So in the last few weeks, I have given thought to an exchange I have been having with a coworker.

He (we’ll call him ‘Bob’) is a liberal, and an atheist.  He is also what I would affectionately describe as passionate and a bit argumentative.  I mean that too, by the way, as I like Bob a great deal.  Politically we are actually both much closer to the center and too each other than our peers might think.  Where we are close in opinions, we find a great deal of value in our debates.

But, there are a couple of problems in there too, which is where the revelation comes in.

Take the debate that lead me to this blog.  I was making a mention to another coworker about an article I had seen on Drudge, I believe, regarding the Global Climate Change proponents famed Hockey stick chart.  The article was noting that a chief contributer to the chart, Keith Briffa, had never released the raw data his studies were based on.  This was (or should have been) a serious issue in the scientific community, as your science must be demonstrable and verifiable, and the only way to do so is to examine the data.  After 10 years of fruitless and frustrating requests by a statistician named Steve McIntyre, Briffa was finally forced to give it up, and the data was shocking.  It appears that Briffa cherry picked his data to deliberately give the results he wanted, the hockey stick. 

My comment was to someone else, but Bob picked up on it and entered the debate firmly on the side of global warming and accused me of  being a flat earther and believing that the dinosaurs were created by Satan.

I was shocked.  Seriously.  I have had discussions with him about this and other topics, but I had never before been subjected to such an insulting accusation, and the sad part was, he was serious.

I admit I blew my top.  I was very insulted, not so much for the accusation itself, but how after hours of debates we have had that he could think so poorly of me.  I told him in very clear terms I didn’t appreciate it.  We didn’t speak for a day or so.

After reflection I decided to clear the air, and sent him this:

Sorry I snapped at you but one of my pet peeves is how anyone who disturbs the consensus on global warming is immediately called a flat earth holocaust denier.  I think you were intending this as a joke, but the problem is that scientists have lost jobs over this, and people like me are scorned and derided for no reason, and it is a sore spot for me.  I base what I say and believe on the facts, all of them.

Again, sorry I snapped at you.

Here are two articles for you to look at if you have time that discuss just one aspect of how the climate change hysteria is based on faulty science that has been accepted as gospel with no valid review.

I am all for an examination on climate change and developing strategies on how to deal with it, but I do insist that the scientists who are promoting the anthropomorphic warming theories actually use science.

The articles were dealing with the lack of scientific review in the hockey stick graph.

He responded in a manner that, again, sort of shocked me.

Karl - People still debate evolution. * shudder *

Snap away, honestly - I do consider people that deny this on the same side of history as flat earthers, birthers, and dinosaur deniers.

Don’t apologize for snapping, I wasn’t trying to be funny - I was putting you in a pile I honestly believe you are in and that offends you as it should, I guess.

I’m no push over dude, I can take it.  I am a smug, sarcastic, patronizing, irreverent, heretic.

I felt I deserved your “snap” and rolled with it.  Doesn’t mean I don’t have that opinion and that offends you. 

While I appreciate his candor, I still fail to understand him and how he can think that.  I replied with this (excerpts only)

RE:  Evolution, I love debating it because most people don’t realize they are debating the wrong thing.

 :)

 How’s that for a wide open lure?

 …

…I have serious issues with evolution as it pertains to autogenesis, but not as it applies to species evolution, which is what I meant above.  I think that the concept of evolution is clearly relevant and legitimate whereas the subject of autogenesis is just as unsupported as believing in Deistic creation. 

I have no trouble resolving my belief in God with any of the above because my belief has plenty of room for all of it. 

 That said I have no problem with people who are literal 7th day creationists.  They are entitled to their belief too.  Mocking them as flat earthers is wrong because you imply that faith requires ignorance.  It really doesn’t.

As for Global Warming, I have provided plenty of scientifically based challenges to the popularly driven alarmists theories, so nothing about what I believe is either ignorant or unsupported.  If that equates me to a flat earther, then that is your problem with definitions. 

In my opinion that is a cheap way of dismissing opposition without any of the bothersome tasks such as evaluating the challenges or actually debating them on their merits.  Instead it is an Ad Hominem attack on the person, not the belief. 

And any scientist or person with a belief in the scientific method should be able to tell you that science is about facts, not personalities. 

…again, nothing in my position is simplistic, ignorant or without honest logical reasoning.

On the other hand, I believe in a second gunman RE: JFK, so I guess I am not perfect.

I did not expect an accepting response by this point, and I was not disappointed.

Not to cherry pick one thing, but I had to comment on this:

” Mocking them as flat earthers is wrong because you imply that faith requires ignorance.  It really doesn’t.”

 I cannot disagree more.  In fact, the only thing that makes people who have ‘faith’  NOT considered INSANE is the fact that there are so many of them.  Which is, in my book - retarded.  Faith is broken logic, dangerously wielded, and used to fuel insanity like “the global warming we are experiencing is main caused by human activity”. 

I am pretty sure he meant that the opposite.

 So, we could likely boil down most of our disagreements (because we agree on quite a lot actually) to this contrast in mindset - and it illustrates the futility of debate.  For you to agree with me would mean you killing your God which your “eternal soul”’s fate depends.

 That said, I look forward to fully reading your two emails and responding in full

He has not responded yet, and I do look forward to it, but I am now also absolutely assured it will be for naught.

You see, I posted several articles providing solid scientific challenges to Global Warming Alarmism as proof that my doubt was fueled by science, and all he can do is equate it to a dangerous product of faith.

In other words, his science is incontrovertible and any challenge is meaningless, because the only reason to do so is dogmatic reliance on atavistic faith.

I ask you:  Which of us is more dogmatic?  I presented challenges not to the conclusions, but to the process actually used to make them, and all challenges were denied, untested, and unverified.

Out of this exchange, I got several revelations.

First, the theory of anthropomorphic warming is actually a religion.  Or at the least it emulates one on a very base level.  Consider this: 

The “theory” of global warming posits that human activities such as deforestation—but primarily the burning of fossil fuels—are causing an increase in the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, enhancing the natural greenhouse effect. This warming, the theory continues, if unchecked will lead to all manner of apocalyptic events.

I placed the word “theory” in quotes because I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that the idea that humans are causing global warming is really more akin to a religious belief—a revealed truth about human sins (fossil fuel use) and their consequences (all manner of calamities)—rather than a testable scientific explanation.

A couple of points lead me to this conclusion: the way climate scientists skeptical of the claims that humans are causing climate change are treated, and the fact that the theory seems to violate the scientific method by being unfalsifiable.

 …

The term “skeptic” has historically been a badge of honor proudly worn by scientists as indicating their commitment to the idea that, in the pursuit of truth, nothing is beyond question, every bit of knowledge is open to improvement and/or refutation as new evidence or better theories emerge.

However, in the topsy-turvy field of climate science, “skeptic” is a term of opprobrium and to be labeled a skeptic is to be dismissed as a hack. Being a skeptic concerning global warming today is akin to being a heretic in the Middle Ages—you may not be literally burned at the stake, but your reputation will be put to flames.

…

These scientists have learned the hard lesson that when reality and the theory conflict, for professional reasons, they’d better cling to the theory: shades of Galileo recanting his theory that the Earth revolves around the sun under pressure from the Inquisition.

..

This is not the realm of healthy scientific discovery where testability, evidence and proof are king, but rather the unhealthy province of a doctrinaire religious belief, where unquestioning, unwavering, faith and blind proselytizing rules the day.

Another Revelation is that the reason that atheists are so confrontational about religion is a complete misunderstanding of what faith is and more importantly, why people have it.   There is a fundamental disconnect between the two, as there is between Bob and I.  Which leads us to Revelation #3:

Bob will never allow any scientific debate between us to be a serious one, because at his core, he doesn’t believe that I operating above a primitive level, no matter how much science I can cite.

The last part is disturbing because it showcases how deeply he relies on faith in order to sustain his belief.

My faith in God allows me to think and to question.  His faith in Global Warming (and in essence, in man) will not allow any challenge.  As I said, who is the dogmatic primitive here?

Note I did not mention his faith in science, because he has none.  He has faith in some conclusions, not in science and in the scientific method.  Otherwise he would be outraged at the scientific fraud.

So can Bob and I, or any other liberal and I maintain discourse?

Sure.

I have other more liberal friends who are much more open to debate, even when we are at polar opposites.  In fact, it might be that Bob and I being in agreement in so many other political issues makes this such an issue, strange as that sounds.

In conclusion,  the saddest Revelation for me was the understanding that when you enter into a debate, despite your best intentions and whatever careful preparations you may make, and despite the power of your arguments, in the end the other person’s perception of you will carry more weight than logic, reason or any other factor.

I think both sides can learn from this.  If we see liberals as howling fools and they see us conservatives the same, we will simply end up howling at each other.

I pride myself on my open mindedness.  But it’s a useless practice when you are debating with a closed one.

All this I knew.  Maybe God thought I needed a reminder.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS