By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
To those of us who have dared to question on scientific and economic grounds the official story on global warming, it is a continuing surprise that there is so little concern about whether or not that story is objectively true among the many who have swallowed it hook, Party Line and sinker.
For the true-believers, the Party Line is socially convenient, politically expedient, and financially profitable. Above all, it is the Party Line. For those who think as herds or hives, it is safe. It is a grimy security blanket. It is the dismal safety in numbers that is the hallmark of the unreasoning mob.
But is it true? The herd and the hive do not care. Or, rather, they do care. They care very much if anyone dares to ask the question “But is it true?” They are offended, shocked, outraged. They vent their venom and their spleen and their fury on those of us who ask, however politely, “But is it true?”
Their reaction is scarcely distinguishable from the behavior of the adherents of some primitive superstitious cult on learning that someone has questioned some egregiously, self-evidently barmy aspect of the dogma that the high priests have handed down.
They have gotten religion, but they call it science. They have gotten religion, but they do not know they have gotten religion. They have gotten religion, but they have not gotten the point of religion, which, like the point of science, is objective truth.
The question arises: can science function properly or at all in the absence of true religion and of its insistence upon morality? For science, in searching for the truth, is pursuing what is – or very much ought to be – a profoundly moral quest.
Yet what if a handful of bad scientists wilfully tamper with data, fabricate results, and demand assent to assertions for which there is no real scientific justification? And what if the vast majority of their colleagues cravenly look the other way and do nothing about their bent colleagues? What you get is the global warming scare.
As every theologian knows, the simplest and usually the clearest of all tests for the presence of a moral sense is whether or not the truth is being told. The true-believers in the New Superstition are not telling the truth. On any objective test, they are lying, and are profiteering by lying, and are doing so at your expense and mine, and are bidding fair to bring down the Age of Enlightenment and Reason, flinging us back into the dumb, inspissate cheerlessness of a new Dark Age.
Nothing is done about the many lies, of course, because the many lies are the Party Line, and no one ever went to jail who safely parroted the Party Line.
“The Science Is Settled! There’s A Consensus! A 97.1% Consensus! Doubters Are As Bad As Holocaust Deniers! Global Temperature Is Rising Dangerously! It Is Warmer Now Than For 1400 Years! Well, 400 Years, Anyway! Tree-Rings Reliably Tell Us So! The Rate Of Global Warming Is Getting Ever Faster! Global Warming Caused Superstorm Sandy! And Typhoon Haiyan! And 1000 Other Disasters! Arctic Sea Ice Will All Be Gone By 2013! OK, By 2015! Or Maybe 2030! Santa Claus Will Have Nowhere To Live! Cuddly Polar Bears Are Facing Extinction! Starving Polar Bears Will Start Eating Penguins! Himalayan Glaciers Will All Melt By 2035! Er, Make That 2350! Millions Of Species Will Become Extinct! Well, Dozens, Anyway! Sea Level Is Rising Dangerously! It Will Rise 3 Feet! No, 20 Feet! No, 246 Feet! There Will Be 50 Million Climate Refugees From Rising Seas By 2010! OK, Make That 2020! The Oceans Will Acidify! Corals Will Die! Global Warming Kills! There Is A One In Ten Chance Global Warming Will End The World By 2100! We Know What We’re Talking About! We Know Best! We Are The Experts! You Can Trust Us! Our Computer Models Are Correct! The Science Is Settled! There’s A Consensus!”
And so, round and round, ad nauseam, ad ignorantiam, ad infinitum.
Every one of those exclamatory, declamatory statements about the climate is in substance untrue. Most were first uttered by scientists working for once-respected universities and government bodies. For instance, the notion that there is a 1 in 10 chance the world will end by 2100 is the fundamentally fatuous assumption in Lord Stern’s 2006 report on climate economics, written by a team at the U.K. Treasury for the then Socialist Government, which got the answer it wanted but did not get the truth, for it did not want the truth.
Previously, you could count on getting nothing but the truth from the men in white coats with leaky Biros in the front pocket. Now, particularly if the subject is global warming, you can count on getting little but profitable nonsense from your friendly local university science lab. They make the profits: you get the nonsense.
The central reason why what Professor Niklas Mörner has called “the greatest lie ever told” is damaging to civilization arises not from the staggering cost, soon to be $1 billion a day worldwide. Not from the direct threat to the West posed by the avowedly anti-democratic, anti-libertarian policies of the UN, the IPCC, and the costly alphabet-soup of unelected busybody agencies of predatory government that live off the taxpayer’s involuntary generosity. Not from the dire environmental damage caused by windmills and other equally medieval measures intended to make non-existent global warming go away.
The damage caused by the Great Lie arises from the fact that just about the entire global governing class has found it expedient or convenient or profitable to adopt the Great Lie, to peddle it, to parade it, to parrot it, to pass it on, regardless of whether anything that it says on the subject of the climate has any truth in it whatsoever.
The fundamental principle upon which Aristotle built the art and science of Logic is that every individual truth is consistent with every other individual truth. The truth is a seamless robe. Religion – or at any rate the Catholic presentation to which I inadequately subscribe (practising but not perfect) – is also built upon that fundamental principle of the oneness of all truth.
Science, too – or at any rate the classical scientific method adumbrated by Thales of Miletus and Al-Haytham and brought to fruition by Newton, Huxley, Einstein, and Popper – was also rooted in the understanding that there is only one truth, only one physical law, and that, therefore, every truth unearthed by the diligence of the curious and hard-working empiricist or theoretician must, if it be truly true, be consistent at every point and in every particular with every truth that had ever been discovered before, and with every truth yet to be discovered.
It is in the understanding of that central principle of the remarkable oneness and self-consistency of all truth that men of true religion and of true science ought to have become united. For there is an awesome beauty in the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. As Keats put it, “Beauty is truth, truth beauty – that is all.”
The beauty of the truth is sullied, the seamless robe rent in sunder, if not merely a few individual scientists but the entire classe politique not merely of a single nation but of the planet advantages itself, enriches the already rich and impoverishes the already poor by lying and lying and lying again in the name of Saving The Planet by offering costly and environmentally destructive non-solutions to what is proving to be a non-problem.
The very fabric of the Universe is distorted by so monstrous and so sullenly persistent a lie. Those scientists who have been caught out trampling the truth, and those universities in which it has become near-universally agreed that the best thing to keep the cash flowing is to say nothing about the Great Lie, are by their actions or inactions repudiating the very justification and raison-d’être of science: to seek the truth, to find it, to expound it, to expand it, and so to bring us all closer to answering the greatest of all questions: how came we and all around us to be here?
We who are not only men of science but also men of religion believe that the Answer to that question lay 2000 years ago in a manger in Bethlehem. The very human face of the very Divine was “perfectly God and perfectly Man”, as the Council of Chalcedon beautifully put it.
We cannot prove that a Nazarene made the Universe, or that any Divine agency takes the slightest interest in whether we tell the truth. But, for as long as there is no evidence to the contrary, we are free to believe it. And it is in our freedom to believe that which has not been proven false that the value of true religion to true science may yet come to be discerned. For our religion teaches us that truthfulness is right and wilful falsehood wrong. We cannot prove that that is so, but we believe it nonetheless.
Science, though, is not a matter of belief (unless you belong to Greenpeace or some other Marxist front organization masquerading as an environmental group). It is a matter of disciplined observation, careful theoretical deduction, and cautious expression of results. The true scientist does not say, “I believe”: but he ought, if there is any curiosity and awe in his soul, to say “I wonder …”. Those two words are the foundation of all genuine scientific enquiry.
Yet the global warming scare has shown how very dangerous is science without morality. The scientist, who takes no one’s word for anything (nullius in verba), does not accept a priori that there is any objectively valuable moral code. He does not necessarily consider himself under any moral obligation either to seek the truth or, once he has found it, to speak it.
Science, therefore, in too carelessly or callously rejecting any value in religion and in the great code of morality in which men of religion believe and which at least they try however stumblingly to follow, contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction.
Yea, truth faileth (Isaiah, 59:15). The Great Lie persists precisely because too many of the scientists who utter it no longer live in accordance with the moral yardstick that Christianity once provided, or any moral yardstick, so that they do not consider they have any moral obligation to tell the truth.
That being so, we should no longer consider ourselves as laboring under any obligation, moral or other, to pay any particular heed to scientists seeking to meddle in politics unless and until they have shown themselves once more willing to be what al-Haytham said they should be: seekers after truth.
Two hundred and forty-six feet of sea-level rise, Dr. Hansen? Oh, come off it!
A merry Christmas an’ a roarin’ Hogmanay to one and all.
Excellent Sir Monckton! Well Done!
To many people forget that the Old testament is about the LAW. A law etched in stone to God’s people. The Fulfillment of that law was God’s son Jesus the Christ. The Law served two purposes. One was to direct peoples actions and two, It was to show man how deeply flawed he was.
Christs Birth was God’s gift to a sinful man. It is very appropriate that you would show how religion is the moral compass given by God to man and how that compass is now rejected by the very people in need of it, a group of self serving and ungodly men. The Bible warns of the “learned” who would reject Christ and cling to their own version of truth and just how it would be their undoing. History truly repeats itself as the Roman Empire destroyed itself from within due to their “Learned” who rejected God and clung to their own version of morality.
Men without direction and a foundation in the truth will never seek it diligently. “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Romans 3:23 Man will perish if not reminded of his sinful behavior and the need to remain humble in God’s sight..
Merry Christmas To ALL… Remember, Jesus is the reason for the season!
Warren says: @ur momisugly December 24, 2013 at 8:58 pm
…It’s an urban legend that the models fail to predict properly….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You do not know what your are talking about. That subject has been dissected at WUWT ad nauseum.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen (atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Lindzen: Understanding The IPCC AR5 Climate Assessment
Dr. David Whitehouse (Ph.D., Astrophysics) Dr. David Whitehouse on the AR5 figure 1.4 This is about reality vs climate models in the draft version of IPCC AR5.
Dr Bjorn Lomborg ( professor of statistics) Lomborg: climate models are running way too hot
This one was written for you: Blind faith in climate models It shows all 25 models as a spaghetti graph vs reality. Not one graphed computer model matches the recent temperature.
Climate models – worse than we thought: Observations Now Inconsistent with Climate Model Predictions for 25 (going on 35) Years
National Academy of Sciences: climate models still ‘decades away’ from being useful
New peer reviewed paper finds the same global forecast model produces different results when run on different computers
Nature on the failure of climate models “…An article published today in Nature laments the dismal failure of climate models to predict climate a mere 5 years into the future, much less a century from now.”
New paper: climate models short on ‘physics required for realistic simulation of the Earth system’
Study: lack of cloud physics biased climate models high
Climate models aren’t good enough to hindcast, says new study
And those are just scratching the surface on the subject.
Monckton of Brenchley says: December 25, 2013 at 2:04 pm
Richard Dawkins, for instance, has taken full advantage of the blasphemy laws to be downright offensive about Christianity, which he hates.
______________________________________
Ah, so now we have it in writing. The Monk wants to reinstate the old-fashioned blasphemy laws, so that we can all be burned at the stake, like William Tyndale.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Foxe%27s_Book_of_Martyrs_-_Tyndale.jpg
And Tyndale’s great crime? Well, he translated the Bible into English. Oohhh, such an unforgivable crime – to allow the proletariat to read the original biblical texts in their own language… That, is where the Monk and his ilk want to take us.
We allow the fundamentalists to turn back the great gains of the Reformation and the Age of Enlightenment at our peril. Remember, it was the Reformation that allowed the Royal Institution to be founded, and therefore the Industrial Revolution to begin. So every technology around us, is the result of the selfless few who stood up to the might and power of the Catholic Church – at their great peril.
Without the Reformation, the likes of Wren, Petty, Boyle and Newton would have been sharing the funerary pyre with William Tyndale, and we would not have the modern world we are now blessed with. Think about it.
Ralph
Spot on
@ur momisugly Jim Clarke
Move Venus into Earth’s orbit and it will eventually cool down to an Earth-like temperature
Sorry, nonsense,
That should read, move Venus into to Earth’s orbit and reduce the density of it’s atmosphere to 101.3 Kpa at the surface and the surface temperature will cool to become earthlike.
Venuses temperature exceeds earths (given the difference in radiated flux,) simply because it has a denser atmosphere, it is PV=nRT acting. Probes have shown that at the point in Venus atmosphere where the pressure is 101.3 kPa Venus’s temperature is pretty much spot on what we would expect it to be from the physics. Sorry, Warren, you are wrong too..
Warren, Mars has ten times the CO2 partial pressure as earth. if CO2 heat retention warms the earth, then why doesn’t it warm mars?
Titan has an atmosphere of Methane, GWP (Global warming potential) of 72 yet its cold enough to liquify methane? How come it’s not runaway hot?
Warren, warming of the earth above theoretical (without atmosphere ) is 33 degrees, not 60 – get your facts straight please. – You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
Monckton of Brenchley says: December 25, 2013 at 2:04 pm
Dawkins, instead of taking refuge in the usual half-baked arguments about sudden environmentally-driven spurts in evolution – for which the evidence is patchy at best – was eventually, and with great subtlety, lured into admitting that he believes in aliens. It was a wonderful moment. Dawkins has been a busted flush ever since:
____________________________________
Hilarious. Absolutely hilarious.
The Monk castigates Dawkins for believing in aliens, but he himself believes in an omnipotent alien, who lives in the clouds, the skies, the heavens, the cosmos or perhaps a fifth dimension. I’m confused on that point, because Christians have been adjusting the residence of their alien for centuries. He was in the skies, until we went to the skies, and then he went into space, until we went into space, and now he or she has gone multi-dimensional – apparently.
Tell me, Monk, just where does your alien live? Give me an address and a telephone number.
Adam meets an alien, fresco from the Sistine Chapel:
http://www.prlog.org/11409306-the-creation-of-adam.jpg
Ralph
P.S. Does your alien need a spacecraft, or has his or her technology superseded the spacecraft phase of evolution? I only ask because if he or she is still using a spacecraft, I would be interested in the registration number of the latest model, because my son collects aircraft registrations. It would give him a few extra brownie-points with his school mates to have its registration number….
ralfellis says:
December 25, 2013 at 2:58 pm
“Ah, so now we have it in writing. The Monk wants to reinstate the old-fashioned blasphemy laws, so that we can all be burned at the stake, like William Tyndale.”
Christopher Monckton is no more saying that then you are saying that all Catholics should be burned at the stack. There are better ways to discuss issues than making up ridiculous statements out of whole cloth and then falsely attributing them to your opponent (unless that is all you have to go on).
Jim Clarke says: December 25, 2013 at 3:27 pm
Christopher Monckton is no more saying that then you are saying that all Catholics should be burned at the stack. There are better ways to discuss issues than making up ridiculous statements.
__________________________________
So why does the Monk want to toughen the blasphemy laws, if it is not to silence those who wish to point out the gaping holes, the rational illogicalities, and the cruel oppression of the Catholic Church? The blasphemy laws have long been used by the Catholic Church to silence its critics, and a jail-sentence would do that in the modern era as effectively as burning at the stake in the 16th century. But burning was far more effective at silencing the heretics – just ask William Tyndale. Its a bit like Muhummad’s ‘Dead Poets Society’ – look it up.
Why do you think Queen Bloody Mary of England gained her distasteful sobriquet? It was not because she liked a few vodkas, that’s for sure. No, it was because she burned 280 critics of the Catholic Church to death. That is what powerful religions do – they seize power and control the people without mercy.
And we allow those dark days to again stalk the green and pleasant lands of Britain at our peril. Some 5 million people died for Europe’s freedom from Catholic tyranny, and we trample on their brave memory at our peril. To regress back into the blasphemy laws of old would be the biggest error of any free and open society, which would lead to a new Dark Age. But the Monk does not want you to know any of this, and so he would be using those same new blasphemy laws to end any such discussion – the ‘truthful’ Church cannot allow you to know the true truth.
And it is not Dawkins we have to thank for the ending of this new blasphemy law in the UK, but our comedians. It was British comedians who convinced parliament that their ill-thought blasphemy proposal (by Catholic Tony Blair) would lead to the ruination of Britain, not Dawkins. So thank you, Monty Python team (who could not have filmed Life of Brian), thank you Stephen Fry (who could not perform his quiz show), thank you Rowan Atkinson (who could not have appeared in Black Adder). Thank you, one and all.
Ralph
Gary Pearse says:
December 25, 2013 at 10:30 am
“Most were first uttered by scientists working for once-respected universities”
Am I right in saying that NO university or scientific institution in the world is untainted by this shame?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There might be a few privately funded colleges, probably religious that maybe still be untainted but I doubt it. Humans have a tendency to run in herds and to ‘Join’ there fellows. Graduates from one university go on to become faculty at another university so the ‘infection’ spreads. Not to mention: Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement – ‘Impossible lack of diversity’ reflects ideological intimidation on campus
Heck the warmists and the United Nations even have an NGO colleges can join just like they have ICLEI for cities and towns
<a href="http://www.pomona.edu/administration/sustainability/policies-procedures/climate-plan.aspx"Pomona College
Of course you have think tanks like Heartland and The Global Warming Policy Foundation, launched by Lord Lawson and Dr Benny Peiser on 23 November 2009 in the House of Lords UK.
[snip -pointless insulting slayers rant -mod]
The developing world says, “Who’s ‘we,’ white man? WE aren’t going to pay for any insurance policy!”
Given that attitude, the West’s efforts will amount to bailing out a ship that is willfully taking on water–futile and economically suicidal.
I bow my head for the article and its staments, witch I fully and with all my hart, agrees on.
Some of us, have been thrue everything, thrue nagging doubth and dancing along the edges of sanity, and also hammered with despecable acusations, of been murdere and so on.
But one thing have steadyed the corse thure all this years.
The truth.
Fractals, the cross is the oldst symbol we know of, and its universal, the pilars of the earth.
What we miss, is the range between 1 and 0.
Like this.
The flower duet
Enjoy.
And never forgett, the path to knowledge is brutal, and must be fully understudd.
Knowledge have enemys, and the 4 greates of them all is:
But I have no fear of our future, the obstacle is the present, and the consequences of moronic policys based on flatout lies and even wurse, forged science, and the corruption of it.
And all the doooms days senarios, with an old time Fire and Brimstone certanty and hell to pay if we dont follow Theyr intentions.
peace
“There are two ways of spreading light..to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it.”
― Francis Bacon
Monckton of Brenchley says:
December 25, 2013 at 2:04 pm
=======================================================================
Commenters here have made a valid point that not having Religion does not preclude an ethical code for truthfulness, however I still think your point is well made.
It is undoubted, in the West Historically our ethical code has been derived from the teachings in the Bible. It is religion and religious texts that have brought us to the common understanding of our ethical responsibilities, whereas without that factor there would perhaps be a myriad of conflicting moral codes that would continue to have us at war with each other. Indeed the spread of atheism does seem to be fragmenting our society into tribes delineated by differences in moral standards, Bikie gangs, or hippy communes being two such groups. While one can’t say that this necessarily produces worse moral behaviour, one can say that it produces spread, and one can no longer rely on behaviour resembling the ten commandments. Indeed our very own Australian high court has conceded that pluralistic marriages are recognised for many purposes – some what a departure from traditional morality.
Civilisation is however wholly dependent on such a common perception of ethics, and would collapse into feudalism without it. On this basis, Monckton is right, our common understanding of what is right and wrong, undoubtedly derives from the church, and without that uniting force we would be an undisciplined mess, not a civilisation.
HarveyS says:
December 25, 2013 at 2:36 pm
Venus is the only planet in the Solar System to turn clockwise. All other planets turn anti-clockwise. It rotates clockwise on its axis extremely slowly, suggesting that something might have once collided with it to disrupt its regular rotation
=============
Venus presents the same face to earth at closest approach, every 584 days. In this fashion the rotation of Venus is spin-coupled to the earth’s orbit.
What are the odds that a collision would yield such an amazing co-incidence? Spin-coupled harmonic oscillation over hundreds of millions of years seems more likely. Something similar must be at work with Earth’s moon, such that it always presents the same face to earth.
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/special_issue2.html
Here I am wishing you all a very merry white Xmas.
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the present. Children have to know what snow is. It’s not rare or exciting anymore, it’s just bloody cold and localized cold kills just like localized global warming. 😉
I’m dreaming of a white Christmas……..just like the one’s I used to know…… La, la, la, la.
Enjoy the white stuff from the past in areas with ‘reduced’ snowpack all caused by dangerous global warming – that thing from the past. Haaaa haaaaa.
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/photos-white-christmas/21357805
rogerknights says:
December 25, 2013 at 4:23 pm
The developing world says, “Who’s ‘we,’ white man? WE aren’t going to pay for any insurance policy!”
================
Worse yet, the developing world now says, “We want you to pay us reparations for having created the mess in the first place. You created the CO2, you pay us for the damages your own scientists are saying you caused. Every storm, every hurricane, every flood, every drought. CO2 is making it worse, so we deserve to be compensated today. Not in 50 or 100 years, but today. Pay us today. If you don’t have the money, then borrow it from China, but pay us today”.
Lord Monckton said
“Eventually it was a Jew who scored the fatal blow that dethroned Dawkins. He asked him the obvious question: how could life as complex as that which teems on this planet have evolved in so short a time as 13.82 billion years?”
Not such an obvious question when it implies that the age of the Earth is three times greater than it actually is.
And what is there to say of a man who uses this description about a woman ?
“But the dim blonde from Greenpeace”
This has been a very helpful debate. It has exposed more fully the confused and out-dated views of a man who the skeptic community holds up as a champion of their cause – and in so doing damaging their case enormously.
bobl says:
December 25, 2013 at 4:36 pm
Monckton is right, our common understanding of what is right and wrong, undoubtedly derives from the church,
=================
The church and religion are not the same.
bobl says: December 25, 2013 at 4:36 pm
Civilisation is however wholly dependent on such a common perception of ethics, and would collapse into feudalism without it. On this basis, Monckton is right, our common understanding of what is right and wrong, undoubtedly derives from the church, and without that uniting force we would be an undisciplined mess, not a civilisation.
Allan says:
Well said bobl. Here is a relevent excerpt from an earlier post:
Background:
I have significant business and travel experience on six continents, specifically in regions such as Western Europe, the Former Soviet Union, North Africa, Australia and North and South America. I have spent most of my career in the energy and mining industries including senior management. My strategic and fiscal (tax and royalty) initiatives were instrumental in revitalizing the Canadian oilsands industry in the 1980’s and 1990’s and Canada is now the 6th largest oil producer in the world and the most prosperous country in the G8.
My comments:
In travels it was at first difficult at first to understand why countries that were as rich in resources and older than Canada were so poor, and why wealth was so unevenly distributed. The common thread of wealthy nations soon became apparent and it was Rule of Law in all its forms. Rich nations allowed their people to build and retain most of the benefits derived from their honest efforts.
Merry Christmas to all, Allan
Lord Monckton, third Viscount of Brenchley, says:
[Many thanks to everyone except the trolls for an interesting discussion. Though my daring to mention religion at all has dismayed some, most have understood that scientists who recognize no moral yardstick at all do not necessarily consider themselves under any obligation to conduct or to publish honest scientific research. Richard Dawkins, for instance, has taken full advantage of the blasphemy laws to be downright offensive about Christianity, which he hates.
Eventually it was a Jew who scored the fatal blow that dethroned Dawkins. He asked him the obvious question: how could life as complex as that which teems on this planet have evolved in so short a time as 13.82 billion years? Dawkins, instead of taking refuge in the usual half-baked arguments about sudden environmentally-driven spurts in evolution – for which the evidence is patchy at best – was eventually, and with great subtlety, lured into admitting that he believes in aliens. It was a wonderful moment. Dawkins has been a busted flush ever since: still fawned upon by the Marxist media, but laughed at by everyone else, for he was asserting a belief for which there is little or no more evidence than for the Christianity he had, until then, affected to despise.
Perhaps, then, it is only the man of true religion who is capable of being a true rationalist: accepting, as he must if he is honest, that what he believes cannot be proven and should not, therefore, be thrust upon those who do not want it, but demanding in all other matters except his faith that reason should prevail. Science is not a belief system. Scientists are not Druids. It is time that the climate-extremists and their supporters in academe ceased to behave as if they were.’
Lord Monckton, third Viscount of Brenchley, Nobel Prize winner, congratulates himself for ‘daring’ to mention religion? How brave is that?
Here we all are, still waiting for some science, of which there is not a skerrick in the gospels. There is no science in religion for there cannot be. It is in the nature of miracles that they are un-science based. Religion is not about theories, hypotheses, evidence or stastical treatments.
Similarly, there is no science in creationism. There is not a skerrick of evidence to show that humans walked the earth with dinosaurs, but that is what creationists believe.
Religion is about faith. Creationism is about faith.
It is entirely consistent, therefore, that Lord Monckton links religion, creationism and denialism. whether the latter is applied to the perils of cigarette smoking, the perils of fluoridation, the perils of doing something about CO2 emissions, or the perils of… whatever.
The people who challenged my atheism most were drug addicts and prostitutes
EnviroFUD is hope destructive. Happy whatever, may hope continue to spring eternal in you all.
AJB
Hope is like crossing your fingers, right?
I used to be hopeful about the Tea Party until it appeared to engage more in conversations about abortions and less about fiscal responsibility. Similarly this post at best feels like friendly fire.
climateace says: December 25, 2013 at 6:10 pm
No. Hope is maintaining the mind in a non-destructive state through elimination of ego.