Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

O.T. - Cage Match Revisited - Denial and Religion

hero

12-Dec-2009
1:26:53 PM

It occurs to me, that there is a strange correlation between religion and denying climate change. A few examples: Tony Abbot, beleves in a big ghosty thing, staunch denier (now at least). The American people, largely Christian, largely in denial. It does seems strange that they shold believe so strongly in something that has no evidence, and yet deny the existence of something for which there is arguably, a lot of evidence.

Anyone got a theory on this?

Swine, how does it feel to hold similar views to the majority of Americans?

simey

12-Dec-2009
2:26:25 PM

No I don't have a theory, but it is an interesting perspective you have put forward.

Sounds like another good reason not to pay much attention to climate change deniers.


meinmuk

12-Dec-2009
2:34:48 PM

To be fair, hero, there's a fair bit of evidence around, it's just that fundamentalists interpret
the evidence different from how others interpret it.


wallwombat

12-Dec-2009
3:02:25 PM

Anyone know what Tony Abbott's take on evolution is?

hero

12-Dec-2009
3:10:56 PM

Meinmuk

A little ambiguous your post not? What are you saying there evidence for?

jimfalla

12-Dec-2009
3:28:16 PM

I think it good to have something in common with Barnaby Joyce, Wilson Tuckey and the Bush clan. They have such good ideas about everything else, surely it's worth tagging along with them on this one too...

Brazened

12-Dec-2009
8:34:01 PM

I think your forgetting that Kevin Rudd is a Christian too.

There have been some murmurings in the media recently that all is not what it seems
especially after the government sent 114 delegates to Copenhagen and lied saying there
was only around 40 being sent. This has caused waves and journalists are now looking
for other holes too.

From what I've read there are plenty of Scientists who believe that the earth's climate is
changing but not because of what we are doing, they think it is changing naturally. For
instance this is the opposite to entering an ice age. Some scientists also believe that
the hole in the ozone layer is now getting smaller, not larger.

So who to believe? I honestly have no idea, I don't claim to be an exert and am not about
to go a do a degree and paper on climate change. But there are definitely differing
opinions within the scientific community as a whole and it's not necessarily just in the
U.S.


GravityHound

13-Dec-2009
7:45:03 AM

On 12/12/2009 Brazened wrote:
>I think your forgetting that Kevin Rudd is a Christian too.

Yes. But only to buy votes.
>
>There have been some murmurings in the media recently that all is not
>what it seems
>especially after the government sent 114 delegates to Copenhagen and lied
>saying there
>was only around 40 being sent. This has caused waves and journalists are
>now looking
>for other holes too.

Are the waves right handers or left handers? Rideable? Are their holes because they are dirty great tubes? They sound like nice waves. If I was a journalist (or surfer) I would be looking for more too.

>From what I've read there are plenty of Scientists who believe that the
>earth's climate is
>changing but not because of what we are doing, they think it is changing
>naturally. For
>instance this is the opposite to entering an ice age.

There is a whole thread devoted to this. We dont need another one.

> Some scientists
>also believe that
>the hole in the ozone layer is now getting smaller, not larger.

Seeing as the Montreal Protocol banned most things that cause the hole there is little doubt that recovery should be starting soon, or has started (?). Dont think full recovery is expected until mid-century though. Research the topic. You can photograph the ozone hole so there should be good data on what it is doing.

>So who to believe?

Not Sen. Steve Fielding. Thats my tip of the day.

>I honestly have no idea, I don't claim to be an exert
>and am not about
>to go a do a degree and paper on climate change. But there are definitely
>differing
>opinions within the scientific community as a whole and it's not necessarily
>just in the
>U.S.

Not necessarily the U.S. but predominantly the U.S. There is a petition of 'scientists' who dont believe in AGW. Track that down and look at the proprtion of them that are yanks.

citationx

13-Dec-2009
8:59:51 AM

On 12/12/2009 Brazened wrote:
>From what I've read there are plenty of Scientists who believe that the
>earth's climate is
>changing but not because of what we are doing, they think it is changing
>naturally. For
>instance this is the opposite to entering an ice age. Some scientists
>also believe that
>the hole in the ozone layer is now getting smaller, not larger.

I think that what most people forget is that a lot of the scientists argue that humans are causing an "acceleration" of global warming, not global warming itself. the world moves through cold and hot climates all the time, it's just that there's been so much of it in the last 50 years compared to the hundreds or thousands that it usually takes. and as for the "belief" that the ozone layer is getting smaller, i'm not sure how they do it, but if these pictures are generated in a genuine way, then it's not just a belief.

Wendy

13-Dec-2009
1:42:59 PM

On 12/12/2009 hero wrote:
>It occurs to me, that there is a strange correlation between religion and
>denying climate change. A few examples: Tony Abbot, beleves in a big ghosty
>thing, staunch denier (now at least). The American people, largely Christian,
>largely in denial. It does seems strange that they shold believe so strongly
>in something that has no evidence, and yet deny the existence of something
>for which there is arguably, a lot of evidence.
>
>Anyone got a theory on this?
>
So do Holocaust deniers fit into this theory too?

Wendy

13-Dec-2009
1:46:58 PM

Are you trying to fuel International Dis Hero day?


evanbb

13-Dec-2009
2:24:22 PM

I'm all for stirring the pot, but there's a good argument to delete this thread completely. Maybe we can steer every thread into a discussion of how people that recklessly don't wear hemlets are causing climate change.

kieranl

13-Dec-2009
3:04:10 PM

On 13/12/2009 evanbb wrote:
>I'm all for stirring the pot, but there's a good argument to delete this
>thread completely. Maybe we can steer every thread into a discussion of
>how people that recklessly don't wear hemlets are causing climate change.
What the F are "hemlets", for some reason I am thinking they're related to lemmings.
Anyway back to the real topic. It's not original, but one reason for the seemingly unlikely high percentage of religious nuts in the US is that they got the Puritans and and we got the convicts. While neither knew a lot about how to make friends with the locals without wiping them off the face of the earth, the convicts at least knew how to have a good time.

hero

13-Dec-2009
3:27:57 PM

hemlets, the small hems on evanb's tutus?

New zealand villages eh bro?

an egg dish?

dieselcam

13-Dec-2009
3:49:13 PM

I'm pretty new to Chockstone, but isn't it a rock climbing website? Maybe this political discussion should be on the 7.30 Report website or something.

It's just not right, I'm calling talk back radio ; )

kieranl

13-Dec-2009
4:10:34 PM

On 13/12/2009 hero wrote:
>hemlets, ...
>
>New zealand villages eh bro?
Oh, those hemlets. I can see why not wearing one could be considered reckless (what person would be seen dead without one?) but how would that contribute to climate change?

13-Dec-2009
4:44:54 PM

On 13/12/2009 dieselcam wrote:
>I'm pretty new to Chockstone, but isn't it a rock climbing website?

only if you use the "Hide Topic" button for 3 out of 4 threads

I know I do - and this thread is about to join the list!


wallwombat

13-Dec-2009
5:16:31 PM

On 13/12/2009 dieselcam wrote:
>I'm pretty new to Chockstone, but isn't it a rock climbing website?

Some climbing websites such as rockclimbing.com and UKclimbing.com have a seperate section in their forums for non climbing related discussions. We don't. Neither does supertopo. We just chuck it in the mix and generally whack an OT in front of it which stands for off topic.

Personally, I'm glad we also have a bit of non-climbing related discussion. Otherwise we would be constantly talking about the ethics of wearing or not wearing a helmet or when you should retire a rope or what is a good starter rack, etc, etc..

The thing is, as much as we all love rock climbing, sometimes it's not always the most interesting subject to talk about.

If you have ever checked out a bouldering forum you will realise it gets much worse. I love bouldering but it's a great big yawn to talk about.


meinmuk

13-Dec-2009
5:30:55 PM

On 12/12/2009 hero wrote:
>Meinmuk
>
>A little ambiguous your post not? What are you saying there evidence for?

Tongue firmly in cheek, hero. If you are a believer, you can believe everything in front of
your eyes is evidence of the creator. Or, if you believe in science, you are likely to
consider the breadth of possibilities and decide on the most likely. I would concur that a
link between faith and CC denialism is possible, but agree that KRudd has taken a firm
and consistent line on both, in contrast with the MMonk and in contravention of your
thesis.

andy

Maybe there is a link between conviction and strength of belief in the face of

dieselcam

13-Dec-2009
5:35:46 PM

On 13/12/2009 wallwombat wrote:
>Personally, I'm glad we also have a bit of non-climbing related discussion.
>Otherwise we would be constantly talking about the ethics of wearing or
>not wearing a helmet or when you should retire a rope or what is a good
>starter rack, etc, etc..
>
>The thing is, as much as we all love rock climbing, sometimes it's not
>the most interesting subject to talk about.

Good points. Keep mixing it up then.

There are 58 messages in this topic.