[mikeash]

There is no known natural cycle in which the rate of change in global temperature matches what's been happening in the past few decades. Current and even projected temperatures are well within the range of what happens naturally, but it's happening much faster than it ever has before. This has worrying implications for the ability of ecosystems to adapt, and more importantly for us humans, for the ability of civilization to adapt. Civilizations have collapsed due to slower, smaller changes than this.

You say "I really doubt we humans can affect climate changes in any way." This is a common sentiment. I see a lot of people saying things like this. "The Earth is just too big." "Humans are insignificant." And so forth. What causes you to say this? Have you actually run the numbers? I've not found anyone expressing that sentiment who actually has anything like a quantitative basis for it.

[moubarak]

I'm a non-secular person that's why. I certainly don't have the numbers, i read them here and there. But i base it on knowledge coming from scriptures. Scientists are hardworking people, but i don't take their numbers as faith.

[mikeash]

OK, so you think humans can't possibly affect the climate because the all-powerful creator of the universe said it couldn't happen?

Why are you even trying to put a factual basis on your doubt, then? Why talk about natural cycles and all that, if your actual source for doubt is divine?

[moubarak]

My doubt is based on divine scriptures, and there are experiments (as per the article i mentioned) that agree with it. What's wrong with that? You can still experiment and prove divine wisdom, it doesn't have to be forced knowledge.

[mikeash]

The main thing that bugs me is that it seems extremely dishonest to converse in this way, where you bring up vague references to articles to support your position, when the real reason you believe in it is because of your religion.

You say you can still experiment and prove divine wisdom. Can you experiment and disprove divine wisdom? In your eyes, is it possible even in theory that it could somehow be proven that human activity is in fact affecting the climate? Because if you've already decided on the outcome and are just casting around for support, what you're doing is not experiment, it's just an exercise in cognitive bias.

[matthewmacleod]

There is little to no evidence that current climate change is a natural event.

as per the article i mentioned

You didn't link to this article, so it's content is not useful, and it's likely it didn't say what you imply.

You can still experiment and prove divine wisdom

No you can't.

[athenot]

I'm intrigued as to how you arrive to this conclusion.

Faith explains the "why", science explains the "how". And there certainly is support in Scripture to take good care of the Earth, following a more generic pattern of being good stewards of what God has entrusted us with.

This is why Laudato Si is nudging the faithful into action.

[mikeash]

Faith explains both why and how. The Bible is full of "how." Almost all of the "how" has been discovered to be wrong, but it's there. Religion has responded to this by retreating from the realm of the "how," and so your statement that faith is just about the "why" is becoming a pretty common view.

However, a lot of people are still around who don't agree with that approach, and still stick with the "how" as described in their holy texts. Exhibit A, above.

[cholantesh]

Which scriptures? And why are human-authored documents so trustworthy in that one scenario?

[tunesmith]

There's a difference between religion and willful ignorance. If you want to believe or disbelieve something unprovable, fine - that can be defined as religion, or conjecture in science-speak. But to believe or disbelieve something in the face of observation, clear evidence, and fact - that is not religion.

[mikeash]

Why is that not religion? Certainly there are religions that fit themselves entirely within the "believe something unprovable" niche, but there are a lot of religions that go much farther than that.