Are Dissenting Global Warming Opinions Immoral?

The religion of global warming has now entered a new hysterical phase. Questions abound STILL on the exact causes, the actual amount of impact and responses, if necessary, for global warming and these questions and new problems with the current Al Gore static model will probably keep arising for decades, if it lasts that long.

So, the new tactic for the advocates for global warming is to reject or demonize those that demonstrate even scientific evidence that does not fit the advocacy's model dismissing them as immoral and therefore not worthy of consideration.

It is one thing to write these dissenting opinions off as factually false, but this is apparently no longer regarded as adequate by the global warming advocates. The dissent keeps popping up, it backed by some very reputable people wielding very credible facts, and the availability of alternate information outlets has made it impossible to smother the doubters and dissenters.


Now enter the moral angle. If global warming is now a moral matter, it would seem to suggest an associated implication that these inconvenient viewpoints are immoral. Apparently it is now the duty of "good" people to reject these opinions on this "moral" basis and without regard to whether they are factually true or false.

The biggest problem with the current global warming advocates religious-like position and the focus and application of the "moral" aspects of that position will most likely lead to misappropriation of resources driven by government intervention responding to political considerations. Government solutions, incorporating some real science and many political positions will most likely result inadequate, wrong or over-arching intervention.

But read the whole argument in the link above.