I came across this excellent op/ed piece in the Washington Times. As I have stated in previous posts global warming is nothing more than the Left's new religion. Humans have an innate desire for religion; the Left doesn't have religion so they make it up.
"And while I have my own religious thoughts, I will not disdain any man's search for the transcendent. But a religion should be understood by both its adherents and others for what it is — a religion. The trouble with global-warming believers is that probably most of them delude themselves into thinking they are practicing science — not religion. And yet, the signs of religiousness are readily to be seen. Al Gore and his Hollywood coterie have almost comically manifested one aspect of their new religion in the last few weeks — the sense of sin and the search for remission of such sin. In the animistic church any using or changing of the physical world (such as burning carbon) is a sin against the sacred, holistic, living world (the Gaia hypothesis). But as everyone uses energy (just as every Christian sins), the neo-animist church, too, must provide for a remission of sin (and also, a handy source of profit for the carbon-offset company owners — such as Al Gore who, according to news reports, pays his indulgences to Generation Investment Management, of which he is the chairman." - well said!
There is no scientific backing for global warming theories, only religious zealots trying to convert the world by way of death threats, exclusion, and mockery.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Well, out of respect for your obviously preeminent critical thinking skills - illustrated so succinctly with your ridiculous hyperbole in the final paragraph - I humbly inform you that your research skills are a little lacking. You see, practicing researchers will actively seek out published, peer-reviewed papers and formulate their own opinion using first-hand sources, and there is nothing wrong with admitting that you don't understand the science and therefore refrain or defer to majority opinion. What you have done here in this post is quote, *second-hand*, a journalist's *opinion piece* about *another person* who is actively involved in public relations. Notice: no scientist or peer-reviewed source anywhere in that chain. I'm afraid that means that neither the article, nor your opinion on it, counts for very much; this is not surprising since the entire premise of the article is laughable.
Now of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps you are scientifically trained and you've published papers? I mean, you certainly act as if you know what you're talking about.
Were you also one of the 'tobacco smoke is not harmful' people? In only ask since you sure drank the Kool-Aid on this one, and it's the exact same tactic the tobacco lobby used.
anonymous...
Thank you for respecting my critical thinking skills.
"I humbly inform you that your research skills are a little lacking" I am not sure if you understand the purpose of my blog so let me clear it up. My blog is NOT a research paper. It is simply my own OPINION on various topics.
"Notice: no scientist or peer-reviewed source anywhere in that chain. I'm afraid that means that neither the article, nor your opinion on it, counts for very much" - So are you saying that the only articles that count include scientists or peer-reviewed sources? I am not a scientist and I place little to no value in their theories. I think it is extremely naive to believe that if the majority believes something to be true then it must be true. I prefer to believe facts, not theories.
"Were you also one of the 'tobacco smoke is not harmful' people? In only ask since you sure drank the Kool-Aid on this one" - No I wasn't. The only kool-aid drinking going on is from the side of the global warming zealots. You believe anything you are told because you are so desperate to believe in something, you are desperate to find meaning to your life.
I hope you enjoy the kool-aid!
Someone else noticed you.
It is an honor just to be nominated!
The fact that Anonymous linked you to a site that Robert McClelland frequents gives you a window into his/her/it's gene-pool.
This level of progressive thinking normally comes from too many visits to a siblings room in the middle of the night.
Can also be found on Hutterite colonies and NDP gatherings.
"The religion of global warming". That's lame. Whenever a kneep-jerk conservative, wannabe religious fundamentalist or coal invester would like to dump on a science (biology, geology, climatology, you name it), they call it religion. Oooh, we are so stung. See you in 1st-year science this fall.
I disagree with you Biebs. Neither global warming nor environmentalism is a religion. They are facets of another religion called secularism.
I fail to understand why people keep harping on peer reviewed papers when they are based on poor data or jump to unrelated conclusions. They have not yet been able to explain even simple things that disprove their theories.
There is not proof of anthropogenically caused global warming. It is simply a belief. That is why it is called a religion. Instead of holding up scientists as saints, try stepping back and seeing how their theories apply in the real world. When there is obvious evidence that their theories are lacking, be skeptical.
John...
I am confused by your comment, your first statement is that you disagree with me but then the last two paragraphs of your comment appear to be inline with what I am saying.
Please clarify, do you disagree that global warming is a religion but you agree with the rest of my post? Or, do you disagree with everything I am saying and you believe that peer reviewed papers are to be treated as 100% true and that scientists are not to be questioned?
Danj...
Come back and chat some more AFTER you have finished 1st-year science this fall, then maybe we can have an intelligent discussion.
May I recommend taking 1st-year spelling while you are at it. I am unfamiliar with "a kneep-jerk conservative" were you calling me a jerk? What is a "coal invester"?
I find it amusing that scientists are so easy to excite, just call them religionists and they go bananas. lol Unlike you I don't consider religion to be negative so I am not implying anything negative by equating global warming hysteria to religion.
I disagree that anthropogenically caused global warming (AGW) is a religion in and of itself. It is only one part of another religion.
The real problem is that the issue is too complex for science to be able to figure it all out. The science is still in its infancy, and it will take a long time to figure it all out.
I figured something out recently from my reading. Greenhouse gases in the biosphere seem to be irrelevant with respect to global warming; otherwise, there is no explanation as to why the 50's through to the 70's were so cold while the greenhouse gas levels rose sharply.
John...
Thanks for the clarification. I see your point that GW is part of a larger religion. The fact is, the purporters of GW theories act as religious fanatics.
On the other issues it sounds as though we see eye-to-eye!
I swear...none of you seem to understand language. You throw around words like religion, science and secularim without having a clue what they mean.
God, get off the computer and go back to school, you rightwing morons.
religion, science and secularim
Science is the pursuit of understanding about how the world around us works. It exists in the form of proposing a hypothesis about how a particular aspect of our universe works then proving or disproving that hypothesis. The more often it gets proven true, the stronger the evidence is that the hypothesis is correct. A single negative result kills the theory unless there was a mistake within the process that obtained the negative.
Religion is a belief is something bigger than ourselves that has some kind of control over the universe and its inner workings.
Secularism is the separation of church and state. It has grown such that atheists now attribute supernatural powers to governments. They revel in promises like multiculturalism and environmentalism without taking a step back to see the world for how it is and has been. Perhaps secularism is not the best word to describe this religion, but it is indeed a religion.
touche, the left does tend to jump on the socially-motivated-trendy-idealism bandwagom pretty easily, but you said that "the left doesn't have religion." does that imply that the right does, and if so, what the hell is it doing in politics? religion has NO place in anything concerning the state. Period.
touche, the left does tend to jump on the socially-motivated-trendy-idealism bandwagom pretty easily, but you said that "the left doesn't have religion." does that imply that the right does, and if so, what the hell is it doing in politics? religion has NO place in anything concerning the state. Period.
The idea of separation of church and state came about because church leaders had too much influence in public policy. I agree this is not good and has no place in democratic society.
However, religion forms the basis of peoples beliefs and values. You can not and should not attempt to separate the beliefs and values of the people from the state. It is naive to think that people do not vote based on their belief and value system. Both the left and the right do this. That is why the left will vote for the party that feeds into their religious beliefs that GW is real and the right will vote for the party that feeds into their religious beliefs on other issues (such as abortion). Religion affects politics through its affect on the voters belief system. There is no way around this nor should there be.
touche, religious influence on politics may have bearing on those who are devout, but there are a lot of people out there who don't believe heavily in any sort of deity. religion will play a part in voters' belief systems, granted, but the values of the large (probably majority) number of people who are not particulalry religious will not be influenced by the religious affiliation of either the right or the left, and so religion may form the basis of some peoples' values, but by no means everybodys'. It is naive to think that everyone votes according to values made from their religious backgrounds (for a large number of people have none) and that means that, as those who do not practice are probably (but not certainly) majority, any influence religion has within politics could be considered moot point, and so religion plays a very small role in voting, or at least i hope it does.
Post a Comment