Guest post by David Middleton
Environmentalists have put out a new ad campaign attacking President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for “encouraging debate” among scientists about the “degree and extent” of global warming.
“He believes debate should be encouraged about the truth of climate science,” says a recent ad attacking Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt funded by the political arm of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).
[…]
“Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind. That debate should be encouraged — in classrooms, public forums, and the halls of Congress,” Pruitt and Strange wrote.
[…]
Apparently, encouraging scientific debate is not something environmentalists want when it comes to climate science.
EDF, an environmental group, goes on to claim “applying Pruitt’s radical views of federalism to the EPA would gut the agency’s long-standing bipartisan mandate to ensure basic protections for clean air and clean water nationwide.”
EDF says they’ve never opposed a candidate for EPA, but says Pruitt is “so dangerous” they felt compelled to publicly oppose him.
[…]
Democrats have labeled Pruitt a “climate denier” who will do the bidding of “Big Oil,” and some are plotting to, at the very least, make a public spectacle out of his confirmation hearings.
“The EPA is in charge of clean air for America. We must not have a professional climate denier in charge. This is an emergency,” Hawaii Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz recently tweeted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHnX9Uex9H8
Talk about chutzpah!!!
“He believes debate should be encouraged about the truth of climate science…”
In 40 years (counting college) as a geoscientist, I don’t think I’ve ever heard the phrase, “the truth of geology.” Science without debate isn’t science. Science with sacrosanct truths to be protected from debate is religion. In geology, debate is always encouraged. Most geoscientists are taught to embrace Chamberlin’s Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses. The prevailing theory about the formation of granite as an intrusive igneous rock doesn’t require protection from the granitization theory that granite can form as a metamorphic rock.
Based on the two recent surveys of the American Meteorological Society (Maibach et al., 2012 and 2016), it appears to me that atmospheric scientists are also open to debate…
The 2012 survey found that 52% of survey respondents thought that humans were the primary drivers of global warming over the previous 150 years, a bare majority. The 2016 survey focused on the most recent 50 years and it only found a 67% majority that humans were the primary drivers of climate change over the most recent 50 years. While a solid majority, it is far short of a “consensus.” More revealing was the widespread disagreement about whether or not recent climate changes have been beneficial or harmful and the degree to which future climate changes can be averted…
Based on Maibach et al., 2012 and 2016, it appears to me that a great deal of debate “about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind” remains to be had.
What could possibly be motivating the EDF and other environmental activist groups to try to stifle this debate? [Yes… This is a rhetorical question.]
References
[1] Maibach E, Stenhouse N, Cobb S, Ban R, Bleistein A, et al. (2012) American Meteorological Society Member Survey on Global Warming: Preliminary Findings. Fairfax, VA: Center for Climate Change Communication.
[2] Maibach, E., Perkins, D., Francis, Z., Myers, T., Englbom, A., et al. (2016) A 2016 National Survey of American Meteorological Society Member Views on Climate Change: Initial Findings. George Mason University, Fairfax, VA: Center for Climate Change Communication.
[3] Featured Image
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If there is no debate, and everything is so settled, I wonder why Mr. Gore felt compelled to bring out his inconvenient truth, part 2?
Good luck coming up with a title… The Phantom Menace has already been used… 🙂
Is the EDF so far gone that they actually believe that the public will be offended by anyone who is encouraging debate?
For decades liberals have been telling us how talking/debate is good. Now they want us to believe that for this one thing, it is bad.
You keep saying liberals, as if no conservatives believe that AGW is real – that is not correct. The issue is not about whether debate is good or bad. It is that the cost of doing nothing increases over time. AGW believers feel there is sufficient proof to take action, and that taking no action and debating for another 5, 10 or 20 years will result in a far worse future.
There is no real “cost of doing nothing” and the cost of doing something is about $44 trillion, which will yield no tangible benefits…
When 90% of warmists are left to far left, I have no trouble talking about liberals believing in AGW.
AGW’ers are so convinced of their position that they are OK with outlawing all disagreement with them.
Totalitarians are always the same.
David, why should the leftists care? It’s not like they are going to be spending their own money.
Pruitt should take the green blob at their own game and simply skip the debate. Once Trump starts rolling out his new ‘reality-based’ climate policies they’ll be begging him to engage in precisely the debate they have spent the past decade obstructing.
Roll out new evidence, corrected previously adjusted temperature data and give the straightest, bluntest answers that the blob deserves. They’ll be furious and it’ll be marvellous.
Although this post is about EDF wanting to stop scientific debate I think the surveys used need a comment.
AMS and other specialty groups, and all of us, have been exposed to the overwhelming barrage of AGW, CAGW, climate change, climate weirding, rising seas, melting ice, dying Polar Bears, and on and on.
Here is the list:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html
Whenever someone investigates one of the climate-caused dangers used as a headline in the New York Times or on the BBC or any such places, the issue fades away. One only has to look at Willis E’s “First Climate Refugees” series, Jim Steele’s posts, or Susan Crockford’s reports on polar bear science, to realize this.
Then there are the promotions of fancy new energy sources that only work because of massive wealth transfers; see posts by Euan Mearns and Roger Andrews on the Energy Matters blog. Paul Homewood also shows the folly of these unreliable energy sources.
Surveys are not good at establishing the truth about “climate science.”
And that is the truth.
No, no no. We must not debate. We must not consider other views. Double plus ungood!
Settled Science = Our minds are already made up. Please do not confuse the issue with facts.
Anyone who desperately wants to shut down a debate is afraid of losing the debate.
Pardon my asking, but why a poll only of meteorologists on global warming? They represent only one tiny slice of those scientists who study climate change, and meteorology is primarily focused on short term weather process analysis and prediction, not long term (as in historical, let along archaeological, let alone geological, let alone astrophysical) timeframes and processes).
That’s like taking a poll of athletic shoe manufacturers to assess the development of the game of American football. They have a perspective to share, but certainly not a holistic perspective.
Me – it seems that the historians, archaeologists, geologists, and astrophysicists have a much more meaningful perspective on earthian climate variation than, well, weathermen and weatherwomen.
Just sayin’.
Why poll anyone on a science issue, one person can find the truth while hundreds flounder.
Atmospheric scientists are the most relevant scientists to ongoing climate change.
About 60-70% of geoscientists reject the so-called consensus.
Excuse me please, but IF “the agency’s long-standing bipartisan mandate to ensure basic protections for clean air and clean water nationwide.” is correct, then why is a change to eliminating the Faux concept of AGW have AGW Alarmists claiming that it somehow means that we are going to suddenly have “Dirty Air and Dirty Water”? CO2 emissions do not pollute water and at 400 ppm CO2 does not qualify as an atmospheric poison. CO2 at trace gas levels is insignificant in terms of any “greenhouse effect”. In fact, for CO2 to have any meaningful “greenhouse effect”, CO2 levels would have to approach levels that would be toxic to oxygen breathing lifeforms.
It’s because Trump favors continuing the use of coal.
“Science without debate isn’t science. Science with sacrosanct truths to be protected from debate is religion. In geology, debate is always encouraged. ”
Bullshit. Geologists don’t “encourage” debate with Young Earth Creationists who think the Earth is only 10,000 years old. It’s an established, consensus truth in geology and it would be a disservice to the public to pretend that there is any intellectually respectable debate in the field involving the YEC position. Scientists only “debate” open questions of scientific merit, and they don’t generally do it in classrooms and “the Halls of Congress”, they do it in scientific forums like journals and workshops.
Similarly, climate scientists don’t debate congressional idiots on whether snow in winter disproves global warming. The people on this blog whining about “debate” are using the same anti-science tactics as creationists. “Is climate sensitivity closer to 2.5 or 3.5 degrees C” is a question open to scientific debate. “Is global warming a hoax” is not.
Spoken with the total condescension that defines you. Also evident is the typical mischaracterization and false equivalencies, presumptions, and rationalization. So engrained, I frankly doubt you’re even able to see it.
Joel Snider said “Also evident is the typical mischaracterization and false equivalencies, presumptions, and rationalization.”
Specifically why is it a false equivalence? There are scientists who believe the Earth’s age is much younger. Does that mean that those who believe the Earth is 4B years old are obligated to spend time engaging with those scientists? Or that any policy based on the 4B year assumption should be put on hold until 100% of scientists agree? The exact same thing is true of the anti vax movement. Should mandatory vaccine programs be put on hold until all scientists researching in this area are in complete agreement?
Scientific journals are interested in findings and review articles, not debates. Most warmists have shied away from participating in the Dutch government’s Climate Dialog site for scientific-level debating among PhDs.
This is an echo chamber josh. Where someone posts a half-baked idea or a media tidbit click-bait piece or a confected, semi-truth that escaped from some other echo chamber and the denizens here latch onto it because it confirms their bias. It is then ratcheted it up, going back and forth and round and round until its spun up into something resembling candy floss. Then, this new and improved ‘truth’ can be referred back to and shouted repeatedly and anything that conflicts with it is then of course fake or corrupted – always intentionally. Occasionally the new truth breaks free and migrates to back other echo chambers for further ratcheting and citing.
There are a few here who try and curtail this echo-chamber tendency, but they are just herding cats.
McClod either tell me the name of the law of thermodynamics for solving the temperature of some air, or gas,
or you’re a lying, posturing, posing fake, too stupid to even figure out if anyone’s figures are right, wrong, or indifferent.
Since you’re not a scientist – I know you’re not, because you believe there is a GHE – your only answer is to go find someone who believes in your religion, who DOES know, and have them tell you the answer.
But none of them know either, which is why banning working scientists from commenting on their fraud sites is their version of debate.
You’re an ignorant hick. Either explain what work you’ve done, in the fields of atmospheric chemistry and radiation, or you’re another sh** For brains who believed the latest Federal Gov’t chemistry scam.
The one before it was that Man makes the Ozone hole,
the one before that is that pot is like heroin.
You on the other hand are just an incompetent dope who never worked measuring anything in atmospheric chemistry or radiation, in your life.
Like always, the leftist trolls want to have their own definitions of words.
Any site that allows you, Chris, Phil, Griff, Nick, and others to post freely cannot be seriously called an echo chamber.
@Josh,
I don’t have any problems politely debating YEC’s… One of the themes in Historical Geology is to learn about how the science evolved from Creationism & Catastrophism, to the geosynclinal theory to plate tectonics. Nor do I have problems debating Peak Oilers and Abiogenic oil aficionados. The AAPG actually encourages such debate.
The age of the Earth is not a “truth.”
Climate sensitivity (TCR, the one that matters) is closer to 1.35 that it is to 2.5 or 3.5.
True, I think I still have a AAPG issue from my uncle with article(s) with the evidence against plate tectonics. I recall real data.
@ur momisugly David Middleton
“The age of the Earth is not a “truth.” ”
Why are you putting “truth” in quotes? The age of the Earth is a scientific fact, we know it is true to the best of our ability to determine reality. It has error bars of course, but they exclude YEC beliefs as laughably unreasonable. There is no debate within geology on this statement. Now, you personally may get into disputes with YECs in the hopes of educating them. That itself is a contentious strategy because it is used by science deniers to legitimize themselves in the public eye. But it is disingenuous to say that geologists encourage the debate or that they haven’t established truths. If you’ve actually engaged with YECs then you know that their strategy is practically identical to the complaints above with the goal of “debating” both sides in classrooms and public forums. The purpose is to create the impression of legitimate disagreement when none exists among reasonable people.
Please don’t throw red herrings at me, I picked climate sensitivity as a simple example of a scientific question where there is ongoing work to better improve the uncertainties, yet where some answers are clearly wrong and no longer subject to scientific debate. I used “climate sensitivity” in the standard sense of equilibrium temperature change in response to CO2 doubling, the number is around 3 C. Transient Climate Response is a different number and it is immaterial to the point I made whether you think it is “the one that matters”, they both characterize the reaction of the climate to CO2 changes. Incidentally, the IPCC puts it around 2 C. https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-6-2-3.html
The most amazing thing, Josh, is that with all the Hype that Mankind is destroying the Planet, not even ONE purveyor of AGW Mythology has EVER attempted to QUANTIFY the amount of CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels that supposedly results in the rise in Atmospheric CO2 levels, against the amount of Naturally occurring CO2 generation from Plants, Volcanic activity, or the release of CO2 from the oceans as the temperature rises! All are known phenomena and yet AGW mythologists continue to believe that the major, if not ONLY contributor to atmospheric CO2 is the burning of Fossil Fuels.
not even ONE purveyor of AGW Mythology has EVER attempted to QUANTIFY the amount of CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels that supposedly results in the rise in Atmospheric CO2 levels, against the amount of Naturally occurring CO2 generation from Plants, Volcanic activity, or the release of CO2 from the oceans as the temperature rises!
Sure they have (if I understand you correctly). Any garden-variety CO2 cycle map does that. And anthropogenic CO2 has a clearly identifiable marker, so that can be reasonably estimated, as well. Outgassing is also considered and quantified.
yet AGW mythologists continue to believe that the major, if not ONLY contributor to atmospheric CO2 is the burning of Fossil Fuels.
And so do just about all of the skeptics within the scientific community, too. It’s us (plus the relatively minor contribution from vulcanism, which is more than offset by calcification.)
I am a severe skeptic, but I think you are barking up the wrong tree, here.
Debate implies having verifiable facts on your side.
Something which the young earth creationists don’t have.
PS: The science has shown that climate sensitivity is at the most 0.5C. More likely 0.2C.
“Debate implies having verifiable facts on your side.”
“The science has shown that climate sensitivity is at the most 0.5C. More likely 0.2C.”
Oy. Surface temps have already increased more than 0.5C and CO2 has less than doubled in the same time frame. c.f.- http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/every/plot/gistemp/every/plot/rss/every/plot/uah5/every
“Surface temps have already increased more than 0.5C and CO2 has less than doubled in the same time frame.”
Write out 1,000 times “CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION”.
You really haven’t a clue, have you?
It seems that control of the message is slipping away. For the control freaks, that’s a potential brain embolism.
please correct me if i am wrong but didnt that 97% figure come from a search of papers done by some woman Naomi O. and all she did is search the papers for phrases and found that 97% had the phrase man made global warming or AGW or other such wording, the paper could be saying there is NO “man made global warming” but by using the phrase that became part of the 97%???? again please correct any error i have made.
It was John Cook and friends.
Go here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/05/john-cook-wins-award-as-friend-of-planet/
Search for the word ” updated ” — there are 3, but relate to the same thing.
This is just one of many sources. Another: on WUWT
TY but i still think there was another study done by her before cook….hers was in dec. 2004
Anderegg was a similar abstract opinion review. I think Oreskes did a similar abstract opinion review. Doran & Kendall-Zimmerman came up with a 97% consensus through a highly cherry-picked survey, which asked:
I would answer risen to #1 and my answer to #2 would depend on the meaning of “human activity is a significant contributing factor.” The survey never asked about greenhouse gases or if human activity was the primary driver of recent climate change.
There was never any “debate” about global warming.
Their massive deception(s) about CO2 in the “atmosphere” and their endless spoutings of “save the planet” are about to come crashing down. They have been FOUND OUT and they all need to be SHUT OUT and shut out very quickly.
It has always been doom, gloom and OPM snout-troughing (other peoples’ money) enabled, created and perpetuated by ignorant but devious, clever, greedy people such as Al-baby and many others (the list is very long).
This recent, short video hits the nail on the head.
https://youtu.be/nLuBgZ1bgoY
gee josh….whatcha scared of?
The Climate Liar’s go-to Big Lie: is to equate real pollution, which can affect air quality with harmless, and actually beneficial CO2. They do it using the old bait-and-switch tactic, hoping people won’t notice.
Pruitt believes that debates about conclusions based on “evidence” such as tree rings and present internet search results (rather the adjustments to past tables of LOTI etc.) should be encouraged!!! Heresy!!!!
How dare he want those directing billions of dollars in their desired direction have “their feet put to the fire”!
We have always been at war with Oceana. There is no debate.
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
[…]
“Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind. That debate should be encouraged — in classrooms, public forums, and the halls of Congress,” Pruitt and Strange wrote.
[…]
Apparently, encouraging scientific debate is not something environmentalists want when it comes to climate science.
EDF, an environmental group, goes on to claim “applying Pruitt’s radical views of federalism to the EPA would gut the agency’s long-standing bipartisan mandate.
_____________________________________________
– that CAGW myth has build up and escalated over 40 years,
– equal money +wealth was stocked up over same time,
– nonetheless there’s no need to elongate the retreats.
“Environmentalists have put out a new ad campaign attacking President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for “encouraging debate” among scientists about the “degree and extent” of global warming.”
Environmentalists should also put out an ad campaign attacking United Nations Climate Panel IPCC then:
“The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi-century time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)( Note 16 ).”
Note 16 “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.” IPCC; WGI ; AR5; Summary for policymakers; Page 16
The Political arm of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), appears to be environmental fundamentalists.
there is no “equilibrium” in our atmosphere in the REAL WORLD, because the factors at play constantly CHANGE which means the point of equilibrium also constantly changes, the system does seek to find that balance but never can because again the moment you get close to it CHANGES happen moving the target.
Debate works both ways. Trump administration has prohibited scientists from both the USDA and the EPA from sharing information with the public. Now substitute USDA and EPA for University Sceptics. Nasty eh?
Gareth, could you provide a link or several to substantiate your allegations? That would be helpful. I’m not aware of any such assertions but would be interested in seeing what you’ve got.
Thanks in advance.
What Trump has actually done is to silence public statements, temporarily, from those agencies, so that the White House and the agencies can get on the same page on statements relating to facts and policy. Officials at some agencies have made statements challenging the President’s statements (such as national park officials challenging him on global warming), and you can’t have that in government.
Doesn’t mean that you or I agree with either position. It means that if you disagree with the President, you keep your mouth shut or you’re history.
scraft1 says: “you keep your mouth shut or you’re history” except that there are laws in place protecting whistle blowers.
“It means that if you disagree with the President, you keep your mouth shut or you’re history.”
The hypocrisy is deep here. I’ve seen many posts on WUWT decrying universities for taking any actions against AGW skeptics, but it’s ok for the President to do so?
Chris – It’s not the same thing. A university doesn’t have an official policy on such matters. It’s mission is the free exchange of ideas and all opinions should be protected. In government which will have an official view on matters of policy (like climate change), it’s important that everyone speak with one voice. Someone in that government can disagree but they can’t do it publicly if they want to keep their job.
I’m not defending Trump on the merits of climate change, but he does have the right to control the message of his administration on a matter of public policy. The same does not apply in a university.
Martin, whistleblower laws only protect those who are exposing illegal activities or activities that might harm the public.
“Martin, whistleblower laws only protect those who are exposing illegal activities or activities that might harm the public.”
And in this case, Trump is the whistleblower.
One constant with trolls is that they take a small fact, then lie about it.
Making stuff up again, Phillips?
Mr. Middleton,
“Science with sacrosanct truths to be protected from debate is religion.”
It does not seem to me to be so, in general. Religions, generally, invite debate about the things held to be “truth” within them . . it’s how the religion spreads. Not gonna get many converts if you insist those “truths” must not be “debated”. I think you’re speaking of the way some who “idolize” science imagine religions to be . . a sort of caricature.
And, to me science IS a form a religion, with a great many “truths” that must be accepted to even conduct science, and all sorts of rituals that must be adhered to, and so on. It’s just the tendency for science propagandists to bash other religions that even obscures this, to me, rather obvious truth, I believe.
Yes… I was referring to those who “idolize” science. The sort of people who insist that the evolution of species is a fact, rather than a scientific theory, a very sound scientific theory. My intent was not to characterize religion in a negative context.
No… Science, when properly applied, is not a form of religion. It is a process to systematically explain observations of the natural world.
“No… Science, when properly applied, is not a form of religion.”
No debate about that “truth” allowed, to your mind, sir? Curious . .
“It is a process to systematically explain observations of the natural world.”
Processes explain nothing, people do. I’m speaking of what science is in relation to people (like you and I), not what those words mean in mass media label-land . .
And assumes that human observations of the natural world are reliable enough to warrant explaining. That is, for all intents and purposes, a belief.
And, the vast majority of the “truths” required to be believed in order to do science, are believed through faith, not direct personal observation. Science is a faith based religion, therefore, even if many scientists have never thought this stuff through.
My belief in God is based on little more than faith. I see evidence for God in many things, like math and dogs. However, I can’t empirically or even statistically test God’s existence in this world.
When I drill a well, I am relying on countless scientific theories, which have been empirically tested, demonstrated to have predictive value and, in most cases, proven to the point that they have been classified as laws. Faith and belief play no role in any of that. The only place for faith and belief in the process, is my faith and belief in the people involved in that process. I have to believe that everyone did or will do their jobs competently… From the people who shot & processed the seismic data, logged the offset wells, to the engineers who designed and will drill the well. I also have to have confidence in my own interpretation of the data when I generated the prospect. However, I don’t have to have faith in Snell’s Law, the Zoeppritz equations or the rest of the math and science which I used, directly or indirectly, to generate the prospect.
David,
“When I drill a well, I am relying on countless scientific theories, which have been empirically tested, demonstrated to have predictive value and, in most cases, proven to the point that they have been classified as laws.”
I’m sure you believe such testing has occurred (as I do), but that means we are believing by faith, not direct personal experience (empirical evidence). The facilitation of that faith is what all the “rituals” are for, of course.
“Faith and belief play no role in any of that.”
Huh????
“The only place for faith and belief in the process, is my faith and belief in the people involved in that process. I have to believe that everyone did or will do their jobs competently…”
That’s what I’m talking about. That’s belief by faith. There’s no real choice with science . . we can’t possibly test everything for ourselves, so me must have faith in what others have directly experienced and reported to us. (Or not, and that’s one place/realm where skepticism is called for, of course).
I’m not disparaging science, the “experimental philosophy” as Mr. Newton called it, I’m just trying to get folks to think this stuff through. Faith has been disparaged, for no good reason, it seems to me, and I’m trying to undo that BS, to the minuscule extent I can . .
Any faith based system would react in the same way , its fear because they known the only way their faith can stand is by not being challenged in the first place.
Oddly for self claimed ‘settled science’ they do seem put a great deal of effort and employ epic scales of smoke and mirrors into avoid any form of what for most sciences is standard thing , that is critical review .
I disagree with what’s being said here about “faith-based systems”. All monotheistic religions are dogmatic about there being a one, true God. There’s no debate about it. They may use an apologetics argument in an attempt to rationalize certain truths, but if you don’t believe you aren’t really a member of that religion. It’s a matter of faith – there are some things that just aren’t subject to rational explanation.
And religions spread due to the power of their story, not because of debate. Christianity spread like wildfire through Europe and British Isles because of their message of sacrifice and forgiveness. The pagan gods, with their message of fear and revenge, simply could not survive in the face of this message.
The same can be said of Judaism and Islam, with their compelling narratives that swept away polytheistic practices.
scraft,
“It’s a matter of faith – there are some things that just aren’t subject to rational explanation.”
Faith means confidence, not irrational belief. It means belief in things one cannot directly observe . . like your faith in subatomic particles. That faith requires rational explanation, as do a great many other things we believe in but cannot directly observe . .
“Christianity spread like wildfire through Europe and British Isles because of their message of sacrifice and forgiveness.”
If one assumes the relevant God does not exist, then sure, some such story qualities would seem to be the cause . . but not if that God does exist. Then, He could have informed many people that He does, and of the truth in the Story, and thereby caused that wildfire to spread. (That’s what happened to me (as I saw/experienced it), I was not won over by the message of sacrifice and forgiveness. I needed more . . )
knr,
“Any faith based system would react in the same way , its fear because they known the only way their faith can stand is by not being challenged in the first place.”
If they actually had faith in God (Abrahamic), they would have no such fear. You’re speaking of faithless people, who “known the only way their faith can stand is by not being challenged in the first place”. Faith means confidence . . so by definition your conjecture/explanation (spoken as if fact) is somewhat . . nonsensical.
I welcome the debate. The more debates we have, the more debates we will win. The science simply isn’t there. Here is how a Criminal Case would go down, and it wouldn’t be pretty:
Climate “Science” on Trial; The Smoking Gun Files
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/climate-science-on-trial-the-smoking-gun-files/
Just How Much Does 1 Degree C Cost?
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/25/just-how-much-does-1-degree-c-cost/
Have a look at this lovely Wikipedia page…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
As anyone sensible would not know climate changes… Straw man.
The Wiki page reads like it was written by the SkepSciBots.