As do all those other shibboleths

Climate change believers most certainly hold that belief based on faith, rather than science.

Just like religion.

I believe in a free republic. Tilting at windmills...

I believe that Kilimanjaro should be returned to its natural state, that which existed 12,000 years ago, pre-glacier...

I'm surprised you can write, since you evidently can't read.

Try again.

let me get this straight--the people that respond to the overwhelming scientific consensus are merely dupes, and the climate scientists are all frauds--why doesn't this apply to gravity and evolution, etc. please explain why climate scientists are, in this view, almost all corrupt.

Criminally. If you smash the enemy in the face long enough, he stops being an enemy.

Freedom of religion should (and arguably does) cover a "faith" in facts and in the basic utility of the scientific method. This is particularly important given the increased persecution of people with practitioners of that "faith" in the US during the previous Administration.

Just one look around should convince anyone with an open mind:

The snows on Kilimanjaro are just as they have always been.

The Arctic Ice Cap is not melting.

Polar bears are not attempting to deal with a warmer climate.

The vineyards of France have not moved north.

Heavy weather is not increasing.

Migration patterns are not changing.

Insects are not coming north earlier.

Glaciers are not retreating.

None of these things are happening, nor the myriad other "documented" truths by legions of scientists--they are all, all, in a grand conspiracy together to deceive you, because they know that an economy based on renewable energy sources will lead inevitably--inevitably--to a Marxist state, and make your stock in BP worthless to boot.

And besides, even if global warming were occurring, we didn't cause it. And even if we did, there's nothing we can do about it--we are helpless in the face of the nature, it says so right in the Bible, so it must be true.

That's a scientific fact, just like gravity or electricity, but not like evolution or global warming, which are not true, because if they were true it would disprove the Bible, which just can't happen.

Oh, and the earth is flat. And giants walked the earth in those days, along with the sons of God. These are scientific facts, too, because they appear on the Internet and in the Creation Museum, and the Bible says so.

And there were days before God created the Sun. And the Moon gives off its own light--it says so, right in Genesis.

All of these things are scientifically true and testable, just as global warming is not.

Now show us that all those things are overwhelmingly caused because of CO2....

What I was trying to point out in my letter is that we don't know what the appropriate climate is. Has man polluted his atmosphere? Of course! Should we be doing more? Of course! Should we be living more green and in a more sustainable manner? Of course!

That said, what does climate change mean? Almost all of the things you mention have a precedence in history, and before man could have been influencing them. That's an inconvenient truth. Both believers and non-believers pick and choose the data that support their view. In my opinion too many of the non-believers don't/won't look at the long term impacts and sustainability of their lifestyle, and too many of the believers don't question anything that's fed to them. To out right dismiss the suns impact on our temperature is foolish, just as to deny that we are impacting our earth is foolish. The question in my mind is, to what extent are we impacting the earth, a lot? A little? Somewhere in between? To claim to know the answer to this is to misrepresent the facts.

The point is, the climate is always changing how much of the change is natural and how much is man made? Leif Ericson landed on Greenland when there was no ice. What does that mean? Its cooler now than it was then. What does that mean? What temperature should the earth be at? The avg. temp of the 90s? the 80s? the 70s? 100 years ago? 200? 500? Who the hell do we think we are that we know what the earth should or should not be doing right now? Its the attitude of the believers that irritate us the most. Sometimes its like talking to a creationist...

The discipline was once called “natural philosophy”. Science-based reasoning is a philosophy (love of wisdom) but that does not make it a religion (re-connecting, as with the divine).

Thank you...

I am starting a petition to study how to stop space and time permanently, since that is the only way that climate change can be solved for...

If science is a philosophy that says that, for certain areas of knowledge at least, a certain type of experimental materialism is the only or best way to proceed constructing a reliable body of knowledge, then any theory or proof or demonstration following the scientific method would also full under the category of a philosophical belief. The philosophical premise of science is that when experiments that are repeatable and repeated continue to show the same results under controlled conditions, then we can assume that there is causation and that that causation holds true throughout the entire universe where those control conditions (or something close to them) apply. So, as a simple factual judgment, the judge ruled correctly.

Whether the person was fired for simply believing in the scientific method is questionable though, because it's a jump to say that believing in the scientific method meant that his company had to put some sort of climate change policy in place - if a Jew said that his religious belief that pork is not for human consumption meant that the company he worked at had to inspect every area of the facilities for pork, then that wouldn't necessarily qualify as a religious belief, because it's a step beyond his belief.

Thank you, well put in your first letter.