Is Global Warming the new extremist religion?

It is indeed, and Al Gore is doing very well in his role as Chicken Little. But the sky may not be falling, and CO2 may be increasing because of global warming rather than the other way around. It has been very hard for projects refuting global warming to get funded.

I don't think its a religion it's science. There is alot of evidence out there to back it up if you look for it. It is not a idea based on faith it is a idea based on the best avalible evidence at this time. If you can provide better evidence for the other side of the debate I would like to hear it. As it stands I would have to agree that Global warming is a reality and it's time to do something about it or at least discuss what ways we can mitagate hazzards if they occur. i.e. drought, and sea leval rise.

It is not a religion, far from it. It is a rebuttal to the "Dittoheads" attitude espoused by Rush Limbaugh and the like. Sure, most people don't understand that Global Warming is a trend and a part of nature; but who is to say that man-made pollutuion has made things a little worse than they should be?

What you consider a new extremist religion is really a wake-up call. It reminds us that this planet we call home is fragile. We have treated this world as a rag doll instead of the delicate instrument that it is. I am not taking a "holier than thou" attitude; I am just as much to blame as everyone else-perhaps even a bit more responsible.

We need to re-think how we live. We need to conserve energy, recycle and choose better in our daily lives. It's hard, but we have little choice other than treating Mother Nature with more respect.

Global Warming can be debated. Global Contamination cannot be debated. Regardless of the temperature, we have canaries dying in the mines, everywhere!

The "scientific debate" you describe has been and gone. The vast majority of scientists now accept that human activity is one of the primary causes of current climate change. What is so hard to believe? The mountain of evidence in support of anthropogenic climate change, versus the sparse data that contradicts this view?

If there is evidence to contradict ACC, then somebody will find it and prove it. They haven't so far. Just as how creationists keep going on about how they've found flaws in Darwinian Evolution, and it all turns out to be bunk.

Exactly! All this Global warming claptrap is just another attempt by Evolutionists to make everybody think the world is millions of years old.

6000 years ago when the Lord made the Earth, He gave us dominion over it. He designed it to support us, nothing humans can do would change the weather He intends us to have.

The Global Warming Religion is also designed to put fear in people and trust in Evolutionists and other Liberal whiners, instead of trusting Jesus and fearing evil.

Who cares if it's not real? The things that will help stop global warning helps the environment in so many other ways as well. (energy conservation, ending our dependecy on oil, just to name a few) I'd rather assume it is real and do what we can, than just sit on our arses and when the entire environment goes to hell say "Oh ****! It was real after all."

There is no ridicule in this post. No name calling. Are people below extremists going on faith? Or are they very intelligent people who have been convinced by the data? First two summaries, short and long, both based on extensive, repeatedly verified, and peer reviewed data.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate...

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

"Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives Tuesday to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=4331

That's his website.

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)

Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

"The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.

"The overwhelming majority of atmospheric scientists around the world and our own National Academy of Sciences are in essential agreement on the facts of global warming and the significant contribution of human activity to that trend."

Russell E. Train, former environmental official under Presidents Nixon and Ford

“With overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is adversely impacting the health of our planet, the time has come for the Congress to take action.”

Senator Olympia Snowe, Republican, Maine

"I agree with you (Gore) that the debate over climate change is over."

Rep. Dennis Hastert, Republican, Illinois

"Global warming is real, now, and it must be addressed."

Lee Scott, CEO, Wal-Mart

"I'm trying to learn [about greenhouse gases and global warming]. The more I learn, the bigger believer I become."

Senator Lindsay Graham, Republican, South Carolina

“DuPont believes that action is warranted, not further debate."

Charles O. Holliday, Jr., CEO, DuPont

The data is overwhelming. The proponents have the verified and peer reviewed data, a huge majority of scientists, and virtually every major scientific organization on their side.

There is no real scientific debate. The few skeptics have no "traction", they're not convincing to other scientists, not because of blindness or faith or politics, but because the data says they're wrong.

"Regardless of these spats, the fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the AGU or EGU meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists (not the famous ones, the ones at your local university or federal lab). I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts at the Fall meeting (the biggest confernce in the US on this topic) that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist."

Dr. James Baker - NOAA

EDIT:

The swindle movie is scientifically wrong. It is simply a political statement which distorts science. The director has a history of putting out misleading stuff. In 1997 he made a series for Channel 4 called “Against Nature”, which compared environmentalists with Nazis. Channel 4 had to apologise for the misleading stuff in that one. The present movie is also a distortion of the science. More here:

"A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors."

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_...

"The science might be bunkum, the research discredited. But all that counts for Channel 4 is generating controversy."

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/st...

"Pure Propaganda"

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propag...

Explanations of why the science is wrong.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007...

History of the director.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_(televi...

Gore's movie may be a little over dramatic, but it has the basic science right. This movie does not.

Channel 4 itself undercuts the movie in a funny way. If you go to their website on the movie you find links to real global warming information. They also have a way to "Ask the Expert" about global warming. The questions go to a respected mainstream scientist who supports (mostly) human responsibility for global warming.

It has been said that man is a rational being. All my life I have tried to find some evidence that this is so.

its because people are closed minded and they look at what they have right now and hate to be wrong. when others prove them wrong there mind goes to a full out attack mod and tries to smash down everything that proves them wrong making no access towards another idea.