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.
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
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.
“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.
@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?
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.
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.
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.
Disconfirmation is a painful word. Doesn’t roll off the tongue or seep into the brain.
May I suggest “refute” or “reject”.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/disconfirmation
I have shared this image with several. It literally creates a shortness of breath in the believer.
?w=640
http://snag.gy/BztF1.jpg
My second favorite image
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.
@Greg 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.
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.
Greg
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
Yeah, I have exactly the same problem with scientists that don’t believe in Zeus. Come on, democracy and all.
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”.