Even with all of the evidence that discredits the significance of man-made climate change, some still hold on. Why? Faith. And what does faith mean? Religion. For example, Chuck Colson talks of a court case in England (last year) where “Tim Nicholson was let go from his job at a property management firm. According to Nicholson, his dismissal was due to his beliefs about man-made global warming.” He lost his job because he wouldn’t do certain things (such as traveling in an air plane) because of his beliefs on climate change. After he lost his job, he sued the company under Britain’s Employment Equality act, under the part that prohibits religious discrimination.
Award winning writer Michael Chrichton describes environmentalism as a religion as well. He says,
With so many past failures, you might think that environmental predictions would become more cautious. But not if it’s a religion. Remember, the nut on the sidewalk carrying the placard that predicts the end of the world doesn’t quit when the world doesn’t end on the day he expects. He just changes his placard, sets a new doomsday date, and goes back to walking the streets. One of the defining features of religion is that your beliefs are not troubled by facts, because they have nothing to do with facts.
Environmentalism no longer has to do with the facts, it’s a belief, even when proven wrong believers must be faithful. And indeed they were in the recent case of the CRU hacks (discussed in Part I). Rush Limbaugh reported on November 30th that these emails were shown to the media and left untouched for a month. They couldn’t say anything against climate change, it would be heresy, they had to remain faithful.
EPA director Carol Browner says that the recent emails, “don’t change a thing.” Her justification was, “we got 2,500 scientists out there.” Rush Limbaugh responded by saying “you do not have 2,500 scientists. You have 2,500 political hacks led by four pseudo-scientists who are disguising themselves as scientists.”
Environmentalism, along with climate change, has become a religion. Not even a religion that is supported on history or facts, it just a belief which some insist on believing. Cliff Connelly with World Net Daily said, “the next few years may be pivotal in preventing climate alarmism from being firmly established, irrevocably, as the next ‘scientific’ religion.”
In an interview on “The McLaughlin Group” Pat Buchanan said (referring to Climate Change), “It’s not been warming since ’98. Secondly, there’s no known proof it’s because of man and there’s no known proof it’s a great danger.” Eleanor Clift’s response was “It’s no known proof there’s God, either. How much proof do you need, Pat?” In this, she is comparing God with Climate Change, that for some reason you don’t need proof.
Even with the lie that man-made climate change is something to worry about, these people insist on clinging to their religion. Climate Change isn’t a problem, it isn’t “scientific”, it’s religion.
-Ben
The Simple Facts 
Ben,
You’ve done a lot of research and quoted a bunch of pundits, but I want to challenge you to look at climate studies. Go do some more in-depth research, ok?
Here’s one specific issues I want to point out: Limbaugh, unfortunately, misses the key issue. The significance of Climategate is NOT that it exposes the brainwashed way scientists work.
The reason Climategate is such a big deal is because it’s one of perhaps two long-term “reliable” climate data sets that most data is based upon. The other comes from NASA, who refuses to release raw data. These emails show how they are attempting to avoid releasing raw data under the freedom of information act. http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/24/climate-gate-development-cei-f
So, here’s the bottom line: The data that most scientists are basing their studies upon is not surrounded by the most transparency. They’re not “religious” or anything, just using the data they have. (Which isn’t as good as many would have you believe.)
> Brian
Brian,
Thank you for your thought, and commission. š
I don’t think the point is that the scientists are brainwashed either. But you must look back in the 1970s when global cooling was all the rage. Scientists said it was true. At that time Federal Funds were going towards researching global cooling (sort of like now but for global warming). It may be that some in the scientific community are just following the money. That they may have realized that as soon as they disproved the theory that their Federal Funds would disappear.
Also, for clarification, I was not saying that all of these scientists in particular were religious. Just the people who continue to hold on, like when the Media ignored the emails from the hacker.
Thank you for your input,
-Ben