Without getting into whether there are or aren't gods, I'd like to do some research on you guys.
Atheists in my experience, without an exception to date, are an environmentally-minded crowd. They tend to vehemently oppose anything that looks like industrial wrecking of nature, believing as they do that this Earth is the only one we've got and that no higher power will stop us from mortally wounding it.
Many atheists will also bring this up against religion: the whole dominion of the earth, the expectation of the end times and the new earth, the call to be hard-working and industrious, the call to have children (overpopulation), and the idea that god wouldn't allow us to affect the climate, etc. etc. To many it seems religion has a "whatever, it's all going to be destroyed anyway" attitude.
But I know religious people aplenty, however, who think the Creator is to be seen in nature and NOT in man-made things, and therefore removing the influence of nature from people could be seen as pulling them away from the influence of god. There are certainly many people of faith who felt called to protect the environment or work in environmental conservation.
How do your beliefs affect your attitude about the environment?
For those of any faith, how does your faith affect your regard for the environment, or does it at all? For those who in the "this is the only life I've got" crowd, how do you feel about it? If you call yourself an environmentalist, what is the reason?
(Nobody ever wants to talk CO2 and temperature profiles. It's always polling data.)
But since it's polling data: this ought to help explain those graphs:
Burning heretics at the stake. Quite the scientific method.
What is the carbon offset for burning someone at the stake?
Three Oak trees.
The Carbon Footprint of the person you are burning at the stake minus the emissions created by the fire
Finding significance in the graphs above, given the new climate, would be like concluding that the Catholic heterodoxy of "modernism" (whatever it was) was stupid, since all or almost all Catholic priests opposed it. After the Church made a rule requiring all priests to swear they opposed it.
To me this article sums up and helps me explain why, when the topic of AGW comes up, we can't get discussions of the science going, but instead go to polling data like that shown above.
No wonder infrared absorption profiles make a side topic we can't get a discussion on, and consensus is front-and-center: people are talking about what interests them. Infrared and carbon don't; group consensus does.
Crock-o-bullshit. For instance, they claim deforestation as a factor in global climate warming. Problem with that: There is no deforestation. Because we no longer let wildfires just run themselves out across the continent there is more standing acreage of trees today (in the U.S. and Canada) than there were 200 years ago.
For instance: There is no where on earth that we now know for a demonstrable fact that the climate has not ALWAYS been in a constant state of change.
For instance: Yesterday, some place (I believe in texas?) hit a record high that had not been seen in 107 years. That means the last time it hit the same temp on the same day in the same place, it was 1907. One year before the first model T rolled out of the factory, at a time when the number of cars in the entire world was a couple thousand at most.
For Instance: The idea that there is a scientific consensus is a myth. Re: The Oregon Petition.
Buying into man made world climate change is the act of buying into a comically bad scientific idea that is a self fulfilling prophesy perpetuated by those who will benefit from it the most.
Careful Denny... you're on the verge of confusing the issue with facts.
One year before the first model T rolled out of the factory, at a time when the number of cars in the entire world was a couple thousand at most.
But well after we had been burning so much coal for a century that our buildings were coated black. But regardless - average temperature rise is not the same as record highs.
As for the Oregon petition, it's pretty well debunked, but even if all the signers in it had backgrounds in climatology or atmospheric science (instead of .5%), it's still a small number. Consensus doesn't mean 100%. It means the vast majority. Now - I agree, consensus doesn't mean it's right - of course, but it does mean currently, the overwhelming evidence we have does point to that conclusion. Provide new evidence to suggest otherwise (peer reviewed, if you please) and we can talk.
Ok, show me those facts. Show me the forest cover world-wide for the past 50 years.