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

Tue Jun 24 18:46:09 PDT 2008

I believe it's "toe," not "tote," the party line, as the Right-Mind article stated.

I'm no scientist, but something's causing wild temperature fluctuations and the melting of glaciers and polar ice caps, and it seems even the conservatives can't blame it on homosexual marriage . . . 

Keely

From: jampot at roadrunner.com
To: sdredge at yahoo.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:52:42 -0700
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Religion of "Global Warmers" Church's New Sermon

You bore them with silly anthropogenic global 
warming scare stories till their ions get angry and leave. Often they will 
hook up with an odd number of negative electrons and form radical gangs that are 
often very reactive and unstable.

g

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: 
  Scott Dredge 

  To: vision 2020 
  Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 11:59 
AM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Religion of 
  "Global Warmers" Church's New Sermon

  "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 Moffett has 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
=======================================================

  =======================================================
 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
=======================================================

_________________________________________________________________
Introducing Live Search cashback .  It's search that pays you back!
http://search.live.com/cashback/?&pkw=form=MIJAAF/publ=HMTGL/crea=introsrchcashback
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080624/97c0f404/attachment-0001.html 