One can analogize the two in many ways, most specifically to the medieval roman church, showing that it has all the facets of a religion. Al Gore is the Papal Figure; Kyoto protocol is the holy book; IPCC is the Vatican/Lateran Council; "Carbon Offsets" and "Carbon Credits" are the indulgences(for all of our carbon sins); the unquestionable, undebatable authority and infallibility of the "scientific consensus" on global warming(infallible doctrines); and the inquisition of heretical scientists(ones who do not agree with this infallible consensus).
2007-10-13 12:33:31 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment ➔ Global Warming
The heretic Dr. Lindzen recanted, and put his faith in the Church of Global Warming, Bob? Do you have a link I can go to to read about his recanting?
2007-10-13 13:25:16 · update #1
www.dictionary.com provides several definitions of religion, the ones key to supporting your point I have listed below. There are many other definitions provided which do not support your contention.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
9. get religion, Informal.
a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
So in these senses, yes. Some "followers" have taken scientific conclusions which they do not really understand and started preaching them as if they are law.
Just about every religious worshiper will attest to the truth of their beliefs and view any contradicting opinion as a test of their faith.
That though, is not the fault of the scientists doing the research, not does it make their findings any less scientifically valid.
You do have a point though.
2007-10-13 14:02:22 · answer #1 · answered by Twilight 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It certainly has some of the characteristics of a religion in that those who believe in it are trying to persuade those who do not of the 'truth'. This is seen to be necessary as concerted action is necessary to prevent/ameliorate damaging consequences if nothing is done. I don't think however that the analogy runs to comparing Al Gore to the Papal figure or the IPCC to the Vatican etc. Slowly the effects of climate change will become more visible with ocean level rise and increasingly discernible changes to weather patterns in many places. At this stage the sceptics/deniers will become a very small minority indeed. This is totally unlike religion where the tenets and beliefs have been gradually eaten away over the centuries (mostly by science).
2007-10-13 22:58:50 · answer #2 · answered by Robert A 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Religion, yes most definitely. However it isn't new. Pagan religions like this have been around since the beginning of man. Deep down everyone knows there is a God. The people that reject God need something to fill that void. They are just too stupid to understand. Many liberals worship money and fame. That is not to say that people who believe in God don't also believe in global warming. It is getting a little hotter but to what extent and what does man contribute are the real questions. Evil is very tricky and even good people can fall victim to it.
2007-10-13 23:24:35 · answer #3 · answered by Jewles 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
One can analogize many things in many ways. That does not, in the immortal words of Captain Jean-luc Picard of the USS Enterprise, make it so. Gore is not a papal figure, the Kyoto protocol is not a holy book, the IPCC is not a Vatican council, carbon credits are not indulgences, the scientific consensus is not unquestionable, and scientists who do not agree with global warming theory are not considered heretical. I commend your uncanny ability to delude yourself though.
2007-10-13 19:50:52 · answer #4 · answered by SomeGuy 6 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Nope. Man made (mostly) global warming is now scientific fact.
The data proving it is simply overwhelming. Do you think most every world leader is being hysterical? Or EVERY major scientific organization? The data is the reason "skeptics" like George Bush, Richard Lindzen, John Christy, etc. no longer say it's a natural cycle.
This quote describes it extremely well. Note that consensus is not proof, but this strong a consensus does not exist without proof.
"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know... Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point. You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."
Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA
Good websites for more info:
http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"
2007-10-13 19:41:57 · answer #5 · answered by Bob 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
the green earth concert thing (name im unsure of) that Al Gore lead used more energy that should ever have been done. Al Gore himself on his mansion wastes a great deal of energy and rejected a proposel by a Oklahoma Senator to cut his own emissions. Al Gore is in it to stay in the lime light. I could go on and on for hours on this. Bottom line: is global warming a danger? yes... I the green house effect correct? it;s merely a theory. In other words it's just like evolution. Doesn't matter if you belive in it or not it's a THEORY not a scientific law. Besides the goverment has been pouring billions into thermonuclear research which they say is the awnser yet won't credit bush with it. hmm I wonder WHY? coulda it have something to do with the fact the media doesn't like christian presidents? a discrimination due to his faith? Science won't awnser what exactly magnetism is cause it's gets into religeon but they say it's fine to awnser the question where did we come from... double standard... yes it's over done it need attension but it's waaaaaaaay over done
2007-10-13 19:49:15 · answer #6 · answered by RAH-66 Comanche: Aerial Reaper 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No. But it is a well established scientific fact and has been for over 100 years, one which is supported by almost every scientist on the planet along with every scientific organisation bar one, pretty much every government in the world and all the major oil and power companies and every major national and international corporation. In short - pretty much everyone who actually understands it.
2007-10-13 19:49:00 · answer #7 · answered by Trevor 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋