Science is a tool... and tools are meant to be used. Meant to be used by
scientists. Do you understand what the word scientist means? Now that we've established there is a group of people that use science who we call scientists, it should then be fairly easy (for most people at least) to understand that said group of people can have agreements on scientific issues and develop a consensus among the scientific community. So again, I ask you what your credentials are to go against what these people are saying about climate change?
Also, climate gate has been debunked for years, and leading scientists have been unequivocally reaffirming the consensus on global warming ever since.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/One of the features of the new-age religion being pumped is that it tries to elevate 'scientists' to a priest class who cannot be questioned by mere mortals. I call them 'scientpriests.'
There is a bumpy patch here in that some scientists don't necessarily cop to the official dogma at all times. It's a particularly large problem for scientists who have tenure, or Nobel prizes, or are independently wealthy. Or are simply fans of the scientific method in general and have some ethical principles. They have the basic foundation to become heretics, and a fraction of these will not do so quietly and privately. This is why the new-age religion needs to criminalize 'climate skepticism'
In point of actual fact, about 50% of mortals have the basic capability to understand scientific principles well enough to see right through the fraud, and a small fraction of these peeps will do just that. Many others will make the right decisions about who is credible and who huckster whether because they bought-off, intimidated, or have extra-scientific philosophical elements at play.
Although ecclesiastical history is not my specialty, the whole new-age religion thing as it relates to 'science' has interesting parallels to the Cathlic reaction to the Protestant reformation in my understanding of it. The Catholics had their priests who were the only ones authorize to read the bible (or read anything at all for that matter.) Then Martin Luther came along and said '
Hey, this is bullshit! Anyone can and should read the fuckin' thing for themselves and think about it!'
Not sure what you're getting at bringing religion into the conversation. Are you comparing today's climate change skeptics to the first scientists/philosophers that were killed for speaking their minds about science which was then seen as blasphemy? If I have you wrong which I think I do please correct me.