[Vision2020] Religion of "Global Warmers" Church's New Sermon

Mon Jun 23 11:59:57 PDT 2008

"Fourth, they censor and deionize anyone who doesn’t tote the party 
line."

How do you deionize someone?

-Scott

----- Original Message ----
From: g. crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>
To: Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>; vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 6:04:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Religion of "Global Warmers" Church's New Sermon

Seems only fair that the right-mind response be 
reprinted here:

Religion 
of "Global Warmers" Church's New Sermon
Ted Moffetthas taken me to task yet 
again for my comments that Global Warming is a fundamentalist religion. 
This is climate science, not religion, for those who understand the  difference.  Subject heading tongue in cheek alert for right-mind.us readers, and other deniers of the scientific consensus among the global  climate science community regarding anthropogenic climate change. 
Yet again we have more examples of the anthropogenic 
warming crowd acting like fundamentalists. Evidence after evidence 
demonstrates that they have wrongly interpreted the data, yet they tenaciously 
hold to their faith-based assumptions. 
First, I’m not too sure how old Ted is. But I’m old enough to 
remember the scientific consensus in the 70’s about the “Coming Ice 
Age”. As history has well demonstrated, having a consensus of scientists on 
your side doesn’t prove anything.  
Second, there are a lot of scientists who 
flatly disagree with anthropogenic global warming. 31,072 American Scientists 
have publicly signed a petition denying anthropogenic global warming. There are 228 
from Idaho and 603 
from Washington that have signed; and 9,021 with PhD’s. Over 500 
scientists published studies countering global warming fears. That’s not a 
small dissent. That’s a group who is being vilified because they disagree with 
Moffett’s theory. And that’s a fundamentalist response, not a scientific one. 
Third, to demonstrate causality they have to disprove all 
other theories (sunspots causing global 
warming on Mars, Pluto, Triton). Space.com reports that Mars is 
emerging from an ice age. Unless Moffett thinks that Martians are driving 
too many SUVs around, then there has to be another explanation. And why doesn’t 
that explanation work for the earth and only for Mars/Pluto/Triton/etc? 
There is a ton of evidence that the religion of global warming 
conveniently ignores. Since the global warming alarmists are unable 
to disprove alternative theories, they ignore them or vilify them. 
Convenient. And quite the fundamentalist approach. 
Fourth, they censor and deionize anyone who doesn’t tote the party 
line. It’s funny how “only real scientists agree with us.” That’s a convenient 
fundamentalist bate-and-switch tactic. “Only our religion is the true one.”
For the record, Ted, it wasn’t I who came up with the analogy of 
global warming as a fundamentalist religion. It was Michael Crichton in a speech 
delivered in 2003. 
John Brignell compares the religion of global warming and the 
medieval Roman Catholic Church (especially in dealing with that heretic/denier 
Galileo). Brignell 
notes many of the glaring similarities. As I’ve 
posted before: 
	* Faith and scepticism: “the science of  global warming is settled”, as if science were ever settled. 
	* Sin and absolution: the sin is your  carbon footprint. The indulgence being sold is for “carbon offsets”. 
	* Proselytes and evangelists: the global  warming crowd are more evangelistic to their cause than any Mormon missionary  or Jehovah’s Witness door-knocker. 
	* Demagogues and hypocrites: Al Gore is  the classic example. He chastises everyone for their carbon wastefulness while  himself flying all over the world and heating all of his mansions. 
	* Infidels and apostates: anyone who questions  anthropogenic global warming is a “Denier” — as bad as a Holocaust Denier.  Heaven forbid someone change his mind on global warming. He would be an  apostate. 
	* Prophecy and divination: “huge and  generously funded university and government departments do nothing but develop  computer models, involving assumptions about physical interactions that are  still not understood by science. Their dubious (to say the least) results are  used by the new international priesthood to frighten the people into  conformity.” This goes back to statements like “the science of global warming  is settled.” 
	* Puritans and killjoys: As Mencken said,  Puritans have “the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” The  church of global warming offers nothing in the way of improvement or even  maintenance of the human condition. It’s as if they wanted us all to become  desert hermits — flagellants coercing us into conformity. 
	* Censorship and angles: “If you think you  have a good case, you can afford to present both sides, but they don’t. The  great majority of the population have no idea that there is an alternative  view. That is not science, it is religion.” In Moffett’s case, everything that  would be a counter-example to his faith is dismissed as an anomaly. Everything  that confirms his faith is a fact. That is not science. That’s fundamentalism. 
	* Control and taxation: People now accept  laws that restrict their liberty and standard of living, which would once have  provoked riots, because they are cloaked in a quasi-religious formula of  global warming. 
	* Contradictions and irrationality: for  instance, “The EU, for example, gratuitously destroys a tiny industry making  traditional barometers, on the grounds of an irrational fear of mercury, then  imposes the use of fluorescent light bulbs that distribute that same dreaded  substance in huge quantities across the continent, all on the basis of the  threat of global warming.”
	* Wealth and power: “What passed as  scientific research a quarter of a century ago now barely exists. To get  funding, your project has to conform to one of the mantra descriptions, such  as “sustainable development”. Doubters are afraid to speak out. Their  institutions are dependent on millions in grants at the disposal of green  officials to obtain “appropriate” results relevant to global warming and  related scares. When your institution is involved in a fight for survival, you  do not rock the boat.”
	* Confession and salvation: “Young  children now have nightmares about the burning planet, just as some of us once  had nightmares about burning in hell unless we believed, and then lay awake at  night wondering whether we believed or not, or what “believe” actually means.  The ruthless exploitation of the receptivity of the young, and their  relentless indoctrination, is one of the less pleasant characteristics of much  of religion.” “One of the most offensive manifestations of the new religion  occurred when hundreds of the priesthood went on one of their lavish junkets  in Africa, where all around them was suffering and death.”
	* Envoi: “Extremists of the new religion  regard humanity as an inconvenience or a pestilence that can be disposed of  (not including themselves, of course).”
Moffett’s religion even has its own pope (Al Gore). 
2008-06-22 
10:58 by Right-Mind to Right Mind 
Filed under: Global Warming

Well put. Thanks, Dale.

g
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Ted Moffett 
To: vision 2020 
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 2:56  PM
Subject: [Vision2020] Religion of "Global  Warmers" Church's New Sermon

This is climate science, not religion, for those who understand the  difference.  Subject heading tongue in cheek alert for right-mind.us readers, and other deniers of  the scientific consensus among the global climate science community regarding  anthropogenic climate change:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080619_climatereport.html

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/images/climatetable.jpg

http://www.climatescience.gov/
--------------
Scientific Assessment Captures Effects of a Changing Climate on Extreme  Weather Events in North America
June 19, 2008
Global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced  increases in heat-trapping gases, according to the report. Many types of  extreme weather and climate event changes have been observed during this time  period and continued changes are projected for this century. Specific future  projections include:
	* Abnormally hot days and nights, along with heat waves, are very likely  to become more common. Cold nights are very likely to become less common. 
	* Sea ice extent is expected to continue to decrease and may even  disappear in the Arctic Ocean in summer in coming decades. 
	* Precipitation, on average, is likely to be less frequent but more  intense. 
	* Droughts are likely to become more frequent and severe in some regions. 
	* Hurricanes will likely have increased precipitation and wind. 
	* The strongest cold-season storms in the Atlantic and Pacific are likely  to produce stronger winds and higher extreme wave heights. 
-------------------------------------------
 Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
________________________________
 =======================================================
 List  services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the  communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080623/9519e8cb/attachment-0001.html 