That’s true! And George Bush? He’s like Spider Man, only in the Venom costume.
(Seriously, what on earth are you talking about?)
Daniel
The same thing in my background that gives me leverage to challenge the scientific methods by people who push crystal healing.
See, what gives ME the background to challenge crystal healers is the ability to distinguish between peer-reviewed scientific studies and base claims with no evidence. Clearly you have a different means of challenging crystal healing.
Daniel
I prefer to slap them with my dueling glove, after which our seconds arrange matters further.
So it’s going to turn out that sun worshipping is the One True Religion? Cool. Bikini clad (or less) High Priestesses? Now there is a church service I would consider attending.
We’ve discussed the “Al Gore is a hypocrite” accusation in recent threads here and here.
You can read those threads if you’re really interested in seriously debating whether Gore’s personal lifestyle makes his environmental activism work hypocritical. However, if it turns out that you’re only here to toss out drive-by superficial insults aimed at environmentalists and climate scientists, serious debate would be wasted on you.
Aww, you guys! Where’s your sense of fun? Its perfectly clear that Ralph has offered us a droll bit of nonsense in the spirit of good clean fun! To debate it seriously would destroy the cheerful spirit of the thing!
That ought to read “…which is very important since the water vapor feedback is responsible for magnifying the warming beyond what would occur due to the rise in CO2 alone.”
Not at all-Al Gore has anointed himself as the high priest, and we have greenpeace falling into line. But the Hollywood “celebrities”-it is essentail that the new faith be endorsed by celebrities 9even if the own private jets and fleets of 4 MPG SUVs)-its the thought that counts!
Too bad. As a spoof, it had some merit. As a serious debate, its still kinda cute but in a severely warped and misshapen way, like a thalidomide kitten.
You know, folks, making a serious rational argument that a particular scientific theory and/or political movement is genuinely similar in meaningful ways to a religion requires something more, debate-wise, than just using silly religious metaphors when you talk about it.
By the OP’s standards, anything from the Atkins Diet to the military “surge” in Iraq to free ringtone downloads could be described with equal validity as “assuming the trappings of a religion”. To which the only realistic response is “So what?”
See, now this is the way to go. Skip all that science stuff, it’s hard! If Hollywood is for it, then it’s wrong! Isn’t that so much simpler?
LM, B.S. Meteorology
And you know that how? (Hint: Al Gore’s character is irrelevant. The “leaders” here are scientists, not politicians.)
Wouldn’t Greenpeace have been “in line” on this issue even before Gore was?
But where does that leave us members of an OLD faith, with the new one hogging all the celebrities? 
Oh, yeah, HERE:
Psssst! Ralph! Get with the Party program!
- Followers lose the ability to think critically, at least when religious issues are discussed.
You ain’t from around here, are ya boy?
I suggest you take a leisurely stroll through Great Debates and General Questions while you’re here, and see just how unable we are to think critically. Driving by and tossing out snarky comments’ll just get your butt intellectually kicked.
Out of curiosity, yahwc, how critically do you believe you have been in your own consideration of the issue, both on its merits and on the meta-critic level of questioning how you’ve derived your beliefs in this case compared to how you’ve derived your beliefs in cases of other scientific questions (e.g., speciation, whether HIV causes AIDS, crystal healing, the age of the earth, etc.)?
I’m seriously interested.
Daniel
What part of the brief scientific synopsis that I presented above shows the loss of ability to think critically? What part of the comparative analysis that Kimstu presented shows the loss of ability to think critically? What part of the criticisms and spoofs of the logic in the OP and your posts by other posters here shows the loss of ability to think critically?
It seems to me that when one is deriding a scientific theory that has won the support of the vast majority of the active scientists in the field, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and analogous bodies in major nations, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the councils of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union, and even been at least basically accepted by fossil fuel companies like BP and Shell and many major power companies, then one has to make arguments beyond, “This sort of seems like a religion to me …”
It seems to me that the skeptics of Global Warming are assuming the trappings of a religion. I mean, look at my evidence:
- They’re endlessly and brutally persecuted for their beliefs.
- They keep hold of their beliefs, despite mounds of evidence demonstrating their inherent flaws.
- Alluding to some higher power, they believe that they are simply “right” and others are simply “wrong”.
- Among them are tons of nutjobs (dead giveaway).
- The acronym for Church of Skeptics (CoS) shares its letters with another well known church.
I totally understand, now, why this thread belongs in GD. :rolleyes:
LilShieste