"the Climate Change movement has become a church unto itself. And one that does not treat potential Martin Luthers kindly."

Constructing climate change deniers as the new civil rights activists. What a fucked up logic.

LOL, Martin Luther: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

Martin Luther. Not Martin Luther King, Jr.

Were to so eager to flame me that you couldn't be bothered to read my post properly?

I guess it doesn't make any difference with which Luther you compare climate change deniers, it is dumb anyway.

Thank you for providing such obvious evidence in support of my argument with your actions.

I had wondered if my post would have spawned a lengthy discussion in which I would have to properly assemble a series of arguments with supporting links as rebuttals. But to have my point so clearly illustrated right out of the gate...oh, what a gift!

>Were to so eager to flame me that you couldn't be bothered to read my post properly?

Yes, as well as reflexively downvote. Please enjoy the irony of what you wrote and the subsequent reaction.

(FWIW, I upvoted your comment)

Thought the same myself. More often than not, it all comes across like climate change is some vengeful god who we must sacrifice for and express an unshakable belief in.

Would love to see more pragmatism and less dogma. I think that would help.

This is ridiculous. Saying that we have to stop putting so much CO2 in the air is not a vengeful god, it's just the facts. Wanting the sea levels to not rise and displace millions of people from their homes is pragmatism. You are the one who is putting ideology above facts.

What ideology am I putting above facts? Where did I say I wanted the sea level to rise?

Your stance that people trying to mitigate global warming are acting like "climate change is some vengeful god who we must sacrifice for and express an unshakable belief in." is ideology. Your denial of the scientific consensus is ideology. Your coming here to post in an expression of your ideology. It doesn't matter if you want the sea levels to rise or are just in denial of the facts and think they won't.

> It doesn't matter if you want the sea levels to rise or are just in denial of the facts and think they won't.

Then it doesn't matter what I write, or say, you can divine my true beliefs?

Sounds a little bit like...the clergy! :)

Of course it matters what you write, it's just your motivation for what you write isn't really relevant. I don't know if you are just some edgy guy hanging out trying to rile people up, some true believer who's sincerely thinks climate change is a hoax, or somewhere in between. The great thing about science is things are true or false on their own.

Also clergy don't think they can magically divine people's true beliefs unless you are talking about D&D, so you really need to work on your metaphors.

There isn't any dogma yet to see. The only thing happening is pragmatism in the form "Let us see, maybe it will not be too bad."

I disagree. There are those that work on sustainable, inexpensive, and not environmentally damaging energy production. This kind of work is pragmatic, as it approaches the problem as one we can solve.

There are also those that seek to punctuate the discussion and create strawmen, like yourself - that's the dogma side :)

The scientific and technological approach to these problem is pragmatic, of course. In the most parts of the world dogmatic science was abolished after the middle age.

So I don't know what your comment actually tries to communicate, apart of this strawmen thing, which itself is a strawmen.

>The only thing happening is pragmatism in the form "Let us see, maybe it will not be too bad."

>The scientific and technological approach to these problem is pragmatic

Which is it?

I tried to explain that technological approaches are pragmatic anyway. However, a technological solution isn't in sight currently, therefore a political solution would be necessary to buy more time. And I can't currently see any dogmatic political actions anywhere. But as you seem to be convinced that "there is too much dogma" you surely could, couldn't you?

Who here or in the article is trying to stop discussion on sustainable energy? Or do you think that somehow talking about Arctic ice melting is somehow impeding energy research?