Is environmentalism becoming a religion?

#1
This has been annoying me for some time now. Yes, I'm all in favour of cuttign down on pollution and lookign for cleaner fuels etc, but the way it's going is that we are getting to a stage where there are environmental fundementalists! They won't listen to anything which conflicts with their beliefs, look for active punishments for non-belivers and generally try and control important aspects of our lives. I've inserted below a potion of a speech made my Micheal Crighton in 2003 and boy, does it ring true.

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.

There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday—-these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don’t want to talk anybody out of them, as I don’t want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don’t want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can’t talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.

And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren’t necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It’s about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.
Why is it that the decision makers pander to the doom mongers instead of makign a decision using differign sets of evidence? And more importantly are beign penalised by punative taxes and restriction when no alternatives are in place to make us change our ways?
 
#2
And like any other religion there are atheists whose denial isn't founded in anything more than their personal beliefs either.

Humanity needs to improve. Drastically.
 
#3
Yes it is. A judge said so:

Makes my liver fizzzzzz!

Sacked environmentalist wins right to tribunal
4 Nov 09
Ruling finds climate change views are as valid as religious belief
An environmentalist who says his beliefs led to his sacking has won the right to take his former employer to a tribunal.

A judge ruled that Tim Nicholson's views on climate change should be given the same consideration by employers as "religious or philosophical beliefs".

Nicholson, 42, was made redundant as head of sustainability at property company Grainger last year, but claims his opinions on climate change led to his unfair dismissal.

In March, employment judge David Neath gave Nicholson permission to take the firm to a tribunal over his treatment, but Grainger challenged the decision.

Yesterday, appeal court judge Michael Burton found in Nicholson's favour and dismissed the company's arguments that his views were not the same as "religious or philosophical beliefs".

The judge said: "If a person can establish he holds a philosophical belief based on science as opposed, for example, to religion, then there is no reason to disqualify it from protection."


You run the risk of being lynched if you dare to disagree with the bloody drivel that the hippies spout around here. I have a lot of sympathies with their ideals, it's just the elevation of dodgy science to dogma that gets my colon going all spastic.

Rev up the outrage bus and put some red diesel in it while you're there!!!
 
#5
Yup.

Trouble is, the Liberal Left have run their flag up the wrong mast. Global Warming is a myth, and the Liberal Left are about to get shown up as the idiots they truly are.


Did you know that global temperatures have been stable or cooling for the last 10 years?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/ha...2009/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2009/trend


Did you know that Antarctic sea ice has been growing significantly over the last 30 years?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/ns...9/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:1978/to:2009/trend


Did you know that polar bear numbers are increasing rapidly:
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1ea8233f-14da-4a44-b839-b71a9e5df868
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ask-the-experts/population/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11656-climate-myths-polar-bear-numbers-are-increasing.html
Note how disengenuous that New Scientist report. "Yes, polar bear numbers are increasing, but in the reported area they are decreasing".


Did you know that Sunspot numbers were decreasing rapidly, and are presently at the lowest level for 100 years?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1978/to:2009/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1978/to:2009/trend
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/03sep_sunspots.htm?list53494

And that the last time the Sun did this, we had frost fairs on the Thames.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum



Take a look at Lord Monckton's take on this:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/

Here is Monckton's recent speech at St Paul's:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0
Check out 1hr 31min, his summary. He surmises that the entire Global Warming scam is a Communist plot to take over the world. No really - he is quite persuasive on this. It is worth watching.


The Greenie Left, and all the Global Warming bandwagon (and this new religion's priesthood) may soon end up with egg on their faces.


.
 
#6
freedomman said:
Yes it is. A judge said so:

Makes my liver fizzzzzz!

Sacked environmentalist wins right to tribunal
4 Nov 09
Ruling finds climate change views are as valid as religious belief
An environmentalist who says his beliefs led to his sacking has won the right to take his former employer to a tribunal.

A judge ruled that Tim Nicholson's views on climate change should be given the same consideration by employers as "religious or philosophical beliefs".

Nicholson, 42, was made redundant as head of sustainability at property company Grainger last year, but claims his opinions on climate change led to his unfair dismissal.

In March, employment judge David Neath gave Nicholson permission to take the firm to a tribunal over his treatment, but Grainger challenged the decision.

Yesterday, appeal court judge Michael Burton found in Nicholson's favour and dismissed the company's arguments that his views were not the same as "religious or philosophical beliefs".

The judge said: "If a person can establish he holds a philosophical belief based on science as opposed, for example, to religion, then there is no reason to disqualify it from protection."


You run the risk of being lynched if you dare to disagree with the bloody drivel that the hippies spout around here. I have a lot of sympathies with their ideals, it's just the elevation of dodgy science to dogma that gets my colon going all spastic.

Rev up the outrage bus and put some red diesel in it while you're there!!!
No it isn't. The judge actually talked of:

a philosophical belief based on science as opposed, for example, to religion,
 
#7
ashie said:
snip

No it isn't. The judge actually talked of:

a philosophical belief based on science as opposed, for example, to religion,
Yes, based on some science.

What is really needed is someone who doesn't give a cr@p either way to examine both sides of the argument dispassionately. Preferably someone old, who's going to die before he's proved right or wrong, so he doesn't worry about that.

Personally, I don't believe in Global Warming etc. I do believe that we should try to develop and use renewables as much as possible because fossil fuels are finite- but we don't really know how finite.
 
#8
I installed a wind turbine to power my house. I installed solar panels and placed turf on the roof. Ninety percent of the water I used was recycled. I separated my household waste into plasics (recyclable), plastics (non-recyclable), cardboard, tins and packaging. I composted all the organic waste. I saved 15 whales. Last year I protested against a small coppice being ripped up in order to provide a layby on the B1235. I wear biodegradable linen clothes from an exclusive yoghurt commune in SE London.

All I really wanted to do was get in my Porsche Cayenne and hot foot it out of Chelsea to Heathrow, so I could fly off business class to Aspen for the skiing.
 
#9
Unfortunatly, it seems to be a religion without any tenants.
Not allowed to go nuclear, too big a danger to humanity.
Not allowed to erect wind farms, spoils the view.
Ditto solar power fields.
So what does that leave us with? Oh wiat a minute fossil fuels.
I find some of the science hard to come to terms with. For instance, ice caps melting, as ice takes up a larger volume than water, surely sea levels would actually drop, understandably, the salinity level of the water will change causing hardship to the nearby Cod.
Does the climate not change continually? Has there been more than one ice age? hasn't this all happened before?
IMHO, it's just another way to raise taxes and turn the workers into slaves of one kind or another.
BTW, we were promised 8 inches of snow last night, just a light dustiing instead.
 
#10
Religion? Yup a pretty good comparison, especially if you use the Moonies as your religious comparison.
Manmade climate change is just about as credible as walking on water etc.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#11
smartascarrots said:
And like any other religion there are atheists whose denial isn't founded in anything more than their personal beliefs either.

Humanity needs to improve. Drastically.
Agreed.

The state of grace is natural forestation across most of the globe, within which 10's of millions of species live, thrive and survive cheek by jowel under a protective canopy of green.

We are very far indeed from that position.

The nay-sayers can argue all they like about global warming and what a red herring that might be, but what cannot be argued is the fact of the mass-extinction of wildlife, rapid deforestion, wiped fishing stocks, expansion of deserts, damge through flooding due to an absence of trees and more.

Humanity is no more than any other species of life living on this planet that relies on the existing biomass and atmosphere to sustain it. This should be a healthy, enduring symbiosis, not a ravaging, destructive parasitic relationship. Other parasites continue their existence by finding other hosts when they need to. Humanity has no other 'hosts' apart from the one on which we live.

Sure, we can survive under the sun, we can grow and live off crops and domesticated animals when all else is extinct, and we can genetically engineer just that which sustains us for our ever growing population, but what about everything else? When it's gone, it's not coming back - not for tens of millions of years; long after we've brought about our own extinction.

Sure, we can survive using stillsuits and snorting 'spice' from a desert planet in a galactic empire, but it would be so much nicer if it wasn't the case in thousands of years to come.

Think that's religionist bollarks? Nope - it's common sense, science and recorded historical fact (like the Dodo).

If one absolutely must have a religion - look at that which is based on Gaian theory.
 
#12
Biped said:
smartascarrots said:
And like any other religion there are atheists whose denial isn't founded in anything more than their personal beliefs either.

Humanity needs to improve. Drastically.
Agreed.

The state of grace is natural forestation across most of the globe, within which 10's of millions of species live, thrive and survive cheek by jowel under a protective canopy of green.

We are very far indeed from that position.

The nay-sayers can argue all they like about global warming and what a red herring that might be, but what cannot be argued is the fact of the mass-extinction of wildlife, rapid deforestion, wiped fishing stocks, expansion of deserts, damge through flooding due to an absence of trees and more.

Humanity is no more than any other species of life living on this planet that relies on the existing biomass and atmosphere to sustain it. This should be a healthy, enduring symbiosis, not a ravaging, destructive parasitic relationship. Other parasites continue their existence by finding other hosts when they need to. Humanity has no other 'hosts' apart from the one on which we live.

Sure, we can survive under the sun, we can grow and live off crops and domesticated animals when all else is extinct, and we can genetically engineer just that which sustains us for our ever growing population, but what about everything else? When it's gone, it's not coming back - not for tens of millions of years; long after we've brought about our own extinction.

Sure, we can survive using stillsuits and snorting 'spice' from a desert planet in a galactic empire, but it would be so much nicer if it wasn't the case in thousands of years to come.

Think that's religionist bollarks? Nope - it's common sense, science and recorded historical fact (like the Dodo).

If one absolutely must have a religion - look at that which is based on Gaian theory.
Surely that is a Wah from you?

Pop quiz: name all the species which have suffered in these "mass extinctions" in the last 50 years.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#13
stoatman said:
Biped said:
smartascarrots said:
And like any other religion there are atheists whose denial isn't founded in anything more than their personal beliefs either.

Humanity needs to improve. Drastically.
Agreed.

The state of grace is natural forestation across most of the globe, within which 10's of millions of species live, thrive and survive cheek by jowel under a protective canopy of green.

We are very far indeed from that position.

The nay-sayers can argue all they like about global warming and what a red herring that might be, but what cannot be argued is the fact of the mass-extinction of wildlife, rapid deforestion, wiped fishing stocks, expansion of deserts, damge through flooding due to an absence of trees and more.

Humanity is no more than any other species of life living on this planet that relies on the existing biomass and atmosphere to sustain it. This should be a healthy, enduring symbiosis, not a ravaging, destructive parasitic relationship. Other parasites continue their existence by finding other hosts when they need to. Humanity has no other 'hosts' apart from the one on which we live.

Sure, we can survive under the sun, we can grow and live off crops and domesticated animals when all else is extinct, and we can genetically engineer just that which sustains us for our ever growing population, but what about everything else? When it's gone, it's not coming back - not for tens of millions of years; long after we've brought about our own extinction.

Sure, we can survive using stillsuits and snorting 'spice' from a desert planet in a galactic empire, but it would be so much nicer if it wasn't the case in thousands of years to come.

Think that's religionist bollarks? Nope - it's common sense, science and recorded historical fact (like the Dodo).

If one absolutely must have a religion - look at that which is based on Gaian theory.
Surely that is a Wah from you?

Pop quiz: name all the species which have suffered in these "mass extinctions" in the last 50 years.
Do you want the last 50 years or the last 500. Should I exclude endangered and massively depleted?

Here's some extinct ones:

Caspian Tiger
Tasmanian Tiger
Newfoundland Wolf
Cave Bear
Passenger Pigeon
Dire Wolf
Steller’s Sea Cow
British Wolf
Dodo

Here's a more generic list (mammals only):

Bettongia pusilla Nullarbor Dwarf Bettong
2 Boromys offella Oriente Cave Rat
3 Boromys torrei Torre’s Cave Rat
4 Bos primigenius Auroch
5 Brotomys voratus Hispaniolan Edible Rat
6 Caloprymnus campestris Desert Rat Kangaroo
7 Chaeropus ecaudatus Pig-footed Bandicoot
8 Conilurus albipes White-footed Rabbit-rat
9 Coryphomys buehleri Buhler’s Coryphomys
10 Cryptonanus ignitus Red-bellied Gracile Mouse Opossum
11 Cryptoprocta spelea Giant Fossa
12 Cuscomys oblativa —
13 Desmodus draculae Giant Vampire Bat
14 Dusicyon australis Falkland Island Wolf
15 Gazella bilkis Queen Of Sheba’s Gazelle
16 Gazella saudiya Saudi Gazelle
17 Geocapromys columbianus Cuban Coney
18 Geocapromys thoracatus Little Swan Island Hutia
19 Heteropsomys insulans Insular Cave Rat
20 Hexolobodon phenax Imposter Hutia
21 Hippopotamus lemerlei Madagascan Dwarf Hippopotamus
22 Hippopotamus madagascariensis Madagascan Pygmy Hippo
23 Hippotragus leucophaeus Bluebuck
24 Hydrodamalis gigas Steller’s Sea Cow
25 Isolobodon montanus Montane Hutia
26 Isolobodon portoricensis Puerto Rican Hutia
27 Juscelinomys candango Candango Mouse
28 Lagorchestes asomatus Central Hare Wallaby
29 Lagorchestes leporides Eastern Hare Wallaby
30 Lagostomus crassus —
31 Macropus greyi Toolache Wallaby
32 Macrotis leucura Lesser Bilby
33 Megalomys desmarestii Desmarest’s Pilorie
34 Megalomys luciae Santa Lucian Pilorie
35 Megaoryzomys curioi Galapágos Giant Rat
36 Monachus tropicalis Caribbean Monk Seal
37 Neotoma anthonyi Anthony’s Woodrat
38 Neotoma bunkeri Bunkers Woodrat
39 Neotoma martinensis San Martin Island Woodrat
40 Neovison macrodon Sea Mink
41 Nesophontes edithae Puerto Rican Nesophontes
42 Nesophontes hypomicrus Atalaye Nesophontes
43 Nesophontes major —
44 Nesophontes micrus Western Cuban Nesophontes
45 Nesophontes paramicrus St. Michel Nesophontes
46 Nesophontes zamicrus Haitian Nesophontes
47 Nesoryzomys darwini Darwin’s Galapagos Mouse
48 Nesoryzomys indefessus Indefatigable Galapagos Mouse
49 Noronhomys vespuccii —
50 Notomys amplus Short-tailed Hopping Mouse
51 Notomys longicaudatus Long-tailed Hopping Mouse
52 Notomys macrotis Big-eared Hopping Mouse
53 Notomys mordax Darling Downs Hopping Mouse
54 Oligoryzomys victus St. Vincent Pygmy Rice Rat
55 Onychogalea lunata Crescent Nailtail Wallaby
56 Oryzomys antillarum Jamaican Rice Rat
57 Oryzomys nelsoni Tres Marias Island Rice Rat
58 Palaeopropithecus ingens Large Sloth Lemur
59 Perameles eremiana Desert Bandicoot
60 Peromyscus pembertoni Pemberton’s Deer Mouse
61 Plagiodontia ipnaeum Samana Hutia
62 Potorous platyops Broad-faced Potoroo
63 Prolagus sardus Sardinian Pika
64 Pseudomys glaucus Blue-grey Mouse
65 Pseudomys gouldii Gould’s Mouse
66 Pteropus brunneus Percy Island Flying Fox
67 Pteropus pilosus Large Palau Flying Fox
68 Pteropus subniger Lesser Mascarene Flying-fox
69 Pteropus tokudae Guam Flying Fox
70 Rattus macleari Maclear’s Rat
71 Rattus nativitatis Bulldog Rat
72 Rucervus schomburgki Schomburgk’s Deer
73 Solenodon marcanoi Marcano’s Solenodon
74 Thylacinus cynocephalus Thylacine (Tasmanian wolf)
75 Xenothrix mcgregori Jamaican Monkey
76 Zalophus japonicus Japanese Sea Lion

Mammal subspecies extinctions
1 Alcelaphus buselaphus ssp. buselaphus Bubal Hartebeest
2 Equus quagga ssp. quagga Quagga
3 Kobus leche ssp. robertsi Roberts’ Lechwe
4 Ourebia ourebi ssp. kenyae Kenya Oribi
5 Panthera tigris ssp. balica Bali Tiger
6 Panthera tigris ssp. sondaica Javan Tiger
7 Panthera tigris ssp. virgata Caspian Tiger

Extinct in the Wild
1 Elaphurus davidianus Père David’s Deer
2 Oryx dammah Scimitar-horned Oryx


There are 247 Critically Endangered mammals in the 2008 database — 188 mammal species and 59 subspecies.

That's not to forget species of plant, insect or fish.
 
#14
Last 50. By name. Just endangered will do.

None of these studies based on "we looked at 10 ha of jungle in 1990, counted the fluffy creatures, did the same again in 2000, assumed that anything we didn't find again had gone extinct, then we made some silly estimations, multiplied it by the number of instances of the name Wong in the Beijing phone directory, and decided that there must be 100,000 million extinctions per decade, and got published in Nature because our study massaged the prejudices of the editorial staff".

Then we shall compare with the number of new/newly discovered species discovered in the same timeframe.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#15
stoatman said:
Last 50. By name. Just endangered will do.

None of these studies based on "we looked at 10 ha of jungle in 1990, counted the fluffy creatures, did the same again in 2000, assumed that anything we didn't find again had gone extinct, then we made some silly estimations, multiplied it by the number of instances of the name Wong in the Beijing phone directory, and decided that there must be 100,000 million extinctions per decade, and got published in Nature because our study massaged the prejudices of the editorial staff".

Then we shall compare with the number of new/newly discovered species discovered in the same timeframe.
There's a huge gulf between 'we've just discovered something that we haven't wiped out yet' and 'we know they've gone forever because of us'.

Yes, we like to kill stuff because it tastes nice - so long as it's sustainable, fine. Destruction forever of species-supporting habitat is a different ball game.
 
#16
Come on, name all the species which have been subject to this so-called "mass extinction" over the last 50 years.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#17
stoatman said:
Come on, name all the species which have been subject to this so-called "mass extinction" over the last 50 years.
It's in my previous post - well, at least the last 250 years - who's counting??!??
 
#18
Sorry, didn't see.

Okay, so in 250 years about 75 species of mammal have gone extinct. Hardly "mass" extinction.

Species come, species go, whether we have anything to do about it is irrelevant.

Meanwhile, since 2000 alone we have discovered approximately 100 new species of mammal.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#19
stoatman said:
Sorry, didn't see.

Okay, so in 250 years about 75 species of mammal have gone extinct. Hardly "mass" extinction.

Species come, species go, whether we have anything to do about it is irrelevant.

Meanwhile, since 2000 alone we have discovered approximately 100 new species of mammal.
So, by that logic, we don't need the Amazon rain forest then. If our interaction is irrelevant, we can just chop it down for furniture and farming, and no harm is done.

We can fish all we like with huge trawlers, and we can also develope a global taste for whale meat.

Your point about the 'discovery' of 100 new species is odd. We haven't discovered 100 NEW species. We've discovered 100 VERY OLD species. We haven't created 100 NEW species to replace the ones we've zapped.

Finding out they exist is immaterial to destroying a different 100 forever.
 
#20
Aside from the dodo and some very nice walking rugs, have we been proven to be the cause of many of the extinctions you quote?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top