Camping and Climate Change

Image: Anthony Watts

Allow me to share with you a speech given by one of my sound colleagues here in the European Parliament.  Derk Jan Eppink is a Dutch national representing Belgium who sits with us in our Euro-sceptic ECR group.  He delivered this speech, entitled “A religion without a God” at a book launch for “Blauwe Planeet” – the newest book by Czech President, and fellow climate realist, Vaclav Klaus. – Roger Helmer MEP

At the occasion of launching Blauwe Planeet

By Derk Jan Eppink

May 25 2011

A religion without a God

Last weekend on May 21, American Christian preacher Harold Camping, once again encountered his ‘Disappointment Day’. For years he announced the end of times, predicting May 21 to be Judgment Day. On that day, the world would be destroyed and only ‘a chosen few’ would make it to heaven.

On Judgment Day, the preacher took a seat in front of his television to await news events. He expected a live report of CNN covering a wave of earthquakes that ultimately would lead to global demise.

But nothing happened.

Instead, CNN focused on the Frenchman Dominique Strauss-Kahn who lost his way and senses in a New York hotel room. For ‘DSK’ indeed, the world collapsed. The preacher was disappointed that apocalypses remained confined to only one person and possibly some of his friends in Paris belonging to la gauche caviar. The preacher fled to a motel to escape international media.

Generally, the advantage of religion is that you do not have to take ‘facts’ into account. Like doomsday announcer Camping, you simply believe and preach, hoping that facts will follow. Western political elites live in a secularized world, a world without God. But religion – a matter of belief – does apparently remain a need of human mankind. In particular, progressive political elites have abolished God, while clinging to notoriously religious features like ‘fear’, ‘guilt’, ‘final judgement’, ‘redemption’, ‘sin’ and ‘salvation’, as part of their political philosophies.

God is gone, but the rest stayed on. Climate Change is just an example of this phenomenon. The concept can only be effective if there is ‘guilt’ (politically incorrect behaviour of human mankind), ‘fear’ (doomsday), if there is ‘sin’ (acts of unprincipled unbelievers), and finally salvation (brought about by the NGO´s of the Green Movement). And if there is somehow a substitute Jesus on top, as impersonated by Al Gore, secular religion gets rooted in political communities trying to turn it into public policy all people have to adhere to.

It takes courage to withstand religion-based political philosophies. You will be depicted as a heretic, as anti-human, as narrow-minded, as autistic and stupid. In fact, like in theocracies any opponent should be dispatched to the dustbin of history. When climate change was minted into religion and subsequently put on the political agenda, carefully orchestrated by celebrities and media consultants, it became a wave of self-righteousness. There was no way to escape.

Yet a few risk-daring politicians rose to the occasion. The first was Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic and a dissident by inclination. He simply raised factual questions secularized religions can hardly cope with.

That is what he did with Communism which was, after all, an elaborated quasi-religious philosophy pretending to lead human mankind to the ‘Promised Land’ on Earth. And here again, even as President of an EU member state he challenged the fundamentals of a policy pretending to save the world from Doomsday.

Many politicians publish books. Very often, these books are written by other people. Very often, these books are glossy and self-glorifying. Very often, these books make no impact whatsoever and they are finally shelved in the basement of the party headquarter. Mostly, these books are dead upon arrival in the bookstore.

Klaus takes on nonsensical thinking regardless of the status of the author himself. In 2009, he visited the European Parliament to tell his audience that they were ‘disconnected’ from reality. He stated that a Parliament without a legitimate opposition is not really a Parliament. In fact, it is a church singing the gospel of the ‘ever closer Union’. Some members were shocked, left the Plenary and started crying in the corridor. Yesterday, Ivo Belet one of those weeping members, published an opinion article in a Flemish newspaper denouncing NVA-figurehead Bart De Wever for meeting the Anti-Christ from the Czech Republic. Belet, a slavish poodle of EU figureheads, is barking up the wrong tree. The European elite demand flattery and praise; not to criticism, let alone unconventional thinking.

It takes courage to challenge fashionable thinking. For 5 years, I worked in the cabinet of former Commissioner Frits Bolkestein. The Dutch Commissioner was a non federalist and a climate change sceptic in the Commission. For most of his colleagues he was the ‘devil in disguise’. You can imagine the bumpy ride he had in Brussels; he was a ‘non believer’ in a church of devoted federalists.

Once he got a letter from former Belgian Commissioner, Etienne Davignon, a self-appointed viceroy of the United States of Belgium, who said that a non federalist should not be member of the European Commission. He demanded a purge to restore the purity of the Institution.

Ten years ago, Bolkestein publicly said that the Euro would derail if not underpinned by sound monetary policy and iron-clad criteria of the Stability and Growth Pact. He also stated that a common EU immigration policy based on unenforced external borders would generate a political backlash beyond belief. He was laughed at. But now, the political elite of the EU is not laughing anymore. They wasted ten years of policy-making and still, they would rather drive into a brick wall than to admit that they made mistakes.

Jean Marie Dedecker equally has the courage to stick out his neck. As a former Judo player and coach he is not risk adverse. On the contrary, he likes the fray and smashing his opponents on the ground, sooner the better.

And that is precisely why he has written the introduction to the Dutch version of the book President Klaus is launching here today. He belonged to the first in Belgium to challenge the preachers of doom and climate change. Belgium only recently abolished God, and for those who were still in doubt some catholic leaders and priests did the rest.

Flanders was in urgent need for a religious substitute that would be able to micromanage the lives of the people. Obviously, Dedecker was vilified by the political elites and the media which had turned into an extension of the green movement and its preachers in politics.

Both Klaus and Dedecker focused on facts, rather than on speculation and emotional manipulation. They challenged the issues head-on by raising difficult questions, and by doing so they gradually saw the narrative of climate change unravel. Later on, a series of scandals revealed that so-called scientific researchers had manipulated their work in order to serve the dogmas of their beliefs. The Copenhagen Summit resulted in failure and, demonstrations against climate change even had to be cancelled because it was to cold and frosty in the Danish capital.

Now, climate change does not have that mythical spot on the political agenda it had a few years ago. However, it remains on the agenda of political elites in the EU. Some people really do believe; others simply pretend in order to sustain a quasi-progressive image. But the man in the street never embraced climate change and why? The climate has been changing as long as there is a climate, even in times in which people were running around naked and living in caves. One slight change in the activity of the Sun has an impact on the entire [solar system]. Human behaviour is just one of the many elements. Therefore, the religious zeal did not stick because ‘human guilt’ could not be established. And ‘guilt’ is what it takes to make a religion work, even a religion without a God.

Therefore, a democracy needs people like Klaus and Dedecker, people who speak out when nobody does, people who stand out when others follow the flow and people who lash out when many bend towards submission. This book will certainly be a much welcome recipe against political overheating in Flanders and the reality-check which is the necessary basis for any sound public policy.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

211 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John B
May 31, 2011 5:21 pm

Phil,
Even after I pointed you at an article on the null hypothesis, you say “There is only ONE null hypothesis in this discussion.” No there isn’t! Every individual claim requires a null hypothesis to be tested against, otherwise you can’t verify the claim. That’s where all those “likelies” and “very likelies” in the IPCC reports come from. They statistically compare the results against the likelihood of those results being generated by the null hypothesis. “Null hypothesis” is not just an arm waving term, it has a precise meaning when doing real science. The null hypothesis for the claim that it is warmer now than at any point in the past 1300 years is NOT that same as the null hypothesis for the claim that late 20th century warming was caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases. Surely you can see that.
Dr Roy Spencer may well have said “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.” Have you ever contemplated the possibility that he might be wrong? I can assure you that people doing actual research in the area would not agree with him.
John

May 31, 2011 6:00 pm

I agree, Richard. The natural warming trend from the LIA appears to be moderating, and the predicted runaway global warming has never happened; another failed alarmist prediction in a litany of failed alarmist predictions.
And from his comment it is clear that John B has no understanding of the climate null hypothesis, because his examples concern alternate hypotheses:
“The null hypothesis for the claim that it is warmer now than at any point in the past 1300 years is NOT that same as the null hypothesis for the claim that late 20th century warming was caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.”
The guy is totally confused. The definition of the null hypothesis is the statistical hypothesis that states that there are no differences between observed and expected data. John needs to think about what that means.
The alternate hypothesis is compared with the null hypothesis of past natural climate variability, including temperatures, trends, rates of change, etc.
The alternate hypothesis must be able to show that the curent climate exceeds past parameters. It does not. The current climate is well within the parameters of the Holocene. Those parameters constitute the climate null hypothesis. Since no one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability, Dr Spencer is not wrong, he is absolutely correct.
Which brings us to Kevin Trenberth’s weaselly attempt to unilaterally re-define the null hypothesis:
“The null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.”
Trenberth is openly admitting that he can’t get past the climate null hypothesis, so he wants to turn the scientific method on its head. But the burden of proof is always on those proposing a new hypothesis, such as CO2=CAGW. Scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. At least Trenberth understands the predicament he’s in. John B simply doesn’t understand either the null hypothesis or the scientific method. Or he does, and he’s being a crank:
“That is my final answer!”
As if.

John B
May 31, 2011 6:41 pm

Sorry if I didn’t express myslf clearly enough. When I say “The null hypothesis for the claim that it is warmer now than at any point in the past 1300 years”, I mean “the null hypothesis against which that claim is tested”. Did that not come across?
The point I was trying to make was simply that each claim is tested against an appropriate null hypothesis. There is not one, single null hypothesis. If there were, how would you test against it statistically? Surely we can agree on that.
My problem with you guys is that while you shoo away everything that mainstream climate science does with cries of “not enough evidence”, you accept claims like the one by Spencer uncritically. You even go so far as to say “Scientific skeptics have nothing to prove”. That does not give you a free pass. IPCC claims are tested against the approriate null hypothesis. You can dispute individual claims, but not just by flashing up a graph. You need to do the maths that shows they are wrong. Like M&M did with the hockey stick. We could argue about whether they were correct or not, but at least they put the work in.
John

May 31, 2011 7:21 pm

John B says:
“You even go so far as to say ‘Scientific skeptics have nothing to prove’.”
In fact, scientific skeptics have nothing to prove: Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit. – The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof. As to the hypothesis that CO2 produced by human combustion of fossil fuels is causing “unprecedented” global warming: the onus lies on those who say so. As to the proposition that there has been an alarming late 20th century spike in global temperatures: the onus lies on those who say so. As to the belief that CO2 causes global damage: the onus lies on those who say so.
John B’s fixation on non-existent CAGW can lead to the related epistemological disorder, “argumentum ignarus res” or argument in defiance of facts. In this pathology, so much faith is placed in a mechanism such as CO2 [and in the simplicity of the mechanism’s operation in the real world] that an ensuing hypothesis is stubbornly believed in spite of substantial evidence to the contrary. CO2=CAGW is a good example of this.
And I could bring the noob up to speed on the null hypothesis, except for two problems:
• It’s a lot of typing, and
• His mind is closed
But on the off chance that John B actually wants to understand the climate null hypothesis [instead of arguing every line by line of numerous other commentators with either questionable assertions or outright false facts like a crank], here are Willis Eschenbach’s really excellent articles on the null hypothesis:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/15/unequivocal-equivocation
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/13/congenital-climate-abnormalities
I recommend reading all the comments, too.

John B
June 1, 2011 12:52 am

“As to the proposition that there has been an alarming late 20th century spike in global temperatures: the onus lies on those who say so. As to the belief that CO2 causes global damage: the onus lies on those who say so.”
And that onus has been met. No amount of hand waving will remove that fact. Go read some peer-reviewed literature, not just blog postings and unreviewed ramblings.
John

Richard S Courtney
June 1, 2011 2:09 am

John B:
Your post at June 1, 2011 at 12:52 am is an admission that you know you have lost the argument.
If you had a point then you would make it. And it would be easy to make.
You would have said how, where and by whom the “onus has had been met”.
But it has not been met and you know it has not been met. So, you say;
“Go read some peer-reviewed literature, not just blog postings and unreviewed ramblings.”
That is pathetic.
Indeed, your initial contributions to this thread were claims that people should read the IPCC Assessments. The first time you made this claim was at May 27, 2011 at 2:37 pm where you wrote;
“Go read the IPCC reports, not what bloggers have written about them.”
But when I cited and quoted statements from the IPCC that you do not like then (at May 29, 2011 at 3:28 am) you said the IPCC had been rebutted on the web, saying;
“Both of these arguments are, of course, well rehearsed on the Internet. Look it up for yourself, but don’t just stop at the rebuttal of the IPCC report; see what the counter arguments are, and then see what the rebutters have to say about the counter arguments, and so on.”
[snip]
Richard

Jeff B.
June 1, 2011 2:18 am

Amen. It takes far more courage to stand against the politically correct doctrines. That is why people like Anthony Watts are heroes. Let us all keep it up and crush those who are trying to destroy our freedom.

June 1, 2011 4:58 am

John B says:
May 31, 2011 at 5:21 pm

let me speak S-L-O-W-L-Y so that you can perhaps understand. There is only ONE null hypothesis in the climate debate. It is core to the debate. It is about what is causing the climate to change. Period.
You on the other hand want to try to divert the discussion to smoking and autism and anything BUT climate. I will not bite. You can send links to the AMA, the CMA, the KMA, and the 104 if you want. They are non-sequiturs. As is your entire post.
So for now, we can only assume, based upon your inability to stay on topic and answer questions and read, that you do not know what the null hypothesis is. And not knowing it, you are totally clueless on the subject and are therefore a mere troll trying to win brownie points by sidetracking the discussion. Sorry, I do not bite at your sidetrack. You are simply making a fool of yourself.
But you know the good part? You are free to do so! On this site, Anthony allows any one to make a fool of themselves because he does not censor comments he does not agree with.

John B
June 1, 2011 6:36 am

Phil,
Each claim has an associated null hypothesis. For example, when Smokey says “The alternate hypothesis must be able to show that the current climate exceeds past parameters”, the null hypothesis is that the current climate does NOT exceed past parameters. It might be the case that the current climate does exceed past parameters but the cause is still natural. That is a different issue and a different null hypothesis.
I guess you are talking about a “central” claim, that climate changes are both anthropomorphic and bad, aka “CO2 causes global damage”. But that is at least two separate claims. You have to break it down. That’s how science works. The AGW camp first claims to show that CO2 can induce warming. Then it claims to show that warming is actually happening. Then it claims to show that such warming is not explained by other factors. And so on, eventually getting to claims that “it will be bad”. The claims build on each other, but they are distinct. Knowledge building on previous knowledge is one of the things that differentiates science from pseudo-science. As skeptics, you need to counter individual claims by showing them to be wrong. Yes, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, but that does not mean the skeptic can just say “no it doesn’t” to every claim and not be expected to back that up. You counter a claim by showing that ITS null hypothesis is not rejected.
The skeptic DOES have something to prove; he has to prove that the claims of AGW are unfounded. Simply saying something is so does not make it so – for either side of this debate.
This is not a sideline. When Richard brings up the”committed warming” claim, it needs dealing with. But it has nothing to do with, say, whether increased atmospheric CO2 would be a good or bad thing for agriculture. That is a different claim. Knowing what null hypothesis you are rejecting, and sticking to it, is key to this.
Chaps, if you don’t agree with me, then say so. Calmly, sticking to the point, without shouting, and not by simply linking to a picture and saying “there, that proves it”. I would dearly like to have a proper discussion witout resorting to name calling.
John

June 1, 2011 8:51 am

John B says:
June 1, 2011 at 6:36 am

No John, troll as you will, but the skeptic has nothing to prove. The AGW crowd has to prove the null hypothesis wrong. THE NULL Hypothesis. Not Smokey the bear, not Screwey Squirrel. The one that AGW SAYS is wrong must first be proven wrong. Proving that null hypothesis wrong does not then prove anything right. But it then requires that a new hypothesis be opined and the method begun to prove or disprove it.
You clearly don’t give a whit about discussion since to have one, we must be discussing an issue – not trying to divert the subject to whatever whim strikes your fancy. You care not for science since you apparently are clueless on that as well as you do not know thing one about how it works. You can go prove anything you want to yourself, but that is based upon your whim since you have yet to address anything scientifically. In short, you are merely attempting to wear all of us down to get in the last word. And guess what? You win what one!
Because I have little time to suffer fools and trolls. When you want to DISCUSS something, come on back. Until then, talk to yourself. That is all you are really doing.

John B
June 2, 2011 10:28 am

So, all you have to do is claim “AGW is not true” and that is good enough?
AGW proponents spend all their time disproving null hypotheses. When they say “it is likely that late 20th century warming is due to anthopogenic effects” they are claiming to have disproved the null hypothesis that says “late 20th century warming is NOT NECESSARILY due to anthopogenic effects”. You can dispute that claim, but not just by saying “oh no, you didn’t”. You have to prove them wrong or prove yourself right, whichever way you want to look at it. If you can’t see that, there really is no point in discussing it further.

1 7 8 9