Is Global Warming liberalisms religion?

Question

In science, there can't be consensus. if you stop and think, science is not about the most people who will agree to a proposition, that makes the proposition so. If that were science, why, we'd still have the earth being flat and the sun orbiting around the earth. Consensus simply cannot have any place in science, and if the global warming crowd continues to pulverize and sell it on the basis that there's consensus, that ought to tell anybody who understands the English language that there isn't any science in it, that it is all politics. This global warming issue is the essence of liberalism versus conservatism. Global warming, militant environmentalism, militant animal rightsism, is nothing more, those things are nothing more than opportunities for communists, socialists, people that support dictatorships, to empower elements of society they think are important, government, statism, and this sort of thing, and every element of conservatism versus liberalism is to be found in the global warming debate. It's amazing, in fact, the left out there decrying devout Christianity or Catholicism or anything of the sort. They are as religious about what it is they believe as anybody else. They are as intolerant of people who disagree. They also have to rely on faith. Faith is that which is not provable. In order to accept belief in something, you must have faith if it can't be proved. That sums up the left's association and attachment to global warming. It represents an opportunity for liberals to do everything they want to do in terms of controlling and limiting freedom and liberty. They blame the American people and civilized peoples all over the world for destroying the planet. They infuse everybody with as much guilt for destroying the planet and how is this guilt ladled out? It is ladled out on the basis that your lifestyle is too rich, that your lifestyle is based on greed, that your lifestyle is based on selfishness, and it's also based on the fact that you don't care about anybody else but yourself, that you are damaging the planet in the process. They have to get hold of you to save the planet, their god.

They have to get hold of you to save their religion. In the process of making you feel guilty, you will support massive increases in the size of government and state, in order to fix the problem that you have caused, and you will gladly fork over more and more taxes to do this while in the throes of your guilt. Global warming is nothing more than a scheme, particularly the manmade characteristics of global warming, the desire for them to make you believe, the attempt to make you believe that you're causing it.

Answer 1

Yes, it has all the tenants of a major religion. An apocalypse (Global Warming), sins (littering, driving an SUV), sacraments (hybrid cars, recycling), organized religion (PETA, ELF and the like), preachers (ex. Rachel Carson), demons (Republicans, Rush), condemnation of heritics (those who don't believe the way they do)

Yep, its a religion all right

And with the left's condemnation of all religions, you'd think they'd disown this environmentalist wacko stuff.

Answer 2

How does ones love of freedom and liberty solve any problem, from acid rain to global warming. You seem to mean that these concepts bar individuals and/or governments from analyzing with the best scientific tools available the root causes of such problems and beginning an academic-political discussion about how to reduce the magnitude of the problem to a size that is manageable and does not threaten the sustainability of the natural environment in which we all live and work. If bar is too harsh then, at a minimum, you mean that any scientifically based attempt to analyze and solve an environmental problem (quite frankly it seems this is true across the board for so-called conservatives) is de facto corrupt, notwithstanding the science, if it presages any cost to or prohibition on any human action or activity no matter how injurious it proves to be. You are all reactionaries in the truest and worst sense of the word.

Answer 3

For example,

scientists say:
the world is experiencing global warming!

then environmentalists say:
scientists confirm that [man-made] global warming is a fact, we should reduce our emissions!

then oil companies say:
scientists say global warming is a natural process and there's nothing we can do about it. We should get prepared!.

Two extreme manipulations of truth that make's it hard to see the real truth up to now:

global warming is a fact (a wide consensus)
man-made global warming is not (not consensus)
scientists still don't agree on the causes and are still researching. Their models are still unable to capture the complex dynamics of greenhouse gases.

So scientists don't agree on a lot of issues related to climate change, but some groups of interests want people to think there is consensus and make money while they can.

They make climate change an ethical, political or religious issue instead of a field of research still going on!.

Here is an article i wrote that could help people understand what is going on:

Global Warming - Separating Fact from Fiction
http://ibloga.infoartperu.com/ibloga_07012522291058.cfm

Answer 4

Of course. The debate plays right into their hands. It is a brilliant way to make folks dependent and beholding to the government for their very existence all in one swoop. A newly released book by two very respected professors on the environment refutes the politically correct crowds assertions point by point. They were on TV recently and made some very interesting and scathing remarks about the naturally occurring phenomenon referred to as global warming. One point was that while it is true that one part of the ice shelf is thinning, there are others which are thickening. Carbon dioxide, blamed for much of the problems, is not a pollutant, but a gas that is needed for our very existence. CB levels were actually much higher during several periods in the past but were accompanied by record cold temperatures-specifically during the mid 1800's. So apparently there is still reams of data that does not corroborate human activities roll in global warming. They do not dispute that the phenomena is occurring-only that it must be dealt with objectively without continuously beating ourselves up over it politically. And lastly, it is true that ocean levels are on the rise-the only problem with that assertion is that they have been on the rise for over 8000 years, around 400 feet since that time period. Alas, some folks have to have a political football to kick around to while away the hours of boredom before the next "crisis." Also, the republicans were consistantly blasted for not signing the Kyoto treaty when the two of the most populos nations in the world were excluded from having to abide by it. If warming is such a problem, how does it help anyone to have these countries polute till their hearts content and others having to reduce their emissions? Seems like this only enforces the status quo and does nothing to eliminate the problem that supposedly got us here in the first place. If the world is serious about it, every country gets the hammer, not just those it is politically correct to blame. It makes no sense. Of course, common sense isn't the lefts strong suit so i can totally understand where this is going.

Answer 5

What a sad, ignorant diatribe. The logic is totally flawed. Yes science does not equal consensus. But for any of this illogical rant to pass muster, we must believe that consensus does not equal science; that where there is consensus there is no science. By this flawed logic, Newtonian physics is not science, nor is quantum physics, chemistry, medicine, biology... because all these are based on consensus! Hell, by this (il)logic, there is no science at all! But science in all disciplines is founded on a general consensus of what exists, what counts as truth, and what counts as knowledge. Fifty years ago, Thomas Kuhn called this a 'paradigm'.

Unfortunately my ignorant friend, just because consensus exists does not mean that research or findings are not scientific. Gravity exists. That is a consensus. Newton's laws of motion exist. Consensus. Carbon dioxide causes global warming. Consensus. Humans have caused the increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the past 250 years. Through the hard work of thousands of scientists over the past 100 years who have critically examined the hypotheses of global warming, subjecting them to rigorous tests, trying and failing to discredit them, all the challenges to this hypothesis have fallen by the wayside. Climate change, and humans' role in causing it, are indeed consensus, and this consensus takes the form of scientific fact, approaching the ground reserved for the most hallowed laws of the natural world. This 'consensus' you so despise has emerged through this process of scientific research - most definitely not on the basis of faith.

That is science. Not faith. Read Karl Popper, read Thomas Kuhn, learn how science and the production of scientific knowledge actually work, and then we can talk.

Answer 6

consensus in of itself isn't unscientific nor does it mean that something is false. that said, I think where the current global warming issue is diverging from classical science isn't to religion but rather to politics. no one believes what a politican says because people think they have ulterior motives so for a bunch of politician to say there's global warming doesn't have much of an impact. but people believe scientists are politicially neutral and are just in search of the truth. so when a bunch of politicians hide behind a bunch of scientists who say what the politicians say there's a real impact on people. of course, to say that scientists are apolitical would be nieve. even if they were at one point, scientists need money to acquire better equipment and to continue their work and if they go saying everything's all right that doesn't bring the cash in. sure you may get exxon to give you some money but they can't give nearly as much cash out as governments can.

as a sidenote, your comments on guilt may be an answer to one thing about the whole global warming issue that's been confusing: why is there a debate about whether warming is man-made or not? after all, even if global warming is completely natural if it's in out best interest to reverse it shouldn't we do so anyway?

Answer 7

What I am looking at is the air pollution from all the gasoline powered autos and refineries, the huge growing landfills, and the water pollution that is ruining our drinking water. You cannot avoid seeing it as it is everywhere. The oceans are becomming polluted and the seafood we eat are no longer safe from mercury. If we could solve these problems and develope cleaner and economical means of energy, these problems would go away. Guilt? Yes we are guilty. I am not a liberal, but you can not ignore these very real problems and have a brain. Global warming and environment pollution go hand and hand.

Answer 8

global warming will occur and we cant do anything about it, its like death can stop it from happening,

ps the disastrous affects of global warming will occur in 100 years from now..

btw have u geniuses ever thought of the world and animal population.. 5billion plus god knows how many cows, goats and horses.. what im getting at is .. when we let one rip as in 'Flatulence' , what kinda gases do we produce?
Nitrogen, Carbondioxide, Methane, and Oxygen

so whats next killing animals to prevent global warming..
such a joke.

Answer 9

Why do certain people keep mixing up science and religion?

We don't need the government to save the world. In fact, I wouldn't trust the government to clean up after the president's dog at the moment.

However, you could save yourself a lot of money by picking up on some of the things the tree huggers latch onto. My household has picked up on a lot of "greenie" things (like compact florescent light bulbs and fuel efficient vehicles) because we save money. I guess for us its more about being self sufficient...my OWN environment.

But if you want to kowtow to the power and oil companies and waste your money buying their CEO's next mansion, by all means...do it.

Answer 10

If Liberals in Congress are all gung ho about global warming, why do they not pass a law themselves capping CO2 emmissions?

If Bush vetos it, at least they are on record for it.

And they all want you to think that people like Bush do not believe in global warming. That is a fine example of Liberal duplicity. Bush believes there is global warming. We all do if we just look at thermometer readings for the last 150 years.

But are we causing it? Is it naturally occuring? This is the debate. We may be contributing minutely to it. But can we actually do anything about it?

And I don't think the US should enforce any caps until China and India do so also.

Answer 11

I really do not see a problem with people becoming more environmentally conscience...What is the problem with that? What could possibly happen? The world becomes a healthier place to live for future generations? What is you're problem with that? Do I think that some people go a little to far..Yes. Like you do with you're tirade. The worlds population is growing exponentially do you not agree? The earth and it's resources can not keep up...Sounds simple enough for me. Wow science is tough. Do something about it, or just go jump in you're new Hummer and keep blaming "libs" for the worlds ills.