Hmm, the answer to that has to be a resounding “YES”!

I think that generally those who treat science like a religion - unchangeable and unquestionable - are those who have either little knowledge and understanding of a science, or they have specific reason for retaining an unwarranted or discredited “science”, or perhaps even both.

“It is not only environmentalist activists and green-leaning writers who are seeking to silence climate change deniers/sceptics/critics/whatever you prefer. Last month the Royal Society…wrote a letter to ExxonMobil demanding that the oil giant cut off its funding to groups that have ‘misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence’.”

I can give you a direct parallel - all of the scientists who were prepared to put their reputations on the line to say that smoking cigarettes did not cause cancer. Even more evil in that debate - the companies who sought to “prove” that was so.

Who do you believe? The scientists who say that global warming is a scientific figment of imagination? The scientists who say that cigarettes do not cause lung cancer?

My answer to both - NO and NO

“And yet for the first time in history, the Royal Society is shamelessly using the media to say emphatically: “case closed” on all issues related to climate change.’”

It is apparent that the author of your quotation would say “YES, or NOT PROVEN” to the first. Do you agree with him?

That would be thinking that science makes a good religion.

I think this article provides evidence that some people are doing that with the global warming debate. Those who don’t believe are not simply wrong, they are evil.

As I said, the debate is not about the one word ‘recant,’ it is about a type of thinking. Thinking that one’s opponents need to ‘recant’ rather than say ‘change their minds’, is emblematic of that type of thinking. It allows for no possibility that the wisdom of scientists as expressed by the great consensus could ever be wrong, and epressly makes clear that to debate, or question this divine knowledge is a crime, worthy of death.

Now, I would be more than willing to entertain arguements that this is not the case, or only a very very small small minority. I think it is a signifigant, and growing, minority on the subject and is a very dangerous trend.

If you don’t see any danger in that possibility however, rather than thinking that the possibility hasn’t, and won’t, happen, we probably don’t have much to talk about.

If Benedictine had issued a Papal Bull against the scientific study of climate change, or had directed Christians to attribute global warming solely to the wisdom of God, then the place of religion and science would be an appropriate debate. To the best of my knowledge, no such announcement or edict has been issued.

So that leaves only the semantics of the word and its use in this context. I think the word is appropriate, and that it has none of the religious connotations that others might try and attach to it.

SIAT!

For many, ‘global warming denial’ is the same as heresy. For those people, as the article I linked to shows, not being convinced of global warming is a crime and worthy of being put on trial.

I don’t think it matters who is correct in the debate, not being convinced of a scientific theory or having an alternate explanation for observed events is not a crime.

I want us to have the best science possible, in dealing with climate change that is perhaps more important than anything else. It is patently obvious that there is a whole lot more for us to learn about the climate and what effects it and how the various feedback loops in it interconnect. To say that the case is closed on all issues of climate change is a direct threat to finding the truth.

The Catholic Church was wrong to try Galileo for his scientific beliefs, that scientific organizations would take up the same type of thinking is even more wrong as it not only prevents the advance of science, but it also betrays their core thinking.

I am also shocked that people can’t see this easily.

“There has of course been plenty of talk about the dangers of thinking that religion makes for good science. the idea that science makes a good religion is even more dangerous ” is an interesting debate perhaps, but is absolute zero as far as global warming is concerned.

In the name of freedom of inquiry and speech, you don’t want a group to criticize someone else …

Help me out here.