A prominent Australian politician has been very vocal in voicing his often extreme religiosity in the past and recently has become the 'face' of one side of the Climate Change Debate (CC-) in Australia.
It's a stretch but I had thought that perhaps said politician is having his revenge on the 'bad' scientists who make his faith 'hard'. He is welcome to his faith, but faith-driven politics is not healthy in any - if you'll excuse the pun - climate.
It's interesting to me how any 'faith' in any CC science is derided as delusional and 'illogical' by CC-. This irrelevant of how much 'proof' is provided. Proportionally speaking a few 'pagans' offering convenient views are celebrated by CC- as 'true prophets'.
I'd be interested to see how the demographics on CC play out amongst those more 'into' faith. We hear a bit about blue vs white collar, metro vs cow kickers, old vs young, Left vs Right, etc but not much about the 'faithers' vs the 'going-to-hellers'.
The big mistake of CC+ is to use 'denier', 'believer' and other such loaded words to push points... there's nothing worst that prodding religious extremists with terms like 'heretic'. They do tend to then 'prove' their faith with more conviction.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment