It’s official -- putting plastic bottles into the recycling bin or going on a Greenpeace demo is akin to having a religious experience.
Rupert Dickinson, who was made redundant by a London property company, claimed that it had discriminated against him on account of his subscription to the theory of man-made global warming and other environmental issues which he said constituted a ‘philosophical’ belief.
In any rational universe, he would be sent away with a flea in his ear for trying it on. But this is not such a world. At an Employment Appeal Tribunal Mr Justice Burton ruled that because of his belief in climate change Dickinson was entitled to the same protection against discrimination as someone with religious convictions.
How hilarious is this?! When sceptics like me observe that man-made global warming resembles religious zealotry because it is a dogmatic belief which has nothing to do with actual as opposed to pseudo-science, we are dismissed as anti-science flat-earthers. Yet now Mr Justice Burton has laid down that it is a philosophical ‘belief’ which has the same status as belief in a religion.
Two steps led to this remarkable conclusion. The first was the law: to be precise, the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 which says people must not be discriminated against on account of their religion or belief – and ‘belief’ is defined as including ‘philosophy’ or ‘absence of belief’.
The effect of this is to downgrade religion because it elevates other ideas to the same status. Indeed it would appear that just about any idea system however bizarre can lay claim to equal status on this basis. Christians are up in arms and no wonder, since it down-grades real religion as a result. Which is the inevitable consequence of the relativist ideology behind this spurious doctrine of equivalence.
The second step was the judge’s decision that man-made global warming was a philosophy. Rejecting the argument advanced by John Bowers QC that Bertrand Russell, in his History of Western Philosophy, had defined philosophy as inhabiting a no man’s land between science and theology, the judge said belief in man-made global warming was a philosophy that rested on science just like Darwinism.
From which it follows that Darwinism too must now be afforded the status of a religion.
But the point about man-made global warming is that it is said to be a process that is actually happening, with scientifically demonstrable effects. Yet as Russell argued, philosophy
consists of speculation...
questions science cannot answer.
So by its own ‘scientific’ lights, how can man-made global warming be considered a philosophical position? And if it is just ‘speculation’ on ‘questions science cannot answer’, why should it have the slightest credibility?
Dickinson told the Employment Appeal Tribunal this was not just an opinion that he held but
a deeply held philosophical belief which affects how I live my life... For example, I no longer travel by airplane, I have eco-renovated my home, I try to buy local produce, I have reduced my consumption of meat, I compost my food waste, I encourage others to reduce their carbon emissions and I fear very much for the future of the human race, given the failure to reduce carbon emissions on a global scale.
From which it follows that any similarly deeply held ‘belief’ such as vegetarianism --or, on the other hand, as it were, cannibalism -- should also be afforded the status of religion. And contrary to what the judge declared, according to this argument precisely the same consideration should apply to global warming sceptics, whose belief founded upon science that man-made global warming is a scam of epic proportions should also be considered to be a philosophical idea with equal status to religion.
I look forward to the legal case against the media brought by man-made global warming sceptics on the grounds of discrimination under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.
Also read Daily Telegraph Global warming debate is too hot to handle