While planning for a "controlled recession".
If ever there was doubt that the whole climate change shake-down is a religion, or at least serves as a functional substitute, this should clear that up.
And for those who think that "scientist" means objective, neutral, clinical, dispassionate, unemotional this should clear that one up as well. Ball to Earth: scientists are human and humans are passionate reasoners, not Mr. Spocks.
PS -- the "Australia slids down" headline below offers at least a glimmer of hope. Well, not for English literacy.
5 comments:
OK. I have to ask. What is your working definition of "religion"?
You know, it occurred to me when I used that word that I should be careful about it. It's interesting you picked up on it. I was going to contrast my use of it here with Christianity, but thought that was getting a bit wordy. So, here it would be something like an inviolate belief system that someone holds passionately, that they are highly emotionally invested in, and that drives their behavior -- something like that.
Or, I could just say, "something that would make a guy go stinky!"
Good catch, Anon1152, and an excellent question!
maybe cult would be more appropriate than religion.
Yes, much better.
Hm… I think the part of your definition that makes it "religious" is the part that refers to an " inviolate belief system". Which suggests that the beliefs won't be changed despite countervailing evidence.
But I find no evidence in the story you cite that suggests that the scientist in question wouldn't change his mind if he were presented with new and reliable evidence.
And the evidence that the climate is warming because of human activities is overwhelming.
I know you disagree about that.
One thing that we perhaps could agree on is that, whatever your position on global warming… that's no reason to be stinky.
Post a Comment