back to article Climate change alarmism is a religious belief – it's official

So there you have it. The climate debate is over. Or it is, provided you accept that the highest authority of the human race is Pope Francis. The long-awaited papal encyclical "Laudato Si" is now officially published, and it says pretty much what it had been expected to say. Planet Earth is described as "like a sister with …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. wolfetone Silver badge
    Paris Hilton

    I'm not totally clear on what side of the fence the writer is on?

    1. Graham Marsden

      Look at Lewis' previous rants diatribes tirades articles on the subject and it may become a little clearer...

      1. Indolent Wretch

        possible "vomits" was the word you were looking for

        1. sabroni Silver badge

          Spittle-flecked invective?

      2. Thought About IT

        "Look at Lewis' previous rants diatribes tirades articles on the subject and it may become a little clearer..."

        Judging by the downvotes, even that simple statement of fact is contentious in this context. Those who downvoted should ask themselves if any evidence would convince them that humans are changing the climate due to their greenhouse gas emissions.

        1. Chris Miller

          "ask themselves if any evidence would convince them that humans are changing the climate due to their greenhouse gas emissions"

          If you'd bothered to read any of Lewis's previous, you'd have noticed that (unsurprisingly for a Cambridge science graduate) he never suggests that emitting sufficient quantities of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has no potential to affect the climate. The obvious questions that then arise are "how much" and "what should we do about it", and it's on these topics that reasonable discussion ought to be possible, if you could just stop erecting straw men for long enough.

          Thanks in advance.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            In other words, "When to act"

            "The obvious questions that then arise are "how much" and "what should we do about it"

            The answers, therefore, are in order: "already too much" and "as much as we can".

            The debate, from anyone that understands the theory of climate science, should be the idea of climate inertia - any alternation in behaviors regarding the climate will take years, if not decades, to aggregate with enough effect to appear to have an measurable difference.

            Since some form of worldwide climate change is now apparent, even to the deniers, it is completely and utterly irrelevant to take a position of asking 'how much' is necessary to create a dangerous situation once the understanding of climate inertia is added into the equation. The point of those supporting change is that, thanks to climate inertia, any change from this point forward will take years to manifest.

            Lewis' constant stand IS surprising for "a Cambridge science graduate" if the concept of results within maintainable boundaries is accounted for; waiting until the last minutes for the climate experiments to reach an undeniable conclusion is simply waiting for disaster. Any action from that late point will have no effect as the system's inertia will continue to swing the pendulum even more into the danger zone, and past, before any changes made will have the hoped-for, system-wide effect. All we'll be left with is picking up the pieces of desolation rather than fixing the problem...because the system would have already gone "Boom!"

            But that's OK. I have come to understand the major issue of the problem, and it isn't the emissions, the ecology, the atmosphere, the plants, the animals or our energy use: the problem is people. People are more worried about being personally inconvenienced - having to make personal sacrifices - than they are worried about what is in their future. If racking up tens of thousands of pounds / dollars in debt today, because they are unconcerned about tomorrow's dues, if participating in health-injuring or known dangerous / poisonous activities like smoking or excessive drinking is common in today's society, then why should we expect any more foresight in regards to the world that they live in? The solution here is not climate science, the solution required is social science: the ability of homo sapiens to take personal responsibility, even if uncomfortable, to understand foreseeable outcomes and say "Yes, I can stop being the center of the world and change a bit for everyone else's sake".

            Maybe one day...

            1. getHandle

              Re: In other words, "When to act"

              No, we're worried about being inconvenienced, making sacrifices, paying a damn sight more money, for no fucking difference what-so-ever. We're not all hair-shirt wearing, guardian readers you know.

              1. Snake Silver badge

                Re: In other words, "When to act"

                "No, we're worried about being inconvenienced, making sacrifices, paying a damn sight more money, for no fucking difference what-so-ever. We're not all hair-shirt wearing, guardian readers you know."

                So. Better to do nothing at all, and save MONEY, than try..

                Good to know what the average reader around here is more worried about. Selfish greedy bastards.

                1. This post has been deleted by its author

            2. Cynic_999

              Re: In other words, "When to act"

              "

              "The obvious questions that then arise are "how much" and "what should we do about it"

              The answers, therefore, are in order: "already too much" and "as much as we can".

              "

              Argument by assertion is never very convincing. Sure the climate is changing - it always has AFAICS since before there was any life at all on the planet. If you believe that the stuff that is living on the planet should not do anything that may change the climate, I guess you want to revert back to the sort of atmosphere and climate that existed before there was any life. Which would of course quickly ensure that the planet once again becomes lifeless.

              It really does not matter what is causing the climate to change - the only thing we need be concerned about is what effect the change is likely to have and over what time period, and what is the best way to cope with the expected change. Personally I believe that we will cope a lot better if we carry on advancing our technology, and that reverting back to the stone-age in order to stop doing whatever might be causing the change would be very foolish and unlikely to result in a very satisfactory outcome for humanity.

            3. h4rm0ny

              Re: In other words, "When to act"

              >>"Since some form of worldwide climate change is now apparent, even to the denies"

              Someone points out a strawman and rather than acknowledge it, you just up the ante with another one. Being a skeptic of AGW doesn't mean one thinks the climate never changes, it means one is not yet convinced that the primary factor is human-caused CO₂.

              1. ian 22

                Re: In other words, "When to act"

                Who to trust in regards to AGW? Scientist, the majority of whom (in many disciplines) say that it is happening? Or right-wing politicians and plutocrats. Hmm. So hard to decide...

                Then the Pope steps in and says it is a moral issue, and a (at least one) right-wing politico (American, Republican, presidential-candidate-of-the-week, Roman Catholic, not naming names) tells the Pope to sod off and to tend to his (religious) knitting. This in spite of RC theology stating papal inerrancy in matters theological. If the Pope states an issue is a religious one, then he is inerrant, and the pol is either a schismatic or a heretic. I'm waiting with bated breath to see which Santorum is.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: In other words, "When to act"

                  RC theology states that papal inerrancy (more usually referred to as infallibility) is only when a statement is declared as being made "ex cathedra". I don't think that encyclicals are by default ex cathedra.

                  Mind you, infallibility was only formally declared in 1870, so what makes us think /that/ was definitely right!? (admittedly there is an argument that dates back 2000ish years)

                2. launcap Silver badge
                  Stop

                  Re: In other words, "When to act"

                  > This in spite of RC theology stating papal inerrancy in matters theological

                  Only when speaking 'ex-cathedra' - which this isn't.

                  (Not a Catholic, being of a decidedly non-conformist Protestant mindset)

                3. Dan Paul

                  Re: In other words, "When to act"

                  There have been PLENTY of leftwing Demoncrat Catholic politicians that have disagreed with the Pope about the abortion issue. That is definitely against the teachings and beliefs of the Church.

                  Let's consider the whole Cuomo family as persona non grata with the teachings of Catholicism as well as most Catholic politicians even many Republicans since they support something against church dogma. As you are trying to say, you can't have it both ways.

                  As far as I am concerned once a religion get political, they should lose their right to tax exempt status.

                  We can't trust most so called "scientists" on the AGW front because of the "groupthink or else" mindset they have. There is no room for discussions on the subject with them. They have OBVIOUSLY adjusted the climate numbers numerous times to fit their argument. Once they did that, everything they say must be considered a lie and you can't trust a liar.

                  1. cortland

                    Re: In other words, "When to act"

                    “When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world…”

                    http://www.inspirationalstories.com/quotes/t/roger-williams-on-christianity/

                    Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams

                    Note that moral considerations should lead anyone who means to do good to err on the side of charity, not profitability, and in the matter of AGW, on the side of caution, not commercial gain.

                4. tk666

                  Re: In other words, "When to act"

                  Seems to me it has always been a moral issue looking for a scientific justification..... Not the first time this has happened. The major issue I see is that most consequences are unintended and unpredictable except in the simplest systems.

                5. Jaybus

                  Re: In other words, "When to act"

                  Who to trust in regards to AGW? Scientist, the majority of whom (in many disciplines) say that it is happening? Or right-wing politicians and plutocrats. Hmm. So hard to decide.

                  Indeed. One need only read back through the last decade or so of scientific literature to realize that most hypothesis are eventually proven incorrect. Likewise, history shows politicians, right, left, or in the middle, making mostly false assumptions, if not simply self-serving and fraudulent. So, yes, it is hard to decide.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: In other words, "When to act"

                CO₂ is really great for the plants... Don't we have a bit of a problem feeding everyone? The biggest threats to this planet are over-population and rampant religion. Sadly, there's little we can do about either, since 98% of humanity is either under-educated or just stupid.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: In other words, "When to act"

                  +1 on 2 of 3. On the other, it seems wheat doesn't care for the high CO2 regime. Sadly for us bread and Wheaties consumers.

            4. JustWondering

              Re: In other words, "When to act"

              "Since some form of worldwide climate change is now apparent,"

              Readily apparent where I live. If not for climate change, my current location would be under a couple of miles of ice. It is no surprise that our climate changes; what is surprising is people that think they can get it to stay the same. Meanwhile, we are about one big volcano away from burning spotted owls for heat.

              I'm not against taking care of the planet. But to imagine we will bend nature to our will is ridiculous.

            5. toughluck

              Re: In other words, "When to act"

              "The debate, from anyone that understands the theory of climate science, should be the idea of climate inertia - any alternation in behaviors regarding the climate will take years, if not decades, to aggregate with enough effect to appear to have an measurable difference."

              And yet CO2 concentration growth from 80s to today are charted along with average temperature increase over the same time (with axes specifically ranged for the two lines to match). Or, how CO2 concentration is charted from mid-19th century along with a steady temperature increase.

            6. nijam Silver badge

              Re: In other words, "When to act"

              > The answers, therefore, are in order: "already too much" and "as much as we can".

              And there, in a single sentence, is all the evidence for AGW you will get.

            7. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: In other words, "When to act"

              to all those demanding throwing the babies out with the bathwater, I say "you first".

              when all of humanity's emissions for decades is outdone by a single volcano in a week, tanking the income of a thousand families is stupid.

              But all those screaming loudly that our tiny third-order contribution is the most critical thing evar, are those using the most. Buying a Tesla to offset the Expedition you were driving for a decade, while you still have the Maserati in the garage for "non commuting purposes" and the wife still drives the Lexus with the V8, having your three children and downsizing your mansion after feeling guilty and now claiming some sort of green sainthood, buying 100K of solar panels with the profit from selling the house, is still hypocritical to the extreme.

              All I hear are two loud voices: the Had It/Have Its, and the Never Will Have Its. And a third of "government gonna pay ME for my unwanted product they're gonna make mandatory and the subsidies will put me firmly into the Have Its with the latest gadgets to 'reduce' my impact down to only twice what most people in the world are using".

              1. Roger Gann

                Re: In other words, "When to act"

                "when all of humanity's emissions for decades is outdone by a single volcano in a week, tanking the income of a thousand families is stupid."

                No. Completely untrue - see this USGS page: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

                I quote:

                "The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

                In recent times, about 70 volcanoes are normally active each year on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is Kīlauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 0.0031 gigatons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,200 Kīlauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require an addition of about 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the sea floor, based on mid-ocean ridge CO2 estimates of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998).

                There continues to be efforts to reduce uncertainties and improve estimates of present-day global volcanic CO2 emissions, but there is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions."

                I think I can tell who's being stupid here.

              2. Cavanuk

                Re: In other words, "When to act"

                "when all of humanity's emissions for decades is outdone by a single volcano in a week, tanking the income of a thousand families is stupid."

                Completely wrong. The global CO2 production of all volcanoes, in one year, is around 200 million tonnes of CO2. Human production of CO2 is around 30 billion tonnes a year.

                Volcanic eruptions are negligible compared to human CO2 production.

            8. NumptyScrub

              Re: In other words, "When to act"

              Since some form of worldwide climate change is now apparent, even to the deniers, it is completely and utterly irrelevant to take a position of asking 'how much' is necessary to create a dangerous situation once the understanding of climate inertia is added into the equation. The point of those supporting change is that, thanks to climate inertia, any change from this point forward will take years to manifest.

              Funnily enough, some form of worldwide climate change has been apparent for as far as we try to look back (linked from this article). Apparently the last 200 million years has been, on average, warmer than it is now, with only the last 3 million or so going colder (than now) and then warming back up again.

              We're definitely getting warmer, both short term an on a longer scale, however we are apparently still at the "bastard cold" end of the scale as far as the planet is concerned, taking the last 500 million years in context. No doubt there is an anthropogenic contribution to change in climate, but I would suggest that the main point to be taken on board is not that we might be adversely affecting any "natural" temperature cycle (with all the blamestorming that that engenders), but that we should be focusing on dealing with the effects of the observed changes.

              Maybe it's time people got reminded that you become the dominant species by adapting to the prevalent conditions, not by demanding that the conditions be changed to suit you. 50 million years ago the planet was apparently 14C hotter as a global average, if it can get that hot without humans being involved at all, then anthropogenic emissions are obviously not the sole driver for climate change. If current temperatures are toward the bottom of the observed range for the planet, then we need to plan for it to get hotter regardless of what we do or do not do as a species.

              Telling people to stop driving cars and it will all get better is not the correct response to the situation. The correct response is to design and create solutions to allow humans to continue to live on a ball of rock that fluctuates between 6C colder and 14C hotter than the current global mean temperature. Anything else is blamestorming and displacement activity ;)

              1. Cavanuk

                Re: In other words, "When to act"

                Your arguments are unscientific. You are arguing that, because there was one cause in the past, the same is true now. Not so. People died long before cars were invented. That does not mean that cars do not kill people.

                There is no detectable natural cause for the current warming. Simply saying that it did in the past and so it just does, is irrational. Solar activity, the arrangement of the continents, the area of space that the solar system is passing through, all have an impact on the temperature. None of those things is relevant at the moment. The sun is actually in a relatively cool phase, we have a lot of land toward the poles - allowing the formation of highly reflective ice and snow surfaces and there is no indication that we are passing through a particularly dusty region of space. What we are doing is pouring billions of tonnes of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. We know the physical mechanisms by which CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere.

                So, there is no evidence of any natural reason at all for the currently observed warming and we know that we are filling the atmosphere with a heating agent. The logical conclusion is that we are the prime drivers of current warming.

                It matters because we are warming the planet faster than it has warmed in the past and our presence also restricts the ability of other living things to migrate to different environments. The effects on other living things will be drastic but they will also be terrible for humans. Much of the world is already too arid to grow crops. If heat and evaporation rates rise then many will suffer as crops fail and fresh water runs out.

          2. jrwc

            Honest discussions are over. AGW True Believers offer no margin of error. Many would like deniers just to be tried and hung by the neck until dead. Such shrillness evokes desperation and error. More threatening than Marxists. More evil than Hitler. Dumber than Biden.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              dangerous level of religious tolerance you're showing there.

              hanging those people who disagree, what, are you Catholic?

          3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
            Coat

            "if you could just stop erecting straw men for long enough."

            The big problem with all those straw men is the constituent decomposition gases. It causes AGW.

          4. GX5000

            It should be obvious at this point in time that we are made to have incorrect conversations about important issues. eg "who's at fault" instead of "what can be done". Same thing with GMO's and Vaccines....It's not about Pro or anti-vaxxers, it's about Testing and formulation, but as long as the narrative is controlled by the Corporates and the Media, we'll be arguing nonsense until it's too late. Enjoy the Kool-Aid. Cheers.

          5. Blank Reg

            There isn't even much need to argue over how much CO2 is too much. CO2 is seldom expelled all on it's lonesome. It's typically accompanied by a whole host of other nasty byproducts, none of which are doing us or the environment any good. And it's not just burning the fossil fuels, refining such fuels is not an entirely clean process.

            Reducing such pollutants and toxins should be a good enough reason to try and reduce our use of carbon based fuels.

            1. 9Rune5

              "CO2 is seldom expelled all on it's lonesome"

              Too true. It is often accompanied by horrible H2O. We should ban H2O before it is too late.

              1. Kyle_Sager

                We should ban H2O before it is too late.

                Water vapor is a "shortly-lived" greenhouse gas, cycling rapidly in and out of the atmosphere daily and highly temperature dependent. There is, however, a feedback affect by which more water vapor remains in the air due to CO2.

                Thus scientists (for example Dr. Alan Plumb at World #1-ranked MIT for environmental science) tell us without mincing words that water vapor basically doubles the impact of CO2. CO2 is the lever. CO2 accomplishes heating, and water vapor sees to it the end result is twice as bad as it could have been. Water vapor will always be here providing its natural functions. But we can stop screwing with it vis-a-vis CO2. We just have to admit the problem.

        2. Twinkle

          I remember the same attitudes with smoking and cancer. Naturally smokers did not believe it caused cancer. Cigarette companies used their considerable spending power to cloud the issue in the same way as oil companies do for climate change today http://www.skepticalscience.com/Skeptic-arguments-about-cigarette-smoke-sound-familiar.html

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      We don't need to do anything...

      God will save us.

      ;-)

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: God will save us.

        God will save life on the planet. If we fuck up too much it'll become uninhabitable by humans but in another couple of hundred thousand years there'll be tons of life again.

        1. joesmith

          Re: God will save us.

          I haven't decided yet if I want to deal with trying to convince any of you people of anything, but your comment reminded me of a hilarious (and relevant) comic that you should all read. http://imgur.com/gallery/o79ym

      2. Col_Panek

        Re: We don't need to do anything...

        That is completely the opposite of what the encyclical said.

    3. Fluffy Cactus

      I don't know either, but my guess with regard to the pope's intention is, that he sees the following

      problem: Clearly, many people in the modern world no longer believe that e.g. sex is related to sin, or that greed is a sin, or that many religious moral imperatives that worked so well in the past to inspire fear, horror, and godawful worries about the end of the world do not work so well anymore, so what better thing is there than to jump on the bandwagon of the most "horrible, fearful and both somewhat scientifically, as well as governmentally supported threat to humankind" and throw in his lot with the amazing environmentalists.

      The environmentalists, at large, share these traits with both "ancient kings, religionists, socialists and communists": 1) They believe that they own everything. 2) They own the country, they own the sea, they own the North Pole, the South Pole, they all have a "universal appeal" and a "universal claim" upon all land, all resources, all that there exists. They, and they alone, by the strength of their fervor, of their belief, of their apostolic mission, are in charge, and if you happen to own

      a piece of land that you paid for, and that you plant crops and work on, well then, that's just too bad, because they can tax you if it rains too much ("the newly created wetland is now under their jurisdiction"), and they can tax you if you produce too much ("you are hurting the environment", or too little ("you are purposely not doing your part of feeding the world") , or if there is a drought ("you used a tractor, which spits out CO2, so you are guilty, no matter what, pay the penalty", or for any other reason they can dream up.

      Therefore "they act like ancient kings", who owned the forest, and the poor peasant, who shot a deer with bow and arrow to feed the family committed a crime against the king, and needed to pay up or be executed. This is the sole reason why the pope is now trying to be environmentally as well as religiously correct. Overall, much of mankind appears to be moving back to a mindset that is dark-age-like superstitious, hyper-emotional, pushed by belief in fearful or hateful concepts, unreasonable, unwilling and unable to consider the consequences of their actions and beliefs.

      And this, my dearly beloved friends, is my opinion, and whether you like it or not, it's the bigger picture.

      I am against this kind of thinking, not because the environment is may not need to be protected, but because of the fanatic, belief based panic, that is akin to religious madness mixed with political madness. (Other historic belief based panics in history were e.g. the middle age witch hunts, John Law's fake money schemes, the tulip bulb investment mania, the various religious "end of the world" schemes that took people's money and them for a disappointing ride, the mainly racist "eugenics schemes" between 1890 and 1925, the somewhat related half religious-half racist KKK movement in the US through 1930, the Nazi movement 1925 through 1945, the various Communist schemes between 1917 and 1989. All of these had in common that there was an overriding fear, anger, desparation and hatred factor, and a strong belief in semi-scientific ideas that later turned out to be not such a good thing, with people at the top profiting handsomely.)

      This is all easy enough to understand, but is anyone even understanding or doing anything about it?

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If we want less hot air in the world...

    We should just ban all religion...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: If we want less hot air in the world...We should just ban all religion...

      And all ideological politics; equally good luck with that.

      The argument about whether the poor are lazy and should be punished or the victims of circumstances and bad luck and should be helped are going on right now, and the mood from the US that has reached the UK is that the poor are lazy, and should be punished. This is a political ideology with no research basis, and it is just as toxic as religious ideas. Whether you say a God said it or Ayn Rand said it, the problem is not religion or politics per se; it's the people who appeal to authority figures.

      George Osborne controls British finances because just over 24% of the British electorate wanted him to. The pope has authority because a certain number of Catholics believes he does. Banning religion would just give even more power to the politicians. Are you really sure you want that?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: If we want less hot air in the world...We should just ban all religion...

        Your ideological politics is showing.

        Most in the right don't think the poor are lazy, they just think different solutions to problems are appropriate to what the left believe.

        <ideological-rant>The left believe that throwing money at things doesn't have side effects.</ideological-rant>

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: If we want less hot air in the world...We should just ban all religion...

          "Most in the right don't think the poor are lazy, they just think different solutions to problems are appropriate to what the left believe."

          Well, I haven't been able to interview most people in the Right (note capitalisation) but a number of the ones I do know express very firmly the view that most poor people are so through laziness and the availability of benefits, but I'll grant you that in the absence of detailed surveys that's anecdotal.

          However, when the Government refuses to release under a FOIA request the number of people who died of disease within a short time of being assessed capable of returning to work - that smells of a cover up. Why wouldn't they either release the data or admit they are failing to check up on the work of ATOS?

        2. Olius

          Re: If we want less hot air in the world...We should just ban all religion...

          "Most in the right don't think the poor are lazy, they just think different solutions to problems are appropriate to what the left believe.

          <ideological-rant>The left believe that throwing money at things doesn't have side effects.</ideological-rant>"

          Most people on the "right" have had 30+ years of pure right-wing dogma and are showing no signs of realising that the current state of the world is the result of it.

          Most reasonable people on the left understand the "side effects" of the solutions they propose very well. It is these side-effects that are most interesting and are the reason for the proposals.

          Unfortunately, considered (and underpinned by historical evidence) as the proposals are, the "right" are running the show and are showing no sign of wanting to try anything different in the face of failure (see point 1)

          The greatest irony as far as I can see is that we are having this debate on a "techie", "sciency" forum - yet the tone of the debate is as far away from "science" as can be - when you consider that "science" is the process of pure critical thinking and abandoning disproved hypothesis when evidence shows them to be false.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: If we want less hot air in the world...We should just ban all religion...

        But politicians are a necessary evil, we need someone to negotiate with other countries, defend the country when required, most people want law and order, a health service and welfare state...

        Where there shouldn't be government - censorship, morality, what consenting adults can watch, do or film, what makes a proper family - those things are very much driven by religion...

        And where else is it still institutionally acceptable to say what jobs a woman can do (or if they're even allowed outside), that gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, that young children should be forced to marry..?

        I standby my earlier comment.. Get rid of religion!

    2. lambda_beta
      Linux

      Re: If we want less hot air in the world...

      We should just ban all religion...

      We can't do that, because that would reduce the number of wars we have. Now how can the military justify it's budget?

      1. h4rm0ny
        Paris Hilton

        Re: If we want less hot air in the world...

        What does Tux have to do with banning religion, or are you saying Linux is your religion?

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like