Friday, April 06, 2007

Is Anthropogenic Global Warming a new Religion?

From “The Great Global Warming Swindle” – Wikipidea

The concept of anthropogenic global warming has developed into a modern religion, with sceptics treated as heretics and labelled as "global warming deniers", in order to equate genuine scientific scepticism with holocaust denial. Retired university professor Tim Ball says in the programme that he has received death threats because of the sceptical statements he has made about global warming.”

Search on Google for the One and a Half hour video as I am doing at this very moment. Search "The Great Global Warming Swindle Video - Full Version."

The summary of the documentary is on Wikipidea as mentioned above.

The programe mentioned above is a documentary made by British Televison Producer Martin Durkin at Channel 4. Britian television Channel 4 is far from a Conservative right-wing propaganda source. However to be fair it is made with the intent of being polemic, but that should not disqualify it.

For those who blindly accept the “majority opinion” on matters for the sake of saying that the majority must always be right, are missing the point that often it is the dissenting view, such as the world is not flat, and the sun does not revolve around the earth, that gets the label of hertic and is supposed to just shut up and go away.

Seekers of the truth appreciate and read both sides of an issue so as not to be lead to the “might makes right” bombastic shrine and do not just read the press or reviews of their great leaders from academia who try to stop the bleeding by taking things out of context and giving false conclusions about the books or movies by those terrible heretics.

Everyone knows that the Globe is always changing it's temperture, but is it conclusive that the cause is mostly man-made or that there is anything that can be done about it without making someone a very nice profit, or by getting some very nice grants? Follow the money.


At 8:52 AM, Blogger Truth or Consequences said...

It is hard to debate someone that parses their own words rather than say they were wrong. Debating this with you is like debating your warming post it is a waste of time. You want both sides presented even when vast majority of the evidence is on one side and you want the very small percentage to be given equal weight and time.

At 2:31 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

I have no problem of saying I am/was wrong when that is the case.

I admitted that the words I choose did not reflect what I was trying to say. If you read my position you would see that I was talking about belief being a worldview, not a definition of the word "theory."

I did admit that taking the sentense out of context that it was incorrect and wrong, but if you look at what my intent was you will see, (I hope), what my point was.

You will probably tell me that I don't believe in Global Warming, when the correct "context" is that I don't think the evidence supports that it is man-made, and there are enough "experts" to support that position if one has an open mind and is not just believing "might makes right" or that the majority are always right.

Also you will see that I said that my speculation about how Dinosaurs might have been here was wrong and I now have a different view on that.

Maybe I should be saying "view" instead of having a tendency to say "belief?"


At 12:14 PM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

Here's an article that echoes the theme of your post -


Post a Comment

<< Home