Quote:
Originally Posted by K. Riehl  It approaches a religion when you cannot consider conflicting evidence and when you make decisions about things without fundamental understanding of possible real world effects. |
I don't really want to get into that old Global Warming argument again here, however for someone that does believe we are contributing heavily to this I would still agree with you on practically everything you say. For some people it does indeed approach something of a religious conviction, and also that anyone who says they can predict a future temperature rise, or what that means in terms of sea level rises or melting ice caps, cannot really have that evidence to hand. However, I don't think you will find any climatologists who actually say that. They have models but they are subject to unknown variables. The scientists produce research papers and are subject to peer review like any other research. It is the politicians and environmental lobbyists who overstate their case. There will be future economic costs that might be better if it is tackled sooner though.
The fact that there is disagreement among scientists is not a bad thing. It is how science works and progresses. I have noticed that those Creationist websites fail to understand this. They will pick up on the fact that some small elements of modern evolutionary theory are disputed and hold those up to say that since the scientists cannot agree, this is proof the Evolution itself is disputed.