Wednesday, August 26, 2009

A Devil's Pact to Deny Global Warming: Creationists and Business

Global warming deniers seem to be in the same camp as so-called birthers (crazies who believe conspiracy theories that President Obama isn't a US citizen). Both groups believe that there is some vast, politically motivated conspiracy by liberals to ... do something bad? But in the case of Global Warming, it's hard to figure out why liberals would engage in such a vast conspiracy that would require the complicity of virtually every climatologist in the world.

However, one thing is clear: Most global-warming deniers are also conservative religious fundamentalists who believe in creationism. These are the people who ignore expertise of virtually every scientist on Earth about evolution, and they apparently have no trouble extending their ignorance to the environmental sciences.

Now, unfortunately, business is forming what can only be described as a Devil's pact with these people: The United States Chamber of Commerce is casting its lot with these deniers, via a court trial that pits the EPA's policies and the "soundest peer-reviewed science available" against the global warming deniers.

This is shameful. The US Chamber of Commerce is deliberately and knowingly trying to thwart the will of American citizens, and ignore the health and welfare of the entire world, purely for profit. Denying global warming is good for business, so in spite of the morality of their position, and the foolishness, they're going to attack science in a non-scientific forum. All for a buck.

One can only hope that, like the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial, science will win in the court of public opinion.


39 comments:

  1. I am an atheist scientist and disagree whole heartedly with your assessment of global warming. 31,000 American scientists have signed a petition urging the US government to reject the Kyoto protocol. Many, scientists worldwide, climatologists included, have evaluated the data and concluded that global temperature change has occurred throughout Earths history and will continue to do so. They also conclude that anthropomorphic CO2 (manmade) is a factor but a negligible factor in the big scheme of things. We are not "birthers" but thoughtful, reasoning minds evaluating the data of reality.

    ReplyDelete
  2. atlas100 - Then why do you post your comment anonymously? All I can tell is that you're an "Atheist Libertarian" who works in engineering, NOT in climatology. And saying that there are 31,000 American scientists who disagree is meaningless -- who are they, what are their credentials, where is their peer-reviewed research? I'll bet there are more than 31,000 "birthers" too, but the number of adherents to a belief has nothing to do with peer-reviewed science.

    The simple fact is that the VAST majority of qualified climatologists disagree with you. Like all good science, there is room for dissent. But to ignore overwhelming evidence an impending disaster, just because there is a tiny chance that mainstream science is wrong, is nothing more than suicidal foolishness.

    If astronomers spotted a huge asteroid with a 99.9 probability of hitting the Earth in 100 years, should we ignore it until we're 100.0% certain of its trajectory? That's exactly what you're arguing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Appeal to Authority in both Comments and not one real argument for or against, how sad.

    If CO2 is the Primary Driver of Climate Change then how can natural cycles mask the Anthropogenic Signature?

    Is it the modellers and researchers assertion that this year would be 0.7C ( amount currently attributed to rises in GHGs ) colder globally than last year had the Anthropogenic Signal been removed?

    If CO2 is a primary driver and its total contribution including all positive feedbacks at a 50% increase in concentration is not even enough to move the error bars on the total GHG contribution to Global Temperatures, WHY IS THAT?

    This is not hard to understand, the AGW Theory has been INVALIDATED it is The Scientific Method, researchers created models and models predicted a result and NOW observations have not confirmed it, so the hypothesis is WRONG, does not matter who published it, how smart they are, who believes it or supports it...it is WRONG.(paraphrasing Prof Richard Fenyman PhD Physicist, Nobel Laureate Lecture Series on the Scientific Method)

    Simply open the IPCC TAR and look at the model predictions versus the GHG concentrations and observed temperatures. We are outside the range of all the models, hence all the models are WRONG. You do not get a do over each year to keep saying you are right, that is NOT SCIENCE.

    So when you are wrong in science you START OVER because your hypothesis was WRONG, you do not get a pass because you missed something, asserted incorrectly, quantified poorly or natural variation interferes. That is NOT SCIENCE.

    Hypothesis - Experimentation - Observation it really is that simple.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Ever. The whole correlation with "birthers" and global warming deniers is completely arbitary and pointless. I know in your illogical mind that feeds on ideology that it is probably an airtight parallel but trust me, it's idoitic.

    There is no overwhelming evidence of impending disaster, as you state it. The Inconvenient Truth is junk science mixed with mostly propaganda. It's doom and gloom message is laughable and so far from actual facts that it is puzzling that anyone could even believe it. And cap and trade is not the will of the American people.

    The science behind global warming is far from convincing and it is sad that you can't see that. There is nothing more clear when someone looks at the basic numbers then that CO2 and temperature do not interact like all the alarmists say they do. TEMPERATURES ARE DECREASING RIGHT NOW WHILE EMISSIONS ARE INCREASING. HISTORICALLY, CO2 LEVELS ARE DEPENDENT ON TEMPERATURE, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. THE PLANET'S TEMPERATURE HAS NEVER BEEN STABLE. And you really expect thinking people to believe that because a gas (one essential to life) that constitutes 3% of 1% of the atmosphere is going to cause a doomsday when it has only been increased by 20% over the last century? What are you smoking? Actually, your level of blindness to commonsense can only be traced to your dogmatic frame of mind. You are just as "religous" as the creationists you vilify.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Daryl - Appealing to authority IS a valid argument for a blog. Arguing about scientific facts is not. You make a bunch of "factual" claims that are worse than useless, because you provide no authoritative citations in peer-reviewed literature.

    From what I've read, your arguments show a misunderstanding of the predictions that climatologists make. In fact, the Earth IS heating up. Just because the average temperature is supposed to go up 0.7 C doesn't mean that it's going up 0.7 C in Witchita, London, and Cape Town. In fact, the Arctic and Antarctic are warming measurably and dramatically. Glaciers are melting worldwide. Nighttime temperatures in some US cities are as much as 10 F hotter than historical levels.

    But that's not the point. Unless you're willing to cite reliable, peer-reviewed science, you're blowing smoke. It's just religion by another name.

    And using LOTS OF CAPITAL LETTERS doesn't add any weight to your arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  6. That's enough! I am not a "denier" nor a "believer"; I am a doctor/professor of philosophy. So I can tell you that your paper is a really junk. Score : E. So much for histeric/irrational discours like yours.

    Voltaire : "Je ne veux pas croire, je veux savoir".

    Napoléon : "Tenez vous loin de vos ennemis qui se suicident".

    Pof!

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Craig

    Quote : "In fact, the Arctic and Antarctic are warming measurably and dramatically."

    False!

    Links :
    • http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

    • http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    • (global temps): http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

    • (global ocean level) : http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.jpg

    That's just data...

    A+

    ReplyDelete
  8. LOL. It would be very refreshing to see some solid evidence for a position, rather than simple rants. But that ain't gonna happen on this site. LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think if you got to , for instance , a Heartland.org conference you would be hard pressed to find a "birther" , and in fact , I think you would find the preponderance of agnostics and atheists common among scientists .

    My religion is math and science , and I have spent my adult life in the most powerful array programming languages . When I looked at the basic physics of planetary temperature , I was astounded to find how pathetically it is understood on both sides of the debate .

    But the AGW alarmists make such over the top absurd claims I don't see how anybody with a lick of common sense and basic science can trust them on anything . For instance , they continue to mouth the absurdity that the extreme temperature of Venus is due to a "runaway greenhouse effect" even tho textbook calculations show it is radiating 16 times as much energy as anything in its orbit can possibly be receiving from the sun .

    CAJ reveals himself to be , as the Libertarian Party phrases it , a believer in the cult of the state . Never having invested the hard work in actually understanding any quantitative science , he relies as religiously on the infallibility of the state as any catholic relies on the pope , and resorts to ad hominem arguments and dismissal without thought of any information outside the approved state canon .

    ReplyDelete
  10. OK, if apperal to authority is valid, then the 31000 signatories are more than valid.
    And every one of them can be verified by you.
    http://www.oism.org/pproject/
    Complete with creds.
    Can you post a list of .. Oh 500 alarmist scientists with credentials that we can verify?

    Then you can look at the copenhagen accord - 4000 signed.
    The the Alberta geoScientists - 5200
    Then the Inhof 700

    etc
    etc.

    So alarmists,,, where's the beef?

    ReplyDelete
  11. not one agw climate model has acurately predicted anything. we have had 25 years to watch this process unfold and the agw zealots still cannot build a working model. there is NO PROOF of agw, this is the religion we should all fear!

    ReplyDelete
  12. This column is the definition of irony. It proves the columnist to be a religious fanatic. He spends an entire column using faith based arguments about global warming to lambaste skeptics as religious. It's almost a work of art.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Craig, perhaps you should just leave science to the scientists. It is, after all, your "second career" according to your bio.

    Perhaps your time in sunny SoCal would be better spent attending a gay pride parade or planting trees (watch out for the wildfires!).

    Bob Armstrong hit the nail on the head. You're an environmental cultist and the heretics who deny your new savior are making a deal with the devil.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Craig,

    I am pretty sure I told you where to find the data on model predictions (IPCC TAR) and assumed that you knew what the GTA is at any of the 4 main Temperature Records, and I stated 0.7C globally not regionally. So you cannot even argue based on the content of the comment you head off on a pretermined tirade against what you percieve my argument to be, you made a decision using preconceptions as to my points (just like climate modellers do with all little understood parts of the climate) and came to a wrong output.. just like climate models.

    Do you not find that strange that you are using canned formulated responses because you cannot adapt to new information?

    Appeal to Authority is not valid in a debate about the scientific method and the accurracy of the hypotheses around AGW. This is because the Authority is not valid in a comparison of observation against experimentation. Which was what I was using as a major point. The first two questions lead to the invalidation of the models.

    ReplyDelete
  15. My case that global-warming deniers are akin to birthers and other faith-based belief systems is only reinforced by this discussion. The only "hard" data provided, by Isaac, was baffling: Isaac's links show clearly that global warming is real. Everyone else resorts to ad-hominem attacks. Which is actually OK, since my original blog was exactly that, calling global-warming deniers a bunch of fools. So how can I complain when they call me a fool in reply? But nobody here has done anything to sway me one bit on global warming.

    And Isaac, before you give me a poor grade, you should check your spelling. It damages your credibility.

    The signs of faith-based beliefs are written all over this page. Loud, angry denials, a complete lack of citations to any real science supporting your viewpoint, conspiracy claims, use of superlatives like "the worst I've ever read," claims that I'm a worshipper of the state (anyone who knows me knows how laughable that is!). These are just meaningless words. Where's the science, boys and girls?

    But don't bother, I'm done with this discussion. Feel free to carry on with your attacks on my credentials, etc. At least I'm honest: I'm not a climatologist. But I'm also an intelligent, well-read citizen. The fact that the VAST majority of real climatologists have presented solid peer-reviewed evidence of global warming, impresses me. Libertarian principles are uninteresting. 31,000 signatures by scientists to reject the Kyoto protocol is meaningless, since we have no idea whether they're climatologists or psychologists. And name calling is amusing but irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  16. craig - talk about being in denial. how many times must someone remind you of the scientific method? how many times must we point out that observations do not meet expectations? there have been many "accepted" theories that were later proven false, how is agw any different? nuh-hu is not an argument, grow up.

    ReplyDelete
  17. CAJ said "The only "hard" data provided, by Isaac , ..."

    FALSE ! I presented a howler . Venus's extreme temperature is commonly asserted among AGWers as an example of what may happen to us if we do not mend our ways . The classical Stefan-Boltzmann/Kirchhoff calculation which explains why our temperature is very close to 1%21 that of the sun shows that claim to be physically absurd .

    I have yet to see any AGW alarmist point out that fallacy and admonish the alarmist community that repeating it just makes them look ignorant .

    It's all over for your guys' global government gaia religion . There are a hell of a lot of us technically educated , who evaluate things for ourselves who are fed up , disgusted , and , indeed , scared by this massive irrational FRAUD .

    I was surprised to see you have a background from Stanford and even got into genetic programming . How you failed to learn any general science or to think for yourself , I fail to comprehend .

    ReplyDelete
  18. We skeptics "seem to be in the same camp as birthers?"

    That's a lame comparison. Here are some valid reasons why we are skeptics:

    1) The Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres has a peer reviewed study that says natural forces very well could be the dominant factors in climate:
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml

    2) Here's a study that shows solar activity linked to global climate:
    http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=115207&org=OLPA&from=news

    3) Here's another study that says CO2 is naturally occurring (and that the claim of CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere of 50 to 200 years is wrong):
    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/ef800581r?prevSearch=%255Bauthor%253A%2BEssenhigh%255D&searchHistoryKey=

    4) James Hansen's former boss declares he's a skeptic:
    ttp://epw. senate.gov /public/in dex.cfm?Fu seAction=M inority.Bl ogs&Conten tRecord_id =1a5e6e32-­802a-23ad- 40ed-ecd53 cd3d320

    5) And here's one of the world's top physicists, Freeman Dyson saying he's a skeptic:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?_r=3&hp=&pagewanted=all

    ReplyDelete
  19. Official government measurements show that the world’s temperature has cooled a bit since reaching its most recent peak in 1998.

    That’s given global warming skeptics new ammunition to attack the prevailing theory of climate change. The skeptics argue that the current stretch of slightly cooler temperatures means that costly measures to limit carbon dioxide emissions are ill-founded and unnecessary.

    Proposals to combat global warming are “crazy” and will “destroy more than a million good American jobs and increase the average family’s annual energy bill by at least $1,500 a year,” the Heartland Institute, a conservative research organization based in Chicago, declared in full-page newspaper ads earlier this summer. “High levels of carbon dioxide actually benefit wildlife and human health,” the ads asserted.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Not true. There is no evidence that Valclav Klaus, Claude Allegre, Dr. Roger Pielke, Professor Giegelback (U of PA), Dr. Lindzen (MIT), Fred Singer (UVA), Ian Pliner (Austrailia), Bob Carter and many others who oppose global warming legislation resemble religous fundamentalists.

    The best statement I heard was by a UConn Professor of Physics in response to the question that the debate on global warming was settled - Which of the 20 climate models has settled the debate?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ian Wishart lands some very heavy blows on the alarmists in the new book Air Con.

    Essentially, he sheets home a lot of the alarmism to religious fundamentalism, of the Green/Gaia variety.

    The green fundies are furiously hissing about his book over on Amazon - the irony is none of them have read it but it has utterly infuriated them.

    Fantastic book, I have to say. Imagine how much more hissing there'll be once some of the fundies have finally read it!

    ReplyDelete
  22. I am another atheist against the Gaian Jihad. I perceive global warming as a product of Gaian religion that subverts science by replacing the scientific method with the consensus of the annointed.

    Climatology is like eugenics, it is the science of those who agree with global warming or with the master race. Both fields attempt to derail critical analysis by declaring themselves the only arbiters of truth regarding testing their own theories. If this sounds a like a scientific method red flag it is.

    Scientific method, you see, is the method of the atheists and non believers who insist that all theories, no matter how sacred, be committed to the test of critical analysis.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Well, I am not an atheist, but I'm not a creationist.

    This tirade was so devoid of anything constructive as to be laughable. Calling people names and looking down your nose at legitimate opposing views appears to be the last refuge of scoundrels.

    And I think I agree with a number of the posters. The religious virus is Gaianism and it afflects people on the left who don't have any real scientific understanding of this matter.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Craig,

    I looked over your site and don't see much of anything about AGW. What exactly do you know about it?

    Since you challenge people that they hadn't changed your views on it, it might be helpful to you if you told us what your understanding of what AGW was, how it works, and what scientific proof has convinced you that anyone who doesn't believe in what you do is a yahoo.

    ReplyDelete
  25. nice blog.....

    http://envrionment.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  26. (Note: A reader, Mark, had tech troubles posting to this blog. I'm posting this on his behalf. --CJ)

    I am a "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Sceptic", as well as an apolitical agnostic engineer ... go figure !

    As such, one of my (our ?) main arguments is still : "The climate always has changed, the climate always will change". Just calling us "Climate Change Deniers", however often you do so, is dishonest.

    Most religions, especially fundamentalist ones, are based on faith, which can be defined as "Belief without proof".

    AGW alarmists say : "If you do not change your evil ways, the world will heat up by 5 or 6 degrees Centigrade by 2100, which will definitely have catastrophic consequences !!!"

    We sceptics reply : "Ermmm ... are you sure about that ? The short-term comparisons with your model predictions are a bit off already. At least some consequences of warming have proven to be beneficial to mankind historically (Vikings in Greenland etc.). Your proposed solutions will not actually reduce Global Temperatures by very much, the money could be better spent on ..."

    The AGW alarmists interrupt : "Deniers !!! Our 'real climatologists' are not to be questioned ! The 'science' is settled ! The 'debate' is over ! You should be tried for treason ! ..."

    Which side is reacting like "religious fundamentalists" ?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Mark, thanks for your reply, which is more thoughtful than many.

    However, you (and others) overlook a key point: Caution.

    Let's say I'm a chemical manufacturer with a factory next to a lake, from which millions get their drinking supply. One day, I decide to dump tonnes of waste products into the lake, claiming it's OK because, "You haven't proved yet that these things are harmful."

    Clearly we wouldn't allow this, right?

    So how is that different from altering the chemistry of our atmosphere without first understanding the consequences? Sure, AWG theories might be wrong, as many here have argued. But that's not the correct test to apply when the world's entire ecosystem is at risk. The right test is, "Do we know, to a high degree of certainty, that the changes we're making won't result in catastrophe?"

    In other words, the burden of proof is on those who want to change the makeup of our atmosphere.

    The idea that we can increase CO2, methane, and other gasses to unprecedented levels, without first determining that it won't cause harm, is irresponsible at best, and catastrophic at worst.

    It's no different that dumping chemicals in a lake, or shooting bullets in the air, just because nobody has proved it will be harmful.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Craig, there is nothing "unprecedented" about the changes in our atmosphere. In fact CO2 is now at one of its lowest recorded levels. Atmospheric CO2 has been many times higher in the past with no ill effects on the lifeforms of the day. You claim we do not yet understand what the effects of higher CO2 levels will be, but we have seen this before. This is a large reason why realists have problems with alarmists, the alarmist either ignore or misrepresent the Earth's climatological past (see "hockey stick"). If CO2 were as dangerous as you claim, life as we know it could have never evolved on this planet. CO2 is not a pollutant and the burden of proof falls back on the alarmists. How long will the alarmist hang on to a disproven theory? It is time to move on.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Wow, Craig. You certainly have your share of denialists spouting the same tired old fallacies that have been debunked, deconstructed so many times now. From fraudulent lists of "scientists" to saying the Arctic isn't warming (Tamino at Open Mind deconstructed that one recently) to still rabbiting on about the hockey stick as if there were only one graph that showed that particular trend. And outright falsehoods too...CO2 is at the lowest recorded levels??? Where'd that one come from? Sounds like something Morano or Watts would make up.

    Any denialist who thinks s/he has good evidence, drop by realclimate.org and present it there. Or better yet, go to the Real Climate Start Here link so you can educate yourself on the basics (which many of the posters are sorely missing). That way you don't make a fool of yourself by shouting "Snap! I win" at the poker game.

    Your case that birthers are akin to global warming denialists still stands. There are mountains of independently verified evidence of global warming from temp reconstructions (ice, ocean, lake, bog cores all telling the same tale), to actual temp measurements (land, ocean, stratospheric) to phenological evidence (bloom dates of flowers, ice freeze dates and ice break-up dates) plus much more.

    Deniers of all stripes will ignore almost all the experts and all the evidence in order to maintain their belief: Obama wasn't born in the US, evolution is a lie, vaccines cause autism, global warming is a hoax (or it isn't too bad, or it is happening but is a natural cycle, or the warming that wasn't happening--or is happening--has now stopped and it is cooling....hard to keep your story straight when you're driven by an ideology rather than the science).

    So come on over and talk to the real scientists and very knowledgeable people. You don't have to change your mind, but at least you'll learn which of your arguments are garbage so you can then present better arguments instead of a collection of misunderstandings, fallacies, and outright lies.

    -Daniel J. Andrews

    ReplyDelete
  30. Daniel, I have studied the Earth's climate for over 30 years, I have a degree in Remote Sensing and have debated climatologists over this nonsense for decades. I find most of the alarmists to be unethical and fraudulent. The fact is there is NO evidence of man made global warming, that is why the latest IPCC report used graphs and content from Wikipedia to attempt to prove their theory. As you may imagine, the Wikipedia content used was found to be not only wrong, but was not even posted by scientists. This is the same bunch that has used Mann's hockey stick 8 times as "proof" we are warming the globe. After 8 years of asking for the release of the raw data used to construct this graph, we finally find it was created by cherry picking just 10 tree cores out of a much larger pool. When the entire data set was utilized we found not only have temperatures NOT risen in modern times but that the overall trend for temperatures over the past 1000 years is downward. Name calling does not prove theory. The scientific method is quite clear, if observations do not meet predictions then your theory is crap. Not one climate model used to "prove" global warming has ever been correct. Also of note is that the correct construct of tempertures over the past 1000 years shows the Medieval Warm Period was 3-5 degrees warmer than today. Instead of this "disaster" spiralling out of control due to a "tipping point", the Earth promptly reversed its trend and we entered the Little Ice Age. Yes you are talking to scientists and they will tell you Anthropogenic Global Warming is a scam.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Daniel, I have studied the Earth's climate for over 30 years, I have a degree in Remote Sensing..."

    Aaaahahahahahahahaha!

    ReplyDelete
  32. And the rest of the quote please... " and have debated climatologists over this nonsense for decades. I find most of the alarmists to be unethical and fraudulent. The fact is there is NO evidence of man made global warming, that is why the latest IPCC report used graphs and content from Wikipedia to attempt to prove their theory. As you may imagine, the Wikipedia content used was found to be not only wrong, but was not even posted by scientists. This is the same bunch that has used Mann's hockey stick 8 times as "proof" we are warming the globe. After 8 years of asking for the release of the raw data used to construct this graph, we finally find it was created by cherry picking just 10 tree cores out of a much larger pool. When the entire data set was utilized we found not only have temperatures NOT risen in modern times but that the overall trend for temperatures over the past 1000 years is downward. Name calling does not prove theory. The scientific method is quite clear, if observations do not meet predictions then your theory is crap. Not one climate model used to "prove" global warming has ever been correct. Also of note is that the correct construct of tempertures over the past 1000 years shows the Medieval Warm Period was 3-5 degrees warmer than today. Instead of this "disaster" spiralling out of control due to a "tipping point", the Earth promptly reversed its trend and we entered the Little Ice Age. Yes you are talking to scientists and they will tell you Anthropogenic Global Warming is a scam." I know the facts on climate make me giggle, so let's laugh together.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Here's a peach of a quote from a real "scientist", Dr Stepen Schneider of Stanford... "On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." So much for "real scientists" opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  34. From "the guardian" 10/07/09 "A man who claims he was unfairly dismissed from his job because he BELIEVES in climate change is attempting to have his environmental views recognised under RELIGIOUS law... told Mr Justice Michael Burton – who ruled last year that Al Gore's environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth was political and partisan – that BELIEFS about "anthropogenic climate change" could be considered a philosophy under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003... The judge raised the removal by Lady Scotland, the attorney general, from regulations that defined beliefs as religious beliefs or those that were similar to religious beliefs of the word "similar" after atheist and humanist groups objected to comparisons of their philosophies with religion.
    The result of the tribunal will determine whether Nicholson can pursue his claim for unfair dismissal. The hearing continues."
    Yes it does.

    ReplyDelete
  35. >"The US Chamber of Commerce is deliberately and knowingly trying to thwart the will of American citizens"

    Polls continue to show that American citizens have little interest in global warming. A recent Gallup poll (google "Americans' Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop") shows that "48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question". Global warming routinesly ranks dead last in Pew Research polls of the public's priorities:

    http://people-press.org/report/584/policy-priorities-2010

    So, how did you determine that climate action is the will of the American people?

    That aside, you can invoke religion all you want. I don't see any evidence that you can debate the issue on a scientific basis, however. I suspect that you take the supposed AGW "consensus" on "faith", if you get my meaning. (BTW, I believed it too, about 3.5 years ago, but I didn't take it on faith--I read the scientific studies. They changed my mind.)

    ReplyDelete
  36. @Craig I don't think your line of argument is useful. So what if it is true that the believers of the Invisible Friend are also deniers?

    But deniers really need to keep up with the debate. They kept rehashing the same false arguments. Here, learn.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/

    ReplyDelete
  37. For those interested in the truth about Skepticalscience.com, please review the following.

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html

    http://www.climateviews.com/Climate_Views/Download_Articles_files/CookRebuttalb.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  38. Anon – that's the best you can do to expose "the truth" about SkepticalScience? A rambling blog by a nuclear physicist who mostly blogs about the Large Hadron Collider?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Guess Craig is not into reading and thinking at the same time. So read it for yourselves and make up your own mind, you need not be a useful idiot like Craig. Anon!

    ReplyDelete

Dear readers -- I am no longer blogging and after leaving these blogs open for two years have finally stopped accepting comments due to spammers. Thanks for your interest. If you'd like to write to me, click on the "Contact" link at the top. Thanks! -- CJ.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.