Or it could be we run in different circles.

Still, it seemed a hasty generalization to me, one that feeds into a general and negative stereotype that isn’t necessarily true.

Isn’t it odd that a lot of these folks build their arguments around misconstrued meanings of words? “Theory” is a great example. “Global warming (or evolution) is just a theory.” Of course, a scientific theory is actually pretty sound.

Here it’s “faith.” “Belief in global warming is like a religion, because it rests on faith.” According to Miriam-Webster’s, “faith” has three definitions: 1. Allegiance to duty or a person. 2. Firm belief in something for which there is no proof. 3. Something that is believed especially with strong conviction.

I suspect global warming deniers see our “faith” in global warming as the third definition, but really the second definition is more applicable to religion. Because isn’t that what religious faith is? Certainly that term does not apply to people who believe that the scientific communtiy is right on global warming.

I would quibble, however, with your sweeping claim that “lots of environmentalists” are yadda yadda. Who are you talking about? Those that, say, buy Sierra Club calendars and donate money to preserve charsimatic megafauna? Activists? College students with coffee cups clipped to their backpacks? My point is, some of the most knowledgeable people about environmental issues I know are “environmentalists.” In a post that’s artfully crafted in reason, it’s a shame to see a sweeping and prejudiced generalization mar the force of the argument.

My inner thief has returned!…

And that is why Global Warming is a religion, because it claims that Global Warming, unlike gravity, is not just a theory but a fact that is above falsification.

Who claims that? Certainly not climate scientists. Even environmentalists seem to avoid going that far. Lots of people claim that the issue is settled scientifically, which I would mostly agree with, but saying that something hasn’t been falsified and that something isn’t falsifiable are two different claims.

Those models are already failing to predict the weather, and we are barely a decade into their operation. If they are failing from the very start there is strong reason to deny their soundness.

I don’t know exactly what you’re referring to, but climate isn’t weather. Weather is a very low level and stochastic phenomenon. Climate is high level; we’re talking about predicting trends, overall temperatures. A climate model missing a day that it rains is irrelevant (nor do they typically even get into that kind of detail).