[PublicAnimalNo9]

Ok, that was officially the STUPIDEST FUCKING NUISANCE LAWSUIT I have ever heard of.

$1:

The ruling could open the door for employees to sue their companies for failing to account for their green lifestyles, such as providing recycling facilities or offering low-carbon travel.

He wants low-carbon travel? Kick his ass all the way to where he has to go.
Someone better tell those dumbfucks to quit talking and breathing as well. Their exhales are causing global warming

What next, scientists and their organizations will now get tax exempt status?

Hmmm I just thought of something. They just took the politics right out of "climate change" meaning the government just ruled itself out of pushing for more green solutions. After all, with the separation of Church and State , the State can't very well push a green agenda anymore. That would be like the government pushing any other religion upon the masses.

[Zipperfish]

stemmer stemmer:

Did you read the article? the judge also ruled An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore was political and partisan...

Sorry "No science!"... Climate change is like religion and not a science....

Science is like a religion too. It's a belief system utlimately based on faith, if you analyze it from a rigorous epistemological perspective. Science has its orthodixies and heretics, like religion, and its sects and canons as well.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

I'll go one step further here too. This ruling also means that the government should stop giving funding to scientists right away. After all, they don't fund any other religious organization.

[Brenda]

$1:

Mr Nicholson, 42, from Oxford, told a previous hearing that his views were so strong that he refused to travel by air and had renovated his house to be environmentally-friendly.

Which is totally fine, in your private life. If you are paid by a boss, and your job requires you to fly on a regular basis, you better suck it up during work hours.

[Public_Domain]

[stemmer]

What happens if you work for a company and it starts adopting some of these green polices? Can an employee be punished by the employer for not practising the corporate religion?

[N_Fiddledog]

I'm past the point where I say global warmism is "like" religion. It is religion. It has no claim to objective study of the data, or respect for the scientific method. It's based at its core on faith.

Science has rules. Warmists don't follow them.

[BartSimpson]

$1:

John Bowers QC, representing Grainger, had argued that adherence to climate change theory was "a scientific view rather than a philosophical one", because "philosophy deals with matters that are not capable of scientific proof."

In short, the court then ruled that AGW belief is not a scientific view but a philosophical and religious point of view.

I agree with that.

[BartSimpson]

stemmer stemmer:

What happens if you work for a company and it starts adopting some of these green polices? Can an employee be punished by the employer for not practising the corporate religion?

No. Churches have been forced by the courts to hire non-adherents in their work staffs so, arguably, someone like myself could sue to get a job working for one of Al Gore's companies. Not that I would, of course.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

I'm past the point where I say global warmism is "like" religion. It is religion. It has no claim to objective study of the data, or respect for the scientific method. It's based at its core on faith.

Science has rules. Warmists don't follow them.

Sceince has rules. So does religion. Science, like religion, is also based on a core of faith. So what's your point?

I don't think the bascis of the anthropogenic CO2 theory breaks the rules of science. It's actually a fairly rational argument. The concentration of CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere (as measured directly and by proxy). CO2 radiates in the infrared spectrum creating the so-called "Greenhouse Effect." Therefore some infrared radiation that previously would have headed out to the stratospehere or space is now reefelcted back towards earth. Therefore the earth's surface is subject to more infrared radiation (otherwsie known as heat) than it would otherwise experience, resulting in higher temperatures. Lots of uncertainties,. to be sure, but the basis of that argument is pretty solid.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

$1:

John Bowers QC, representing Grainger, had argued that adherence to climate change theory was "a scientific view rather than a philosophical one", because "philosophy deals with matters that are not capable of scientific proof."

In short, the court then ruled that AGW belief is not a scientific view but a philosophical and religious point of view.

I agree with that.

Well the lawyer is probably not a scientist, so perhaps he didn't know that proof as a concept doesn't really exist in the sciences. In science, all truths are provisional. So in fact, science is a philosophy (even a religion, I suppose, from a certain epistemological viewpoint) in that it is not capable of "scientific proof." Science actually used to be called "natural philosophy."

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Sceince has rules. So does religion. Science, like religion, is also based on a core of faith. So what's your point?

Well, first of all my point would be they are not the same rules.

With science a hypothesis is presented. Support is offered for it. Other scientists must me able to replicate those findings. In order to do that the data must be presented. The warmists destroyed the original Had Cru data upon which much of the IPCC report is based. Supposed peer review journals supporting warmism, such as Nature and Science are supposed to not insist on making the author's original data available. There are reputable sounding complaints saying they do not do that.

You must also be able to replicate the methodology. Many warmists either refuse outright to present their methodology, or make it unreasonably difficult for other scientists to replicate the claimed findings.

Another insistence of a scientific theory is that it be falsifiable. That is there must be conditions under which the theory can be proven to be false. This is not true of warmism. When something is proven to be false, such as Hansen's contention both poles would warm, or the global warming fingerprint they simply move the goal posts, and claim something else. The global climate cools over 8 years, while CO2 rises - doesn't matter, even though warmist graphs clearly show we were supposed to expect something completely different than what we see. Some predictions are made so far into the future they can never be proven false in this lifetime.

There are no limitations such as these with religion. So while warmism meets the standards necessary to be called a religion, it is not science.

[PluggyRug]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Another insistence of a scientific theory is that it be falsifiable. That is there must be conditions under which the theory can be proven to be false.

Don't tell that to creationists, their god says the 2nd law of thermodynamics is false and entropy is in reverse. One wonders how many are 'warmists'.

[fifeboy]

Brenda Brenda:

$1:

Mr Nicholson, 42, from Oxford, told a previous hearing that his views were so strong that he refused to travel by air and had renovated his house to be environmentally-friendly.

Which is totally fine, in your private life. If you are paid by a boss, and your job requires you to fly on a regular basis, you better suck it up during work hours.

Couldn't help but thinking: "Just followed orders." Heard that somewhere before.

[Brenda]

fifeboy fifeboy:

Brenda Brenda:

$1:

Mr Nicholson, 42, from Oxford, told a previous hearing that his views were so strong that he refused to travel by air and had renovated his house to be environmentally-friendly.

Which is totally fine, in your private life. If you are paid by a boss, and your job requires you to fly on a regular basis, you better suck it up during work hours.

Couldn't help but thinking: "Just followed orders." Heard that somewhere before.

As far as I am concerned, he can go walk or swim (to overseas meetings ) but I take it he doesnt want that either