The court sided with Nicholson, effectively conferring upon the "Climate Change" philosophy the status of a religious belief.
Posts
Comments
   |
| On this day - Evolution Day; Alfred Nobel patents dynamite (1867), in Berlin, Germany and Japan sign the Anti-Comintern Pact, thus agreeing to consult on what measures to take "to safeguard their common interests" in case of an unprovoked attack by the Soviet Union against either nation (1936), the "Hollywood Ten" are blacklisted by Hollywood movie studios (1947), the People's Republic of China joins the Korean War, sending thousands of troops across the Yalu river border to fight United Nations forces (1950); b: Andrew Carnegie (1835), Carrie Nation (1846) |
| HT: The Union News |
... used by Barack Obama when he trained ACORN community organizers: 'Rules for Radicals' by the late socialist Saul Alinsky
Posts
Comments
16 comments:
That's not quite what they said. Read the the article itself at Daily Tech: "In an unusual case in the United Kingdom, it has been ruled that climate change beliefs should be afforded the same legal protections as religious freedoms."
Being afforded the same protections does not make it the same thing. And, it's only official as far as this particular court is concerned.
Of course, the lack of belief in global warming is also a religion according to this court (by your logic): "Justice Michael Burton who delivered the ruling, ironically had used the same logic to hand a victory to climate skeptics over advocates of anthropogenic global warming theory seeking to show school children An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore."
And the religion gets bigger. 2008 saw what NASA called the Sun’s “blankest year” where 266 of the year's 366 days, there were no sunspots. Sunspot counts for 2009 have been very low, too. This all begs the question: does solar activity have a long-term effect here on Earth? Times of depressed solar activity correspond with times of global cold. From 1645 to 1715, few if any sunspots were seen and Western Europe entered a virtual deep-freeze known as the Little Ice Age. Times of increased solar activity have corresponded with global warming. The 12th and 13th centuries, when the Sun was active, European climate was quite mild. Experts predict that the current solar cycle will peak in 2013 with a below-average number of sunspots. The Sun should remain calm for at least another year. Of course, all this disruption is caused by the lighter-than-air carbon dioxide America has produced in the past few decades. These light gases rise to the sun and disrupt the magnetic causes for sunspots, altering the averages of sunspot activity. The effects on the under developed world is extreme, causing wars, famines and revolutions which disturb the compassionate dictatorships and the order they provide. It must stop! America must be shut down by the Obama Administration, beginning with elimination of the middle class and all its outrageous demands for goods and services. So, Obama is the messiah to whom we must worship.
Thanks for the note, Coyote.
EH, the headline states very clearly: Global Warming Afforded Same Legal Status as Religion in UK
Plaintiff in the case claimed discrimination due to his belief in AGW. His lawyer, Shah Qureshi, head of employment law at Bindmans LLP, added that to not grant AGW beliefs the same protections as religion would mean “that the more evidence there is to support your views, the less likely it would be for you to enjoy protection against discrimination.”
In other words, plaintiff was wrongly terminated from his job for his criticism of management on the basis of climate change beliefs, which in the case of religion is protected under U.K. law.
More tellingly, plaintiff's argument stated very clearly that "...climate change was a philosophical belief as “philosophy deals with matters that are not capable of scientific proof.”
It is abundantly clear, as the headline indicated, that AGW has been established, legally, as a religion - and contrary to your interpretation, the article in question states unambiguously that the ruling confers upon environmental beliefs the same status as religion.
Although defendants have indicated that they will appeal, the case is certain to have implications in the USA as well - however it is ultimately decided.
Can anyone tell me please, what does NOT cause global warming? it's all a myth. All Gore found a way to continue to screw people out of money. Others jumped on his band wagon trying to get some of the money. lol, sort of like the old gold rush days. The rich get richer and the poor and struggling honest Americans suffer. I am crippled with parkinsons disease and other health issues, my wife and i are on a fixed income and as a Vietnam Era Veteran (Honorable) I use the Veterans Hospital and V.A. Doctors. I wonder how much longer I will have the use of it, as the liberial politicians have to keep takeing care of the rich who helped them with campain funding to get them there. How meany dead people do you think voted in the last election? How meany broke the law and voted more than one time? One of the organizations to help them is Acorn. They broke the law, but as usual liberial democrates are above the law it seems. Barack Hussein Obama is NOT playing with a full deck, look at the people he deals with. As for me, i plan to suport and vote for Mike Huckabee, God please let him run again. He plays with a full deck and he is a GOOD Christian. He was a great govener of Arkansas for ten years and we never herd bad things about him, ever. He is a man of good morals. Barack Hussein Obama scares me. There is just something about tat isn't right. This country is in bad need of good leadership.
Dr Doc dlcs
http://fox-news-magazine.blogspot.com/
This is b.s. I am a conservative, and, as such, demand strict and blind adherence to the principles that all conservatives must believe in, without fail, including the principle that the law of the United States and its states is determined by US federal courts and in state courts for those matters reserved to the states under the 10th amendment to the constitution. Coyote, you should be ashamed for endorsing this world-government approach to legal reasoning that looks to extra-territorial sources of law to determine what the law should be in the United States. So-called conservatives such as yourself (and Max) who sacrifice bedrock principles for political gains don't deserve the label, and should be purged from the movement.
Thanks
Anon827 - interesting argument here. Its wrong to critique another country's laws for the sake of comparing the laws in the United States. I'm not a rhodes scholar or anything, but isn't this behavior expressly allowed under the first amendment of the US Constitution? Further, I agree that the laws in this country are to be upheld by the Federal and State courts as necessary, but do you find irony in laws being created based not on science, history, or reason - but on propoganda and conjecture? Especially when those laws directly benefit the coffers of the folks lobbying for them?
Just sayin.
Max - I don't think relying on headlines, nor one English court, makes a convincing argument that global warming is a religion.
Or, if it is, then any "business" that deals with carbon credits, etc..., might apply for a tax exempt status?
But you are willing to concede that not believing in global warming is, itself, a religion? Not based on scientific fact, but upon faith?
Clay - No one who is thoughtful about global warming denies that natural forces affect average global temperatures. If the little ice age was caused by solar activity and lack of sun spots, then we just went through our trough? That was our ice age? Think about it, if that's as cool as it's going to get, then we are in bigger trouble than we imagine. What happens when sunspot activity starts up again? What happens when the sun goes into a warming trend? I think that is the argument that climate scientists have been making - our activity perverts the natural process. The lows are not as low as they would normally have been, and the highs - well - will just be higher.
Jim -
Or, it could also be argued that resistance to laws is not based upon reason, history or science, but is based simply upon bottom line considerations that have nothing to do with what is best for the nation as a whole.
EH - I'm sure you could argue that in some situations. However in this particular situation, the push to pass laws that may ultimatly prohibit the ability of the United States to sustain itself, while shoving money into the pockets of the the folks lobbying for the new laws, seems grossly ironic.
What's even more disturbing is that said laws are being pushed based on science that has yet to be proven and verified, or is disputed by scientists in the same field - All under the guise of "fear".
Further, the argument you make regarding solar activity is precicely the science in question - You state that we've already been through our trough of solar inactivity and we survived without many cold temperatures, yet Clay clearly pointed out a cold streak that lasted not 1-2 years but 65-70 years. Hardly that of what we're seeing now. On the flip side of that AlGore projected, in 2006, that temperatures would continue to rise and hurricane activity would only get worse, using Hurricane Katrina as an example.
In the 2-3 years since "An Inconvenient Truth" global temperatures have not risen to the levels he projected, and hurricane activity declined significantly. Those observed results must be significant in some facet of this argument right?
Still, the laws being pushed, to reduce CO2 for example, will only apply to the United States. Therefore, to compound the idocy, one must assume that passing said laws will cause just enough of a drop in CO2 and other greenhouse gasses to make the planet's temperature return to what it was 5-10 years ago, while dismissing the fact that other countries are bellowing out the same gasses that we're trying to prevent.
And finally, none of this takes into account the economic fallout of passing these laws. If the USA is having trouble keeping its people employed and its dollar value strong now - what makes you think we'll have less trouble doing the same thing after the Global Warming laws have been passed?
EH -
But you are willing to concede that not believing in global warming is, itself, a religion? Not based on scientific fact, but upon faith?
That's just silly. Most reasonable people believe in global warming, and in global cooling. Both are long-term and well documented fact. Several centuries ago, Vikings settled and farmed on Greenland. For that to have occurred, the climate had to have been significantly warmer than it is today.
No, EH - what we don't believe in is the current gospel of anthropogenic global warming, nor anthropogenic global cooling.
It really doesn't matter whether or not you think that a ruling by a British court which holds that belief in AGW is a religion is convincing. What matters is that the ruling was made.
You may not believe, for example, that there is a convincing argument to be made in favor of the death penalty. That doesn't matter, either. The fact of the matter is that courts in the United States have determined that the D.C. sniper will die tomorrow. Your beliefs, positive or negative, will not in any way shape or influence the outcome.
Likewise, your beliefs in regard to AGW have no bearing on the question at hand: a court has ruled that belief in AGW amounts to a religion. You may not like it, but the fact doesn't hinge upon your approval or disapproval.
If global warming is a "religion," then I'm sure none of you will have any problems with the organizations who are advocating for it solutions to get a big tax-break from the government.
It's a religion, right? It therefore deserves all the tax breaks given to any religion, right?
MAX Redline wrote:
> Most reasonable people believe in
> global warming, and in global
> cooling. Both are long-term and
> well documented fact. Several
> centuries ago, Vikings settled
> and farmed on Greenland. For
> that to
> have occurred, the climate had to
> have been significantly
> warmer than it is today.
Duh... Max: Greenland is only a tiny part of the globe. You realize that, right? And do you realize that the view of the planet taken by Mann, Jones, et all, from 0 BCE onward, is northern hemispheric, right...?
So can you tell us why conditions on one island should serve as a conclusion for the entire planet?
"It's a religion, right? It therefore deserves all the tax breaks given to any religion, right?"
Perfect example of a strawman. No church of global warming exists.
I will not rest until Al Gore debates Lord Moncton or anyone on this topic. He is afraid to do so, as he hides behind his smugness and arrogance, with the typical brown shirt contingent surrounding him. As the late Michael Crichton said in his book "State of Fear"; follow the money.
Even Diane Sawyer is skeptical (or she should be) after asking Gore about why water vapor is not used instead of CO2 as an indicator of the earth's temperature increase; after all water vapor is a significantly stronger greenhouse gas. Gore hemmed and hawed and gave no discernable answer, once again showing his fraudulence here. He isn't the only fraud trumpeting about passing cap and trade and having the ignorant Pres. BO sign the Copenhagen Climate Treaty. And there is much, much more evidence where this came from that this is all about ultimate political CONTROL of a one world governing body - the UN - (i.e. communism on the world stage).
Common sense solutions can and will be implemented to help the planet without Government control that will also help the economy.
KDS said...
>> "It's a religion, right? It
>> therefore deserves all the tax
>> breaks given to any religion,
>> right?"
> Perfect example of a strawman. No
> church of global warming exists.
By your meager standards, the church you're looking for is the HQ of the Sierra Club. Right?
Clay Barham wrote:
> Sunspot counts for 2009 have been
> very low, too.
Actually, Barham, you're quite wrong.
According to NOAA at ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/2009
the sunspot number for the month of October 09 has been the largest of any month this year, and in fact the largest since March 08. It's been growing throughout this year.
Do you have data that shows otherwise?
In any case, do you have data or calculations that show that the effect of sunspots/solar fluctuations on the Earth is greater than anthropogenic GHGs?
MAX Redline wrote:
> Several centuries ago, Vikings
> settled and farmed on Greenland.
> For that to have occurred, the
> climate had to have been
> significantly warmer than it is
> today.
Max, please provide the evidence that shows that warming in one relatively small part of the world (GL) represents all temperatures across the globe: eastern Europe, middle Asia, eastern Asia, Australia, north Africa, North America, southern Africa, and south America.
You do have this evidence, right? If not, I'm sure you will withdraw your claim, right?
Post a Comment