MGB: It's official, global warmism = religion in the UK

Apparently, the courts in the UK have equated belief in anthropogenic global warming to religious belief:beer:

http://abc.com.au/news/stories/2009/11/04/2732928.htm

its a bit mental I agree, but could also be used the other way surely, that is, you could press home your rights not to believe in global climate change when you emplyer introduced a new green policy that you disagree with. Not sure, but reckon that will put an end to this. Plus there could be a deluge of cases based on, well, any belief you like - from religious, to moral, to nonsense - it will fall by the wayside.

but to play devils advocate for a moment. Lets say someone does not believe that man contributes anything to climate change, and in fact the whole climate change is a pile of bunkum designed to control people and let a ruling elite manage them better. How is this different to religion?

The difference is that one has some evidence, hotly disputed, but being gathered - no doubt manipulated though, and certainly not a clean picture by any means. hence the dispute, and the chancers like mr. gore et al, using it for gain. The other has no evidence, flies in the face of evidence that has been gathered and is irrefutable (fossil record et al), is based upon writings made so long ago, and manipulated over the years, writings before we were enlightened by science and based upon explanations that involve what we would now call supernatural (and I don't believe in ghosts) - and yet you can make a court case out of that?? Clearly, a case can be made from anything when its looked at this way - no?

This is an argument you frequently find in creationist circles. "Evolution is just a belief - it's no better than a religion!"[/i] It's funny to see believers willing to drag their own subjective beliefs through the mud just to attempt to knock an objective theory that contradicts their beliefs off its perch. [i]"See! It's just a theory! It can't be PROVEN! It's as bad as OUR beliefs!"[/i]

Even funnier though is when you use the same argument to take a swipe at religion: [i]"Believing in religion is no better than believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy!" Strange, that one never seems to be accepted by theists... the human mind is a funny old thing.

That's like saying atheism is a belief. You believe[/i] or have [i]faith that there is no God so you are no different. Ridiculous...

Atheism is to belief like bald is to hair colour ;)

The problem with the global warmism, much like religion (or atheism, for that matter), is when the zealots try to force their beliefs on everyone else.

X2, thanks Karl.

Please lets not confuse science with good or bad science. Devineism is no science and can not be. Warming and cooling of the world is well recorded and proveable if not predictable. The fact Algore advocates a predictable belief is proof enough it just ain't so.

'That's like saying atheism is a belief. You believe or have faith that there is no God so you are no different. Ridiculous... '

I see where you are coming from, but not sure I can agree. Atheism is not about proving anything. You do not require faith, as you have nothing to have faith in. Think 'ridiculous' is therefore a little strong perhaps. I'm no expert though, I'm not sure I qualify as an atheist, I'm more of a 'see-ist' i.e I buy into the idea that we can explain the world through observation, hypothesis testing and experimentation. Its best I leave the snappy wording to someone else (cannot compete with Steve, thing the baldness analogy works very well):


'If my interlocutor desires to convince me that Jupiter has inhabitants, and that his description of them is accurate, it is for him to bring forward evidence in support of his contention. The burden of proof evidently lies on him; it is not for me to prove that no such beings exist before my non-belief is justified, but for him to prove that they do exist before my belief can be fairly claimed. Similarly, it is for the affirmer of God's existence to bring evidence in support of his affirmation; the burden of proof lies on him' (Annie Wood Besant, 1887)

Bang on the mark Robert - whether I agree with mans contributions or not is irrelevant, what we need is a movement away from opinion, and towards corect use, and then acceptance, of the empirical data - I use the word data carefully, as all to often I see the word evidence being used to shore up opinion - data has no friends, its then up to people to interpret data is such a way to make sense of it in our physical world, to form hypotheses - and then test them, to thus provide evidence for a theory.

for some great examples of bad science you may or may not be aware of, take a look at www.badscience.net

Some of the examples from recenbt years, such as the MMRdebacle etc, would be almost laughable if they did not have such serious implications for health etc.

PS. Hadn't read that Annie Wood Besant quote before. It reminds me of Russell's Teapot, which came nearly a century later:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.