“it is a form of religion”

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on August 6th, 2017 at 02:09 pm

Besides bringing snow to Toronto – “the first significant snowfall in the area” this season, in fact; the Gore Effect is irreversible – Al Gore’s University of Toronto lecture brought forth impressive statements of faith from global warmening believers:

“From my perspective, it is a form of religion,” said Bruce Crofts, 69, as he held a banner aloft for the East Toronto Climate Action Group amid a lively prelecture crowd outside the old hall. “The religion for this group is doing something for the environment.”

“It was not our intention to have a religious approach,” ecoSanity group founder Glenn MacIntosh said, “but it was our understanding that it was that kind of movement that people were craving; that kind of spiritual connection in their gut.”

This reckless “spiritual connection” talk really steams the guys at treehugger.com:

I would urge even those people for whom environmentalism *feels* like a religion to refrain from describing it as such.

Splitters! Meanwhile, barely any criticism from our Holy Herbivores over Al Gore’s Gaia-whuppin’ concert plans; do read Joe Carter’s carbon audit on these egomaniacal eco-events.

(Via Small Dead Animals which observes: “It’s important to note that one important variable has not been included. With the Gore Effect factored in, one can anticipate at least half of the planned events will be cancelled due to cold.”)

Posted by Tim B. on 02/25/2007 at 08:31 AM
    1. 4 Corners is going to be running a Canadian-sourced Auto da Fe’ for Heating Heretics tomorrow night at 8.30- I for one challenge the Inquisitors to do their worst, I shall never recant and accept the Word of the Goracle! (That’s if they can make it throught the snowdrifts).

      I expect this is an example of the new balance of views at the ABC- run an endless series of polemic, evidence-free tripe promoting climbing celcius catastrophe, then to put the other side of the argument, a hatchet job on anyone who disagrees; Goebbels would be so proud.

      Posted by Habib on 2007 02 25 at 08:47 AM • permalink


    1. I wish to give my thanks to Ms. Harris and Mr. Blair for opening up registration and allowing me to join your movement. I promise to respect the Peaceful Australian Community Online.

      Posted by rebarbarian on 2007 02 25 at 08:52 AM • permalink


    1. #2 I promise to respect the Peaceful Australian Community Online.

      Hah!  You just haven’t got to know us yet.

      As for the Goracle and his Church of the Holy Heating, his effect is still being felt down south, as we’re experiencing freezing rain and sleet.  I wish he’d just get a television gig like all those other guys with the big hair, and stay home (whichever mansion in whatever state that is).

      (Loved that picture of St. Al)

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2007 02 25 at 09:17 AM • permalink


    1. Say, when St. Al gives a sermon speech about the Holy Heating, is he engaging in “goratory”?

      (Sorry, Perfesser, I couldn’t resist making another word up)

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2007 02 25 at 09:31 AM • permalink


    1. All hail Goricus Maximus!

      In victus, dominus ominus.  (does anyone have some incense?)

      Posted by blogagog on 2007 02 25 at 09:41 AM • permalink


    1. From the TreeHugger article – We are fundamentally against change, and things that cause it

      You mean like the earths orbital cycle?  The suns sunspot cycles?  Maybe this will be the next protest organised by the socialist alliance:

      – What do we want?
      – When do we want it??
      – NOW!!!

      Posted by bondo on 2007 02 25 at 09:58 AM • permalink


    1. From a Michael Crichton speech (available at his website):

      If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

      There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

      Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday—-these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don’t want to talk anybody out of them, as I don’t want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don’t want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can’t talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.

      And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren’t necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It’s about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.

      Posted by Mystery Meat on 2007 02 25 at 10:32 AM • permalink


    1. #1 Here’s some more background on Suzuki’s foundation that you probably won’t be told by 4 Corners, Habib:

      Posted by andycanuck on 2007 02 25 at 11:41 AM • permalink


    1. #2 I promise to respect the Peaceful Australian Community Online.


      Hah!  You just haven’t got to know us yet.

      I doubt the acronym is a coincidence….

      Posted by debo.v2 on 2007 02 25 at 12:38 PM • permalink


    1. Particular Acronym Construction Obvious

      Posted by triticale on 2007 02 25 at 12:59 PM • permalink


    1. Splitters!

      I think that you meant schism, Tim, primarily in the ecclesiastical sense.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 02 25 at 01:15 PM • permalink


    1. At PACO, Positive Acceptance of Comments Online is in our name. (As long as all monthly fees are paid on time.)

      Posted by andycanuck on 2007 02 25 at 02:16 PM • permalink


    1. Check out one of their defenses against charges of religiosity:

      “We should become the new conservatives, the defenders of the status quo. We like things the way they are- cold winters, tolerable summers, stable water levels, cute polar bears. We are fundamentally against change, and things that cause it (like coal plants, low density suburbs and big SUV’s).”

      Yes, that’s right – they’re terrified of change. Clutching fearfully to the status quo. I do believe that’s another slam we’ve always made against them, and sure enough, they embrace it.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2007 02 25 at 02:41 PM • permalink


    1. “I think that you meant schism, Tim, primarily in the ecclesiastical sense.”

      Actually I think he’s making a Marxist/Communist (especially Chinese) reference.  Splittist (as I remember it, not splitter) was one of their favorite words, back in the day.

      Example 1

      Example 2

      Example 3

      And here’s a more light-hearted look at the topic of splittists

      Example 4

      And here’s who they are talking about:

      More or less safe for work

      Posted by kcom on 2007 02 25 at 03:15 PM • permalink


    1. three words: “Life of Brian.”  jeez…

      Posted by dub kitty on 2007 02 25 at 04:55 PM • permalink


    1. Section 116 of the Australian constitution:

      The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

      So any attempt to make us pay a carbon tax could be construed as imposing a religious observance?  Be interesting to see that question argued over in court.

      Posted by Janice on 2007 02 25 at 08:04 PM • permalink


Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.