It is NOT a "cult" to see the effects and be backed by scientific consensus, along with a good education in a number of sciences and math subjects.
More to the definition of cult would be denialists who resort to using old reports and other BS to continue an argument won long ago.
THIS is more important, from my "How to mitigate CC" thread;
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=24584>>>>
"It would take an act of phenomenal legerdemain to conceal the fact that climate change - or rather >>the failure to act on climate change when it was still largely preventable<< - is the greatest security failure in human history. Despite more than >>25 years of explicit warnings from the world's best climate scientists<<, the amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) being pumped into the atmosphere continues to rise. In fact, >>60 percent of the total has been dumped there since the danger was known.<<"<<<<<<
}}Webster's 'legerdemain'_____sleigh of hand{{{
It is a moral decision to go green;
"Scans suggest how the mind solves ethical dilemmas
Brain region balances competing interests in moral judgments
by Laura Sanders
9:15am, March 26, 2014
Deciding whether to kill one person to save five is a true brain teaser. A study in the March 26 Journal of Neuroscience describes the neural tug-of-war that results in a moral decision.
Cognitive neuroscientists Amitai Shenhav of Princeton University and Joshua Greene of Harvard University asked 35 people to weigh in on 48 wrenching scenarios while undergoing functional MRI brain scans. The researchers used scenarios akin to the famous trolley choice: The hypothetical dilemma forces a person to decide whether to push an innocent man to his death to stop a runaway trolley from killing five people."
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/sca ... 3-93287133
Login
Register
FAQ
