is it mainly the moral majority type right wing christians who complain that 'global warming' is a religeon?

Question

why is that? are they scared of the competition? or is it because it threatens their 'creationist' mythology with real science?

Answer 1

Probably. It's mostly ultra-conservative people who deny AGW and claim it's a religion, and ultra-conservatives also tend to be ultra-religious.



One possibility is that it's a case of accusing others of that of which you yourself are guilty. It's a pretty common tactic to try and deflect suspicion and blame. For example, you steal a cookie and then blame it on your brother. The attention is diverted from your crime.



Deniers do this all the time. Anytime I ask a question, I can be sure a certain gelatinous individual will ask almost the exact same question, but skewed in an attempt to pose it the opposite way.



Deniers will also accuse proponents of spreading propaganda, misinformation, bad science, looking at too short a timeframe, etc. Basically anything they're guilty of, they'll accuse proponents with.



I think religion is an example of this. A religion requires blind faith - obviously this is not the case for AGW. There is mounds of evidence supporting the theory. The IPCC report alone is massive. Deniers on the other hand have virtually no supporting evidence. They rely on old or grossly manipulated data in the rare instance where they cite any data at all. The reality is that their denial is based on blind faith.



They know their position is akin to religion, and so they accuse AGW proponents of the same. Just like the little kid stealing the cookie.

Answer 2

My dear friend....



Well...to be honest, I don't know, what "global warming" should have to o with any "religion"???? Or maybe I misunderstood your question...



However I would like to wish you a very merry christmas and all the best for the new year ! Season greetings from Germany....with all my love & care...your friend...Annette***

Answer 3

My sister is a devout Christian but I don't know if she considers GW to be a religion or not as she shut the door to discussion a long while ago. But based on what I've seen on this site, the answer to your question is a resounding YES.



In the world according to Agnes, I'm part of a cult. Webster's definition #5 defines a cult as a great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book) ; especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b: the object of such devotion c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion. I guess I am devoted to the movement, as not being devoted means sitting on my thumbs while the world goes down the toilet, something I'm not inclined to let happen. But it's not a small group anymore that accepts the theory of GCC as valid. There's a groundswell of public and governmental support. So scr*w the labels, it is what it is. Certain religious types want to imagine their world a certain way and will squeeze the square peg through the round hole if it kills 'em. Me? I like to keep my eyes and ears open, and discuss things so I can think things through and formulate opinions. My opinion? We're in for a wild ride and if I can do something to help tone it down, I will. Then if I ever face St. Peter or God I can say I did my best, instead of turning the other cheek.

Answer 4

Good Question as usual Little RG. It will be a miracle if this survives, but lets give it a shot.



I was a full - Fundy at one time.



~That type religion puts God in a tiny box, tucked neatly in their bible they don't read for themselves. Their Genesis; alludes to loopholes on subjects such as pedophilia, inbreeding and prejudice

.

* One cannot prove Earth is only six & 3/4 thousand years old - A lie forced on well educated people. Genesis shows time was not even a factor until the third day.

Two days of fun and science...there is no limit as to how many years the beginning was. Eternity goes both ways. It could be so many years, there isn't a name for how many it is.



**If they knew the Bible they say they follow; they would know that the end of this Civilization will come by Fire. The First time it Rained, it was The Flood. When Climate Change makes it's peak. There will be Forest Fires, Smoke, Warm Air, Warm Water, Tornadoes Carrying more and more toxic substances...



***When the modern 'christians' sided with GW, they went to another father. They have lost their discernment. The Christian has never in history before pledged allegiance with a war monger. Neither have they EVER promoted torture until this past decade.



Have never mounted a Hate campaign against a Liberal + Democrat + Unpatriotic. Any combination of those labels are hurled by 'christians' who are of the same mind. Deciding a person's worth by how they Vote is...

Answer 5

LOL! It sure seems so!



If they wanted to engage in intelligent discussion, avid deniers would offer scientific evidence to support their position instead of insulting babble about global warming "religion", "hoaxes", "liberals" (oh, what a scary label), and Al Gore. The science has nothing to do with any of that scare tactic garbage.



Of course I'm not referring in any general way about "conservatives" (I am one, when there's a conservative party not discarding our Bill of Rights) since many key climate scientists such as Dr. James Hansen are conservatives:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=20081222124146AAM5WC6



I'm also not referring to thoughtful skeptics, since testing and refining scientific theories is exactly how scientific understanding moves forward. The current counterproductive CO2 "solutions" proposed by politicians deserve the most skepticism (as Dr. Hansen eloquently points out).



This is far more complex than the simple 2-sided issue that the propaganda pros working for special interests like to paint it as. To give ourselves a reasonable chance at survival, we need to keep the far-anything (right or left) nuts as far from power as possible.

Answer 6

I would first research the reason why this phenomenon is only limited to the US or the anglo-saxon world.



The reaction of the barbarian is to destroy what he does not understand (in this case, a scientific theory which is in the process of being proven right).

Answer 7

If I didn't know better, I'd think Uncle Zebidaih's answer was pure sarcasm. I couldn't do a better ignorant right winger if I tried.

Answer 8

I don't understand your question. I've never heard of right wing christians and why would they complain that global warming is a RELIGION<<< correct spelling.

Answer 9

I have been around long enough to notice that there seems to be an innate need in people for religion, maybe not all but the vast majority. Too many people learn a set of principles and then for them it becomes reality. This is true for Druids, Hindu, Muslim, and Christians, and it is true of atheist and global warming alarmists as well. I grew up as an agnostic and since then I have absolutely confirmed that there is much we don't know. Nothing is more irritating to me than listening to someone preaching something that they know less about than I do whether they think they know how to save my soul or save the planet. It is particularly annoying when it involves science which I do know fairly well and treasure. Your suggestion that there is ample evidence to support the theory of AGW (which you call climate change) is simply evidence of a religious conviction to not let the facts get in the way of your cherished beliefs but I understand it is difficult for the religious to take a step back and examine their beliefs.



Note: You said: dawei; its almost worth unblocking all the deniers to see what they come up with.

You block 'deniers' because you think you think you already know the answers. More evidence of your religious convictions.



Note: the term denier is obviously smuggly used by most alarmists to equate with holocaust deniers. Just seeing the term denier generally gives me the incentive to be much more nasty than I would be otherwise.



“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.



I am not sure if he is a religious fanatic or not.

Answer 10

Personally, I am a Christian but I don't see how anyone can say that Global Warming is a religion. I really have never head of that. I don't think we're scared of any competition lol. But don't just take what I say and then think that all Christians are this way, generalizing is not very accurate. Though one thing is that what is "real" science? You can say that evolution is true or say that our belief in creation is true or that both are false, the thing is that neither can really be proven at all. No one can really prove, at all, how the earth and the creatures were created. Also, global warming doesn't have anything to do with our belief in creation or in any of our beliefs. Though if there are Christian who think global warming is a religion then I suggest not listening to them and maybe have them read the Bible again or whatver. Though I do know that there is most likely "extreme" Christians out there who would say that God is punishing us...I don't think so.

Just let people believe what they want, we all see things differently.

Also, I liked the question. It challenges what all Christians believe or see.

Hopefully this helped in some way.

Answer 11

Global warming is not a religion - it is a scientific hypothesis

Answer 12

it is not plenty the Christians against the Greenies, that's the actuality that Christians tend to be extreme thinkers and as a result they do no longer in basic terms purchase into each little bit of hype that flows from Al Gore and the different radical environmentalists. The technological expertise isn't in the back of worldwide warming. it extremely is the main significant reason human beings don't think it. then you certainly go extra and comprehend that it is not an environmentalist circulation, that's a value-effective/political circulation. there is not any technological expertise in the back of it. So why does it flourish? quite a few motives. One is that that's between the main significant matters of government can provide. So professors and consider companies dream up catastrophic worldwide climate eventualities then bilk the government out of money to do the examine. It is likewise seen as a manner for socialism and communism to punish capitalism -- making worldwide guy-made climate replace the organic results of rampant capitalist achievement. and so on. So it is not approximately Christians vs. Al Gore, that is approximately those with brains vs. the hordes. Like nicely-known. yet be of reliable cheer; if history has taught us something that is that the hordes frequently win.

Answer 13

Creationists are always threatened with anything that contradicts their biblical mythology... science is fine when it suits them but woe betide anyone/thing/theory contradicting anything that is written in that awful book written by bronze aged, misogynistic, deluded goat herders.



Ironically, I noticed two answers from a denier in the past two weeks, one, claiming that global warming is a religion because it takes faith to believe the evidence... then in another answer of theirs, I noticed this person mentioining the bible as a source for evolution! Oh did I chuckle at that one!



There has actually been a few deniers that inadvertantly let it slip that they are creationists over the past few weeks.. so erm yeah, we already know their take on scientific theories, after all, they're ONLY theories, not fact...not proven..... even though we know science doesn't deal with absolutes or proofs!



What takes more faith, believing in an invisible sky guy or accepting the vast amount of evidence for an explanation of why global mean surface temperatures are rising?

Answer 14

Not at all because they are also faith based in nature, this is why it is easy to convert them to faith in warming as it is with politicians. True skeptics are as skeptical of their evangelistic attempts as they are of yours. The entire problem with the whole AGW/GCC thing from the beginning is they have posed some concepts as if they were accepted theories that are impossible to test and must be taken on faith alone. Science does not work this way but politics and religion do. I have seen the skeptics produce historical data that has been well tested and is still the process taught at schools and universities world wide, but you call it right wing denial because it exactly contradicts the unprovable concepts you have given your heartfelt faith to,



This faith is religion not science. peer review is religion not science. Consensus is religion not science. Every point attempted by faithful warmers is religious in nature because it fails even the most simple scientific tests. So AGW is a religious cult not science.

Answer 15

brainwashing is widely misunderstood. Religous cults don't brainwash people by taping their eyes open and making them watch movies, nor by hypnosis. The method used is to put the victim in a society where they are surrounded by supporters of the cult, and no questioning of the faith is tolerated. They are told that the cult members are the only ones who care about them. They are told that the cult leaders are the only ones who really understand what is going on, that the truth is so convoluted that none but an authority can understand. This is very effective on most people, but especially children. "an inconvenient truth" is propaganda aimed at children. A graph so big it requires a lift truck to examine a small temperature rise? CO2 "mugging" outgoing infrared?

There are books about the topic, try searching "religious cults, deprogramming"

It's not true that only the cult leaders care. Deniers are primarily concerned about the increased misery of the poor which will surely result if energy is priced out of their reach.

It's not true that only the authorities can understand. Even scientific laymen can recognize a scam by the methods used



great climate swindle

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=the+great+global+warming+swindle#

Answer 16

I never heard that but if they called support for Obama a religion, (that he was our Messiah) then it would not surprise me. They know that those who accept scientific facts generally disagree with a religious belief system explanation. To claim it is a religion is to insinuate that their facts are just belief instead of facts.

I have stated that even if there was no Global Warming, there is evidence that the burning of fossil fuel causes air pollution. Smog endangers the health of the young children and the elderly. That is reason enough to develop alternative energy. Not wanting to argue that fact in a post I get insulting emails instead.

In defense of Christians, I am a Christian. Not all are closed minded about science. Not all think the world is only 6,000 years old. Some believe in "Intelligent Design" which accepts the concept of other explanations for creation.

The thumbs down is no surprise. Being a Liberal, Educated person leads to rejection from the Christian's right wing. Being a Christian leads to rejections from Scientific Atheists. When either side accuses the other of being harsh and judgmental I have to laugh.

Answer 17

It seems to be mainly people from a scientific backgroud who call AGW alarmism a religion much like scientology. While it borrows some concepts from science, it's based on faith.



I haven't heard of any religious leaders who call AGW a religion. I think that's something you want to believe.



To religious leaders, like Cardinal George Pell, AGW is mainly for people who have rejected religion, but need some kind of higher purpose to believe in.

Answer 18

Yes, because those people do not understand the difference between science and religion. Anything they do not understand, they try to claim it is some sort of satanic religion and try to demonize it. They have been doing it successfully for over 1000 years.

Answer 19

I am not a moral majority type by any stretch of the imagination.



The Global Warming crowd that accuses the rest of us of being criminals because we live in homes that are heated by fossil fuels, bathe in water heated by fossil fuels, and use motorized transportation are lunatics.



The Global Warming believers who accuse the rest of us of being criminals do not deserve to be considered religous.



I would say that a better descriprion of the Global Warming believers is that they are members of a bizarre cult.



If the Global Warming believers were really religous about the subject they would practive what they preach.



the global Warming believers would not live in homes or apartments that are heated by fossil fuel, they would not bathe iin water that had been heated by fossil fuel and they would not use any sort of motorized transportation.



the Global Warming believers would be like the Amish if Global Warming were a religion to them.



Like the Amish they would set a standard for the rest of the world by using horse drawn carriages inststead of any form of motorized transportation.



Instead the Global Warming believers use motorized transportation. They just drive hybrid vehicles or take the bus. that is still using fossil fuels.



That is the sort of behavior that you see in bizarre cults, not a true religion.



The global Warming believers are members of a bizarre cult, not a religion.

Answer 20

I would argue that it's almost exclusively right wing fundamentalist Christians who argue that global warming should not be believed because it is a religion. Which is kind of odd, when you think about it.

Answer 21

Never heard of that crap. Perhaps you are just resentful at being duped by your religious leader, Al Gore.

Answer 22

That, and people who have half a brain. Scared of competition? You are kidding right? The competition will wipe the US out when Hussein cripples the US manufacturing base with his nonsense.



So be sure to bow down to your new pagan faith, with the grand priest Gore at the alter as you sacrifice the American workers to your insanity.





BTW, You haven't got a clue about real science, I would be willing to bet you think your ancestors were pools of bacteria don't you?