I understand the scientific method (and the history of science for that matter) very well. PhDs have agendas. Especially those in academia. I didn't deny global warming, I don't buy man-made global warming. Standard Red. Argue against points I didn't even make. I'm not spouting anyone's opinion but my own. And I have been calling environmentalism a religion for a long time. If others have arrived at the same, independent conclusion, then fine. As for politics. In my case, it has little to do with my stance. My opinion is based on my understanding of science and my observation of how thin the proof is and how thick the ideology is on this issue. Rant on. But don't forget to put a little something in the Al Gore collection plate when it comes by... EDIT: To be clear, there is science here. The problem is that the public is being led to believe that this hypothesis (and it will remain a hypothesis forever) is actually a theory, or even worse a fact. You cite consensus. There was consensus that the world was flat, and that the universe was made of four or five elements, and that the stars orbited the earth, etc., etc., etc., Except in this case, the evidence for the hypothesis is so thin and of such a relatively minute slice of time and consists of such a vast array of sources, many dubious and/or unconfirmable, that the only reason there's any consensus is that the hypothesis fits the Liberal world view of the academy, particularly the life-sciences and climate-related sciences where the political affiliation is nearly homogenous. If this same body of data and evidence were being touted by the Business school to assert that a pure free market society was the only hope for humanity's survival, the media and academia would howl in laughter and discount it outright. Amen
Explain. Why not? The evidence is clear. This notion is a very poor substitute for real evidence that global warming does not exist. Well, the proof is overwhelming and I have posted it on the earlier threads that we have debated. I think you ignore it because of your own ideology--political. Thank you. You have now done what I knew you would--admitted that is it a political issue to you. If Al Gore is for it, you must be against it . . . in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary. This is not 400 BC any more. It was science that eventually debunked all of those ancient ideas, many based on religious concepts. This convoluted sentence contains about 5 overt flaws. The scientific evidence is NOT thin, there is a ton of it. The sources are neither dubious or unconfirmable, they have withstood scientific challenge. The evidence goes back for millenia, it is not a thin slice of time. Science does not ursue a "liberal world view", such would not pass peer review. Many, many scientists are conservatives. Again you reveal that your "scientific" objections are political. :huh: :insane: If what I believe in is a religion . . . I'm a Coronatarian. Our lager, which art in barrels, Hallowed be thy drink, Thy will be drunk, (I will be drunk), At home as I am in the tavern. Give us this day our foamy head, And forgive us our spillage's, As we forgive those who spill against us, and lead us not to incarceration, But deliver us from hangovers, For Thine is the beer, The ale and the lager, Forever and ever, Barmen.
I often find it funny that many of those who argue that Environmentalism is a religion will also argue that Christianity is not.
Pretty much every evangelical I have ever talked to in my entire life. They argue religion requires work on behalf of the practioner, and the Christ's sacrafice requires no work from the practioner and therefore does not qualify as religion.
As a baptist, that's a new one on me. In my faith, it is true that Christ's sacrifice is what pays for our sins. It's not true, however, that it "requires no work" from practitioner or that it is not a religion. Very strange belief those evangelicals have, or maybe it was lost in translation.
