Texas State BOE - Shrewd (not)- Religion as Science (Spring: schools, college)

[theloneranger]

Originally Posted by blakesq

I make this attack because liberals hate religion, yet they worship at the altar global warming. How else can you explain the cap and trade fiasco that liberal democrats are pushing, WITH NO EVIDENCE that it will do ANYTHING to cool the earth....that's right....FAITH.

This is offensive in its entirety. I am a liberal BECAUSE of my religion, not because I hate religion.

I believe that God wants me to develop my intellect and use it for the good of all humanity. Understanding scientific research and theory is a part of this.

There is as much evidence of man-caused global warming as there is of relativity or evolution--I don't see why people attack it. Honestly, if Mitt Romney had presented the info instead of Al Gore, I don't think anyone on the right would be complaining.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by theloneranger

This is offensive in its entirety. I am a liberal BECAUSE of my religion, not because I hate religion.

Bingo.

[joejitsu]

Originally Posted by blakesq

I make this attack because liberals hate religion, yet they worship at the altar global warming. How else can you explain the cap and trade fiasco that liberal democrats are pushing, WITH NO EVIDENCE that it will do ANYTHING to cool the earth....that's right....FAITH.

I admit that the effectiveness of Cap and Trade is very questionable. However, at least it is an attempt to address a serious problem. Your solution to the problem, which could potentially affect billions, is ignoring it by pretending it doesn't exist.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by joejitsu

I admit that the effectiveness of Cap and Trade is very questionable. However, at least it is an attempt to address a serious problem. Your solution to the problem, which could potentially affect billions, is ignoring it by pretending it doesn't exist.

What if the "problem" though, is not a problem at all? But a natural cycle?

Some of the biggest disasters in human history are those which resulted from certain sects believing they alone had the "solution" to problems they selectively identified as being such. And most of them were not so much problems as just natural facts of human existence. The end result was to make things even more miserable.

The "Global Warming" adherents will generally listen to nothing which goes against their own belief system. Hell, it might even be different if many of the main prophets took to personal living their own advise...but they don't. The worst violaters (as is usually the case) lecture and pompously pontificate, but live a life-style which goes against everything they piously lecture others (the peons) to refrain from. Algore is a hypocrite pure and simple.

[TexasHorseLady]

If one is honest, one has to acknowledge that there are those in the liberal camp, in the conservative camp, in all camps, who use politics as a way to meet their need for religion while not acknowledging that that's what they're doing. Heck, there are people who use FOOD to meet their need for religion while not acknowledging that that's what they're doing, and atheists for whom atheism is very obviously a religion - why should politics be any different?

So, yes, there is a fairly loud contingent of the liberal camp (just as there is in the conservative camp and, for that matter, the libertarian camp) for whom liberal causes are, indeed, in the nature of a religion and are clung to with religious fervor and must be taken on faith simply because they ARE liberal causes.

This is not to say that all liberals or all conservatives or all libertarians or even all people who think that global warming might possibly be true (as opposed to Must Not Be Questioned Because It's Obviously True And WE Are So Important That WE DID IT!) treat their political beliefs and causes as a religion, but enough do that it could be considered a trend.

Basically, if politics, your party, and your party line (whether it be science or faith-based) is the be all-end all and the most important thing in the world to you and anyone who disagrees with that party line must be an ignoramous at best, you might be treated it as a religion.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

What if the "problem" though, is not a problem at all? But a natural cycle?

Some of the biggest disasters in human history are those which resulted from certain sects believing they alone had the "solution" to problems they selectively identified as being such. And most of them were not so much problems as just natural facts of human existence. The end result was to make things even more miserable.

So you'd have us ignore all the evidence pointing to the conclusion that global warming is worsening and caused mostly by man because in the past sought singular solutions to problems? I don't understand how this benefits anyone.

Evidence does not point to a natural cycle. Evidence points to man-made conditions greatly worsening global warming.

I don't think anyone is offering a "singular" solution. We're still getting people to acknowledge that there is a problem.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

So you'd have us ignore all the evidence pointing to the conclusion that global warming is worsening and caused mostly by man because in the past sought singular solutions to problems? I don't understand how this benefits anyone.

Spoken like a True Believer! I don't "point" to a dammed thing. But let's look at it a bit, ok. If anyone is skeptical, or offers counter-evidence to your thesis, then it is "ignoring" a "problem."? Right?

Hey, guess what? Other "evidence" points different:

The New Religion is Global Warming by Tom DeWeese -- Capitalism Magazine

Also,

Thomas Sowell : Global Warming Swindle - Townhall.com

While the public has been led to believe that "all" the leading scientists buy the global warming hysteria and the political agenda that goes with it, in fact the official reports from the United Nations or the National Academy of Sciences are written by bureaucrats -- and then garnished with the names of leading scientists who were "consulted," but whose contrary conclusions have been ignored.

Evidence does not point to a natural cycle. Evidence points to man-made conditions greatly worsening global warming.

Of COURSE it, does/does not. "Evidence" will never BUT prove anything other than what you worship. It will always be what you choose to believe.

Myself? To be honest? I don't know all that much about whether it is a natural cycle or not. I am humble in that regard...cos I have no choice otherwise.

What I DO know? Is my own limitations when it comes to righteously identifying a "problem". I simply accept those limitations...and by extension accept, that I don't have enough wisdom to know how to "solve" it by legislative mandate. My god, the WORLD climate is changing and a few people think they have the knowledge to reverse it??? And selflisly to boot? This is so idiotic as to be insane. Almost the stuff gulags and graveyards are made of...when it reaches its natural extension....

I don't think anyone is offering a "singular" solution. We're still getting people to acknowledge that there is a problem.

Oh hell, yeah. Yep, that's right. Get "people" to "acknowledge" there is a "problem". Self-defined. Get Algore to step up to the podium....pound it out powerfully in amplyfying volumes how the World can be saved if he just be the accepted as the messiah....

This "savior-complex" defies all explanation...

Translation: We (who are morally superior)...know best.

And...laughing a bit...can I mention something else?...just to chew on? Here it is:

Did you KNOW that the amount of ozone destroying chemicals released by all the freon cans since invented to do not amount to a hill of beans compared to what ONE natural volcanic eruption ever spewed out?

I guess I will just never understand how those who embrace the Humanistic denomination of Environmentalism as per the Church of Global Warming, Al Gore as GrandPoohBah, can presume to speak from any sort of pulpit.

[mlassoff]

Not really an environmentalist, but I do believe in science. Both of your "sources" are written by right-wing extremist political hacks without a shred of journalistic credibility or accountability.

DeWeese is considered by the mainstream to be a nut who's afraid that the US is going to give sovereign land to the UN and eventually the North American continent will form a single union. Really normal there. Credible source. He states that global warming is a hoax invented to advance political agendas. I guess you don't believe science, but will let yourself be scammed by self-aggrandizing nuts on the political and societal fringe if it suits your very peculiar world view.

Enjoy the next tea party, as your once great political party shrinks to a core of protectionist fanatics who can't get elected dog catcher.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4218 <--- DeWeese's thoughts on why the US needs to leave the UN. This should give anyone with half a brain some insight into your source on global warming.

[joejitsu]

I think this thread is at a stalemate. If you refuse to believe the vast majority of scientist and scientific evidence of global warming, than there is nothing here that is going to change your mind. However, the majority of people in the United States, including conservatives now accept the fact that humans can affect the environment. Throughout history some reactionaries refused to believe science, like the Church refusing to believe that the Earth revolved around the Sun. They are remembered as idiots. I do hope that you are right and global warming is a myth, but I am afraid you are wrong.

[thesonofgray]

Originally Posted by mimimomx3

You are correct. I should have said that creationism, global warming, etc. should be presented as hypotheses...

Creationism does belong in science, as a perfect example of how to examine ideas through the lens of the scientific method. As such, it is easily discarded as theory.

I think this was lightly touched on before the conversation spiraled into a silly debate on global warming, but I think it's important.

A scientific theory only becomes such after an enormous amount of repeatedly verifiable evidence exists to support it. A scientific theory attempts to explain what is clearly visible to any objective observer. Therefore, a scientific theory is not a hypothesis. There is a huge difference between a scientific theory and the word "theory" used in layman's terms.

If Creationism was actually subjected to the scientific method, it would...for a lack of a better word...fail. There is no evidence to observe, no experiments to perform. That is a major part of the scientific method. By its own definition, Creationism is founded on that which is explicitly unverifiable. That is not compatible with anything relating to science.

The only reason Creationism would find its way into a science classroom is because a religiously motivated bureaucrat mandated it, or it was to be used to explain what is in no way science, and how scientific conclusions are made in an entirely different process than those based on faith. Either way, I don't think it's appropriate.