Since the Liberal Democrat man-hating nut-job Senator from Hawaii has admitted that warmism is a religion and not a science....it seems almost excessive to point out the evidence against the scam....but it is fun.
1. Anyone can listen and will hear her say it is a religion, not science.
Here is Hirono saying it herself:
"...it's a religion, it's not a science."
Right at 0:37 seconds.
2. "All Roads to Big Bear Closed After Storm Drops 4 Feet of Snow Ahead of Resort’s Opening Day Friday"
All Roads to Big Bear Closed After Storm Drops 4 Feet of Snow Ahead of Resort’s Opening Day Friday
3. "Snow falls in the Las Vegas Valley one day after Thanksgiving"
https://www.fox5vegas.com/news/local/snow-falls-in-the-las-vegas-valley-one-day-after/article_1a33168c-1339-11ea-a74b-ffd06c7e99ca.html
I say we need an intervention for the greeniacs!!!
The belief in "caring for the planet", and in taxations and other policies of no demonstrable effectiveness, is a religion, I'd agree - it may be based on science, but the rest is philosophy or faith-based axioms which has been around since the 1800s and before, as part of the secular Humanist manifesto, as well as other political philosophies, such as utilitarianism and so forth.
Most climate activists are not scientists, and are hostile toward scientists and scientific information which disagrees with their worldview, not to mention dishonestly conflating proposals on how to manage global warming concerns with the science or data which it is based on.
Actually, it is far worse.
It is not based on science, it is based on the desire for global dominance by Marxist views.
Integral with Marxism is atheism, and it is no coincidence that 'Earth Day' is on Lenin's birthday.
The Marxist 'religion' is pantheism, leading to the worship of government.
Here is the NYTimes advancing the pre-biblical paganism of earth-worship.
"The Earth Is Just as Alive as You Are
Scientists once ridiculed the idea of a living planet. Not anymore.
Life in the Amazon does not simply receive rain — it summons it.
Faced with this preponderance of evidence, it is time to revive an idea that was once roundly mocked: the
Gaia hypothesis. Conceived by the British chemist James Lovelock in the early 1970s and later developed with the American biologist Lynn Margulis, the Gaia hypothesis proposes that all the living and nonliving elements of Earth are “parts and partners of a vast being who in her entirety has the power to maintain our planet as a fit and comfortable habitat for life.”
Over time, however, scientific opposition to Gaia waned. In his early writing, Dr. Lovelock occasionally granted Gaia too much agency, which encouraged the misperception that the living Earth was yearning for some optimal state. But the essence of his hypothesis — the idea that life transforms and in many cases regulates the planet — proved prescient and profoundly true. We and all living creatures are not just inhabitants of Earth, we are Earth — an outgrowth of its physical structure and an engine of its global cycles. Although some scientists still recoil at the mention of Gaia, these truths have become part of mainstream science.
“It’s definitely time to revisit Gaia,” said Adam Frank, an astrophysicist at the University of Rochester."
Opinion | The Earth Is Just as Alive as You Are
