Uh. I didn't know that...

Jan, shock and horror (but not surprised, I guess)

Nice summation.

Jan

much thanks

Great post. I expected one or more in the Gulch when Earth Day came along, and was not disappointed.

I first heard, indirectly, of "environmentalism" in 1968, when I was working in a grocery store part-time while attending what was, and still is, one of the furthest Left universities in America. A student came in and asked for "biodegradable" detergent. Both the manager, who happened to be with me, and I looked at him and said: "Huh?" A few months later I became for aware of "the Environment" as a "hot" topic among the more vocal extremist students (I guess you could say my "consciousness was raised").

Luckily I discovered Rand a short while later, so never drank the Kool-Aid, in fact quite the opposite.

So I've always seen Environmentalism as a religion, but it was nice to see someone as popular and influential as Crichton address it as such. (Although I thought in the second half he still seemed to acknowledge it a more of a "problem" than it really is.)

And what makes it a religion IMO (and these thoughts are certainly not original to me) is that it's a large number of true believers following a mass movement which has no scientific basic in reality, and never did. Plus, the crucial religious element of "fear" and dire consequences if we don't follow the advice of our dear leaders (sin, and thee shall burn forever in Hell). And, once again as others have pointed out, a huge call for "self-sacrifice". And finally, any dissent is treated by the faithful as true heresy. I'm glad the clip didn't end with Crichton burned at the stake.

I won't say much more, as so much has been said, but I've always looked at Environmentalism as the replacement for the Socialist religion, as it's failure in both theory and practice became increasingly hard to deny. Environmentalism is the new "global crisis" that we need to be protected from, and surprise, the UN is there to save us via a New World Order.

If you look, there are lots of actual real scientists out there debunking AGW, including former believers, even within the UN itself.

This is one video I like, as it is an actual debate between a "true believer" and a reasonable, well-spoken and informed climate change skeptic. Moderated by John Stossel, who I always find good.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/01/28/w...

Hank Rangar is definitely my kind of hero.

Not familiar with Vince Flynn (yet), but totally agree with Clancy. There's another one who wrote counter-culture and ended up dead under dubious circumstances. Some speculate that it was backlash from his uber-realistic novels resulting from insider knowledge of the system.

we're working on it. Yes, we are in awe of the success and skill of those authors. we're just getting started but we are way ahead in our brains. right now-Hank is taking on the enviros. It'll be awesome. think your enemy is a paper pushing agency with a black ops back-up. Hank has his work cut out for him!

You, Khalling, and several other Gulchers are moving up my favorites list, but I have read so many more books by the three aforementioned authors that it is hard to put you in my top three yet. I have read >= 10 books by each of those three authors.

If it makes you feel better, your book and Robert Gore's book were my two favorites from last year. Fortunately all of you are still with us.

Were still alive - thanks J

No there is not a belief component is science - that is the exact opposite of science. Science is based on a certain philosophy.

hear hear

Actually, his definition made total sense to me and I thought he expressed it rather well. The key points were:

-----
Anthropologists define religion as:
1. It is a collective set of beliefs.
2. There is a leader or leaders who promote the belief
3. There are followers who make some kind of contribution or change to their lifestyle based on the belief
4. Their religious view affects and defines their total view of the world and how right and wrong (morality) get determined
-----

To me - that hits the nail on the head of what constitutes a religion - #4 in particular.

There is a belief component of science, that is that the scientific method can be used to understand the universe completely. Those of us who 'believe' in science believe that there is no point we get to and say 'this lies beyond science'. We will understand everything eventually -- it may just take a really long time!

Unfortunately most people currently use the phrase 'believe in science' to mean accept unquestioningly a specific theory that is currently popular. If you live long enough, pretty much every scientific theory from your youth get's overturned.

I'm still waiting for us to find the exceptions to gravity!

My three favorite authors, Tom Clancy, Vince Flynn, and Michael Crichton, all have recently deceased. So sad.

Yup. Read the book. It's unfortunate it was his last. After he put out State of Fear (three years AFTER this video), he altered his stance entirely even from this interview, arguing that if we are going to worry about the world, we should concentrate our efforts on something we CAN change like hunger and corruption in third-world nations, which we can do at a fraction of the cost of what the UN estimates were coming in at for global warming.

I enjoyed Crichton's works immensely - they were always very well researched and contained significant premises to how we view life. May he rest in peace.

http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/3a...

One of the most renowned scientists/physicists alive today who isn't drinking the koolaid.
Freeman Dyson does compare the extremist belief to a religion and questions the computer modeling.
“They are very bad tools at predicting climate…”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXX...

Under the Soviets, the state was the religion. It still is, but because of the disasters of the recent past in which the Russian people lost everything, not just once, but over and over again, the State-As-Religion fell out of favor. Since in reality, nothing has really changed, just a sort of veneer covering the corruption, a new religion was needed. Instead of wealthy commissars, they now have wealthy oligarchs and a government with a leader who rules with and iron fist. The environment has become a distraction that proves that they are good people by saving the earth. In the USA, Obama is using this same distraction in order to turn the populace away from failure after failure and scandal after scandal. giving us peasants something we can believe in, even if it does do things like destroying the coal industry and throwing thousands out of work.

I didn't used to give much credence to conspiracy theories, but I'm starting to look to see what's behind some activities, and by golly, they sure look like conspiracies. It's kind of like whether or not you're paranoid, thinking someone is out to get you, and then you discover they are.

Pathological ideologies take on a life of their own, with believers obediently promoting what they're told. Common sense rarely enters the picture, as you discovered in the contradictory message being fed to your kids.

Looks like we're back to definitions again. What constitutes a "conspiracy?"

On top of this they openly advocate for the death of at least 5.5 billion people. Hitler only wanted to wipe out the Jews and some others, but he did not want to end life on earth for people. The same can be said about Mao, Lennon, etc. Islam may want to take us back to the pre-technological world like the enviros but they are not looking to wipe out 90% or more of the population of humans on earth.

Environmentalist are EVIL.

Do you have a cite for that? It is interesting the number of evil totalitarians that were vegans.

Notice how we are never told about this. Its like how we hear about greedy businessmen, but not greedy politicians or greedy bureaucrats..

Salta I listened to that part again and I disagree. First of all he uses the word belief. Neither science nor objectivism are based on beliefs. Then he pointed to the idea that religions give and require a certain lifestyle. Neither science or objectivism push much of a lifestyle other than reason. Then he says it provides a total view of the world, again this does not apply to science of objectivism. Then he lays out the classic tale of religions: Eden, original sin, salvation. This certainly does not apply to science or objectivism.

It is not the way I would have laid out the argument, but I disagree that anything could fit into his definition.

Oh, goody! Let's celebrate the herding of humans into concentrated urban centers so that animals may rule the earth. And the fine for using your electricity after 2:00pm will result in public flogging with a pair of Birkenstocks. So keep your wicks trimmed. Don't want that hot wax to burn your hemp cloth shirt.