Other Answers (19)

• Both sides have their zealots like any large debate, but on average %26quot;believers %26quot; tend to post links to genuine data and information, while many deniers just make statements (jello) with little or no supporting evidence or post links to blogs like the %26#039;Watts%26#039; site or the hundreds of other similar sites that seem to have sprung up recently and seem to exist to quote each other with sourceless of mis-quoted data.
  Stating that %26quot;scientific consensus%26quot; should not be trusted makes no sense who else is going to give the facts most of the rest of the world doesn%26#039;t know one end of the climate from the other.
  http://www.dvgu.ru/meteo/library/3076000...
  http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...
  http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...
  http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN%26amp;cp...
  http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008...
  
  

• Answer hidden due to its low rating

  Which side of the global warming %26#039;debate%26#039; is truly more like a religion?
  
  Definitely the %26#039;Warmers%26#039; side.

• Answer hidden due to its low rating

  Absolutely the AGW proponents and environmentalist. Surely you have heard all about Gaia. You know, mother earth.

• Answer hidden due to its low rating

  Global Warming is all about power over others
  Liberals want to tell people not to drive your car
  hang your underware on the line.
  don%26#039;t eat meat because of the cow farts LOL

• Answer hidden due to its low rating

  Environmentalist...the god of this next 100 years.

• Answer hidden due to its low rating

  I remember the woman in the U.K. that had an abortion just to %26quot;ease her carbon footprint on this world%26quot;.
  Sounds more like a cult to me.

• Answer hidden due to its low rating

  So now Ken has concluded that I am religious because I correctly point out that alarmists are almost always from the left, i.e. liberal in the modern sense (in other words socialist). I would love to have odds in Vegas that you, Ken, and Bob all are going to vote Obama. That would be easy money. Just when you think alarmists couldn%26#039;t get any more absurd with thier claims, they come up with something new.
  
  Being skeptical of a religion isn%26#039;t the same thing as being religious. In fact it is nearly the opposite; however, I do think there are athiest that behave in an irrational way that may be analogous to some blindly religious people but then again those types probably mostly believe in AGW also. I have been around for a while and during that time, I have realized that having a belief system seems to be fundamental to the human psyche. Do some alarmist behave like they are blindly religious, basing most of their facts on faith, forming their opinions based on a belief system, and trying to push their faith on others? Of course. Are their skeptics of global warming that are also religious? It is a much harder argument to make IMO.

• Answer hidden due to its low rating

  Dana, your very use of the word %26quot;denier%26quot; speaks for itself.
  
  Like a religious fanatic, believers categorically ignore any evidence contrary to what they believe.
  
  Like a religious fanatic, believers ignore the misdeeds of their leaders, even when they lie, exaggerate, misrepresent, or otherwise mislead.
  
  Like a religious fanatic, believers condemn anyone who disagrees with them, regardless of the reason.
  
  Like a religious fanatic, believers promote their agenda without pursuing truth.
  
  Like a religious fanatic, believers attack those who do not follow their beliefs by calling them names, such as heretic or %26quot;denier%26quot;.
  
  Like a religious fanatic, believers are not open to being wrong - skeptics are open to being wrong, we just need more reliable science.
  
  Like a religious fanatic, believers do not actively try to disprove their belief. Scientific method dictates that we try to disprove theories, not look for supporting evidence.
  
  I see people on both sides of the debate who make unintelligent and uninformed statements, yet you only recognize skeptics as making unintelligent statements. How many believers cite consensus as being truth which is a logical fallacy. Cite CO2 levels increased, then the temperature went up therefore CO2 caused global warming - also a logical fallacy. How many believers ask - %26quot;haven%26#039;t you seen Al Gore%26#039;s movie?%26quot; as if that is a holy book with all the answers.
  
  There are plenty of people on both sides who do not cite scientific evidence, yet you only attribute this to one side.
  
  Many of us skeptics do cite scientific evidence, which is always refuted by concensus. Believers like to play %26quot;I have more scientists%26quot; or %26quot;My scientist is better than your scientist%26quot;.