Why I've started to believe that religion is actively dangerous

[Razgovory]

I love how the crazy people, like Raz, have these little pet causes they run into the ground with their insanity.

What the fuck are you on about?

[Hansmeister]

No, you cannot be persuaded from your beliefs by evidence. After all you believe in global warming despite the absence of evidence. Every model peddled by the climatistas has been wrong - spectacularly wrong, and every predicting they've made has failed to come true - spectacularly so, yet still you believe.

True.  the climate models predict that the most recent recent decade would be warmer than the previous decade, and that is what the data shows, so obviously the models are wrong.  Spectacularly wrong, because they are inconvenient.

Why believe inconvenient data when you can believe convenient beliefs?

Well, actually the last decade saw no change in global temperatures, while the climatistas predicted an accelerated change in global temperatures.  Heck, they predicted the North Pole to be ice free by 2014, which of course proved to be spectacularly wrong.b

Global warming is closely tied to solar cycles, which coincidentally perfectly align wth the global warming experienced from the mid seventies to the late nineties, and also explains the lack of warming since then.

[Hansmeister]

[grumbler]

That was a strange post - even for you.

Hans hides his tinfoil side most of the time, but it comes out occasionally, like now.  I don't find it strange that he holds such bizarre beliefs.  He's a fellow-traveler with the Republican presidential candidate that thinks that we are "in a Gestapo age" and that the US is "very much like Nazi Germany."  Wacky shit, and yet that guy actually leads in some polls.

[grumbler]

The year 2012 was the ninth warmest in a NASA analysis of global temperatures that stretches back to 1880. In itself, that sounds fairly unremarkable. But, as climate scientists note, what's important is the long-term trend. The 10 hottest years in the 132-year record have all occurred since 1998, and nine of the 10 have occurred since 2002.

"What matters is, this decade is warmer than the last decade, and that decade was warmer than the decade before," said Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "The planet is warming."

http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/10/

[Valmy]

No, you cannot be persuaded from your beliefs by evidence.

Of course I can.

After all you believe in global warming despite the absence of evidence.

No I don't.

Every model peddled by the climatistas has been wrong - spectacularly wrong, and every predicting they've made has failed to come true - spectacularly so, yet still you believe.

I have not yet been shown this evidence so I reject your conclusion. I see you have completely ignored what I said and just made up something I said. That does not bode well for your ability to give me good information but let's see it.

[Valmy]

Explain what I am seeing here. The misspelling of Troposphere does not bode well

[Liep]

So that graph Hans posted goes against his belief that the temperature is not rising, no? I mean, if almost all the anomalies are above 0.0C and the trend eerily steady above 0.2C the temperature is clearly rising. Or am I reading his rather suspicious graph wrong?

[The Brain]

Public policy drawn solely from science has already proven to be a dangerous road.

The Gravity Act was a shameful episode in our country's history.

What year did Sweden stop sterilizations?  Last year?  The year before?  I forget.

Stop?

[HVC]

http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/10/

[Barrister]

Explain what I am seeing here. The misspelling of Troposphere does not bode well

Well the image is hosted here:

http://www.thegwpf.com/

And here's what is says under "Who we are"

The Global Warming Policy Forum is a London-based think tank which conducts campaigns and activities which do not fall squarely within the Global Warming Policy Foundation's remit as an educational charity.

This arrangement reflects those used by other organisations with dual structures, such as Amnesty International UK and Greenpeace UK.

In recent years, the GWPF's influence has grown rapidly, among both UK and international policy makers and the news media and is widely regarded as one of the world's leading think tanks on global warming policy issues.

The Forum is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

Key campaigning issues

For balanced science & policy research
Climate science and climate policies are faced by rising doubt and criticism. There is growing concern about the integrity of climate scientists and the maltreatment of sceptical researchers. The Forum will be campaigning for more balanced and more transparent assessments of climate science and policy research.

For open & sceptical science
Climate alarmism suffers from a manifest lack of scientific scrutiny. Instead of carefully assessing the quality and reliability of climate data, many climate scientists cherry-pick numbers and interpretations that seem to confirm their alarmist conviction. Reliable and trustworthy science requires a sober and detached consideration of all relevant evidence. The Forum will campaign for an open scientific debate which allows for all reasonable arguments and criticism to be voiced and published.

Against bias and alarm
The coverage of climate change in the news media has been stromgly biased in favour of alarm. For far too long, scientific organisations and the mainstream media have failed to give appropriate space to authoritative critics of climate alarmism. The Forum will campaign for more objective media reporting.

For economic scrutiny & realism

European and other governments have burden their countries with unilateral and hugely expensive climate and green energy targets. As a direct result, energy prices and fuel poverty are rising in many countries, making them poorer and less competitive. Rejecting economically damaging climate and energy policies, the Forum will be campaigning for cost-effective alternatives that will help to make our societies more resilient and more competitive.

Against green unilateralism
The international deadlock on a new UN climate treaty shows that unilateral climate policies have failed. The Forum will be campaigning for the development of alternative approaches that are politically realistic and economically feasible.

Funding
The Global Warming Policy Forum will be funded by private donations. In order to make clear their complete independence, neither the Foundation nor the Forum accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company.

[grumbler]

Hey, they widely regard themselves as "one of the world's leading think tanks on global warming policy issues," not spelling.

[viper37]

So my theory is to find the few religions which contain neither dangerous nor regressive crackpottery and support those. Hence why I decided to make my family religious, basically to inoculate us.

Family portrait?

[garbon]

Ah yes I can see why if taken to an extreme that might be misleading.

No I introduced them to a religion to inoculate them from the quackery I found myself becoming susceptible to.

I don't see how it is extreme to take your statement at face value - particularly given that you've just repeated it, though yes, you've softened it with it being beliefs you also hold.

I found a religion which I believe preached truthful spiritual principles free from dangerous nuttery. This has been very good for me and enabled me to embrace that part of myself. If my children have similar urges later in life I have, hopefully, provided them with a home.

I guess that's good though again I think it shows a cynicism about your children / safeguards them against apparently a 'weakness' you detected in yourself. Still, I'm not at all judging, just again find it a bit odd that you are raising your children to be religious to prevent them from the off chance of adopting extremist religious views.

[LaCroix]

You are confusing complexity with "blame".

Culture drives religion, and religion drives culture, of course. Religion is one of many factors.

But there are people who make decisions based on their genuinely held religious views. To pretend like they are not is a bit silly.

I know Catholics who go to church on Sunday not because their family expects it, but because they truly and honestly believe that their faith demands that they do so. Some people go because it just what they do, even if they don't really believe.

The existence of the latter does not refute the existence of the former however.

what i'm saying is that in reality people truly base their decisions on whatever factors turned them into the person who decided to "make decisions based on their genuinely held religious views." if religion caused someone to blow himself up, then that same religion should have caused every follower to blow himself up. what actually caused the person to blow himself up were many other factors than just religion. the person may think he's acting out of his faith, but that's exactly the "lying to themselves" that i meant. does this clarify my original assertion (even if you disagree with it)?