Mr John Bowers QC, representing Grainger, said: "A philosophical belief must be one based on a philosophy of life: not a scientific belief, not a political belief or opinion, not a lifestyle choice, not an environmental belief and not an assertion of disputed facts". The firm claims that whereas philosophy seeks to answer the fundamental questions of human experience, environmental concerns are rooted in scientific data (however selectively they are misinterpreted, thinks CdeH).
Mr Nicholson, characteristically, is protesting this, arguing that his greenist views should be acknowledged as possessing equivalence in law to profoundly-held religious belief. He refuses to travel by air (at all), claims that his views on climate change affect his whole lifestyle, and says “I have a strongly held philosophical belief about climate change and the environment. I believe we must urgently avoid catastrophic climate change. This affects how I live my life ... I fear for the future of the human race." He admitted that his constant proselytising of his strong green religiosity caused clashes with senior colleagues.
Like other commentators, Clameur de Haro suspects that Mr Nicholson was (rightly) given the elbow because he was actually a first-class internal rectal affliction of regal proportions, who felt it his sacred mission to spend his time attempting to convert all the heretics rather than do the job he was paid to do.
But isn’t this case instructive as a means of highlighting the multiplicity of similarities between Greenism and fundamentalist religion?
The investing of the planet with all the faculties and emotions of a deity, the sins committed against whom must be expunged by sacrificial atonement.
The unshakeable, dogmatic belief, despite all the questionable evidence, and whatever the arguments to the contrary.
The assumption of a divine mission to indoctrinate the pagan masses.
The warnings of imminent apocalypse unless all the tenets of the religion are forcibly imposed.
The refusal to consider alternative explanations for the phenomena which form the basis of the creed.
The fanatical and vituperative disparagement of unbelievers or sceptics as evil deniers, malevolent heretics, and moral reprobates.
The suggestion that sceptics should either be put on trial or locked up as insane.
Posts
2 comments:
Doesn't look like you publish any comments!
Re: the ridiculous distortion that you put forward in this post - the main problem with your galloping rhetoric is that the basics of environmentalism are not faith based, instead they are rooted in pure common sense, logic, physics, biology, ecology and chemistry.
Climate change due to human caused global warming is overwhelmingly supported by just about every scientific organisation in every nation of the world.
If being green is a faith based religion then it's the type of religion that can give you God's unlisted phone number and book you a half hour appointment with him to sort our all your troubles - guaranteed.
Apart from mainstream scientific opinion, on the other hand, there are a tiny handful of far right and hard left maniacs - also the neo-con and libertarian lunatics - who sponsor professional deceivers to fool the gullible and the wishful thinkers - those whose political ideology blinds them to reality and what is essential to safeguard the world as we know it.
These pathological types have partially fooled up to 40% of the American public, so far, but are less successful in countries than can still think.
As an example of just how deluded, impervious to argument, intransigent or mendacious some are (delete those that do not apply), try looking at last night's JEP where there is a letter from ex-Deputy Gerard Baudains. It's full of so many false assertions and straw men that it's just like listening to a creationist doing the rhetorical Gish Gallop (look it up on Wikipedia).
I'll just point out one aspect where Mr. B mentions the strength of the sun. I happen to know (because some months ago I sent him links to the graphs and scientific evidence to prove it) that the falsity of his claims and inferences should have been made abundantly clear to him by what I sent. And yet, ever so strangely, he repeats the same load of old denier junk as if it had never been demolished. What are we to make of this? Is he consciously lying because he thinks his political ideology trumps Nature to the point where he regards it as justified to lie to bolster his aims? Has he forgotten? Did he not understand in the first place or did he blank it out? Simon and Garfunkel once sang - "a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest" I rest my case.
Can I expect examples - in quotations - from climate change proponents who are scientists - supporting your argument please, rather than just rhetoric?
In particular, I am looking forward to seeing quotes which demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that climate change proponents believe
"The investing of the planet with all the faculties and emotions of a deity, the sins committed against whom must be expunged by sacrificial atonement."
No quotations out of context please! Or is this just a rhetorical flourish on your part?
Post a Comment