The climate of history – condemned to repeat it

Are you now or have you ever been a global warming denier?

Guest post by David Ross

Some have suggested that the Fakegate affair has been discussed enough. They are wrong. Peter Gleick is a minor figure in climate science and his actions are of little account. But the reaction of all the global warming alarmists, who see nothing wrong with what he did, is much more significant.

More important still: this is an aspect of the climate debate that everybody can understand. It is much simpler to grasp than the issues raised by Climategate. You don’t need to be a climatologist or scientist or statistician. There’s no need to draw a graph or drill an ice core. All the information you need is straightforward and laid bare.

The fact that, despite all this, those alarmists still can’t distinguish right from wrong, tells many of us more about the climate debate than anything else. Until Gleick and his supporters admit that what they both did is wrong, we shouldn’t let them off the hook.


Others don’t want to see the science content of Watts Up With That diluted. I agree. But would also argue that we humans are part of the biosphere and examining what forcing mechanisms are operating on us and how we react is a scientific issue. I suspect that what many of the alarmists really want is not geo-engineering to “fix” the planet; it is to conduct a large scale controlled experiment in social engineering. Unfortunately for them, they are discovering that people do not behave as predictably as CO2 molecules.

The alarmists main concern seems to be the possibility that their monopoly might be broken and that “contrary” views might be heard in the classroom. As they regard Gleick as a “hero” and heroes are tend to be taken as role-models. I wondered what kind of stuff they do want taught to our kids. So I dumbed-down Fakegate (for the benefit of the ethically challenged) to an analogy that could be used as a classroom assignment.
***************

School Assignment 1: Citizenship and Ethics

Someone hacks your Facebook account and posts all your personal stuff online. They also insert a page with stuff you didn’t write that makes you look like a horrible person. The hacker emails 15 of his friends and says he got all the stuff, including the nasty bits, from your account. His friends show all this stuff to everyone at school and they tell them it all came from your account.

Almost everyone at school, even the teachers, now hates you and tells you so. You tell everyone that the nasty bits are fake and that you didn’t write them. But the teachers don’t believe you. They say that because most of the stuff is true the nasty bits must be as well. They post some of the pages on the school website highlighting the nasty bits and tell everyone not to talk to you.

Some of your friends speak up for you and point out some flaws in the faked parts that prove they are forgeries. The flaws are substantial enough to actually identify the hacker. The hacker then confesses but only to hacking your account. He says he got the page with the nasty bits anonymously in the mail and that he only hacked your files to find out if they were true. You’re shocked because at the same time he was hacking your files you had invited him to come and talk to your friends.

The teachers ignore the evidence of forgery and then try to justify the hacker’s actions, saying that although document phishing and impersonation is wrong, the hacker is a “hero” because they always thought you were a horrible person; horrible persons are increasing and the school is heading towards a horrible person catastrophe.

Q: Discuss the ethical implications of what just happened. There are bonus marks if you can work in a reference to polar bears.

***************

As for junk science, the movies “The Day After Tomorrow” and “An Inconvenient Truth” are both used in our schools to “teach” kids about climate science. But they deserve an article of their own.

One meme currently being propagated by alarmists, that has all the appearance of a coordinated PR campaign, is that skeptics arguments and tactics are no different from creationists who want to “teach the controversy” in schools. I am not religious and don’t want to see creationism taught in schools, other than perhaps a single paragraph mentioning that such views exist. My belief in the theory of evolution has not changed. However, because of the climate debate, I am no longer as contemptuous of creationists as I once was.

It is regrettable that the alarmists are inserting religion into the “debate” (but it is part of a pattern of caricaturing skeptics). They also don’t seem to realize that, as the extent to which they are wrong about the climate becomes increasingly revealed, they will strengthen the hand of those who want creationism taught in schools.
It is however wrong to assert that studying religion cannot teach us anything useful.

***************

School Assignment 2: History

The Medieval Alarm Period
In the Middle Ages, cathedrals could take centuries to build. Three or even six hundred years was not uncommon. Throughout Medieval Europe there were always many cathedrals in various stages of construction. Except that in the decades leading up to the year 1000, very few significant building projects were started and many existing ones were abandoned.

Most of Christendom had convinced themselves that Jesus would reappear on, what they believed to be, the 1000th anniversary of his birth. Nobody saw any point in starting projects or continuing existing ones that would not be finished before the end of the world. We can only assume that this millenarian malaise affected all areas of life, not just church-building. People gave themselves over to fervent prayer and further demonstrated their fervour by roasting heretics. It must have been a grim time. If there had been a Vatican newsletter back then, perhaps it might have sounded like this:

“God’s wrath continued to worsen during 988 – a year in which unprecedented combinations of extreme weather events killed people and damaged property all over Christendom. The clerical evidence for the accelerating influence of human sinfulness further strengthened, as it has for decades now.” [1]

When Jesus failed to appear, the Vatican (or perhaps we should call it the Infallible Panel on Christ’s Coming), assured their flock that the fire and brimstone would definitely start raining down on the anniversary of his crucifixion, instead of that of his birth.

Another three more decades of prayer and malaise followed. When it eventually became obvious to all that Christ wasn’t coming any time soon, the clergy told the people to rejoice, because all their prayers and piety had worked, and God, in all His mercy, had postponed Doomsday. There was then a boom in cathedral building, financed off the backs of the long-suffering peasants as they strove to show their gratitude. And the power and authority of the clergy was stronger than ever.

The church maintained its grip for centuries and became ever more corrupt, as institutions with absolute authority always do. On top of all the taxes and tithes, it eventually introduced a system of carbon credits called indulgences where people could avoid being carbonized in hell by paying a fee to offset their sins. When even the dumbest of village idiots, in the dumbest village, of the dumbest province, saw through this scam, there was a rebellion. Centuries of bloodshed ensued before the people of Europe began to realize that perhaps it would be better to keep church and state separate.

Q: Discuss how crises, either real or imagined, can be used to seize or hold onto power. Bonus marks for making any valid comparisons to current events.

***************
I didn’t mean to offend anyone’s religious sensibilities. We all have our bad epochs. There are many different interpretations of history, but there does seem to be a consensus that it tends to repeat.

Let’s use some material so beloved of left-leaning teachers that it is almost as mandatory in their classrooms as a Koran in a madrassa.
***************

School Assignment 3: English Literature

The 1952 play, The Crucible, by Arthur Miller, portrays the Salem witch trials and popularized the phrase “witch hunt”.

Q: Discuss the language used by the protagonists. Demonstrate how the choice of particular words or appeals to authority can be used to exclude or dismiss counter evidence or opposing points of view. The following excerpts may be useful.

HALE: This is a strange time, Mister. No man may longer doubt the powers of the dark are gathered in monstrous attack upon this village. There is too much evidence now to deny it. You will agree, sir?
HATHORNE: Now, Martha Corey, there is abundant evidence in our hands to show that you have given yourself to the reading of fortunes. Do you deny it?
DANFORTH: What are you! You are combined with anti-Christ, are you not? I have seen your power, Mister, you will not deny it!

Bonus marks for illustrating your answer with current real world examples.
***************
Science is based on observation, religion on authority. The more the global warming alarmists ignore observation and appeal to authority, the more like a religion they become.
***************

School Assignment 3: Citizenship and Ethics

Tick whichever is applicable. People who do not believe in man-made catastrophic global warming should be…

1. branded as deniers.
2. harassed in their homes and workplaces.
3. forcibly tattooed on their bodies.
4. gassed with carbon monoxide.
5. obliterated with explosives.

If you ticked all of the above, full Marx.

References:

1. (inspired by) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/climate-change-denial-_b_1185309.html

2. “We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.”
Greenpeace
http://web.archive.org/web/20100404075829/http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climate/2010/04/will_the_real_climategate_plea_1.html
3. “Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.”
Richard Glover, radio talk-show host and 20 year columnist for the Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-dangers-of-boneheaded-beliefs-20110602-1fijg.html
4. “I’m prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics – put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas – say, carbon monoxide.
You wouldn’t see or smell anything. Nor would your anti-science nonsense be heard of again. How very refreshing.
Jill Singer, writer for the Melbourne Herald Sun
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/sideshow-around-carbon-tax-must-stop/story-fn56az2q-1226079531212
5. 10:10 video -has to be seen to be believed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Mw5_EBk0g
***************

Final Assignment: Question for everybody

There used to be a time when junk science was not taught in our schools and our kids were not indoctrinated. There used to be a time when scientists and everybody could debate in a climate of free enquiry, free of censorship and intimidation. Has the climate changed?

About these ads
This entry was posted in Fakegate and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

161 Responses to The climate of history – condemned to repeat it

  1. les says:

    Would’nt blowing up sceptics add to carbon emmissions?

  2. dtbronzich says:

    Assignment one. Ethics? The teachers at that school should be put through the grist mill of public opinion, but fortunately, the need shan’t come up, as the recent school outing to Spitzbergen proved completely disastrous. Only the popular children and teachers were able to attend the trip, advertised as a chance to see the few remaining Polar Bears in the Arctic circle. The Polar Bears were so numerous that they were starving. Thank goodness, just enough fresh meat to see them through the lean times, and the school is saved the embarrassment of explaining the immature behavior of it’s staff.

  3. Didn’t the roasting of heretics start some time later than the IX century?

  4. dtbronzich says:

    Add: Danger of Polar Bear extinction averted, 2 for one sale.

  5. Peter Miller says:

    Some beautiful analogies.

    The comparison between yesteryear’s selling of indulgencies by a morally corrupt church and today’s selling of carbon credits by morally corrupt governments is excellent. Both enrich the corrupt vendor, who sells nothing of any value, while supposedly providing a feel good factor for the unfortunate purchasers, who have had to impoverish themselves by buying something intangible and worthless with real money.

    Bottom Line: Church indulgences = Carbon credits/taxes.

  6. Brian H says:

    Unfortunately for them, they are discovering that people do not behave even less as predictably as than CO2 molecules.
    There. FIFY!!
    ;)
    :D

  7. jim karlock says:

    “There used to be a time when junk science was not taught in our schools and our kids were not indoctrinated. ”

    There was even a time when they taught how to spot propaganda in the government run schools in the USA!!!!!

    Thanks
    JK

  8. jim karlock says:

    Clarification:
    “There used to be a time when junk science was not taught in our schools and our kids were not indoctrinated. ”

    There was even a time when government run schools, in the USA, taught how to spot propaganda!!!!!

    Thanks
    JK

  9. Dr. John M. Ware says:

    I’m sorry to say it, but I must: The questions above concerning history are stupid and wrong-headed, based on false premises and no information. The author’s ignorance of religion and its history (particularly Christianity) is obviously profound. His choice of examples–including the Arthur Miller play excerpts–is so heavily biased that it is not possible to discern the actual target.

    I thought that the first example (Facebook) was not badly drawn, and it did have a discernible point. After that, though, the writer was out of his depth, flailing about against an opponent not even in the original controversy.

    If the writer wishes to come to grips with church-building in the Dark Ages, let him check (among other things) the weather during that time, about which considerable information is available right here on WUWT.

  10. Brian H says:

    There are many different interpretations of history, but there does seem to be a consensus that it tends to repeat.

    Someone (?) sagely observed, “History teaches that we don’t learn from history.”
    That would make a great classroom assignment, too. Locate and discuss examples pro and con …
    Also, a different someone: “History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes.” This would be a more advanced class, I think. :D

  11. Otter says:

    In defense of Christianity (I am an apologist for Christianity in other venues), what happened with the Church in those times, is, I hope all would agree, very Human.
    It is not the Teachings of Jesus Christ that caused the problem, but the human nature of those who failed to live up to His teachings.
    ——-

    That is as far as I intend to go on the subject, I understand it was just an example and I have Zero wish to get into religion here.
    The French Revolution would have been a fair example, also- good intentions leading to the deaths of thousands, in that case, with the eventual rise of an emperor who wanted to rule the world, much as these people would like to do.

  12. Nick in Vancouver says:

    2 assignment #3, is that a trick question to root out deniers, only a denier would see that the numbers are not going up? If you reeeeealy believed you would see a 4.

  13. I’m wondering : do you really believe the Middle Ages happened even remotely as you describe them ?…..This is just… appalingly biased, to say the least.

    For the record there was no millenarian fear (not even anything close : none), the cathedrals didn’t take “centuries” to be built, there was no “Vatican” with absolute powers over the Church.. and the “law” of religions always getting more corrupt that you seem to believe is just that : a belief, not anything backed by history.

  14. James Sexton says:

    Doug,

    I agree, we shouldn’t let them off the hook. I also think you would have done well to have left your views of religion on your PC. But, if your were going to bring up religion, why did you leave the two most relevant verses towards this discussion out? You know, the place where most of us get our Judea-Christian ethic….. let’s try these two and see if they fit….. you can find them at Exodus 20 and also in Deuteronomy 5 Thou shalt not steal. and Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

    BTW, the concepts of creationism and evolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Evolution does nothing to answer the original questions.

    You ask, “I wondered what kind of stuff they do want taught to our kids[?]“……. the same stuff which they’ve been taught for decades now. That there is no absolute morality and no one is accountable for lapses in morality, if you can get away with it……. that morality is relative. Clearly by the discussions antecedent to Gleick’s acts of heroism, they believe it is okay to lie and deceive for the greater good. As you listed some of the more egregious suggestions about what should be done with us skeptics, you see that there are no boundaries they can conceive. I believe this isn’t just reflective on alarmists but is simply an expression of the moral decay so prevalent in today’s society, though, it does seem the alarmists have taken the lessons of relative morality to heart a bit quicker than most.

    But, none of this is new. Anyone who has cared to know has known these people are dishonest at the core. We knew that as soon as we knew Hansen was playing with the thermostats in congress. We saw the way they dealt with Steve McIntyre. We watched those idiotic films and knew they were dishonest. The warmlist stands as a testament to their duplicity and dishonesty. And yes, even the floating bears were an act of dishonesty. In fact, any statements the lunatics have stated about the polar bears are acts of deception and dishonesty. Well, just about everything they engage in at all is an act of dishonesty. From our fluid and dynamic historical temps to conflated sea level graphs to their manipulation of peer-review to their historical interpretations of arctic ice.

    There’s two more things we should consider. One, that it took so many of us so long to actively engage says as much about many skeptics as it does the alarmists. We ignored the lessons of our forefathers. And, it is to our shame. Freedom is hard. I believe we’ll win……now. But, we came damned close to losing everything our forefathers fought and died for. And we’ve still a long way to go.

    Two, we should stop and take stock of what happened and why. This wasn’t happenstance that a bunch of scumbags of acedamia got together and decided to try to control the world’s life giving molecules. It was our complacency. And, it was our stupidity. Those scumbags are products of our educational systems. Which, in most part today, is also instuctive on morality issues. We allow teachers to be unaccountable for their instruction, in fact, in the U.S., if tenored, the instructor would have to commit a serious felony to be removed…… but, only if caught. This quasi-morality instruction only increases in crescendo as one progresses through the education system. Worse, we’ve allowed ourselves to be convinced that everyone should have the opportunity to be indoctrinated in higher education. Given the well known IQ/population distribution bell curve, that’s one of the most insidiously vapid ideas we’ve allowed to advance. We indebt ourselves and our children so that they can continue with the indoctrination with little or no oversight as to the content of their education. Worse, given the mentioned curve, we know that half can’t graduate without lowering standards. And even if the information provided was useful, they wouldn’t know how to properly apply it. But, we run them through the mill enriching the slimey scumbags who fill our children’s heads full of mush. We slap degrees in their hands and tell them “go get ‘em, tiger!”…… and off they go to rule the world. And we wonder why and how we can have scientists ethically and intellectually inept? For years now, in much of the points of the climate discussion, I’m often left to wonder if they are either really that stupid, or are they just evil. And, to tell you the truth, I’m still not sure.

    Religion aside, there’s some great moral instruction in the Book. And, there’s an intelligence about living an ethical and moral life. It allows for an orderly and civil society.

  15. James Sexton says:

    Sorry, not Doug, but my comment was addressed to David, the author of the post….. but Doug can read it as well…..

  16. Shona says:

    “the cathedrals didn’t take “centuries” to be built” there’s a sarc tag missing right? Rouen Cathedral, five centuries, 10th to 15th, Canterbury, also 5, same
    Not sure what to make of this comment …

  17. Tony McGough says:

    You weaken your case with your false take on Church history – and because you do, fewer alarmists will be encouraged to look at your point of view on climate flux. That’s a great pity.

    As for Creationism, God did create the world, some many billions of years ago. Easy for Him …

  18. Gail Combs says:

    Your history is a bit dicey but then history is always written by the winners so it is never accurate anyway.

    That said I do like your “Storylines” as examples. We need to examine what has caused the “Moral decay” in our society. We now have a majority who consider blatant lying completely acceptable if done for the “Cause” This is especially worrying when the “Cause” is the wholesale and crippling of civilization of an entire world and stripping its citizens of their wealth.

  19. Helen Hawkins says:

    As a devout Catholic, I find it strange that the people who are pushing the AGW scam and many of the the AGW skeptics say the same things about my faith.
    It must be the consensus thing. AGW believers and AGW skeptics have the same history books therefore these distorted interpretations of the “facts” must be true.

  20. Steve B says:

    “Laurent Duval says:

    March 18, 2012 at 1:28 am

    I’m wondering : do you really believe the Middle Ages happened even remotely as you describe them ?…..This is just… appalingly biased, to say the least.

    For the record there was no millenarian fear (not even anything close : none), the cathedrals didn’t take “centuries” to be built, there was no “Vatican” with absolute powers over the Church.. and the “law” of religions always getting more corrupt that you seem to believe is just that : a belief, not anything backed by history.”

    Cologne Cathedral took about 200 years – there was a Millenial fear and the Vatican got there absolute powers between 1100 & 1200 AD. You should read real church history.

  21. Arthur Dent says:

    Shona, the fact that bits of Rouen Cathedral were constructed in five different centuries does not mean that the Cathedral took that long to build. The foundations of my house were laid in 1936 but it was extended in 1958 and again in 1973 and we added a storm porch last year. This does not mean the house took several decades to build.

  22. Oldseadog says:

    Not so sure about the others but assignment 1 gets full marks.

  23. Goldie says:

    I note that Fakegate made it the Australian newspaper in an opinion piece, over the weekend, with author claiming that the documents had been leaked. I immediately wrote to the Australian to put them right and forwarded it on to the Heartland Institute. On the other topic, and as a Christian Pastor, I can assure you that the ends never justifies the means. If an end cannot be achieved with integrity then it should not be achieved. “what good does it do a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul”.

  24. Mike Jonas says:

    Laurent Duval –

    You say there was no “millenium fear” in 1000 AD. None. Try this:
    http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1994/v51-1-article06.htm
    In the year A.D. 1000, an apocalyptic wave spread through all of Europe. People feared the end, thought to take place after the completion of 1000 years, was near. Satan would be released, the enemies Gog and Magog would begin the final battle, which God would terminate using fire from heaven (Rev. 20). After that, the final judgment would take place. Many people sold all they had and prepared for the worst.” – by Jürgen Moltmann, Professor of Systematic Theology at the University of Tübingen.

    Cathedrals: Contrary to what you say, some cathedrals did indeed take “centuries” to build (eg. Rouen 330 years 1200-1530 and still going, one tower still unfinished, Kölner Dom (Cologne) 632 years 1248-1880, ), though “a century or more” would have been more representative (eg. Florence 140 years 1296-1436, Lincoln 161 years 1092-1253).

    You might appear to be on firmer ground re “Vatican” (not empowered until 1929), though it is not difficult to find opinions that, eg, “From 590 to 1517, the Roman Church dominated the western world. The Roman Catholic Church controlled religion, philosophy, morals, politics, art and education.“.
    http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/jac_arnold/ch.arnold.rmt.1.html

    As for your criticism of “the “law” of religions always getting more corrupt“, the actual statement was “The church maintained its grip for centuries and became ever more corrupt, as institutions with absolute authority always do.“. A very reasonable statement, I would have thought.

  25. David Ross says:

    Thanks for the compliment Peter Miller but I can’t claim credit for the indulgencies analogy. Others have made it before, including on WUWT. I can’t remember where I came across it first.

    Julian Flood
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/07/newest-geo-engineering-plan-is-salt-water-daffy/

    Douglas DC
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/16/consensus-climate-science-what-would-thomas-huxley-say/

    *********************

    Hi Dr. Ware

    Sorry you didn’t realize that much of the article was meant to be slightly tongue in cheek. There was, of course, no Vatican newsletter or Medieval IPCC. If I caused offense to your religious sensibilities, that was not my intention and I apologize.

    I did not intend to target any particular branch of religion. The Catholic church was the longest reigning religious authority in Europe and is probably the best known to readers. The choice was kind of inevitable.

    As regards the cathedral hiatus it was described to me in a lecture long ago. The history of the Reformation is well known and I hope not in dispute.

    The Medieval Warm Period is, as you infer, well covered elsewhere on WUWT and I referenced it with the section title “Medieval Alarm Period.” I saw no point in elaborating on it. If anything it meant that life was less grim than it would have been. My point: man creates more problems for himself than climate does.

    But I don’t want to get drawn into an off topic discussion. It is just an analogy. It would have been equally valid if there had been a huge building boom i.e. diverting huge resources to confront an imagined threat.

    *********************
    Cathedral often did take centuries to build.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cologne_Cathedral
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Cathedral
    http://uk.askmen.com/top_10/entertainment/top-10-longest-construction-projects_6.html
    *********************

    Otter wrote: “what happened with the Church in those times, is, I hope all would agree, very Human. It is not the Teachings of Jesus Christ that caused the problem”

    Fully agree. I was in no way criticizing any religion’s original teachings.

    That the climate alarmists look increasingly like a religion is an observation that has been made by many others. I thought a comparison with an other/real religion was warranted.

    People can draw the wrong conclusions from scientific data just as they do from holy books.

    Let’s keep the focus on climate.

  26. Steve B says:

    James Sexton says:

    March 18, 2012 at 1:37 am

    Well said James but what you are missing is the “death by degrees”. The Marxists introduced things by degrees. A Marxist would come out with some outrageous idea and the degree of outrage would be measured. Instead would be implemented a watered down version of the idea which sounded great at the time. Then the screws would be slowly tigtened. Very few noticed. We are now seeing about 70 years of “death by degrees” which is now a yawning gap. People are starting to notice.

  27. Latimer Alder says:

    @laurent duval

    ‘For the record there was no millenarian fear (not even anything close : none), the cathedrals didn’t take “centuries” to be built, there was no “Vatican” with absolute powers over the Church.. and the “law” of religions always getting more corrupt that you seem to believe is just that : a belief, not anything backed by history’

    I refer M. Duval to the excellent book

    ‘Millenium’ by the historian Tom Holland. He will find plenty of examples of the Millenarian fear in there. To take just a couple:

    ‘Perilous times are upon us and the World is threatened with its end’

    and

    ‘Truly our life lasts one thousand years. And now here we are arrived at the last day of the very span of time itself’

    both by Abbott Odo of Cluny…the premier religious house of its day. The Abbot’s words had great resonance in those highly religious times. He was one of the top religious thinkers and opinion formers.

    As Holland eloquently puts it

    ‘These were words that no Christian could readily ignore: for they had issued from the place that seemed to its admirers, more than any other, the nearest there was to heaven on earth’

    As to the ‘Law’ of religions becoming more corrupt, it may not be a Law but it certainly happened. Hence Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation..

  28. Archonix says:

    Why didn’t you use a diffeent religious example,then? The japanese “consensus” on the status of the shogunate, for instance, or the emperor. Or the hindu caste system. Why is it always christianity?

  29. ali says:

    As a global warmin alaramist, I am glad for what Gleick did, even as all of you are glad someone hacked the CRU. But suppose I were a moral human being instead and felt Gleick’s role in Fakegate was wrong. So what. Global warming would be true (or false), and therefore my alarm would be justified (or not), even if Gleick had killed 1,000,000 people and buried them in his back yard.

  30. Jimbo says:

    On the subject of creationism I need to remind people that Al Gore read Theology and Mr. Cool at Skeptical science is a religious guy and a physicist. Nothing wrong with that. By the way a court in the UK has found that belief in AGW is akin to a religion.

    Judge rules activist’s beliefs on climate change akin to religion
    In his written judgment, Mr Justice Burton outlined five tests to determine whether a philosophical belief could come under employment regulations on religious discrimination

    • The belief must be genuinely held.

    • It must be a belief and not an opinion or view based on the present state of information available…………………….
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/03/tim-nicholson-climate-change-belief

  31. Jimbo says:

    Typo:
    “Mr. Cook at Skeptical science….”

    (Cool he is not) :-)

  32. David Ross says:

    OK I’ve read quite a few responses now. I had reservations about using religion as an analogy. If many more people express offense then the article is counterproductive to the climate debate and I will ask Anthony to withdraw the article and I can then perhaps reinstate it with those parts removed.

    I will try one more time to clarify.

    It is the alarmist PR machine that has introduced the climate-creationist meme.
    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=climate+%22teach+the+controversy%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

    I thought that should be addressed. I also thought it would be dishonest of me not to declare my own religious beliefs before writing about religion.

    James Sexton wrote:
    “the concepts of creationism and evolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive.”

    I fully agree.

    I also believe that the climate establishment is taking on the aspects of a corrupt church. I deliberately chose some of the darkest chapters in one church in order to make a comparison.

    I am not suggesting that those dark chapters are representative of the church today or of the religion’s original teachings.

    I did not think that asserting that churches can and do become corrupt would be controversial. I believe that was the situation during Jesus’ lifetime but I will defer to the opinion of believers on such matters.

  33. Rhys Jaggar says:

    Please rewrite this article replacing ‘climate change’ with ‘business outlook’. Replace ‘christ’s return’ with ‘renewed confidence’ and replace ‘marxists’ with ‘investment bankers, stockbrokers and fund managers’.

    It won’t be the same exactly, but it might be instructive to see that these mantras exist in all political hues, not just the far left…….

  34. Latimer Alder says:

    @arthur dent

    The foundations of my house were laid in 1936 but it was extended in 1958 and again in 1973 and we added a storm porch last year. This does not mean the house took several decades to build.

    True perhaps, but it didn't take Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz and the Vogon Constructor Fleet very long to destroy it :-(

    Ref: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Adams (et al)

    '

  35. Rob MW says:

    David,

    I think that it is actually deeper than what you describe. These people, Warmistas if you like, don’t actually believe in the entrenched rights in the ownership of property, and further, they don’t believe in the moral compass contained in political and civil rights of individuals or organisations, group-think through environmental sciences enacted into laws achieves these goals.

    Once these very basic principles of Western democracies have been forever breached then the future is indeed unknown regardless of whether humans are changing the climate or not.

  36. Garry Stotel says:

    The video is shocking – WTF?!! Is that some kind of spoof? I cannot believe the rhetoric sank so low.
    We have only just lived through genocide in Europe, what b***tards think that killing people that are different from you is “fun” (!”£”%*$*!!!), even if it is the purposes of making the video.
    Sick, just sick. It makes me scared for the future.

  37. neill says:

    You have my appreciation David. My favorite bit: the Infallible Panel on Christ’s Coming.

    And for the accuracy nitpickers: it’s a frickin analogy, and a hilarious one at that. Do you over-analyze jokes, too?

  38. I will not push further the debate toward history, this is not the place and I understand this was an analogy. I was not aware the clichés about european so-called “Middle Ages” were so strong, and I certainly prefer when an author makes his point using valid comparisons, and not popular culture and myths.

    As the french proverb says, “Comparaison n’est pas raison” , and the dynamics of large institutions (the roman church in 1000 AD or the ‘scientific community’ today) are far more chaotic than we allow ourselves to admit. We tend to see them as monolithic, stable and powerful, following “logical” paths, etc. It’s a post hoc ergo propter hoc argumentation fallacy (-> the catholic church wanted power, we know the catholic church got power, ergo the catholic church got power because it wanted it badly and took the adequate steps to achieve this goal, all other reasons are irrelevant).

    The irony is that the social engineering advocated by climate alarmists proceeds from the same fallacy. Some of them genuinely think they can change the minds because they’ve been taught “this has happened before”….which might very well prove to be wrong.

  39. Latimer Alder says:

    @david ross

    Withdraw not a single word, mon brave. Stick to your guns. That you annoy the religious and teh green alike is no surprise. For you actually puncture their self-regard in exactly the same way.

    It has seemed to me for a long while that today’s green Gaiaists are just continuation of yeteryear’s doomsday predictors but under adifferent name.

    In the past they claimed it was Original Sin and Love of God that drove them Today it is Love of Gaia and Fossil Fuels. But the impulse is identical, and their solutions ban, silence, expose, denounce, excommunicate, sacrifice, kill…are the same. In Judaism and Islam as well as in Christianity and Gaiaism.

    They all want to stop (by violent means if necessary, and sometimes if not) somebody else from doing something they disapprove of. And wrap themselves in ‘A Cause’ to justify their actions.

    Stick with it David. Goliath can be brought low!

  40. [snip . . OT . . try Test :) . . kbmod]

  41. EternalOptimist says:

    David, I am not a religious person, but I thought you did the job admirably with your first analogy. You should have stopped there

  42. David L says:

    I believe the key is that some people have a psychological feature that prevents them from admitting making mistakes. I learned about this in psychology and I’ve met people with this curious disability. If you have to work closely with this type of person eventually it’s a maddening experience; you simply can’t get them to admit any mistake, no matter the size or importance.

    What I see in academia at large, and especially in climatology, is the type of people that enter these disciplines seem to have this inability to admit mistakes to a much higher proportion than the population at large. These jobs filter for people with inability to admit mistakes.

    This mindset is in itself innocuous. However, what happens is these people “take a side” and then can never ever switch because that would me admitting a mistake (they didn’t pick the correct side the first time).

    Psychologists I’ve met say (in the workplace) you can’t do anything with this mindset. You can’t change their minds and the best strategy is to try and not hire these type of people and if they are already around, avoid them.

  43. The Infidel says:

    you shall not LIE, STEAL, BARE FALSE WITNESS. Which part of that is so hard for the warmists/alarmists to understand? If you lie, nothing you say can be trusted, if you steal, nothing you do can be trusted, if you bare false witness, try that one in a court of law and see if you are allowed to get away with it. defend it at your perile warmists, if you cannot be trusted in words, actions or in the courts, your entire argument falls over and is proved false, oh wait, I just did proper science, I just falsified the entire warmist argument.
    joking btw> all hail me, all hail me < joking btw.

  44. Konrad says:

    It’s threads like this that make me think that I am the only gay atheist CAGW sceptic in the village…

  45. Steve B says:

    “Archonix says:

    March 18, 2012 at 3:14 am

    Why didn’t you use a diffeent religious example,then? The japanese “consensus” on the status of the shogunate, for instance, or the emperor. Or the hindu caste system. Why is it always christianity?”

    Maybe if we were Indians we would use the Hindu caste system or Japanese we would use the “emperor” system. However since 99.9% of westerners are ignorant of these systems then Christianity is the next best thing, Christianity is not the problem – It is churchianity based on the Christian system. Two entirely different systems but most people are also ignorant of this division also.

  46. When they first sought to decive?
    Soft lies grew to be hard line lies.
    Now a rear action angry long term retreat is in process.

  47. Volker Doormann says:

    global warming alarmists -
    You don’t need to be a climatologist or scientist or statistician -
    alarmists still can’t distinguish right from wrong –
    Others don’t want to see the science content of Watts Up With That diluted. I agree -
    forcing mechanisms are operating on us -
    I am not religious and don’t want to see creationism taught in schools –
    My belief in the theory of evolution has not changed. -
    Science is based on observation, religion on authority -
    The more the global warming alarmists ignore observation and appeal to authority –
    There used to be a time when junk science was not taught in our schools and our kids were not indoctrinated -
    There used to be a time when scientists and everybody could debate in a climate of free enquiry, free of censorship and intimidation -

    Has the climate changed?
    Question:
    An Energy of 1[eV] is equal to a ‘mass’ M of: 1.7801 * 10^-36 [V A sec^3 m^-2].
    A ‘mass’ M [V A sec^3 m^-2] = E * µ_0 * epsilon_0 (permeability and permittivity of the universe).

    Is that true?
    The question a simple test on the claim of scientific consciousness versus the hypocrisy respecting the methods of science but arguing with ‘-ismen (‘alarmist’).

    The very point is that each assignment of stuff as wrong or biased because of (your) authority does not replace the very own recognitions of the order of nature.
    I think the path of science is a lonesome way the whole life (or multiple lifes), not suitable for the crowd.
    Repetitions of physical processes in nature can lead to (individual) recognitions in science. These recognitions cannot be transferred by teachers like bread to hungry people; every recognition must be recognized anew in every present by the listener, or refuted by own knowledge.

    There is much empirical knowledge in history on repetitions of events in nature. But this knowledge is not part of the lessons in science in this era.

    I think your last question is guided by the fear of the loss of power to control nature in any way, not different to all soap box speakers in Hyde Park or climate blogs.

    V.

  48. Andrew30 says:

    Archonix says: March 18, 2012 at 3:14 am
    [Why is it always Christianity?]
    He is writing for the audience of this blog.

    Had this blog been in Hindi, for an Indian audience you might have inquired:
    तुम क्यों नहीं एक अलग धार्मिक उदाहरण का उपयोग किया था, तो? जापानी शोगुनेट की स्थिति, उदाहरण के लिए, या सम्राट पर “आम सहमति”.या ईसाई धर्म.क्यों है यह हमेशा से हिन्दू जाति व्यवस्था?

    Or in Japanese, your posting could have been:
    なぜあなたはその後、別の宗教的な例を使用しなかったのですか?幕府の状態、例えば、またはヒンドゥー教のカースト•システム上で日本語”コンセンサス”。またはキリスト教。なぜそれが常に皇帝ですか?

  49. neill says:

    James Sexton:
    “This wasn’t happenstance that a bunch of scumbags of acedamia got together and decided to try to control the world’s life giving molecules. It was our complacency. And, it was our stupidity. Those scumbags are products of our educational systems.”

    James, you’re right this wasn’t happenstance, but to say it was our stupidity is to underestimate the clever persistence of the Socialists/Watermelons. The Soviet Union may no longer exist. The will to control others absolutely has outlived the USSR. Read ‘Radical-in-Chief’ by Stanley Kurtz. When Reagan was turning the economy around in 1983, Obama was attending a Socialist leadership conference in Manhattan that laid the basis for the movement to shift operations underground; to thrive, by NEVER announcing itself. That policy continues up to this moment.

  50. Bob Ryan says:

    There are clearly aspects of the CAGW position and some religions which do intersect. Some, but not all religions, take a ‘pessimistic’ view of humanity. The idea is firmly embedded that ‘man’ is fallen and can only be redeemed through the medium of the church. Likewise there are many, mostly inspired by the pessimism of Marx and others, who believe that social progress can only be achieved through the mechanism of the state. Since the collapse of that ideology those on the left have sought a cause which would help them achieve their goals. This time the chosen method is not revolution but subversion – let us co-opt a scientific agenda which suggests an existential threat to all humanity. This threat is so overwhelming that the only way it can be averted is by the creation of supra-national organisations to control a primary factor of production – energy. Any one who protests or questions this view of the ‘truth’ will be burnt at the stake. So the old battle is now rejoined. Not heretic versus the inquisition, west versus east, capitalist versus communist but free- thinking libertarians versus radical environmentalists.

  51. Cui Bono says:

    Like others, I think it would have been better to quit before going for the history and religious examples, which don’t hold water.

    The issue is both practical and ethical. You have someone who, for all his continuing denials, seems to have invented a document. He saw nothing wrong with creating a totally false piece of evidence for the ‘Cause’. Others say that inventing evidence for the ‘Cause’ is a fine and heroic thing to do.

    Now, with this established, how much do you trust anything these people say, or have ever written? This includes their ‘peer-reviewed’ scientific papers, and the data used in them. How much has been invented for the ‘Cause’?
    —–

    ali says (March 18, 2012 at 3:32 am)
    “As a global warmin alaramist, I am glad for what Gleick did,”

    Really? The net effect is to cast doubt on many of AGWs “hard-core” leading lights and apologists. They really cannot tell truth from invention. So, spot the similarities:

    1) Used car salesmen
    2) Politicians running for office (or just politicians, period)
    3) Cold-callers for timeshare
    4) AGW scientists?

  52. Beesaman says:

    From some of the comments here, rushing to defend religious beliefs, which are not supported by actual historical evidence (sorry but I’m a bit unusual, after finsihed by degree in science I went off and did another one in history, mainly on the Reformation period in Europe hence my interest here). It is easy to see how AGW has become a religion with its own acolytes who cry heresy as soon as anyone dares to debate it. They should put up the evidence and leave the conjecture (models) for the story tellers or admit it is just a belief, not founded upon scientific grounds but those of faith. Which would be fine, as then we could all treat it as such, each to our own ontological viewpoint.
    Maybe, just maybe, we are starting to see the re-emergence of an animist Green-Faith based around Gaia, in which Mann et al are certainly taking upon the trappings and actions of high priests. Maybe they are not scientists after all but Druids of the Heat!

  53. Paul Coppin says:

    “Once these very basic principles of Western democracies have been forever breached then the future is indeed unknown regardless of whether humans are changing the climate or not.”

    In this circumstance, the future is not unknown at all. It currently is exhibited all over the planet at the present time. Man will and does, revert to his biologically ordained fundamental social paradigm – the sanctity of tribalism. Man’s social construct is based on two biological phenomena, from which all else has derived evolutionarily and derivatively: reproduction and its derivative sociology that has evolved from the needs of its altricial progeny ( simpler terms – “infants”), and fear.. The large scale base of cultural norms is a highly evolved outcome of the biological imperative to reproduce, safely. We create it to facilitate the former and assuage the latter. When it disadvantages individual members to a large enough degree, and, especially when the fear component reaches a threshold, the members re-align their tribal associations and re-group in new tribal hierarchies. This isn’t sociology, this is a fundamental mammalian paradigm, exibited by many species.

    It means, in the long haul, that cooler heads will not likely prevail. It means that baser concepts of survival may well become the norm, again, for a time. And yes, climate will be the least of our concerns, except that, if the collapse is complete enough that the immense infrastructure that we’ve built is unsustainable, the sub-tropics will get crowded, and you won’t likely be able to hold on to that timeshare in the Carribean..

    “Paradigm shift” was a popular buzzword in the early ’70s. It’s ba-a-a-c-k….

  54. berniel says:

    Consider, if we may, that an climate scientist were found to be the author of the fake Heartlands document. What would we expect to be the response of his/her colleagues on the anti-sceptic side? We can find hints of how they might respond even in the peer review literature.
    Consider the extract below from Naomi Oreskes in Environmental Science & Policy 2004. Under the heading ‘Science and public policy: what’s proof got to do with it?’ she seems to be saying that Carson’s did the right thing by going beyond the science, and that this was ok precisely because her goal was to persuade the public:

    ‘Carson’s critics complained that her claims were largely circumstantial, that her evidence was anecdotal, her conclusions exaggerated. The book was more emotional than scientific, they charged, playing on fears, including the fear of nuclear fall-out, quite unrelated to DDT (Graham, 1970; Dunlap, 1981; Lear, 1992; Wang, 1997). These critics included chemists in corporate research laboratories and at the US Department of Agriculture, epidemiologists and disease control experts, academic food scientists, and even the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Pest Control and Wildlife Relationships. Silent Spring was negatively received in various journals, including Chemical and Engineering News and Science, while Emil Mrak, Chancellor of the University of California at Davis and Professor of Food Science, testified to the US Congress that Carson’s conclusion that pesticides were “affecting biological systems in nature and may eventually affect human health [was] “contrary to the present body of scientific knowledge (Wang, 1997)”.’

    After summarising the criticisms and the authority of the critics, Oreskes then says: ‘In some respects the critics were correct.’ She continues:

    Carson’s book was based largely on case reports that were not supported by broad statistical analysis, and it was based on fear: fear of what would happen if we continued with reckless attitudes and actions, and the fear invoked in the book’s title, of a world without song, without beauty, and ultimately perhaps without life. But Silent Spring was not written as a scientific paper to be published in a refereed journal; it was written as a popular book, indeed, a polemic. It was not intended to convince scientific experts, it was intended to reach and motivate ordinary citizens. In this regard, Carson achieved her goal spectacularly. She was not a bad scientist, and she was a great writer (Lear, 1992).

    Is Oreskes condoning the deception of the public about science for a worthy cause? For such views Oreskes is celebrated and not condemned. This seems to confirm that Nobel Cause Corruption has been acceptable in environmental science long before fakegate — and that sceptics who trace it back to Carson are on the money.
    Finally consider: anyone who condones such misrepresentation of the science to the public…how can we trust what they say about to the public about science? Indeed, Oreskes has a lot to say about it. Around the time this article was published, Oreskes was caught out with a critical error in the presentation of her evidence for the level of scientific consensus — against media and policymaker perceptions of uncertainty. By this time sceptics were starting to question all sorts of claims — and this sometimes surprised those making them. And sure enought those who repeated her simple experiment got nothing like her results. Yet they were quoted in the Royal Society’s layman’s guide to missleading arguments. When she was caught, Science journal had to issue an embarrassing correction. After what she said about Carson, would we be forgiven for thinking that this was more purposful than an error?

  55. Victor Barney says:

    [snip]

    This comment strays too far into ‘discussion of religion’ see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/policy/ ~jove, mod

  56. David, UK says:

    Brilliantly put, thanks David.

    There used to be a time when junk science was not taught in our schools and our kids were not indoctrinated. There used to be a time when scientists and everybody could debate in a climate of free enquiry, free of censorship and intimidation.

    I’m not sure about that bit. Every generation has had its own entrenched beliefs and prejudices, which were viewed at the time as gospel – in other words, there was a consensus. Then comes the paradigm shift.

    Plate tectonics is a brilliant parallel to today’s ideas of natural climate variability through cycles. Both are based on observation. Who could look at a world map and not see the jigsaw pieces flying apart? Well, lots of pre-1950s eminent scientists, that’s who!

  57. BJ says:

    Get a grip, people.

    It seems pretty obvious that the Catholic Church was picked for the analogy because most educated Americans, Brits, and Aussies are at least passingly familiar the history there. Western Civ anyone??? Picking a Japanese analogy might work if WUWT had primarily Asian readers but would not resonate with most others.

    And to deny that Cathedrals took centuries to build is ridiculous. You can argue that a PORTION of a cathedral was finished in mere decades but a portion does not a cathedral make.

    And finally, as a Christian and a Catholic I can see where the anolgies of ultimate power corrupting the Church speaks to the possibility of ultimate power corrupting ANY governing body. “Indulgences” and carbon credits are a very appropriate comparison. It’s not like he tried to say institutional racism still exists and requiring voter ID is equivelant to Jim Crow laws like some people who can’t live in the present. He made a point of using a period in time that has been documented, repented, and is a cautionary tale.

    Meanwhile, back at the science…

    [Thank you for attempting to bring it back to the science! ~jove, mod]

  58. Stan Vinson says:

    Your analogies have put a sharp edge on the Fakegate affair in particular, and alarmists efforts in general. Thank you for bringing this issue into sharp focus for me.

    Now I need to share your article with as many people as I can.

  59. Sam The First says:

    “I believe the key is that some people have a psychological feature that prevents them from admitting making mistakes. I learned about this in psychology and I’ve met people with this curious disability. If you have to work closely with this type of person eventually it’s a maddening experience; you simply can’t get them to admit any mistake, no matter the size or importance.”

    This is why people vote their entire lives for the same political party and will never admit that they got it wrong, nor that the party of their choice is corrupt and incompetent to a fatal extent. It’s the biggest problem for democracy, and the main reason why it doesn’t work very well. People are too emotionally invested in their previous choices.

    And politicians themselves are particularly prone to this fatal disability, which is why so many are refusing to acknowledge the science, and the sceptics’ arguments, on this topic. This is why we on the sceptic side of the AGW argument still have so much work to do. If it weren’t so, we’d be home and dry by now

  60. Victor Barney says:

    [snip - as above]

  61. Curiousgeorge says:

    Christianity is not unique is this respect. Every religion that has ever existed was founded for the express purpose of attaining and maintaining political power, and used the same means. After all what higher authority is there than a god or gods? Zeus made me do it. Thor will strike you down, Quetzalcoatl demands your blood. Allah will give you 72 virgins. Al Gore’s Carbon god will drown your grandchildren if you don’t buy carbon credits. Ad nauseum.

    Read up a little on cultural anthropology.

  62. Steve Keohane says:

    Laurent Duval says:March 18, 2012 at 3:58 am

    [...] the dynamics of large institutions (the roman church in 1000 AD or the ‘scientific community’ today) are far more chaotic than we allow ourselves to admit. We tend to see them as monolithic, stable and powerful, following “logical” paths, etc.

    Some may so believe, but the existence of this site proves the opposite, at least as regards this community.

  63. David Ross says:

    I think it is important to find analogies that strike a chord. If I were trying to make a point to a Christian I would quote the Bible and if it were trying to convince a Marxist I would use Das Kapital. Better still to point out that their actions are most like that which they dislike most.

    There is no point preaching to the converted. We need to find arguments that bring the other side round, not just amuse other like-minded people.

    The climate debate is polarizing society. There is a general perception that the skeptics are right-wing and religious and that the alarmists are left-wing and atheist.

    That dichotomy is only partially true. I wanted to demonstrate to the alarmists, some of which I hope will read this blog, that there are such things as atheist climate-skeptics. We are in fact a diverse bunch.

    I specifically wanted to use analogies that would work best on the alarmists. If the majority of them are left-wing and atheist then the best comparison is to religious zealotry.

    The Crucible, is treated like scripture in some schools. The “progressives” will not like realizing that they are part of a new McCarthyism. The choice of that play and the quotes was very deliberate.

    To address Laurent Duval’s point: these are the “clichés” and “popular culture and myths” of American “progressives”. Why not use their own mythology against them?

    Hopefully, it might give some pause for thought. Then they might even take a closer look at the science being peddled to them by the IPCC.

    ************************************

    Another comparison (perhaps a positive one this time) between modern environmentalism and Christianity is that they are both based on guilt. Carbon emissions are the new sin.

    ************************************

    David L made an important point on people’s reluctance to back down from mistakes. I think that is a major factor in the current situation. Not just scientists who have committed their life’s work and reputation to a flawed premise. It is also the politicians who fear what the backlash will be when the game is finally up.

    This was another point I was trying to make. What happens when a prophecy is not fulfilled? The alarmists are looking for a get out. If they succeed with their plans to transform the world and blanket it with windmills and no or very little warming ensues, then they will claim that it was their actions that saved the world and that we should offer our eternal thanks and obedience.

    ************************************

    neill wrote: “this wasn’t happenstance”
    No it wasn’t and it is what I am researching right now.

    ************************************

    Cui Bono wrote:
    “Like others, I think it would have been better to quit before going for the history and religious examples, which don’t hold water.”

    The jury’s still out. I’m getting a mixed response.

    The important part of Fakegate is not Gleick but the reaction of the alarmists to what he did. That’s why I moved on from his tawdry doings.

  64. Heggs says:

    That second item in the references about the threat just blew me away. I thought people were exaggerating about things like that. Good article and yet again WUWT delivers, thank you Peter Gleick because without you I would never have found this cool and informative site.

  65. wws says:

    “Tick whichever is applicable. People who do not believe in man-made catastrophic global warming should be…

    1. branded as deniers.
    2. harassed in their homes and workplaces.
    3. forcibly tattooed on their bodies.
    4. gassed with carbon monoxide.
    5. obliterated with explosives.

    If you ticked all of the above, full Marx.”

    not so much Marx as someone else, no? “he who cannot be named.” But no point godwining the thing, even though in the case of men like Susuki and Gleick it’s perfectly appropriate.

  66. neill says:

    berniel says:
    March 18, 2012 at 4:59 am

    Something along this line happened with my sister several years ago.

    She’s a green, in CA enviro govt, and was in briefly on govt business. As I prepared dinner, I put on ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ for her to view. After it was over, not disputing the video’s thesis, she said in effect, “Regardless, whether global warming is happening or not, it will move us in the direction we need to move.” As it was a somewhat rare family occasion, I didn’t press the moral implications of misleading the public. Since then, we’ve had an intensive web debate re CAGW, now over at her request, where I alone presented an overwhelming lode of evidence. Yet, last time I saw her, she almost immediately piped up about rising sea levels.

    It’s like dealing with zombies. You think they’re finally dealt with — and they pop right up again.

  67. Allan MacRae says:

    Cologne Cathedral was commenced in 1248 and left unfinished in 1473. Work recommenced in the 19th century and was completed, to the original plan, in 1880. (wiki)

    Cologne Cathedral is awe-inspiring. You should go.

    Some views:
    http://www.koelner-dom.de/

  68. Beesaman says:

    An interesting point to ponder on and forgive me for using warmist rhetoric. But what will be the tipping point that causes the paradigm shift? From Warmist alarmism to climate realism.
    Another batch of emails, the Arctic not spiralling away, a cold Summer in Europe or the USA, more rain in Australia, cooling oceans and atmosphere, falling sea levels? Or will it be a prolonged death rattle? With each of the major warmist players retiring into obscurity and carbon laws quitely being superceded by environmental sustainable ones.

  69. Tom in Florida says:

    Giordano Bruno. Look him up. See what the Church did to him because he was not a believer.

    “Giordano Bruno, original name Filippo Bruno, byname Il Nolano (born 1548, Nola, near Naples—died Feb. 17, 1600, Rome), Italian philosopher, astronomer, mathematician, and occultist whose theories anticipated modern science. The most notable of these were his theories of the infinite universe and the multiplicity of worlds, in which he rejected the traditional geocentric (or Earth-centred) astronomy and intuitively went beyond the Copernican heliocentric (Sun-centred) theory, which still maintained a finite universe with a sphere of fixed stars. Bruno is, perhaps, chiefly remembered for the tragic death he suffered at the stake because of the tenacity with which he maintained his unorthodox ideas at a time when both the Roman Catholic and the Reformed churches were reaffirming rigid Aristotelian and Scholastic principles in their struggle for the evangelization of Europe.”

    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/82258/Giordano-Bruno

  70. John Day says:

    @David Ross
    > The alarmists main concern seems to be the
    > possibility that their monopoly might be broken
    > and that “contrary” views might be heard …
    > …. they regard Gleick as a “hero” …

    Yes, quite a dilemma for the lefties, who seek a fascist-like control of social opinion. But in this case, with Gleick facing serious felony charges, they will likely throw him under the bus, and choose a new hero.

    In fact, it would not surprise me if the Obama crowd starts to call for his indictment, thus trying to gain some political favor with the conservative voting block in the upcoming election.

  71. Allan MacRae says:

    Satire has become reality.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/28/the-gleick-tragedy/#more-57881

    “The Law of Warmist BS”

    “You can save yourselves a lot of time, and generally be correct, by simply assuming that EVERY SCARY PREDICTION the global warming alarmists express is FALSE.”

  72. Agreed. The alarmists are behaving as the religious zealots. The alarmists are trying to unite religion with the state under the guise of scientific consensus, an appeal to authority. Thanks for the article.

  73. Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
    I agree to much to not reglog it. Good stuff.

  74. Victor Barney says:

    It also is written that “a person convinced against their will, is of the same opinion still!” Be it ignorance or just denial—Just saying…

  75. DGH says:

    Gleick destroyed his own credibility and anybody that would align themselves with him in the wake of the affair suffers the same fate. It comes as no surprise that the the likes of Joe Romm, the Guardian, and Richard Littlemore are defending Gleick’s actions. It is convenient, however, that they have done so. The Gleick affair provides a litmus test to identify the Believers.

    Some notable people and organizations have written strongly worded condemnations of Gleick’s actions.

    Gavin Schmidt, “Gleick’s actions were completely irresponsible and while the information uncovered was interesting (if unsurprising), it in no way justified his actions.”

    James Annan, “His transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives….especially those who are desperately clinging on to the faint hope that his “confession” was actually honest.”

    The AGU, “AGU is disappointed that Dr. Gleick acted in a way that is inconsistent with our organization’s values. AGU expects its members to adhere to the highest standards of scientific integrity in their research and in their interactions with colleagues and the public.”

    Andrew Revkin, “One way or the other, Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed* his credibility and harmed others.”

  76. Victor Barney says:

    What about the idea that ‘MARXISM(the rich taking care of you, yeah, right?) MANIFESTO” itself that MANDATES LYING? JUST SAYING…

  77. Markon says:

    “I am not religious and don’t want to see creationism taught in schools, other than perhaps a single paragraph mentioning that such views exist. My belief in the theory of evolution has not changed. ” Well, spoken like a true atheist as if science and God don’t mix. Sure, Evolution is a theory with major gaps in it but there is NO OTHER ANSWER SO SHUT UP. This attitude is very dismaying and sounds much like the green screamers. In fact, exactly like the green screamers which you’ve obviously figured out when you say you aren’t as bigoted towards “creationists” as you once were. Yes you are.

    The fact that we are here proves “creation” and why can’t evolution be “designed”, which it obviously is?

    I watched a show about Hubble. After showing one incredibly beautiful picture after another the host ends the show saying something like “And given gravity and the raw materials, you don’t need a higher power to explain the wonders of the universe”. Seriously. Given a planet and all natural laws then life will evolve until sentient beings walk the world. Not much of gap there. Better keep that to one dismissive sentence in the text book.

    However, you are right to keep up the pressure on those who accept the actions of people like Gleick. The same goes for educators who hide-the-decline. Supporters of fraudulent science must be held to account, particularly in the schools.

  78. tolo4zero says:

    “berniel says:
    March 18, 2012 at 4:59 am”

    My sister in-law works for a credit union involved with many green initiatives, and of course gets fed a lot of misinformation. Whenever I would talk about all the misinformation on the alarmist side, she wouldn’t say very much. Except for once when she told me about The Doran survey of 97% of climate scientists, that had just come out. I had never heard of it and investigated it myself.
    After I found out it was 75 out of 77 scientists, I showed her how misleading that 97% was.
    She was quite surprised and agreed. She seldom talks about “global warming” anymore and has
    actually given me some skeptical information as well as a book. I think that incident forced her to
    look deeper into the alarmist claims, rather than taking all the “Alarming” headlines at face value.

  79. Victor Barney says:

    Great comment and a little scary!

  80. David Ross says:

    wws wrote: “not so much Marx as someone else, no?”
    No, I meant Marx, not the National kind of socialist.

    If you want know why, you should read this by Friedrich Engels:
    http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/01/13.htm

    Skip to the end if you’re in a hurry, but I recommend reading the whole thing.

  81. tolo4zero says:

    “RE: The alarmists always compare skeptics (deniers as they like to call them) with creationists.
    Yet John Cook of Skeptical Science is a creationist
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=678

    [The link you post does not back up what you claim ~jove, mod]

    [to other moderators - I am unsure of posting this]”

    Yes it is a touchy subject, my link proves his catholic belief, and if he is a good Christian
    and follows the tenents of Catholicism, then he must believe in some form of creationism, even
    if it is Evolution by intelligent design. The Catholic Church accepts evolution guided by the hand of God.

  82. tolo4zero says:

    From an article in Sojourners ( register to read)

    Sojourners: How does your faith motivate your work?

    “John Cook: I’m very challenged by Bible passages such as Amos 5 and Matthew 25, which tell me that God cares strongly about social justice and expects us to. Climate change will affect poor, vulnerable countries that have contributed to it the least and are least equipped to adapt. Developing countries such as Bangladesh are vulnerable to rising sea levels; African countries are vulnerable to drought.”

  83. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Science is a form of religion. Scientists are always skeptical of the beliefs of others but rarely their own.

    Science is based on observation, religion on authority. The more the global warming alarmists ignore observation and appeal to authority, the more like a religion they become.

  84. tolo4zero says:

    Katharine Hayhoe is another creationist alarmist.
    “Addressing the Naysayers
    by Katharine Hayhoe
    The gospel truth about climate change
    We’ve all had enough of feeling bad about our sins of omission. We all know we should be eating better, recycling, and making more healthy choices. But that’s not the gospel, is it? The gospel tells us we are forgiven and free. The gospel motivates us from the heart to love others.
    The bottom line is that real people in real places around planet Earth are already being affected by our changing climate. Doing something about climate change is making the love of Jesus tangible to hurting people. Our God has made us into people who are designed to look outside of ourselves and love our global neighbor — and today, that means caring about what climate change is doing to our world.

    Katharine Hayhoe is a climate scientist and geoscience professor at Texas Tech University. She is the author, with Andrew Farley, of A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions (FaithWords), out in paperback in March.”

    http://sojo.net/magazine/2011/04/addressing-naysayers

  85. James Sexton says:

    ali says:
    March 18, 2012 at 3:32 am

    As a global warmin alaramist, I am glad for what Gleick did, even as all of you are glad someone hacked the CRU. But suppose I were a moral human being instead and felt Gleick’s role in Fakegate was wrong. So what. Global warming would be true (or false), and therefore my alarm would be justified (or not), even if Gleick had killed 1,000,000 people and buried them in his back yard.
    ====================================================
    lol, uhmm, that’s funny, ali, then we are in an agreement, I’m glad Gleick did what he did as well. Though I’m not sure why you’re glad…… but, I digress. You missed the point of the post. It isn’t about Gleick’s actions. It’s about some of the people who approve and condone his actions. Sure, your approval doesn’t matter. But, what about some of the prominent scientists?

    Tell me Ali, what makes you believe they were being truthful when writing their papers? Or giving lectures? Or blogging? They just told you lying is okay to advance an idea. So, what is it that makes them credible?

  86. Steve G3345 says:

    Is WUWT going to become another website harbouring anti-Catholic bigotry? Your falsification of Church history makes climategate look benign. It undermines your whole ethics argument. You treat people like trash just as the alarmists do to deniers.
    Disgraceful. This does no service to the reputation of WUWT.

  87. wfrumkin says:

    Nobody expects the CAGW inquisition:D

  88. tolo4zero says:

    “ali says:
    March 18, 2012 at 3:32 am
    As a global warmin alaramist, I am glad for what Gleick did, even as all of you are glad someone hacked the CRU. But suppose I were a moral human being instead and felt Gleick’s role in Fakegate was wrong”. ….

    So you feel a moral human being would feel Gleick’s role in fakegate was wrong, meaning
    anyone who is “glad for what Gleick did” is amoral.

  89. David Jones says:

    Guest post by David Ross
    “perhaps we should call it the Infallible Panel on Christ’s Coming”

    Excellent acronym. Perhaps we should use it in references to the other IPCC. Just imagine the warmists reaction! Gavin would go ballistic!! So would Moonbat and WMC!!

  90. wfrumkin says:

    A Mel Books style feature film would skewer the warmistas nicely. Does our side have any film makers?

  91. Legatus says:

    Speaking of science. religion, and Christianity…actually, science, the scientific method, IS Christianity (up to a point). Christianity says, as its very first and most basic principle. that man is fallible and sinfull. The basis of the existance of the scientific method is rooted on that, if man were not fallible, there would be no need for all those elaborate checks to see if the claims made about something were true, the ‘scientist” would make the claim, and everyone would beleive them, no need for publishing your exact method and it’s result, no need for others to try and replicate that result.

    Thus, it is actually impossible to seperate science and religion, at least Christianity and science (other religions are different, some are actualy anti science at their core), and at least up to a point. There is a reason, after all, that the scientific method flowered in “Christian” Europe and died out if started anywhere else (there is some evidence that the original idea started in the Islaamic area, yet never took root untill replanted in the Christian area).

    And as for peoples sensibilities being offended if “the church” is shown to be in a bad light in the stories above, see that first principle, man is falliible and sinfull. They branded Jesus a heritic and denier from the very start, Paul the apostle would start a church and then have to write a letter setting them straight when they got into serious error practically the minute he left, and it has continued like that for over 2000 years. If you are offended, get over it, it’s just history, it happened from the very first, and will continue to happen inside and outside the church.

    To sum up, seperating the scientific method and Christianity is not really possible, up to a point (the very first point, anyway). If you believe in science, you at least agree with the first most basic teaching of Christianity. If you do not agree with that point, then you do not agree with science, and you can expect your “science” to be full of argument from authority, lying, blackballing of “skeptics”, and all the other antics we know and love (and see often in church history as well).

  92. JimB says:

    Volker: I have no idea whether your equations are “true” or not. You forgot to define the elements used in them. And the units of mass and energy.

    The equations do seem to be equating mass and energy per Einstein’s revelation.

  93. Phil says:

    @Steve G3345:

    Is WUWT going to become another website harbouring anti-Catholic bigotry?

    Hardly. Please do not equate freedom of expression with endorsement. WUWT has become a public forum. You are as welcome as the poster to express your opinion. You are not the only one that has criticized this post. Try criticizing posts on other blogs. There aren’t that many that moderate with as light a hand as here. The whole point of the post is stifling of free expression. Your comment proves the point of the post as you are allowed to express yourself. That is becoming ever more rare, especially when going against the grain of CAGW.

  94. David Jones says:

    ali says:
    March 18, 2012 at 3:32 am
    “As a global warmin alaramist, I am glad for what Gleick did, even as all of you are glad someone hacked the CRU. But suppose I were a moral human being instead and felt Gleick’s role in Fakegate was wrong. So what. Global warming would be true (or false), and therefore my alarm would be justified (or not), even if Gleick had killed 1,000,000 people and buried them in his back yard.”

    Do you have any evidence that “someone hacked the CRU.”? If so I suggest you pass the evidence to the Norfolk Constabulary in UK. I strongly doubt you have any evidence, just a religious belief in CAGW.

  95. commieBob says:

    dtbronzich says:
    March 18, 2012 at 12:30 am

    … Thank goodness, just enough fresh meat to see them through the lean times, and the school is saved the embarrassment of explaining the immature behavior of it’s staff.

    You should be embarrassed.

  96. Janice says:

    Final Assignment: Question for everybody: There used to be a time when junk science was not taught in our schools and our kids were not indoctrinated. There used to be a time when scientists and everybody could debate in a climate of free enquiry, free of censorship and intimidation. Has the climate changed?

    There has never been a time when junk science was not taught in our schools. In my father’s day, the superiority of white males was known as truth. In my day, the imminent disaster of nuclear war (with the resulting collapse of civilization) was known as truth. In my childrens’ days, the moral equivalence of every philosophy and lifestyle was known as truth. In my grandchildrens’ days, the imminent disaster of ecological and environmental failure (with the resulting collapse of civilization) is truth.

    There has never been a time when scientists and everybody could debate in a climate of free inquiry. There has always been censorship and intimidation, where more senior scientists (or more wealthy ones) could ensure that their ideas were not overturned during their lifetime. Many fields of science have to wait for certain learned-ones to die before new ideas can come to fruition.

    As much as I cherish and appreciate the WUWT site, and will come here and read all of the marvelous good and intellectual articles and comments, the ultimate bottom-line root-cause-analysis is not going to be in scientific papers and discussions. I do not need WUWT to see that the whole climate alarmism is a sham. I do not need any education, charts, graphs, or scientific discourse to see it is a sham. All I have to do is follow the money, and use a little common sense. Just like in all the other scams promoted through whichever educational or political system you want to follow, it is all about money and power. Anyone who has been in debate knows how it goes: You can argue, and win, either side of any argument. It is not, nor has it ever been, about who is right, but how effectively you can put your point across to the judges/audience you are trying to sway. There are good reasons why Dante placed lawyers in the third tier of hell.

    In all of my 60 years of life, I have not seen a year go by that didn’t have some disaster declared, some dire threat to myself or civilization or the world. I can sympathize with the peasants that lived in the years around AD 1000, because I think I have lived through something similar. If it isn’t some problem with food or water or air, then it is weapons or politics or war. We’ll get rid of lead paint, but then we will have infestations of bed-bugs. We’ll get rid of lead solder, but then we’ll have very large electronics fail. We go from crisis to crisis, never failing to shoot ourselves in the foot multiple times, never learning to be patient. We’ve gone from the Age of Enlightenment to the Age of Reaction. Don’t ask what you are reacting to, just react, get angry, and DO SOMETHING!

    I’m all out of reaction, and down to cold simmering anger. Not that I, as an individual, can really do anything other than speak out to people around me, and try to not fall into the disaster-of-the-year mentality. I’m tired of people trying to scare me. It is sometimes difficult to pursue Truth, but I can always fall back on pursuing Justice.

  97. Paul Coppin says:

    “The climate debate is polarizing society. There is a general perception that the skeptics are right-wing and religious and that the alarmists are left-wing and atheist.”

    This is by design, and not by accident. People coming to WUWT are still misled in their[:wink] belief that CAGW is about climate. Its not, and never was. The steak is about a very different agenda. CAGW is only the sizzle. It’s all Madison Av 101.

  98. scannit says:

    Nick in Vancouver said on March 18, 2012 at 1:27 am

    2 assignment #3, is that a trick question to root out deniers, only a denier would see that the numbers are not going up? If you reeeeealy believed you would see a 4.

    Maybe someone is trying to ‘Hide the Incline‘?

    Remedial counting is the next assignment. Maybe Anthony wanted to check and see if people were paying attention..

    I like using the analogy to bring the issue to a common level that everyone can relate to. But I wonder how many AGW believers will take note, not many if history proves to be any indication..

  99. Tim Ball says:

    Peter Gleick may be a minor figure in climate science, but that assumes climate is the only environmental or resource area exploited for a political agenda. The fundamental issue is overpopulation as the Club of Rome expanded the Malthusian argument of exhaustion of food resources to all resources. It was all formalized as Agenda 21 in the 1992 Rio Agreement.

    Gleick’s expertise in water resources is a central plank to “the cause” and one that will replace climate as the science fails, as I argued here.

    http://drtimball.com/2012/peter-gleicks-actions-exposes-end-justifies-means-mentality-poses-problem-for-un-agenda-21/

    Gleick is already back on the speaking circuit; I assume he showed up for this engagement.

    http://www.cawaterpolicy.org/speakers.htm

  100. scannit says:

    Steve G3345 said on March 18, 2012 at 7:07 am

    Is WUWT going to become another website harbouring anti-Catholic bigotry?

    {snip}

    Steve, if you think that there were never ANY dark times in the Catholic Church’s history, you are a narrow minded fellow. As a Catholic myself, I have to recognize the good and the bad that happened in MY church’s history, learn from it and ensure that those dark times NEVER happen again. The Church (any church) is made up of imperfect men, and as time passes, the Church will stumble ( pedophile priests for example). But as a member, it is my duty to keep it on a righteous path and identify those demons in the flock that infiltrate over time. Call it out for what it is and ensure there is a Church that can be respected. But I will refuse to turn a blind eye to those items in the past, for we shall be destined to repeat them if we do…

    Now I can step off my soapbox…

  101. Eric Webb says:

    As far as i can tell, there are only 2 reasons anyone would be a global warming activist or alarmist.
    1. Personal Agenda (whether that be political, self-fufilling, or for $…etc.)
    2. Self ignorance (whether that be that they refuse to look at the other side of things, or they live under a rock.

  102. Victor Barney says:

    Perfectly written post! Well done!

  103. Jeremy says:

    Steve G3345,

    Try to be humble. All religions, just like science and business and all human activity, have been, at one time or another, abused by less scrupulous types who sold “snake oil” in order to gain power and wealth. Recently in Canada, we had 3 young daughters and their mother murdered by their father/husband and extended family because of religious beliefs (honor killing – they behaved too much like other Canadian Girls and did not dress/behave appropriately to what dominant males had decided )

    The best way to discuss this is satire:

  104. Victor Barney says:

    Wow! Another great post! Paul, you make sense to me!

  105. Latimer Alder says:

    @steveg3445

    Is WUWT going to become another website harbouring anti-Catholic bigotry? Your falsification of Church history makes climategate look benign. It undermines your whole ethics argument. You treat people like trash just as the alarmists do to deniers.
    Disgraceful. This does no service to the reputation of WUWT”

    I’d have more sympathy with your view if you presented some reasons why you think David’s excellent piece is wrong, rather than just calling it ‘bigotry’, with no supporting evidence.

    I can see no logical difference between your remark and a rabid warmist saying

    ‘You are wrong because you are all deniers’

    Truly AGW is the ‘new’ religion, but it suffers from exactly the same fatal flaws as all those which have gone before..And that any which come after will also have.

  106. earthdog says:

    People work on a risk/reward basis, usually.

    Serious question: With all the risk associated with the climate scam, what reward are Mann, et al. expecting out of it? They will never rise to the position of a true power broker in the large scheme — the various governments will assume that. So what are these people getting out of the climate scandal they created?

  107. Victor Barney says:

    Another great reponse!

  108. Victor Barney says:

    Another great post and one that I agree with completely! Just saying…

  109. Robert Brown says:

    There used to be a time when junk science was not taught in our schools and our kids were not indoctrinated. There used to be a time when scientists and everybody could debate in a climate of free enquiry, free of censorship and intimidation. Has the climate changed?

    This is, sadly, a false statement. Junk science, and antiscience, have always been taught in our schools and continue to be taught today. There was never a time when scientists could debate in a climate of free enquiry, although the present is seriously not too bad compared to most of human history, at least in some parts of some countries.

    To put it bluntly, climate research simply has to stand in line with creationism, intelligent design, whether or not eating oats reduces heart disease, whether or not humans actually have “rights”, “God given” or otherwise, whether Jesus is Lord or Allah will condemn you to a fiery hell and burn your skin off repeatedly for the offense of not believing in him, whether Marx was a prophetic visionary describing an ideal society or a cigar-smoking Grouch-o, whether or not a supernatural human “soul” exists, and whether sitting with the bathtubs really does help you win at poker or bridge. And I won’t even touch things like “Obama is a Muslim”, or a communist, or “Bush is an Idiot”, or in thrall to the oil industry.

    Human indoctrination starts almost before children can talk. Easily a third, maybe two thirds, of what they learn is pure social fiction and religion — human morality, for example, is a complex network of non-verifiable fictions taught by rote and reinforcement conditioning, not reason.

    We do not now have, nor have we ever had, a rational society or universal, empirically supported worldview. We are working towards one, perhaps, but it is hard work. We haven’t even managed to dump scriptural mythology and theology, in spite of the fact that there is far less evidence supporting either one than that supporting either side in the climate debate. Note how careful you were in your examples above not to “offend” religious persons — why is it that you have to be careful not to offend when you point out that their beliefs are almost certainly false? We spend so very much time on this blog addressing the “religion” of CAGW, but so very little discussing real religion that is so very much worse.

    I’m just sayin’… we’re a long ways away from rational, as a society. If we were rational, we might do something like actually plan for our energy future instead of relying on some sort of random meandering into the future, driven by the uncertain winds of greed and scarcity. If we did that, we might find that some of the measures being proposed to deal with the imaginary threat of CAGW are things that we might support anyway, for very good reasons that have nothing to do with a threat real or imagined from CO_2.

    One of the things I like least about the entire CAGW controversy is the way a perfectly reasonable question and field of scientific endeavor has been suborned to accomplish a narrow political goal that in the end has nothing to do with the question itself. We refuse steadfastly to actually plan for a global future and take rational action to accomplish our vision, preferring instead to follow our noses through the chaos of conflicting interests in the hope that they will lead us somewhere we want to go in the end.

    I doubt it.

    rgb

  110. Reed Coray says:

    Latimer Alder says: March 18, 2012 at 4:02 am

    Withdraw not a single word, mon brave. Stick to your guns. That you annoy the religious and teh green alike is no surprise. For you actually puncture their self-regard in exactly the same way.

    I agree with Mr. Alder. Although I am not religious, I have beliefs that I hold dear and take offence to when mocked or ridiculed. That doesn’t change the fact that every once in a while it’s a good idea to audit your beliefs and especially how you respond to those who disagree with you. Put yourselves in the shoes of a warmist. Aren’t those of you who are upset with Mr. Ross’s reference to Christianity if not behaving at least emoting in a manner similar to those who believe in AGW? AGW alarmists are every bit as upset when someone questions their religion as you are when someone questions yours. No matter how pure the intent, I believe all of mankind’s institutions, including mankind’s religions, have their weaknesses and episodes of bad behavior by some of their practitioners. Mr. Ross didn’t equate all of Christianity with AGW, he just pointed out a few of the questionable practices of both religions.

  111. Mike says:

    Ross wrote: “But the reaction of all the global warming alarmists, who see nothing wrong with what he did, is much more significant.”

    This statement, which is the premise of the rest of the post, is a lie. Many mainstream climate scientists and science reporters have clearly stated that what Gleick did was wrong. Gleick himself stated that what he did was wrong. Some activists, such as DeSmog blog, have defended Gleick’s actions and you have every right to criticize them, but it is dishonest to claim all those warning about climate change see nothing wrong with what Gleick did.

  112. Gail Combs says:

    Helen Hawkins says:
    March 18, 2012 at 2:27 am

    As a devout Catholic, I find it strange that the people who are pushing the AGW scam and many of the the AGW skeptics say the same things about my faith…..
    ___________________________________________________________
    Helen, the attack on Religion was “necessary” and “deliberate” if “Socialism” was to be implemented.

    The threads of this decision going back into history are long as usual. The easiest place to start is the Webb’s Fabian Society and London School of Economics (LSE). If you investigate LSE you will find it is linked to world leaders like former Fabian chairman/ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair, Director of the World Trade Organization Pascal Lamy, Bill Clinton and even Gaddafi’s son.

    The motto on the Fabian Stain Glass Window reads:

    Dear love, couldst thou and I with fate conspire
    To grasp this sorry scheme of things entire,
    Would we not shatter it to bits, and then
    Remould it nearer to the heart’s desire!

    Beneath the line Remould it nearer to the heart’s desire, the mural depicts Shaw and Webb striking the earth with hammers. Across the bottom, the masses kneel in worship of a stack of books advocating the theories of socialism. Thumbing his nose at the docile masses is H.G. Wells who, after quitting the Fabians, denounced them as “the new Machiavellians.” The most revealing component, however, is the Fabian crest which appears Between Shaw and Webb. It is a wolf in sheep’s clothing! http://www.sunray22b.net/fabian_window.htm

    I can not think of anything more blunt then that window for getting the message across except for George Bernard Shaw’s writings: The Real George Bernard Shaw which is a real eye opening read. It makes you feel you are nothing more than cattle => chattel => Slave.

    “…Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner…” George Bernard Shaw: The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, 1928, pg. 470)

    So much for freedom in the new improved world of Global Governance by the Fabians.

    The following explains the tie-in between the Fabians, the attack on Christianity and the rise in the “worship” of Gaia (Mother Earth)

    FABIANS:
    QUOTE FROM A NINTH GRADE HISTORY TEXTBOOK:

    “In 1883, the year in which Karl Marx died, a group of restless English intellectuals formed a new socialist organization. The group called itself the LONDON FABIAN SOCIETY . . . the Fabians are committed to achieving socialism gradually by passing new laws. Thus, the Marxists are revolutionary socialists, while the Fabians are evolutionary socialists . . . . The key element in all of the ideas [ of the group ] is environmentalism — the belief that man was not created by God but is the product of his surroundings and that to change man, one must simply manipulate the economic, political, and social environment.”

    “The early Fabians were all vehement in their denial of God and their rejection of the historic Christian faith, although they were not above using liberal Christian ministers to advance their cause . . . . The Fabians chose POLITICS, EDUCATION, and the PRINTED WORD as the primary media through which they would persuade the people of the need for change. Leading Fabians were to penetrate the political parties, the labor unions, the government offices, the schools, the press, and Parliament by securing key positions in these institutions.”

    QUOTES FROM A BRITISH PROFESSOR:
    A recent article has appeared in the journal called, SOCIETY, (v. 27 Jan./Feb.1990 p. 71). Its title is “1890-1990: up from Fabian socialism”.

    Article’s ABSTRACT in USC’s library database:

    “Sidney Webb’s Fabian Essays, published in England in 1890, purged socialism of its romantic elements and paved the way for today’s almost universal subservience of the individual to the state. Based on Bismarck’s Prussian model, Webb’s concept of bureaucratic planning and management for public welfare, known as FABIANISM, NOW THRIVES IN ENGLAND, THE UNITED STATES, FRANCE, and elsewhere.”

    Few ordinary citizens know that a man who has a great influence on the economy of the USA and the world, John Maynard Keynes (Keynesian economics) was a member of the British Fabian Society.

    Keynes himself stated:

    “…a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but confiscate arbitrarily: and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner that not one man in a million can diagnose.” John Maynard Keynes, Economic Consequences of the Peace (1920)

    Again it is quite plain that the goal is destruction of our current society to shatter it to bits, and then Remould it nearer to the heart’s desire!

    Humanist Manifesto I (1933)
    The Manifesto is a product of many minds. It was designed to represent a developing point of view, not a new creed…. The importance of the document is that more than thirty men have come to general agreement on matters of final concern and that these men are undoubtedly representative of a large number who are forging a new philosophy out of the materials of the modern world. – Raymond B. Bragg (1933)
    FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

    SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

    THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected…..

    You can read the rest at their website.

    John Dewey, Father of Progressive Education, was an early signatory of The Humanist Manifesto (1933) Here is what he had to say:

    When knowledge is regarded as originating and developing within an individual, the ties which bind the mental life of one to that of his fellows are ignored and denied.

    When the social quaility of individualized mental operations is denied, it becomes a problem to find connections which will unite an individual with his fellows. Moral individualism is set up by the conscious separation of different centers of life. It has its roots in the notion that the consciousness of each person is wholly private, a self-inclosed continent. intrinsically independent of the ideas, wishes, purposes of everybody else…. John Dewey John Dewey

    More on Dewey

    Dumbing Down America by Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld

    …Dewey’s philosophy had evolved from Hegelian idealism to socialist materialism, and the purpose of the school was to show how education could be changed to produce little socialists and collectivists instead of little capitalists and individualists….To Dewey, the greatest obstacle to socialism was the private mind that seeks knowledge in order to exercise its own private judgment and intellectual authority. High literacy gave the individual the means to seek knowledge independently. It gave individuals the means to stand on their own two feet and think for themselves. This was detrimental to the “social spirit” needed to bring about a collectivist society….

    Two views of the Fabian Society:
    Fabian Society and their Secret Agenda

    1884 and still going – How the Fabians Policy of Gradualism Made Our Democracy Possible, Provided the Basis of the Welfare State and is needed to solve the Problems We Face in the Future.

    I discuss in another strand of this mess Carrol Quigley, Bill Clinton’s Mentor, HERE

  113. Gail Combs says:

    Archonix says:
    March 18, 2012 at 3:14 am

    Why didn’t you use a diffeent religious example,then? The japanese “consensus” on the status of the shogunate, for instance, or the emperor. Or the hindu caste system. Why is it always christianity?
    _________________________________________
    Because that is the History that most English speaking people are familiar with of course.

    Remember to separate the nasty doings of corrupt humans from the teachings. Even if you are not a Christian (I am an agnostic) that does not mean the teachings are to be despised especially the moral code which is currently under discussion.

  114. David Ball says:

    I am not a religious person by any means, but you have to admit the way cheese, bacon, and tomato taste together make a darn good case for. 8^)

  115. David, UK says:

    wws says:
    March 18, 2012 at 5:52 am

    not so much Marx as someone else, no? “he who cannot be named.”

    You mean Hitler? If you do, I wasn’t aware of a general ban on the usage of the name? Guess if I come back to read this and it says “[SNIP]ler” then I’ll be proven wrong!

  116. “History repeats itself” only to the extent that those in power can benefit from hypnosis of the masses and repeating the same tricks. We are intentionally miseducated by an elitist controlled system in both science and history. Carbon Climate Forcing is Faux Science created to FORCE a Carbon Commodity Market. To understand this you must first recognize the under LYING problem, a fraudlent monetary system. See “Fractional Reserve Banking Begat Faux Reality” for a good intro.

    [i do wish to contact David Ross for additional history corrections, Anthony has my email, thanks]

  117. David Ball says:

    Thread needed some levity, ….

  118. Gail Combs says:

    Steve B says: @ March 18, 2012 at 2:59 am

    James Sexton says: @ March 18, 2012 at 1:37 am

    Well said James but what you are missing is the “death by degrees”. The Marxists introduced things by degrees…..
    _______________________________________
    Actually there are at least two flavors of Marxists.
    The Communists want to introduce change through violent revolution. It is the Fabian Socialist who are the “death by degrees”.

    You might want to investigate their newest twist, pushed by Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and the London School of Economics (LSE) It was developed by LSE Director Professor Anthony Giddens. http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/globalDimensions/globalisation/aThirdWayForTheEuropeanUnion/Default.htm

    http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/284/

  119. Ed, "Mr." Jones says:

    Sam The First says:
    March 18, 2012 at 5:15 am

    “And politicians themselves are particularly prone to this fatal disability” (the inability to admit mistakes), “which is why so many are refusing to acknowledge the science, and the sceptics’ arguments, on this topic.”

    Not to defend mealy-mouthed, double-talking, belly-slithering Politicians, BUT . . . Politicians who admit mistakes are branded: ‘Flip-Floppers’. This is usually not a ‘Sustainable’ outcome.

  120. Volker Doormann says:

    Steve from Rockwood says:
    March 18, 2012 at 6:50 am
    Science is a form of religion.

    Do you believe that or do you know that?

    See. That is a (your) statement, without any reason and without arguing what religion is the philosophical terms. This practice fulfils not the claims of thee science of logic.

    Therefore you’re your statement is meaningless as argument; it is from your belief system.

    Scientists are always skeptical of the beliefs of others but rarely their own.

    This statement is your personal theory, and the problem with it is, that you cannot know for sure what’s going on in the consciousness of each scientist. The idea of science is that a scientist is searching knowledge and adding knowledge about the order of nature. Knowledge starts with the very own recognition that something cannot be true and in the same time untrue. This is indeed a very own recognition of him, but therefore not necessary for you.

    It seems easy to argue that this knowledge is ‘a form of religion’, but the alternative is that you accept that something is true and in the same time untrue.

    In 2004 I was in Oxford in a small hotel and in TV ran in the evening a soap. Two young (church) men wanted to convince (among other things) a pretty girl of Jesus and asked her intelligently:
    “Do you think that or do you think what Jesus taught is the truth, or do you think that what Jesus taught is wrong? ” She looked to ceiling and said after a while: “Both!”

    That is mayby love but not truth. Science is the search to that nonlocation where love and truth is one.

    What is the (your) reference to recognise that something is true?

    A coin?

    V.

  121. Steve says:

    I saw the author’s use of a mythological medieval history as being, not a declaration of truth, but strictly for the purposes of analogy.

    I’m a Christian, I know his account of history is drastically off and biased, but I’m sure he was taught it and did not come up with it on his own – just like his belief in spontaneous generation, or that an effect somehow miraculously can exceed the sum of its causes. Those matters simply aren’t the topic at hand.

  122. I agree with Dr. Ware; the Christian Judeo values and ethics are what our most basic laws are based on and drive a decency of humane social behavior. Those psychopathic leaders over our known history drive many civilizations into demise and that represents the person, not the “religion.”
    For those who claim to be non-religious, that is a notion of false thinking. You believe in something and you behave in a religious way. You are not random in thought and process.
    Mr. Sexton also is on the track of clear thinking. The self motivated greed takers that consume the rest of us at any cost to humanity are not interested in civil social behavior, but are focused on their deceitful climb to a new order driven by ravenous power grabbing. The hate mongers divide and conquer. Examples abound.
    As for the real problem we face, aim high. History will repeat itself; history writers leave out the parts that caused history to repeat itself and our education system is missing the concept of that wisdom.
    Read “In The Garden Of Beasts”

  123. David Ball says:

    Good post Mr. Ross. Here is my overly simplistic answer to the final assignment. What I see lacking in our education system is the implementation of critical thinking skills.

  124. highflight56433 says:

    I agree with Dr. Ware; the Christian Judeo values and ethics are what our most basic laws are based on and drive a decency of humane social behavior. Those psychopathic leaders over our known history drive many civilizations into demise and that represents the person, not the “religion.”
    For those who claim to be non-religious, that is a notion of false thinking. You believe in something and you behave in a religious way. You are not random in thought and process.

    Mr. Sexton also is on the track of clear thinking. The self motivated greed takers that consume the rest of us at any cost to humanity are not interested in civil social behavior, but are focused on their deceitful climb to a new order driven by ravenous power grabbing. The hate mongers divide and conquer. Examples abound.

    As for the real problem we face, aim high. History will repeat itself; history writers leave out the parts that caused history to repeat itself and our education system is missing the concept of that wisdom.

    The AGW movement is an example of how a lie can spread and drive ignorance. Read “In The Garden Of Beasts.”

  125. David Ball says:

    But critical thinking is not what you want in an obedient populace, …..

  126. Gail Combs says:

    Beesaman says: @ March 18, 2012 at 4:48 am

    …… Maybe, just maybe, we are starting to see the re-emergence of an animist Green-Faith based around Gaia, in which Mann et al are certainly taking upon the trappings and actions of high priests. Maybe they are not scientists after all but Druids of the Heat!
    _________________________________________
    Oh it has more than just the trappings of religion. One of the goals is to create a new World Wide Religion hence the attacks on Christianity (Divide and conquer at work)

    Maurice Strong, chair of both UN Earth Summits, and his mystic wife Hanne are looking at several religions and picking an choosing what they want to use in creating a “New Religion”

    [Strong] is working as diligently as he can with his mystic second wife Hanne to help create a New Earth-Friendly Religion…

    Some equally high-powered and influential people come to his ranch to share his dreams and encourage more dreaming, people with names like Rockefeller, Kissinger, McNamara, Trudeau, Moyers, the Dalai Lama, Shirley MacLane ~ along with countless other dignitaries, politicians, businessmen, media moguls, actors and actresses……

    …Hanne Strong prophesied: ‘It will not be too distant before the Baca attains its true potential. ‘You will see more and more world leaders of various fields coming here to help the world community put into action proper enlightened plans that will eliminate problems…solving the political, social, and environmental difficulties of the world.’ Her millionaire husband shares her dreams, and is financing the settlement of various religious houses: a Carmelite monastery where men and women live together, a $175,000 solar-powered Hindu Temple, a monastery for Tibetan Buddhists, temples for Sufis and Taoists, a center for the study of Jewish mysticism, a center for environmentalists from the Aspen Institute ~ all in the effort to create a New World Religion based on earth spirituality that will be more tolerant than the ‘ancient’ religions. Hanne calls it ‘The Valley of the Refuge of World Truths,’ and FTM’s Colorado correspondent says the place is growing by leaps and bounds.

    Once the religious component is in place, the Strongs think, corporate and political leaders will follow, making the Baca Complex the ‘Vatican City’ of the New World Order. Today, the area is booming, and there are plans for a complex of futuristic buildings, including a 300-foot pyramid…. http://www.scribd.com/doc/23648275/Maurice-Strong-Dossier

    This is a link to Maurice Strong’s “Religious” retreat: http://www.transition-dynamics.com/crestone/9crestonecolorado.html

  127. tolo4zero says:

    “Mike says:
    March 18, 2012 at 9:20 am
    Ross wrote: “But the reaction of all the global warming alarmists, who see nothing wrong with what he did, is much more significant.”
    This statement, which is the premise of the rest of the post, is a lie. Many mainstream climate scientists and science reporters have clearly stated that what Gleick did was wrong.”

    Misplaced comma ?

    But the reaction of all the global warming alarmists who see nothing wrong with what he did, is much more significant.”

    Try and have a little faith

  128. Kozlowski says:

    Please don’t rewrite this to un-offend certain people. I can handle reading things that do not agree with my world view. Succumbing to repression of ideas you don’t like and censorship is what the bad guys do. And that’s not us.

    In this excellent book by Stephen Gould, it suggests quite clearly that there was a great deal of social unrest during the first millennium. I read this book just before our second millennium when it first came out. It is a very interesting book.

  129. gnomish says:

    (note the use of a very generic second person plural – no individual is being addressed)
    well that’s very good if way late.
    this battle has always been about right and wrong and until people start fighting it on those grounds they are just playing patacake.
    it’s not about science; it’s about stealing everything and more – including liberty.
    and the battle can’t be won until it is fought on moral grounds.
    so figure out how to define right and wrong – something the parents who abandoned you in public schools where lord.of.the.flies tribalism turned half a generation into unapologetic liars and thieves.
    the idea that ‘at least they had something to believe in’ (to paraphrase the marin parents of the american taliban) is where you lost, giving evil equal time is wrong. evil shouldn’t have a passing grade to save its self esteem.
    time to buy out – if you can figure out why it is wrong. to do that you need to be able to define ‘right and wrong’.
    good luck. they don’t teach anything like that in schools any more – it requires reasoning. they don’t teach reasoning any more, so there are few who can do it reliably and accurately.
    if a child passes age 4 without being able to define right and wrong in a single sentence, his moral educators have failed failed failed. as willy wonka said- blame the parents.
    heh. this is all about self harming by proxy and vehement denial of failure on the fundamental choice of ‘to think or not to think’. maybe you would if you could but you can’t – you were abandoned in a public school too, right? maybe that’s the source of all the self loathing that makes the suffering feel so righteous? isn’t martyrdom fun when you can’t even say what your own cause is?
    don’t worry – the enemy is united behind a cause and has a self consistent morality – that’s why they win over the hoi polloi who still haven’t got a feck.

  130. Victor Barney says:

    [ok that's getting over the top - tone it down - Anthony]

  131. Allan MacRae says:

    We have many examples in the world of “extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds”.

    Global warming is one major delusion, not to be underestimated. It has cost society a trillion dollars in squandered resources. It is apparently a core belief of most government leaders – hence the abundance of nonsensical “green energy” policies that have only served to significantly reduce energy reliability and increase energy costs for everyone.

    And please understand: If you live in the developed world, access to reliable cheap energy is your lifeline – you and your family would easily perish without it.

    Global warming cults are incredibly rigid in their beliefs. The absence of global warming in the past decade does not cause them to reflect.
    Neither does the failure of every single scary prediction by the IPCC and the global warming “scientific” elite.
    Neither does the public evidence of professional, ethical and scientific fraud by this same CAGW elite in the ClimateGate 1&2 emails.
    Neither does the criminal behaviour of Peter Gleick – witness the chorus of approval for his odious behaviour by the Gleick Klub.

    Not even global cooling will shake the belief systems of these avid global warmers. These warming dervishes were not strong thinkers to begin with – they are Lenin’s “useful idiots”, who will continue to believe the lies of the global warming elite long after that elite has abandoned these lies in favor of shiny new ones.

    Charles Mackay provides a glimpse of our future, from ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”, published in 1841:
    • “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”
    • “Of all the offspring of Time, Error is the most ancient, and is so old and familiar an acquaintance, that Truth, when discovered, comes upon most of us like an intruder, and meets the intruder’s welcome.”
    • “We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them.”

  132. michaelozanne says:

    Archonix,

    The Shogunate (Bakufu) was not a religious institution. It was a military dictatorship imposed by the power bloc supporting the Matsudaira/Tokugawa faction after the defeat of the power bloc supporting the Toyotomi succession. It was the culmination of a long period (1490?? to 1615) of repeated conflict in which ever more powerful regional warlords contended for political dominance of the whole country. This period in itself was the culmination of a long and violent process of militarily adjusting the balance of power between the Imperial court and the Samurai clans. There was no consensus in maintaining its rule. That was done by brutal repression , land bribes, hostage taking, military force, financial impositions, hostage taking and control of inheritance rights. When the opportunity presented itself the old Toyotomi faction (The Satsuma clans for example) polished up it’s grudge, carpe’d the diem and set up a puppet regime of their own. Even the suppression of Christianity by the Bakufu was not a particularly religious act but a reaction to the political influence of the church and suspected colonialist tendencies on the part of the Portugese.

    Now I suspect the author referenced christianity because it’s part of the cultural heritage of many of the blog readers, including agnostic, infidel heretics like , well , me. Cultural empathy regarding the Sengoku-Jidaii is perhaps less prevalent

  133. Volker Doormann says:

    JimB says:
    March 18, 2012 at 7:48 am
    Volker: I have no idea whether your equations are “true” or not. You forgot to define the elements used in them. And the units of mass and energy.

    JimB, the used dimensions are defined by the science community; you can find it in each physics textbook:

    1 [J] = 1 [V A s] = 1 kg m^2 s^-2

    The equations do seem to be equating mass and energy per Einstein’s revelation.

    Yes, Einstein had a belief in the object velocity, but a velocity is not an observable in physics, it is a term from moving trains or horses. What is a velocity? In space? I don’t know.

    Fields are good. V/m .
    A load is good. A sec.
    A ‘mass’ of: 1.7801 * 10^-36 [V A sec^3 m^-2] is equal to an Energy of 1[eV].
    A force F [N] has the dimension [V A s m^-1].
    The angular moment D [kg m^2 sec^-1] has then the dimension [V A s^2] and is equal to Planck’s constant h. Multiplied by a frequency [1/s] it is an energy [V A s] (A moving frequenting planet represents an energy).
    The gravitational constant g [m^3 kg^-1 s^2] has then the dimension [m^5 s^-5 V^-1 A^-1].
    The gravitational force F [ g x m1 x m2 x r^-2 ] has the dimension [V A s m^-1].
    Because ‘mass’ m [kg] = E * µ0 * epsilon0 (permeability and permittivity of the universe) there is no need for a kg anymore and not for a velocity.

    m = E µ0 epsilon0

    V.

  134. Blade says:

    wfrumkin [March 18, 2012 at 7:38 am] says:

    “A Mel Books style feature film would skewer the warmistas nicely. Does our side have any film makers?”

    We actually do, and his name is David Zucker. Working with far smaller than budgets than Mel Brooks he has made even funnier spoofs. Airplane! and Naked Gun are legendary of course, but Scary Movie 3 and 4 are also top shelf. Zucker has a whole bunch of anti-leftist political ads also. Few people know that he worked with Southpark founders and notable anti-leftists Matt Stone and Trey Parker on BASEketball. The perfect man for the job.

    It takes a special kind of genius to spoof ‘Saw’ using Dr. Phil and Shaq …

  135. _Jim says:

    Two School Assignment #3′s? Is one optional over the other? (I would take it so were I actually still in school just to escape the additional punishm -er- work.)

    School Assignment 3: English Literature

    School Assignment 3: Citizenship and Ethics

    Sorry in advance; discovered while reading for comprehension and cohesion on the text of the article …

    .

  136. Gail Combs says:

    Beesaman says: @ March 18, 2012 at 6:05 am
    An interesting point to ponder on and forgive me for using warmist rhetoric. But what will be the tipping point that causes the paradigm shift? From Warmist alarmism to climate realism…
    ___________________________________________
    I am very much afraid the tipping point will be towards the default condition of humanity, namely TYRANY disguised as “Global Governance” this time around.

    I have been increasingly alarmed about the exploding growth of government since the 1980′s. Dr Evans pulls it all together and essentially shows how we have gradually approached the “Tipping Point” where the tax paying “Regular Joes” are becoming out numbered by the The Regulating Class These people are the supporters of big government or expanding government. They are: NGOs, the UN, WTO, EU, western governments, politicians, labor unions, bureaucrats, teachers, academia, accountants, lawyers, welfare recipients, large corporations, banks, financial houses, insurance companies, and therefore the Mainstream Media… all the people who financially benefit from an expanding government. Unfortunately this group is well organized and rapidly expanding in numbers.

    Dr. Evans defines the regulating class.

    …The supporters of the theory of manmade global warming are mainly financial beneficiaries,[vi] believers in big government, or Greens. They are usually university educated. They generally prefer the methods of government, namely politics and coercion, rather than the voluntary transactions of the marketplace—especially when it comes to setting their own remuneration.

    They are an intellectual upper class of wordsmiths, who regulate and pontificate rather than produce real stuff. There is little demand in the economy for their skills, so they would command only modest rewards for their labor in the marketplace. Arguably they are a class of parasites enriching themselves at the expense of producers, because they are rewarded out of proportion to the value they create….

    The regulating class also attracts people who are not part of it for strictly economic reasons, but who identify with it because of similar backgrounds, or culture and beliefs. The regulating class does not try to hide its belief that it is cleverer, and morally superior too…

  137. dp says:

    The meat of the Gleick affair has been chewed to the bone with no new chewing points being offered recently. We turned the corner on meaningful information to lawndarting anything remotely related to Gleick. We went from justified outrage to sniping to piling on and it began to look undignified. We left debate for bickering and we lost some distinction between the skeptical and alarmist behavior patterns and which have helped to identify the moral high ground.

    Appropriate coverage should continue but it is time to put away the lawn darts. Things will pick up again in the courtroom which is the only place the important things will matter. Just don’t anybody call me and others “concern trolls” for having this view because I have a response to that and I “ain’t eskeered to use it”.

  138. Mike says:

    @tolo4zero,

    Nice try but no cigar. Ross would need to change “all the” to “those”. But then what would be the significance of this?

    PS: We seem to now have a case of the pot calling the kettle black: http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-double-standard-institute-tried-scam-greenpeace-internal-documents

  139. tolo4zero says:

    Worship of the state

    “Jung stressed the importance of individual rights in a person’s relation to the state and society. He saw that the state was treated as “a quasi-animate personality from whom everything is expected” but that this personality was “only camouflage for those individuals who know how to manipulate it”,[33] and referred to the state as a form of slavery.[34][35][36][37] He also thought that the state “swallowed up [people's] religious forces”,[38] and therefore that the state had “taken the place of God”—making it comparable to a religion in which “state slavery is a form of worship”.[36] Jung observed that “stage acts of [the] state” are comparable to religious displays: “Brass bands, flags, banners, parades and monster demonstrations are no different in principle from ecclesiastical processions, cannonades and fire to scare off demons”.[39] From Jung’s perspective, this replacement of God with the state in a mass society led to the dislocation of the religious drive and resulted in the same fanaticism of the church-states of the Dark Ages—wherein the more the state is ‘worshipped’, the more freedom and morality are suppressed;[40] this ultimately leaves the individual psychically undeveloped with extreme feelings of marginalization.[41]”
    —Carl Jung

    The greens drive to Global governance

  140. wws says:

    apologize for this being a more religiously minded message than usual for this blog, but the topic keeps coming up in this thread so I believe it deserves address.

    This may be surprising to the more secular minded people, but Christian believers should find very little to worry about in the efforts of Maurice Strong and his ilk to create some new religion. This kind of thing is actually going on all the time, and has gone on all the time. Our history shows that attempts to stop people like this have always been far more destructive than the pseudo-religions are themselves.

    Believers will do well to remember the words of Gamaliel, the 1st century Jewish scholar and rabbi, as recorded in the Christian book of Acts. (Gamaliel is also highly regarded in Rabbinic traditions)
    When Peter and the other early apostles began to spread their teachings in Jerusalem, many of the orthodox wished to suppress them violently. But Gamaliel gave this simple, and wise, advice:

    “if it be of men, it will come to naught, but if it be of God, ye will not be able to overthrow it; lest perhaps ye be found even to fight against God”

    For a believer, all one needs is a simple faith in this proposition to know that all these alternate religion ideas will fall to pieces on their own. Note that I also am aware of the obvious corollary: those religions which have prospered and spread over the centuries without burning themselves out must have some spark of the Divine in them, even if I don’t agree with them myself. My disagreements are a mark of my own limitations, not God’s.

    Let Maurice Strong and his wife strive as hard as they wish. If they are only relying on themselves, anything they build will pass away with them. (that’s the way of this world) And who knows, they might accidentally do some good along the way without meaning to; ie, providing funding for these different groups to coexist, even if it won’t lead to the end the Strong’s are hoping for.

  141. _Jim says:

    Helen Hawkins says on March 18, 2012 at 2:27 am:

    As a devout Catholic, I find it strange that the people who are pushing the AGW scam and many of the the AGW skeptics say the same things about my faith…..
    ___________________________________________________________
    Gail Combs says on March 18, 2012 at 9:23 am:

    Helen, the attack on Religion was “necessary” and “deliberate” if “Socialism” was to be implemented.

    The threads of this decision going back into history are long as usual. The easiest place to start is the Webb’s Fabian Society and London School of Economics (LSE). If you investigate LSE you will find it is linked to world leaders like former Fabian chairman/ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair, Director of the World Trade Organization Pascal Lamy, Bill Clinton and even Gaddafi’s son.

    Wow.

    Is that where all this started?

    Not with Lucifer and his fall from grace?

    Not with being cast out of the Garden if Eden for (woman) being tricked to eat of the tree of Knowledge?

    Wow. I hadn’t realize all this had ‘roots’ so recent …

    .

  142. David Ball says:

    World governance would be ok, as long as it is the very definition of altruism. I do not think the Strong’s have anyone else’s well being in mind but their own. Does altruism even exist today?

  143. Bravo David Ross!!!….Encore!

  144. Jean-M says:

    David,

    This is one of the best posts I ever followed on WUWT, mainly because of the replies in generated.
    Thanks a lot for bringing the discussion to an upper level….
    Please do not withdraw this article – self-censorship is the worst one…

  145. David Pittelli says:

    I believe you have unfairly compared CAGW to Medieval Christianity — to be specific, you were unfair to Christianity.
    My understanding is that the 10th Century (900s) had as many cathedrals as the 9th and 11th centuries. See for example http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cathedrals_established_in_the_11th_century
    Also, I understand that the dark ages of Mediterranean buildings and economies ran from about 640 to 940, and ended prior to the year 1000. See for example http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/104822/sec_id/104822
    Finally, I believe that year-1000 millennialism was a minority position within Christianity, condemned by the Council of Nicea and the Council of Constantinople, among other Christian authorities.

  146. RockyRoad says:

    Beesaman says: @ March 18, 2012 at 6:05 am

    An interesting point to ponder on and forgive me for using warmist rhetoric. But what will be the tipping point that causes the paradigm shift? From Warmist alarmism to climate realism…

    We’re there. The only way climate looks alarming is when it is taken out of context, fudged, precedence ignored, or distorted. There’s nothing catactrophically “new”–by that I mean nothing that would convince climate realists that there’s a worrisome shift in the climate paradigm. You have to be wearing blinders to believe puny man can force climate beyond what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (or Le Chatelier’s Principle) dictates.

    And the laws of nature are not surmountable.

  147. majormike1 says:

    David

    Please don’t change a word. The intellectual exercise is enjoyable, including reading and considering the many and varied comments you inspired.

  148. crosspatch says:

    I believe this posting over at Ace of Spades HQ has some bearing on this subject:

    http://minx.cc/?post=327601

    Read down the bullet list. I sure see a LOT of parallel with the climate alarmist community.

  149. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Volker Doormann says:
    March 18, 2012 at 9:46 am

    Steve from Rockwood says:
    March 18, 2012 at 6:50 am
    Science is a form of religion.

    This statement is your personal theory, and the problem with it is, that you cannot know for sure what’s going on in the consciousness of each scientist. The idea of science is that a scientist is searching knowledge and adding knowledge about the order of nature. Knowledge starts with the very own recognition that something cannot be true and in the same time untrue. This is indeed a very own recognition of him, but therefore not necessary for you.

    Very nicely articulated Volker. I agree that my statement is my personal theory. Your personal theory is that the “idea of science is a … scientist … searching knowledge and adding knowledge about the order of nature.” I would like that to be my theory as well but experience has taught me otherwise. I offer the defense of consensus as one reason why scientists do not always seek out knowledge. When something new comes to light, people take sides. The side they take is not usually based on knowledge but on belief. If a scientist believes that something cannot be true, he/she will take the side that the knowledge is false and will attempt to prove it is false. Some will spend their entire career being wrong. I repeat my earlier comment that scientists will rarely question their own beliefs (in science). They would rather defend them with false evidence. Why else would a scientist remove proxy data from the temperature record when it diverges from the actual measured record and yet let the same proxy data remain in the older temperature record? Because it confirmed his belief that the world is warming.

    Scientists do pursue knowledge. Of course they do. But in a world where grant money follows policy and where tenure depends more on the number of publications and less on the quality of contained knowledge, the average scientist has a belief system that is not very skeptical IMO.

    You ask how I know if something is true or not. When it comes to climate science I believe very little. How can we make conclusions on things that take centuries to unfold when we have collected only a few decades of measurements? When it comes to the basic laws of physics I see truth because mathematical equations and physical processes work together. F does equal MA. When it comes to the great questions such as the “Big Bang”, how can I believe that scientists know how the universe formed when they can’t account for over 90% of the mass of the universe? And when it comes to soap operas how do you know the pretty girl wasn’t just toying with a couple of flirty church men who were trying to convince her of Jesus? “Both” is a great answer for someone being coy. Toss a coin.

  150. oMan says:

    David: I like your first example. I don’t mind the others. They don’t offend my religious sensibility, but as the thread shows they have become a lightning rod for outrage, real or feigned (if I were an alarmist troll, I would jump to hyperventilate about how your essay was attacking religion and lowering the tone here at WUWT; a cheap smear, and thus irresistible to trolls). So maybe if you deploy this again/more generally, you can just use the first example. It says a great deal in a powerful, intuitive way. Insofar as the main objective here is to reveal the alarmists as morally and intellectually bankrupt in their continuing defense of Gleick, I’d say it is exactly enough.

    Well done, however, on all of it. I am glad you got the hate-speech examples in at the end.

  151. Curiousgeorge says:

    Do any of you people know the difference between a “recognized religion” and a cult? I’ll tell you: Popularity, and therefore political and economic influence. As with most anything else like this; Follow the Money.

  152. Curiousgeorge says:

    michaelozanne says:
    March 18, 2012 at 10:40 am

    Archonix,

    There was no consensus in maintaining its rule. That was done by brutal repression , land bribes, hostage taking, military force, financial impositions, hostage taking and control of inheritance rights.

    ==========================================================

    And religions don’t do that? LOL . Have you looked at Islam lately?

  153. David Ross says:

    fenbeagleblog wrote: “Bravo David Ross!!!….Encore!”

    Thanks fenbeagleblog. That means a lot. I’m a big fan of your work. And jealous. I wish I could draw like that.
    ***********************************

    Garry Stotel wrote: “The video is shocking – WTF?!! Is that some kind of spoof?”

    No, its for real (i.e. not a spoof by skeptics) but they did retract it. It is absurd to claim that skeptics have any funding comparable to the alarmists when you consider the money that must have been spent on that one video.
    ***********************************

    Heggs wrote: “That second item in the references about the threat just blew me away.”

    Me too, when I first read it. Greenpeace did not really retract it. The comments that followed that article are quite entertaining. See links and additional info in my previous post
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/02/things-about-peter-gleick-that-might-also-interest-or-intrigue-you/
    ***********************************

    Allan MacRae wrote: “Cologne Cathedral is awe-inspiring. You should go.”

    Yes it is. But do you think anyone will gaze in awe at a forest of windmills off the White Cliffs of Dover, in a hundred years? Plus one to the Christians.
    ***********************************

    Beesaman wrote:
    “what will be the tipping point that causes the paradigm shift”
    When heads of state start to say “I don’t believe” not just “doubt”
    It will be a Martin Luther moment…ouch did it again.

    ***********************************

    Steve G3345

    whatever
    ***********************************

    wfrumkin wrote: “Nobody expects the CAGW inquisition:D”

    Darn, wish I’d thought of that one. Would have been the best response.
    ***********************************

    wfrumkin wrote: “A Mel Books style feature film would skewer the warmistas nicely. Does our side have any film makers?”

    What would we call it?

    Blazing Turbine-Paddles, Apocalypse Not, Thermaggedon,
    Ice Core Zebra, The Mann Who Would Be King
    Gone With The Solar Wind, Farenheit 4510, Some Like It Hot
    ***********************************

    “The whole point of the post is stifling of free expression.”
    Thanks Phil

    ***********************************

    Mike wrote: “Ross wrote: “But the reaction of all the global warming alarmists, who see nothing wrong with what he did, is much more significant.” This statement, which is the premise of the rest of the post, is a lie. Many mainstream climate scientists and science reporters have clearly stated that what Gleick did was wrong.”

    I concede it is ambiguous. I should have written: “all those global warming alarmists” or left out the comma as tolo4zero suggested.
    **********************************

    David UK wrote: “You mean Hitler? If you do, I wasn’t aware of a general ban on the usage of the name?”

    You referenced Godwin’s Law so I thought I should respect it.
    ***********************************

    Regarding the last paragraph:
    “There used to be a time when junk science was not taught in our schools and our kids were not indoctrinated. There used to be a time when scientists and everybody could debate in a climate of free enquiry, free of censorship and intimidation. Has the climate changed?”

    I was going to make it clear that this was my romantic view of an ideal, but cut that part at the last minute. I still think these values were held up as an ideal more in the recent past than they are now, even if they weren’t fully practiced. Every age and every person has their own set of delusions and prejudices. It was inspired by the “I have a dream” speech but I couldn’t make that too obvious, as I don’t measure up to MLK.
    ***********************************

    scannit wrote
    “I like using the analogy to bring the issue to a common level that everyone can relate to. But I wonder how many AGW believers will take note, not many if history proves to be any indication..”

    They might take note if more of us post comments on alarmist or ambivalent forums. The assignments are concise chunks that can be copied and pasted to make a point. You can pick the ones you want and leave the rest.

    Some people will never be swayed by a purely scientific arguments. But a good analogy might work. I think we should post more of them here at WUWT for people to use as a resource.

    Why not crowd-source real assignments i.e. teaching material that teachers can actually use. If we posted them here or on some other website for teachers to download, it might force the alarmists to confront specific scientific points (instead of their usual straw-man “myth” busting).

    I propose the creation of a school-marmy cartoon character to present the material. We can call her Auntie Science :)
    ***********************************

    My personal beliefs should really be irrelevant. For the record: my beliefs about God and climate change are simple: as I wrote about the 10:10 video: “has to be seen to be believed.”

    Ironically “anti-Catholic bigotry” is the reason I am an atheist. I grew up in a part of the world where sectarian strife is still very real. It turned me away from religion at a very early age.

    ***********************************

    To all the Christians who took offense:
    If thine eye offends thee, see an optician. That plucking business is a really bad idea.

    Would it have made a difference if I had placed the analogy on the planet Teegeeack?
    [Eh…come to think of it, it would http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu%5D

    I don’t know why you are so defensive about the actions of other people a thousand years ago. I would not take offense if you pointed out some dark acts by atheists. I am not responsible for the latter and you are not responsible for the former.

    So then each of us will give an account of himself to God
    Romans 14:12
    ***********************************

    To all the Christians who didn’t:
    Kudos. You make belief in a benevolent God far more credible. Nice cheek by the way.

    I still meant what I said about amending/retracting the article if necessary. I do not want to alienate climate skeptics or alarmists. And creating unecessary controversy is not fair on Anthony. I think he has enough on his mind of late.

    I’ve learned my lesson. Next time I’ll leave the Catholic church out of it and pick on the Ottoman Caliphate instead.

  154. Paul767 says:

    I didn’t have time to read all the comments, so this may have been covered.

    Ayn Rand has an excellent analysis of the progressive/liberal/socialist ethics in her book “The Virtue of Selfishness”.

    I paraphrase: In order to define a rational system of ethics, one must answer two questions; What are values? Who should be the beneficiary of a person’s values? The collectivists ignore the first question and answer the second question “Anyone but yourself”. …………. This belief inverts morality and allows anything goes as long as the purpose is the advancement of the sacrifice of all-to-all. They can lie, cheat, steal, kill to achieve their ends.

    Read the book for a full explanation.

    The collectivist’s ethics are based upon the philosopher Immanuel Kant’s definition of ethics in his book “Critique of Pure Reason” (1776) – “An action is not moral unless you derive no benefit from it whatsoever”. This means if you desire to be moral and derive happiness from helping others, you are at best amoral. The only way to be moral is to do so out of duty, with nothing derived from it whatsoever. This morality was later termed “Altruism”.

    If you wonder at the pinched-mouth, holier-than-thou, nanny-state, we-can-do-anything-we-want-as-long-as-we-are-helping-others mentality of the collectivist crowd, look no further than their ethical beliefs. Their politics, and now their “science”, is now based on the altruist ethics.

    For a proper rational ethics, and it’s philosophical underpinnings; the best/shortest explanation is contained in Galt’s speech in Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”. I paraphrase again: Man’s highest moral purpose is his own joy. This can only be achieved by the three primary values of Reason, Purpose and Self-Esteem. To attain those values, one must practice the virtues of:Rationality, Independence, Integrity, Honesty, Justice, Productiveness and Pride (pgs. 932-934 paperback edition) There is no more rational moral code on earth, and it puts all other moral codes to shame. She ties the values and virtues required of Human Nature to reality; each and every one of those values and virtues is defined with the proper ties to reality – “existence exists” and to consciousness.

    The early human philosophers claimed that a Rational moral code was impossible. Ayn Rand did it, and in so doing, demonstrated the fatal flaws in the Altruist’s morality. You are witnessing the logical extension of their moral code at work.

    Paul Richards

  155. Curiousgeorge says:

    @ David Ross says:
    March 18, 2012 at 1:12 pm

    I’ve learned my lesson. Next time I’ll leave the Catholic church out of it and pick on the Ottoman Caliphate instead.
    ====================================================================

    Be careful. You could lose your head.

  156. I have been trying to, and finally succeeded in offering my comments on what I regard is a very good site. I would like to add that I finally think that despite so much engrained opposition to the Cosmic (comet) theory it is steadily becoming more widely accepted as the explanation for the Younger Dryas. I have been disappointed to date however that the full range of reasons why the THC (North Atlantic Ocean Circulation) is not plausible as an explanation has not been in the forefront. I have been trying to make this point for a number of years now. I began my quest with my book “Sudden Cold and Examination of the Younger Dryas” (see http//www.bclimate.com).I have notw coniuned with this a paper I have just completed that I plan to circulate to those interested.

  157. michaelozanne says:

    [snip - over the top - Anthony]

  158. Mike says:

    @David Ross: March 18, 2012 at 1:12 pm

    I shall take you at your word regarding your intended meaning.

    What do you make of this
    http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-double-standard-institute-tried-scam-greenpeace-internal-documents ?

  159. Kip Hansen says:

    David,

    regards: ‘Science is based on observation, religion on authority. The more the global warming alarmists ignore observation and appeal to authority, the more like a religion they become.’

    One of the few subjects that is incorrectly represented more often than Climate Science is Religion. I’m sure that your point is that Religion is based on Belief not requiring physical evidence or Faith that something is true, without it requiring prior evidential proof.

    Even sophomores in Religious Studies can easily explain to you that while it is true that what are known as “Fundamentalist’ sects of the various religions that can often be described as being based on ‘authority’…sometimes cultic religions….authority granted to some written text or living or dead person, authority that must not be challenged, the truest forms of all the major religions on the planet–truer meaning true to their original meanings, doctrines and intents, as best can be determined from our present position–are systems of wisdom gained through spiritual teaching and spiritual understanding. The vast majority having inherent in them the doctrine of personal discovery of great spiritual truths by and for the individual.

    I add this clarification because it does not add to the understanding of Climate Science nor support the efforts of Climate Science Skepticism to further the misunderstanding of religion.

  160. David Ross
    Gleick breached the following commandments:
    You shalt not steal Exodus 20:15
    You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor. Exodus 20:16

    The issues you raise deal foundationally with our unalienable rights to religion, conscience and speech with which we were endowed by our Creator.
    See:
    In Defense of Religious Freedom, A Statement by Evangelicals and Catholics Together. First Things

    The Cornwall Alliance on An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming

    On comparing carbon credits and indulgences see:
    Carbon credits: indulgence or commutation fee? Thomas Lifson The American Thinker, February 28, 2007
    with numerous more per Google carbon credits indulgences

    PS Re: “When even the dumbest of village idiots, in the dumbest village, of the dumbest province, saw through this scam, there was a rebellion.”
    You appear to be rewriting history after your preconceptions. The Reformation began with the brightest Dr. Martin Luther posting:
    Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences Commonly Known as The 95 Theses calling for a formal scholarly debate over the corruption in the catholic church (indulgences etc.) compared to the standard established in the Bible.

    On expectations of Christ’s coming at 1000 AD, that only shows that they had not read or understood what Jesus declared: “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” Matthew 24:36

    Re: “I am not religious and don’t want to see creationism taught in schools, other than perhaps a single paragraph mentioning that such views exist.”
    In other words, you wish to have schools impose your religious views on all students who do not believe as you do. i.e, that there is no Creator, or that he could not have created outside of evolution.

  161. Anthony Watts says:

    OK, I’m closing this thread as it has dengenerated into religious zealotry flaming. michaelozanne’s recent off color comments that I had to snip are a perfect example. We all have better things to do. – Anthony

Comments are closed.