Is The CO2 Global Warming Theory Now A Religion?
If you reject the theory with good data and arguments you are assailed as being stupid, uneducated, or a non-scientist. Even when many of U.N.'s top scientists disagree with the theory, and brand new satellite data from brand new solar satellites shows the sun temperature is far from constant. Any facts that point out that the emperor has no clothes, are assailed by their "Holier Than Thou" comments.
If you agree with it, you are considered by them to be morally correct.
Answer:
Yes, it's a religion.
And it's the worst kind. It's a religion masquerading as a science. Man-made global warming is based upon association, nothing more. It's comparable to thinking that every morning when I wake up, the sun rises, therefore I cause the sun to rise.
Al Gore has even been called a prophet. If that isn't a religion, I don't know what is.
*waits for the thumbs down*
Whats your question, your seems to be a radical indefinite understatement. Whats your question? Or a statement remove this. Im reporting you nub.
They have no real religion, so they made one up.
Is a scientific theory a religion? No, it's a theory based on scientific data, analysis, and conclusions. That's a silly question.
Global warming skeptics act the exact same way you're describing toward those who accept anthropomorphic global warming, by the way. I think it's more likely that global warming skepticism is becoming a religion, since it depends more on faith and less on science.
You right it is a religion they want make us do
what? i dont think they have a religion i just think there trying to warned us about the down fall of plant earth.
"Downfall of the planet earth eh?
Buy your ascension robes today!!
In the religion of Science, Anthropogenic Global Warming is the Branch Davidian sect and Al Gore is its David Koresh.
It is filled with extremists that will try to take advantage of whoever will buy into its dogma and attempt to destroy anyone that tries to dispute its teachings.
Where is the good data that global warming is natural? References?
The good data actually is quite extensive and supports man made global warming. Two summaries, short and (very) long each with references.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/ima...
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.
Because of the data global warming is accepted fact. While there are a few skeptics, they have no good data. So the vast majority of the scientific community accepts man made global warming as fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/scientific_...
At this point global warming skepticism is the religious belief. It like believing the Earth is 6000 years old, you have to reject science to do it.
Global Warming Theory is NOT a religion for two simple reasons. First, religions are based upon beliefs that must be taken by faith without any credible evidence presented. Secondly, global warming theory is based upon a hypothesis that the well documented rise in temperatures globally is occurring as a result of gases produced by human endeavors, such as autos, energy production, and industry. Extensive analysis of a great deal of data has proven this hypothesis to be correct.
If you look hard enough, perhaps you can find a scientist who will proclaim the earth to be flat and that the "round-earthers" are suppressing the truth. But a few rogue scientists shouting angrily do not make for good science, much less actual facts. Sometimes the facts are as they are and everyone with any sense at all can see them. The earth is round. And, global warming is a fact that we must take steps to combat NOW.
My opinion is "No" but people of the world are getting aware of it and some people take advantage of it. Not to worry we have almost reach the maximum energy consumption that can be sustained. The next decade or so we will see a trending down of CO2 and use of other energy source will take over.
Global warming has always been a part of earths ever changing pattern.
What causes it is not man or carbon or CO2 it is in fact sun spots.
When there's more sun spots than usual we have warmer temperatures and less rain.
When there's less sun spots the temperatures drop and we get allot of rain.
The Al Gore devotees are as twisted as he obviously is.
And just as unimformed.
Mystine G. I gave you a thumbs up for telling the truth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/global_warm...
Yes, it has become the latest evil religion and instead of burning blasphemers at the stake like some religions have done in the past, the global warming cultists say the whole earth will burn if we don't all bow at their alter.
Religions are based on fantasies of power hungry evil meglomaniac manipulators who prey on the gulability of the public
Global warming is real
im a christian. however i live by all scientific laws. we, as in environmentalists, are just trying to preserve the world that we were given to by the higher entity out there. as we preserve it, people like you, as in ignorant and closed minded, are killing our only hope in conservation.
Equating skepticism with creationism? Talk about arrogance and dismissiveness. The AGW'ers doth protest too much, methinks.
It isn't hard to find real journal articles in respected journals that openly question AGW.
1. "Our review suggests that the dissenting view offered by the skeptics or opponents of global warming appears substantially more credible than the supporting view put forth by the proponents of global warming. Further, the projections of future climate change over the next fifty to one hundred years is based on insufficiently verified climate models and are therefore not considered reliable at this point in time.
The warming of about 0.3 _C in recent years has prompted suggestions about anthropogenic influence on the earth’s climate due to increasing human activity worldwide. However, a close examination of the earth’s temperature change suggests that the recent warming may be primarily due to urbanization and land-use change impact and not due to increased levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases."
2. "Inspection of the global atmospheric temperature changes during the last 1,000 years (Fig. 11) shows that the global average temperature dropped about 2_C over the last millennium. This means that we live in the cooling geologic epoch (which comprises most of the Holocene), and the global warming observed during the latest 150 years is just a short episode in the geologic history. The current global warming is most likely a combined effect of increased solar and tectonic activities and cannot be attributed to the increased anthropogenic impact on the atmosphere. Humans may be responsible for less than 0.01_C (of approximately 0.56_C (1_F) total average atmospheric heating during the last century."
Thats two, there are many more. The debate is NOT over, not even close.
I'm really not quite sure of just what the point is you're trying to make. You cite the population scare of several years ago, but far from being discredited the basic points of the book are becoming more and more evident. India will soon surpass China as the most populaced nation on earth. Global warming is already causing widespread problems with farming. The deserts are ever marching toward the population centers. With no arable land, or at least not enough, starvation will be massive and all over the world.
An ice age will again occur as a result of the effects of global warming. Who cares how long it will take to grow, last and finally recede? Most of the world's species will die. Man will not fare too well either. So my friend, you need to get your head out of the sand and become a little more open-minded concerning the dangers we now face in this world. You sound like an apologist for the right wing.
Your argument is sophistic vomit. And you can take that to any church you want.
The movie "An Inconvenient Truth" blends politics, morality, science, history, pop-culture, and at times smoke and mirrors. Yes, some of it must be taken with a grain of salt. Perhaps there is a strong 'leap of faith' component as well--because we have to act on the trends rather than wait until it is too late. The point is not to judge others but to recognize we are all swimming in the same pool down here. We must each make whatever changes we can personally manage at this time.
As for people being assailed as non-scientists... I've researched the voices of opposition on this one. I recommend anyone who feels strongly about this issue should also take a moment to learn who is funding the opposing views. You will find oil and chemical companies funding their research, their organizations, and their publications. It's not proof that their research is biased or flawed, but it might make you look corroboration by an expert who agrees with them but isn't on the big-oil payroll. A helpful site is Source Watch.
Of course in the long run we all need to be more tolerant of opposing views. I love to learn from people who disagree with me. Linking environmentalism to morality is a slippery slope, as it makes it hard for people to disagree on the facts without implying a judgment on their character. If there's one thing I am certain of beyond all doubt, it's that we are all a little bit wrong. Perhaps we would benefit from a little more sense of humor about it.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: