Dr Lindzen Says Global Warming Is Rel...

Dr Lindzen Says Global Warming Is Religion

There are 9 comments on the Free Republic story from Sep 22, 2013, titled Dr Lindzen Says Global Warming Is Religion. In it, Free Republic reports that:

Today's link is from The Daily Caller and features Dr. Richard Lindzen, who is an atmospherics physicist and the Alford P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, calling global warming a religion - and a destructive one at that.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Free Republic.

SpaceBlues

Humble, TX

#1 Sep 22, 2013
Does he love religion? LOL.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#2 Sep 22, 2013
Dr. Lindzen has show remarkable faith in the face of data that does NOT support his claims of a counter force to AGW. The extremity of his
'articles of faith' in the facts being wrong points to an alarming conclusion. That the 'religious zealot' is Dr. Lindzen.

And like many deluded individuals, he thinks that the REST of the world is nuts and he is the only 'sane' one.
SpaceBlues

United States

#3 Sep 22, 2013
Did you read about his talk at Sandia? You can examine his long-practised mo.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#4 Sep 23, 2013
A high court judge agrees with Dr Lindzen.
Nov 2009:
Mr Justice Michael Burton decided that: "A belief in man-made climate change, and the alleged resulting moral imperatives, is capable if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations."
Queue[sic] LessFactMoreHype, aka Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty, to accuse Mr Justice Burton of being a "religious zealot."
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#5 Sep 23, 2013
Earthling-1 wrote:
A high court judge agrees with Dr Lindzen.
Nov 2009:<quoted text>Queue[sic] LessFactMoreHype, aka Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty, to accuse Mr Justice Burton of being a "religious zealot."
What the judge said was that 'belief' by itself makes a religion. The belief may be in gravity. Or drinking. The truth of the belief does NOT affect the fact that, to the 'believer' it is a religion.

The instances of 'religious belief' here are mostly in the denialists (proven by their avoidance of factual backup) while most of the rest are basing their facts on science which does not require 'belief' and therefore is not a religion.
dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#6 Sep 23, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text> The truth of the belief does NOT affect the fact that, to the 'believer' it is a religion.
Dear LessHypeMoreFact,
Yes, well written for the purpose of understanding when a belief becomes a religion.

As I see it: The point of this thread seems to lack context without drawing a distinction between "Science" and "Religion".

So, to the point...

Science and Religion have throughout history (and I suspect pre-history) been employed to aid in the understanding of all that exists and that may exist. The distinction between the two approaches to this understanding is what makes them fundamentally different.

Science looks to answer the question; "How?"
Religion looks to answer the question; "Why?"

You, yourself, applied the purpose to 'Climate Science' by describing it's directive as understanding the "why" of ClImate Change. To which I agree.

Post Script:
It seems to me that the two approaches: understanding "HOW" and "WHY" ought to be complimentary in that they appear to be mutually exclusive.

-koolaid

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#7 Sep 23, 2013
Just as I predicted, LessFact popped up, right on queue[sic].
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#8 Sep 23, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Science and Religion have throughout history (and I suspect pre-history) been employed to aid in the understanding of all that exists and that may exist. The distinction between the two approaches to this understanding is what makes them fundamentally different.
Science looks to answer the question; "How?"
Religion looks to answer the question; "Why?"
The distinction is that religion is based on belief without facts. Science is based on facts without belief. A scientist (i.e. Lindzen) who 'believes' a hypothesis when confronted by the data (on AGW) is not a good scientist. He is practicing religion.

Dr. Lindzen has proposed a number of 'faults' with AGW and has been shown his error each time. This clearly puts him in the 'denialist' religion.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#9 Sep 24, 2013
IF "Science is based on facts without belief," why do alarmists continue to believe fictional links of extreme weather to climate change?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Experimental defense unit funds new tech but fa... Aug '17 anonymous 3
News Weather Gets Weird as Record Rainfall Follows R... Jul '17 Shirvell s Shrivel 2
News Tim Cook tells grads: Tech without values is wo... Jun '17 Comin round the m... 2
News Black Lives Matter Plunges into the Affordable ... (Sep '16) May '17 The good old days 9
News Futurist: Diversity Brings Innovation Apr '17 Richard Fish 1
News With 1 essay, Mercer Island kid gets into 7 Ivy... Apr '17 karl 50 1
News Climate change should not be 'partisan issue,' ... (Jan '17) Feb '17 tina anne 174
More from around the web