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.
Paul R. – You bring me to my sad, but serious question…When to the “Greenies” actually decide they have the right to a Jihad??? That’s REALLY scary!
“The question arises: can science function properly or at all in the absence of true religion and of its insistence upon morality?”
Yes, since religion is not necessary for morality. (It frequently seems that religion is detrimental to morality.) However, science cannot function properly in the absence of morality.
(And “gotten”? I expected British English from Lord Monckton.)
Steven Mosher = The Grinch
Maybe someday his heart will grow.
Thank you Lord Monckton. Merry Christmas to you and to every one writing, moderating and reading this site.
I agree with the argument that liberals toe the party line and claim that AGW is real because the democratic party said so. But we are also victims of conservatives (Republicans) who do just the opposite. They make ludicrous claims that only give the warmers reason to make the claims that “Deniers” are stupid people who don’t understand science. Thank you Lord Monckton for helping to shine the light for those of us who follow the science and see the truth.
Merry Christmas to all on WUWT, especially Anthony Watts
K-Bob says:
December 24, 2013 at 3:53 pm
Steven Mosher = The Grinch
Maybe someday his heart will grow.
—–
As we speak, The Mosh is on his sled, dressed as Santie Claus, heading down to Whoville to take every last incandescent bulb from the Who’s Christmas trees, including Cindy-Lou Who, who is barely more than two.
Happy Holidays to all (including the Mosh)!
Lord Moncton, you have made a eloquent statement on the morality necessary for the pursuit of science, and you have shown how that morality transcends reason and connects with the realm of religion.
Agree with the general view, but too much of florid phrasing and bombast for me. To my mind, the great conundrum of the social condition confronting us is how all of the institutions of science were swept away by AGW alarm. A diagnosis of “expedient or convenient or profitable” is far too facile, I think.
One can only just understand the NAS under Ralph Cicerone going along with alarm, as he published on the idea prior to Jim Hansen’s 1988 testimony. But that understanding requres one to presume that Dr. Cicerone put his inner fears ahead of his scientific integrity. As an atmospheric scientist, Dr. Cicerone must have been aware of Fritz Möller’s 1963 warning that only a complete theory of climate could substantiate a dangerous AGW effect. No such theory was then in hand, nor is now. And so Dr. Cicerone must have proceeded to manipulate the NAS knowing that his fears had no scientific basis. And then one must further assume that inner hierarchy of the NAS followed his lead without protest. After all, what scientist actually employed by the NAS (as opposed to being a member of the NAS) has ever spoken out, protested, or resigned over the official and scientifically insupportable position on AGW officially taken by the NAS?
But more than that, in the US we have the American Physical Society and the American Institute of Physics, both of which have a profound responsibility to the integrity of science, and each of which has with both arms embraced the alarm and made it official policy. I’ve read the internal APS report of the Kleppner committee, and it is shamefully uncritical.
The surrender of scientific institutions to the AGW idea demands a studied, complete, and careful explanation. These institutions are composed of individuals, all of whom must have either likewise surrendered to the idea, or surrendered to the internal politics of AGW-as-party-line. Either case is accompanied by a surrender of scientific integrity to politics.
How did that happen at all, much less so globally and so quickly? How does politics attain such power? The group of scientists pushing AGW alarm were at first a small fraction of the community. How did they sweep all before them? In their private meetings, they must express astonishment at their incredible success.
There is a world of difference between morals and ethics. Morals just require feelings, for ethics you have to think.
Many naughty boys and girls, believers and sceptics alike, may be hoping for a visit from Santa Claus. Santa is a somewhat political character, making moral judgements, weighing naughty and nice in the balance.
But while many would like a visit from Santa, who would allow “there will be warming, just far less than we thought”, Santa may not be coming. While politics may have motivated many, the battle ground was science. This requires a visit from both the Krampus and Sankt-Nikolaus, and Krampus only carries the list of who’s been naughty.
1.2C for a doubling of CO2?
Have you been naughty Christopher?
“there will be warming, just far less than we thought”, may be good politics but it is poor science. After all it is not just the magnitude of the effect in error but the very sign. There may be no path back to reason through morals.
Those that hide from the sting of the Krampus’ birch (or bristlecone as the case may be) may miss a visit from Sankt-Nikolaus. He may be carrying more than sugar cookies. He may be carrying the future of science and reason, and that is sure to take away the sting of the birch 😉
Beautifully written. Very true. Should be repeated again and again – I hope your words spread far. A Very Merry Christmas to you, Christopher Monckton, and a Very Merry Christmas to Anthony, to the mods, and to you all.
So if we are to accept Lord Moncktons position on AGW, shouldn’t we ask Where is his peer reviewed scientific rebuttal? Several studies, including those by Dr James Powell and Naomi Orestes, have shown about a 99% consensus on AGW. Can we consider Monckton serious, or responsible, to engage in armchair criticism without engaging in the true scientific debate in scientific journals?
Well, I’m not a fan of the idea of an Essene -trained revolutionary in ancient Judea having much relevance to the modern world, but I agree that in the absence of a strong moral code people seem more prone to pursue political agendas at the expense of others.
Richard Pipes, the scholar of communism, believes that the rise of two of the 20th century’s greatest evils-Nazism and Communism- can be attributed partly to the idea that developed within the scientific revolution that man does not have a soul. In the absence of a religious or moral compass, what stops people from believing that other people are expendable for the sake of a political cause?
I’m still working on the idea of whether one can have a sufficiently humane morality in the absence of what we call traditional religion (such as the declaration of human rights, which is a pretty good start), but I agree that there is a danger to humanity without such a code.
Peter Crawford says:
December 24, 2013 at 3:30 pm
Hey Moncko, can a Welsh atheist commoner wish you a Merry Christmas and a kiss on the lips?
Not with tongues
.
No tongues?….You ain’t no Welshman then……
What a joy it is to encounter your clever alliterations:
somehow snuck sneakily
assent to assertions
parroted the Party Line
fundamentally fatuous
to peddle it, to parade it, to parrot it, to pass it on
(and in the title too, I notice)
A joyous Christmas to you and an equally good new year.
@ur momisugly Warren — You might have a point, unfortunately Climategate exposed the complete corruption of the peer review process. You’re flogging a dead horse. Read the Climategate emails an educate yourself on seedy underbelly of Climate Science.
Have an open mind and Happy New Year!
Another convoluted tirade weaving fantastic imagery from the noble Lord – sent down from his high tower in the land of Nid.
But its Christmas – best time of the year for some nuts.
All I can say is – wow.
Lord Monckton, again you demonstrate that your nobility is not merely in your bloodline. So very well said.
I am not a religious believer, but certainly for many, TRADITIONAL religion provides a basis for a moral compass that I would never question, and you are absolutely right to connect that moral compass to scientific integrity.
But there are other bases besides religion – there are the golden rule, the agreement to disagree, the rule to do no harm, and the support of well-being – for a moral compass. Lying violates all of these four basic rules: it treats another as one would not be treated, it disrespects another’s right to believe, it willfully does tangible, concrete harm to another, and it diminishes another’s well-being.
On the other hand, we have the new religions – Marxism, environmentalism and global warming – which explicitly eschew morality (except to abuse it as a method of manipulating uninformed people). In these new religions, the doctrine is everything; there is no concept of truth or falsity, fact or illusion. To the ideologue, these concepts are irrelevant – to him or her, there are no such things. There is only what is, according to their doctrine.
Thanks Reg. But that leaves the only basis for an anti-AGW position as a Worldwide Conspiracy of scientists who have corrupted the scientific process…an assertion that I assume you uniquely apply to climate scientists. That seems a slim reed, to put it mildly.
That’s the title of a 1995 book by Aaron Wildavsky that is still very relevant. Its subtitle is, “A Citizen’s Guide to Environmental Health and Safety Issues.” Chapter 11 is a 35-page look at global warming theory; it’s measured and skeptical. Here’s its book description on Amazon:
“Others, without religious belief, can come to a morality essentially that of the major religions simply on rational grounds.”
Well, of course they can. God is nothing if not rational. He gave us moral law to ensure that we would get it, as not all are clever enough to arrive at the proper destination through reason alone. (It’s not really a good excuse for dismissing God.)
Warren says:
December 24, 2013 at 4:14 pm
James Abbott says:
December 24, 2013 at 4:29 pm
—————————————————
Say guys, checked the decorative lights on the tree? No lose wires?
St. Nick moves with the times. This year it may not be a lump of coal, it could be a litre of shale gas 😉
@warren –
For your information, the REAL divide between AGW believers and skeptics is represented, on the one hand, by the 75 out of 77 polled, carefully cherry-picked, who support AGW according to der Fuehrer (that’s the source of his “97 percent” lie); and on the other, by the 31,000+ degreed practicing scientists who signed a statement, the Oregon Petition, saying that there is no discernible effect of either human activity or carbon dioxide on climate. That’s about a 450 to 1 majority who REJECT the AGW hypothesis. But in any case, if der Fuehrer were correct about his percentages, he is still committing a basic logical fallacy, taught in freshman philosophy courses – the argumentum ad verecundiam, the appeal to authority (which, when this is resorted to, you can be just about dead certain that the authority is wrong).
You are a perfect example of the sort of ideologue I referred to in my last post here who recognizes not truth or falsity, not fact or illusion, but only doctrine – and a false doctrine, as that.
Authoritarian government must affirm at all times in all ways it is the only legitimate authority. Consequently, logic, education, knowledge, experience, etc., do not matter. If you get the stamp of approval from government, you are known as an authority until you go astray, and then woe unto you.
Climate is the focus here. Other examples of authoritarianism include: Armed government thugs taking children from parents who wish to exercise what once were called parental rights (in accordance with the unratified Convention on the Rights of the Child. Schools not educating, but instead teaching propaganda according to state and federal standards (Common Core being the latest perversion) for the same reasons. The loss of any real property rights, because of the expansive ‘stakeholder’ concept of UN Agenda 21. Mismanagement of forests leading to excessive catastrophic wildfires (human hands off, very bad science), because of the Yellowstone to Yukon policy in the UN Biodiversity treaty. National health care in which a government official instead of a doctor will decide what treatment, if any, you receive. Attacks on your first amendment rights through abuse of the concepts of “hate speech”, and “separation of Church and State”. Attacks on the 2nd amendment, amounting to only government authorities should have the right to defend themselves. And soon we can expect the right to education turning into students being told what they can study, and a right to work being turned into being told what job you will do, each decision handed down by government.
You see, it’s much worse than we thought.
When a buffoon like Albert Gore, Jr. can ever be considered an authority on anything, you know authentic scientists’ days are numbered. At least nobody takes Prince Charles seriously. Score some points for the UK.
Monotheism gave us Sunday off. The old politicians thinking that they’re God gave us Saturday off. Now the new politicians are making sure that we all get the rest of the week off, by making us all unemployed through expensive energy that the investors/employers cannot afford.
A HAPPY CHRIST-MAS TO ALL.
Great dissertation Sir. It’s saved on the cloud.