Does anyone else think environmentalism has become a religion?

Question

Many of the world's major faiths share some traits. The modern environmental movement seems to share some of those traits:

1. Dogma - the so-called truths that are believed, without question, by the adherents to the faith. Christians believe Christ is the son of GOD. Environmentalists believe there is "scientific consensus" on man made global warming.

2. Sin - An act or thought that goes against the dogma. Christians believe murder is a sin. Environmentalists believe burning fossil fuels is a sin, as is claiming man is NOT responsible for global warming.

3. Forgiveness - A way to atone for our sins or a way to continue to sin and still achieve salvation. Christians believe that a belief in Christ is the son of GOD and that he died so that we may be saved is how we get to heaven. Environmentalists believe that if they buy carbon credits from Al Gore, they can keep driving their SUVs without feeling guilty.

Go ahead, flame me, I can take the heat.

Hi Bob, since you're a "top contributor" I am disappointed in your response. My question not about "global warming." That is not the religion I am referring to as I don't disagree with the argument that the earth may be warming. I am specifically referring to the "man is the cause of global warming" folks. There is a HUGE difference. Most of your links allowed some debate as to natural or man made. I'm talking about Al Gore and his adherents. People who think the car that just drove by my house is more responsible for global warming than is the sun. Why won't Al Gore attend a real debate with someone who thinks it is natural and cyclical. He won't allow his dogma to be questioned. He buys carbon credits from a company he owns, doesn't he? He's the prophet of the religion, so why is it ok that he absolves himself of his own sin? Wasn't that whole rock concert thing he did a ridiculous waste of environemental resources? Why doesn't his flock call him to account for the waste?

Bob, you and I agree on a few things.
Global warming - true
wasting resources - bad
Al Gore - we're not fans.
You can't seriously call Gore irrelevant. He won a Nobel Prize for spreading the Gospel of Man Made Global Warming, he has millions of disciples and could be a contender for president if he wants. The decision makers at the UN and in the US government hear him. You cite NOAA. I've been to meetings with NOAA and NASA scientists. They cite Gore and his work. Also, I looked at the Inhofe link. You passed it off as nonsense, which sort of proves my original point. People in that article question your theory, and instead of taking on the argument using scientific facts, you try to marginalize them by calling it all "nonsense." They question your dogma, so you attempt to ignore them. Faith, I think. I have a degree in computer science. I understand basic principles of science. "Scientific consensus" is not a real term.

Answer 1

No. Environmentalism is based on solid science. There is a consensus on global warming, that's it both real and mostly man made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [mostly man made 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

I share your disdain for people who buy carbon credits and keep driving vehicles larger than what they actually need.

But environmentalism is based on facts. It's "skepticism" that's based on belief, not data. The data is on the other side.

Good websites for solid science:

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"

EDIT - Added a few words (mostly man made) to answer your comment. My links say all say it's mostly man made. By the way, Al Gore is irrelevant. He has nothing to do with the science. Why would a scientific debate with him have any meaning? It would just be politics, which is most of what "skepticism" is. As witness the guy quoting Senator Inhofe's political nonsense.

Answer 2

Yes without a doubt, for some people it is virtually a religion. Like other religions, there is a certain amount of hipocracy that lets people insist that the world is ending, while behaving as if it were not.

For some believers, scepticism is either a sin in need of punishment (like criminal type punishment) or a mental defiency. A lot of warmers seem to really think like that.

To Bob,
I don't think environmentalism is a science, it's a political movement that's driven by emotion or how people feel about issues which may or may not be based on sound science. Just because someone wants to save the world doesn't make them technically accurate.

Answer 3

Exactly. Science is based on facts, not the vote of some consensus. There is no consensus in science. There is no consensus about the speed of light, the distance the Earth from the Sun, for example. These are known and can be shown true by anyone.

When there are no facts, then people have to use the credibility of what others believe to backup their position. These people are followers. The sheep in the church who follow people who they feel comfortable following.

Science is objective. It shouldn't matter who says it's true, or the number of people who say it's real. Facts should speak for people, replicated by those with the intelligence to do so.

People who follow a consensus are lazy, stopping far short of discovering the facts. They find security in a group, and justify the groups actions by invoking the names of others.

It's sad to see where science has gone over the years.

Answer 4

Well, first of all Global Warning is a concern, not a religion. So for one to base there discussion on that and analyze its being truth should more than likely leave it up to those who truly are professionals. There is lots of factual data that has been used to come to the conclusion. My guess is that those who criticize it are those who haven't really studied it thoroughly. Just because you believe that there isn't any relative data to back up the environmentalist's scientific conclusion, does not mean that it is your religion. You are not totally devoted to this assumption that there is no concern at all, are you? How can we judge if we do not have all the facts? Similar

Answer 5

My first reaction is that the same argument could be made re: the Patriot Act, yet curiously extremely some human beings are completely keen to undergo any form of discounts in very own privateness for a flavor of fake secure practices. Are there what one would desire to call "hasty" reactions with reference to the ambience? of direction. Are there additionally extremely some human beings whose anti-green rants are purely a skinny camouflage for no longer being environmentally to blame? returned, sure. Please do no longer lump all environmentalists jointly. we at the instant are not meant to stereotype conservatives, good? So why stereotype environmentalists? There are hundreds of grass-roots efforts going on that help to blame land use and upkeep of habitat. and that i'd remind you that extremely some those sportsmen are Republicans!

Answer 6

Yes - If your beliefs cause a series of actions with what you consider good and evil.

A deeply held religion by the vast majority of people on earth is belief in drugs for curing diseases. They throw their bodies on the alter of medicine with devastating results rather than take responsibility for their own health.
Study the word IATROGENIC on the internet = Death by medicine. You should find near 1,000,000 people die each year from IATROGENIC's. And very few know about this.

Also as more data accumulates more scientists are 'switching sides':
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927B9303-802A-23AD-494B-DCCB00B51A12%20
"Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics"

Answer 7

To Bob such as the "solid science" that if an animal (lets say a Whitetail Deer) were not to be hunted then they would be okay??? Forgeting that well if the population of said animal in an area were to grow beyond the carrying capacity that those species and all competitor species would actually starve to death and be more likely to disease???

Answer 8

First it is not our intention to insult people like you do.

And to answer your points:

1- we believe in what is called "systemic knowledge" or science, what can be demonstrate as right or wrong, in theories which can reasonably apply under scientific methods.

2- The goal of every species is to ensure its survival... nothing new there.

3- you believe in buying goods with paper!!! how funny!
Actually ALL PEOPLE BASHING CARBON CREDITS HAVE NO IDEA OF HOW THEY WORK. It is the barbaric attitude of destroying what you do not know and which is now widespread in the US.

Answer 9

Lol. Rickety analogies do not truths make. Anthropogenic global warming theory is a scientific theory. Nothing more, nothing less.

Answer 10

Yes the extremists believe humanity is evil and greedy and unnatural to the earth. (Born sinners) They have apocalyptic style predictions from their Prophets(scientists) generally every ten years. A Pope like figure(Algore) who lives pretty high on the hog but still needs you to kick in all you can to the collection plate. (carbon credits,taxes)