Gee wiz, I’m totally wrong when I refer to the climate change’ movement as a cult, right?
Why religion is fundamental to addressing climate change
“There is no time for imagination, religious or otherwise. We need to act now!” an irritated scientist told me during a workshop on climate change and religion in 2024. Contrary to the tone of his comment, this scientist was not dismissing religion as being marginal to tackling climate change, but his underlying assumption rang clear: religion, while undoubtedly a necessary part of the solution, is only useful if it works alongside rational science.
Research by me and my colleagues suggests that framing religion and science as totally separate entities is unhelpful in advancing a global response to climate change.
In 2022 and 2023, I spent four months conducting fieldwork in Egypt, living and interacting with Muslim and Christian communities in Cairo and Alexandria. As a salient reminder of the ongoing climate crisis, my research took place over the summer, when temperatures reached more than 45°C.
Who would have thought it got hot in Egypt in the summer? to the end
Fortunately, things are changing. Through initiatives such as the UN Environment Programme’s Faith for Earth Coalition and the faith pavilion at recent UN climate summits, religious groups are becoming more prevalent and active on the global climate stage.
But efforts to seek collaborations between scientists and faith communities are not good enough. We need to resist the urge to see religion as a mere vehicle for convincing most of the global population for whom religion gives meaning to life. The only way we can do that is for scientists and faith leaders to start laying the groundwork for new ways of thinking together.
As Russian author Leo Tolstoy once wrote, “Science is meaningless because it has no answer to the only questions that matter to us: ‘What should we do and how shall we live?‘” The climate crisis demands new ways of thinking, new ways of perceiving reality, and religion is fundamental to achieving that.
Yes, it is a cult, but, you have to understand that the point here is to subsume religion under the banner of global boiling, to make it secondary and controlled by the cult. The cult attempts to do it to everything, because this is about empowering government, making it bigger and more controlling, taking away the freedom, free speech, movement, everything from the masses. That is the heart of the ‘climate change’ movement: authoritarianism.
I am struck by this comment several ways.
First, religion is based on faith and acceptance of the tenets of that religion. It has nothing to do with science.
This works for belief in man made global warming (MMGW) because man made global warming can not be proven using the accepted methods of proving something is a Scientific Theory. I.E. Belief in MMGW is a religion.
MMGW cannot be predicted.
Global Climate can be observed, but the variances and changings are too long term to be predicted. The short term predictions have all failed in that the terrorist claims have not occurred. FL is not underwater. Hurricanes have not become routine.
The Little Ice Age was severe. Yet it is claimed that it was not global, but regional. If that is true, what proof is there? When asked the proof that it did not is sketchy and again refers to tree rings, ice corps, etc. I wonder if they can count back accurately 700 years.
So what we have are “observationally” theories which claim that man kind is causing the change and can correct the change by no longer using carbon based fuel which would effectively destroy western civilization.
The Medieval Warming Period, 950-1250 AD, is also ignored again claiming that it was regional. But Chinese scientists claim that China was affected.
This places the change on something “else” since there wasn’t any petroleum being used. What could that be? The sun? Scientist admit that an increase in sun spots mean that the sun increases global warming.
Global Tilt can cause warming but again it is po pooed as to long term to be of interest.
But this shows it all.
There is no new way of thinking. 2 + 2 = 4 is true no matter how much some DEI unqualified person wants to change it.