Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
religion and global warming
Options
Comments
-
You simply stating there is room for debate does not make it so. And much of the room for debate is artificially created by the media.
Comparison to Islamic fundamenalism is the new Godwins Law, it seems.
Oh and Green bashing is apparently the new FF bashing. But I'm guessing you have little or no evidence to back up this populist rant.
"Mad Mullah McMohammed", the prefix to Mohammed {"Mc"} and the use of the word "Mad" can hardly be said to be uniquely Islamic. What am I saying is that there is a dogmatic dictat at work, of religious dimensions, in the sphere of Global Warming.
This dictat is being pursued relentlessly.
Period.0 -
@DJP Barry:
In case you had not noticed, the Greens were recently elected to GOVERNMENT for the first time in the States history. You cannot trade off some momentary or topical dislike of them and say that they are unpopular. Their popularity has reached an apogee convergent with the prominence of "green issues".
Discussion of Global Warming, not to mention the effects of GW itself, are at an all-time high. Please do not regard the ascent of the Green Party to Irish Govt as being thus mere coincidence. It is not.
Don't understand. You say that green issues are now a religion, but don't allow that the Green Party is a political party and thus liable to, like, political spin? See the way FG have removed nicey softy Simon Coveney from being their sound bite man on the Greens and switched to Alan Shatter. Now Shatter's no doubt a very nice man, but he has the ability to sound a little creepy, gravelly. And his job is to make people disconnect emotionally from the Greens and green issues, as in make the two separate. And that's politics. Politics can get to you on an emotional level, the same way as religion. And remember, Denis O'Brien hasn't bought into INM for nothing, and Michael O'Leary doesn't hold news conferences to act like a monkey. Culture, religion, whatever, is to put order on chaos. So does science.
If you've ever been abroad, you notice temperatures go up and they also go down, or they go up and up, however it's said.
Do you happen to read the Daily Mail?
Maybe green issues are like a religion to some people, in that sex isn't used to sell it, but abstention figures somewhere in it. Like why would you do something if there's no gain in it? Might be why less men vote green than women.
Big Business can make you do things that aren't in your best interest, you might have noticed recently, and that people follow the wrong path like lemmings and they are persuaded to love it, until things go wrong. Is that pagan magic? Or spin?
And like David McWilliams or George Osborne learned, speak the truth against elite interests and you devalue fast, you hang culturally.
Oh yeah, what might be getting to you is the perceived finger wagging (here) and dogma. Get over it. You ain't an island, entire unto yourself. If I pee in the river, you drink it.
A lot of (I think) men quote random stats and facs to back up an emotional standpoint and think that they are therefore being logical and cool. Not really. Emotions are not just crying and laughing. There is also anger and fear. Since 2006, anyone who says that there is no human element to climate change or blah blah blah might as well join the Moonies or them crowd in Waco. Because if Green is a religion, then nay-sayers are part of a fringe cult. Maybe Green is not a religion though, but a scientific theory, backed up by data, becoming part of social policy and culture, like Darwin's theory of evolution. Wasn't there some trial where some guy was humiliated for teaching that we were all monkeys? Is evolution a religion, does darwinism get people the same way, that they follow it blindly? Or was it attacked in the same way as real green policy and treehuggerism is today, and certainly was until recently? 150 years on from On the Origin of Species, I think it's fitting that we go marching into no international policy, no local policy, where organic shampoo is all the rage, but better planning is, like, a load of b****x.0 -
What is this obsession that people have with Al Gore? Who gives a toss what he says? Anyone who takes his presentation at face value is an idiot. In the same way, anyone who takes Martin Durkin’s documentary at face value is an idiot.@DJP Barry: Are people laughing en mass at Al Gore, a man who once stood up and said "As CO2 increases, the temperature gets warmer".
I think you’ll find they attract far more scorn than they do support.Also @DJPBarry...I mentioned that people who profess an interest in the planet are akin to those who profess a belief in God, in that they attract ready-made support.
The Greens secured about 4.7% of first-preference votes in the last general election. They ended up in government because FF needed a coalition partner. Sure, they’ve ever-so-slowly increased their share of the vote over the last 20 years or so, but somehow I suspect that will all change at the next general election.In case you had not noticed, the Greens were recently elected to GOVERNMENT for the first time in the States history. You cannot trade off some momentary or topical dislike of them and say that they are unpopular. Their popularity has reached an apogee convergent with the prominence of "green issues".0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
Seriously. You're fooling no one."Mad Mullah McMohammed", the prefix to Mohammed {"Mc"} and the use of the word "Mad" can hardly be said to be uniquely Islamic.
What exactly is dogmatic about proven science? And what exactly does "of religious dimensions" mean?What am I saying is that there is a dogmatic dictat at work, of religious dimensions, in the sphere of Global Warming.
You're very good at throwing out suggestive but ultimately meaningless phrases.
"dictat"? Most people understand and accept anthropogenic climate change and want something to be done about it. Where's the "dictat" in that?This dictat is being pursued relentlessly.0 -
Nah, I dont read the Daily Mail. I dont read Mail or Mirror, I go and have a look myself. But thanks for asking.
Gore has won various media awards for his "Movies" and "Documentaries" about Global Warming.
Please, dont tell me not to take Gore seriously. I take anyone seriously when they get in front of a camera, not in that I think they make sense, but in that I recognise their ability to make other people think they make sense, thanks to slick productions and presentations.
Ask most schoolkids what is happening to the polar ice, and why. See if they dont refer to melt, CO2 and pollution. They have not conducted any tests themselves of course, they repeat what they they see, hear, or are told. Some of this dogma is so pervasive as that people almost absorb it. Of course, it is not just limited to children. Just as there are born-again Christians, there are so-called older folk who find this a convenient banner under which to campaign.
Religions often lead into each other. The Greek Gods into the Roman Gods, the Roman Gods into Jesus and Catholicism, then your Reformation, Protestantism etc. You wonder what I mean by "Religious Dimensions"- well look at organised religion. It has a Rome, or a Medina, or a Kathmandu. It has organised tiers. It offers excommuncation, or execution, depending on the "faith", to those who reject its values or transgress its rules. But there was a gap between the prophets who founded those faiths and the organisation which drives them today.
Now look at Global Warming. There was no dogma about Global Warming back in the 70's. In the 1950s, the pre-eminent Green Issue pertained to Nuclear issues, potential nuclear destruction etc. In the 70's, Global Cooling and Nuclear Proliferation, nuclear dumping, Save Our Seas, Then came the "Greenhouse effect" in the 80's and the women of Greenham common. Now it is Global Warming. And you have organisations who push this theory. They have media campaigns, and have a lot of the hacks and the Hollywood crew onboard, like another so-called Religion, Scientology. In effect, Global Warming has, well, gone global. Gone mainstream. Just as Jesus started what ended in a multi-billion dollar enterprise, woman forming a human chain at Greenham common {and a whole lot more besides} preceded what has now become a slick, pervasive campaign, headed by El Gran Fatso Al Gore.
My point about the Green Party stands. They have a mandate and are in Government. You can dismiss them all you want- they got their votes on a Green Platform, and took a place in Government.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 6185
I have been told there is a continent called South America. I haven't seen it with my own eyes but on the balance of evidence I believe it's there. Using your logic, my faith in the existence of South America is akin to the beliefs of born again Christians.Ask most schoolkids what is happening to the polar ice, and why. See if they dont refer to melt, CO2 and pollution. They have not conducted any tests themselves of course, they repeat what they they see, hear, or are told. Some of this dogma is so pervasive as that people almost absorb it. Of course, it is not just limited to children. Just as there are born-again Christians, there are so-called older folk who find this a convenient banner under which to campaign.
This is all very interesting but what exactly does it have to do with climate change?Religions often lead into each other. The Greek Gods into the Roman Gods, the Roman Gods into Jesus and Catholicism, then your Reformation, Protestantism etc. You wonder what I mean by "Religious Dimensions"- well look at organised religion. It has a Rome, or a Medina, or a Kathmandu. It has organised tiers. It offers excommuncation, or execution, depending on the "faith", to those who reject its values or transgress its rules. But there was a gap between the prophets who founded those faiths and the organisation which drives them today.
Again, all I'm seeing is words but no actual coherent thesis. I'm still waiting for the personal attacks on Al Gore to stop and a decent debate to start.Now look at Global Warming. There was no dogma about Global Warming back in the 70's. In the 1950s, the pre-eminent Green Issue pertained to Nuclear issues, potential nuclear destruction etc. In the 70's, Global Cooling and Nuclear Proliferation, nuclear dumping, Save Our Seas, Then came the "Greenhouse effect" in the 80's and the women of Greenham common. Now it is Global Warming. And you have organisations who push this theory. They have media campaigns, and have a lot of the hacks and the Hollywood crew onboard, like another so-called Religion, Scientology. In effect, Global Warming has, well, gone global. Gone mainstream. Just as Jesus started what ended in a multi-billion dollar enterprise, woman forming a human chain at Greenham common {and a whole lot more besides} preceded what has now become a slick, pervasive campaign, headed by El Gran Fatso Al Gore.
I don't think anyone quite understand what your point about the Green Party is. Yes, they're in Government. And?My point about the Green Party stands. They have a mandate and are in Government. You can dismiss them all you want- they got their votes on a Green Platform, and took a place in Government.0 -
Your definition of ‘dogma’ is obviously very different to the one I’m familiar with.Ask most schoolkids what is happening to the polar ice, and why. See if they dont refer to melt, CO2 and pollution. They have not conducted any tests themselves of course, they repeat what they they see, hear, or are told. Some of this dogma is so pervasive...0 -
there are similarities with religions. there is an element of blind faith necessary for both religion and climate change, and many seem to have a blind faith , for example, that wind turbines must be good, right? or that nuclear power is bad. And then there is the "man is wicked and is responsible for all this" stuff which sounds so reminiscent of religious dogma.
Of course clmate change and religions are not the same thing, but there are similarities.0 -
Care to elaborate on this 'blind faith', in the context of climate change?ConsiderThis wrote: »there are similarities with religions. there is an element of blind faith necessary for both religion and climate change...0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Some people think the building of wind turbines is a positive development, yes. Others think Ireland going nuclear would be a bad move, yes. Their reasons for holding those opinions may be questionable. But what is this supposed to be an example of exactly? Blind faith? In some cases, maybe. But how does this lead you to the conclusion that an element of blind faith is required to support the theory of human-induced climate change when a wealth of scientific evidence exists to back it up? The fact that someone offers their support for a particular theory on the basis of nothing other than ‘blind faith’ does not necessarily invalidate that theory; it merely invalidates that individual’s opinion.ConsiderThis wrote: »Would you care to comment on the example I gave of "...many seem to have a blind faith , for example, that wind turbines must be good, right?..."0 -
Some people think the building of wind turbines is a positive development, yes. Others think Ireland going nuclear would be a bad move, yes. Their reasons for holding those opinions may be questionable. But what is this supposed to be an example of exactly? Blind faith? In some cases, maybe. But how does this lead you to the conclusion that an element of blind faith is required to support the theory of human-induced climate change when a wealth of scientific evidence exists to back it up? The fact that someone offers their support for a particular theory on the basis of nothing other than ‘blind faith’ does not necessarily invalidate that theory; it merely invalidates that individual’s opinion.
It seems you prefer to ask questions rather than actually make many comments of your own!
It's clear many believe that wind turbines in Ireland contribute to less fossil fuels being burnt in conventional stations. Many do so not because they have researched it and understand how it works, but because they "believe" it.S The fact that someone offers their support for a particular theory on the basis of nothing other than ‘blind faith’ does not necessarily invalidate that theory; it merely invalidates that individual’s opinion.
I didn't mean to suggest that a theory might be invalidated because someone believes it or not, so if thats what you read in to what i said then its not correct. This thread is about how religion has been compared to climate change, and not about whether those who believe and have "blind faith" in either are right or wrong.0 -
Sure. People believe lots of things, often based on reports in the media.ConsiderThis wrote: »It's clear that many believe that wind turbines in Ireland contribute to less fossil fuels being burnt in conventional stations. Many do so not because they have researched it and understand how it works, but because they "believe" it.
So what did you mean when you said that “there is an element of blind faith necessary for both religion and climate change…”? What exactly is your point?ConsiderThis wrote: »I didn't mean to suggest that a theory might be invalidated because someone believes it or not, so if thats what you read in to what i said then its not correct.
Yes, religion has been compared to climate change. By you. However, you seem rather reluctant to discuss your reasons for making such a comparison.ConsiderThis wrote: »This thread is about how religion has been compared to climate change…0 -
Sure. People believe lots of things, often based on reports in the media.
So what did you mean when you said that “there is an element of blind faith necessary for both religion and climate change…”? What exactly is your point?
Yes, religion has been compared to climate change. By you. However, you seem rather reluctant to discuss your reasons for making such a comparison.
You'll forgive me when I say I find it exhausting to just have question after quetion fired at me, and no apparent attempt at discussion.
If you are unable to see the analogy between "...It's clear many believe that wind turbines in Ireland contribute to less fossil fuels being burnt in conventional stations. Many do so not because they have researched it and understand how it works, but because they "believe" it..." and believing in a deity, then you can't see it.0 -
This isn’t a personal blog where opinions go unchallenged – it’s a discussion forum. Discussions often involve questions – if you’re not prepared to discuss, then don’t post.ConsiderThis wrote: »You'll forgive me when I say I find it exhausting to just have question after quetion fired at me, and no apparent attempt at discussion.
I don’t think a ‘belief’ that wind turbines are ‘good’ is quite the same as a belief in a religion, no; it’s not absolutely necessary for someone to be an expert on the subject of electricity generation before they can appreciate the potential benefit of wind power (but let’s not drag the thread down that route – there are plenty of other threads on that subject).ConsiderThis wrote: »If you are unable to see the analogy between "...It's clear many believe that wind turbines in Ireland contribute to less fossil fuels being burnt in conventional stations. Many do so not because they have researched it and understand how it works, but because they "believe" it..." and believing in a deity, then you can't see it.
But I want to come back to your statement relating specifically to climate change. You stated that an element of blind faith was “necessary” for climate change? What does that mean exactly? Anyone who proclaims a ‘belief’ in climate change has taken a ‘leap of faith’? Or are you merely saying that some people have taken on climate change as a sort of personal faith? Because that may be true – I don’t know. I personally haven’t met anyone who falls into that category, but I’m sure at least one such individual exists. But so what? Does that mean that the integrity of the science underpinning climate change suffers as a result? I don’t think so. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, almost every science has an associated pseudo-science to contend with; astronomers have astrologers, doctors have homoeopathists, etc. But I don't hear people comparing medicine or astronomy to religion.0 -
This isn’t a personal blog where opinions go unchallenged – it’s a discussion forum. Discussions often involve questions – if you’re not prepared to discuss, then don’t post.
I don’t think a ‘belief’ that wind turbines are ‘good’ is quite the same as a belief in a religion, no; it’s not absolutely necessary for someone to be an expert on the subject of electricity generation before they can appreciate the potential benefit of wind power (but let’s not drag the thread down that route – there are plenty of other threads on that subject).
But I want to come back to your statement relating specifically to climate change. You stated that an element of blind faith was “necessary” for climate change? What does that mean exactly? Anyone who proclaims a ‘belief’ in climate change has taken a ‘leap of faith’? Or are you merely saying that some people have taken on climate change as a sort of personal faith? Because that may be true – I don’t know. I personally haven’t met anyone who falls into that category, but I’m sure at least one such individual exists. But so what? Does that mean that the integrity of the science underpinning climate change suffers as a result? I don’t think so. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, almost every science has an associated pseudo-science to contend with; astronomers have astrologers, doctors have homoeopathists, etc. But I don't hear people comparing medicine or astronomy to religion.
I agree that this in not a blog. This is probably more like a conversation, and a conversation usually requires all participants to engage. If your style of engaging is to just ask questions, then you'll allow me to note that I find that exhausting! I prefer conversations where all parties to them engage and try to develop the conversation.
I'd happily compare homoeopathy to religion, or astronomy, as all require a desire to believe them, and are based on beliefs rather than on any facts. Additionally, they all call on anecdote in an attempt to "prove" themselves.
If you have never heard of homoeopathy or astrology being compared to religion, then that's your experience. My experience is different and I've often heard of them compared to religions.
I think we are probably very different types of people. I like discussion and debate, and your style appears more to favour asking questions rather than engaging in discussion or discussing a point. I'd go so far as to say you also seem to misinterpret what I say in an attempt to provoke discussion, while not actually discussing it yourself.
My position, is that I think there are aspects of the the climate change industry which are similar to religions. Mainly, this consists of a necessity to believe in both, and of the wickedness of man, which is also a common feature of most religions and the climate change industry.
Also, both are full of commandments ( ie what you must do and must not do), and both are full of hypocrisy. (I still smile when I see many around me driving to the bottle bank in their 4x4's, while probably leaving on the lights and tv and central heating at home, while they are out).0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Let's not have one thread spill over into another.ConsiderThis wrote: »Is that graph based on raw data or on the "adjusted" data?0 -
Let's not have one thread spill over into another.
It was a serious question as you have used a graph to claim it represents global warming, yet you don't give any source reference for the graph or for the underlying data.
I could just as easily produce a graph here to show anything I wanted, but the graph would be meaningless unless others are able to check the veracity of the data on which the graph was based.0 -
I don't doubt that it was a serious question (it was the GISS dataset by the way), I just don't see the point in continuing a discussion of the same subject (the scientific basis for climate change) over two threads.ConsiderThis wrote: »It was a serious question as you have used a graph to claim it represents global warming, yet you don't give any source reference for the graph or for the underlying data.
With that in mind, I'm going to close this one for the time being and allow the discussion to continue on the other thread.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement