas and equal moment of validity.

I have to agree with the previous poster bemoaning the southerner's victory in the civil war. Most of the fundamentalists are ignorant white trash living in the old confederacy. If only they could break off into their own theocracies, into their own madrassas, their own talibans ... the world would be a better place, and we would have a better chance at survival.

Religion, particularly fundamentalist religion, is a sickness, a disease, as surely fatal in the end as the black death.

"What is interesting here, is that those who are naturally skeptical, who don't believe any religion on faith no matter who is trying to shove it down their throat, those same folks buy the the who AGW thing hook line and sinker. There is zippy skepticism on the AGW issue."

No, we don't buy the whole AGW thing. No scientist does. Because there is no "AGW thing". There are many strands of evidence pointing towards AGW, and many ways of modelling exactly how it works and the possible outcomes. That is why there is a "consensus" on AGW and not a "dogma".

So, there isn't "an AGW thing" that we "buy". We look at the trend of many, many, thousands of research papers and the summaries of the views of thousands of scientists and the reports of major professional organisations. We may be more skeptical of a view presented by few scientists (very low and very high temperature rises). We may be far less skeptical of a view that is presented by many (rises of a 4-5 degrees over the next century). What we think may be the truth varies as new data is obtained, new models are run, and new reports are produced. That is the way healthy skepticism should work.

The AGW denier is not skeptical - they flatly reject all of this work: all the models, all the different views, all the different strands of evidence. That's quite a lot of rejection.

"Amazing. Lets see, 35000 folks flying to a hot conference spot to promote some end of the world idea that they stand to benefit from and wala, the world is ending. It's crazy."

Perhaps you think a more effective conference could be held by the use of carrier pigeons sent to and from darkened caves? Because any CO2 usage involved in discussing this matter renders the whole business pointless?

We can examine the post of Spidermean2 as a fine example of fundamentalist-think:

Assuming the whole north or south pole area melt (which won't happen of course), sea elevation would subside simply because a melted ice occupies less volume than it is on its frozen state.

Notice how he understands the unusual attribute of water - that its solid is less dense than it's liquid, unusual to be sure. Notice also how he completely misses the fact that most of the water locked up in ice in the southern hemisphere occurs on the continent of Antarctica - land.

If all the ice in antarctica melted, it would not be floating ice that melted. It would add to the average sea level because its water is currently not involved in the current sea level - other than removing available planetary water.

How did he miss this fact? How is it that he was able to identify one attribute of ice and water, but miss the fact that the ice in antarctica is not part of the current sea level?

Because he is more interested in stepping on his political enemies than he is in dealing with facts. He is more interested in crapping on evolutionists and other non-believers which keep him up at night, muttering into his beer.

This is what is happening with the fundamentalists. They are more interested in defeating the hated liberals than they are in paying attention to facts, to data.

A subjective examination of the data leads to such disparate opinions as expressed by the progressives (liberals) and the conservative fundamenalists.

An objective examination of the data is beyond both of these groups, they have no objectivity. Unfortunately for humanity, the fundamentalists are willing to kill you for believing differently than they - the liberals are pansies who are only going to call you names.

It's not likely to happen in our lifetimes .. and the fundies think this is the last generation as they always do, so why should they pay attention to all those atheist scientists?

The fundies are going to bring about the armageddon they so desparately want - but it will be our grandchildren who will be suffering it, not today's fundies.

What kind of garbage is this? No discussion whatsoever of the reality of eco-fundamentalist belief structures, you know, the dirt worshipping high-priest/ess sorts who worship in Nature's Cathedral and therefore seek to expunge unbelievers from the holy temple?
This is really a thoughtless, shallow post. Pathetic, in fact.

"Extremists on both sides--the Paula Kirbys and the Sarah Palins--really have nothing to contribute to solving the climate change problem."

It is a common arguing tactic to suggest that two sides of an argument are extreme and reasonableness is somewhere in the middle.

That is just not the case here. On one side of the argument are thousands of experts whose careers have been spent researching climate change, and professional bodies whose reputations depend on the quality of their opinions on scientific matters. On the other side is Sarah Palin and others who have no expertise and yet feel somehow that their personal opinions outweigh the those of the thousands of experts and professional bodies. The truth is not somewhere between Palin and the researchers: Palin's views have no scientific weight at all.

Kirby is not being extreme. She is right to call to account those who reject the scientific and rational view of the world when it suits them, and to point out how this is a general problem with the mindset of fundamentalist religion. When the issue is as important as climate change, there should be no tolerance for such arbitrary and arrogant rejection of the scientific understanding of our world.

"I also notice that her angst seems more to be about her Godless view v others' Godly view,"

Freemarketer, I think you'll find, when you actually read the article, that Paula Kirby specifically targets the fundamentalist mindset and not simply "the Godly". Having done that I'm sure you'll want to amend your position.

Many religious people take an otherwise rational view of many matters of science. Al Gore for one.

"Extremists on both sides--the Paula Kirbys and..."

Wow. Siding with the scientific consensus gets you called an extremist. Extraordinary logic there.

jtc2006 care to explain this apparent nonsense?

jtc2006 writes re "the extremists need to collaborate on this one.

Hurray for a little wise logic in this tangle of name calling.

From PERMAGRIN:

"What is interesting here, is that those who are naturally skeptical, who don't believe any religion on faith no matter who is trying to shove it down their throat, those same folks buy the the who AGW thing hook line and sinker."

That is simply because there is no objective evidence for the truth of religion, whereas, there is objective scientific evidence for the truth of AGW. You can educate yourself about the general facts; start here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo

Extremists on both sides--the Paula Kirbys and the Sarah Palins--really have nothing to contribute to solving the climate change problem. Both of them primarily indulge in name calling--a self-satisfied smirking attitude that displays disdain for anyone not 100 percent on their extreme and often perverted side. Climate change needs secularists and believers to work together for the common good. Let's just lock Kirby and Palin in a room somewhere and let them fight it out for the championship of extremism while the rest of us get down to business! (And just maybe, WP and the rest of the media, how about covering more constructive opinions--and leave Kirby and Palin to the realms of YouTube).

The faithists and other such unthinkers approach the world through their bible, through their religion. All things pass through this moron filter before it gets into their head.

So they assume that everybody is using a moron filter to see the world, just as they are. of course the scientists are using the "wrong" moron filter, but nevertheless it's still a filter.

Guess what morons, though there are plenty of your favorite-people-to-hate liberals who have grabbed onto this climate change crisis as a means to feel superior to you (you understand how that works), they are not the people to be listening to.

You idiots have made this a part of the culture war you declared. For you to admit any validity to the scientist's arguments on this issue would be tantamount to admitting defeat in one of your silly, juvenile culture war battles.

Do you really wonder why people think you are iditos? I suppose not, it's beyond you.

alance wrote:
"It is clear they oppose free thinking and skeptical inquiry."

On the contrary. Free thinking and skeptical inquiry are the driving forces of science... provided the inquiry comes from someone who knows enough about the subject to ask knowledgeable questions. The problems start when armchair climatologists start making a fuss about climate change not being real when they don't actually know anything about it.

"They act like petulant children who think they are smarter than everybody else."

And what are you doing right now?

While many Christian believers--including me--find this harsh rhetoric from a "former Christian" secularist to be offensive, I also notice that her angst seems more to be about her Godless view v others' Godly view, and how so many could hold the believers' view.

That would be a view that an Intelligent Designer might (believing in faith) have his created peoples in mind to supremely protect them, and that he is the supreme protector of the earth they live on, for which He designed it. That also includes ecosystems, political systems, etc.

My sense is that the God-shaped hole in the writer's heart is yearning for her to find faith in Him again.

That won't happrn until she sheds the human-focus / self-focus that she exudes in this vain worldview.

"Latest analysis suggests that we have less than ten years in which to start reversing the rise in carbon emissions if we are to avert real catastrophe."

Oh come on, I thought you were smart skeptical people. Really? The latest analysis? Unlike the past ones where we only have "x years to act!" or "in 3 years we'll be past the point of no return!". Sorry, for a bunch of smug atheists you sure bought the Goracles teachings worse than a child being told about the virgin birth. So 10 years eh, we have 10 now. It's going to stay at 10 right? That's the final analysis that you smart skeptics will use right? In 10.5 years we can stop hearing about what to do since it's too late right? right? sorry guys, the world is ending fad has passed.

What is interesting here, is that those who are naturally skeptical, who don't believe any religion on faith no matter who is trying to shove it down their throat, those same folks buy the the who AGW thing hook line and sinker. There is zippy skepticism on the AGW issue. Amazing. Lets see, 35000 folks flying to a hot conference spot to promote some end of the world idea that they stand to benefit from and wala, the world is ending. It's crazy.

I cringe every time our pastor digresses into global warming, which has averaged about every third Sunday since the last Presidential election. As "red meat" for most of his mega-church congregation, it's a sure fire winner for him to milk it for all it is worth. Personally, I am sick of it. What ever happened to the Gospel? I go to church to worship the Lord, not for political commentary. I can get all of that I want on the WP. The only reason I continue to attend there is because my wife believes that church it "it."

" ...This means that rejecting Gore's arguement was a knee jerk response for many fundamentalists and other political conservatives... "

Tell us how anything the fundamenalists do is anything but knee-jerk response?

This is your problem, as a "moderate" christian. You have to defend the fantasies of the nutcases on your right in order to support your own fantasies.

And what are you asking here, that we ignore the damage these people are causing to our ability to determine facts from fancy, simply because they are too stupid to separate the message from the messenger?

The right doesn't believe in global warming,but they claim to be pro life, but favor the death penalty and of course war in Iraq . So yes I agree that they are childish in their logic.

This article is very unfair to fundamentalist Christians and needlessly polarizing in order to be provacative. Shame on the WAPO for letting such shallow and stereotypical analysis into your forum.

I am a progressive to liberal Christian, and I have my share of disagreements with my fundamentalist bretheren...but this article is filled with sweeping generalizations about fundamentalist Christians.
There are many reasons why fundamentalists have gone wrong on AGW, or creation care as many Christians are now terming green issues.

In part it is simple, fundamentalists rejected enviro ideas because they associated them with other counterculture movements of the 60's that they opposed: civil rights, feminism, the sexual revolution, drug culture, etc.

For better or worse, AGW in the US is associated with former veep Al Gore. This means that rejecting Gore's arguement was a knee jerk response for many fundamentalists and other political conservatives.

We are God's children, right? And every parent expects their children to GROW UP, right? And every parent teaches their children, guides their intelligence, and eventually steps back so they can survive on their own, right? So why do Christians want to be children FOREVER? Do they not realize God gave us brains and intelligence to GROW UP and venture forth, to other worlds, into the universe, to take care of our OWN home? Its just stupidity to think God will take care of us forever when He has given us the brain and tools to expand and "go forth". We always love our parents, but we must become "adults" eventually.

I am a skeptic of all types of manure, from the right or left, up or down, or green or brown.

The more the "experts" behave in a condescending and strident fashion - the more they fail the smell test.

For the moment, AGW fails the smell test. Give me more convincing, impartial data and perhaps I'll buy into your prophecies. Don't bet the farm.

Great article. Always refreshing (perhaps sadly so) to hear someone speak the truth, particularly on this issue.

Dear Ms. Kirby, I truly understand that many of the religious belief systems (and this is not retricted to Christianity)prevelant in the world have many childish charactoristics. That millions of people cling to these beliefs and fight tooth and nail against those who contradict their beliefs. In the case of man made climate changes many of these beliefs put billions at risk. But still I would ask that you not be so harsh with them. Not all can live without the idea that God does look after us and has promised not to destroy us again. Without such a promise life would be too uncertain and too fearfull for too many. My wife is one such person. While not even Christian or fundementalist of any kind the thought that her only daughter might not have a world to bring her own children into would paralyze her with fear. It is only by the belief that God has promised a world for her daughter that life can go on. Nothing can change that. It is what it is. In any case such criticisms are unlikely to change anyone mind. Has anyone ever changed your mind when they threaten fire and brimstone at you?
Bearing in mind the complexity of the climate models, their susceptability to small changes in the initial conditions and the enormous amount of unknown variables (this would known from past models) that are not included in the initial conditions I strongly suspect the 10 year window in which we have to act is inaccurate. I think you'll find life is extremely robust as a whole. Still, we shouldn't be putting so much pressure and take so much for granted from the environment in which we live.

Excellent, straightforward, TRUTHFUL article.

Downside? Sorry, the exponential growth of the human population is past the point of no return - except through immigration wars, pestilence, destructive weather and famine.
Oh, there will be survivors, but civilization will be in upheaval AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY SECOND COMING - WHICH IS FUNDAMENTALISTS' B.S.

ALANCE once more opines:

”As good stewards of this Earth, climate skeptics don't believe in giving away their property and the fruits of their labor to professional "do-gooders" for the latest fad.

It is a myth that climate skeptics and environmentalists are mutually exclusive. If you believe the rantings of Al Gore and Paula Kirby - you are a sucker for doomsday prophecy and will not permit any heresy. With them - it is an all or nothing belief system.”

Logical thinking not your strong suit I see. Whatever Al Gore or Paula Kirby says on the science is not the important thing. The important thing for non-experts (like you) is what the scientific consensus is. Do you talk this way about the germ theory of disease or that HIV causes AIDS? Are these belief systems too?

Having been once on the inside gives one the perspective to criticize or not. So that Ms. Kirby was once a Christian only reflects that she probably has some knowledge of Christianity and believing, even if she now is neither a Christian nor a believer. In any case, we don't know much about what she might be.

I could almost agree with the person who wishes the American South would go its own way. And my familial lines go long and strong and deep from North Carolina to South Carolina to Georgia to Alabama and Mississippi and then on and settled in Oklahoma. But there's a reason I've never considered living in any of the above.

What, oh what, happened to the day when one's faith was considered a private matter? I get so damned tired of all these "public" believers insisting on trying to impose their beliefs and taboos on the rest of us. When I was in high school, the fundamentalist girls didn't wear lipstick ... that was the only way to tell who was who.

And I'm certainly old enough to see that some of the climate changes the scientists talk about have happened. Already. Shall I dismiss what my eyes see? I may not know or understand exactly all the causes, but I can certainly see the change being talked about.

I wish to find a million dollars; that doesn't mean I believe a million dollars is waiting around somewhere for me to find. Sometimes, some of the claims made by believers seem an awful lot like the above ... there may be a god or a deity (who knows by what name or what form or even no form) ... but that falls into the realm of belief not certainty just like my faith that I shall find a million dollars under a rock somewhere.

Posted by: dummypants
it should be noted that warmists display as many traits of religious belivers [sic] than [sic] those people the author so eagerly denigrates.
=============================
With the notable exception that "warmists" have scientific, verifiable fact on their side. Religious believers have faith alone and no evidence (or they trot out "evidence" that can be easily explained by scientific observation).

Do some non-religious realists get snotty and believe themselves better than the faithful? Probably.
Is it right? Probably not. After all, those of us who don't believe in God and trust science don't appreciate being criticized as being wrong; we shouldn't be hypocritical and commit the same offense against the faithful.

There are a large number of believers who also understand the realities of science and are finding ways to blend the two together, and realize the lunacy of demeaning the faithful and belittling religions.

There are also a large number of secular/scientific types who understand the spiritual benefits of faith and don't make a career out of lambasting religion.

But ultimately, the motives and/or behavioral problems of either side do not have any sort of impact on the realities of global warming.

Just because a handful of atheists are spiteful towards religion doesn't mean they are wrong, only that they are going about it the wrong way.

Posted by: alance
"As a radical atheist, it is Paula Kirby's mission in life to attack and ridicule religion and to seek new converts to her cause. These spawn of Madeleine Murray O'Hare appear almost everyday in the pages of the Post.
They call themselves freethinkers, advocate skeptical inquiry and are professional deniers of a supreme being - except when it comes to AGW: anthropogenic (i.e. allegedly caused by humans) global warming.
It is clear they oppose free thinking and skeptical inquiry. They love to try and turn the tables on believers and call them deniers. Nothing gives them a greater rush. They act like petulant children who think they are smarter than everybody else. In most cases they are empty, shallow frauds."
==================================
Alance, your post is a classic example of the mindset Kirby is referring to:

Your assessment of Kirby's character and motives do NOTHING to prove or disprove global warming, or fundamentalist Christianity's view of the same.
You're attacking the author, but aren't addressing the point that's being made.

You're also accusing her of tactics that were practically invented by the religious right - zealotry, ignorance, intolerance.
Some of us don't need those heavy-handed tools to be correct and convince others that we are correct - we let the facts speak for themselves.
But of course, when you have rose-colored glasses on, you can't imagine that there is a world that isn't tinged with red, so I guess you can be forgiven for assuming that everyone must think like you.

So, if nothing else, you've proven Kirby is right. Thanks for the validation!

Dummypants says:

”it should be noted that warmists display as many traits of religious belivers than those people the author so eagerly denigrates.”

No they don’t. But the deniers do display the same trait as creationists and AIDS deniers. That is, thinking they know better than the experts in the field.

Remember, the ability of the fundamentalists to use reason is already suspect. After all, look at the insane nonsense they already believe.

To attempt to discuss anything with them requiring logic, proof, analysis ... thinking ... is a waste of time. All we can do is attempt to minimize their ability to do any more damage. Argument is pointless.

Remember, they are insane.

ALANCE said:

“They call themselves freethinkers, advocate skeptical inquiry and are professional deniers of a supreme being - except when it comes to AGW: anthropogenic (i.e. allegedly caused by humans) global warming.”

Indeed, likewise they do it when it comes to evolution, germ theory of disease, general relativity, the principle of vaccination, etc. They accept these things because they understand what the scientific method is, and when there is a consensus that AGW is true, the reasonable thing to do is accept the expert advice. Just like we do with all the many other scientific discoveries. This really is not rocket science.

You then say:

“It is clear they oppose free thinking and skeptical inquiry. They love to try and turn the tables on believers and call them deniers..”

Firstly, No it is not clear at all. That is what you do as a non-expert when you go onto some blog site by someone claiming to have found holes in the scientific consensus and just accept what they tell you and their conclusions. Or when you hear that a few maverick scientists disagree with the consensus and decide to just believe them, despite most of them having received funds from energy and oil companies. It is not an example of free thinking and sceptical enquiry to get on a plane and start disagreeing with the pilot over how best to fly the jet if you yourself are not a pilot. This is what you are doing by thinking you know better than the scientific consensus.

Secondly, there are no tables to turn. The “accepters” of AGW are simply criticising non-experts in climate science for thinking it is reasonable to think you are in a position to disagree over the conclusions of the experts. Just as someone would do to those who don’t accept evolution is true, and those who don’t accept that AIDS is caused by HIV.

And finaly:

“They act like petulant children who think they are smarter than everybody else. In most cases they are empty, shallow frauds.”

No, they think that the climate scientists are smarter than everyone else when it comes to climate science. Just like pilots know more about piloting than non-pilots and virologists know more than non-virologists about HIV and AIDS. The recognition of this fact is the very opposite of a petulant child who thinks that they know best, in fact this analogy is far better suited to yourself, who not only sounds petulant but also demonstrates that you think you know better than the majority of climate experts.

Spidermean, tell us about the forumla you use to prove your gods exist. c'mon, show us all what a genius you really are, how you know it all and nobody else does.

You have to love the two-model approach these religious fanatics use to see the world. There's creationism, and there's science. It's christian creationism too, none of the other myths need apply.

Any time they can find a way to not accept something from science, it proves their creationist crap. How's that for motivation?

As good stewards of this Earth, climate skeptics don't believe in giving away their property and the fruits of their labor to professional "do-gooders" for the latest fad.

It is a myth that climate skeptics and environmentalists are mutually exclusive. If you believe the rantings of Al Gore and Paula Kirby - you are a sucker for doomsday prophecy and will not permit any heresy. With them - it is an all or nothing belief system.

"...Assuming the whole north or south pole area melt (which won't happen of course), sea elevation would subside simply because a melted ice occupies less volume than it is on its frozen state. ..."

Man, you are truly stupid. Most of the ice in antarctica is on LAND you fool, a mile thick, and much of the ice in the north is on Greenland.

Don't confuse fundamentalism with greed.

Too many greedy people use the bible as a justification for their greed.

What I can't understand is why, even if people doesn't believe global warming is happening, they are so dismissive of the solutions: replanting forest, reducing fossil fuel use, and cleaning up emissions from their combustion, when all of these practices contribute to the common good regardless of climate implications. Cleaner air means fewer respiratory diseases and premature deaths. More trees mean more renewable building products. Conservation helps ensure that fossil fuels will be available for future generations. With all the grumbling about the burden environmentally friendly practices place on business, the fact is that these technologies create jobs, and lucrative incentives are available for companies that adopt them.

I have actually seen people get angry when I suggest that we do some aggressive reforestation! What's up with that?

dummypants, the "warmists" you so glibly label do not base their opinions on any belief system, it is based on scientifically VERIFIABLE data...
And if I understand your religion (please, PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong) we were put on this Earth not just to go forth and multiply, but also to be good stewards of this Earth and take care of it and love it like all of God's creations, yet where Global Warming is concerned your idea of good stewardship is burying your heads in the sand... implying that your ignoring or denying God's Will.

As a radical atheist, it is Paula Kirby's mission in life to attack and ridicule religion and to seek new converts to her cause. These spawn of Madeleine Murray O'Hare appear almost everyday in the pages of the Post.

They call themselves freethinkers, advocate skeptical inquiry and are professional deniers of a supreme being - except when it comes to AGW: anthropogenic (i.e. allegedly caused by humans) global warming.

It is clear they oppose free thinking and skeptical inquiry. They love to try and turn the tables on believers and call them deniers. Nothing gives them a greater rush. They act like petulant children who think they are smarter than everybody else. In most cases they are empty, shallow frauds.

The reason why the north and south poles are covered with ice is because less sun reaches them. That is not about to change.
****
However, an ice cube will still melt in the dark if the ambient air temperature is above 32.

You might want to rethink your argument.

"Assuming the whole north or south pole area melt (which won't happen of course), sea elevation would subside simply because a melted ice occupies less volume than it is on its frozen state."

What is it with climate change deniers and thinking they are scientists because they remember one fact from middle school? Of course we know that if an ice cube melts inside a class of water the over all volume will not increase. But if I dump in ice cubs from outside the cup it will. Same goes with ice caps. Ice that is floating in water will not raise sea levels when it melts. But ice which is on land (like many polar ice sheets are) will melt and fall into the ocean, thus adding to the overall quantity of water in the cceans.

Adding water which is not in the oceans, but frozen on land, will have the same net effect as on water levels as adding CO2 which is buried under ground (in the form of oil and coal) to the atmosphere. The net effect of adding a substance the atmosphere or oceans depends on where the substance comes from. Much of the water and C02 we add has not been in the oceans or atmoshpere for millions of years. Thus, relative to our experience of Earth, we are having a net effect on both.

The author is spot on.
Just as Galileo's observation of Jupiter's moons threatened the Catholic Church's earth-centric universe, so the observations of meteorological services around the world threaten the Rapture-centred historical narrative of the religious fundamentalists.

Tens of millions of Americans are convinced that history is really all about fulfilling what they claim are biblical prophecies, such as bringing a massive war to the Middle East, rebuilding King David's Greater Israel, finding and defeating the AntiChrist etc. That done, all the Southern Baptists will fly up to Heaven to sit at God's side -- and all the liberals, foreigners, gays, Muslims, Jews etc will be consigned to an eternity of naked hot-poker torture for the crime of not being evangelical Christians.

Vast numbers of evangelicals expect this to happen in their own lifetime. This is what they believe, this is what they want, and no scientist is going to take it away from them by insisting that humanity's real drama concerns the emission of some goddamned gas.

It's because global warming competes with their cherished End Time scenario that they attack it with such religious fervour, with all the hatred they'd exhibit towards a rival cult.

it should be noted that warmists display as many traits of religious belivers than those people the author so eagerly denigrates.

To the fundamentalist creationists that want to interpret the bible literally, some advice, stay out of the world of Caesar. You sacrifice your innocent child like Abraham, I want you jailed for murder. Your commit genocide and take sex slaves as in Deuteronomy and I want you in front of the Hague. You want a child's science teacher to tell them not to use carbon dating, fossils, etc. and you should be arrested for contributing to the ignorance of a minor. Had Thomas Payne known about photo-synthesis he would have been an atheist instead of a deist. Religion does put a moral restraint on greed and exploitation, while helping the poor worldwide, but has also been harmful through war and persecution.

did the washington post really need to invent a forum for mediocre commentary that is little more than a rehashing of well-worn warmists rhetoric?

the warmists simply have not shouldered the burden of proof necesarry to justify the type of carbon rationing plans their advocate.

i guess if you cant persaude the public the easier thing to do is just to blame them, not revise your own argument.

again, very pointless forum wapo.

Nanook here, from Canada...where our fundamentalist conservative (Republican) Prime Minister believes that climate change is the invention of atheist scientists and emissions reductions are inspired by Satan-worshiping trolls from rogue nations...where the visionary policies and practices of George W. live and thrive behind the closed-door lies of our national politicians...where our elected leaders hold the ignorant musings of 3,000 year old shepherds in higher regard than 21st. century science. Canada used to be a really good place...until we inherited a fundamentalist, backward, 14th. century man as our leader. Harper's head is stuck in a Bible and he follows the teachings of maniacal preachers who earnestly pray for a return to the days when the earth was the centre of the universe, where scientists were burned at the stake, and most important, where white men ruled. Canada has been royally screwed by Harper and his fundamentalist cronies and we will be for decades thanks to his Bible-thumping ways. Today, Canada is leading the way - promoting increased Co2 emissions and who really cares if the earth gets hotter - Jesus will save us all...or at least all Canadians. Too bad for you guys. Jesus is on our side.

Only a fool would disregard man's damage to nature, as natural events. Only a fool would disregard nature's ability to adjust. 1/2 million year old Antarctic ice cores show today as having the highest co2 concentration in that period increasing substantially in the last century. Millions of acres of burnt rain forest and clear cut forests replaced by farming clean 1/2 the amount of co2. The Gulf of Mexico dead zone and the unbreathable air in Chinese industrial areas show the damage of over development. The past Atlantic hurricane season was very weak due to Greenland Glacial melt cooling the tropical waters where they form. The breaking large icesheets in Antarctic continental perimeter have ben balanced by more snowfall on the continent. The beginning to melt Arctic ocean permafrost has seen an earliers freezing and cooler air across the northwest passage. Being better keepers of the green earth can only help natural adjustments. The natural adjustment I fear is a pathogen to destroy the destructive species just may mutate.

It is easy to criticize the scientific ignorance that many express, from denial of the fossil record to not knowing that sea level rise calculations mostly rely on the thermal expansion of the water already in the oceans.

However, the more one knows of science, the more one knows that understanding the global warming predictions is impossible for a reasonably educated person. I know that they rely on increased carbon dioxide to form a greater concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere as the true potentiator of warming but that connection is somewhat obscure because water is part of a very active cycle on the planet and cloud formation is cooling. It gives me a headache.

So people take sides on the issue based on who you believe. It is faith on both sides and arguing about it is an exercise in futility. The politics are much easier to understand and since politicians keep their jobs by keeping people happy and that currently requires combustion any promises to significantly reduce ghg emissions are promises that will not be kept.

Most of this country's problems would be solved if we got rid of Southerners. They're the primary supporters of an excessively large military, religious opposition to effective pregnancy prevention, and the cause of most racism.

I wish they'd won the Civil War and seceded.

"A village cannot reorganize village life to suit the village idiot. It‘s as simple as that. And we have to understand, we have a village idiot in this country, it‘s called “Fundamentalist Christianity.

--Frank Schaeffer

"Assuming the whole north or south pole area melt (which won't happen of course), sea elevation would subside simply because a melted ice occupies less volume than it is on its frozen state."
Posted by: spidermean2 | December 14, 2009 11:28 AM
------------------------------
Here it is in one neat package. This tells you all you need to know about the skeptic's brand of skepticism. Spidermean2 knows so little about this subject that he or she doesn't understand that most of Antarctic ice sits on top of land and is not floating in the sea, so therefore its melting ice will raise sea level. I think I learned that Antarctica was a continent in second or third grade.

Eintein's theories and Newton's have proofs. They have proven their theories with formula like E=mc^2 and the formula for gravity.

Evolution has nothing to show but pictures of apes side by side with black africans. What a racist pig Darwin is.

Assuming the whole north or south pole area melt (which won't happen of course), sea elevation would subside simply because a melted ice occupies less volume than it is on its frozen state.

Of course those climate "scientists" don't know it.

Stupidity is self-destructive. Doomsday won't occur if stupid people like godless communists, evolutionists, and practitioners of false religions (Catholicsim, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism) can only see their stupidity.

Climate change won't destroy the world. Stupidity will.

To Spidermean2:

You've finally done it - proved yourself an absolute idiot.

Everything real has a formula? So Einstein's and Newton's theories weren't true - ie. False - before they discovered the underlying theories? A dumber statement has never been uttered by anyone not named Palin or Bush.

You are an idiot. Please go to your rapture soon.

Any of the hateful liberal bigots here want to explain why Palin is a "fundamentalist"?

I need a good laugh and a few lines of ignorant bigotry should do nicely.

Too bad the bigot who wrote this bit of ignorance can't quote any "fundamentalists" who espouse the views she claims they hold. The truth is that her ignorant guesses about what "fundamentalists" think is based on nothing but the hateful fantasies of yet another liberal who is intolerant of any who dare not share her narrow minded and bigoted views.

LOL. More liberal propaganda in the "OnFaith" section. Why do they bother calling it OnFaith when the vast majority of articles and posts here are from people who are utterly bigoted towards those of faith?

I know that it is not cost-effective to respond to Spiderman, but in the interest of perhaps preventing his willful ignorance from influencing some others: The polar ice-caps don't exist in isolation from the rest of the planet. They are exposed to both the air and the sea (in the North). For the sea: If the oceans warm at the tropics, currents (convection) and contact will make the warm cooler and the cold warmer. The same for the air, although here convection (i.e. wind) is more important since air doesn't conduct heat as well as water does.

The "Climate" (which is long-term as opposed to the weather which is day-to-day) is a complex system that makes short-term prediction dicey (although weather fore-casting doesn't do so badly) but long-term trends are measurable and predictable. Nothing in science is 100% certain, but some things are much more likely than others. And if the consequences of an unlikely event (which AWG is not, BTW) are huge, it makes great sense to prepare as well as do what seems reasonable to ward off the event. That is why we have both airbags and auto insurance, flu virus and antibiotics, fire departments, smoke alarms, and fire insurance.

Of course, if the seas rise, drought devastates fertile areas, insect-borne tropical diseases infest the Northern clmes, etc., the social upheavals and probable mass deaths of hundreds of millions will, to our Bible-thumping fellows, only seem the fulfillment of Revelation, and with the Second Coming at hand they will be rapturously happy even as they (and we) die of plague, starvation and war, and evolution's experiment with intelligence will come to a pitiful end, as have so many other experiments in survival.

Oil is a non-renewable resource. New technologies are coming that will replace oil and at the same time much cleaner.

Climate freaks has really no reason to panic.

Just a reminder to unbelievers. There is a God and once an atheist die,it would be panic time for them.

Since the right-wing in America hijacked Christian fundamentalism, the dogma of the two have become intertwined. Therefore, God must want "Christians" to choose big oil and big business with their accompanying pollution and exploitation of the environment as God will for the good of America.

Everything that's real has a mathematical or chemical formula. Einstein theory, Newton's, etc all has formulae.

On the other hand, Darwin's fictional theory has no formula of any kind. The reason for this is because it's fictional. Same with cartoons.

The reason why the north and south poles are covered with ice is because less sun reaches them. That is not about to change.

Why are unbelievers like Paula Kirby so idiotic?

You idiots should realize that all brains are intelligently made (intelligent design) unless you guys believe in a non-intelligent Darwinian evolution stupidity.

Part of the design is the human brain's freedom to absorb trash like what you guys are doing.

I have yet to meet a Christian. I met a few people who came close at Burning Man. Aside from that; there is no such thing as far as I am concerned.

"The polar ice caps are melting before our very eyes"

It is nice that Ms. Kirby starts off her essay with a faith statement. Exactly how many times have her "very eyes" observed the polar ice caps? Sheesh!

A call to action that would actually make a difference in the total global ghg emission trend is a call to be poorer since combustion is currently required for a high standard of living. We may be willing to sacrifice for a greater good but, for that to happen, people must observe definite trends in the weather where they live that are bad enough to justify the sacrifice. People react. They rarely act proscriptively in sacrificial way because some scientists tell them to. Science is special because people can observe directly its truth. Alas, global warming prediction fails this test and there are too few that have the faith in scientists that Ms. Kirby expresses.

I wonder how common climate change denial is among fundamentalist Christians, Palin notwithstanding. There certainly are some notables, who, unsurprisingly also support intelligent design. Still, that does not a groundswell make. And then there are fundamentalists who have written articles on why "Christians" should be concerned about AGW.

Jonjermey opined:
"So far I haven't seen a comment which provides any reason to believe 'the ice caps are melting before our eyes'."

Yes, you have, and I posted it. Here is the link again in case you misplaced it.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png

I am pleased you admit to having no qualifications as a climatologist: neither do I but I can read a graph, and that one clearly shows that the arctic ice is retreating, on average, at a rate of 1.1% per decade. Case closed.

What does it mean that the arctic ice cap is reducing in size? I have no way of knowing because I am not expert in the subject, which means I am put in the position of having to believe what someone else tells me about it. The trick, as I am sure you will agree, is choosing the right people to believe and that is really what this article is about: how and why people choose who to believe.

I would choose to believe the scientific consensus - and that consensus is real, notwithstanding the 450 papers you present as counter evidence - based on the fact that science and science based thinking have produced spectacularly good results over the last few centuries and therefore it must have something going for it.

Furthermore, even as a layman, I can understand why it has something going for it because I can see and understand the mechanisms by which it works.

For this to work, people like you and me who do not understand, should defer to those who do, rather than trying as you did, to become an instant McExpert through the power of google.

"I have already shown you up on RD.net for the ignoramous you are on the subject of socialism/communism."

It's spelt "ignoramus".

To be honest, the only thing you have ever shown me is your comical proneness to hissy fits at the drop of a feather.

However, as I was forced to take cover from the incoming spittle and froth, I might have missed your demonstration of the innate ability of communism/socialism to sequester carbon from the atmosphere.
Care to enlighten us?
Clearly, it can't be an historical proof, as any fair-minded person, who looks back at the history of prosperous CCCP and its happy satellite states, would freely admit.

"Actually, come to think of it, did I not request you not to address any more of your comments towards me as you are a nut of some kind? Please do so."

Not a chance. Your bizarre ideas are bound to draw attention from other posters and fits of laughter from the peanut gallery. Live with it.

"If you are looking something to do, why don't you go away and ask SaintStephen ..."

What is with commies and their fixations to keep files on everyone else, only to later offer distorted and irrelevant interpretations thereof?

Paula Kirby - "This is the ON FAITH section of the website, and my brief on this occasion was to write an article discussing the possibility of a link between fundamentalist religion and AGW denial."

Hence my last paragraph. Please read my comments again, you must have missed something. Yes, someone is misunderstanding someone, but I don't think it's me. I understand your position only too well.

You don't normally respond to comments on your articles? Excuse me! Why's that, are the responses of your readers beneath you? Is your genius to go unquestioned by the rest of us, you know, like with the Pope. I believe he, like any number of religious loons, imagines his genius to be beyond reproach too, and that he, strangely, feels no need to take any heed of his critics. Must be some kind of fundamentalist thing.

Speaking of loons...I see Odious Maximus Decius has chirped in: "Whereas, as everyone knows, the economics of communism entail zero carbon footprint."

I have already shown you up on RD.net for the ignoramous you are on the subject of socialism/communism. Obviously, not content with having learned nothing from your 'left-wing' magazine days, you've learned nothing from your time on RD.net either.

Actually, come to think of it, did I not request you not to address any more of your comments towards me as you are a nut of some kind? Please do so.

If you are looking something to do, why don't you go away and ask SaintStephen for a loan of his crayons and you can get back to your colouring in - you know, like you used to do before you took to criticising him for doing EXACTLY that.

"the real problem of global warming is entirely to do with the economics of capitalism"

Whereas, as everyone knows, the economics of communism entail zero carbon footprint.

One has to concede it to faith-heads for failed ideologies a la NMcC - their fantasy world is every bit as entertaining as Christian mythology.

NMcC, I don't normally respond to comments about my articles, but yours seem to be based on such a big misunderstanding of the constraints that writers work under that in this case I'm going to make an exception.

This is the ON FAITH section of the website, and my brief on this occasion was to write an article discussing the possibility of a link between fundamentalist religion and AGW denial.

I'm afraid comments that suggest that writers choose their own subjects, are free to develop them in any direction that interests them, and have an infinite number of words to do it in (and could therefore cover multiple aspects of a question if only they had the wit to do so), are way off the mark. If you think this essay constitutes the entirety of my thinking on the subject of climate change, you are quite mistaken. Nevertheless, editors, like examiners, require responses that answer the question as asked.

"Paula is superbly qualified to discuss the vagaries of religious faith and its believers..."

What qualifications are they?

The only 'qualification' she has is that she used to be exactly what she now seeks to criticise with every word she writes.

And just as there is no hatred like Christian love, there's no fanatic like the convert.

As far as I can see, her 'qualifications' are she knows Richard Dawkins through his website and seems to be writing her pieces on that basis.

What qualifications does one need to make the criticisms of religion that she makes anyway? Do you have to go to University to gain those?

Although I'm a big fan of Dawkins' work (indeed, I praised Kirby's first - I think - published article) and believe that he is superb at what he does, unfortunately, the crowd that constitutes his little fan club are, like Kirby, the kind of fanatics who go into hysterics at the news of a single child dying because of its parents religious convictions (horrific and unacceptable as that is), but who never bat an eyelid at the fact that the economics of capitalism murder tens of thousands of children every day of the week.

Kirby, like the oleaginous windbag himself, pretends to believe the dogma that religion poisons everything - which, though a handy title to sell books, has the obvious drawback of being just that, a stupid dogma. Money poisons everything, would be a more truthful assertion.

"NMcC-
Would you disagree that religious fundamentalism is a contributing factor? If not, then what are you complaining about?"

Is there anything or any action that isn't a contributing factor?

Religious fundamentalism has not been discussed anywhere as a significant contributory factor. How many hours (or minutes, or, even, seconds) has been used up in any serious discussion amongst world experts or leaders in regard to the influence of religion on the issue? Any?

Kirby's attitude is informed by the fact that she imagines (and seems to have some kind of vested interest in portraying) religion to be THE cause of EVERY problem in the world simply because she is an opponent of religion, though, as said above, she used to be the kind of religious nut she now laments and denigrates.

In regard to what she says in her piece, the simple fact is - as Kirby even points out - the real problem of global warming is entirely to do with the economics of capitalism even though those show themselves in a myriad of ways and under numerous disguises.

Admittedly, the title of the column she is writing for here is called 'On Faith', and that has to be taken into account. Though I wonder if the column was entitled 'On Collecting Stamps' would her essential thesis be any different?

So far I haven't seen a comment which provides any reason to believe 'the ice caps are melting before our eyes'. Unless you mean summer is coming to the Antarctic -- but that happens every year, doesn't it? An increase in coverage over this time last year means an increase -- though admittedly a small one -- not a decline. But if you want something to worry about, try this -- five of the six years with the greatest Antarctic sea ice coverage on record have happened in the last decade.

http://tinyurl.com/yaneg88

Paula is superbly qualified to discuss the vagaries of religious faith and its believers, but in the area of climatology she has exactly the same formal qualifications I do -- none -- and what she believes is largely a matter of which voice of authority she chooses to accept. She should know better than anyone that the prospect of wealth, power and fame is a powerful corruptant for politicians, journalists and scientists, not just would-be religious leaders. In this area she is seen by those in power as a shill to be manipulated in the same way as priests and their followers are manipulated by the church hierarchy above them.

There is plenty of evidence against AGW. Some of it is here:

http://tinyurl.com/y9jrjaf

Believe it or not, as you like: but don't pretend you have been given a revelation of its truth from God above when it's actually come from -- well, Phil Jones, shall we say?

Perhaps those who have claimed that Paula has portrayed religion as the root cause of climate change denial should have read the article more closely:

"I am not suggesting for one moment that religious fundamentalists are the only factor: misinformation, confusion, ignorance, wishful thinking, refusal to face up to an unappealing reality, resistance to change, reluctance to make sacrifices, plus the power of vested interests will affect all sectors of society, not just the religious."

She makes it clear that religious fundamentalism is only a contributing factor.

NMcC-

Would you disagree that religious fundamentalism is a contributing factor? If not, then what are you complaining about?

Actually, the really funny thing about JonJeremy's post, is that the northern hemisphere graph does confirm the consensus view. Note that the time scale is in months, going from Northern Hemisphere fall to winter, where we would expect that the amount of sea ice would increase due to the seasonal decline in solar exposure. Also note that the two dashed lines, indicating the most recent data from the last 2 years is averaging 2 million square kilometers less.

that plot again:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

The southern hemisphere graph appears to have all three plots be about the same, and not being a climate scientist, I don't know why that would be. The continent being their could provide different characteristics.

It shows the lack of competence of the anti-AGW movement, that their followers can't properly read a graph.

Blimey! Is there no problem that Kirby can't lay at the door of religion - even when she correctly identifies the real problem - in this case the myriad problems created by the economic system going back to the industrial revolution, as she puts it.

I guess that's what happens when you are promoted or sponsored by, and hang around, Richard Dawkins too much.

I think Paula Kirby has confused mitigating factor for cause. Christian Funadmentalism is not the root of climate denial but the belief system of fundamentalist christianity renders the one infected far more susceptible to propoganda by vested interests in the continued growth of the carbon spewing into atmosphere based industrial lobby. Like Oil companies, coal power industry, manufacturing industry etc...

JONJERMEY opined:
"Unfortunately the very first sentence of the article is simply wrong. The two sites...."

Chery picking data does not make your case, I am afraid. Your argument is like Canute asserting that the tide is not coming in because; oh, look! the water just went back out again, oh! it's come in again....oh! it's going out again!

What matters is the long term trend, which can be found in convenient form on the very same website in a place where you must have had to close your eyes to avoid seeing it as you clicked through on your cherry-picking expedition.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png

see how the individual years show an up and down variation? All while the long term trend shows the ice "melting before our very eyes..."

Now, since you see fit to challenge Paula Kirby's credentials, how about telling us why you are qualified to contradict the consensus of the world's most eminent scientists?

"The polar ice caps are melting before our very eyes..."

Unfortunately the very first sentence of the article is simply wrong. The two sites

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

and

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png

show that the ice coverage this year is slightly greater than it was last year. Yes, we are in a warm period -- just as we were in Medieval times and before that around about 800. But the rest of the article is just recycled fluff.

Even fundamentalist Christians are right sometimes, though often for the wrong reasons. Paula should stick to topics she has some expertise in.

Well said, PK, I completely agree.

Once upon a time, the gods on Olympus commanded the awesome natural forces of the world, and the creatures of Prometheus had to scamper around avoiding catastrophe. That was then, but this is now and the "creatures" having mastered fire, have used fire over time to change the climate of this planet. In the modern world, we find no gods in the control room of spaceship Earth. We, ourselves, must take responsibility for the setting the controls, and to do so we must step up and overcome our own denial.

PK has done a superb job here of characterising the probable motives behind the fundamentalist rejection of the facts of AGW. She has thrown a cruelly revealing spotlight on why they might never be able to be trusted with our collective safety in an uncertain future, should one happen to gain supreme executive power.

Now that is a chilling prospect, and not in a good way.