What drives those of Faith to ignore Scientific Facts?

You're wrong. I'm sorry to sound patronizing, but what you wrote here contradicts reality.

 

Einstein hated when people misquoted him. There's a famous incident where an American preacher was taking Einstein out of context for religious reasons, which prompted Einstein himself to write a letter to the pastor explaining his atheism.

 

Einstein in 1954, writing to a rabbi who claimed Einstein was religious:

The word "God" is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this. These subtilized interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.

In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.

 

He never said he was an athiest. Look at these quotes.
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/01/16/Einstein-and-Intelligent-Design.aspx

 

Then prove me wrong instead of injecting your opinion. Provide links zone I do read and digest other people's opinions. I would provide links for you but I doubt you would read them. Just say they are right wing and dismiss them.
On second thought, why don't you look up Wattsupwiththat and Jo Nova's page, they are probably some of the easiest to read.
But I will be expecting that you will dismiss them.

 

Einstein was a Pantheist .

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." Upon being asked if he believed in God by Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York,
April 24, 1921, Einstein: The Life and Times, Ronald W. Clark, Page 502.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein in Albert Einstein: The Human Side

 

Links? Links shminks. I have scientific consensus on my side. You have Big Oil propaganda on yours.

 

In other words you ignored like I predicted because it might make you think. For your information Watt is a climate scientist and so is Jo Nova... There are plenty of scientist that disagree, but because they don't parrot the accepted party line, they are ignored by the MSM.

And I thought liberal meant you were supposed to have an open mind, but yours is closed tight with your fingers in your ears going lalalala!!!!

 

Why do you use "G-d" instead of "God"?

 

No, she is not a climate scientist.

I found that really quickly.

 

So in other words she's as qualified as Bill Nye the Science Guy.

 

She's actually a molecular biologist, found that pretty quickly by going to the Wikipedia page. So she is a scientist, my mistake on her being a climate scientist.

 

I never claimed "Bill Nye is a climate scientist. You stated:

I pointed out that you were wrong. I shouldn't have had to point that out to you. You should have done a little research before you posted your nonsense.

 

Do you read a bicycle repair manual when you want to get information about internal combustion engines?

Would you post that you know all about internal combustion engines because you read a book written by Lennard Zinn?

Would you go further and post: Lennard Zinn is an expert in the field of internal combustion engines?

That would be really silly, wouldn't it.

 

And I admitted that I made a mistake, but anyone who knows anything about college knows that there are core classes required that make her infinitely more qualified than you or I to make educated commentary on scientific research.
And anyone who knows anything about science knows it is never settled...And for those who wish to prosecute dissenters, they are the ones who are being dishonest.
Why don't you try going to read the NIPCC website and stop taking things at face value.

 

I believe it's the need to believe there's something after demise; religion has been ruthlessly exploiting this basic human fear since time immemorial and still is - there are big bucks in perpetuating it. But if the believers get comfort from that belief then good luck to them, and it's harmless to the rest of us. It's the religious fundamentalists of all faiths who are dangerous.

 

Why would anyone need such a belief when that something might be altogether unpleasant?

 

There are biologists who deny evolution. There are physicists who doubt general relativity. There are archaeologists who think ETs built ancient structures.

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to specialize in every discipline, so I do the next best thing, which is to defer to those who do. (It took me years just to get one MS degree!) When the majority of experts in a discipline look at the same data and make the same conclusion, that's important.

The minority who claim that AGW isn't real are free to publish their papers in peer-reviewed journals, and if they have anything substantial, it would be a relief. Still waiting on that.

PS

It's sad how you politicize this issue.

 

And it's obvious that you don't realize that are 28 different climate models from various scientist and none of them agree with each other.

 

- no, models are actually quite close. You can always SAY they are different, because there will always be differences - differences that are shrinking as more work is done. In fact, climatologists show how their models differ - using various methods such as error bars and charts showing results created using varying techniques.

- it's truly hilarious to see a denier suggest there isn't agreement. There is overwhelming agreement on the basic premise that human activity is changing earth's average temperature in a way that will have serious consequences.

 

Your right there are always differences, but to say that they are not "actually quite close", and then turn around and say that it is settled science and there is a consensus is dishonest. Out of the 5680 scientist that were queried by the IPCC, only 1200 responded, that's is less than 25% of those that were queried. Do you know how many of the temp sensors are in Antartica, a grand total of 7. Most of the temperature sensors are compromised because they are in Metropolitan areas, many are surrounded by concrete...Many are only monitored by government employees who are supposed to record the temperatures every day, many are only recorded 2 - 3 days a week, they just filled in the rest.

The truth is that there is no consensus, the dire predictions are simply a way to get money, none have proven out...And yet the only response I get is that I don't understand it because I don't have a degree. Maybe I don't have a science degree, but I have a lot of common sense which a lot of people on this forum seem to lack.

 

I think fear of death factors heavily into the equation. In general people do not want to die - and a belief in religion allows them to believe they won't die. Furthermore it allows them to believe that their loved ones who have died are still alive. The desire to live forever suspends critical thinking. People also want to be in control of things they cannot control. A sense of control is gained by practicing religious rituals. Then there are the various forms of brain washing and mind control used in religious indoctrination.

 

I never understood the concept of faith. I never understood who believing in something with proof/evidence and suspending critical thinking is a virtue.

 

However, there are people who are far more qualified to actually know what is happening. These are the scientists who actually do the work obtaining and researching the data. These are the people who actually have degrees in the related fields.

Quote from them instead of a writer with a degree in biology. Quote from them instead of a person who runs a weather forecasting company. Do not state that the person who you are quoting is a climate scientist until you check his/her credentials.

Dishonesty comes in many forms. see below.

I looked and here is what I found:

This volume, like past NIPCC reports, is edited and published by the staff of The Heartland Institute, a national nonprofit research and educational organization ...​

I don't consider The Heartland Institute to be an unbiased source. There were, probably still are, "scientists" who wrote papers asserting that cigarettes do not cause cancer.

 

But a True Believer KNOWS that they will spend eternity sitting in the good graces of their god.

It's just us heathen unbelievers that will go to that altogether unpleasant place.