Excerpts From Roy Spencer's Climate Confusion (pgs 96-102)

One of the definitions for religion in Webster’s dictionary is “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.”  While global warming is a legitimate area of scientific study, those who believe in the catastrophic view of manmade global warming might best be described as religious disciples.

For them, human interference in the climate system is evil.  Without mankind the Earth would be undefiled.  Our use of natural resources is a transgression against our Mother Earth.

Global warming as “bad” is a philosophical or religious belief, not a scientific one.  As I mentioned before, science doesn’t care whether the Earth is warming, cooling or staying the same. 

Does the Earth have some divine right to remain untouched by mankind?  Why are all other parts of nature allowed to influence the climate system, but not humans? 

The Earth apparently has a "right to be free of human influence.  But "rights" are a uniquely human construct. I hate to sound harsh but forests and other forms of life on Earth have no rights, except for the ones that humans might want to confer upon them.  We all love polar bears but why do they continue to infringe on the rights of seals!?

These elements of nature have value only because humans value them, not because the environment has some basic right to remain undisturbed.

The religious reverence some have for the environment is probably best categorized as Paganism.  While there are many variations of Pagan beliefs, they typically involve the Earth, life and all the cosmos being part of one spiritual being.  

Al Gore's first book, Earth in the Balance:  Ecology and the Human Spirit,  addressed the spiritual connection that Mr. Gore has with the environment.  The theme of that book is anti-technology, and mankind is religiously viewed as a destroyer of the environment rather than a species that happens to depend upon a wide variety of natural resources for it to thrive.  While Mr. Gore is a Baptist, some of his writings and speeches to environmental groups sound more Pagan than Christian.  

I'm not demonizing Paganism.  As a religious belief system, it is peaceful and optimistic.  I'm only pointing out that such beliefs regarding humanity's relationship to nature are inherently religious.  

In 1982, the founder of Greenpeace, Paul Watson wrote of his religious environmental awakening:

"I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shot birds."

The belief that global warming is a serious threat to mankind and the environment has been described as having a striking similarity to the Biblical paradigm of sin, guilt and the need for redemption.  The author Michael Crichton has done a brilliant job of artiulating the modern secularist's subconscious need for religion in his life, as evidenced by the secularist's reverence for the environment.  In a 2003 speech, Crichton summarized these parallels between modern environmentalism and the Judeo-Christian belief system:

"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"