Yes, I was unceremoniously banned from a fanatic Facebook group called Global Warming Fact of the Day where environmentalist fanatics get their, perhaps, daily dose of global warming indoctrination and quotable quotes.
I was a member of that intolerant group for less than 10 minutes.
We know some fundamentalist, extremist religions that are extremely intolerant to other religions, cultures, science, beliefs, and infidels. This suggests that religion is about blind fanaticism and faith. And we’re also aware that there are some religious fundamentalists who are willing and ready to kill in the name of their hateful god.
Now, is it possible for a seemingly secular movement or cause to embrace some of the aspects or attributes of religion?
The answer is: Yes. This doesn’t mean we have to redefine “religion”. We only need to properly understand this concept. Our traditional understanding of the concept of religion tells us that religion is all about belief in the supernatural. Some of the essential aspects or components of religion include the existence of god or supernatural beings, a church hierarchy, moral dogma, rituals, a last judgment, and life after death.
However, there are forms of religion that do not convey all of those basic components, such as animism, Shintoism, Buddhism to name a few. For example, Shintoism, a religion practiced in Japan, does not have a god, scriptures, commandments, or a founder. Animism, on the other hand, is a religious belief that natural physical entities, such as plants, animals, and even inanimate objects or phenomena, possess spirituality.
There are, of course, religions that preach the virtue of tolerance, forgiveness and acceptance of other cultures and beliefs. This means that there’s no absolutist way to describe religion and to dictate or impose its basic tenets or components.
In my own opinion, the single most important component of religion is faith, which means blind acceptance of a certain ideational content. This acceptance is primarily induced by feeling in the absence of proof or evidence.
Faith is one aspect that is present in the man-made global warming religion. The global warming faithful value propaganda, junk science that suits political and ideological agenda, dishonest strategy and intolerance more than real science and facts. Part of their dishonest strategy to fool the public, particularly the media, and to shut down opponents they label as “skeptics” or “denialists” is to distort scientific facts. That is, they use distorted facts to destroy facts and science.
Global warming religionists are also extremely intolerant to opposing views, questions, and even new scientific discoveries that could potentially harm their political and ideological agenda.
I experienced extreme intolerance first hand from global warming fanatics of this Facebook group.
After they approved my membership request, I commented on this article that uses the term “climate change” rather than “global warming”. The post’s thumbnail title states: Group seeks carbon tax to combat climate change.
My very first comment on the post in question is as follows: “Wait. Is it MAN-CAUSED global warming or climate change? Why the sudden change of name?”
An active member named Rob Honeycutt made the following response: “They are two different sides of the same coin. There’s been no “sudden change of name.” AGW refers to the rise in globally averaged temperature. Climate change is the result of rising surface temperatures.”
Since he’s simply dodging my question, I replied:
I learned from real science that man-caused or anthropogenic global warming is caused by human activities, thus it can be prevented by human intervention and government policies. Climate change, on the other hand, is a naturally occurring phenomenon. There were countless of climate changes in the past that weren’t caused by humans, such as the end of the glacial period, the medieval warming period, etc.
Furthermore, NATURAL climate change is something that cannot be prevented or mitigated by man.
Here’s how this global warming fanatic rationalized his reply: “Yes, but in general, when people are discussing “climate change” today they are referring to Anthropogenic Climate Change.”
Isn’t that both absurd and hilarious? It’s as if he’s trying to say: “Yes, the right term is man-made global warming but we don’t call it that way. We call it climate change to fool the people.”
Then I said:
Anthropogenic Climate Change = human-caused global warming. Wouldn’t that confuse the little-minded people, particularly those in the media?
Look how this Rob Honeycutt tried to evade the issue. This is part of their dishonest strategy. They use words very non-objectively and try to make their arguments more absurd and unclear as possible. The vaguer or more ambiguous it is, the better.
Rob Honeycutt said:
No one wants to (or can) stop natural climate variability. That’s not the issue. The problem is that we are increasing CO2 levels at a rate some 10,000X faster than the natural rate. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. We measure a radiative imbalance, with more energy coming in than going out. That means we are warming the planet at an unprecedented rate.
The potential repercussions are serious if we can’t slow our use of carbon emitting forms of energy.
See? His emotion-filled response shows he’s never interested in sticking to the issue and dealing only with facts.
Unfortunately, the group’s thought-police, who wasn’t part of the very fleeting discussion, thought it was time to kick me out.
I was supposed to say: “But are you saying human-caused GW and climate change are the same?”
Since I was unceremoniously banned from the group for merely questioning things, I just sent Rob Honeycutt this private message:
Mr. Rob Honeycutt the global warming religionist talked about “increasing CO2 levels at a rate some 10,000X faster than the natural rate”? Is there any scientific truth to this?
What this fanatic said is purely non-factual and not supported by science.
The truth is, humans added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is equivalent to about a quarter of all CO2 emissions since 1750. Yet, the dreaded warming did not occur during that period. Also, it is now universally conceded that there has been no human-cased heating for 15 years.
As to his “CO2 is a known greenhouse gas”, this merely shows he knows very little about real science. There are several types of greenhouse gases, and CO2 or carbon dioxide is just one of them. Water vapor is the principal greenhouse gas being the most important contributor to the greenhouse effect. Also, this fanatic doesn’t know there is naturally occurring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
You don’t have to be rude or a war freak to get banned from global warming fanatic Facebook sites. The GW zealots will ban you for merely questioning very simple things.
ENVIRONMENTALISM AS A NEO-ANIMIST, SECULAR RELIGION
Here’s an excerpt of Michael Crichton’s speech on environmentalism in 2003:
I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can’t be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people—the best people, the most enlightened people—do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.
Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
An excellent video for AGW fanatics/religionists