Global Warming has a lot in common with the worst aspects of religion, but lacks the positive aspects. I'd say Al Gore is more of the false prophet than the pope...he's the voice crying in the wilderness. The various scientists would be the high priests. The press would be the inquistion...anyone who disagrees with "human-caused" global warming will be put under the microscope of ignorance and ostracized until they convert. The zealots are the usual suspects, who don't like americans leisure activities anyway...sierra club, tree huggers, kangaroo rat and spotted owl advocates...etc. Yep, this is truly the church of the left...and they every now and then get a centrist convert, like Ahnold.
2007-08-10 10:03:13
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
It is warming as it does every August but to think a SUV and man is doing more is crap. It is to say we are as power full as God, But the Lefty's god is no god and now they can believe in something. It is Global warming.
Three thing make some thing a religion .
1. mans sin.
2. repent for your sins.
3. salvation for doing the second for the first.
And if you worship at the alter of Al Bore and line his pockets he will give you salvation from carbon credits. Your bread of life while he flys around and gets the whole 24 show before any one else did on his big old jet airliner.
One thing to keep in mind is the earth has been going though these cycles for ever. And you will not hear any of these global warming nut jobs talking about the 8000 year old city found at the bottom of the English Channel from the time there was a land bridge and than the glaziers melted from Mastodon gas and the lands was lost.
Oh maybe GW Bush did this also or Karl Rove.
OK wackos start your crying.
2007-08-10 13:05:55
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
If you look back through time this has occurred before and then we had global cooling. Just in the 70's scientists and the media were all over the dangers of the globe cooling. Its interesting that the Arctic was warmer in the 40's. That glaciers are constantly retreating and advancing. That hurricane frequency varies. That the temperature of the oceans varies. And that global temperatures also vary. Plus their are many scientists not associated with companies that disavow the global warming scenario. It interesting that a non-scientist like Gore is the only one who can approve the scientists we believe so in that way I can see the Pope syndrome - Papal Infallibility. Even though many do not like her and even some conservatives (even me) get tired of her Ann Coulters work on the religion of liberalism is so true in so many ways. They worship people like a Gore and things like Mother Earth are their golden idols.
2007-08-11 04:50:11
·
answer #3
·
answered by ALASPADA 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Environmentalism does have some of the earmarks of a religion. It holds the earth in a sort of spirtual reverence, and has it's own dogmas and beliefs that are taken on faith when scientific evidence isn't available.
I think it's structure is not so centralized and hierarchical as the Catholic Church, though, so no pope-equivalents. Think of it a more like paganism, no one pontif, but many 'high priests' leading circles of the faithful. Gore would be one such.
2007-08-10 09:53:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by B.Kevorkian 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
I would certainly hope that gw is not a religion for anyone; but, apparently it was concocted by Al to keep him in the news and spotlight! This weather cycle will likely be over within a few years and the liberals might have a hard time explaining that!
2007-08-10 12:58:32
·
answer #5
·
answered by AgsFan 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
Global warming existed and had substantial proof before Al Gore. It is still very supported and has substantial evidence (to the 95th percent of confidence) that it is happening and is being caused by humans. Why would it be so bad if this were true? Why would that be so horrible that we learned of the situation and had both the means and the knowledge to stop it?
It is immoral and unethical for us to sit when 3,000 of the world's top scientists, approved by the world's governments (including our current administration), say that there is no evidence to undermine global warming theory and its anthropogenic causes. If 3,000 doctors (without any dissent from any scientist in the world!) told you that all the evidence suggested your actions were going to severely harm your life, would you sit by and wait and accuse it of being a religion or would you cut out your actions? I know what I would do.
2007-08-10 09:57:25
·
answer #6
·
answered by C.S. 5
·
3⤊
3⤋
So while ninety 9% of the Scientist available agree on something, and the deniers have been shown incorrect time and time returned, it makes it a faith? purely approximately all the folk who're against it are the two low counseled human beings, or paid scientists by using particular firms that make tens of millions from the status quo.
2016-10-09 22:59:42
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's not politically correct to call it a religion nor to use the title Pope to describe the leader of this movement. You have to think up another word for religion and pope. If your new words are deemed non-offensive then they can be used.
2007-08-10 15:43:51
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No & no. A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents. The editing was done for no apparent reason, of course.
2007-08-10 10:08:51
·
answer #9
·
answered by S. B. 6
·
1⤊
4⤋
Leonardo DiCaprio is its pope. Al Gore is the town crier.
2007-08-10 20:32:03
·
answer #10
·
answered by ThatsThinkingWithUR Dipstick 3
·
0⤊
0⤋