The Climate Change Religion?
I know it’s been a long time since I last posted on the FTP blog. Yet after reading this article in Daily Telegraph, I couldn’t resist returning to the blog to make a contribution.
I don’t think I’m alone in suspecting that the Climate Change movement is more like a religious revival than an advance of scientific understanding. Indeed, it seems that in today’s polarized political atmosphere, merely being skeptical of the apocalyptic conclusions of the Global Warming prophets welcomes a kind of ostracism that can only be motivated by dogma. By expressing any doubt, no matter how thought-provoking, automatically brands the skeptic as a violator of reason- an apostate to “pure science!”
Well, maybe it’s not that dramatic. Nevertheless, the Climate Change movement often gets a little hysterical, especially when politics are infused into the debate… and the product often resembles a kind of radicalism more often associated with religious extremism.
So is Climate Change some kind of religion? No matter how absurd the question may seem, it appears that it is formally being recognized in this way.
From the Daily Telegraph:
In a landmark ruling, Mr Justice Michael Burton said that “a belief in man-made climate change … is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations”.
The ruling could open the door for employees to sue their companies for failing to account for their green lifestyles, such as providing recycling facilities or offering low-carbon travel.
The decision regards Tim Nicholson, former head of sustainability at property firm Grainger plc, who claims he was made redundant in July 2008 due to his “philosophical belief about climate change and the environment”.
In March, employment judge David Heath gave Mr Nicholson permission to take the firm to tribunal over his treatment.
But Grainger challenged the ruling on the grounds that green views were political and based on science, as opposed to religious or philosophical in nature.
John Bowers QC, representing Grainger, had argued that adherence to climate change theory was “a scientific view rather than a philosophical one”, because “philosophy deals with matters that are not capable of scientific proof.”
That argument has now been dismissed by Mr Justice Burton, who last year ruled that the environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore was political and partisan.
The decision allows the tribunal to go ahead, but more importantly sets a precedent for how environmental beliefs are regarded in English law.
Mr Nicholson, 42, from Oxford, told a previous hearing that his views were so strong that he refused to travel by air and had renovated his house to be environmentally-friendly.
But his beliefs led to frequent clashes with Grainger’s other managers, while he said that Rupert Dickinson, the firm’s chief executive, treated his concerns with “contempt”.
Once Mr Dickinson flew a member of staff to Ireland to deliver his Blackberry mobile phone after leaving it in London, Mr Nicholson claimed.
Mr Nicholson hailed the Employment Appeals Tribunal ruling as “a victory for common sense” but stressed climate change was “not a new religion”.
He said: “I believe man-made climate change is the most important issue of our time and nothing should stand in the way of diverting this catastrophe.
“This philosophical belief that is based on scientific evidence has now been given the same protection in law as faith-based religious belief.
“Belief in man-made climate change is not a new religion, it is a philosophical belief that reflects my moral and ethical values and is underlined by the overwhelming scientific evidence.”
His lawyer Shah Qureshi, head of employment law at Bindmans LLP, argued that if the ruling had gone against them, “the end result would be that the more evidence there is to support your views, the less likely it would be for you to enjoy protection against discrimination”.
Grainger now plans to contest Mr Nicholson’s claim of unfair dismissal at tribunal.
Dave Butler, its corporate affairs director, said: “This decision merely confirms that views on the importance of environmental protection are capable of amounting to a philosophical belief.
“We are looking forward to addressing the issues at tribunal level and demonstrating that there was no causal link between Mr Nicholson’s beliefs and his redundancy.”
The grounds for Mr Nicholson’s case stem from changes to employment law made by Baroness Scotland, the Attorney General, in the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003.
The regulations effectively broaden the protection to cover not just religious beliefs or those “similar” to religious beliefs, but philosophical beliefs as well.
Hmmm. What do you think?
- Marc
Leave a Reply
Nov 5th 2009 • 15:11
by MichaelR
Belief in man-made climate change is a little less provable and pure-fact-based as any of the organized religions.
Nov 5th 2009 • 15:11
by Tim Carter
Good to see you posting again Fed. But it is hard to argue with this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthpicturegalleries/6501052/Miss-Earth-2009-contest.html
Nov 5th 2009 • 20:11
by Tom M
I have been very involved in two hobbies which get caught very much in the middle of the man-made climate change debate, specifically because both hobbies deal with climate real shifts which actually do happen:
1- Living coral reef aquarium keeping (I wrote a monthly column in Marine Fish Monthly for six years on keeping it simple and keeping the hobby environmentally friendly)
2- Astronomy which deals with solar effects on climate changes, which are undeniable and trackable. We are going through one of those now, a cooling cycle which Algore doesn’t even mention, nor did the USU guest on “For the People” a couple months ago.
Of the two hobbies (and professions for some), members of the first one are more likely to agree with man made climate change in light of seeing coral bleaching from high temps in certain areas of the Ocean, mainly Pacific, from El Nino, etc. I don’t attribute it to being man made solar cycles and normal climate variations explain it better.
It is somewhat less likely for those very familiar with astronomy to be supportive of the man made climate change claims. Seeing an astronomer who supports man made climate change as anything more than a very, very minor part of climate change cycles is as comical as seeing an astronomer who believes in horoscopes (or Santa, Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, etc…).
“For the People” had a guest on from USU (I believe) a couple months ago who rattled off one lie after another about proof of climate change and it being man made. Since some of his numbers and claims were obviously quite off, it made me and others question anything that came out of his mouth. Speaking of that, Algore’s movie was very convincingly done until you look into the 35 lies he told in that movie, making anyone using logic or trust do nothing but question his whole point and motives:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
If his movie discussed both sides realistically and gave REAL examples on both sides, it would be much easier to believe, or join as a “religion.” Too much hell-fire, damnation, hysteria and lies as it is now. No thanks.
Nov 6th 2009 • 07:11
by Richard Okelberry
I know exactly what you mean, FF. I have on many occasions felt the wrath of those who blindly follow the assumptions of the Man-Made crowd. Though, I must say that it is my experience that few actually cling so hard to the Man-Made notion so tightly anymore. I have found more and more that people who once held the MMGWT (Man Made Global Warming Theory) as doctrine are now beginning to loosen their grip on the concept. I should clarify that plenty still accept MMGWT but few seem to defend it religiously anymore. Also to be clear, I don’t personally dispel the concept that man may be having an effect on global temperatures, I merely question how real and profound that effect may be and currently feel the effect is negligible. Still, for the first time since An Inconvenient Truth hit the scene I have seen real evidence of hard-line MMGWT believers finally being willing to apple logic and reason to the question.
I hope to see you posting more, FF. FTP needs a revival! I’m going to try to put in at least one essay a week. I hope you will too!
Nov 6th 2009 • 14:11
by Tom M
Thanks, Federal Farmer and Richard Okelberry, for your words of wisdom concerning this and so many other leftist religions of political correctness and govt control of everything and everyone. They each come complete with their own Saviors and Great Satans. There are too many to name.
Here’s how to identify them: They all promote more govt and less freedom. They attack the constitution and habeas corpus. They all follow the same blueprint of hellfire, damnation and hysteria. And of course their main attraction: “We and only we will save you…” They can only do this by swindling all of us of course, by forcing you to sign away your liberty and rights in trade for safety, which they call your ultimate right.
Nov 6th 2009 • 15:11
by Tim Carter
Tom M.: “Here’s how to identify them: They all promote more govt and less freedom. They attack the constitution and habeas corpus.” Leftist religions did this?
I don’t get this at all. You continue to support a system where money and prestige trump health and safety and then talk about leftist religions?
http://vodpod.com/watch/925840-us-cyclists-apologize-for-wearing-masks
http://www.livescience.com/environment/etc/090622-beijing-olympics-air-pollution-worse.html
The free market solutions you talk about almost always hold money and profits over health and safety until citizens demand government step in.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/05/appalachia200605
Nov 9th 2009 • 15:11
by MichaelR
- “The free market solutions you talk about almost always hold money and profits over health and safety until citizens demand government step in.”
As if the world’s governments have a better track record of protecting health and safety. Or for not valuing money and power over the circumstance of the citizenry.
I’ll take my chances with a free market, thank you. Oh, wait… people like you won’t let me – I’m forced to do as you would have me do. Whoops!
Nov 9th 2009 • 16:11
by Tim Carter
Yeah Mike, how about working in the mining industry before OSHA standards. Like it or not, admit it or not, some government oversight has protected you and yours along the way or you wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Nov 9th 2009 • 16:11
by MichaelR
How about that’s how many of our ancestors were able to live in this country? How about how there are many countries around the world that get to the same standards in a thousand different ways? How about the fact that jumping immediately to reliance on governmental intervention to achieve your own goals is what a lazy fool does?
Nov 10th 2009 • 05:11
by Richard Okelberry
To be fair, Tim, your response focused not on climate change but on pollution. Most would agree based on good science that pollution levels in some areas are unhealthy and need to be addressed. I don’t see anyone here arguing against that or even bringing it up for that matter. The question and topic at hand is whether belief in Man Made Global Warming deserves protected religious status.
Do you understand that the MMGW think is a losing argument and therefore are purposely trying to change subject to a winning one, or did you simply get distracted out of your need to attack Tom M, for his well thought out contribution? Or are you seriously trying to imply that if someone agrees that pollution threatens the health and safety of society that you must then logically also accept the belief in MMGW?
Also, I don’t think that it is correct for you to say that Tom, “continue(s) to support a system where money and prestige trump health and safety.” I did not read that position at all in Tom’s statement. That was a HUGE supposition made on your part. I could say the exact same thing about you in this post and be every bit as accurate.
Nov 10th 2009 • 09:11
by Tim Carter
You are right Rich. Big jump on my part. But I think if those emissions don’t add to global warming they certainly add to pollution.
Nov 11th 2009 • 02:11
by Richard Okelberry
True, they certainly do add to pollution. I believe that the MMGW movement in many ways has worked against it’s self by over reaching on the MMGW theory. Most who believe completely in MMGW also have serious concerns about pollutants. Unfortunately, when people begin to discover how many liberties supporters of the MMGW theory have taken with the science, they then also begin mistrusting much of what comes out of the environmental movement regarding other pollutants.
Nov 11th 2009 • 11:11
by Tim Carter
I think I might agree with you on this one Rich. The movements ‘branding’ might be too extreme for the masses. Although somehow, apocalytic scenarios seem to sell to a lot of people. Is it truly a fight for humanity? I don’t know for sure. But our hindsight should be able to tell us something about the future.
Nov 11th 2009 • 11:11
by Tim Carter
I agree with Carlin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3q3upFx4FcA
Nov 7th 2009 • 00:11
by Tom M
Tim, Yeah, right…
Nov 9th 2009 • 13:11
by Tim Carter
Tom M: “Tim, Yeah, right…”
Great rebuttal. Stick to what you’re good at, I guess….
“They each come complete with their own Saviors and Great Satans. There are too many to name.”
Nov 11th 2009 • 14:11
by Jason Williams
Carlin rules!
And LOL @ “Tom M: stick to what you’re good at…”
Give him a minute, somehow he’ll bring this back to the “EVIL DV INDUSTRY!”
Seriously though, thanks for reminding me of that Carlin clip.
Nov 9th 2009 • 17:11
by Tim Carter
Mike: ” How about the fact that jumping immediately to reliance on governmental intervention to achieve your own goals is what a lazy fool does?”
Good ol’ tea party talk, eh Mike? How about throwing us some modern real world examples Mike. Your ideaolgy is great in theory. Provide us with examples please.
My example is the coal industry:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/05/appalachia200605
Do you not beleive that big industry has ran over individuals in the past? Doesn’t the government represent us? How would your vision of anarchy solve the problem?
Nov 10th 2009 • 11:11
by MichaelR
- “Your ideaolgy is great in theory. Provide us with examples please.”
Examples of what? How a free market works? It’s hard to find perfect examples, since we haven’t seen a truly free large-scale market in ages, but there are countless examples of how freer markets lead to greater overall prosperity.
How about the electronics industry? Electronics get cheaper and better every week, all of those companies make loads of cash, their customers get the cool gadgets they want, and their employees have some of the best jobs in the world, and all because the relative freedom of the market allows for innovation, profits, and competition. Even when the two big manufacturers of LCD screens tried to artificially jack up the price (Toshiba and LG I think? I could be wrong) the FTC and Congress mandated price caps, but by the time the legislation passed, the price had already started to drop on its own.
How about the medical field? In the areas of medical services where the government and the insurance companies are the least involved, you see the services, products, and procedures getting cheaper and better all the time while the rest of the medical field stagnates. You even see nurse practitioners starting up storefront clinics where you can go get your basic medical needs attended to where they don’t take insurance claims or medicare/medicaid and they make a killing by providing affordable medical services to satisfied customers – customers who may be uninsured but who can easily afford the deflated prices.
If you feel like you need more examples, or examples of something specific, let me know. I know it can be hard for some people to envision real-world solutions that don’t rely on people being forced to behave how their ruling class would have them behave, but for every two of these there’s one person out there with the imagination and foresight to devise a solution. It’s this type of person to whom all of us in this country owe our fortuitous circumstances.
– “My example is the coal industry:”
Oh, you mean the same coal industry that receives subsidies and preferential treatment enough from the government that it’s nearly impossible to enter into competition against them? The same coal industry whose market is about as far from laissez faire as it could possibly be and still be privately owned (by politicians)? With an example like that, I can only assume that you’re now arguing against governmental intervention as well…
– “Do you not beleive that big industry has ran over individuals in the past?”
Of course it has – there will always be short-sighted greedy people, no matter what you do. Put the government in charge of everything, and those people will do whatever it takes to get into office and stay there. Why would any sane person want that? Put the government into a regulatory position, and the greediest and most underhanded people will buy their way into positions of control. Leave the government out of it, and those people eventually draw enough negative attention upon their companies that they go belly-up. Do you honestly think that it was uninvested politicians who devised the scheme that certain companies were “too large to fail”? Without government involvement, banks would have become insolvent, laid some staff off, cut some wages, sold off assets and accounts, and moved on. Some would have grown, some would have shrank, all dependent on how sound or unsound their business practices were. Thanks to governmental interference, even failed companies with poor practices can stay solvent, with OUR money, as long as they can afford to buy political influence. What I advocate is a removal of governmental influence down to a position of enforcement so that if the little guy is abused, he has authority to call his abusers to justice in front of a jury of his peers. Otherwise, you create manipulatable positions of control for the wealthiest and greediest people to occupy. The very thing that you would love to see done away with, you end up creating more of by having your heart in the right place and your head in the wrong one.
– “Doesn’t the government represent us?”
I am anti-war. I am pro free-markets. I despise supporting racism and sexism by propping up the idea that people deserve different treatment. I am opposed to large, costly government. I am opposed to the drug war. I am opposed to telling anyone that they cannot marry each-other. I am opposed to an income tax. I am opposed to foreign military occupation. I am opposed to market intervention.
How well represented do you suppose I feel?
– “How would your vision of anarchy solve the problem?”
Firstly, I don’t propose anarchy (used here as a form of government, not as a state of chaos) – it would never last. Secondly, in a free market, all operators are subject to and limited by their customers. You would lose the specific predictability that you can obtain for short periods by mandates and regulations, but you would gain the long-term predictability that no one company will ever be powerful enough to perpetuate itself without surpassing its customers expectations of ethical behavior and product standards.
Nov 10th 2009 • 13:11
by Tim Carter
Soooo the Feds shouldn’t have enacted anti trust laws, right? Laissez faire is French for hands off.
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Antitrust
Nov 11th 2009 • 09:11
by MichaelR
This is your only comment? Well, okay…
– “Soooo the Feds shouldn’t have enacted anti trust laws, right?”
Right.
Nov 11th 2009 • 10:11
by Tim Carter
So you support monopolies because they are a naturally occuring part of free markets?
Nov 9th 2009 • 17:11
by North Logan Tyson
So, could political parties be considered religions as well if they can potentially fall under “philosophy”?
Nov 10th 2009 • 05:11
by Richard Okelberry
I suppose they should be under this ruling, Tyson. It’s getting to the point that, an employee could show up in a WWII Nazi uniform yelling about the need to exterminate the Jews and you would have trouble firing the guy.
Nov 11th 2009 • 13:11
by MichaelR
- “So you support monopolies because they are a naturally occuring part of free markets?”
Monopolies do not occur in a free market.
Nov 11th 2009 • 13:11
by Tim Carter
Mike: “Monopolies do not occur in a free market.”
Non human free markets?
Nov 11th 2009 • 14:11
by MichaelR
When has a true monopoly ever occurred in a free market without the utilization of governmental force?
Nov 11th 2009 • 14:11
by Tim Carter
When Microsoft cornered the browser market?
Nov 11th 2009 • 14:11
by MichaelR
Your definition of monopoly leaves a whole lot to be desired (read: “is wrong”). A monopoly means market exclusivity – I know a lot of people who used Opera or Netscape Navigator. I also know a lot of people who use Macs or Linux-based PCs simply because Microsoft ticks them off with their annoying and deliberate compatibility issues.
Where would we be without the 1998 ruling in The US vs Microsoft? Probably in exactly the same place. Why? Because you cannot be a chode in a free market without eventually scaring away your customer base. The only way you could ever form a true monopoly in a free market would be to deliver the best possible product for everyone for the best possible perceived value for everyone – if you can do that, what’s the problem?
Nov 11th 2009 • 15:11
by craig41
monopolies can still exist, and be bad, slow down innovation, and perhaps inflate prices. nothing about the free market takes that away from an industry that’s prone to monopolies or oligopolies (high barriers to entry, long periods between initial investment and profitability). if a monopoly exists then that company calls all the shots, the public being dissatisfied doesn’t inherently make it profitable for another company to form and compete with the monopoly.
Nov 11th 2009 • 16:11
by MichaelR
Sure, if you’re looking at this miracle business in a complete bubble, but for any product or service there is an alternative. When gas prices got too high, it’s not like everyone stayed home, they found different ways to get where they wanted to go.
If, for example, the only company with the resources to manufacture rocket fuel, which would have a high barrier to entry, decided to capitalize on their monopoly, people would be incentivized to develop a different means of developing fuel or an alternative mode of propulsion for their rocket. Competition can be lateral – furbies compete with xylophones compete with tonka trucks compete with sidewalk chalk.
Nov 11th 2009 • 16:11
by MichaelR
Come up with an example – that would be a lot of fun, we could both get a good intellectual workout trying to prove our points!
I’m not even kidding.
Nov 11th 2009 • 22:11
by Tom M
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
Isn’t it funny how many lies and deceptions (intentional = fraud) the man made global warming scam artists use to support their driving warming hysteria to fight their “Great Satan” (the mother of all Satans),” and they still ask us to trust what they say???
Yeah, right…
Nov 12th 2009 • 10:11
by craig41
well, i’ll have to leave thinking of examples for a later (not at work) time, but in your rocket fuel example you say capitalize on their monopoly. well, it’s my understanding that there are two ways to capitalize on a monopoly, short term profit, which gives the incentive for competition, and protecting the monopoly by keeping the price low enough that there is no incentive for competition. that doesn’t mean as low as the price would be in a more competitive situation, just low enough that the barriers to entry wouldn’t be overcome by a new company trying to enter the market. in that scenario the greater public is harmed (prices are still too high), but there’s no incentive for other companies to join the market, since they’re facing losing money for the foreseeable future. hypothetically this situation could continue until either the monopoly decides to increase short term profits, opening the door to competition, or someone (doj) breaks up the monopoly.
but i’ll come up with an example too
Nov 12th 2009 • 14:11
by MichaelR
If they are protecting their monopoly by keeping their price “low enough”, wouldn’t that mean that the prices could not be “too high”? If the prices are too high for the consumers, they will do without the product, the company would fail. If the prices are low enough that consumers are happily paying it, what’s the problem? There’s nothing wrong in making more money on a product than you spend to make it – that’s the only way that these products would ever get made short of slave labor.
Nov 13th 2009 • 10:11
by MichaelR
On monopolies: Nobody seems to be too concerned about the government-granted monopolies of the cable companies, the phone companies, the water and power companies, the garbage companies, any of the monopolies that are directly created by and under governmental supervision.