Global warming has become a religion
This is the opinion of Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever , Prof. Richard Lindzen, and many others. Climate change alarmism has a surprising number of attributes of a medieval or even ancient religion. Nevertheless, real religions have some pre-requisites, like a tradition spanning at least few generations. So the proper name for climate alarmism is a cult. And these are the telltale attributes:
1) Climate alarmists pretend to possess indisputable truths about the past, present, and future. From minute details of the paleoclimate to the world state 200 years in the future, alarmists know everything.
2) The alarmist movement stubbornly refuses to debate its dogma, calling it “settled science” and viciously attacking its critics. The attacks are not limited to name calling but include prohibiting scientific research that contradicts this dogma. Significant figures within the movement call for criminal persecution of those who publicly disagree with the dogma and, in some cases, for those who do not follow it. Proposed punishments for “heretics” and “infidels” include prison and even death.
3) The alarmist movement has a formal doctrine-setting body — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The reports and summaries by this body are considered by the alarmists to be the main source of authority on all things related to climate, energy, the biological cycle, and consequentially, everything else. The cult followers (individuals, organizations, and even governments) regularly quote these unholy texts and use them to justify their decisions.
4) The alarmist movement has its own priest class: taxpayer-funded impostor “climate scientists” who have no independent (of the climate alarmism) scientific achievements.[1]Frequently, they do not even have scientific degrees.[2] The alarmists sincerely believe that only members of the priest class are capable of understanding and seriously discussing “climate science.” Physicists, biologists, meteorologists, engineers, mathematicians, and other outsiders need not apply.
It is worth noting that this priest class was appointed by politicians (mostly from developing countries) and is completely disconnected from the eminent scientists who founded climate change research at the peak of their scientific careers and produced the most results prior to 1985. All the eminent scientists who have publicly spoken on the topic since the early 1990s strongly opposed climate alarmism and were attacked or defamed by the alarmists. The list of these “sceptics” and “deniers” includes Freeman Dyson, William Nierenberg, Frederick Seitz, Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, and Roger Revelle. None of the founders of climate change research support the alarmism.
5) The climate change cult appears to worship the computer models that its shamans built with their own hands — literally man-made idols. Needless to say, much of the content of IPCC’s texts comes from these computer models.[3]
6) The alarmists deny, ignore, or distort elementary scientific facts, some of which should be known even to kids:
– Photosynthesis. Plants grow by converting atmospheric CO2 into biomass. Significant parts of the world agricultural output are due to additional CO2 fertilization.[4]
– Archimedes’ principle. Melting of Arctic ice cannot increase the sea level because Arctic ice floats in water.[5]
– Sunspots and the effect of solar activity changes.[6]
7) The alarmists appeal to medieval science errors. These errors can be described as beliefs that nature has existed forever in some unchanged state. The inability of a common man or a medieval scientist to observe such changes was the cause of these beliefs. The alarmists revive these errors by denying, ignoring, or underestimating natural climate change; evolution (including species’ disappearance and adaptation); higher CO2levels in the geological past; natural sea level increases in the current interglacial period; tectonic movement; the complex trajectory of the Earth’s motion around the Sun; and the astronomic observations of stars similar to the Sun.
8) The alarmists have created and spread climate mythology, sometimes intentionally modeled on archaic misbeliefs that many alarmists attributed to religion. The common logical fallacy can be described as an appeal to everyday experiences, not applicable to the discussed natural processes (the “Flat Earth fallacy”). Some samples:
– Incorrect association of CO2 with warming because of the word “greenhouse”—the mother of the global warming scare. Most city dwellers only know that greenhouses are warm and contain elevated levels of CO2 and easily led to believe that CO2 causes warming. Most farmers also know that CO2 is added for fertilization and does not cause greenhouse warming. This is why states with many farmers (like Oklahoma) are skeptics of the climate change cult and states with many professors (like Massachusetts) arebelievers.
– Incorrect claim that (allegedly anthropogenic) global warming causes glacier melting or Antarctic ice sheet collapse. Ice cream does melt faster in a warmer room, but glaciers and ice sheets are influenced by totally different physical processes and on a totally different timeframe. See West Antarctic glacier likely melting from geothermal heat and The Arctic is especially sensitive to black carbon emissions.
– Incorrect claim that global warming causes droughts. Droughts are popularly associated with high temperatures but not caused by them. See Weaker solar activity means colder, and colder also means drier.
– False attribution of wildfires, New Orleans’ devastation from Hurricane Katrina, current California water shortages, and various disasters to global warming. These disasters are caused by environmentalist politics, not by global warming. Hurricane Katrina was only Category 3 upon landfall. New Orleans was supposed to withstand all hurricanes up to the highest Category 5, but the required barriers were not built because of the resistance by environmentalists.
– Time scale confusion. Processes that take hundreds of years are described as if they happen overnight.
9) Like an established religion, the climate change cult has its own “start of the time”—usually 1880 (sometimes the 1880s), which is allegedly the beginning of instrumental temperature records.
10) Climate change cult has its own eschatology—calamities, catastrophes, and the end of the world caused by global warming. To avoid this horrible end, we have to repent (i.e., accept the climate change cult dogma), stop sinning (releasing CO2), and generously pay whomever the IPCC or UNFCC will tell us.
11) The climate change cult calls its dogma science but fails to make any scientific (i.e., non-trivial and testable) statements. For example, “Climate change is real” is a trivial statement. The statements about temperatures in 2100 are not practically testable. When alarmists were making testable statements (such as the infamous 1988 James Hansen testimony before Congress and early IPCC reports), they were proven to be incorrect.
12) The climate change cult seeks and actually exerts control over governments.
To add to the above, the climate change cult has survived multiple exposures of its frauds—something that a normal fraud cannot survive. Nevertheless, many cults involve fraud, and even true believers are not against profiting from their position in their cult. The climate change cult has been elevated by the Obama administration into state religion. Both the White House and NASA appear to have converted to this cult.
References
[1] James Hansen may be the only possible exception. But he is an outlier among “climate scientists” in many other respects. His climates fantasies are not approved by the cult mainstream. If the cult were not state sponsored, he would become a schismatic.
[2] See Donna Laframboise, The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert.
[3] This may sound extravagant, but this is the actual state of “climate science” today. 25 years ago, there was a clear distinction between the science and the misrepresentation of the science. For example, the IPCC First Assessment Report reviewed the science, while its Summary for Policymakers misrepresented it. Since then, the quality of the science has been steadily deteriorating, apparently both through intentional fabrication and the race to the bottom in the competence of the “climate scientists.” Existing physical models were used outside of their applicability space, and new models were developed and applied without proper validation. Some models were intentionally fabricated to produce politically desirable outcomes, other models were developed by “undistinguished scientists” through incompetence, impatience, and ideological zeal. One might guess that there was some amount of competition between the models, leading to their evolution and the survival of the fittest (models and modellers). The fitness criteria was conformance to the alarmist agenda. Apparently, the surviving models were then compared and then tweaked to better match each other. In parallel, the models have been tweaked to accommodate real-world data. When tweaking individual models was not enough, “ensembles of models” were created. Model runs were called experiments. New models were developed and parametrized based on the output of such “experiments,” then “verified” against existing models. The output of the new models became new “data” and so on. Today, the climate-related models are not understood by the modellers themselves, the models lead their own lives and describe their own imaginary worlds (like the latest Hansen paper). Today, much of the peer-reviewed literature in the “climate science” (including IPCC AR5) simply does not distinguish between the real world and computer models. This is more appropriately called worship than scientific research. This is not limited to global circulation models but permeates many parts of “climate science.”
[4] Yes, some “climate scientists” are photosynthesis sceptics (and the rest have not heard of photosynthesis). From National Geographic, published by The National Geographic Society: High CO2 Makes Crops Less Nutritious. Another one, from the University of Gothenburg: Increased carbon dioxide levels in air restrict plants ability to absorb nutrients. Photosynthesis skepticism is a booming research field! The leading alarmist websitecalls the fact that CO2 is plant food “a climate myth” and explains that “Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing.”
[5] The claim that the melting of “polar ice” causes the sea level to rise has been frequently accompanied by evidence that the Arctic ice area was shrinking, especially in the periods when the Arctic ice area was really shrinking. The Antarctic ice cap has not been shrinking. I am not trying to figure out who among alarmists are ignorant of the Archimedes’ principle and who intentionally mislead the public.
[6] A few weeks ago, Sun sceptics struck again. International Astronomical Union announced: Corrected Sunspot History Suggests Climate Change since the Industrial Revolution not due to Natural Solar Trends. “Corrected Sunspot History” sounds like something from Orwell when it appears on Discovery News, CBS News, and Nature News. I understand that as an acknowledgement that the uncorrected sunspot history suggests otherwise and that Dr. Willie Soon has been correct. Of notice, the history was corrected based on a pdf file uploaded to arxiv.org, not on a peer-reviewed (or even pal reviewed) paper. Dr. Nir Shaviv has called the paperirrelevant to 20th century warming because there are other proxies confirming the increasing solar activity over the 20th century.
Being calling them a doomsday death cult for probably 6+ years now… nice to see the “experts” are on the case now that any rational person has long ago figured that one out. What next they’ll point out the whole thing is just a scam and a pitch to gain global power and massive amounts of money?
According to Bokonon a religion must be persecuted to succeed, there should be martyrs if this cult theory is true.
There can’t be martyrs, since it’s a state-sponsored cult. It lacks persecution, hence should ultimately fail.
God willing!
Robin made an excellent point! After reading it, I looked at some known facts differently. Yes, climate cult tried to get its own “martyrs”. Just look at this photo of handcuffed James Hansen. But he took too much money in too dubious ways to be a good martyr.
Good try, though.
Fake martyr, just like fake “data”.
Martyrs don’t get to laugh all the way to the bank.
Proof that CO2 has no effect on climate and identification of the two factors that do cause reported average global temperature (AGT) change (sunspot number is the only independent variable) are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com (new update with 5-year running-average smoothing of measured AGT.This shows the near-perfect explanation of AGT since before 1900; R^2 = 0.97+).
Using the same methodology with the ‘corrected sunspot history’, the ‘break even’ sunspot number increased from 34.22 for the ‘old’ sunspot numbers to 59.66 for the ‘corrected’ SSN (break even means the planet cools at SSN lower than the break-even number and warms at SSN higher than break-even). R^2=0.973 for the ‘old’ and 0.969 for the ‘corrected’ SSN when compared to the 5-year running average of reported average global temperatures since before 1900.
I would add: Signs of the Apocalypse.
Every negative or destructive event is linked to CO2 and becomes a sign of the coming Carbon Apocalypse.
Good one.
Even when the signs apparently contradict the doctrine.
Reg, I believe the “carbon apocalypse” will be more remembered as a political propaganda tool, rather than a scientific prediction.
I can think of only three horsemen for this apocalypse: greed (or career advancement), ego and ideology. Can anyone help me out with a fourth driver of this anti-scientific drivel?
Thanks!
Gloria, materialism: the belief in and worship of ‘things’. Teachings include that things cause happiness, ideas, beliefs, understandings and goals are incidental unless they target the acquisition of things. Most people will hand over power if they get enough things.
@ur momisugly Gloria Swansong
Conquest – Ideology
War – Propaganda
Famine – Fear
Death – Persecution
Crispin and Gregory,
Thanks.
You forgot the “Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc” nature of cargo cults.
Great post – and some good additional points in the comments.
The question that needs to be answered to tie this together once and for all: when climate fanatics are speaking/thinking/acting for their cause, are they driven by the same parts of the brain that motivate religious fanatics? Not sure if any research has been done in this area, but it certainly would be interesting if neuro-science could shed some light.
If it is not the case…perhaps the hypothesis here would have to be considered “falsified”….so at least it is testable.
‘9) Like an established religion, the climate change cult has its own “start of the time”—usually 1880 (sometimes the 1880s), which is allegedly the beginning of instrumental temperature records …’.
===============================
Which as Gloria points out is a glaring inconsistency as human CO2 emissions were relatively insignificant before ~1945 and therefore not accounting for the GAT increase ~1910 – ~ 1940.
But, wait!
It’s even worse!
Most of the alleged 0.7 degrees C of warming since c. AD 1850 occurred in the ~90 years before WWII, when the absolute and rate of rise in CO2 was minor compared to since the war. Very little warming has happened in the 75 years since 1940.
Not surprising when you consider that for the first three decades plus after the war there was global cooling, as there has again been since c. 1997. All the supposed post-war warming occurred during the brief interval c. 1977 to 1996.
AGW makes no sense whatsoever.
“All the supposed post-war warming occurred during the brief interval c. 1977 to 1996 …”.
===========================
A period which happens to coincide with a marked reduction in cloud cover:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/CloudCoverTotalObservationsSince1983.gif
“… This decrease roughly corresponds to a radiative net change of about 0.9 W/m2 within a period of only 13 years, which may be compared with the total net change from 1750 to 2006 of 1.6 W/m2 of all climatic drivers as estimated in the IPCC 2007 report, including release of greenhouse gasses from the burning of fossil fuels …”:
http://www.climate4you.com/ (Climate + clouds).
Cause or effect?
Great graph. Thanks!
And of course the IPCC doesn’t do clouds.
Thanks – cult is a good description.
However as I’m drinking some whisky in celebration (a major tabloid in UK has turned sceptic) I doubt much else I say will make sense.
Hic!
Malt does more than Milton can to justify God’s ways to man.
And that goes double for single malt!
Yes, climate alarmism is a religion. Dr. Michael Crichton explains:
Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
There’s an initial Eden; a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion; that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs imbibe.
[source]
The eco-religion is based on the belief in ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ (MMGW). The fraction of the public that believes in it is acting almost identically to Dr. Leon Fesinger’s “Seekers”, a cult the famous psychologist studied in the 1950’s.
The Seekers were led by a woman he calls “Mrs. Keech” (a pseudonym). She convinced her followers that a flying saucer would arrive at a certain date and time, and take her people to safety as the planet was destroyed. Her followers sold everything they had, went to her house on the appointed day, and waited for the flying saucer — just like climate alarmists are waiting for runaway global warming and climate catastrophe, or like followers of the Rev. Harold Camping waited for the end of the world.
But of course, no flying saucer appeared, just like no runaway global warming (or any, for that matter) appeared. So, did Mrs. Keech’s Seekers admit that they had been flat wrong?
No. As Dr. Festinger reported, rather than admit they were wrong, the Seekers doubled down and became even more adamant that the flying saucer had only been delayed. Festinger wrote:
“A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point. We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks. But man’s resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view.”
That explains the refusal of the climate alarmist crowd to face reality: not one of their alarming predictions has ever come true, but no matter. They still believe. In fact, their belief is even stronger now.
JoNova says:
…if you are a devout believer in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) and want to convert me to your religion then I’m going to tell you how you can do it:
• Step 1 – Stop making predictions that don’t come true.
• Step 2 – When you make a prediction, don’t just say something “might” happen.
• Step 3 – Don’t live your life like you don’t believe a word you’re saying.
• Step 4 – Stop the hate.
• Step 5 – Stop avoiding debate.
• Step 6 – Answer questions.
• Step 7 – Stop enjoying catastrophes.
• Step 8 – Don’t use invalid arguments.
• Step 9 – When you are wrong, admit it and apologise.
• Step 10 – Stop claiming that 97% of scientists agree that humans are warming the globe significantly.
• Step 11 – Stop lying. If you think it is okay to lie if it’s for a good cause, you are wrong.
• Step 12 – Rebuke your fellow Warmists if they act in an unscientific way.
• Step 13 – Stop blaming everything on Global Warming.
• Step 14 – Why are the only solutions always big-government “progressive” policies?
No alarmist has taken her up on her 14 suggestions, at least not here.
Even the minority of MMGW alarmists who are not victims of the new ‘green’ religion refuse to admit they were ever wrong. Writer Leo Tolstoy explains why:
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.
But for most of them, belief in dangerous AGW is faith-based. They cannot produce any measurements quantifying AGW. But that does not matter to religious acolytes. Their belief is enough.
It’s mighty hard arguing rationally with a Jehovah’s Witness. Or with a climate alarmist.
4 weeks ago I got stuck in a 1.5 hour long traffic jam trying to get back to Portland under the St. Johns Bridge closed because a bunch of Greenpeace cultists were hanging from the bridge wearing diapers in 103° heat
illegally preventing the Fennica from going down the Columbia River to Alaska. Our firemen risked their lives to get these idiots down – none were arrested, the local radio station covered it nonstop for hours – breathlessly calling them “kayaktivists” ( the ones in the water) , and when the ship finally plowed through on Thursday evening, most of the “reporters” had nothing but admiration
for these brainwashed fools – no regard for all the loss of productivity for us stiffs who pay the taxes that fund the grants for climate “scientists” . The morons had cell phones calling in to radio shows saying ” we sent a message. ” Yeah, and they saved the planet.
My cousins got stuck in the same jam.
The “protestors” should be in jail, awaiting trial without bail.
Don’t forget the demonic aspect of all this, the evil stuff brought up from the realm of Lucifer, according to the believers. There is a lot about this mythology that relates to ancient human fears and hence draws on deep wells of irrationality.
Gil Dewart August 26, 2015 at 3:33 pm says;
“There is a lot about this mythology that relates to ancient human fears and hence draws on deep wells of irrationality.”
Succinctly put, Gil Dewart. I take precautions. All it takes is one nut-bar. Who will save the planet from those who want to save the planet?
My experience with alarmists face to face, and I am always civil, is they invariably turn red and quickly walk away. As the denizens of WUWT? know, their arguments are easily, and politely rendered moot.
Like most cults they have a certain fatal attraction for its fundamentalist tenets-
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34002865
Aug 26, 2015
UN IPCC has NO Credibility
by Allan MacRae
Here is the link to my latest paper.
It is a retrospective of our debate on the Kyoto Protocol that was published in 2002.
[excerpt]
“One’s predictive track record is perhaps the only objective measure of one’s competence. The IPCC has a negative predictive track record, because ALL of its scary projections have failed to materialize. The IPCC thus has NO credibility; actually it has NEGATIVE credibility. Probabilistically; based the IPCC’s negative predictive track record, one would more correct if one assumed the opposite of the IPCC’s scary projections.”
Plus ca change, plus ca change pas…
Regards to all, Allan
Hence the reason I’ve been referring to them as the Cult of Climastrology for a long time now.
Well done, thanks.
Cult of Calamitous Climate has a nice ring to it, but whatever the label their actions speak for the faithful.
The most troubling aspect of their righteousness is their absolute refusal to practise what they preach.
They harangue everyone else to change our evil ways, while they wallow in every luxury fossil fuels can provide.
As for the “Carbon is evil” schtick .. from a carbon based lifeform it is a little rich.
The quote from P J O’Rourke covers their preachers beautifully;
“The college idealists who fill the ranks of the environmental movement seem willing to do absolutely anything to save the biosphere, except take science courses and learn something about it.”
Now I notice academia has attempted to circumvent this observation, by offering up multiple courses professing to be “Environmental Science”.
But their graduates seem unaware that water is wet.
One other factor the climate cult refuses to acknowledge is the possibility of larger regional climate changes being the cause of the relatively small global changes. This possibility is readily disguised by the almost incredibly poor distribution of measuring stations that in itself casts serious doubt on any conclusions generated from the results.
A question for Mr Svaalgard, I’m not a scientist and have noticed that you seem to be of the view that the sun has very little effect on climate change as a driver. Wouldn’t the Sun’s magnetic variability combined with both Earth and lunar proximity have an effect in terms of modulation of cosmic rays and subsequent cloud formation along with electromagnetic influence of the jetstream via the ionosphere? It’s also that any variability in the source of almost all the heat energy in a heat driven system would be significant one would think, although I’m enquiring about electromagnetic variability primarily rather than radiation as I’ve read that TSI doesn’t necessarily exhibit strong correlation with climate.
I apologise again if they’re stupid statements as I’m not a scientist myself like many people here and merely would like you to communicate your expertise to me in terms a layman can understand.
Thanks in advance.
The cosmic ray modulation follows [inversely] the sunspot number. If there has been no long-term trend the last 300+ years, there has also not been any trend in the cosmic rays, so any mechanism that depends on cosmic rays could not explain in simple terms the trend in climate. Same thing for the sun’s magnetic field. Now, it is possible that there exists an incredible, unknown, powerful mechanism that bypasses the above argument, but that looks like special pleading to me and I see no evidence for such a process.
In conversations with globalwarmists, the discussion usually ends with the following:
Me: “So, if CO2 rises to 500ppm (or 600, or 1,000), earth will pass a tipping point which will result in runaway greenhouse effect and the end of the world?”
Them: “Yes.”
Me: “So why hasn’t it happened before?”
Them: “What do you mean?”
Me: “During the Paleozoic and Mesozoic, a period of nearly 500 million years, atmospheric CO2 averaged more than 4,000ppm, and in the pre-Cambrian, it was much higher. Why didn’t earth experience a runaway greenhouse effect then?”
Their answers usually involve one of the following:
–That never happened–CO2 is higher now than ever (this is the most common answer, accompanied by “deniers just make up lies”, or something similar)
–The rapid increase in CO2 is unprecedented and that’s what will trigger it.
–“Man-made” CO2 is more dangerous.
–Conditions are different now.
I don’t talk to these people about it anymore. It’s too much like talking to a fundamentalist Christian about evolution.
And the irony is: they think that by excluding any possible refutation of their beliefs, they are being true to “science”, and by questioning global warming, I’m “anti-science”.
Have you tried pointing out that CO2 increased from about 310 ppm in 1945 to 337 ppm in May 1977, but the response of the earth was to cool pronouncedly?
It then allegedly warmed slightly from 1977 to 1996 (in some “data” series), as CO2 concentration grew from 337 to 360 ppm, but has since cooled again, despite continued gain up to 400 ppm.
In this case, lack of correlation implies lack of causation.
Would like to see CO2 data overlain on this graph, which of course NCAR has since adjusted so that its mother wouldn’t recognize it:
?zoom=2
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ScreenHunter_10202-Aug.-26-16.20.gif
Can someone please fix all the footnote links? ( http://www.defyccc.com/climate-change-notes/unpublished_upload_for_wuwt/ )
This is factual. Most intelligent people realise its a religion, it was admitted by the last head of the ICCP Pashuri. One feature is that when challenged they will unfold loads of graphs, but no one ever gets to question those graphs or the data behind them. Another feature is their ability to lie and lie and lie any thme they can get away with it.
Katherine Hayhoe doesn’t even try to hide it:
http://katharinehayhoe.com/?page_id=5
“My work as a climate change evangelist “
As a scientist myself, I’ve often been frustrated by how easily such cults arise and how quickly people become believers.
This cult would run out of oxygen, except that it fills the political need of a “crisis”, so necessary to progressive politicians to expand their control. I know this isn’t a political site, but we need to recognize why this latest end-of-the-world religion survives, and why offering truth on excellent sites like this one isn’t really enough. Propaganda is a powerful tool—look what it did in Europe in the 1930’s. The real problem is that only one side has a viable propaganda machine, and that’s something the so-called “progressives” are very good at.
Updated axiom:
Money corrupts and government money corrupts absolutely.
Socialism / statism / Marxism / Communism is the religion.
It has been the world’s fasting growing religion in the past 100 years.
The climate change wars — climate doomsayers versus deniers — are a propaganda tool.
The Coming Climate Change Catastrophe Cult (5C) is just using CO2 as a boogeyman to promote government expansion by scaring people, and hoping the scared people will turn to their government for “help”, or just blindly accept whatever expansion of government power “required” to fight the “crisis”.
Modelers are well paid extras, and their computer models are props, in this power play.
This is all about gaining power and money by manipulating the general population.
The science is irrelevant — not that predicting the future climate with computer games has anything to do with science !
Temperature and CO2 data will be repeatedly “adjusted” until it fits the computer game predictions.
Contradictory data will be ignored.
The few people who really believe they are saving the Earth are “useful idiots” who have no idea Earth’s climate today is better than it has been in over 500 years for plants (more CO2) and humans (warmer, and faster growing food plants).
Students have been brainwashed for several decades to believe humans are destroying the Earth, and maybe they are in China, so there is little hope of convincing most people under 30 years old that their climate today is better than ever … and more CO2 / more warming would be something to celebrate, not fear.
It is amazing how an invisible and harmless (false) boogeyman like CO2 can be used to control people.
And the only sure way to stop this power grab is to hope for a cold decade or two.
Scientists who study the sun / solar system seem to be predicting this.
Let’s hope they are right, or the temperature stays constant for the next decade (although the “adjustments” will eventually “fix” that !).
This website is useful for real scientists and other logical people to study the subject.
In the “real world” a typical person who visits this website sees as an ongoing science debate that makes their eyes glaze over — I’ve sent people here, and that’s what they tell me.
I checked my local library in Birmingham, Michigan and found about 212 climate change / global warming books in their database. I studied the brief summary for each book, and identified only four (4) books that were “skeptic” books, and two of those were by the same author.
That’s less than 2% of all the books identified with that subject search.
It would not surprise me if most people have never read ANYTHING skeptical of the 100 year climate predictions, even though the predictions have been grossly inaccurate for 40 years. Or maybe 2% of what they’ve read or heard was skeptical.
The primary reason ‘skeptics’ are unable to convince others there is nothing to fear, is they tend to debate the science, which few people will ever understand, assuming ANYONE understands what causes Earth’s climate to change.
What I don’t hear often enough is any skeptics celebrating more CO2 in the air for its positive effect on green plants, and the animals and people who eat them, and celebrating the slight warming, which people love.
Skeptics who are afraid to celebrate more CO2 and warming as good news will never reverse the climate change brainwashing.
Note how the climate doomsayers don’t debate their predictions — they skip that step on the assumption ladder and move up to the next step: Discussing what new government powers are needed to prevent the “crisis” … when they are not too busy attacking the characters of climate “deniers”.
When the general public loses interest in global warming, the leftists invent new names, such as climate change and carbon pollution, and then publish more specific scary predictions to get attention.
Another way to counter the climate doomsayers is to “accelerate” the crisis and demand a radical solution, such as an immediate $3 per gallon climate change fund tax on each gallon of gasoline sold, to discourage driving.
When the average person hears that, he’ll explode — everyone wants to save the Earth in theory, but no one wants to pay for it. That’s why the climate doomsayers are so silent about the costs of their risky schemes.
Free climate change blog
for non scientists.
No ads.
No money for me.
A public service.
http://www.elOnionBloggle.blogspot.com
The fastest growing religion, Communism, suffered quite a setback around 1990.
I wrote “Socialism / statism / Marxism / Communism is the religion.”
They are all just different forms of statism where the government controls a large percentage of the economy.
Communism has lost favor and in some nations, and has morphed to other forms of socialism.
Free enterprise is dying, even in the US.
The Chinese version of Communism + free enterprise is a combination with the worst aspects of a dictatorship, and the worst aspects of capitalism:
(1) Infrastructure building that no one needs — even unoccupied cities –,just to keep people employed, and
(2) Manufacturing with almost no regard for pollution.
Real pollution — not the airborne plant food Co2.
Actually, Communism/Socialism/Marxism have been the fastest shrinking social orders of the past 100 years. The breakup of the former USSR into mostly capitalist democracies for example. The problem with all of them is that they quickly devolve into totalitarianism (Stalin, Castro, Chavez). I do not think any qualify as religions or cults
.
I am a layman, but I think the science is very relevant and should be argued especially since it favors the skeptical view. However, if human induced CO2 warming turns out to be real (I have no confidence in this perspective) then I would want the alarmists to prove their case based on the science not ideological grounds and the same for the skeptics. We laymen need to at least try to grasp the science. The posts here are very helpful and most here will help you understand if only you will ask.
I do not doubt that alarmists use deceptive tactics but I think they are more born of pride than a vast socialist conspiracy. They want to retain status and funding.
Unlike the alarmists, the scientists here seem to welcome constructive criticism. It makes the posts here both informative and entertaining.
Statism (such as Socialism / Marxism / Communism) is the fastest growing secular “religion” in the past century.
If you think it has been “the fastest shrinking social order”, then we must be living on different planets.
In 2008 the two US Senators closest to matching the label “socialist” were Obama, who pretended to be something else, and Bernie Sanders, who was proud of being a socialist.
Then one of them was elected president for two terms.
And the other is running for president in 2016, and doing surprisingly well against a female competitor who is at least pretending to be another Obama.
If I had predicted these events back in the 1980s, or even in the 1990s, people would have said the predictions were crazy.
Warming is good news for humans.
More CO2 in the air is good news for green plant growth.
The known benefits of warming and more Co2 are rarely discussed.
Scientists “hide the decline” and adjust data to match their computer games.
“Deniers” are character attacked and can’t get government grants.
Wild guess predictions of doom and gloom from “carbon pollution” are not debated — the climate doomsayers stifle debate and brush off questions with “the science is settled”.
Politicians are heavily involved, along with the UN, and Al Gore, who took two elementary science classes in college and couldn’t manage to get an A or B in either of them !.
This is politics.
It is a delusion to think this is real science.
quote from Ian Plimer’s excellent 2009 book “Heaven and Earth” :
(from page 463 and 464):
“Environmentalism is an urban religion disconnected from Nature, or rural life, or the realities of food and mineral production. This environmental religion is terrified of doubt, skepticism and uncertainty yet claims to be underpinned by science. … Like many fundamentalist religions, it attracts believers by announcing apocalyptic calamities unless we change our ways. … Logic, questioning or contrary data are not permitted.”
Obama, Sanders, and others may be socialists, but our government and a large majority of our population are not.
The argument is about science; Alarmists are using bad science or psudo-science but the argument must be won first on the basis of science, then the political argument can be won.
My preference is for a likeness to a Trade Union. Religion as an analogy is too extreme to let some people see the analogy.
A Trade Union is a voluntary association whose members can lock out other people (no ticket, no job) and which does not require a stretch of the imagination to see the analogy. A Trade Union can do anti-social things (like strikes that disrupt the progress of others) and has a known membership. It has a hold on finances to keep it going. It does not rely on a hidden ‘conspiracy’ to keep it going.
Altogether a better analogy for me.
Not too extreme analogy. Unions simply want more money for their members and leaders. They do not make religious doctrines encompassing everything, including our breath (we exhale CO2 while breathing), and do not force us to believe in them.