I have had numerous conversations with people who believe in man-made global warming; and to a person, they are convinced that it is true, and that it is based on science. These have been people from all different walks of life, and in virtually every age category.
Looking at this objectively, we must say that the jury is still out as to whether or not man-made global warming exists. Honestly, there is not enough data to make that determination. Which brings us to the other part of what these people believe – that it is based on science.
While there are a lot of people who have tried (and are continuing to try) to collect data to prove that man-made global warming is true, actual proof does not exist. What does exist are short term trends from the past – which are totally inconclusive. Scientists simply do not have the kind of data that is necessary to make a case for it.
If that is true, then why is it so widely believed – even in the scientific community? And that is a very good question! To go straight to the bottom line, the case for man-made global warming is based almost completely on computer models. People who are interested in this topic have attempted to discern what variables are capable of creating a warming of the climate, then they plug figures into their computer model based on their beliefs in order to come up with a trend that peers into the future. At this point, most of the models seem to show that the climate is warming, and will become calamitous at some future point unless something is done to mitigate the problem.
So this leads us to two questions. First, are we sure that the computer programs are configured in a way that actually accounts for all of the variables that would cause global climate change? Second, are we sure that the data being fed into the models is comprehensive and accurate? And the answer on both counts is a resounding NO!
First of all, computer models that attempt to predict these kinds of future trends are notoriously flawed. There are actually quite a number of “scientific” computer models in use these days in various fields.
Perhaps the ones we have the most common reliance upon are those that attempt to predict weather patterns for our daily weather reports. While the results of these models become more accurate the closer they are to the actual weather event itself, they, too, are infamously inaccurate even one or two days out.
Another area where computer models are used is for hurricane forecasting. I am personally familiar with these as I live in a place where hurricanes are not uncommon. Again, they become much more accurate the closer in they are, but just like regular weather models, they are also notoriously inaccurate even two to three days out.
Or take the computer modeling that was done for the corona virus pandemic. As it turns out, those models were horribly off.
There is a reason computer models are so bad at predicting what is going to happen. That reason is that scientists simply do not have the ability to gather the kind of data that is necessary to make predictions in areas that involve the number of variables these natural events contain. Scientists simply do not know enough to make it work.
So this brings us back to the global warming models. If scientists are not able to predict regular weather patterns with precision even two or three days out, how in the world do they think they can predict the climate 100 years out. They cannot even be sure that they have a handle on all of the variables involved in creating climate change. And they certainly don’t have the kind of data necessary to make predictions. Climate change predictions are simply not based on empirical science!
Well, if they are not based on science, what, then, are they based upon? The simple answer is, they are based on faith. Man-made global warming is a religious belief, not a scientific one.
The question then becomes, why would people promote this as science when it really is not? The answer to that is the same one that answers the question as to why people promote the theory of evolution as science when it is not. The answer is that people who promote these “lesser” agendas actually have a larger agenda that they are trying to support – the agenda of naturalistic belief. These lesser agendas are all premised on the belief that the natural universe is all that exists. They believe that humans can (and will) ultimately get to a place where they will be able to explain all of reality based on naturalistic principles using the scientific method.
Belief in the validity of these models is not based on science – because there is no actual science that supports the belief that the natural universe is all that exists. It is a religious belief. Still, Naturalists believe it to be true, so they attempt to live their lives “as if” it is true. They are continually seeking proof to support their beliefs, and are convinced that one day, when human knowledge and technology advance far enough, we will understand everything.
So how do you deal with someone who believes this? You start by somehow making them confront the reality that their models are based on faith, not science. People who believe in a naturalistic approach to understanding reality, also believe in their heart and mind that a naturalistic worldview is true. Thus, the ultimate transformation must take place in the heart and mind. Helping people see actual truth is the only answer.