The religion of environmentalism

[lazs2]

In light of the recent long threads on both religion and mans part in global warming... I ran into this article by Cricton.   I think some athiest/agnostics will recognize themselves as well as some of the rabid environmentalists.

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html

lazs

[Thud]

Originally posted by lazs2
I think some athiest/agnostics will recognize themselves as well as some of the rabid environmentalists.

Hell, if you can't get your point across in one thread open another and try again.

If you only would be just as thoughtful as you are zealous...

[SOB]

If you have a point to make, how about you just give us the Cliff's Notes.

[Red Tail 444]

Too bad about that lead paint in your crib, lazs

[lukster]

5 minutes well spent, good read lazs.


If you ever enjoyed reading one of his books or watching a movie made from one you might find it worthwhile to spend a few minutes reading that article. The guy might not be right but he knows how to communicate. I'm betting he knows what he is talking about.

[Toad]

I concur; good read.

Makes you think, makes you question.

TY.

[storch]

yup. good read thanks for posting it lasz

[soda72]

good read

[Yeager]

Thats a keeper lazs.  Good find.

[Sparks]

Oh Please

Since 9-11 it has now become fashioanble to attach the label "Fundamentalist Religion" to any belief anyone has contrary to your own in order to invoke a suitable level of fear and distrust.

While his arguement at the end about the data and lobbyist spin may be true his presentation is so much horse pucky.  His description of an environmentalist pre-polution eden is just rubbish - an invention to support his "religious belief" label.

Anyone who has an open mind has just that - an open mind.

Or will it be soon that anyone who only buys Chevvy is a GM religious fanatic and an enemy of the state...?

Before the 9-11 this speech wouldn't have been written - it's just playing to the crowd.

Laz , why can't you just accept that some people have no religious belief ? Why is it such a huge friggin issue that someone simply MUST have a religious belief. Let it go .......

[lukster]

Originally posted by Sparks
Oh Please

Since 9-11 it has now become fashioanble to attach the label "Fundamentalist Religion" to any belief anyone has contrary to your own in order to invoke a suitable level of fear and distrust.

While his arguement at the end about the data and lobbyist spin may be true his presentation is so much horse pucky.  His description of an environmentalist pre-polution eden is just rubbish - an invention to support his "religious belief" label.

Anyone who has an open mind has just that - an open mind.

Or will it be soon that anyone who only buys Chevvy is a GM religious fanatic and an enemy of the state...?

Before the 9-11 this speech wouldn't have been written - it's just playing to the crowd.

Laz , why can't you just accept that some people have no religious belief ? Why is it such a huge friggin issue that someone simply MUST have a religious belief. Let it go .......

Lemme guess, global warming the end is near fundamentalist?

[Naso]

Interesting reading.

This quote:

I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it.

Has earned my vote for chricton as president of the World!

[navajoboy]

Originally posted by Red Tail 444
Too bad about that lead paint in your crib, lazs

ouch!
smack the value menu guy.... he is only worth a buck.

[Toad]

The basic question addressed is whether or not "the end is near!!!"

The religion thing is not the argument. The science behind the environmentalism is.

[Sparks]

Lukster you've read me wrong again.

Nope on both counts.

But Toad this guy is using the religious fanaticism card to fight the environmentalist poor data. That is being as bad as the people he is criticising.  Argue the data, argue the conclusions, lobby against legislation based on incomplete eveidence yes, but don't try to discredit those you are tring to oppose by using cheap scare tactics.  In my opinion it lowers the credibilty of the postion.

It's a red herring  and does nothing to help clarify what we need to know - the real truth on our world climate (which by the way Lukster I don't think either side knows - the science isn't good enough yet)

Making this huge comparison between so-called environmantalists beliefs and a religious structure does nothing to advance things - cheap scare tactics.