This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
Dr Roberto Soria from the International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research does a rather satirical post on Naomi Oreskes "Sermon" at Curtin University , Perth
It's a pity that the AGW sceptic blogging commumity doesn't publish more material like that. It certainly 'rattles' the Greenies when they get accused of being a religious-type movement, a fairly recent example being an article published in the Guardian by BusinessGreen's editor James Murray.
The article seems to have been a reaction to a couple of unusual instances in previous weeks where the Guardian had published something relating to the 'environmentalism is a religion' gibe, the first being in an interview with James Lovelock, and the second being by a Guardian columnist called Simon Hoggart which endorsed Lovelock's view. Presumably Murray is trying to bring the issue to the attention of the Guardian's editors and sub-editors, in the possible hope that they may try to stamp out any further publication of what he regards as a damaging view.
From my experience most AGW sceptics do regard the AGW movement as being some sort of religion, or something at least similar to a religion, like a 'madness of the crowd'. However not many AGW sceptic blogs push this line of argument, possibly because it might be seen as being a bit too 'ad hominem'. Out of the blogs I read fairly regularly, the only one that pushes the 'AGW/environmentalism is a religion' angle to any extent is the 'Tory Aardvark' blog.
Contrast this restrained behaviour with that of the Greenies, who use various propaganda lines against AGW sceptics on a routine basis. Examples of these lines of propaganda are the frequent accusation of AGW sceptics being in the pay of fossil fuel industries, the use of the term 'denier' to suggest an association with holocaust deniers, and their strong tendency to deliberately ignore the important distinction between natural and man-made global warming (AGW sceptics go to quite a bit of trouble to clarify their position in using acronyms like AGW and CAGW, but I don't remember seeing any Greenie or environmental journalist use these acronyms).
On the "global warming as a religion" theme, Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, has been rumoured to have taken to calling the green lobby within the Government and the Conservative Party the "environmental Taliban". As I said in my previous post, the Greenies get quite rattled by this sort of thing, and Britain's four main Green NGOs, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the RSPB and WWF-UK, have recently written a joint letter to him asking him to clarify the situation.
If Osborne is likening climate change campaigners to the Taliban, that is, I think, a more apt term for describing their assertiveness and the potentially ruinous consequences of following their advice than comparing them to a religion.
I remember they used to have a much more liberal attitude years ago in regard to imposing Greenery on the rest of us. For example back in the 1970s they used to advocate renewable energy only in terms of it being "off grid" electricity generated by householders. Renewable energy was even called "soft energy" by its main advocate, Amory Lovins, in the 1970s to reflect the idea that it was regarded as an easier way to generate electricity than the supposedly more complicated "hard energy path" of large power stations and electricity distribution networks provided by the military-industrial complex. But since the 1990s the Greenies have decided to impose renewable energy on everybody via what they used to call the hard energy path.