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.
Hoaxes
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
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.
Climategate
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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!!
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.
http://nypost.com/2015/11/27/how-we-raised-the-greivance-generation-now-rampaging-on-campus/
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 “.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/jul/14/farout
Frog
“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.
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.
“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.
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:
http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2015/10/Global-2-copy.jpg
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.
oldnwise4me,
Wrong.
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. ☺
oldnnotsosmart,
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.
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…
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.”
olddavid,
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:
http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/IMAGESGISP2/Bender-NSF.GIF
Here is another view, NH vs SH:
Here’s another overlay, Northern Hemisphere vs Southern Hemisphere:
Here’s another one:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/8/8f/Ice_Age_Temperature_Rev.png
And just for fun, here’s more proof that CO2 follows temperature:
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Vostok-CO2.png
So who should we believe? Planet Earth? Or you?
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*
1oldnwise4me@reagan.com,
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 . .
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.
seaice,
You have no idea what you are talking about.
DB
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.”
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Your a clear headed man Dawtgtomis.
I imagine you would be a fine neighbor.
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.
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*
And there is an update on the topic: Climate Cult Redux.
Thanks for the link Ari.
Raises awareness of the con.
Minor correction
Jonestown massacre happened in November 1978.
That was 37 yrs ago.
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: http://lenbilen.com/2015/02/25/the-complete-obama-impeachment-song/
With apologies to all things Mary Poppins-(and my mother who would wash my hands off with soap)
CHORUS:
Super-stupid, fragile, mystic activists don’t know @ur momisugly#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 @ur momisugly#it
VERSE:
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!
CHORUS
VERSE:
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 @ur momisugly# 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 @ur momisugly#it!”
🙂
{[Delightful! .mod]
All rights reserved! 🙂
Can you do one on “A spoonful of Solar Helps My Power Bill Go Down”?
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.
Mr. X.
a.k.a.: “Den1al”
Well put, Mister X.
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.
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.
Great website. I am a skeptic.
Comparing those who disagree with skepticism… with Jim Jones is disgusting. Was this site hacked?
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….)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
“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.
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.)
“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.)”
Gunga
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.
Knute,
Mods
i messed up the end of the blockquote.
It should have ended after “from low T”.
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!
Janice
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.
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. #(:))
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.
http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/684951/view?dm_i=2XZ0,47TB,2MY9A4,C9IB,1
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.
dp,
” 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 . .
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 http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com 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%.
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.
“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.)
Association fallacy: Jim Jones and Climate Change supporters.
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.
pc,
“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 . .
The fallacy is found in the article’s title.
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).
Thank you Aphan.
I thought the fallacy claim was wrong.
I couldn’t articulate it.
You did a fine job of clearing it up.
You are welcome knutesea.
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.
dp: you did not miss out.
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.
Jones? Philip Jones director of CRU at the UEA infamous because of the climategate e-mails?
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.
Don’t forget the Arabs, they invented algebra.
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.
You mean mathematician Al-Khwarizmi?
This is relevant:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/11/20/climate-culture/
“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.”
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?
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.
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.
Please learn to spell “ExxonMobil.”
There is no “e” at the end.