http://therealnews.com/t2/component/hwdvideoshare/?task=viewvideo&video_id=72941






.

Religion is one of these nonsense words like "Idiolalia" or "supernatural" which are either meaningless or subject to individual interpretation.  For example, some Christians state that Christianity is not a religion. (Google "Christianity is not a religion" if you don't believe me) Some Muslims state that Islam is not a religion. etc

Anybody can invent a belief system and if they can get a large number of people (at least 4)  to follow, it becomes a religion (as long as they call it that). Mambo dancing is an example. (It's actually part of vodou). You can make a religion out of science and call it scientism.  So following science without understanding it, is a religion. By the same principle, denial of basic atmospheric physics is a fast growing religion.

You can also make a religion out of brushing your teeth , as long as you do so religiously.

One definition is : a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. Others define it as a "deeeep" hobby that is awe inspiring.

for example: cricket, chiropody,  card playing, camping, choral recital,  christianity etc ....

---

No, all science is open to new discoverys and is always changing. Religion is a concept set in stone where belief is not at all in line with evidence.
In any science your are going to need to present facts to back up your beliefs or else all you have is opinion not science.

No science is in any way a religion.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 9:11am:

No, all science is open to new discoverys and is always changing. Religion is a concept set in stone where belief is not at all in line with evidence. In any science your are going to need to present facts to back up your beliefs or else all you have is opinion not science. No science is in any way a religion.

Which, when you look at it...puts AGW far closer to 'religion' than science....Questioning the science of AGW (even with facts) is not allowed......when contrary facts are presented, it is the presenter and NOT the facts that is denigrated...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 10:30am:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Feb 5th, 2012 at 9:11am: No, all science is open to new discoverys and is always changing. Religion is a concept set in stone where belief is not at all in line with evidence. In any science your are going to need to present facts to back up your beliefs or else all you have is opinion not science. No science is in any way a religion. Which, when you look at it...puts AGW far closer to 'religion' than science....Questioning the science of AGW (even with facts) is not allowed......when contrary facts are presented, it is the presenter and NOT the facts that is denigrated...

Really? Somebody ought to tell Andrew Bolt and The Australian that, then.

muso wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 11:15am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 5th, 2012 at 10:30am: bobbythefap1 wrote on Feb 5th, 2012 at 9:11am: No, all science is open to new discoverys and is always changing. Religion is a concept set in stone where belief is not at all in line with evidence. In any science your are going to need to present facts to back up your beliefs or else all you have is opinion not science. No science is in any way a religion. Which, when you look at it...puts AGW far closer to 'religion' than science....Questioning the science of AGW (even with facts) is not allowed......when contrary facts are presented, it is the presenter and NOT the facts that is denigrated... Really? Somebody ought to tell Andrew Bolt and The Australian that, then.

Maybe you should read the response/opinions about Andrew Bolt and the Australian that get posted here???

Although I was actually referring to scientists challenging AGW, not journalists or laypeople....

Here is someones opinion on the climate change church

When Christopher Monckton debated at the National Press Club in Canberra last July, he showed exactly why the fans of a man-made catastrophe are so frightened of free speech and open debates. With no slides nor images, in a single hour he still changed the opinions of fully 9% of the audience , including influential journalists who had expected nothing of the kind. The Roy Morgan polling organization tracked the moment-by-moment opinions of a representative sample of 350 people throughout the debate, and Gary Morgan, the CEO, announcing the result, said that in his long experience of polling he had never seen a swing like it in opinion on any subject in so short a time.

John Cook of un-SkepticalScience tried to rescue something from the event for the “cause”, but here Monckton shows how the claims that Monckton was “confused”, “lying” and “misrepresenting evidence” all come to naught, and if John Cook only had the manners (or curiosity) to ask Christopher first, he would have found that out before airing his poor research and logical errors in public. Monckton quotes peer reviewed references ad lib, and does calculations off the top of his head. Cook makes out that he is baffled by Monckton’s sources, which is odd because Monckton quotes the IPCC, Garnaut and other “consensus” documents, which we might have thought Cook would know well.

As usual, the point of the alarmist rebuttals is not to understand the science, or to find common ground to build a better understanding, it’s to put the words, “myth”, “lies”, “bizarre”, ‘trick” and ‘distort” into the same paragraph as the words “sceptic” and “Monckton” even if there is nothing to substantiate those terms. In other words, it’s just policy-driven PR dressed up as science.

What most disturbs me is that Cook underlies his entire reasoning with the logical fallacy that “consensus” is science, and that only the Chosen Ones are allowed to form an opinion. The attitude “Thou shalt not question our experts” belongs in a religion not in science, and shows that Cook is not even slightly skeptical  – what skeptic starts with the position “the experts are always right?”. Hailing consensus ought be anathema to any scientist in the quest for understanding.

The University of Queensland employs Cook now, so what does that “center of higher education” make of his low standards of reasoning or evidence and his anti-science values? It supports him, evidently. (The Quest for Knowledge being trumped by the Quest for Grants and Peer-Group Approval). The vice-chancellor has failed to answer a question from Christopher Monckton about why the university provides cover for Cook’s crude propaganda.

Cook claims the lesson for him is that “verbal debates are a mistake”. Which is true when you can’t reason and don’t have the evidence. Like any sore loser he tries to blame the loss on something else — claiming Monckton lies, yet here we can see that if Cook had stood up in the National Press Club, and made these claims with Monckton present, Monckton would have had no trouble refuting them, and quite possibly even more of the audience would have been converted. Open debate is the only way the truth gets tested.

Cook himself has been asked to post up Monckton’s rebuttal of his mistaken accusations on his website, but apparently lacks the intellectual honesty to do so. It is our pleasure to do for him what he should have done for himself in the interest of fairness and balance and the search for the truth.

Jo

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/02/cooking-the-books-monckton-replies-to-cook/

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 11:17am:

muso wrote on Feb 5th, 2012 at 11:15am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 5th, 2012 at 10:30am: bobbythefap1 wrote on Feb 5th, 2012 at 9:11am: No, all science is open to new discoverys and is always changing. Religion is a concept set in stone where belief is not at all in line with evidence. In any science your are going to need to present facts to back up your beliefs or else all you have is opinion not science. No science is in any way a religion. Which, when you look at it...puts AGW far closer to 'religion' than science....Questioning the science of AGW (even with facts) is not allowed......when contrary facts are presented, it is the presenter and NOT the facts that is denigrated... Really? Somebody ought to tell Andrew Bolt and The Australian that, then. Maybe you should read the response/opinions about Andrew Bolt and the Australian that get posted here??? Although I was actually referring to scientists challenging AGW, not journalists or laypeople....

I'm not aware of any. Have you heard of a paper that suggests  that greenhouse gases don't cause a warming effect?

muso wrote on Feb 7^th, 2012 at 9:53am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 5th, 2012 at 11:17am: muso wrote on Feb 5th, 2012 at 11:15am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 5th, 2012 at 10:30am: bobbythefap1 wrote on Feb 5th, 2012 at 9:11am: No, all science is open to new discoverys and is always changing. Religion is a concept set in stone where belief is not at all in line with evidence. In any science your are going to need to present facts to back up your beliefs or else all you have is opinion not science. No science is in any way a religion. Which, when you look at it...puts AGW far closer to 'religion' than science....Questioning the science of AGW (even with facts) is not allowed......when contrary facts are presented, it is the presenter and NOT the facts that is denigrated... Really? Somebody ought to tell Andrew Bolt and The Australian that, then. Maybe you should read the response/opinions about Andrew Bolt and the Australian that get posted here??? Although I was actually referring to scientists challenging AGW, not journalists or laypeople.... I'm not aware of any. Have you heard of a paper that suggests  that greenhouse gases don't cause a warming effect?

I've read several that suggest that mankinds actions aren't behind it or aren't the main cause, yes...

I might post links to them later....(but I'll bet at least one person on here will claim the scientists either aren't 'real' scientists, or are in the pay of 'big oil')

Jo Nova is one of the most vile human beings on the planet.

You only have to read some of her blogs to know she purposely is misrepresenting the data she is based her views on. She knows she's talking poo.

Who is Jo Nova before she started making a nice living flogging skeptic books? Nobody.  But a nice little earner she is on now.

But really, selling your childrens future for a few lousy dollars.... vile.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 7^th, 2012 at 11:01am:

I've read several that suggest that mankinds actions aren't behind it or aren't the main cause, yes... I might post links to them later....(but I'll bet at least one person on here will claim the scientists either aren't 'real' scientists, or are in the pay of 'big oil')

If you post their credentials with the article, which peer-reviewed journal it was published in, and what the peer-review came up with....... you wouldnt have that problem.

Instead you post bloggers tugs, and wonder why we think you are gullible.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 7^th, 2012 at 11:33am:

Jo Nova is one of the most vile human beings on the planet. You only have to read some of her blogs to know she purposely is misrepresenting the data she is based her views on. She knows she's talking poo. Who is Jo Nova before she started making a nice living flogging skeptic books? Nobody.  But a nice little earner she is on now. But really, selling your childrens future for a few lousy dollars.... vile.

Selling your childrens future for a quick buck in the government handouts area is even more sickening.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 7^th, 2012 at 11:35am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 7th, 2012 at 11:01am: I've read several that suggest that mankinds actions aren't behind it or aren't the main cause, yes... I might post links to them later....(but I'll bet at least one person on here will claim the scientists either aren't 'real' scientists, or are in the pay of 'big oil') If you post their credentials with the article, which peer-reviewed journal it was published in, and what the peer-review came up with....... you wouldnt have that problem. Instead you post bloggers tugs, and wonder why we think you are gullible.

Don't worry...I'll pick ones from peer-reviewed journals....
Or at very least, articles that include the names of the peer-reviewed journals (with a link to the journal if possible)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 7^th, 2012 at 11:01am:

I've read several that suggest that mankinds actions aren't behind it or aren't the main cause, yes...

That wasn't what I asked, but go ahead with that anyway.

muso wrote on Feb 7^th, 2012 at 11:53am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 7th, 2012 at 11:01am: I've read several that suggest that mankinds actions aren't behind it or aren't the main cause, yes... That wasn't what I asked, but go ahead with that anyway.

I know...my argument isn't with the involvement of GHGs, but with human influence on the GHGs...