Religious Education

zing!

Church is the institution that argues from often illegitimatea priori, faith-based claims. Climate change is based on empirical evidence; I don't see how you could call it "church." Further, I don't see how distributing information violates anyone's rights or makes anyone worse off, if that's the implication you are making.

Brian, climate change science, if properly done, would be based on empirical evidence. The climate change science of today is based on bad data, misinterpretations of bad data, bad models, even worse metamodels, deliberate lies, political posturing, anti-human environmentalist propaganda, and blatant attempts by governments to use global warming as an excuse to gain control over energy use. I wouldn't call it religion (except for the handful of ignorant folks who treat global warming like a cult) -- I'd call it a baldfaced propaganda program that now wants to progress to brainwashing.

I agree with Dr T. Like all change, 'climate change' happens! There is bad science behind the current green mania. Scientists in a British law court agreed that climate cannot be changed by global warming (itself a scientific fraud)or any kind of warming. So, why promote the idea of a climate change law? The draft is a hidden intimidation. It is certainly not education - which would look at all aspects of an issue, not just green lower-level hypotheses. There is nothing in climate today that is not expected or cyclical, so a whole set of education laws to support a myth is unwarranted and poor education policy.

That is the point of Government schools, isn't it? They indoctrinate your children with tales of the sacred Founding Fathers, perfect Presidents, a flawless Constitution, and so on; but why would they stop there? They will move on to promote the agendas of whichever pressure groups can exert enough sway to get their propaganda onto the syllabus.

The primary problem in the climate change debate is its focus on the means rather than the ends to a problem, making the world a "better" place to live. Focusing on ends rather than means quickly reveals that the cost of reducing "global warming" far exceeds its benefits and is exponentially greater than the cost of focusing on the what should be the real outcome.

Reminds me of Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled--No Intelligence Allowed." If this bill passes, we'll suffere a similar inquisition against "GW Deniers".

Arnold intended to insult the GW Nazis by labeling their propaganda as religious. But I would like to remind everyone that atheists (Nazis and Stalinists) perfected the art of propaganda, not religion. GW Nazis use atheist techniques to promote their ideology, not religious techniques.

I'm missing what this has to do with religion. If Arnold Kling could point out to me the "religion" term in in any formula of a climatology paper published in a refereed journal, I'd be both stupefied and in his intellectual debt.

In other words, why slander scientists? You're saying on your 'blog what you wouldn't dare say to their faces at a conference!

That's pretty short sighted. It's far from a religious belief. I think we should be funding this sort of research and cultivating interest in climatology just in case the melting glaciers thing isn't a fluke.

"Just in case" something for which we have an extremely strong scientific case is "not a fluke"?