[Swordmaker]

"...environmentalism is based on bad science; that doesn't make it a religion (even though religions often utilize bad science themselves.) One should oppose bad science by good science. Trying to re-define environmentalism as religion makes those in opposition look like they have no scientific answers to back up their claims.

Doc,
I understand what you are saying... and for the scientists at the core of the environmental movement, that may be true. Fighting bad science with good science may work. But many of those "scientists" who are at the core of environmental belief have discovered, like many at the core of other religions, that it is very financially rewarding to stick to the dogma of their "ism." It is also ego boosting as adoring environmentalists adulate them and buy their polemics.

However, it is not the scientists (The priests of environmentalism) but the congregations, those who BELIEVE, as opposed to understanding, in ENVIRONMENTALISM, that make this a religion. THEY have accepted what they have been told by the high priests and priestesses of environmentalism as articles of their faith. THEY hold the belief that anything told them by someone NOT annointed as an "environmentalist" should be disbelieved because it comes from a disbeliever (read atheist).

Arguing facts with a "true beleiver" will not make them change their beliefs one iota.

Arguing facts with a hypocritical scientist may convince him the truth of your facts, but it may not cause him to change and give up the perks he gets by adhering to the dogma that pays the bills.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Your post exemplifies the problems I'm talking about. It is extremely insulting to the scientists doing the work. Of the many people I work with, none are "sticking to dogma" in their scientific work. All are just reporting what they find.

Many of those in things like climatology or ecology claim that most of their most vocal opponents only have religious reasons for opposing them. From my experiences on FR (and other places, unfortunately, their claims seem correct.)

None of the scientis I know support the (defunct, if we are lucky) Kyoto protocols either. They point out that the Kyoto portocols actually make things worse.

[Prodigal Son]

However, it is not the scientists (The priests of environmentalism) but the congregations, those who BELIEVE, as opposed to understanding, in ENVIRONMENTALISM, that make this a religion.

That's a key point and one that is easily misunderstood. The religion aspect has less to do with the scientists than it does with the perspective of the practioners or the faithful of the religion (ie the masses who lap up the environmental prognostications).