Feb 2
Climate Change beliefs decided
Council of Nicea. Climate Change has decided the creed for the global warming industry. And with Constantine and his decisions about what is heresy or not, the CC-types have decided that debate is no longer necessary and that anyone who disagrees with them should be ignored and considered “fringe”.
Of course, considering their treatment of people like Bjorn Lomborg you could argue the treatment of heretics will be far more harsh. Not that this bothers me, of course, I am used to being a bit heretical on most things. What does worry me is the seeming anti-free speech tone coming from these scientists in the press.
This sort of event is a clear demonstration that there are those that wish to make enviromentalism the new secular religion.
Olympia Snowe, the Vicar (Chuch of the Envirofascist) sermon on what to believe.
Update: If you are puzzled my tenacity of the deranged Climate Change types the this piece by JR Dunn might help. Nicholas Chartford has a piece on the coming inquisition. And, of course, there is Junk Science. Even the Canadians are getting into the act of rubbishing the CC decrees. Oh and the Czech President has laid into Gore something cronic.
As you may or may not already be aware, members of the Watcher’s Council hold a vote every week on what they consider to be the most link-worthy pieces of writing around… per the Watcher’s instructions, I am submitting one of my own posts for consideration in the upcoming nominations process.
Here is the most recent winning council post, here is the most recent winning non-council post, here is the list of results for the latest vote, and here is the initial posting of all the nominees that were voted on.
5 Comments so far
What I’d be interested to read is a post that compares abstract criteria that could be used to define religion, or better yet, a cult, with that of environmentalism. One idea might be to examine both from the idea of having a morally inflexible theory of the whole, or an apocalyptic vision that demands obedience instead of reason, etc.
Yeah, I am going to explore that at some time.
I would consider dogmatic followers of Ayn Rand to be as ‘religeous’ as any environmentalist. They’ve even got their deified founder and holy texts, for Cthulhu’s sake.
Tim Hall, yes, the official Objectivists (with the big O) are pretty cult-like, and I have had a few unpleasant dealings with them. But most sensible followers of Rand are okay, in my experience. At least they celebrate science, reason and human life.
There is actually a quite strong school of free market environmentalism.
Thomas Kuhn’s well-known work points out the risks of relying on scientific consensus. There are a number of well-credentialed scientists in a variety of disciplines who have questioned this consensus on various grounds. I haven’t the slightest qualification to judge the validity of their arguments, but I think we are entitled to expect a reasoned response in detail. This dispute is not governed by the ideal of objective, non-political science. That much is clear.