|
Post by stevenotsteve on Nov 4, 2009 22:09:13 GMT
As the lunacy continues, the UK courts have agreed that 'Climate Change' can be now be considered as a Religion. Now that the science pretense has gone, do you think more 'Real Scientists' will be willing to speak out against this nonsense?
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Nov 5, 2009 1:32:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 5, 2009 3:59:14 GMT
No, they said it was a philosophical belief based on the moral imperatives resulting from a belief that AGW science is well-founded:
In today's ruling, Mr Justice Michael Burton decided that: "A belief in man-made climate change, and the alleged resulting moral imperatives, is capable if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations." Under those regulations it is unlawful to discriminate against a person on the grounds of their religious or philosophical beliefs.
And Gore's presentations don't create religion either. They're reading of traditional scripture and how it speaks to the current state of the world.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 5, 2009 4:10:23 GMT
No, they said it was a philosophical belief based on the moral imperatives resulting from a belief that AGW science is well-founded: In today's ruling, Mr Justice Michael Burton decided that: "A belief in man-made climate change, and the alleged resulting moral imperatives, is capable if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations." Under those regulations it is unlawful to discriminate against a person on the grounds of their religious or philosophical beliefs. And Gore's presentations don't create religion either. They're reading of traditional scripture and how it speaks to the current state of the world. Only in Britian.....Only in Britian. I am beginning to think it would have been better to let the Germans have them.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Nov 5, 2009 6:15:42 GMT
No, they said it was a philosophical belief based on the moral imperatives resulting from a belief that AGW science is well-founded: In today's ruling, Mr Justice Michael Burton decided that: "A belief in man-made climate change, and the alleged resulting moral imperatives, is capable if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations." Under those regulations it is unlawful to discriminate against a person on the grounds of their religious or philosophical beliefs. And Gore's presentations don't create religion either. They're reading of traditional scripture and how it speaks to the current state of the world. Only in Britian.....Only in Britian. I am beginning to think it would have been better to let the Germans have them. The Germans did get them. The current royal family IS of German origin: www.fpp.co.uk/online/05/01/Royal_Nazis.html
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 5, 2009 7:26:55 GMT
Australia will follow suit. We always do.
|
|
|
Post by mondeoman on Nov 5, 2009 9:21:33 GMT
No, they said it was a philosophical belief based on the moral imperatives resulting from a belief that AGW science is well-founded: And thats the rub - science isn't "belief" based, its fact based. If you have to "believe" the science, then it isn't science you believe in, its something totally different - in this case its probably a latent desire to be able to feel morally superior to his co-workers that previously would have resulted in him being one of the more pious church-goers, but with the failure of main-stream religion, people like this have latched on to the green/environmental movement as their superiority sop.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Nov 5, 2009 10:42:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 5, 2009 12:02:58 GMT
The law was a bad law. People who are sacked for no reason other than their belief system should defend themselves on the basis that they were sacked for no reasonable reason, not on the basis that the reason was religious or whatever.
I expect the Telegraph were one of the papers who were campaigining to have this stupid law in the first place.
I, personally, would accept that an acceptance that the science on CO2 is overwhelming can be a separate issue from a belief that we should be trying to do something about it, and that the latter is a moral, ethical issue which is presumably what this case is about.
Just to point out though, the guy was employed to promote the "green credentials" of the organisation which apparently were so much Greenwash - so it isn't the same as someone trying to foist personal beliefs on to co-workers.
|
|
|
Post by stevenotsteve on Nov 5, 2009 19:20:21 GMT
matt. No, they said it was a philosophical belief based on the moral imperatives resulting from a belief that AGW science is well-founded:
Well he said that to the reporters for a bit of TV air time but wasn't this the same judge that ruled that the science used in Al Gores movie was flawed. As a denier I think the guy is making a mistake for the green agenda. If he wins, I could apply for a job to promote the "green credentials" of a company as my 'religion' would just be a variant of his own (minus the CO2) as we all want to keep the planet unpolluted for our kids. I could then sue the company if they rejected my application.
Maybe I should have just become a lawyer and made money from both sides.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Nov 6, 2009 3:43:08 GMT
And thats the rub - science isn't "belief" based, its fact based. If you have to "believe" the science, then it isn't science you believe in, its something totally different - in this case its probably a latent desire to be able to feel morally superior to his co-workers that previously would have resulted in him being one of the more pious church-goers, but with the failure of main-stream religion, people like this have latched on to the green/environmental movement as their superiority sop. No, Science isn't "Fact" based. It is simply "Knowledge"- and knowledge is right or wrong. Not wanting to divert this into a discussion on epistemology, but there is no such thing as a brute fact, that is, a fact that stands on its own. Every fact is (in fact!) part of an interpretive framework. There is the famous quote "What my net doesn't catch isn't fish". All Science then shares the same fundamental processes as a religion. There are always unproven & unprovable pre-suppositions that the observer accepts as a starting point. This is why the two (or more!) sides in the whole AGW debate are so inflexible. There is no such thing as the neutral, impartial, Scientific observer. That is just a Myth. A good scientist is aware of his own bias, and approaches his work with a healthy skepticism. Most scientists have NOT been trained in critical thinking, the philosophy of science, or Epistemology (the study of knowledge itself). So, the Data itself ISNT factual. It has been collected and recorded (and sifted) because of a pre-existing supposition. We can measure anything, but we choose to measure certain things (else we would be overwhelmed with information.) This choosing of the "facts" inserts them into an interpretation. Science IS opinion, and any "fact" is arguable. Not much difference to Religion at all! ;D
|
|
|
Post by sentient on Nov 6, 2009 4:48:37 GMT
What he said.
|
|
|
Post by thingychambers69 on Nov 6, 2009 18:41:31 GMT
No, they said it was a philosophical belief based on the moral imperatives resulting from a belief that AGW science is well-founded: In today's ruling, Mr Justice Michael Burton decided that: "A belief in man-made climate change, and the alleged resulting moral imperatives, is capable if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations." Under those regulations it is unlawful to discriminate against a person on the grounds of their religious or philosophical beliefs. And Gore's presentations don't create religion either. They're reading of traditional scripture and how it speaks to the current state of the world. Only in Britian.....Only in Britian. I am beginning to think it would have been better to let the Germans have them. Hold on there!! We are not all nuts you know.
|
|
|
Post by thingychambers69 on Nov 6, 2009 18:59:09 GMT
Surely this is one bullet in the foot of the AGW movement.
Its really sad.
This company should not be getting in trouble because a former employee disagreed with company policy. Why did the idiot stay there if he had a problem? i do hope this ruling is overuled.
Personally, I think they fired him 'cause he was a cock.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 7, 2009 13:59:26 GMT
Kiwistonewall
That's rubbish. Science looks at findings that are based on assumptions. But any of those assumptions can be challenged. A good scientist promoting a finding will also make clear what the assumptions were, what supports the assumptions and also what might not support the assumptions. The next person can come along and then challenge the assumptions either to confirm, modify or falsify the original findings.
Even the greatest professor in the world can be challenged by the most lowly graduate student.
Religion is based on a hierarchical appeal to authority, and relatively fixed creeds and fixed moral codes (eg. the Nicene creed which is 1700 years old) which are not to be challenged.
You could now make some predictable comments on the fixed creeds of AGW, and the high priests Al Gore and James Hansen, or you could compare, say, the 4 IPCC reports and see the many things that have changed in the science in under 20 years. Not even the Anglican church changes that quickly.
thingychambers69, I understand that the former employee agreed with company policy, but the boss didn't. If the boss wants to shut down the department and make all the staff redundant, he has some entitlement to do so - but then he needs to make a public case. Sacking someone because they are doing their job too well though is not on. Cf. various risk analysts sacked by their banks in the run up to the credit crunch.
|
|