Similarities to Jim Jones and the Cult of Climate Change

Guest opinion by Arkady Bukh, Esq

The apocalypse of an alleged climate change shares many of Jones’ cult-like qualities.


Jim Jones, the People’s Temple leader, led over 900 persons to commit suicide 32 years ago. Jones was charismatic and knowledgeable of both Scriptures and human behavior.

After the mass murder/suicide and the murder of U.S. Congressman, Leo Ryan, Jones and his followers were on the news every day for weeks. Jones, who built his cult around a “doomsday” scenario — convinced his followers that the world was past due for an apocalyptic ending very soon.

The apocalypse of an alleged climate change shares many of Jones’ cult-like qualities.

There are other similar traits, but here are four:

1. Climate doomsayers believe they possess truths about the past, present and future and their truths cannot be disputed by anyone.

2. Doomsayers refuse to debate their belief. They call their dogma “settled science” and attack any critics that dare to whisper in the dark.

3. Just like a cult, doomsayers has a formal doctrine-setting body — not unlike the Jones’ circle of advisors. The reports by the “ruling” body are thought to be the main source of authority and the texts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are quoted as unholy scripture.

4. Staying with the Jonestown analogy, the climate change alarmists have created mythologies intentionally built on lies and half-truths. The fallacy can be ascribed as an appeal to everyday experiences, giving the listener some sense of truth-based teaching to mix with the soup of confusion.

Just as Jones and his small leadership group built lies on a foundation of lies and misinformation, the “sky-is-falling-crowd” spreads hoaxes to support their form of theology.


By now it’s been all over the news that 2015 was the hottest year ever. If, in fact, 2015 was the hottest year of all time, there should be enough calamities happening to inspire a dozen movies. Instead, the opposite is occurring.

1. Record Ice

There was record sea ice in Antartica. In truth, a global warming expeditionary ship got stuck in the ice. Artic sea has been making a nice comeback, and the Great Lakes had record ice with only three ice-free months. If it were the hottest year, the ice should be melting.

2. Record Snow

The 2014/2015 winter saw record snowfall across the country. It wasn’t that long ago that scientists said that global warming would make the snow disappear, and children wouldn’t have any idea what snow is.

3. Record Cold

The winter saw many cold records crash. Remember the Polar Vortex?

4. Rising Oceans

Al Gore and company predicted that oceans would rise twenty-feet by 2100. So far the oceans are on track to lift by 12-inches. Many tidal gauges are showing no rise in sea level and practically none show any increase over the past two decades.

5. Polar Bears

Polar Bears are thriving. If this had been the hottest year on record, the Polar Bears would be in danger of disappearing.

6. Moose

When the moose population in Minnesota dropped observers were quick to blame global warming. Then a study was completed which found it was wolves that were killing the moose.

7. 99% of Scientists

99% of scientists don’t believe in man-made global warming. The 99% figure came from a study where only 75 scientists said they see global warming occurring. In another poll, over 30,000 scientists have signed a petition saying they don’t believe in catastrophic, man-made global warming.

8. Nature and CO2

Nature generates much more CO2 than humans. In 2014, [NASA] launched a satellite that measures CO2 levels globally. The assumption was that most of the CO2 would come from the over-industrialized northern hemisphere. They were surprised to learn it was coming from the rainforests of South America as well as Africa and China.

9. It’s Not the Warmest Year

Looking at the satellite data, it has not been the warmest year ever. The figures show there has been no global warming for almost two-decades. Continuing to use the ground weather station data which is influenced by the Urban Heat Island effect provides the reason for scientists calling it the warmest year on record.

10. Hypocrisy

Look at the lifestyles of those who preach global warming. If the main purveyors of global warming believed their propaganda, they would modify their lifestyle. They all own multiple large homes, yachts and private jets. Some individuals, such as Al Gore, profit from Carbon Taxes and other “green energy” laws.

Few Accusations of Fraudulent Behavior – So Far

Climate change is a scientific issue. Rejoinders to climate change are policy matters. Lying — or fabricating hoaxes — about science and policy are typically accepted.

Each side of the debate has stayed busy pointing accusatory fingers at their antagonists and yelling fraud. Fraud about scientific methods, data, interpretation of data and so on. So far charges of fraud for monetary gain has been few and far between.

Despite the length of time that climate change has been debated, there have been zero — zero — instances of individuals being successfully indicted on fraud charges dealing specifically with climate change.

Only one individual, a climate-change guru with the Environmental Protection Agency, has been charged with lying and fraud. Those charges weren’t even about his work at the EPA, but rather lies about being on the CIA payroll.

John Beale will spend 30 months in federal prison for bilking the EPA out of over $1 million in salary and other benefits while claiming to be “deep undercover” for the Central Intelligence Agency in Pakistan.

That may be starting to change.

As the science of climate change begins its fourth decade, some businesses and individuals are caught up in more than just perpetuating hoaxes and are being brought to task for lying and fraud.


Exxon may be in trouble over lying about climate change. If Exxon Mobile knowingly funded misleading research as a part of a plan to convince American voters, their lie goes beyond policy statements and morphs into a business decision.

Prosecutors are after Exxon for lying to people who might not have bought gasoline if they knew the true story behind climate change. If Exxon Mobile began disclosing the business risks of climate change when it understood them will be a focus of the New York case currently underway.

The company has begun disclosing potential environmental risks recently, but whether those disclosers are sufficient is a matter of public debate and maybe a centerpiece for the trial.


In 2009, climate change alarmists scrambled to save face after hackers stole hundreds of emails from a British university and released them online.

Pirated from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, the documents purported to reveal researchers were engaging in fraudulent reporting of data to favor their own climate change agenda. As a matter of fact, fraud is a Federal offense punishable by long prison time.

The good thing is that false scientists, and their alarmism, will be countered now with their own words. Reliable researchers are still compiling the information for a publication that could shake the nation’s foundation on climate change.

RICO Charges

A group of 20 university professors want to get the federal government to prosecute climate change doubters. The group posted a letter to the White House in September and matched those who are doubtful concerning man-made global warming to the tobacco industry.

The group’s idea are similar to those used against the tobacco industry from 1999 until 2006. That RICO investigation played a role in preventing the tobacco industry from maintaining the deception of Americans about the hazards of smoking.

If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that are becoming apparent as in the Exxon case, it is important that the misdeeds be stopped so that America can get on with the important business of finding the truth about climate change.

1 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 27, 2015 5:19 am

“If Exxon Mobile began disclosing the business risks of climate change when it understood them will be a focus of the New York case currently underway.”
The main business risk of climate change is alarmism and its potential to cause the US Federal Government to place unrealistic burdens on energy companies.
Since such policies are irrational, no company could possibly have foreseen the risk that a US President would make anti-energy policies a major component of his policies.

Reply to  Frederick Colbourne
December 9, 2015 10:26 am

Besides, Exxon Mobile just couldn’t have known the facts back when they are being said to know them. In fact, even today, the evidence, the factual evidence and empirical data clearly shows there’s no man made global warming. That’s not all, the science shows such an effect on climate in the future is just not possible. Exxon Mobile was right back then and wrong to jump on the band wagon now.

Ben Palmer
November 27, 2015 5:21 am

“Prosecutors are after Exxon for lying to people who might not have bought gasoline if they knew the true story behind climate change” They must be kidding. How would those people have heated their homes, driven their cars, travelled by air, used their PCs, tablettes and smartphones if not by consuming directly or indirectly fossil fuel? Even their lunch box is made with fossil fuel.

Reply to  Ben Palmer
November 27, 2015 6:38 am

Not to mention how many millions of gallons of Jet-A consumed by the executive branch officials riding in style in their government jets. Then there is the matter of how big an airplane the Air Force used to return House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to her home in California, a selection that appeared to pivot at least in part with how many refueling stops would be required to make the trip.
Jet-A for me but not for thee.

November 27, 2015 5:22 am

jim jones had the right idea. if only he had enough kool-aid to go around he could have eliminated the nasty human race and saved the planet.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Chaam Jamal
November 27, 2015 6:17 am

Wow, hate much? Sounds like you’ve guzzled the eviron-mental koolade.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 27, 2015 6:45 am

I think you missed the implicit “” tag.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 27, 2015 6:46 am

that is, “sarc” tag.

Reply to  Chaam Jamal
November 27, 2015 8:42 am

Chaam: If you forget to add the tag people around here will assume that you are an idiot. Those with brains know that you are being sarcastic, but you must understand that there are zealots who would make that statement with absolute sincerity, and would exterminate the human race – to preserve nature! – if they could.

Reply to  Chaam Jamal
November 27, 2015 9:15 am

Easy, Bruce, he’s one of us.
Chaam, you’d think that religions around the world would be denouncing the “model fellowship of Mann” as a false, self-aggrandizing, pseudo-prophetic cult, after so recently witnessing the Jones tragedy of mass mind control.
The one difference that stands out, is that the “church of the omnipotent greenhouse in carbon” uses computers to “read” the future and leaves it up to man to save the planet from an “out of control human infestation”. Somehow religious leaders are sucked in by the technology and believe that they can use this ideology of moral culpability to their advantage, in righting the world’s wrongdoings.

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
November 27, 2015 11:31 am

“One of us…one of us…one of us….” 🙂

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
November 27, 2015 11:33 am

[Mods: my comment somehow ended up out of order]
(Reply: This is an ongoing WordPress problem. Please contat them; we’ve tried. Maybe if they hear from enough readers they will fix it. And sorry, we have no way of placing comments in the correct order. WordPress controls that. –mod)

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
November 27, 2015 2:19 pm

A the mod , a suggestion, maybe people should start their comments with the addressee’s name and time? It could stop some of the crossover problems. I have complained at WordPress but no answer yet.

Reply to  asybot
November 27, 2015 2:30 pm


A the mod , a suggestion, maybe people should start their comments with the addressee’s name and time? It could stop some of the crossover problems. I have complained at WordPress but no answer yet.

Many of us do that. I prefer to use the “blockquote” html codes around the other writer’s words, since that indents and highlights the words I am quoting.

Reply to  Chaam Jamal
November 27, 2015 10:05 am

It was “Flavor Aid.”

Ben Palmer
November 27, 2015 5:25 am

Exxon Mobile. Where does the army get the fuel for their fighters in Syria from? What fuel is the presidential aircraft using?

Reply to  Ben Palmer
November 28, 2015 4:53 am

yup same as Ben asks
and the enviro wallop when missile go boom?
is mil fuel bunker oil whatever they use on the fleet added to the total etc?
how good is WP for the environment
let alone the poor buggers it was used on..
etc etc
huge carbon etc saving if the mil complex got their supply stopped
lets see how they go with stick n stones:-)

November 27, 2015 5:32 am

Words fail me in regards to the idea that people want to prosecute Exxon for the reasons they stated.
I’m not a Dr. and I don’t play one on TV but these people are completely mental.

Martin Mayer
Reply to  Matthew W
November 27, 2015 2:55 pm

It makes perfect sense. ExxonMobil has deep pockets. Guilt or innocence is such an outdated concept in “The Brave New World”. All that matters is ability to pay.

Reply to  Martin Mayer
November 27, 2015 3:07 pm

I try not to let it infect my thought process, but I’d be remiss to think that Exxon is not hedging its ability to make a profit. Afterall, their first obligation is to the shareholder.
I see this in the same fashion that Goldman was hedged during the financial crisis. It’s their responsibility to protect the profits to the shareholder.
In this case, Goldman has recently quadrupled its alternative energy investments but at the same time they see that the BRICs will be building mucho coal fired energy sources so are starting to build up positions in depressed coal prices.
I try not to go too far down the rabbit hole concerning corporate strategy because it can often just be a distraction concerning the evidence supportng the validity of a fact like temperatures over the past 5000 years.
CAGW is nonsense.
Is it being used to shake up the flow of money ? Definitely.
Are there new winners and losers ? Definitely.
Reminds me of the con game where the most important indicator of success is who is holding the bag of sh_t last.

Bruce Cobb
November 27, 2015 5:37 am

It’s cult-like, but oh so much worse. Warmist ideology, thinly disguised as “science” has permeated and tainted all branches of human knowledge, industry, and politics. The description of meme-plex seems to cover it best. Humanity has never seen anything like it before, and hopefully, when finally stamped out, never will again.

John Robertson
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 27, 2015 9:50 am

“Humanity has never seen anything like it before, and hopefully, when finally stamped out, never will again.”
Sorry that is bollocks Bruce.
History shows many outbreaks of Mass Hysteria.
The scheme is as old as language, the con promises to convince the storm gods to spare you, as long as you pony up.
This latest outbreak is Eugenics packaged, just as Phrenology was “science”.
The difference here is that CAGW seems to have been created, orchestrated and is still being protected from investigation. By our state bureaucracies.
When following the money our governments figure prominently.
Kleptocracy ; a word the Greeks bequeathed us, corrupt and out of control bureaucrats seem to be a feature in every country where the Global Warming Scheme is dominant.
So the Cult of Calamitous Climate is far worst than cult like, it is run by committee.

John Robertson
Reply to  John Robertson
November 27, 2015 9:51 am

Eugenics repackaged…

Reply to  John Robertson
November 27, 2015 10:09 am

“So the Cult of Calamitous Climate is far worst than cult like, it is run by committee.”
IMO, one of the early important victories of CAGW was based on a strategy that originators such as Maurice Strong may have stumbled upon.
After WWII the people fell in love with scientists. So much so that if a scientist said so, it must be true.
During the 70s stagflation many professionals suffered. Originators such as Mr Strong resurrected the careers of insignificant scientists such as Hansen and then many followed.
Hoffer describes the above group (forgotten professionals) as one of the vulnerable groups to a mass movement. Because I’m a knuckle dragging man, I equate it to what happens when a formerly good looking woman loses her looks and seeks attention.
CAGW will never be the last hoax. It is currently in the top 5 and perhaps worse, it is teaching future mimicers how to apply its successes to future ruses.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  John Robertson
November 27, 2015 11:20 am

Sorry, no sale. Eugenics is certainly a good example, but nowhere near the worldwide scale of the Climate Campaign. There was no “Intergovermental Panel for the Prevention of Racial Impurity”, for example.

Reply to  John Robertson
November 27, 2015 2:22 pm

@ John, 9.50 am, It is way worse it is world wide and seems to involve all people, religions and the various political stripes.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 27, 2015 11:50 pm

Bruce @ 5:37
You could read Charles MacKay’s book:
Exxtraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.”

You might be surprised at the extent and scope of some of the Delusions
he reports on such as The Witch Hunts. They were International and lasted
about 200 years. The present CAGW Delusion only differs from the ones
MacKay describes by its sheer size. Its only lasted about thirty years. so far.
but has achieved global reach.
The Witch Hunts tainted human Society just as thoroughly right down to the
inclusion of governments and this was without the modern high speed electronic
MacKay’s book needs updating. It needs a new section about
Anthropogenic Global Warming, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global
Warming and Climate Change.
The US Constitution and system of democratic government with all its checks
and balances was an earnest attempt to ensure that could never happen again.
It’s full text is available from Gutenberg and many other Internet sources.

November 27, 2015 5:49 am

I believe your embedded link for #7 is not correct. Nor is the 99% reference. I believe you are referring to the Doran study with respect to 75 respondents. See link below.

November 27, 2015 5:50 am

I hope the prosecutors and all those highly paid lawyers and government officials all walk to work and to the courthouse for the trial instead of driving in their BMWs and Mercedes Benzs.

November 27, 2015 5:55 am

I’m not sure I like the term “hoax” in this context (although I admit I’ve used the term myself). In a hoax, doesn’t the perpetrator usually/eventually jump up and say, “Ha ha, fooled you!”?

James Francisco
Reply to  PaulH
November 27, 2015 4:53 pm

PaulH. I’m afraid that if the originators of CAGW did admit to it, they would not be believed. It happened to the originators of the crop circles.

November 27, 2015 6:21 am

One of the traits not mentioned here was his propensity towards Marxism/Communism:
Before forming a church, Jim Jones had become enamored by communism and frustrated by the harassment communists received in the U.S.[2] This, among other things, provided a seminal inspiration for Jones; as he himself described in a biographical recording,[2][3]
“I decided, how can I demonstrate my Marxism? The thought was, infiltrate the church. So I consciously made a decision to look into that prospect.”
I read one of the many books about Jonestown (about 5 years ago) and did find many similarities with the CAGW doctrine. They also wanted money from Russia to back the church.
I forget which book. It was by a woman who was the sister of one of the Jonestown members.

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
November 27, 2015 7:09 am

From the Wikipedia ref above:
“Jones and the Temple received the support of, among others, Governor Jerry Brown, Lieutenant Governor Mervyn Dymally, Assemblyman Willie Brown, San Francisco mayor George Moscone, Art Agnos, and Harvey Milk.[63 ….. After his rise in San Francisco political circles, Jones and Moscone met privately with Vice Presidential Candidate Walter Mondale in San Francisco days before the 1976 Presidential election.[66] Jones also met First Lady Rosalynn Carter on multiple occasions, including a private dinner, and corresponded with Mrs. Carter.”

Janice Moore
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
November 27, 2015 10:23 am

And, my guess (thanks for the research, J. Philip Peterson) is that those politicians supported Jones not only because they sympathize with his statist views, but, sadly, a high percentage of the people Jones fooled were: black. “Vote for me! I like blacks!”
Jones preyed (as do all socialists, including the Envirostalinists) on the poor, the under-educated, and especially, those who feel like they do not “belong.”
The cult gives them, inter alia:
1. a place where they belong (“Join us!” — “Be a part of the solution”);
2. good deeds to do, satisfying the basic human need for some kind of “religion,” some Golden Rules of Life (even atheists demonstrate a fairly complex personal ethos);
3. since all cults are based on l1es (mixed with truth), which ALWAYS fall, in the end, for truth wins, every time, the cult must introduce pressure on its members so they will not fall away over time: the “us versus them” (for The AGW Cult, “us v. den1ers”) mentality (the USSR used this very effectively for decades) — Note: the main reason that the AGW leadership calls those for truth in science “den1ers” is not to sneer at them, it is to create the “enemy;” and
4. cults don’t try to get everyone to join, they carefully pick their potential members based on several vulnerability factors, one of which is the “authoritarian” (LIKES/PREFERS to be bossed around) personality, i.e., cults provide a strong leader.
Take heart, nevertheless, all who love truth in science,
there is hope.
While the end is very sad for the cult members who never get out, most do, for the majority of people just don’t go for that kind of thing for long (whether through an intellectual epiphany or just loss of interest). Even those who cling tenaciously to it, unless permanently brainwashed (only some are), get out, for the cult self-destructs in the end, as does any scheme based on l1es.
Go, WUWT! Keep on! Truth — will — win!
Heh. It already has. Why do you think the AGWers shriek so loudly?
RICO (what a JOKE) charges — completely bogus legal reasoning… = the tactic of a cornered rat.

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
November 27, 2015 6:53 pm

Thanks Janice, but my research is incomplete. I will find that book and the quotes from within. I hope the thread is still open when I find them. I was very moved by that book, and I really did find links to the Global Warming alarmismin this book. If the thread is still open, I will post the Jim Jones things that reminded me of this debate.
[The thread will be open for a while, but be aware that fewer readers will rejoin old ones. .mod]

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
November 28, 2015 3:18 pm

Here Is what I found:
“Seductive Poison”: A Jonestown Survivor’s Story of Life and Death in the Peoples Temple
Required Reading. A vaccine for the human mind…Deborah Layton’s “Seductive Poison”
Writing a review of Deborah Layton’s “Seductive Poison” is not easy for me, because I can’t think of any words that will be superlative enough to do justice to this book and to compliment the author on being so courageous and for so eloquently sharing intimate details of her experience of life in and her escape from a destructive cult.
Seductive Poison helped me understand what a cult is and made me realize that I cannot try and deal with the situation I was faced with using the rules I knew so far. The rationalism and logic that you would expect to always be present and help a person make their own informed decisions and judgments are sometimes suspended – and always suspended when an individual is under a situation of being under the control of a destructive mind-control group or even an the influence of an individual. I never realized that until I read Deborah Layton’s experience.
Seductive Poison should be required reading in high-schools / colleges, just so more people are aware of the dangers lurking about them. I have personally bought over a dozen copies of this book to hand out to friends and family (Amazon must really love me by now!) and I don’t think I’m done handing it out to people yet, because in my opinion, this book is a vaccine for the human mind and it is critical for *any* person living in today’s society – in any country, in any environment – to develop some level of immunity which allows them to recognize a destructive situation before they get sucked in too deep.
I’ll end with a quote from an email I sent shortly after reading Seductive Poison and co-relating events in my life: “The mind is a very fragile thing, and I strongly believe that no stimulus and no words can go by without affecting a person — I don’t claim to know more or less about what is true or not, but I do believe in being pragmatic and using ones own judgment and critical thinking to set the boundaries for our actions.”
And last but not least, to Deborah Layton – thank you from the bottom of my heart for sharing your experience with all of us and thank you for being the amazing person I know you are.
— Manu Kumar, PhD. An Amazon Reader’s 5-Star Review

November 27, 2015 6:23 am

What on earth is this!!!!!
Where are the references for
1. They are scientists no scientist know the TRUTH about the past or future and I challenge you to find a published document that says differently
2. settled science – no science is settled. GHG actions are understood to a very high level of confidence but settled science is generally used by climate change contrarians.
3. The knowledgeable body is made up from climate scientists. The sky dragons would find it difficult to publish (as would flat earthers) in the same way as iron sun/sky dragon/zero point perpetual motion would find publishing on WUWT difficult.
4. just speechless! where is the evidence for the claims?

David S
November 27, 2015 6:25 am

In terms of fraud there is no doubt in my mind that there has been systematic alteration of data in many of the global weather bureaus and institutions to facilitate the global warming myth. I find its strange how many of the old records have been adjusted down whilst more recent records adjusted up when logically with the urban heat island effect influencing many sites the adjustments should’ve been the other way . Whatever the arguments in relation to these adjustments there is no doubts that such adjustments have been deliberately and fraudulently made to perpetuate the warming narrative including the attempt to eliminate the inconvenient pause. I actually believe that because the consequences of such fraud and manipulation feeds into global policy and the repercussions of that policy that many thousands perhaps millions of people are at risk of dying from energy poverty these fraudsters should be tried for the equivalent of war crimes. I really believe that the impact of policies based on these frauds will kill unknown numbers in the future deprived of government funds diverted from health and welfare programs.
As I have said before Global Warming alarmism is the greatest moral dilemma of our time.

The Original Mike M
November 27, 2015 6:26 am

The difference of course is that Jim Jones wasn’t receiving grant money and his activities served no purpose to the agenda of the radical left. In general, those who deny the existence of evil are the most prone to serving it.

November 27, 2015 6:29 am
is as far as I can google one of the first uses of the Term “settled science” wrt climate – not from a warmist site as far as I can see

Scott Scarborough
Reply to  sergeiMK
November 27, 2015 7:06 am

Al Gore used the term first. In the public’s mind anyway.

Reply to  sergeiMK
November 27, 2015 10:14 am

From the petition site linked: ‘…Mr. Gore and his supporters at the United Nations and elsewhere have claimed that the “science is settled” –…’
The quote marks are fairly clear indication that the site is quoting others, probably including “Mr. Gore,” therefore this is quite obviously NOT one of the first uses of the term in climate hoax coverage.

Reply to  sergeiMK
November 27, 2015 11:50 am

It was from the Vice President of the United States in 1997-
Oct 1 1997-
President of the United States Bill Clinton-
“First, I am convinced that the science is solid, saying the that climate is warming at a more rapid rate, that this is due in large measure to a dramatic increase in the volume of greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere, and that nobody knows exactly what the consequences are going to be or when they’re going to be manifest, but, on balance, it won’t be all that long and they won’t be good. That is sort of a summary of what the prevailing scientific opinion is.”
Then scroll down to the questions and answers with the press to Al Gore’s comments-
“Q (Off mike) — John Fisher from — (off mike) — South Bend, Indiana. There is a — it seems to me there’s still a debate about the effect that humans have on the contribution to global warming and global climate change, yet both in remarks you made and in remarks by the president you seem to dismiss them as a big minority. You just referred to the ones on your side, if you will, of “mainstream scientists”. Is the debate on that issue (within ?) the administration over?”
“VICE PRESIDENT GORE: On the fact that there is a human factor in causing this? Yes. And not only in the administration, in the international panel on climate change, which has, what, 2,500 scientists from every country in the world, they have studied this for several years now. And just a couple of years ago they found what they call “the smoking gun” and came out with this consensus statement that there is now a discernible impact from human causes. Now, one of the other obstacles to broadening the consensus on that is that as you all know better than everybody, the noise level in the system is so profound that there are going to be very, very big changes just in the natural course of events. You take hurricanes. Back in the 1930s, as y’all can say better than me, there was a string of powerful hurricanes, more frequent, more powerful than what we’re experiencing now. And there are other extremes that are natural. But out of that noise level, this consensus international scientific process has now said that they believe that debate is over, that yes, the human cause is now discernible. And as these concentrations grow it will become more profound and a much more significant part of the cause.”
“Q And the administration accepts that fact that that debate is over.”
“VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. On that one point, yes, sir. Here, and then there. ”
It went from there.

Reply to  Aphan
November 27, 2015 1:17 pm

Listening to US Presidents, or Vice Presidents, is pretty pointless as they all have one thing in common….they’re not very bright!

Reply to  Aphan
November 27, 2015 4:14 pm

I agree. Just pointing out what was said and when

November 27, 2015 6:42 am

Mod: typo alert in 8. “In 2014, HASA launched a satellite…” Shouldn’t the emboldened be “NASA”?
[Good eyes. Fixed. .mod]

Reply to  Katherine
November 27, 2015 11:26 am

Mod: another typo alert, The Jonestown massacre took place in 1978, which is 37 years ago, not 32 years ago.

Reply to  Katherine
November 27, 2015 11:29 am

Yet another typo alert: Second to last word in the 7th paragraph would read better as “holy” versus “unholy”.

Reply to  erikemagnuson
November 27, 2015 11:35 am

“Holy HASA” has a ring though.
sorry, couldn’t resist.
i’m feeling perky today

November 27, 2015 6:52 am

Good observations. I like to use the argument: “how many times has the end of the world been announced as a certainty, and how many times has it actually occurred?” That sometimes gets through even to people who absolutely refuse to trust their own lying eyes on the empirical evidence.

Reply to  Michael Palmer
November 27, 2015 7:32 am

Well, one thing Jim Jones did was felicitate “the end of the world” for 914 victims.
“He had promised a “socialist paradise” and a “sanctuary” away from the nasty corporations that were getting much larger, and their influence was growing within the US government….”

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
November 27, 2015 9:04 am

Did you mean “facilitate”?

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
November 27, 2015 10:19 am

Jonestown was, indeed, typical of ‘socialist paradises’ all over the world.

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
November 27, 2015 4:33 pm

@ Skidance – Yes, I did a spell check and came up with the wrong word. I meant facilitate. – Thanks for pointing that out.

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
November 27, 2015 4:57 pm

@J. Philip Peterson
I do find that spell check/auto correct, etc. are nearly always incorrect, which is why I seldom use them at all. Is there some way to edit those incorrect corrections? It can be confusing and jarring, and in some cases, might even change the meaning of a sentence. It almost seems that these programs are intended to subvert language rules, doesn’t it? Thus, confusion rules.

Reply to  Michael Palmer
November 28, 2015 5:10 pm

The one advantage the Church of AGW has is that the doomsday prophesies can always be pushed on down the road into the future when they don’t come true in the present. They can also take any natural climatic or natural phenomena, like rain, snow, sleet, storm, drought, forest fire, etc. and blame it on “cliamte change”. The gullible loons that worship at the Church immediately agree and demand action, like somehow none of those events ever occurred prior to the Age of Coal and Oil.

November 27, 2015 7:28 am

This post is confusing. The author seems to be equating the NY prosecutors’ charges that Exxon attempted to deceive the public by denying the alleged “dangers” of fossil fuels and global warming, with Climategate and RICCOgate, which reveal Climatist chicanery and misdeeds, and he even links to Bill McKibbon’s approving New Yorker article about Exxon. Is the author himself confused about which side is which? Or is it just an example of a piece that should have been edited before publication?
/Mr Lynn

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  L. E. Joiner
November 27, 2015 9:12 am

I’m a little confused as well. The second part seems a little crazy. I realize that Exxon has taken some heat, but only from the crazies. No sane person has ever suggested Exxon could seriously be in danger of being sued.

Ralph Kramden
November 27, 2015 7:40 am

If any climatephobes are reading this, “don’t drink the Kool-Aid”.

Robert Clark
November 27, 2015 7:49 am

I’m not real knowledgeable about the RICO statues, but isn’t the real possibility for a case against those perpetrating the hoax of global warming?

Reply to  Robert Clark
November 27, 2015 9:06 am

Could you post a picture of a RICO statue? I’ve never seen one! LOL

Reply to  AB
November 27, 2015 4:09 pm

Its really pushing it there.
Your going to far.

Reply to  Skidance
November 27, 2015 4:37 pm

Maybe, Knute. However this is what the climate fraudsters, the one percenters and their lawyers are doing to the entire world. I have had personal experience of their fraudulent agenda. Let’s hope the Parisian farce provides endless comic relief. Ridicule is a powerful weapon.

Reply to  AB
November 27, 2015 5:17 pm

I loved the image AB.
I didn’t mean the context.
I was intentionally trying to mess up my grammar in order to have fun with Skidance.
Didn’t come through over the blog. Ugh, the shortcomings without the smirk.

Reply to  Skidance
November 27, 2015 5:28 pm

OK, here’s another take on that public statue. We are the dog and the building is Greenpeace HQ. 😁

G. Karst
November 27, 2015 8:11 am

Same same – Shame shame GK

November 27, 2015 8:12 am

‘The cause’ does indeed have many aspects that suggest that it is reality a ‘religion’ and one of them is the need to create and maintain an ‘evil other ‘ , that is to appear to be ‘good ‘ you must paint others has bad . And so we seen CAGE sceptics declared not merely as ‘wrong’ , but mad or bad or even both and lots of BS claims about how they do not care about the planet at all, hate children and black people and ‘reactionary’
Lew paper’s, work is very much in this vain , has he uses the toxic mix of psychobabble and second rate lies he attempts to claim that any how doubt ‘the cause ‘ most be conspiracy nuts . This is given a double irony in the way he and the CAGW ‘faithful ‘ constantly refer to ‘evil fossil funded ‘ conspiracies, and how often we find that these faithful are also 9/11 truthers and frim believers in the idea that ‘the man is out to get them’

Reply to  knr
November 28, 2015 5:25 pm

It’s basically Judeochristianity rewritten.
Mankind was in a state of paradise. Capitalism tricked them into eating the forbidden apple of fossil fuels. Now they must remove “carbon” (Satan) from the world by “converting” to “miracle” technology (wind, solar, nuke) in order to prevent the End of Days. Only then can humanity be “saved” from the “original sin” of fossil fuels.
Anyone who does not convert is a “denier”…we deny the Gospel Truth. We’re infidels, heretics, or in the case of those who speak out, agents of Satan (fossil fuel industry).
Of course, the fact that CO2 is one of the most important molecules for life does not matter. The High Priests (IPCC) have declared it demonic and it must be captured and imprisoned deep under ground (sequestration). The fact that fossil fuels has given mankind the power to have such a large population, to be at a high level of technology, and to have the highest standard of living in human history is also ignored. Fossil fuels are demonic, the companies that produce or use them are Satan himself, and when you ask them how they will provide the same standards at the same level using current non-fossil technology, they say the same thing…a miracle of new technology will provide!
They’re religious whackjobs.

Reply to  AndyJ
November 28, 2015 7:07 pm

I enjoyed the analogy.
Thought provoking and well written

Bruce Cobb
November 27, 2015 8:56 am

Debuting in Paris will be C-Fact’s “Climate Hustle”.
The Koolade krowd should love it. Love how it uses their own schtick to poke fun at them.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 28, 2015 4:47 pm

Thumbs up on that film, Bruce.

Samuel C. Cogar
November 27, 2015 9:26 am

Great truthful commentary, Arkady Bukh, Esq, ….. I loved it.

November 27, 2015 9:28 am

Satan knows the scripture too and he’s the leader of ALL cults.

Leland Neraho
Reply to  marlene
November 27, 2015 9:31 am

And where is Satan’s fire cave exactly? Downstair’s from Jesus’ cloud? Or down the block?

Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 27, 2015 10:26 am

Satan’s fire cave is directly above the one reserved for apostrophe abusers.

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
November 27, 2015 10:45 am

Dante would agree.
If there is a hell, the manipulator of weakness for personal gain burns the hottest.
IE. The Shaman who manipulates the young insecure girl into seduction.
CAGW preys on the false guilt of the more economically secure. It meshes half truths with personal stories to hook the endorphins in your brain. Your brain can’t do “sentimental” stranded polar bears and logical rigor at the same time. The result is its easier to suspend the intellect and go with the heart. The brain produces happy chemicals and you’ve just established a repeatable routine of false happiness. And it takes less work, Voila’, The introduction of the hoax, the con.
It appears to me that the solution to rewiring that emotional appeal is a sledgehammer approach to smoking guns such as some of the ones that were introduced in Siegel’s article
CAGW is a no brainer, BS hook once you clearly see the warming that took place over the past 5000 years without the influence of man …. and we did quite well thank you. The rest of the spin is just part of the hook, the easy creation of emotional appeals that trigger the happiness in the brain.
Objectively speaking, it’s brilliant. It’s so good that people will imitate its success and try those strategies with other hoaxes.

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
November 27, 2015 10:46 am

I couldn’t agree more. I think my new signature will be it’s=it is.
I do wonder how many “climate scientists” bother to check the underlying premises of their work, as most people do not bother to learn or follow language rules. Instead, reliance is upon how everyone else does things.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 27, 2015 10:39 am

Keep on the path it appears that you are on, Leland Neraho, and you will find out.

Leland Neraho
Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 27, 2015 10:54 am

So as you weathermen and women all know, heat rises, correct? So it’s good that I’d be below the fire, wouldn’t it? He music is probably better down there too.
I think the iPad likes abusing apostrophes.
@ Janice – seriously? You think all that brimstone stuff is real? Eternity?

Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 27, 2015 6:05 pm

Satan doesn’t have a fire cave. I have read the Bible many times, and have seen nothing about any fire cave.
If you want to criticize Christianity, at least make a respectable stab at it.

Leland Neraho
November 27, 2015 9:28 am

Looks like we’ll need more lube for the circle…
(…Snip. You were warned before to stop with comments like that. -mod)

Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 27, 2015 9:49 am

Religion is belief.
Science is not.
It’s okay to be excited and passionate about both.
It’s NOT okay to claim a fact is true because you believe it. You need evidence.
CAGW evidence is sorely lacking and your good will is being taking advantage of.
My hope is that you continue to read sites like this. It shows your curiosity hasn’t died.

Leland Neraho
Reply to  knutesea
November 27, 2015 10:07 am

Knutesea– Well stated, so thank you for your good will and hospitality. I do continue my curiosity, but like Thanksgiving dinner with my family, I am skeptical since the conversation never changes, nothing is learned, Muslims can now be swapped with Jews, etc. I suspect (no facts whatsoever) that the correlation between tea-party leaning types and climate change skeptics/deniers is quite high. That to me smells like bias, bullishness, etc. Like Cubs fans. As for facts, does this not appear to be the highest level temperature El Nino coming upon us? Ever? Would that not imply warming, and warming above the preferred start date of “the pause”, otherwise known as picking a cherry? So science can become a belief if you only look at data that supports the result you want, which is indirectly not having the government not telling you what to do. Take a poll, how many posters on this site voted for Clinton? I’m pretty sure I didn’t, so that’s one.

Reply to  knutesea
November 27, 2015 11:07 am

Leland – Hypothetically, just suppose that the pattern of global temperature consists of a random walk about a constant temperature (ie, no overall trend). Then every once in a while there will be a “highest ever” temperature. These will not be uniformly spread, so there will even be clusters of “highest ever” temperatures. So, a “highest ever” temperature does not demonstrate that there is a rising trend. A better way of testing the predictions of dangerous warming is to see whether the actual temperature trends at the predicted rate. It doesn’t. Not even close.

Leland Neraho
Reply to  knutesea
November 27, 2015 11:32 am

Okay, some of those replies were sharp, interesting or pithy, but Mike– yours was the dumbest ever. We can’t even predict our housing market when we control most of the levers and instead watch it crash all around us and drag the world economy down with it. So any human crafted models, yours or theirs, is the last thing I would rely on. But a trend is a trend, and higher levels increase the average and confirm the trend, until it stops. The real issue is whether 7 billion people and how many more cows and pigs and other obese slobs are contributing, generating, or accelerating the warming we are seeing now, not 5000 years ago cuz that’s not where we are now. We are in the present. And Jesus don’t fly. Models, and the people who create them though, are almost always flawed. Except Donald. He is the finest human specimen. Trump for President!

Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 27, 2015 11:39 am

Are you afraid of climate change ?

Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 27, 2015 12:03 pm

Leland N:
Mike Jonas is very much up to speed on this subject. You could learn a lot from him, but when you respond like that it indicates that your mind is closed, and thus you are not capable of learning. But you’re up to speed on snark, I’ll give you that.
You say “a trend is a trend”. I agree. Satellite measurements provide the most accurate temperature data we have. Here is the global temperature trend, which has been flat for almost twenty years now:
According to you, that flat trend will continue, until it doesn’t.
And finally, there is no problem with 7 billion humans — or with 10 billion, for that matter. You’re new here, but we had this discussion several years ago. The planet’s current population could easily fit within a one-kilometre sphere, with room to spare. There are similar metrics, which all show that the planet is very sparsely populated.
The problem is that people all want to live in the same desirable places: on the beach, or in cities with lots of jobs and short commutes, or on rivers, or in temperate climates. But most of the planet is sparsely populated. You can live in Alask on forty acres very inexpensively. But would you want to? There’s also Siberia, and Mongolia; vast areas with alomost no people.
The “overpopulation” scare is just another false alarm. Try being skeptical for a change. It will put your mind in gear, and force you to think.

Reply to  knutesea
November 27, 2015 11:36 am

Leland Neraho says:
“As for facts, does this not appear to be the highest level temperature El Nino coming upon us? Ever?”
No. Wrong.
Your “facts” are nonsense. Global temperatures have been far higher in the past. During those times the biosphere flourished with life and teemed with diversity. And CO2 has been much higher in the past; up to 20X today’s levels, which caused no runaway global warming (or any global warming, for that matter).
You are just looking for factoids (like “the highest EVAH!!”) which are really non-facts that you cling to in your confirmation bias. Those factoids support your eco-religious belief in the “dangerous man-made global warming” hoax.
Rather than trying to shoehorn the thousands of well educated readers here into your “tea party” nonsense, you would be better off listening to what’s being said: there is no measurable evidence that supports the ‘dangerous AGW’ scare. That scare is based on opinions, not measurements.
I can boil down this skeptic’s position to a couple of short sentences:
There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening. Everything observed now has happened repeatedly in the past, and to a much greater degree.
Unlike your beliefs, those are verifiable facts. Temperature extremes in the past have been much higher, and much lower, than now. In fact, over the past century we have enjoyed the most benign climate in recorded history — but the alarmist crowd still tries to convince people that there is a crisis.
They are either ignorant of facts, or they are being deceptive. I don’t know which you are, but it’s one or the other. If it’s the latter, you can stick around here and learn the truth. Because if you believe what you’re writing, it’s clear you have been fed plenty of misinformation.

Janice Moore
Reply to  knutesea
November 27, 2015 11:55 am

Dear Leland Neraho,
It appears that you at this point only “suspect” … and have not actually studied many (if any) of the science articles on WUWT. If you would like to investigate the facts for yourself, here are some (along with a career climate scientist’s lecture) you can read to learn and make an intellectually honest judgment:
{Due to WordPress weak link-support code, I post only 2 links per comment}
1. {you’ll need to watch the video to fully understand the post}

Janice Moore
Reply to  knutesea
November 27, 2015 11:56 am

Dr. Murry Salby, Hamburg, 2013 (in English after introduction) — clear teaching, thorough, yet, understandable to a non-technical major such as myself (I had to watch it more than once, though

Leland Neraho
Reply to  knutesea
November 27, 2015 2:23 pm

Knute– I am not afraid of climate change. I suffer from Reynaud’s so would gladly welcome a whole lot of warming. However, I do find it despicable that we would leave an 18 trillion dollar deficit to the next generations, as well as an environmental systems deficit of unknown proportions. So I worry about our greedy ethics, the dice we are rolling. The future is uncertain, but a good majority of sound minded institutions– Shell, Chevron, Walmart, Cisco, Google, GM, Berkshire, Apple, Unilever… I can go on and on and on and on– recognize the cost benefit analysis tilts strongly in favor of some action.
Facts are facts, but one way you absolutely cannot support them — Janice–is to cite your own little website. This site is a blog for like minded, self-centered people that Anthony fees with little daily doses of articles to rile you up– it is a religion in itself with no room for debate. Is not a scientific source. Germans don’t cite this place. Scientists don’t cite it, it’s just you guys and one or two gals, that banter back and forth the same way. Same way 5 years ago, same way 2 years ago, and same way now. But things are a melting, droughts are spreading and tides in Florida are ruining the chrome rims while the vortex untethers and dives and dumps just enough snow for an idiot from Oklahoma without a college degree to pick up a snowball and say there is a hoax. A hoax, like a prank, like a religious story on par with Santa Claus, rather than a true scientific debate on probable outcomes and their costs.

Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 27, 2015 2:48 pm

Knute– I am not afraid of climate change. I suffer from Reynaud’s so would gladly welcome a whole lot of warming. However, I do find it despicable that we would leave an 18 trillion dollar deficit to the next generations, as well as an environmental systems deficit of unknown proportions. So I worry about our greedy ethics, the dice we are rolling.
Worry is the calm person’s description of fear.
You worry that the world you participate in is greedy and unethical and that greed is putting future generations at risk.
It’s important that you understand what you fear because your fears will make you vulnerable to con artists.

Janice Moore
Reply to  knutesea
November 27, 2015 2:56 pm

Dear Mr. Neraho,
A dash of cold water seems called for after your overheated exaggerations above:
You are an intellectual sloth, Mr. Neraho. If you had even read ONE of the articles I cited, you would have realized that to say that referring you to those articles was “citing” this site as a source was nonsensical. You would have to also say that to cite the articles of author’s x, y, and z, all published in the Encyclopedia Britannica, was to cite the Encyclopedia Britannica’s editors.
Your ignorance of the science at issue in the AGW debate is very obvious. I cited some basic reading so that you could learn.
And I’m still glad I did. You may be too lazy to read, but, there may one or two others, genuinely seeking truth, who will.
btw: your writing reeks of envy… . Are you happy? If not — DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Your happiness is your choice. We can’t change what happens to us all the time, but, we can control one thing: our attitude.
Hoping that my prayers will be answered for you,

Samuel C. Cogar
Reply to  knutesea
November 28, 2015 6:06 am

@ Leland Neraho – November 27, 2015 at 2:23 pm

I am not afraid of climate change. I suffer from Reynaud’s so would gladly welcome a whole lot of warming. However, I do find it despicable that we would leave an 18 trillion dollar deficit to the next generations, as well as an environmental systems deficit of unknown proportions. So I worry about our greedy ethics, the dice we are rolling.

What’s next, Leland?
Are you going to be telling us that you ARE NOT a highly partisan Democrat and that you never voted for Obama either time?
Your above “rantings” infer that you have just recently experienced the self-realization that you have been miseducated, hoodwinked and lied to by those you trusted the most and you are now venting your mental pain, anguish and frustrations on everyone and everything rather than recognizing and accepting the blame for your own faults and mistakes.
Facts are facts”, ….. and averting your eyes and your mind to them because of your mental anguish and frustrations “serves no good purpose” for you or anyone else.

Terry Hembry
November 27, 2015 9:30 am

The problem does not lie in, Green house gases! Global warming started after the end of the last Ice Age! When the ice deposited the salt from the World’s oceans. You have the Great Salt Lake in the US. The Himalayan mountains, Africa, and as far south as El Salvador they are taking the salt out to make fresh water! Put the Salt back and the Oceans temperature will go back to the original temperature and you won’t have to worry about the Hurricane season or Wildlife’s or dust storms anymore! I have done the math and the research! I can Help the problem!!

November 27, 2015 9:32 am

I liked the article.
It can stand a dose of editing, but it zeros in the hoax, the fraud, the con.
Takes a stab at the meshing of half truths which give comfort to those to want to follow.
This is a battle for the hearts and minds of well meaning people. The deviants are NOT the ones who need to be convinced that CAGW is a hoax. The well meaning are the ones who need to be protected, informed, encouraged to use their own brains. I can identify because I used to be one of the well meaning. I saddled up my horse and embraced saving the world from destroying itself. It felt like I was doing the “right thing”. It sucks that I was lazy, didn’t do my homework, and wasted valuable time in my life over meaningless drivel.
Here is an opinion piece from the NYP. It’s rather good IMO. Zeros in on the vulnerable minds that have been further corrupted by the failures of an empty agenda.

November 27, 2015 9:34 am

These days, it seems as though every pressure group is hoping to bring about “big tobacco” style lawsuits against those whom they imagine to be their opponents.
Here’s an example that I stumbled across just a few days ago. This is NOT satire:
“if they can demonstrate that porn physically “damages ” the brain, that might open the floodgates for “big tobacco”-style lawsuits against porn publishers and distributors; second, and more insidiously, if porn can be shown to “subvert cognition ” and affect the parts of the brain involved in reasoning and speech, then “these toxic media should be legally outlawed, as is all other toxic waste, and eliminated from our societal structure “.

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
November 27, 2015 10:23 am

“These days, it seems as though every pressure group is hoping to bring about “big tobacco” style lawsuits against those whom they imagine to be their opponents.”
Perhaps France is behind the times concerning this trend. Consider yourself lucky. I think the cherry on the cake for CAGW advocates is class action lawsuits against traditional stationary fossil fuel emitters. Since many lower income people live closer to refineries and power plants, it serves the political group that promotes class action lawsuits for those people, if those people vote for them. In the US, this suits the Dems well. I also think on a larger scale it suits the UN well.

November 27, 2015 10:06 am

L.E Joiner “Or is it just an example of a piece that should have been edited before publication?” I think so.
The scientific case for global warming is supported by tens of thousands of research papers. Which compares to exactly none for Jones’ proclomations. The premise is manifestly false. The conclusions of the research results could conceivably be wrong, but they are not based on nothing.
There is a fallacy called “straw man”, where one takes an extreme version of an argument, show it to be false, and then declare the original argument to be false.
Lets see how the assertions do bearing that in mind.
1) “If it were the hottest year, the ice should be melting.”
There is no logical or theoretical necessity for ice to melt in a particular region. Assertion 1 is false.
2) Record snowfall. Global warming predicts increased precititation. Assertion 2 is false. It is true that one person said snow would be a thing of the past in England. That is a straw man argument.
3) Record cold. Global warming predicts more extreme temperatures including regional cold. Assertion 3 is false.
4) Rising oceans. Straw man since it uses the most extreme predictions.
5) “If this had been the hottest year on record, the Polar Bears would be in danger of disappearing.” Straw man. Some claims have been made for polar bear trouble, but it is very, very far from a central argument fo global warming.
6) Moose. Straw man at best.
7) This is just false. The 97% figure comes from a variety of scources – both surveys and literature surveys. In one case there were over 3,000 scientists that responded, of which 79 were active publishers in climate science. In the 30,000 signature petition, how many were self declared climate scientists? Well, only 35.
8) Nature and CO2. It has long been recognised that nature produces CO2. The interesting point is that if the original assertion was correct – that Global Warming central command allows no dissent, then this satelite data would never be reported. Logically, either it is not evidence against global warming, or the original premise of a closed shop is false.
9) Its not the warmist year. Irrelevant. Nobody claims that this must be the warmest year for global warming to be a reality. Have a look at BEST if you don’t think the ground based measurements are any good.
10) Hypocrisy. Well, most climate researchers do not own multiple large homes, yachts and jets. This is cherry picking – using any a few extreme examples as though they are representative. It is also not relevant.
We are left with the closing arguments about fraud and illegal behavior from fuel companies. There may well be a case to answer that they have behaved as reprehensibly as the tobacco companies in the past. It seems likely that they knew one thing and said something else to fool the public. That is not yet decided, but it leaves the anti global warming crowd on very shaky footing.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  seaice1
November 27, 2015 12:35 pm

“The scientific case for global warming is supported by tens of thousands of research papers …” is a meaningless statement.
Of course the planet has warmed in the past three hundred years, but not the past three thousand years or three hundred thousand years, it’s always warming or cooling.
The models are garbage, scientists can’t foretell the future.

Reply to  seaice1
November 27, 2015 12:57 pm

Chris Hanley,
‘seaice’ tries to claim that strawman arguments and other logical fallacies falsify the skeptics’ routine debunking of the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ hoax. That is simply their psychological ‘projection’. They seem ignorant the fallacy of inductive logic; arguing from a single instance, in order to arrive at a general conclusion. But that inductive logic — arguing from one specific instance, to reach a general conclusion — is seen throughout seaice’s comment above.
I won’t even get into his ridiculous “97%” nonsense. That has been so thoroughly debunked that I doubt ‘seaice’ will dip his toe into that pond again. But if he wants to have his argument demolished once again, he can have at it.
This is what the real world is telling us: there is nothing either unusual, or unprecedented happening with global temperatures. Everything observed now, and for the past century, has been greatly exceeded in the past, when industrial CO2 emissions were not a factor.
‘seaice’ is just another typical climate alarmist, trying to convince folks here that “dangerous AGW” is something other than a self-serving scam being promoted by a relatively small clique of corrupt scientists and bureaucrats who have given up trying to debate skeptics. Why? Because skeptical scientists always wiped the floor with the alarmists in those debates.
So now those alarmist debate losers rely on their lemmings to argue irrelevant factiods, as they run and hide from debates with skeptics. But Planet Earth herself is demonstrating to everyone that the ‘climate’ scare is complete nonsense:
In the entire geologic record it is impossible to find any other century-long time frame like that, where global T has remained within that extremely narrow 0.7ºC range. Most of the time global temperatures change by much more, even up to TENS of degrees or more, within only a decade or two. Now THAT is scary!
But a 0.7º wiggle? What do they want? A completely flat, o.00ºC unchanging global temperature??
That ain’t gonna happen. The real world almost never acts like that. A 0.7ºC fluctuation is as flat as anything we could hope for…
…but that is the current scare that the alarmist crowd is trying to foist on the public.
They should have picked something at least a little bit credible. But they keep shooting themselves in their foot with nonsense like that — and their really ridiculous ‘97%’ baloney.
Apparently, there isn’t a credible scientist among them.

Reply to  dbstealey
November 27, 2015 1:15 pm

This has been extensively discussed here, but you’re new so maybe you missed it.
FYI, here’s the elevator speech:
Ice cores from both poles, which includes Greenland in the north, all show the same general rises and declines in temperature over time. Thus, it can be inferred that they are representative of global T.
Scientists who study ice cores agree that they show global temperature changes.
Also, temperatures fluctuate to a greater degree as one approaches 90º latitude. The higher the latitude, the greater the change. But the change in temperature trends found in the Arctic, and in the Antarctic are all in agreement. So those are instances of very differnt locations, not a single cherry-picked example.
Careful when you make assertions, your credibility might not survive the correction. ☺

Reply to  dbstealey
November 27, 2015 1:29 pm

The GISP2 ice cores are taken from above the Arctic circle. The Arctic latitude begins at ≈66º N. GISP2 is ≈70º+N. The N and S Polar areas are not confined to the North and South poles.
You really need to get up to speed before spouting off.

Reply to  dbstealey
November 27, 2015 2:19 pm

Actually, there are more than two locations where ice cores are taken. The point is that they all show the same general rise and fall in global T on geological time scales, whether they are in the Northern or the Southern Hemisphere. Therefore, they are a good proxy for global T changes. Not precise. But close enough for government work…

Reply to  dbstealey
November 27, 2015 2:45 pm

Old and Wise
You are practicing a skill of the disingenuous debater …
Add a fedora, hair bun and cup of chai tea and I think I’ve met you before.
DB told you that ice cores present evidence that it has been warmer, much warmer in the past 5000 years and we little primates flourished. The hockey stick was a cherry picked piece of the timeline meant to capture you emotionally, suspend thought and get you to follow.
In evidence of your disingenuous position, you deliberately post an article that doesn’t address the primary claim reiterated above. It does however tangentially discuss the rythm of the poles. Lots of fancy words don’t make what you submitted relevant to refute the above claim.
“We do not propose a physical
explanation here, but conclude that neither conventional
“Northern lead” models ö with meltwater forcing in the North
Atlantic being the dominant driving force for millennial-scale
climate changes ö nor alternative models with forcing from
the Southern Hemisphere tropics or the Southern Ocean, can
be ruled out on the basis of observed phase relationships
between existing Antarctic and Greenland paleoclimate data.”

Reply to  dbstealey
November 27, 2015 2:46 pm

All I had to see was “Eric Steig” to know that paper was just grant trolling. But I read it anyway.
The “Polar See-saw” refers to the out of phase ice cover between the Arctic and the Antarctic. That has been discusses quite a bit here lately, since it’s very obvious. Here is a chart of 30 years corellation between the NH and the SH.
Here is an overlay of the NH and the SH, from ice cores:
Here is another view, NH vs SH:comment image
Here’s another overlay, Northern Hemisphere vs Southern Hemisphere:comment image
Here’s another one:
And just for fun, here’s more proof that CO2 follows temperature:
So who should we believe? Planet Earth? Or you?

Reply to  dbstealey
November 27, 2015 4:48 pm

Go easymon the oldnwise guy DB….he’s still reading papers from 2002. When he gets to current research, maybe he’ll be a better opponent. *grin*

Reply to  dbstealey
November 27, 2015 7:40 pm,
You wrote;
“I apologize dbstealey. When you posted “Ice cores from both poles, and also from Greenland” ….”
But dbstealey did not post those words (that I can find). It seems to me you must have knowingly misquoted him . .

Reply to  dbstealey
November 29, 2015 5:31 am

dbstealey: You are not describing inductive reasoning. You are describing the fallacy of composition; “Fallacy of composition – assumes what is true of the parts is true of the whole. This fallacy is also known as “arguing from the specific to the general.””
The statements in the article do indeed commit this fallacy: one person who believes in AGW is wrong therefore every person who believes in AGW is wrong. Clearly the article, not me, commits this fallacy. Thanks for pointing this out.
I won’t even get into his ridiculous “97%” nonsense. That has been so thoroughly debunked
It is not *My* nonsense. It was in the article. I point out that the arguments made in the article do not debunk the 97% figure. There may be other arguments that do, but if so then please present them.
If you want to say the petition you refer to disproves the 97% consensus, then lets ask the expert in statistics that you suggested. We could email him and ask, but I suggest the loser pays him a fee to make it worth his time. So far you have run away from this, I think because you strongly suspect you are wrong. It is trivially obvious to anyone with a modicum of knowledge about statistics that you are wrong that this petition disproves the consensus. Please note that this is different from saying that the 97% is necessarily correct. I have explained why but you refuse to engage with my arguments, leaving arbitration the only way to resolve it. Since you run away from arbitration, I presume it is because you do not want it resolved, preferring to remain in comfortable ignorance.
If you read my comment, you would notice that I do not make a case for AGW. I only explain why the arguments made in the article are wrong. You have not countered any of my points.

Reply to  seaice
November 29, 2015 8:48 am

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Reply to  dbstealey
November 29, 2015 9:44 am

Been rummaging thru WUWT’s goodies.
This is actually very good. Seems to be useful in penetrating the cognitive dissonance.

Perhaps more of this is a good idea.

Reply to  dbstealey
November 30, 2015 2:12 am

dbstealey: “You have no idea what you are talking about.”
As usual – disparaging comment that adresses none of the points I have raised. You seem to confuse repetition with argument.
If I have no idea what I am talking about, you will not mind asking the expert, and getting me to pay his fee. But you won’t agree to that. Perhaps it is because it is you who does not know what you are talking about.

Reply to  seaice1
November 30, 2015 10:28 am

OK then, let me rephrase: What you are talking about is just re-emitting the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ false alarm.
That narrative has been so thoroughly falsified by skeptics that only eco-religionists still believe in it. It’s no different from your debunked belief that human CO2 emissions are the cause of Arctic ice fluctuations; another nonsense belief with no supporting measurements.

4 eyes
Reply to  seaice1
November 27, 2015 2:08 pm

“The scientific case for global warming is supported by tens of thousands of research papers.” Loose words. I don’t think there are tens of thousands or research papers that demonstrate that CAGW is happening and the C in CAGW is the real issue. There may be thousands of papers written that discuss issues that would arise should AGW occur and lots of papers that discuss the dire consequences should CAGW occur.

Reply to  4 eyes
November 27, 2015 5:02 pm

Tens of thousands of papers that use the term “global warming” does not equate to “tens of thousands of papers that support the case for global warming.”

Reply to  seaice1
November 30, 2015 10:30 am

“Fuel companies”, eh? That, from some clueless person who purports to lecture on the ‘strawman fallacy’.
And anyone who still tries to promote Cook’s repeatedly debunked “97%” nonsense has forfeited all credibility.

November 27, 2015 10:07 am

Circulation of this “Jonestown” concept among the masses might help folks to realize that we are being subjected to an agenda designed to influence us toward voluntary submission to our own destruction on multiple social and economic levels.
By drastically oversimplifying the process of climate change, declaring natural forcings to be “myths” and implicating free market-driven fuel consumption by “the greedy masses” as the source of all weather extremes and “the runaway greenhouse”, an agenda of mind control has been established which groups with similar goals have clamored to embrace.
The field of battle for control of the future world is presently being waged in the minds of the populace, completely unbeknownst to the majority of them.

Leland Neraho
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
November 27, 2015 10:11 am

Well stated. That the Catholic Church still exists, and even thrives in parts, proves that the populace is more than just gullible, but wanting to be manipulated. Wanting what they hope to be true, harps, angels, virgins, forgiveness, with no scientific support whatsoever. Perhaps that’s why you get so worked up here on the possibility that climate change is real since it means a new reality that is different from what you were indoctrinated in.

Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 27, 2015 10:47 am

Hi Leland,
Of course climate change is real. Not many here will dispute it. The discussion is about the cultish similarity of those who have feathered their nest by creating a false sense of urgency and an ultimatum to turn over administration of all the most vital of commodities to bureaucracy, or the race of man will suffer at it’s own hands. I happen to believe that mankind will suffer much more by cowering to these fears than by trusting in the ingenuity of future generations to adapt and prosper, as it always has.
We must be preparing for the next change of climate, which, if you have been following this blog, appears to be several decades of colder conditions. Diversion by those who claim that climate has ceased its historical cyclicality and taken on a catastrophic linear uptick (which has been falsified by observation), only delays society from remediating the real pollution problems facing it and adapting to changes in climate, which we are nowhere close to understanding or controlling.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 27, 2015 1:03 pm

L. Neraho: “you get so worked up here on the possibility that climate change is real
Wrong. You mischaracterize science realists’ position (perhaps, an intentional creation of a strawperson?).
Science realists “get so worked up” about the Enviroprofiteers and Envirostatists using garbage science about CO2 (pure speculation and, since the AGW Cult leaders know or act with reckless indifference as to truth or falsity, l1es) to bilk the taxpayers (gov’t. subsidies of Big Wind, Solar and “Sustainability”) and energy customers (rate surcharges).
Climate change is real.
There is no evidence that climate change is caused by CO2,
much less by human CO2 emissions.

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
November 27, 2015 10:22 am

The ultimate goal of my life is to meet death with a free and satisfied mind and I shall fight anything which leads me to accept the loss of ideological liberty and individuality.

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
November 27, 2015 10:28 am

Your a clear headed man Dawtgtomis.
I imagine you would be a fine neighbor.

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
November 27, 2015 10:57 am

You’re very kind, Knutesea, I’m just an old guy contemplating my mortality and my legacy, wishing to be anointed with some wisdom I can pass along.
I suppose this ‘innertube’ thing (as MoJo Nixon calls the internet) makes us neighbors of a sort, so drop by anytime, beer’s in the fridge.

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
November 27, 2015 5:08 pm

Dawg, that reminds me of something an elderly man told me once. He said “I’m convinced that the reason we forget things as we age is so we can die with a clear conscious.” *grin*

November 27, 2015 10:52 am

And there is an update on the topic: Climate Cult Redux.

Reply to  Ari Halperin
November 27, 2015 11:02 am

Thanks for the link Ari.
Raises awareness of the con.

Joel O'Bryan
November 27, 2015 11:28 am

Minor correction
Jonestown massacre happened in November 1978.
That was 37 yrs ago.

November 27, 2015 11:45 am

What is worse: Climate change or WWIII?
November 24: Turkey just shot down a Russian Fighter Jet over Turkish air space, but the surviving pilot landed in Syria, taken by Syrian rebels fighting Assad on behalf of Turkey. Turkey is fighting Assad and the Kurds in Syria. Russia is assisting Assad in fighting Syrian rebels assisted by Turkey, and are also fighting ISIS. Iran is assisting Assad in fighting the Syrian Rebels and the Kurds, and maybe ISIS. Turkey is helping ISIS fight Assad. U.S. is helping Turkey helping ISIS and the Syrian rebels, but is also fighting ISIS. France is jumping in fighting ISIS. U.S. say they are helping the Kurds fight ISIS, but are not, because that would offend the Turks and Iran. And then there are the Chinese trying to gain influence in the region. This is the coalition Obama says he is leading fighting ISIS, (or ISIL as Obama insists calling it, as the Levant also includes Israel).
Obama is still scheduled, together with 40000 other delegates to go to Paris next week for the 2015 Climate Change Conference COP21. Alongside French President François Hollande at a joint news conference Obama said:
“Next week, I will be joining President Hollande and world leaders in Paris for the global climate conference. … What a powerful rebuke to the terrorists it will be, when the world stands as one and shows that we will not be deterred from building a better future for our children.”
What could possibly go wrong?
Which leads to verse 69 of the Obama Impeachment song (as if sung by President Barack Hussein Obama to the tune of “Please release me, let me go”)
Climate change or World War III?
Yes, Climate Change much worse must be.
World Wars come and go, you see.
But Climate Must Not Change, That’s my decree.
Here is the complete impeachment song:

November 27, 2015 12:11 pm

With apologies to all things Mary Poppins-(and my mother who would wash my hands off with soap)
Super-stupid, fragile, mystic activists don’t know @#it,
But climate change is natural and humans cannot slow it,
Of all the climate studies, not a single one can show it,
Super, stupid, fragile, mystic activists don’t know @#it
If you know of what you speak, you’ll make some people mad,
Just pointing out how many times the science is so bad,
Once had a date, who liked debate, and thought he’d give me heck,
But I was still up in his grill when they brought out the check!
It’s obvious to anyone who barely even tries
That everything alarmists say is couched in silly lies,
Just know your stuff and then get touch, don’t let them have their way,
And if they cry that you “DENY”, just take a breath and say…”Oh…
“Super-stupid, fragile, mystic activists don’t know @# it,
Climate change is natural and humans cannot slow it,
Of all the climate studies, not a single one can show it,
Super-stupid, fragile, mystic activists don’t know @#it!”
{[Delightful! .mod]

Reply to  Aphan
November 27, 2015 12:13 pm

All rights reserved! 🙂

Reply to  Aphan
November 28, 2015 5:00 pm

Can you do one on “A spoonful of Solar Helps My Power Bill Go Down”?

November 27, 2015 12:36 pm

Religion is faith without absolute proof. CAGW is a belief despite proof to the contrary. So it’s not on par with religion. It’s something else all together.

Janice Moore
Reply to  MrX
November 27, 2015 1:08 pm

[]AGW is a belief despite proof to the contrary.

Mr. X.
a.k.a.: “Den1al”
Well put, Mister X.

Reply to  MrX
November 27, 2015 1:24 pm

Religion is separable from faith. Religion is moral philosophy or behavioral laws. And while it is usually accompanied by faith (i.e. perception outside of a limited or scientific frame of reference), it can also be derived axiomatically without acceptance or rejection of God (i.e. extra-universal entity) or god-like entities and beings. For example, beginning with the axioms of individual dignity and intrinsic value, reconciled with natural imperatives and limitations.
To be fair to the Cult of Climate Change, while they cannot demonstrate their beliefs in a limited or scientific frame of reference, they may yet be correct (or wrong) in the philosophical domain that may eventually converge with reality (e.g. scientific domain) as the system evolves (i.e. chaotic change in time and/or space).
It’s notable that most members of the Cult are also pro-choice and reject either or both individual dignity and intrinsic value, selectively, of course, and exhibit a selfish disposition with respect to natural imperatives and limitations.

Reply to  n.n
November 28, 2015 6:57 pm

Religion is the result of faith in things unseen or not yet experienced which motivates behavioral patterns coherent with the dogma engrained upon the mind of the subject.

Blue Sky
November 27, 2015 1:07 pm

Great website. I am a skeptic.
Comparing those who disagree with skepticism… with Jim Jones is disgusting. Was this site hacked?

Janice Moore
Reply to  Blue Sky
November 27, 2015 1:20 pm

The comparison, Blue Sky, is of the methods of the Cult of AGW with the methods of a Jim Jones. Pick any cult leader you like. Lots of metaphors and analogies…. not literal comparisons, for the most part.
With whom would YOU compare the CO2 Con Game influencers? Walter Cronkite? (he was often a propagandist, but hardly wanted to hustle people out of their money… or take away their liberty…. or to intentionally let people d1e of cold or starvation due to energy poverty….)

Leland Neraho
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 27, 2015 2:54 pm

See Janice, you just proved my point. This debate is not about science for you, it’s not about religion per se, it’s about politics. Substitute NRA with AGW, FDA with EPA, minimum wage, etc. all back to liberty and your money. This is not a serious scientific discussion, it is a Christian Chorus. Cue the charts and links… now.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 27, 2015 3:10 pm

The debate is about politicians (and their enviroprofiteer lobbyists) who use pseudo-science to bilk the public. It is a multi-faceted issue. Your simplistic, either-or, thinking is limiting your ability to learn. Actually, deeper than that, your anger (at who?? about what?? — WHO HAS WRONGED YOU??) is blinding your intellect.
“A fool finds no pleasure in understanding,
but delights in airing her or his own opinions.”
Proverbs 18:2.
Wisdom is for the wise — who recognize it, no matter where they read it.
How do you know that I am not Jewish?

Reply to  Janice Moore
November 27, 2015 3:41 pm

I imagine that WUWT provides a “safe space” but they pipe in repetitive examples of fallacy over and over and over. I guess I would be okay with that if it was associated with flashing images of lookers in tight jeans or a form fitting skirt.
We all can be trained.

November 27, 2015 1:09 pm

The Cult of Climate Change bears remarkable resemblance to the Pro-choice Cult, where both are noteworthy and infamous for their selective principles based on faith-based doctrines derived from emanations from a penumbra and mortal gods that rationalize their causes and beliefs.

Leland Neraho
Reply to  n.n
November 27, 2015 3:00 pm

You just described the Republican party. Freedom, unless it means pro-choice or skirt length. No taxes unless they go toward bombs, or better yet, pay for them with debt. Free trade but let’s a build a wall. Protect the Constitution, but only allow Christians into the country. Shall I go on? At least the NRA is consistent and wants terrorists to have the right to bear arms too.
Pro-choice cult… my, my, that is a new one.

Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 27, 2015 3:24 pm

“You just described the Republican party. Freedom, unless it means pro-choice or skirt length. No taxes unless they go toward bombs, or better yet, pay for them with debt. Free trade but let’s a build a wall. Protect the Constitution, but only allow Christians into the country. Shall I go on? At least the NRA is consistent and wants terrorists to have the right to bear arms too.
Pro-choice cult… my, my, that is a new one.”
Leland. Bait is often offered from many sides in a debate. ALL are biased and you have to zero in on the facts that are supported by evidence. Be disciplined and you will encourage discipline in the minds of others.
Political preferences and detached comparisons (increasingly irrelevant) are not what will help you understand what is real and what is not concerning CAGW.
Stay hungry for the facts like a hawk looking for a meal.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 27, 2015 4:08 pm

Knute, I haven’t read everything Leland said here. The few comments I have read doesn’t give the impression that it is a “hawk looking for a meal” but rather a “vulture looking to kill” what doesn’t agree with it.
It doesn’t like the post’s comparison.
(Maybe if I’d read all the comments I wouldn’t have said that. But those who seem to consider their opinions to be elite, with their nose in air, do let off a certain scent.)

Reply to  Gunga Din
November 27, 2015 4:36 pm

“Knute, I haven’t read everything Leland said here. The few comments I have read doesn’t give the impression that it is a “hawk looking for a meal” but rather a “vulture looking to kill” what doesn’t agree with it.
It doesn’t like the post’s comparison.
(Maybe if I’d read all the comments I wouldn’t have said that. But those who seem to consider their opinions to be elite, with their nose in air, do let off a certain scent.)”
Excuse the cut and paste. I’m also replying at Knute and Knutesea because the WordPress thing is confusing vs logging in as Knute. Eh, I feel incompetent with my blogging software skills compared to you folks.
I suspect Leland is a frustrated younger person. Promises of hope and change offered as a backlash to bombs and war met head on with the disillusionment of the progress he sought/seeks. And, while he may come across with intentions to play “gotcha”, I think THAT game is rooted in a sense of insecurity concerning the movement they have ascribed to.
I could be wrong, but I try to see the kernel of curiosity. I’ve made many of poor choices in life and have had the pleasure of learning from some, but it was alot about timing based on when I was ready to listen.
So, I give the benefit of the doubt … appeal to the higher sense of self in the man.
I am equally ruthless with a throat punch once I realize that I’m talking to a wall that intended to waste my time and engage me in a circular argument hoping to somehow exhaust me in their game of “gotcha”. It typically ends relationships and I’ve been too eager in my youth to execute that technique. My friends say that I now suffer from low T.
Now that I know that I can request a safe space, I think I’m going to start be a little more demanding of what I get when I go there.
In any event, the odds are that you are correct.
I’m just a little slower in getting there.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 27, 2015 4:51 pm


My friends say that I now suffer from low T.
I can’t say anything about you and the commercials that talk about “low T”. But as long a the “T” is a sincere desire for Truth, then you, like me, only suffer from not having enough of it, and/or believing it, now.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 27, 2015 4:55 pm

i messed up the end of the blockquote.
It should have ended after “from low T”.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 27, 2015 5:04 pm

Hey, Knute,
Whether it’s “low T” or that we improve (most of us, heh) with age, I like you just the way you are. Don’t worry — LOTS of us (me, included) are not especially software-saavy. If WordPress were more sophisticated, you wouldn’t need to have any software skills. The better the code, the more non-tech user-friendly it is. And don’t sweat typos and junk like “its” “it’s” — I KNOW what their meanings are, but blow them with typos all the time. Here’s what you can do if you make a mistake and feel it makes you look dumb, ask yourself: “Do I think that makes someone look dumb or do I assume they were in a hurry or something?” The opinions of those with small minds don’t really matter.
I’d say your not letting people who were intentionally disingenuously wasting your time “debating” with you get away with it was GREAT! Such people are not truly friends and it’s better they were in your rear view mirror.
Glad you are here!

Reply to  Janice Moore
November 27, 2015 5:21 pm

Thanks Janice.
A sincere compliment.
What a nice endorphin rush.
These kids have such potential.
My latest worry is that they are learning that deception is the norm.
Cheaters are the way to success.
Only fools pursue truth and only if it pays.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 27, 2015 6:13 pm

You’re welcome, Knute, my pleasure.
A ray of hope for you: according to a communication/marketing “expert” speaker at a continuing ed. class I recently took (about how to best communicate with various generations of clients/co-workers), “millenials” (born c. 1990 and on — they follow Gen Xers (born c. 1964 – 1989)), highly value:
1) straight talk;
2) honesty (they can smell cant a mile away)
Millenials are, I suppose, reacting, if only subconsciously, to all the hype they’ve been told in many arenas all their lives.
When the world seems to be growing worse by the hour, it always comforts me to recall Solomon’s observation in Ecclesiastes: “There is nothing new under the Sun… .” There have always been rotters using deception to steal and there have always been honest, decent, people. That is, we are not on a downward slope toward Deception Doom. It’s just that as we grow older, it always seems like that…. people over 45 talked like this back in the 1500’s and back and back to Eve and Adam, no doubt, lol.
And, another neat thing: millenials tend to want mentors! They want someone to show them how, to coach (just so they are respected for their opinions, too).
You go, Knute. #(:))

November 27, 2015 2:53 pm

Such a travesty.
I like this website.
I love the photos it sends.
This is the first one I’ve seen in awhile mean to scare the vulnerable mind.,47TB,2MY9A4,C9IB,1

November 27, 2015 3:19 pm

I stopped reading at “Jim Jones” and went straight to the comments. Associations such as this belong in the Godwin’s Law realm. Probably my loss but I don’t care.

Reply to  dp
November 27, 2015 11:43 pm

” Associations such as this belong in the Godwin’s Law realm.”
Strange . . that really bad things have happened, leads me to believe that really bad things can happen . .

November 27, 2015 4:17 pm

The assertion 97% of scientists believe atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) causes global warming (aka climate change) is blatantly false. There is no excuse for anyone to be so gullible that they would make that assertion. Scientists are not that ignorant although some may have gotten mired in irrelevant minutia and/or misled by wildly speculative notions, or mesmerized by CO2 being a ‘greenhouse gas’, or even willfully blinded by the siren call of a paycheck.
Necessary knowledge to realize CO2 has no effect on climate should have been learned before the 12th grade in school. It is a basic understanding of the ramifications of photosynthesis. Google provides a good definition of photosynthesis: “the process by which green plants and some other organisms use sunlight to synthesize foods from carbon dioxide and water. Photosynthesis in plants generally involves the green pigment chlorophyll and generates oxygen as a byproduct.”
The applicable ramification of photosynthesis is CO2 is necessary for the initial step for all life on the planet and always has been. For life on land as we know it to have evolved there had to have been substantial CO2 in the atmosphere for more than 500 million years. If CO2 made the planet warmer it would have been doing it for 500 million years. But average global temperature (AGT) has gone up and down over the eon and most of the time it has been warmer than now. The only way this could consistently result is if CO2 has no effect on temperature and temperature change is caused by something else.
The idea that a threshold level of CO2 might exist, where above the threshold CO2 warms the planet and below the threshold it does not, requires a more complex analysis but the end result is the same: CO2 has no effect on AGT.
Because CO2 is only a trace gas in the atmosphere, if CO2 change does not cause temperature change, it cannot cause climate change. Thus the CO2 change from burning fossil fuels has no effect on climate, and ‘climate sensitivity’ (the effect on AGT of doubling CO2) is zero.
The analysis at expands on this and identifies the two factors that do cause reported average global temperature change for at least as long as AGT has been accurately measured world wide. An equation there using only the noted two factors calculates a 97% match to reported measured temperatures since before 1900 (after calibration to historical AGT, the only inputs to the equation are from the sunspot number data set). Everything not explicitly included (such as aerosols, volcanos, non-condensing ghg, ice changes, uncertainty in measurements, heating from the earth’s core, storing heat in ocean depths, etc.) must find room in the unexplained 3%.

John Robertson
November 27, 2015 5:00 pm

Such tender personalities.
Better go to your safe space.
What is it about other peoples point of view that upsets you?
That they are allowed to have one?
Or allowed to see things differently to you?
Goodwin’s Law, is a low tool of the PC thought police, designed to avoid observation of the insanity of some points of view, certain progressive ideas have already been inflicted upon populations, where they ended badly. .
The IPCC and the fanatical greens of 1930s Central Europe have many things in common.
Propaganda parallels being a real eye opener.
The desperate need to demonize any who question shines through.
Enemy of the….pick your cause.

Gunga Din
Reply to  John Robertson
November 27, 2015 5:33 pm

“I may disagree with what you say but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” Does seem to have been warped into, “I disagree with what you say and I’ll put you to the death if you try to say it.”
(I seem to remember reading somewhere that the purpose of Government is to prevent the later.)

Reply to  John Robertson
November 27, 2015 10:23 pm

Association fallacy: Jim Jones and Climate Change supporters.

Godwin’s law (or Godwin’s rule of Nazi analogies) is an Internet adage asserting that “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1″—​that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.

Godwin’s Law is over-specific as written but when generalized allows a more complete picture of the association fallacy thus making it a good shorthand for the process.
I prefer associating bad science with climate change alarmists because the association is well developed and well documented and doesn’t introduce the impotency of pointless drama.

Reply to  dp
November 28, 2015 12:40 pm

“Godwin’s Law is over-specific as written but when generalized allows a more complete picture of the association fallacy thus making it a good shorthand for the process.”
What fallacy are you talking about? It looks to me like it’s you who is engaging in a fallacious form of reasoning . . If something is alleged to be happening again enough, then it can’t happen again . .

Reply to  dp
November 28, 2015 1:02 pm

The fallacy is found in the article’s title.

Similarities to Jim Jones and the Cult of Climate Change

Reply to  dp
November 28, 2015 1:45 pm

You seem to be confusing an essay comparing the characteristics of two unrelated things to each other to the logical fallacy called “association fallacy”. The association fallacy requires that the two things being compared actually have some kind of connection, or “association” to each other. It is claiming that a quality of one thing is also a quality of another thing because they have some other thing in common. Such as water is a liquid, water fills the ocean, therefore all liquids are ocean. Or “Guilt by association”-if your uncle is a criminal, then you should also be viewed as a criminal also.
The article compares the similarities between two unrelated groups and insinuates that both are cults, but that is a valid conclusion based upon the observable cult-like qualities that both groups have in common. In order to be guilty of the association fallacy, the author would have tried to claim, for example, that because both groups behave in a cult-like manner (what they have in common) that AGW believers will eventually drink koolaid and die in a mass suicide, or that the members of all cults believe that CO2 is responsible for global warming (that the quality of one is also a quality of the other).

Reply to  Aphan
November 28, 2015 2:00 pm

Thank you Aphan.
I thought the fallacy claim was wrong.
I couldn’t articulate it.
You did a fine job of clearing it up.

Reply to  dp
November 28, 2015 2:21 pm

You are welcome knutesea.

Reply to  dp
November 28, 2015 4:09 pm

I didn’t read the essay and I haven’t commented on the essay – I said in the beginning I stopped reading the article when I saw the initial fallacy. My choice. I’ve not suggested anyone else not read all of it. I’ve said what I did and why and that I may have missed out on something but I don’t care. You all are free to ignore all I’ve said. But – the comments sections are here for our comments. I’ve given mine and I’ve told the truth the best I know how. Because it is opinion it can’t be right or wrong – it can only be what it is, and some people will agree and some will disagree. That won’t change my opinion. And I don’t care.

Reply to  dp
November 29, 2015 5:58 am

dp: you did not miss out.

November 27, 2015 6:18 pm

Another curious detail in this cult comparison.
If you read Revelation, you will figure out that the Apocalypse predicted by the Global Warming cult is just a lame copy of the apocalypse described in Revelation. Epidemics of disease, fish kills, earthquakes, and so on.
The only difference is that God promised no planetary flood after Noah’s flood (Gen 9), but the global-warming Gaia cult holds that planetary flooding will be part of the apocalypse.

November 28, 2015 1:02 am

Jones? Philip Jones director of CRU at the UEA infamous because of the climategate e-mails?

Patrick MJD
November 28, 2015 1:10 am

The saddest thing about Jones and his “church” is that many “followers” wanted out of it way before that final event. By far the worst thing was his followers poisoned their kids first before themselves. Jones shot himself.

Patrick MJD
November 28, 2015 2:18 am

Don’t forget the Arabs, they invented algebra.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 28, 2015 12:58 pm

I hope you were joking….without a sarc tag or other indication, it’s hard to tell.
Abrabs invented the WORD algebra, which comes from the Arabic “al-jabr”, which comes from a book written by a 9th-century Persian mathematician who merely translated, formalized and commented on the methods used by ancient Indians and Greeks…who most likely learned it from the Egyptians and Babylonians.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 29, 2015 4:14 am

You mean mathematician Al-Khwarizmi?

November 28, 2015 3:13 am

This is relevant:
“A frequent topic at Climate Etc. is the ‘consensus.’ An argument is presented here that the climate consensus is as much about culture as it is about climate science.”

November 28, 2015 4:07 am

Thanks for some interesting ideas. The essay is intriguing but not very clear. The first part is not well connected to the second part
The conclusion does not support the thesis
Perhaps you can be clearer about how a political witch hunt into corporate America over climate has anything at all to do with finding out the truth of “climate change” or how this relates to doomsday cult behavior?

Pat Paulsen
November 28, 2015 6:37 am

Love the cartoon but only one little problem – You depicted Al Gore as slim. Have you seen recent pictures? He is REALLY storing a lot of carbon, these days, IMO.

November 28, 2015 7:39 am

Honest Abe: Amen.
On top of all of that, Christian-inspired, or -obligated, or -associated giving is by far the leading charitable force on the planet.
The atheists will offer you a Utopia, and then you get Soviet Russia or Mao’s China. No thanks.

John W. Garrett
November 28, 2015 12:12 pm

Please learn to spell “ExxonMobil.”
There is no “e” at the end.

November 28, 2015 2:15 pm

When Leland stated-
“That the Catholic Church still exists, and even thrives in parts, proves that the populace is more than just gullible, but wanting to be manipulated. Wanting what they hope to be true, harps, angels, virgins, forgiveness, with no scientific support whatsoever. Perhaps that’s why you get so worked up here on the possibility that climate change is real since it means a new reality that is different from what you were indoctrinated in.”
-I had to laugh! Such delicious irony and he seems so oblivious to it! Perhaps the reason that religious types DO NOT get “worked up” about climate change is because almost every “religious” group in history has believed in a catastrophic end to the world! From the ancient Aztecs to modern Christians, there is a thread of commonality regarding the destruction of the known world and a replacement with a different one. In other words, Leland seems oblivious to the fact that Christians have been indoctrinated in the idea of a global cataclysm being the necessary precursor to a new and better world.
Even more ironic is that he seems fine with the global destruction predictions if they are voiced by people he agrees with-scientists, AGWers etc, but not if they come from a 2,000+ year old book. When that is the case, then they only appeal to “gullible and wanting to be manipulated” religious types. LOL

November 28, 2015 4:58 pm

Every time the CAGW movement/belief system gets referenced as a cult (which I do not argue with), I keep thinking of the psychology books that have been written on the subject of cults and cult-like groups and movements even though I am not a psychologist myself.
In addition to Charles MacKay’s “Extraordinary Popular Delusions” which was referred earlier in this thread, another good book that has been referenced in the past on this subject is Leon Festinger’s “When Prophesy Fails”. Although the book was published almost 50 years ago now (early in 1956), it is still very easy to associate the cult-like UFO/religious mysticism/doomsday group that was studied for the book back in the 1950’s with today’s CAGW cult. The parallels between then and now are all too easy to draw.
The group studied in the book had to deal with contradictory disconfirming evidence leading to cognitive dissonance (which I liken to attempts at damage control and elimination) much like today’s CAGW cult finds itself doing with the flat temperature record coming from the satellites (among other things). The problem then, like today, is that individual members of the cult or group are so deeply and powerfully committed to the belief that it becomes impossible for them to detach themselves from it and walk away in spite of the disconfirming evidence. The disconfirming evidence and cognitive dissonance that follows can lead to anger, frustration, depression, and (oddly enough) a deeper commitment to the belief system. That is why I believe many in the CAGW movement today will go their graves someday without ever having admitted to themselves or anyone else that the CO2 climate change/doomsday belief system has any scientific faults.
Festinger also spent some time in his book talking about the Millerite movement back in 1843/1844 as another example of this subject–although that movement did collapse and die after a number of disconfirmations according to Festinger. For anyone who hasn’t done so yet, I can recommend reading both books if you have any interest in the psychology and mindset behind cults and cult-like groups and movements. I am in the middle of my second reading of “When Prophesy Fails” right now.

Reply to  CD153
November 28, 2015 5:36 pm

“The problem then, like today, is that individual members of the cult or group are so deeply and powerfully committed to the belief that it becomes impossible for them to detach themselves from it and walk away in spite of the disconfirming evidence. The disconfirming evidence and cognitive dissonance that follows can lead to anger, frustration, depression, and (oddly enough) a deeper commitment to the belief system. That is why I believe many in the CAGW movement today will go their graves someday without ever having admitted to themselves or anyone else that the CO2 climate change/doomsday belief system has any scientific faults.”
People fight wars over such beliefs.

Reply to  knutesea
November 28, 2015 6:54 pm

@knute: Okay, okay. I’ll use the word “refute” next time. I guess I’m trying to hard to sound like a psychologist. Wrong website for that?

Reply to  CD153
November 28, 2015 7:14 pm

Influencing hearts and minds is a bit like warfare.
If you want to send a message to an enemy that is thinking about attacking you, an effective message in the past was putting the head of their ally on a stake. It sent that don’t f__k with me message and effectively broke thru the haze of superiority.
Since the believer is in a haze of cognitive dissonance, influencing them needs to be like a hammer and surprise their conscious. Disconfimation just doesn’t make it as a message word.
Okay, maybe the head on spike was too rowdy an example to illustrate the impact of the message.
I’ll work on better … gentler examples.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  knutesea
November 29, 2015 4:00 am

The little I know about the Jones Town Cult; isn’t that they were so deeply committed (the upper hierarchy obviously were), but that they feared for their lives in leaving. Jones and his henchmen actively sought out those who escaped, and made sure anyone else who was thinking about leaving knew they would be hunted also. Leaving such cults isn’t as easy as walking out the front gate, there is far more involved than you portray.

Reply to  CD153
November 28, 2015 6:02 pm

Knutesea: No doubt very true. And I need to go back to grade school and relearn how to add and subtract. Festinger’s book is coming up on 60 years old now, not 50.

Reply to  CD153
November 28, 2015 6:15 pm

Disconfirmation is a painful word. Doesn’t roll off the tongue or seep into the brain.
May I suggest “refute” or “reject”.

Reply to  CD153
November 28, 2015 6:03 pm

I have shared this image with several. It literally creates a shortness of breath in the believer.
My second favorite imagecomment image?w=640
Would appreciate it if someone has a more up to date link for the second one.
I’m working on using a sort of image shock to penetrate the cognitive dissonance.
The lie is too easy to expose.
Who knows maybe you’ll see them on a billboard.

Reply to  CD153
November 29, 2015 11:14 am

Cavanagh: I don’t disagree with what you are saying. I too understand that Jonestown cult members were forced to remain in the cult involuntarily (especially near the end when it was time to drink the Kool-Aid) and were threatened if they wanted to leave it. A television documentary on the cult pointed this out if I remember correctly.
But do we not see something similar to this happening in the CAGW cult today? Are skeptics not threatened if they want to go public with their skepticism and attacked if they do? Do none of them feel pressured to either keep quiet about their skepticism or to present a false front of being believers when in fact they are not? The faulty notion being spread that some 97% of scientists agree with the theory of cataclysmic human-induced climate change from our CO2 emissions would seem to suggest this is in fact going on. Is it not designed (at least in part) to induce pressure to conform to the CAGW cult movement?
Greg, I readily accept that cult groups and movements do not all behave the same and have different approaches to recruitment and retention of its member believers. The cult-like group studied in Festinger’s book never forced anyone to remain in the group so far as I can tell, and they were selective about who they allowed in as well (one had to be “ready” and “sent” to the group by the “Superior Beings” on another planet). My comment above referred to those who have wholly embraced and swallowed the CAGW (or some other) cult’s belief system hook, line and sinker, have never strayed from the faith, and have no intention of ever abandoning it.
In my view, the real danger with the CAGW cult today is that it is (or will) take this country down the wrong road on matters of energy. It has the sheer size and influence to do that. As long as it is still embraced in Washington, state capitols around the country, and by the mainstream media and academic and scientific institutions, that danger will remain. It will take a very strong and concerted effort to defeat it…an effort that Anthony is certainly contributing his fair share to with this website.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  CD153
November 29, 2015 7:02 pm

CD153; I was replying to knutsea, who I thought was wrong on that particular subject.
There are many items of comparison between the Jim Jones cult and CAGW. I believe it is a valid comparison. Looking back at the Climategate emails, and how MM browbeat anyone and everyone in his group who made any mention of doubt or concern that they might not be right. He would make a violent cult leader. jim Jones was more cunning and overt than MM ever could be.
re: “In my view, the real danger with the CAGW cult today is that it is (or will) take this country down the wrong road on matters of energy. ” The world has already wasted billions of dollars on utter nonsense. Huge waste of time and money, all for naught.

Reply to  Greg Cavanagh
November 29, 2015 8:07 pm

Sorry, sometimes this WP system is confusing to me. I’m interested where you find me wrong. Do you mind cut and pasting and getting back where I can review ?

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  CD153
November 30, 2015 6:52 pm

I’m guessing that Knute and Knutesea are the one and the same?
This statement; “The problem then, like today, is that individual members of the cult or group are so deeply and powerfully committed to the belief that it becomes impossible for them to detach themselves from it and walk away in spite of the disconfirming evidence”.
Might be correct for some, but I don’t believe it’s the norm. I watched a documentary of the Jones Town thing soon after, where they interviewed individuals and couples who were lucky enough to escape before the place went up in flames. They all stated ” they feared for their lives in leaving.”
Either way. It’s not a matter of you’re wrong and I’m right. I disagreed with the statement you made and replied to it. Nothing more and nothing less.

Reply to  Greg Cavanagh
November 30, 2015 8:03 pm

Thanks Greg for digging that up and sorry for the confusion.
I’ve evidently created 2 logins for the WordPress thing and I come up as either/or.
I didn’t actually write what you cut and pasted.
I, instead commented on it.
Yes, no need to resolve our differences.
I imagine if we had to there would be less to iron out and more to agree on concerning the issue.

Reply to  CD153
November 30, 2015 9:56 pm

CD153: When I am in my professional/educated crowds, I have to watch what I say.
no one will think, “well, he just gave a counter-example; I had better review what I believe.”
Regarding my evidence-based beliefs, I have to really calculate what I might say, when, and how.
If these academic/intellectual settings favored robust debate and honesty, I would feel free to speak up.

Reply to  CD153
November 30, 2015 10:03 pm

These are not religious cults, but are what I call “virtue cults.” You want to belong in order to be one of the virtuous, enlightened ones, in the good-versus-evil world where the skeptics are the immoral ones. They are either uninformed/ignorant or are deliberately evil.
They develop counter-arguments to the simple, straight-forward illustrations that their world view is wrong (one essential aspect of any cult is it does not accord with reality; otherwise no reason for coercion, reification, etc.). The counter-arguments are designed to protect the true believers from cognitive dissonance.
If I say, “warming has stalled for 18 years,” you never investigate this, but answer, “No, the warming has gone into the oceans,” or “Where did you read that, at the oil-funded denier site Watts Up?” Thus avoid cognitive dissonance.

November 28, 2015 7:39 pm

The real fraud was perpetrated by the USEPA. The USEPA is supposed to verify through their own research the veracity of all the data they use to formulated legislation. In the case of regulations that grew out of a concern about climate change/CO2 emissions, they relied almost solely on the IPCC, which as we all know if full of assumptions and opinion masquerading as science from non-peer reviewed sources. Now, there are claims that the attack on Paris and the mass migration of Syrians is a direct result of climate change, a claim that will undoubtedly be repeated and used as a rallying cry for the rent seekers in Paris.

John Robertson
Reply to  CarlF
November 28, 2015 10:10 pm

Exactly as Environment Canada did.
“Environment Canada’s Science..”
When asked ,in writing, the then stenographer for the Minister of the Environment explained;’We defer to the finding of the IPCC’.
Zero answer as to who signed off on these “findings” as valid for policy making in Canada.

Reply to  John Robertson
November 28, 2015 10:28 pm

The pattern that has been revealed is to take it to the UN. Let the UN create a world position, much like the WHO was once used then circle around and claim you are using the best available science, just like the UN.
They did the same for the Iran deal.
Maurice Strong was a key early orchestrator. (RIP)

November 29, 2015 6:02 am

Yeah, I have exactly the same problem with scientists that don’t believe in Zeus. Come on, democracy and all.

November 30, 2015 3:46 am

Side note: Jim Jones used scripture to push SOCIALISM. On the video they themselves did drinking the koolaid, they were saying “I’m glad to die for socialism”.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights