Dave, you're certainly the one that brought religion into the "debate" about environmentalism. It's a clever but thinly-deguised attempt to avoid discussing scientific facts. The claim that the term "fossil fuel" is a code word of some sort used by those in an environmental conspricy is a good example of your strange attempts at re-direction and redefinition. After checking a few online dictionaries, I found that the term fossil fuel is defined exactly as I meant to use it, ie, if refers to the hydrocarbon fuels that power the modern world, namely coal, oil and natural gas. There's no mention of religious meanings in any dictionary I've found so far, or on Wikipedia's comprehensive entry. Not sure how you make this connection, but it's one I don't understand.Originally Posted by Dave Cutter .
Environmentalism IS a religion... I don't define the words... I didn't and DON'T (normally) discuss religion on forums. YOU brought the religion (environmentalism) onto the forum.
I have YET to know of anyone who ever found a fossil... in natural gas. The term comes from the 1600's because so many fossils could be found in coal. Fossil fuel was meant to be a term that covered all the different names (and grades) for coal. Only the faithful religious call gas and oil fossil fuels.
Wow.... I am impressed that you have more sway and status in the environmental circles than Al Gore! Al says environmentalism must be accepted on faith.... but Mr Swampy knows better? I haven't seen your movie(s) or read of your awards in the movement... yet. I think I'll go with Al Gores idea! Just until you are also recognized as an leader in the religion... like Mr Gore.
Just to confirm, I checked the Shell Oil website and found they use the term as well. By way of example, here's the opening of a 2008 speech by a Shell exec:
"Since the marriage of fossil fuels and the internal combustion engine some hundred years ago, the fortunes of the energy and automotive industries have been tied together.
For the most part that marriage has been a force for good. But, along with the good, our products also have exacted social and environmental costs – costs that are increasingly unaffordable."
You might want to look up and read the rest of the speech....obviously it contains the views of tree-hugging environmentalists.
Again, I certainly don't worship Al Gore....no one said he was a climate or energy scientist. You seem to be fixated on Al Gore for some reason; again, a thin attempt at re-direction away from scientific facts.
Suppose you redefine words to mean whatever you want, or call environmentalism a religion, but that doesn't make it true. My conservation ethic and environmentalism have to do with science, not religion. Your thin attempt to redirect the debate away from science to "religious belief" is harmful, not helpful to determining the proper course of action for the future.