09-26-2008, 12:16 PM | #3 (permalink) |
Crazy
|
I wonder if this has been posted here before? I heppen to agree that many aspects of the movement appear to resemble religious movements. While I'm Conservative/Libertarian, I also happen to be an atheist. There are many more Liberal atheists than Conservative, so I was wondering if any Liberals, god-less or otherwise, would like to offer their views. I don't want to open up a debate on whether global warming is or is not due to the actions of mankind. That topic has been beaten to death everywhere. I'm more interested in how movements such as that can take on aspects of a cult.
Or did you mean "Phrase it in the form of a question," Alex? |
09-26-2008, 01:42 PM | #5 (permalink) |
Junkie
|
Sorry but the whole 'global religion as a religion' is striaght up Limbaugh talking points. It's trollish garbage infused into discussion as an attempt to diverge the topic from science to politics.
Conservatives are threatened by the idea of global warming in a similar way that fundamentalists are threatened by evolution. If they have to accept global warming, then they have to accept that something needs to be done. If we really are going to address the problems of global warming it is going to require fundamental changes to our lifestyles and the way we do business. It is a lot easier to accept a reassuring lie than an inconvenient truth. Here is the deal, in order to truly understand the process of global warming, a person needs a strong background in climate, chemistry, physics, mathematics, and computer modeling. All the research done by real scientists (experts in those fields) and published in scientific journals confirms the fact that global warming is both real and a threat. Conservatives, since they do not have science on their side argue mostly on qualitative matters. They rely on anectdotal evidence, talk about how humans can't have such an impact (when if you look at other ways we have destroyed ecosystems is pretty funny), and refer to outdated studies. If that doesn't work, you can always ridicule your opponent. The statement that global warming as a religion is great for conservatives. We all know that all scientists are dirty athiests. Therefore, the idea of the athiests having their own religion makes the athiests look silly. They've tried the same thing with evolution (The Religion of Darwinism). The funny thing is that outside of some outliers, the opposition to climate change science has generally shifted from "is it happening" to "is it human caused" Wait for the next shift from "is it human caused" to "we can't do anything to fix it so let's keep partying" |
09-26-2008, 02:23 PM | #6 (permalink) |
Crazy
|
Thanks for the link.
-----Added 26/9/2008 at 06 : 28 : 43----- The funny thing is that outside of some outliers, the opposition to climate change science has generally shifted from "is it happening" to "is it human caused" Wait for the next shift from "is it human caused" to "we can't do anything to fix it so let's keep partying" I was thinking more along the lines of "Let's wait for the next Maunder Minimum." :-) Last edited by mcgeedo; 09-26-2008 at 02:28 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
09-27-2008, 05:54 AM | #8 (permalink) |
Crazy
|
As kutulu pointed out, in his or her own way, the essay that I posted is very political. It presumes that Global Warming is a big scam and then goes on, from that viewpoint, to illustrate that being a scam it takes on aspects of a religion. If you happen to accept GW as established fact, then the essay is just a hit piece.
I've read similar essays on Creationism. It is based on faith that you know what happened, and since a few paragraphs in a book that shall not be questioned describe it that way, then no amount of science can alter the fact that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. I'd be interested to hear about any other examples other than actual religions where a belief system takes on aspects of a religion. |
09-27-2008, 10:05 AM | #9 (permalink) |
Addict
|
I believe in Global warming as much as I believe in Global cooling. I don't believe in religion. I believe the Green movement will go down in history as one of the greatest examples of global social conditioning. The weatherman said yesterday that today it would be sunny. It's raining constantly. I believe I can guess tomorrows weather forecast as well as the weatherman can.
|
09-27-2008, 01:23 PM | #10 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
I think that for the green movement to succeed there must be a huge element of social conditioning. Even without the spectre of global climate change. If the relative ineffectiveness of the environmental movement has shown anything its that when it comes to altering behavior, strategically speaking, there are few methods that are less effective than just pointing out that something is wrong.
It's something that ad agencies and republican political operatives have known for a while. Shutting off the light when you leave a room just makes sense, right? Despite this fact, you can convince people to do it much more effectively if you tell them that everybody else is doing it than if you just tell them why they should to it. |
09-27-2008, 03:52 PM | #11 (permalink) |
Junkie
|
i think anything, be it global warming, political ideology, which is better between a mac or pc, can take on aspects of a religion. you can find zealous followers to any movement, it doesn't have to be religious. but we view that following an ideal, especially passionately, is religious-like. but that doesn't make it religion. people can recycle 'religiously', which can be seen as dogmatic, it's still not a real religious dogma.
i think calling non-religious things religious (evolution and global warming being the two biggest examples) tells us more about the world view of those calling it a religion than it does about the actual topic at hand.
__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer |
09-29-2008, 07:10 AM | #12 (permalink) | |
Psycho
|
Quote:
the opposition to global warming politics doesn't come from the fear of "change" or anything like that. it comes from the opposition to lunatic-legislation, ineffective and unfair regulation, backwards science and a number of shaky assumptions. the mindset is not "meh, who cares abiout the planet. it's fine. it's just liberals pissing about something new" the mindest is "let's not jump headlong into everything and wreck our economy and choice and degrade any semblance of global trade" "all the research done by scientists..." has in effect proven little. climate change is a measured occurence. climate change has outcomes which may affect us negatively and positively. climate change science has yet to show any reasonable correlatio between anything. the literal 'dose response' system of inputs and results of the global ecosystem is nowhere NEAR close to understood or even measurable as of yet. |
|
09-29-2008, 01:30 PM | #13 (permalink) |
Psycho
Location: In transit
|
Global warming is one of those issues that simply cannot be discussed by the vast majority of conservatives (in my anecdotal experience) without the politics attached. They simply seem unable and unwilling to evaluate it from a purely scientific viewpoint, unfortunately. Never mind that accepting the science, and making political decisions are two different things... science should only inform, not dictate your political decisions. However, there is just no room for this nuance in the typical conservative AGW denier. Just like accepting evolution means you must be atheist, accepting AGW means you must be a commie socialist who hates america.
Its hilarious, often in the same conversation they will bounce back and forth from explanations as to why they think its not happening, then try to explain away why they think its happening by way of non-anthropogenic sources (the sun is the new favorite scapegoat), and then go right on back to denying that its happening. Then they'll throw up their hands and say we just can't know anything about anything, its all too complicated and uncertain. "We werent alive 1000 years ago to measure the temperature".... "We werent alive to see the creation of the earth or life so evolution has no evidence!" Same mindset. And of course, its only the scientists living the fat cat life-style from "easy" grant money that are the corrupt perpetuaters of "the lie"... no one with any money, power or influence at all has a vested interest in keeping the waters muddy and making sure doubt stays strong according to these people. Many political opportunists and the wackiest of the wacky environmentalists (we know they exist) do treat AGW with religious like belief, but the denier movement has all the same flaws, if not to a greater extent. Its a matter of faith to them, a matter of left vs right, ideology vs ideology.. science never enters into it.
__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are. Last edited by sprocket; 09-29-2008 at 01:41 PM.. |
09-29-2008, 03:40 PM | #14 (permalink) | |
let me be clear
Location: Waddy Peytona
|
Quote:
Thanks for sharing your progressive, unbiased, non-political, nuanced, and purely scientific viewpoints.
__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo |
|
09-29-2008, 06:48 PM | #16 (permalink) | |
let me be clear
Location: Waddy Peytona
|
Quote:
My apologies.
__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo |
|
Tags |
global, religion, warming |
|
|