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.
BOBL says: 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.
Bobl, you should be pointing the accusing finger towards yourself. 60 degrees F temperature difference (my number) equals 33 degrees C temperature difference (your number). i.e. The same.
As far as the rest of your commentary is concerned…, the temperature of Venus being 500C hotter than its non-atmospheric prediction — hot enough to melt lead — has long been estimated by Scientists analyzing the spectrum of thermal radiation from Venus; the estimates were confirmed by the Venus probes. The greenhouse explanation — water evaporation due to Venus’s proximity to the sun, leading to a large greenhouse effect and high atmospheric temperatures, and an atmosphere of 96% CO2 and a runaway greenhouse effect — is not even controversial in the Science. If still in doubt, you can verify the scenario with any College or even High School physics prof, or with a Science publication that covers the topic. You can also verify the Mars Greenhouse effect as essentially zero in the same way.
Warren, you get it wrong again – Venus is so different from Earth that parallels can’t be drawn. The high temps on Venus are due more to the compression of its atmosphere than to CO2 (94 timers as dense as Earth’s ,and 150 times more massive). Venus has 250,000 times as much CO2 in its atmosphere as Earth does now, and 500 times more than Earth ever had.
There have been many periods in Earth’s history when the CO2 content of the atmosphere was many orders of magnitude greater than today – until about 2 billion years ago, before blue-green algae evolved and photosynthesis began to convert the CO2 to O2, the Earth’s atmosphere was 20 percent CO2 – and the Earth didn’t burn up – in fact it went through a couple of global ice ages. In the Eocene and Oligocene, CO2 concentrations reached 8,000 ppm at times – with no runaway heating. And in the Miocene an ice age started when CO2 was at 8i00 ppm.
About 96 percent of the potential greenhouse effect has already been achieved at 400 ppm. Doubling the concentration will only increase the effect by about 2 percent. When you weigh that against the 250 to 1,400 times the effect that water vapor has compared to CO2, that increase is too small to detect any effect from it.
Your references are also dubious, to say the least. Too many academics have fallen prey to the global warming disease, because of their leftist politics, and Science has long since descended from a once-prestigious journal to a shameless leftist political rag.
Isn’t it funny how the AGW scam is so convenient to leftists who want to tax us to death and control every detail of our lives? That’s what it’s really about – and about “wealth redistribution,” which invariably works out so that wealth is transferred from poorer to richer. Renewable energy is one very effective such scheme, for transferring wealth upward from poorer to richer.
Warren, I forgot to mention greenhouses – 1,200 to 1,500 ppm CO2, pumped in to increase yields – and no runaway warming there!
Does religion cause problems or cure them? As one piece of the answer, let me suggest my favorite comment from Teddy White. White was a sharp historian during roughly 1940-1980. He worked with Mao personally, and knew many of the movers and movements of the day. His observation was that after all the things he had seen, one thing in the world scared him the most. That is when intellectuals give naturally thuggish people cover for going ahead. “I don’t know much myself, but he said it’s right to pound on those people until they change. So we will.”
These teachers may be religious intellectuals, or cultists, or atheists, or businessmen, or patriots, or scientists, or doctors, or political leaders, or whatever. The excuse doesn’t make that much difference.
Happy Christmas, or however you would like to say it.
Steve Keohane says:
December 25, 2013 at 10:40 am
Warren says:December 25, 2013 at 10:08 am
Pamela,
Water vapor as measured in the atmosphere has been increasing for several decades at the modest rate of 1.2% per decade, (absolute amounts) consistent with
Got data?
OK. My source: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007
Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis
3.4.2.1 Surface and Lower-Tropospheric Water Vapour (Excerpts)
My figure was taken from the last paragraph — for the atmosphere over the oceans. Rises in specific humidity over land and Globally are stated in the 1st paragraph:
Trends in specific humidity tend to follow surface temperature trends with a global average increase of 0.06 g kg–1 per decade (1976–2004). The rise in specific humidity corresponds to about 4.9% per 1°C warming over the globe. Over the ocean, the observed surface specific humidity increases at 5.7% per 1°C warming, which is consistent with a constant relative humidity. Over land, the rate of increase is slightly smaller (4.3% per 1°C), suggesting a modest reduction in relative humidity as temperatures increase, as expected in water-limited regions.
And:
Significant interannual variability of column-integrated water vapour has been observed using TOVS, SMMR and SSM/I data. In particular, column water vapour over the tropical oceans increased by 1 to 2 mm during the 1982–1983, 1986–1987 and 1997–1998 El Niño events (Soden and Schroeder, 2000; Allan et al., 2003; Trenberth et al., 2005a) and decreased by a smaller magnitude in response to global cooling following the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 (Soden et al., 2002; Trenberth and Smith, 2005; see also Section 8.6.3.1). The linear trend based on monthly SSM/I data over the oceans was 1.2% per decade (0.40 ± 0.09 mm per decade) for 1988 to 2004 (Figure 3.20).
A question was asked earlier whether the figure was specific or relative humidity, Seems it was specific humidity.
keep it up we will bring them down or maybe they will bring them selves down in the end the lying gooses
I would like to divert some of the praise for just a moment to Topher who built some fantastic video interviews this year among all the other excellent, positive, and rational education and publicity materials he’s produced. Well done, Topher, and we hope to see more in 2014.
Warren,
We tend to use SI unit here, when using a local scale (Say Fahrenheit) please state so.
On the Topic of Venus, you must account for the density of the atmosphere, the different rotational patterns and the fact that Venus is more volcanic that the earth. as well. That greenhouse warming is the cause of hot temperatures on Venus is speculative, unproven and contrary to your assertion, very controversial, it is but a theory. I recall an article examining Venusian temperatures at the point at which the atmosphere is earth equivalent pressure, and it is exactly what we’d expect for a planetary body that receives twice the insolation of the earth. One would think that the reflective Sulphur in the venusian atmosphere might have a cooling effect as the warmist scientists say it does on earth. It is quite possible that heat buildup on Venus is internally sourced from its vulcanism, and that its highly reflective atmosphere keeps that internal heat from escaping. That of course is opposite to the situation on earth that has a largely transparent atmosphere and little leakage of internal heat sources. We know so little about Venus.
You similarly deflect on Mars and Titan, since the partial pressure of greenhouse gasses on both these planets does not lead to runaway warming we can conclude then that GHG’s are a minor factor despite the concentrations of GHGs being 10s to hundreds of times earths
You also ignore my climate sensitivity boundary tests that show sensitivity cannot be above about 1 odd degree per doubling, and completely miss the point that increasing global average temperature does NOT imply a more extreme climate, interesting you ignore this simple math that doesn’t agree with your ideology… Perhaps you are one of the ignorant “Greenies” that can’t think for themselves.
If so, then we can go into why mitigating action on GHGs is immoral and totally impractical, since I have done the research and math on that too.
My point remains. So far you have completely failed to refute any of the math that I rely upon to support my sceptical viewpoint. To convert me to a pro warming view you must show why my math (and logic) is wrong. And furthermore you must show harm, and that mitigation including the attendant deaths by fuel poverty, and wealth diversion to global warming mitigation is justified by the benefit.
No pointing to others, no deference to authority, Show me the math Warren done by YOU.
Excuse me, Titan is a satellite (moon), not a planet , I should proof read my work better.
Warren, we are also getting very close to the point where I will simply classify you as a troll, who believes in atmospheres that violate energy conservation, and ignorant of the laws of thermodynamics. That would be a pretty major denial of science on your part.
Warren,
On the Topic of Venus, you must account for the density of the atmosphere
=================
Huffman has done quite a bit of work on this topic, comparing venus, earth and mars. He shows that atmospheric pressure, not atmospheric composition explains the temperature difference. Well worth a read.
An interesting fact about Venus, even though it rotates very slowly (once per 243 earth days), unlike earth there is almost no difference in temperature between the day and night side. A second interesting fact is that the rotation of Venus is synchronized to the orbit of earth, such that Venus displays the same face to earth at the point of closet approach.
Both these facts suggest we still have a lot to learn about Venus. The fact that Venus displays the same face to earth suggests that even minute tidal forces can over time can have very significant effects. Much greater effects than our calculations of simple forcings allow for. The obvious example is the child’s swing, where minute harmonic forcings result in large oscillations. Many times greater than would be possible if the forcing was strictly linear.
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.ca/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/nasa-builds-high-pressure-venus-surface-simulation/
The pedlars of the global warming scare have acted immorally in dressing up politics as though it were science.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Too true. And enthusiastically proselytized by many who should know better.
The effect of atmospheric density can be readily observed on earth. The atmospheric pressure of earth in a dry mine shaft 60,000 meters deep would be 91 atmospheres, about the same as Venus.
The dry air lapse rate is 9.8C/1000meters. At the bottom of the dry mine shaft, temperatures would be about 600C, excluding the effects of water vapor (which Venus does not have).
Of course we do not have the technology to build such a mine shaft, but the effect of pressure on temperature is readily apparent in the TauTona Mine, which at 3900 meters deep has a temperature of 55C. The predicted temperature via the dry air lapse rate is 55C, assuming a 17C average surface temperature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TauTona_Mine
excel formulas:
A2 = elevation in meters
air pressure (bar):
=101325*((1-(2.25577*10^(-5))*A2)^5.25588)/100000
temperature (C):
=(-A2)/1000*9.8+17
bobl says:
December 25, 2013 at 10:08 pm
increasing global average temperature does NOT imply a more extreme climate
==============
in fact, the cliamte heat engine is about 20% efficient at today’s temperatures. If you raise the pole and equator temperatures by a similar amount the efficiency drops, meaning you will get less work (weather) out of a given amount of energy from the sun. In other words, weather will get less extreme.
If you raise the temperature at the poles more than the equator, then the efficiency drops even more, meaning even less work (weather) from the climate heat engine.
Gail Combs says:
December 24, 2013 at 1:25 pm
“Thank you and a Merry Christmas from an Agnostic (me) and an Atheist (my husband)
Honesty and Integrity are not the sole province of the Judeo-Christian religions but of civilized men and women because without honesty and integrity all you have is raiders, parasites and their prey whom they eventually will destroy.”
Ain’t that the truth! Thank you Gail.
If you raise the pole and equator temperatures by a similar amount the efficiency drops, meaning you will get less work (weather) out of a given amount of energy from the sun. In other words, weather will get less extreme.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Exactly, unfortunately it’s strawmen and red herrings, all the way down. The physics demonstrates CO2 can warm. The hypotheses of global warming aka global weirding aka climate change aka extreme weather are a big FAIL. Do no harm….
climateace says: December 25, 2013 at 5:22 pm
It is in the nature of miracles that they are un-science based.
_______________________________________
That is not so, not so at all.
For instance, the “water to wine” miracle in John 2:9 is a well-known 1st century parlor trick for the royal court, devised by Hero of Alexandria. It was a trick jug that could separate two fluids based upon suction and water surface tension, which demonstrates an intimate knowledge of real science. (Hero made about six different water-to-wine jugs.)
Here is the very jug that Jesus used at the wedding at Cana:
http://himedo.net/TheHopkinThomasProject/TimeLine/Wales/Steam/URochesterCollection/Hero/22,8.jpg
And here is an explanation of the science that it is based upon:
http://himedo.net/TheHopkinThomasProject/TimeLine/Wales/Steam/URochesterCollection/Hero/section8.html
As Hero himself said of his trick jug:
Quote:
We may also pour in the water first, and then, stopping the vent, pour wine upon it, so as to pour out wine for some, wine and water for others, and mere water for those whom we wish to jest with.
So the water to wine ‘miracle’ was simply a jest – a joke based upon real science. Those who were performing the joke, like Jesus, were rolling around in mirth, while the uninitiated proletariat thought it was a real miracle. And believe it or not, there are some people who still think this was a miracle even to this day. Incredible, I know, but that is Church propaganda for you.
It was not a miracle, it was science, because the Nazarene Church of Jesus was a Gnostic Church based upon science – until the Catholic Church of Saul got hold of it, and distorted and ruined everything.
Merry Xmas party tricks…. 😉
Ralph
Thanks, Christopher. Another wonderful post.
bobl says: December 25, 2013 at 10:18 pm
Warren, we are also getting very close to the point where I will simply classify you as a troll,
I got to that point after his few posts, I have seen the exact same attitude before, as I stated to him in my first post, which he did not like.
Like Adam on Tallbloke’s Talkshop he intimates that he wants to debate & learn, but is not actually prepared to look at opposing data.
If he had been more receptive I could have pointed to the 1000 peer reviewed papers and lots of other websites showing newer papers like the Hockey Schtick etc.
If pressed, I would probably identify myself as an atheist, simply because religion doesn’t play a part in my life. It doesn’t interest me. And yet, I don’t feel the urge to trash others’ religiosity the way Dawkins (and some on this thread) do. There is a viciousness to this new form of atheism which I find repugnant. Part of it may be a reaction to the wrongheaded move by Christian conservatives to bring politics into religion, and the idiotic idea that the bible should be taken literally. That began some time in the early 80’s, I believe, and was a huge mistake. One can oppose that without trashing all religions, or even just Christianity.
Warren says
OK. My source: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007
Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis
3.4.2.1 Surface and Lower-Tropospheric Water Vapour (Excerpts)
My figure was taken from the last paragraph — for the atmosphere over the oceans. Rises in specific humidity over land and Globally are stated in the 1st paragraph:
Trends in specific humidity tend to follow surface temperature trends with a global average increase of 0.06 g kg–1 per decade (1976–2004). The rise in specific humidity corresponds to about 4.9% per 1°C warming over the globe. Over the ocean, the observed surface specific humidity increases at 5.7% per 1°C warming, which is consistent with a constant relative humidity. Over land, the rate of increase is slightly smaller (4.3% per 1°C), suggesting a modest reduction in relative humidity as temperatures increase, as expected in water-limited regions.
Henry says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/
where it concludes:
quote
Climate models predict upper atmosphere moistening which triples the greenhouse effect from man-made carbon dioxide emissions. The new satellite data from the NASA water vapor project shows declining upper atmosphere water vapor during the period 1988 to 2001. It is the best available data for water vapor because it has global coverage. Calculations by a line-by-line radiative code show that upper atmosphere water vapor changes at 500 mb to 300 mb have 29 times greater effect on OLR and temperatures than the same change near the surface. The cooling effect of the water vapor changes on OLR is 16 times greater than the warming effect of CO2 during the 1990 to 2001 period. Radiosonde data shows that upper atmosphere water vapor declines with warming. The IPCC dismisses the radiosonde data as the decline is inconsistent with theory. During the 1990 to 2001 period, upper atmosphere water vapor from satellite data declines more than that from radiosonde data, so there is no reason to dismiss the radiosonde data. Changes in water vapor are linked to temperature trends in the upper atmosphere. Both satellite data and radiosonde data confirm the absence of any tropical upper atmosphere temperature amplification, contrary to IPCC theory. Four independent data sets demonstrate that the IPCC theory is wrong. CO2 does not cause significant global warming.
end quote
Again, you must realize from the commenters here by now that there is no global warming, that there has not been any for 17 years, in fact it has been cooling globally for the last 12 years (which is the equivalent of at least one Schwabe solar cycle), and, if you can bring yourself to believe the results of my own investigations, it will not stop globally cooling, until 2040, on average, from 2014-2040, give or take 5 years or so.
Live with it.
If you are heavily invested in green energy, or in the development in the arctic, now would be a good time to get out.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
Mikeal left us a vid of the Lacme Flower Duet – which is wonderful. But for festive enjoyment, the one made by two British Airways Stewardesses is priceless – and should have you in stitches.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp_hzrB_FI4&w=640&h=360]
A C Osborn
Yes, sadly I believe you are right, Warren is but a missionary, sent into the land of the heathens, to convert us to Gaia worship. I had hoped, that like many he had found his way here seeking truth, but alas it is not to be. There is no point arguing with a religious zealot.
It is ironic he should appear during this post though when Monckton talks of intellectual integrity, but we have witnessed a rather crass display of “Whatever it takes”. I’m not sure about Warren though, let’s not be too harsh as Warren displays all the signs of being very young, maybe a teenager. We should remember that we have no way of knowing and it it not fair to treat children too harshly. We were once young idealistic and always right once too, but have since grown out of it.
Henry: in that last 17 years you refer to, the oceans have warmed according to the peer reviewed paper published in Science this year, based on measurement, not theory. 17 years is not long enough to conclude what you say, as the additional energy has gone into the oceans. If you look at the 20th century temp record, periods of level temperatures, or even slightly declining temp, are part of the zig zag pattern with its overall upward trend over the last 150 years.
Bruce Cobb says
If pressed, I would probably identify myself as an atheist, simply because religion doesn’t play a part in my life. It doesn’t interest me. And yet, I don’t feel the urge to trash others’ religiosity the way Dawkins (and some on this thread) do. There is a viciousness to this new form of atheism which I find repugnant. Part of it may be a reaction to the wrongheaded move by Christian conservatives to bring politics into religion, and the idiotic idea that the bible should be taken literally. That began some time in the early 80′s, I believe, and was a huge mistake. One can oppose that without trashing all religions, or even just Christianity.
Henry says
Bruce, thanks for that comment. I think you are what we call agnostic, and you make it clear that you don’t force your opinions [that cannot be supported by simple scientific observations] on others which I find admirable. This brings me to an important point. Politics and religion are the two most widely talked bout subjects. WUWT has brought in a rule not to discuss religion. Such a rule is fair, but then surely, it must also apply to those wanting to discuss atheism?
I have identified a few people here that have been put on a pedestal here at WUWT here as being particularly interested in bringing their atheistic beliefs forward and to be insulting towards anyone who who goes against it. For example, in an earlier comment here, Lord Monckton was referred to as the “Monk” by a “Silver Ralph”, which I thought was an UNACCEPTABLE name call, referring to his membership to a particular church. As I have stated before, people who call each other names or fool’s in a blog should be banned for a specific time from posting at all. The reason why Silver Ralph is getting away with it is because his name suggests the probability of a relationship with Leif Svalgaard, another one of those who feel that they must profess their atheism on WUWT at all times and at anytime, as openly as possible, and be insulting to believers.
What I am about to say has nothing to do with the fact that I am a Christian…..
The natural backdrop of all of this favoritism of WUWT towards atheists is the fact that climate skepticism in the USA is not being taken seriously. Namely, to get the mainstream Republicans on your side, you first need to win over the bible belt…. Anyone from the bible belt coming to visit WUWT and hearing the rage and rantings of Leif and Ralph and others against the Christian faith will leave and not come back. In their eyes, an atheist is someone who only believes in himself. They do not trust anything coming from an atheist, as they see him simply as a self appointed god, an idol…….