Tuesday, November 10, 2009

We're Doomed--A Continuing Series

UPDATE: below

A British Judge has upheld a previous administrative ruling that belief in climate change is akin to a religion:
An executive has won the right to sue his employer on the basis that he was unfairly dismissed for his green views after a judge ruled that environmentalism had the same weight in law as religious and philosophical beliefs.

In a landmark ruling, Mr Justice Michael Burton said that "a belief in man-made climate change . . . is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations".

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.

The decision regards Tim Nicholson, former head of sustainability at property firm Grainger plc, who claims he was made redundant [fired] in July 2008 due to his "philosophical belief about climate change and the environment".
Nicholson still must prove his claim; his former employer denies his beliefs were the reason for the firing.

Interestingly, the court rejected the employer's defense that environmentalism was "based on science, as opposed to religious or philosophical in nature." Because, at most, warming alarmism is political, not hard, science.

So, perhaps the judge has done us a favor: were the ruling repeated in America, would it make global warming a religion, and climate change legislation an unconstitutional "establishment of a religion"? Even if not unlawful, warming worries are a particularly illiberal belief, as Cox & Forkum depicted two-and-a-half years ago:

source: Cox & Forkum

Conclusion: In California, Catholic charities must subsidize birth control in employee health plans. In the U.K., employers can be sued for "failing to account for their [employees'] green lifestyles." The logic is incompatible; the constant is the outcome--liberals win.


From a November 12th AFP story:
The World Council of Churches on Thursday called on churches around the world to ring their bells 350 times during the Copenhagen climate change summit on December 13 as a call to action on global warming.

The leading council of Christian and Orthodox churches also invited places of worship for other faiths to join a symbolic "chain of chimes and prayers" stretching around the world from the international date line in the South Pacific.

"On that Sunday, midway through the UN summit, the WCC invites churches around the world to use their bells, drums, gongs or whatever their tradition offers to call people to prayer and action in the face of climate change," the council said in a statement.
(via Watts Up With That?, Buy The Truth, Planet Gore)


OBloodyHell said...

UK Judge Finds GW to be a Religion

I quote from the article:
However, he [Nicholson] did not believe that climate change was the new religion, because "it is based on scientific evidence, not faith or spirituality".

But the article also states:
Mr Justice Burton outlined five tests to determine whether a philosophical belief could come under employment regulations on religious discrimination:

* It must be a belief and not an opinion or view based on the present state of information available.

It's clear therefore that Nicholson himself does not believe it meets the judge's criteria.

If it is actually scientific, then it is based on facts or knowledge currently available, and should be subject to change based on "the present state of information available".

Q.E.D.: it's rather clear that the judge's ruling was inappropriate and incorrect from Nicholson's own statement about his own views.

Throw the bum out.

Hatless in Hattiesburg said...

Wait a sec, this might turn out to be a good thing...

If "global warming/cooling/climate change" is a religion, and liberals believe in the separation of church and state, that means they can't support greenies for public office any more!


OBloodyHell said...

> that means they can't support greenies for public office any more!

That's assuming they actually did, which they don't, or they'd be more adamant about separation of Islam and state, which is a whole 'nother ball of wax.

The only churches they object to are the ones associated with the star of david and the cross.