FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSDIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

Global warming the new religion of urban elites

 


ocalhoun
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Global+warming+religion+First+World+urban+elites/1835847/story.html

Quote:
But most of these scientific and academic voices have fallen silent in the face of environmental Jacobinism. Purging humankind of its supposed sins of environmental degradation has become a religion with a fanatical and often intolerant priesthood, especially among the First World urban elites.


Quote:

That book, published in 2001, was a best-seller and won several prizes. But Plimer found it hard to find anyone willing to publish this latest book, so intimidating has the environmental lobby become.


Quote:

The dynamic and changing character of the Earth's climate has always been known by geologists. These changes are cyclical and random, he says. They are not caused or significantly affected by human behaviour.

Polar ice, for example, has been present on the Earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time, Plimer writes. Plus, animal extinctions are an entirely normal part of the Earth's evolution.

(Plimer, by the way, is also a vehement anti-creationist and has been hauled into court for disrupting meetings by religious leaders and evangelists who claim the Bible is literal truth.)

Plimer gets especially upset about carbon dioxide, its role in Earth's daily life and the supposed effects on climate of human manufacture of the gas. He says atmospheric carbon dioxide is now at the lowest levels it has been for 500 million years, and that atmospheric carbon dioxide is only 0.001 per cent of the total amount of the chemical held in the oceans, surface rocks, soils and various life forms. Indeed, Plimer says carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but a plant food. Plants eat carbon dioxide and excrete oxygen. Human activity, he says, contributes only the tiniest fraction to even the atmospheric presence of carbon dioxide.


So, two questions:
1: Real or not, has human-caused global warming become too much of a 'religion'?
2: (and secondarily) what about his arguments against human-caused global warming?
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Global+warming+religion+First+World+urban+elites/1835847/story.html

Quote:
But most of these scientific and academic voices have fallen silent in the face of environmental Jacobinism. Purging humankind of its supposed sins of environmental degradation has become a religion with a fanatical and often intolerant priesthood, especially among the First World urban elites.


Quote:

That book, published in 2001, was a best-seller and won several prizes. But Plimer found it hard to find anyone willing to publish this latest book, so intimidating has the environmental lobby become.


Quote:

The dynamic and changing character of the Earth's climate has always been known by geologists. These changes are cyclical and random, he says. They are not caused or significantly affected by human behaviour.

Polar ice, for example, has been present on the Earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time, Plimer writes. Plus, animal extinctions are an entirely normal part of the Earth's evolution.

(Plimer, by the way, is also a vehement anti-creationist and has been hauled into court for disrupting meetings by religious leaders and evangelists who claim the Bible is literal truth.)

Plimer gets especially upset about carbon dioxide, its role in Earth's daily life and the supposed effects on climate of human manufacture of the gas. He says atmospheric carbon dioxide is now at the lowest levels it has been for 500 million years, and that atmospheric carbon dioxide is only 0.001 per cent of the total amount of the chemical held in the oceans, surface rocks, soils and various life forms. Indeed, Plimer says carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but a plant food. Plants eat carbon dioxide and excrete oxygen. Human activity, he says, contributes only the tiniest fraction to even the atmospheric presence of carbon dioxide.


So, two questions:
1: Real or not, has human-caused global warming become too much of a 'religion'?
2: (and secondarily) what about his arguments against human-caused global warming?
Sounds a little absurd to me that soooo many people could be sooo wrong about global warming. I doubt it is a "religion" though. It is a real concern. Indi in another thread showed however that some of the sources of information about global warming are very inaccurate, I think I can agree with that. But common sense says it has to be real.

I also do not believe that his arguments about human-caused global warming are real, for common sense reasons. Increased pollution, especially of the heavy kinds that are emitted in North America and Asia, including deforestation and more people occupying earth are making greater demands of earth to the extent that there is so much over production of everything going on, the soil is depleted, there is less water around, and some areas in the world may have serious lack of water coming their way soon. Etc. etc. It's real! Our most basic needs for water and fresh air, as well as fresh food, are threatened. The quality is not the same that it was even a decade ago. We're now drinking water out of plastic bottles, the plastic being harmful as well, our air is not of the greatest, unless we make a conscious effort to get out and about, and the food we eat is mostly mass produced, we do not get the same nutrients from them any more.
fx-trading-education
I don't think that global warming has become a religion (I think that here religion is used in a way to define that people will follow blindly anything said by the "priest"). There also some facts to sustain this theory.
Of course different people have different interpretation of the numbers.

In the article there are references made comparing data on the whole "life" of earth (the geological time) but I think that people concerned by global warming are more concerned about the "human time".
Because if you say that there was no ice and conditions were much worst during most of the time, it is also true that there were no humans during most of the time as well. And I think people are more concerned how the global warming will affect human life rather than the "earth life" because even if human would have a lot of trouble to survive under certain conditions surely other species will adapt very well.
ocalhoun
fx-trading-education wrote:

In the article there are references made comparing data on the whole "life" of earth (the geological time) but I think that people concerned by global warming are more concerned about the "human time".

But climate change occurs in geological time, not 'human time'... If you want to be concerned about it, you have to look at the issue in geological time.
Quote:

Because if you say that there was no ice and conditions were much worst during most of the time, it is also true that there were no humans during most of the time as well. And I think people are more concerned how the global warming will affect human life rather than the "earth life" because even if human would have a lot of trouble to survive under certain conditions surely other species will adapt very well.

Humans are much more adaptable than most animals... While most animals would have to go through several generations to evolve changes appropriately, humans can just consciously decide to change their technology and lifestyle to adapt.
coolclay
This guy sounds rather nuts. Anyone that breaks into Christian meetings, and raises trouble has serious problems.

On the topic of Climate Change.....

While I certainly agree that it has become earned a wide blind following. Once you scientifically and statistically look at and analyze the actual data the correlation is very clear. The problem is that 75% of the general populace that is worried about "global warming" really doesn't know the first thing about it. They don't realize the causes, they don't realize the consequences, they don't realize how we are measuring it, what the symptoms are or anything for that matter. The statistical probability of it the predictions made by the IPCC are so high that it's incredibly worrisome. My question is what benefits would anyone have from making this stuff up.
deanhills
coolclay wrote:
The problem is that 75% of the general populace that is worried about "global warming" really doesn't know the first thing about it. They don't realize the causes, they don't realize the consequences, they don't realize how we are measuring it, what the symptoms are or anything for that matter. The statistical probability of it the predictions made by the IPCC are so high that it's incredibly worrisome. My question is what benefits would anyone have from making this stuff up.
Possibly quite a number of people have a vested interest in the general populace not really being informed about the serious consequences of global warming. If people were too informed, then obviously there is going to be much greater pressure put on the Government. Maybe there are also some people who know how bad it is, but are scoring too much financially out of what they are doing, they would like to ensure the general population does not know what is going on.
Related topics

how does your religion affect your view of global warming?
Cow-Made Global Warming
Global Warming Source..
Global Warming
how does your religion affect your view of global warming?

Founder of Weather Channel Opposes Global Warming
Climate Change/Global Warming
Global warming time bomb trapped in Arctic soil: study
Global Warming article - critique and pointers
The Global Warming Scam

"global warming" questions... please share your an
Global Warming
US media finally aknowledge Global Warming
Global Warming
What did Jesus do to cause global warming??
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.