So the real question is how are the moral and ethical questions raised by environmentalists best answered?

Enviromentalism is behaving like a fundamentalist religion, if you don't conform to their view on global warming you are treated as a heretic non believer.

you have scientists denouncing other scientists because the don't follow the right belief or conform to the "widely held beliefs".

If you are a scientist who doesn't worship at the temple of Al Gore your credibility and career are at risk.

When science behaves like a religion it weakens its credibility and can only play into the hands of theists who attack science, whats a better target than scientific splinter groups argueing over who has the right facts (my god is better than your god).

 

IMHO

There is no worship involved and the big difference is there are huge ammounts of evidence supporting global warming. Yes, scientists who say it isn't true (mostly paid by the petroleum industry) are denounced - as would be a biologist who denied evolution or an astronomer who claimed the Earth was the center of the Solar System or an Obstetrician who claimed babies weren't born out of a woman's twat but were brought by storks.

MattShizzle wrote:

There is no worship involved and the big difference is there are huge ammounts of evidence supporting global warming. Yes, scientists who say it isn't true (mostly paid by the petroleum industry) are denounced - as would be a biologist who denied evolution or an astronomer who claimed the Earth was the center of the Solar System or an Obstetrician who claimed babies weren't born out of a woman's twat but were brought by storks.

I would disagree with you on that, i researched a bit into this topic

and came to the conclusion that just about all evidence contradicts itself in some way, and i rather dont know what side to believe.

Now what i really think is that there is, on both sides, a missinterpretation of data.

I think that there acutally IS a global warming, but manmade global warming? Rather no.

Yes i also think we should stick to the kyoto protocol and try to polute less, making a big fuss about it? no

But i also see that making a rather well organized media campaign can apply the right pressure on governments.

 

So basically i agree and dissagree at the same time

the worshiping wasn't meant lterally, and not all scientists disagreeing with man made co2 killing the world are paid by petrochemical companies, that is a fact.

its amazing how the arguments from the enviro's sound so similar to the god squad, if you don't conform you are rediculed and damned.

i'd have thought at least atheists would be open minded enough not to believe everything they're told.

 

is the world warming up? probably

is it a man made event? inconclusive

can we stop it? nope

best we can do is buy shares in sandbags and scuba gear

Humanity has been fucking with natural selection for millenia. Cave dogs, Pharaoh's kitties, animal domestication, the list of artificial selection models for study is abso-fucking-lutely incredible. We keep penguins that have difficulty breeding alive in zoos. Rare predators, who on an evolutionary basis are our competitors, are put on nature preserves to hunt without interference by anything other than a camera. The vaccination of meercat pups. etc. etc.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I submit that we couldn't leave well enough alone even if we wanted to do so.

Of course we're going to try to find a way to preserve the status quo of our environment. We like it. Any changes to it affect our happiness. Environmentalism is instinct.

We would be idiots to think that we only have 50 years left as a species though. OH WAIT! I forgot some people really think that the Earth is going to be destroyed by a petulant 'deity' soon. LMAO. However, even your hardcore 'rapture' freaks spend time planting gardens, adopting pets, and watching Animal Planet. Otherwise, there probably wouldn't be that 'Animal Miracles' show.

It still fits the ideology model because it has a basic tenet, the preservation of the planet. However, more examination would be needed to determine whether environmentalism is worshipping the planet.

I'm pretty sure the question is thoroughly answered, but I'll chime in anyway. Environmentalism is not based on belief in the supernatural. It is not a religion.

I consider myself to be something of an environmentalist, and I'll try to illustrate exactly why it's not a religion by explaining how I approach it.

*I recycle absolutely everything I can. There's no doubt that plastics and glass and such last a damn long time, and trash is a problem. I recognize that there are issues with recycling, and I know that it is not a perfect solution, but it's clearly better than not recycling.

*I have rain barrels because maintaining reservoirs is important, and I try to help.

*I prefer, but don't exclusively buy, local, non-processed, naturally raised meat. Same for veggies.

*I don't throw away old stuff. I donate it to the needy.

*I walk or bicycle anywhere I can. I have an 8 year old car with less than 70,000 miles on it.

I could list a lot of things, but the general idea is simple. I don't know for certain if global warming is going to put New York City underwater. There's not really much I can do to prevent it personally, but I can live as responsibly as I can. As for why I do the things I do, the best evidence I can find suggests that they are good ideas. If I read compelling evidence to the contrary, I'll change my position.

In all sciences, there are cranks and quacks. It's extremely difficult to separate the two when you aren't a scientist yourself. Even so, there are some indicators that help. For instance, when I examine the issue of pollution, I notice that virtually the only people suggesting that it isn't a problem are the people creating the pollution. Virtually all the scientists unaffiliated with a polluter say it's a real problem.

Similarly, I notice that almost everyone screaming that Global Warming isn't real have a vested interest in the status quo. While this doesn't prove anything, it does present a strong case. When I review history, I notice that most revolutionary ideas were resisted by the establishment, and I also notice that lying and attacking opponents' credibility are the two most common tools employed by people who don't have actual facts to back them up.

If you ask me if Global Warming is real, I answer, "I think so."

If you ask me if New York will be underwater in fifty years, I answer, "I have no idea."

I suspect that my approach is similar to most thinking people's. Hardly religious.