#AGU15 Religion and Climate Change addressed

I attended this session yesterday, and I cam away with the impression that these researchers are holding their noses while they are forging ahead on the issue.

From the press release:

Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego Climate and Atmospheric Scientist Veerabhadran Ramanathan and other researchers meet with Pope Francis after a joint workshop of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences held May 2-6, 2014 at the Vatican.

Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego Climate and Atmospheric Scientist Veerabhadran Ramanathan and other researchers meet with Pope Francis after a joint workshop of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences held May 2-6, 2014 at the Vatican.

Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego climate and atmospheric scientist V. Ramanathan will discuss his perspective as a council member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on the transformational role religious leaders can play to bring awareness to the urgency of climate change to protect people and nature. Ramanathan will discuss his view on religion and climate change during the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall Meeting Union presentation “The Role of Religious and Scientific Leaders in Bringing Awareness to the Urgency of Climate Change,” Monday, Dec. 14, 2:40 p.m., Moscone South 102.

“As a council member of the Pontifical Academy and watching from within the powerful moral voice of Pope Francis, I believe a partnership with religion is a powerful new venue for researchers reticent about publicly voicing their grave concerns about climate change,” said Ramanathan.

Ramanathan, a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences since 2004, co-convened “Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature, Our Responsibility,” a joint workshop of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences at the Vatican last year. The event was an unprecedented gathering of natural and social scientists, philosophers, and theologians.

On the final day of the historic workshop, Ramanathan met with Pope Francis and used the opportunity to draw the Pope’s attention to the fact that three billion of the world’s poorest people who do not use fossil fuels to meet their energy needs will nonetheless suffer the worst consequences of climate change.

“We will bring massive public support for urgent actions only when the impacts of climate change and its origins are taught in every church, every temple, every mosque, every synagogue, and other places of worship,” said Ramanathan.

Advertisements

134 thoughts on “#AGU15 Religion and Climate Change addressed

    • it became official religion after the Pope blessed it. We are all aware about the Vatican’s quick grasp of true scientific issues. It only took them half a millennium to catch up with Galilei. At least most of them are now convinced that earth is no longer the center of the universe and that everything else revolves around us. I wonder if they believe that we landed on the moon.

      • You might consult this:
        http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/making-dogma-out-of-unsettled-science
        Also, of course, the vast literature on the “Galileo affair”. By the way, that was a legal affair (Galileo being a Catholic subject of the Papal State), not one of science versus religion.
        Galileo, a protégé of the Church on good terms with the astronomers of the Jesuit Order, could have avoided the whole mess by admitting at an early stage of his conflict with the Aristotelians (who still held sway in the philosophy / science departments of the universities) that he was proposing an at that time still uncorroborated hypothesis rather than a new Gospel Truth. Being something of an attention seeker, he chose to enter into far-from-scientific polemics. In doing so, he played right into the hands of his opponents, who could get at him on the seventeenth-century equivalent of our modern “Get him on tax evasion!” His punishment (house arrest, partly in the luxurious villa of a high Church dignitary), gave him the opportunity to write his major contribution to empirical science, “On Two New Sciences”, without the distractions of the celebrity status to which he had become accustomed in his younger years.
        The bottom line of the Church’s position on the relationship between science and religion is simple:
        – On the one hand, if our reading of the Bible leads to interpretations that are contradicted by solid scientific evidence then we should revise our interpretations. (This attitude was already promoted by Saint Augustine, more than a millenium before the Scientific Revolution of the sixteenth century. Cf. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1988/PSCF3-88Young.html)
        – On the other hand, the fact that the methods of modern science cannot resolve questions of right and wrong does not mean that those questions may be ignored or that their resolution should be left to the whims and desires of whichever group happens to have power over public opinion. Instead, they require faith in the teaching that man was from the beginning a rational moral being (‘created in the image of God’) in addition to being an animal and physical body. (Cf. https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM)
        Like the young Galileo, the current pope too seems to be an attention seeker and to enjoy the celebrity status conferred on him by the media. That he is an intellectual or theological heavyweight (which his predecessor certainly was) is an as yet uncorroborated hypothesis.
        In any case, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences does not speak for the Church, even if was specifically set up to speak to the Church about science. Moreover, what the popes say about particular scientific theories (or economic doctrines or which country is going to win the next Soccer World Cup) is not binding on Catholics — it is no more than an expression of their personal opinion. In that respect, the Pope’s authority over Catholics is not greater (indeed, is less) than the authority of the U.S. President over U.S. citizens (and it is not based on coercion, taxation or armed forces to “twist the arms of [people and] countries that do not do what we want them to do” — as Mr Obama so charmingly put it). .
        [I am not a member of the Roman or any other Church, nor am I a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or what have you. I simply fail to see how advertising oneself as a global-warming sceptic gives one a license to make a spectacle of one’s ignorance of the history of science and of the Church that defined the civilizational matrix within which the search for truth (“science”) could take firm root — Truth being one of the most obvious “divine attributes” together with Reason, Justice and Love of Catholic theology, and therefore one of its most obvious human virtues. When Catholics speak about God’s omnipotence, they do not mean that he is all-powerful in a physical sense of the word ‘power’. Instead, they mean that nothing can force or tempt him to be anything other than Truth, Reason, Justice, Love, etc. (Cf. http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anselm-proslogium.asp#CHAPTER VII .)
        Only since the [Lutheran] Reformation did some Christians revert to the old pagan assumption that physical omnipotence is the essential divine attribute. That assumption set them on a collision course with modern science because it implied that the search for truth and understanding is necessarily futile. It is still the basis of the two major currents of that typically modern religion which is called “Americanism” or “American exceptionalism”: the “Gott mit uns” Christian Right and Progressivism — both of which consider power (over others) a unique self-justifying “virtue”. The difference is that the “Gott mit uns” crowd inclines to Sola Scriptura whereas Progressivism inclines to scientism (making a cult of the external trappings of science). It is true that the Roman Church is often plagued with clericalism (making a cult of the external trappings of ecclesiastical office), but at least it knows that it is a plague.]

      • “Only since the [Lutheran] Reformation did some Christians revert to the old pagan assumption that physical omnipotence is the essential divine attribute. ”
        I see no logical reason to think that early Christians considered God limited in terms of physical power. Creating the heavens and earth, for instance, seems kinda powerful to me . . you know, making physical itself . . Can you show us something from the Book which would justify assuming they saw Him as constrained in any physical sense?

      • S.H.A. Prodi, thanks for the succinct and accurate explanation of the Catholic Church’s intellectual resolution of issues involving science and religion. As St. Augustine pointed out, the Book of God and the Book of Nature should be in agreement since they have the same author.
        It would be worthwhile too to note that the alleged conflict between the two is a 19th century anti-Catholic invention of Andrew Dickson White, the founding president of Cornell University, who consistently lied and took Catholic teachings out of context to create a conflict which up to then did not exist.

      • @JohnKnight (December 16, 2015 at 1:16 am)
        Of course, there is “no logical reason to think that early Christians considered God limited in terms of physical power”. As a matter of history, however, their main concern was overwhelmingly, almost exclusively with the nature of Christ and spiritual matters such as the salvation of souls. Physics was not their thing.

      • SHA Prodi,
        Sadly the hypothesis you refer to has been falsified. It is annoying that apologists for the Church I am a member of still make the argument defending the Church using your tactic that draws a distinction that makes no difference. Galileo was forced to recant his science. Period.
        Pope Francis has surrounded himself with non-Catholics and even anti-Catholics to rationalize embracing the most anti-science, anti-human movement in modern history.

      • Prodi, I think your analysis of history is ignoring one salient point: Copernicus.
        This Polish canon had none of Galileo’s political issues, and he was too dead to cause offense after his book was published (according to legend, he took ill while it was in printing and died upon receiving the first finished copy). Yet, On the Revolutions was banned because it proposed a stationary sun, which was considered directly contrary to the story of the sun standing still for Joshua. This is despite a preface putting forth that it was a mathematical construct only (an addition by the printer for this very reason).
        So, I must disagree with you on this. The story of Galileo is more complicated, but the simple truth is that the heliocentric model was clearly banned by the church as heresy.

      • S.H.A. Prodi,
        “Of course, there is “no logical reason to think that early Christians considered God limited in terms of physical power”.
        Then there’s no logical reason to think that any Christians at any point would consider God limited, based on what that Book presents, it seems to me. But you did . . ?
        The Book was not available for people to read (or hear read) up till the time in question, because the Roman Church (violently) denied them access to the words in that Book. And you know that, I assume . .
        Please explain why you assume old pagan anything was responsible for Christians conceiving of God as immensely powerful “since the reformation”, rather than the (to me) blatantly obvious potential that it was hearing the Word of God? You know, that Book the RC killed people for translating into common languages? The Book wherein Jesus says things like this, for instance;
        ~ Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. ~
        What a coincidence that Popes do that, don’t ya think?

      • hunter
        “Galileo was forced to recant his science. Period.”
        What science was he forced to recant? ( I already know )

      • benofhouston,
        You said…
        Yet, On the Revolutions was banned because it proposed a stationary sun, which was considered directly contrary to the story of the sun standing still for Joshua. This is despite a preface putting forth that it was a mathematical construct only (an addition by the printer for this very reason).
        I think you are exaggerating the scope of the preliminary publication. Also Copernicus’s later work was only briefly banned due to errors which was soon thereafter permanently Un-banned after 2 sentences were repaired.
        You also said…
        So, I must disagree with you on this. The story of Galileo is more complicated, but the simple truth is that the heliocentric model was clearly banned by the church as heresy.
        No, A portion of Copernicus book was temporarily banned due to issues raised during Galileo’s 1st trial. They were repaired. The heliocentric model was accepted and PROMOTED by the Church, long before Galileo but the Church was scapegoated by Protestant reformers during the reformation (coincident with Galileo) who had a far more literal view of scripture since they rejected the teaching authority of the Church.
        Also Galileo was NEVER convicted of Heresy. He was “suspected” of heresy at worst (2nd trial).
        When he was asked to prove his ideas 1) Stationary Sun and 2) Circular orbits of planets, he was unable to do so. (Both are also wrong but beyond prove based on his knowledge) Further, he was in violation of teaching the meaning of scripture, the property of the Church, after having agreed not to do so. The Church reserved (and still does) the authority to teach scripture to itself.
        So only 95% of your facts were in error this time. At least you have finally admitted that the Galileo story is complicated.
        I suggest you actually read the first publication of Copernicus’ work. It is oddly devoid of controversy. Also Read Bellarmine’s letters, and the trial documents.. also Galileo’s letter to the Grand Duchess.
        It used to true that one would only have to say “Galileo” to scapegoat the Church but the facts of the trials are in wide distribution nowadays.

    • I think you mean “IS” … and becoming more so all the time, although technically it’s more like a cult which claims authority through claims to science even though for the masses it’s all about belief and faith. It’s a strange world.
      The scientists involved have also lost the thread. The role of science is to counter superstition, to replace old stories with facts and logic, not to provide a rationale for new stories.

  1. used the opportunity to draw the Pope’s attention to the fact that three billion of the world’s poorest people who do not use fossil fuels to meet their energy needs will nonetheless suffer the worst consequences of climate change.
    They’d suffer a lot LESS consequences, and their lives would be incredibly enhanced if they had access to fossil fuels to meet their energy needs
    That the pontiff and his coterie of advisers cannot see this simple fact is beyond description. That the MSM cannot see this simple fact is beyond description. That the UN knows this and trundles along collecting carbon pledges that will never be fulfilled, and money that will never be anything but misspent, while the poor they all proclaim to be protecting lead short brutish lives due to lack of energy that is cheap and affordable and easily available is a crime unto itself, the scale of which no word has yet been invented to describe.

  2. ” I attended this session yesterday, and I cam away with the impression that these researcher ”
    Should be CAME ???

    • I was about to point out the same typo.
      I’ll add the word ” Anthony ” to bring it to a mods attention.
      (On this site, corrections are welcome.)

      • Just FYI: “Anthony” is no longer a “magic” word. But, “mod er-ator” (written properly) still is. 🙂

  3. Only when they can co-opt religion to their purposes do they engage with it at all. Hold their noses indeed.
    And when the church turns from their chief role as religious teachers, moving instead into politics, they will lose the only credibility that they might have had.

  4. There is not a Biblical case to be made for playing God in the way that the AGW cultists want to play God.

    • And God saith… “and I shall smite them for being insolent and lacking good table manners, and I empower you to do the same in My Name”, or something along that line. The Old Temperament wasn’t full of a Loving God miraculously sprouting banana plants in winter, when needed. It was about things like “flee, lest ye be turned into pillars of salt!” and such fun endings. One could hardly blame the Jews of Old for smiting their fellow denizens, murdering them, hauling away their womenfolk, and making way more babies which were of course Jewish by birth. Makes the modern-day sensibilities of the more backward Muslims look … positively Biblical, yes? And now The Pope enables the asparagus and shiitake fed greenies on their Jihad (sorry, couldn’t pass that low-and-slow up) to reshape all people to be in Her Name – the Green Goddess! Its a lovely theologically enabled world.
      GoatGuy

  5. Why would the researchers be holding their noses? Can it be their participation in admixing religion and science? Bringing religion to bear on a question only addressable in science? What?
    That all said, I continue to be impressed that Ramanathan, a theoretically most astute climate physicist, foments climate alarm.
    He must know that the theory cannot handle the global response of clouds or convection to the thermal effect of CO2 emissions. These are fast response channels that can very quickly restore the equilibrium state, by dumping small perturbations in thermal energy off into space.
    Is it a wood for trees problem these people have, or what? There is presently no reason to think that human GHG emissions can have any observable effect on the terrestrial climate.

    • “holding their noses”… my take is that as ‘scientists’ it has long been ‘in’ to diss religion. Yet here they are climbing down into the gutter, so to speak, to get help and to learn how to promote what is their own religion.

  6. The Roman Church in general and the Pontiff in particular want to play within the cultural meme of the moment, characterized by the French philosopher Pascal Bruchner in his book, ‘The Fanaticism of the Apocalypse’. Therein lies an illusion of temporal relevance. So, we observe another infallible ‘Galileo moment’ in the making, only this time, future institutional atonement to the billions anchored in poverty may be a trickier thing to accomplish?

  7. 100% Climategate based on deptively faux facts, lies and man made Geo-Engineered Weather Weapons. Am I surprised Pope Francis is involved? No. He’s a media prestitute. He also is a CIA Asset from the days when the U.S. “Operation Condor” killed 30,000 Argentinians, even priests, thanks to the hateful cooperation of Cdl. Jorge Bergoglio aka Pope Francis.
    Now fast forward to the Feast Day of the Immaculate Conception on December 8, 2015 and you have a stupid , hour long “light show” projected onto Saint Peter’s dome. All this was promoted by the IMF (International Monetary Fund. I’m surprised the Rainbow Flag wasn’t projected on the dome of Saint Peter’s as well.
    I’m a former farmer and rancher. I know bullshit, when I see and smell it. This Pope will “occasion the mortal sin of blood letting of Catholic Blood shed throughout the world, based on his perversion of the Catholic Faith in a garish, grandiose way. God bless this Wayward, Stupidly Anti-Catholic, Political, Media Whore Pope ~ with a REAL CONVERSION TO CATHOLISM BEFORE IT’s TOO LATE❗️

  8. 100% Climategate based on deptively faux facts, lies and man made Geo-Engineered Weather Weapons. Am I surprised Pope Francis is involved? No. He’s a media prestitute. He also is a CIA Asset from the days when the U.S. “Operation Condor” killed 30,000 Argentinians, even priests, thanks to the hateful cooperation of Cdl. Jorge Bergoglio aka Pope Francis.
    Now fast forward to the Feast Day of the Immaculate Conception on December 8, 2015 and you have a stupid , hour long “light show” projected onto Saint Peter’s dome. All this was promoted by the IMF (International Monetary Fund. I’m surprised the Rainbow Flag wasn’t projected on the dome of Saint Peter’s as well.
    I’m a former farmer. I know a con job, when I see and smell it. This Pope will “occasion the mortal sins, of blood letting of Catholic Blood, by radical Muslims, because of Pope Francis’ perversion of the Catholic Faith in a garish, grandiose way. God bless this Wayward, Stupidly Anti-Catholic, Political, Media Whore Pope ~ with a REAL CONVERSION TO CATHOLISM.

  9. Have you ever done something because it felt good then later regretted it?
    Have you ever done something that felt bad but because you thought you’d benefit somehow, like in your job or community, but you did it anyway?
    Have you ever done something that you had a sense was intrinsically good, but was insidiously bad and then regretted it?
    Finally have you ever done something that was intrinsically evil, but on the surface was generally accepted as good and only you know that it was evil?
    Sure, I have done it all. I try not to willfully do wrong, whether it is in secret, right to most people but still wrong, or because of ignorance. I now stand on the side of objective good, come what may. I work to be informed so that I make no mistakes of serious consequence.
    Here is a case where regardless of what the world religious leaders say I must do the right thing. I will relentlessly rebel against ignorance on this matter and undermine all efforts to subvert principles of good. Even if the subversion is due to evil intent, ignorance, sloth, or delusion.
    So…. nothing has changed since 2005. Environmentalism is religion. The virtue of charity is confused with state-sanctioned tax and socialism…..moving along….

    • Paul Westhaver on December 15, 2015 at 10:53 am,
      “Here is a case where regardless of what the world religious leaders say I must do the right thing. I will relentlessly rebel against ignorance on this matter and undermine all efforts to subvert principles of good. Even if the subversion is due to evil intent, ignorance, sloth, or delusion.”

      Paul Westhaver,
      When one thinks one is right, it is very crucial to think how to accomplish it in the right way.
      Crucial that it is by thought/thinking; aka reasoning; aka utilizing applied science/ pure science. Part of the key is also: not by feeling; not by believing; not by faith; not by random guessing; not because someone else did it; not because of authority telling you; not by voices in your mind; not from sacredness; not by moral license; not by proxy; not by righteousness; not because of some stories; not out of guilt; not by etc, etc, etc.
      John

      • John Whitman,
        You MUST know all the various phenomenological arguments. It seems you do. I can only know by what I have learned and what my instincts cause me to know (rooting reflex). So I will spare you a sophomoric abbreviated rendition of realism and self-awareness.
        The book of nature is written and we are all part and parcel of it. Natural law is, and through observation and experience we learn what it is and describe it through science. I presume that it is rational and intelligible. My mind, and yours is made to make sense of all of this. We think. So we try to be informed.
        CO2 is a gift. There is no life without CO2. To declare it a pollutant is against natural law, plain and simple.
        I am often wrong about what I think, I know, but I don’t think that I am wrong in thinking that human life is desirable and dependent of the carbon cycle. All religious convictions that do not welcome natural law must be in error.

      • Paul Westhaver on December 15, 2015 at 1:04 pm
        – – – – – – –
        Paul Westhaver,
        I concur in the sense that one should do what one thinks is right thing. And without qualification because in the words ‘right’ and ‘think’ is all the objective knowledge humankind possesses at this time.
        John

  10. Religions, lest we forget so easily, mostly rest on 5 principles in general.
    [1] God is the best, he made you, and you’re special to him.
    [2] If you don’t believe [1], then God will get mad and ban you from something. Luck, Afterlife, whatever.
    [3] So this religion, recognizing [1] and noting [2], will take your money regularly to remind you of this.
    [4] And we’ll stuff all our meandering thoughts in books (which used to be precious)
    [5] And regulate all natural human inclinations. Sêx, birth, death, jurisprudence, exchange rates, infidels.
    I’m pretty sure there are a few religions that aren’t so prim and proper in their vending God’s blessings after listening to our transgressions and remonstrances (Buddhism seems one; Taoism? Hindus?), but it certainly seems that the Judeo-Christian-Mohammedan religions have the corner on electing and defending the right to be Gods Smiting Hand when needed. And regulate sêx, death, taxes, exchange rates, superiority complexes, gates of Heaven and all fiction surrounding the Torments of Hêll, should you not tithe sufficiently.
    Pontiff Beauregard, sensing more religiosity amongst the asparagus-and-shiitake munching greengages, and the trend worldwide for these types to be at least middle class, if not ascending to higher, wealthier classes, is trying to reestablish that fundamental link between “good for Gaia” and “good for God”, insofar as he can. Its a profound change, to say the least: The God who once commanded his zealous Jewish horde to “go forth and multiply” and to “smite mine enemies” and so on, along with “master this Earth which I have placed here having many good things to covet, exploit and trash” … now suddenly demands new (renewed?) responsibility for the Earth?
    Wait… I know my Testaments pretty well. When did this one go down? Hast the Vatican found some new papyri upon which the missing ephemeris of the New Christ (or maybe Jeff…) was writ? Tell me it is so!!! Where can I buy or read this new Epistle? God is finally saying to one or another of the hairy guys, “don’t overfish the seas, don’t strip the lands of their trees, don’t mine the brightly colored rocks and leave cesspools behind, don’t tap the oil so fast or burn the coal so quickly that My Divine Gift’s Engine of Self-Repair isn’t up to the Job, you crazy monkeys…”
    Because isn’t that what is needed? Not just a Pope that gets all jazzed up about whatever-all the Green Goddess bunch are presently espousing, to coöpt, to commandeer, to insinuate a parallel Jesuit message within. No. I want scrolls, dammit. Flimsy chads, leftovers that the bugs and molds didn’t munch. I want to hear from an unknown Disciple, perhaps Jeff or Sandy. The Epistle of St. Sandy to the Butchers of Bologna. Don’t you?
    Come on, Pope! We have the Internet now. Spread the Good Word. Cough up the Epistle. Perhaps if the One and True (last edition) faith can renovate itself more quickly, it’ll make it to the Finish Line faster than the upstarts from Sandistan, who are doing their finest to carve off northern African countries for themselves.
    GoatGuy

    • “Religions, lest we forget so easily, mostly rest on 5 principles in general.”
      If you know as much about science as you appear to know about religions, you’re in for a bumpy ride.

    • Fixed for you Mr Goatguy.
      [1] God Gaia is the best, [s]he made you, and you’re special to him her.
      [2] If you don’t believe [1], then God Gaia will get mad even and ban cook you from something. Luck, Afterlife, whatever., starve you, drown you, dessicate you, all at the same time. Hell hath no fury like woman scorned.
      [3] So this religion, recognizing [1] and noting [2], will take your money regularly to remind you of this.
      [4] And we’ll stuff all our meandering thoughts in books (which used to be precious)
      [5] And regulate all natural human inclinations. Sêx, birth, death, jurisprudence, exchange rates, infidels Freedom, pursuit of happiness, due process, end-of-life self determination.
      Church of CAGW. Thanks be to Gaia. Amen Yo.

  11. An Ecologist’s Perspective on Pope Francis’s Encyclical Letter
    Guest Contributor: Dan Botkin
    Be that as it may, the greatest importance of the pope’s document is that it makes clear once and for all that this issue is fundamentally a religious and an ideological one, not a scientific one. As I make clear in several of my books and many of my articles, the fundamental irony of environmental science is that it is premised on mythology, on the myth of the great balance of nature, which is not scientific and not scientifically correct.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/04/an-ecologists-perspective-on-pope-franciss-encyclical-letter/

  12. “Reticent researchers” of global warming alarm
    You’ve got to be kidding me. That alone is the ultimate outrage. You can tell the Pope I said so.

  13. Never mind the fact that the last Pope who got too cozy with politicians lost half his flock to Martin Luther, who took them to Minnesota via Sweden.
    Help me out here , was it Innocuous the seventh or Incestuous the twelfth that made the Rev. Luther post his 95 theses on the Brandenburg gate?
    Merry Christmas Anthony et al at WUWT.

  14. But the Paris Climate Agreement has ended climate change for now and for all time so climate change is no longer an issue.

  15. “We will bring massive public support for urgent actions only when the impacts of climate change and its origins are taught in every church, every temple, every mosque, every synagogue, and other places of worship,” said Ramanathan.
    *
    I doubt that! Bringing BS into religious houses doesn’t make it any less BS.
    I guess they’re really feeling that lack of support. Once all the religions have bowed down to green fanaticism, is there anything left? They’ve already done all the schools and colleges. They’ve done the mass media messaging. They’ve already got the big names (some anyway) in Hollywood and on TV. They’ve been at this for 30 years or more.
    Seriously, when there’s no one left to target in order to gain “massive public support for urgent action”, what’re they gonna do? Yell louder? Oh, sorry, they’re doing that too. The End is Nigh indeed.
    It must really suck being a panic merchant, an alarmist or a fear-mongerer (pick your favorite job title for this crowd) when no one is listening anymore. There are bad times ahead for these people, but then that’s what they always wanted, right?

    • http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_copybook.htm
      I can’t tell you how many times in the past few years that “The Gods of the Copybook Headings” has come to my mind. Kipling was right on target in 1919.
      (The “copybook headings” to which the title refers were proverbs or maxims, extolling virtues such as honesty or fair dealing that were printed at the top of the pages of 19th-century British students’ special notebook pages, called copybooks. The school-children had to write them by hand repeatedly down the page.)

  16. The following ideas are almost completely absurd farcical stuff.
    farce on/
    If the current Pope is brainwashed by activists into resurrecting the Roman Inquisition and focusing it on skepticism of CAGW (modeled on the Roman Inquisition of 16th and 17th centuries), he will have help implementing it from virtually all of the participants at the COP21 meeting in Paris plus help from virtually all of the participants in the process of producing all five ARs. He will have legion upon legion of zealous Inquisitioners.
    Will a skeptic such as myself be made to abjure by the RCC, lest I be shown the instruments of torture for being fundamentally critical of the observationally flawed hypothesis of discernible significant AGW from fossil fuel?
    Or will the Protestants summarily burn me at the stake (Salem Puritan-style) for climate focused skeptical witchcraft; or will the Jews stone me to death for confession of praising the graven priority of skepticism.
    /farce off
    Oh, wait, this is the 21st century and the USA . . . . can’t happen here. Right?
    John

      • Bartleby on December 15, 2015 at 3:13 pm
        – – – – – – –
        Bartleby,
        It’s too late for me, save yourself.
        I say it’s too late for me because Miriam O’Brien, on her CAGW blog HotWopper, has ‘exposed’ me over time about some of my WUWT comments. I am sure her interest in me is strictly Platonic, but she must surely share with other activists because she is such a truly good egalitarian kind of activist.
        John

        • I understand completely John, I was outed myself about 8 years ago and had to go quiet for a while while I developed a new cover 🙂 I’ve found that if you really get under the skin of some more rabid activists they’ll take you on as a challenge.

    • John. John. JOHN! LOL — as if.
      There is a religion that is chopping off people’s heads and hands and stoning them to death — right now. And blowing away their county co-workers just about to enjoy a holiday gathering… .That — is a real threat.

      • Janice Moore on December 15, 2015 at 3:28 pm
        John. John. JOHN! LOL — as if.
        There is a religion that is chopping off people’s heads and hands and stoning them to death — right now. And blowing away their county co-workers just about to enjoy a holiday gathering… .That — is a real threat.

        – – – – – –
        Janice,
        You make my farce more plausible, that is scary.
        John

    • I submit the following completely non-farcical stuff to you-
      On September 1, 2015, 20 of the world’s leading climate scientists sent a letter to Barack Obama demanding that specific companies be investigated and prosecuted for racketeering.
      Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland (scientist) “It’s completely immoral even to question” the UN’s scientific opinion on climate.
      Dr. Donald Brown (scientist) declared that skeptics may be guilty of a “new crime against humanity”. (The penalty for crimes against humanity is death.)
      David Suzuki, (scientist) said government leaders skeptical of global warming should be “thrown into jail”.
      2006: Dave Roberts (scientist) “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards – some sort of climate Nuremberg.”
      There are many more I could list, but I think that’s enough to establish clearly that in today’s world, there are scientists who are crying out for inquisitions, prison terms, or even death. You may “farce” all you want to about being taken and tortured by “religious zealots”, but if you are indeed a rational, logical person without bias, you must also admit in all seriousness that science is being practiced by illogical, irrational people who are becoming increasingly absurd. Right now, in the 21st century, in the USA.

    • As I’ve said before, “people have done lots of things ‘in the name of God’ without first bothering to find out just what it is God want’s done.”
      Yes, it can happen here.
      PS John, God says to let you decide. If you say “no”, leave you alone.8-)

      • Gunga Din on December 15, 2015 at 4:12 pm
        – – – – – – –
        Gunga Din,
        I’ve read most stories (mythologies) about omnipotent, omnipotent supernatural beings. I see much in the stories to reasonably conclude the stories can be used to damage skepticism (the community of skeptics).
        John

      • Correction to my immediately above comment ‘John Whitman on December 15, 2015 at 7:35 pm’:
        “Gunga Din,
        I’ve read most stories (mythologies) about omnipotent, omnipotent omnipresent supernatural beings. I see much in the stories to reasonably conclude the stories can be used to damage skepticism (the community of skeptics).
        John”
        John

      • John Whitman said-
        “I’ve read most stories (mythologies) about omnipotent, omnipresent supernatural beings. I see much in the stories to reasonably conclude the stories can be used to damage skepticism (the community of skeptics).”
        In order to determine for ourselves whether or not your conclusion is indeed reasonable, you’d have to tell us how and why you concluded what you did. Any attempt to use stories about mythological, omnipotent, omnipresent supernatural beings in arguments against climate science skeptics would be illogical and irrational (and therefor impotent) from the outset. The beauty of understanding logic and reason is that it gives you the tools to easily identify and discard such arguments.

      • Aphan on December 16, 2015 at 11:48 am
        “In order to determine for ourselves whether or not your conclusion is indeed reasonable, you’d have to tell us how and why you concluded what you did. . . .”

        Aphan,
        I was referring to the manifest stories (mythologies) that say the omnipotent, omnipresent supernatural beings are just that, so humans must listen to those beings’ human mouthpieces on earth or there will be soulful consequences for the humans who don’t listen to the mouthpieces. Skeptics already have heard that the psuedo-science CAGW consensus believes the skeptic community must be shown dire consequences for being critical of the consensus. Thus you have a situation easily leading to damage to skepticism (the community of skeptics).
        I agree with you it is an illogical and irrational mental process that yields the situation leading to damage to skepticism (the community skeptics).
        John

        • John-
          “I was referring to the manifest stories (mythologies) that say the omnipotent, omnipresent supernatural beings are just that, so humans must listen to those beings’ human mouthpieces on earth or there will be soulful consequences for the humans who don’t listen to the mouthpieces.”
          “Fallacy of composition – assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole. ”
          Just because there may be some mythologies that say that, or something close to that, does not mean that ALL mythologies say that, or something close to that. I know of no serious organized religion on the planet today that says that if it’s followers do not obey every word of it’s mouthpiece, including whatever that mouthpiece says outside of the religious realm, that there will be soulful consequences. If you know of one, and can provide a link to it’s official dictates, I’m eager to learn.
          “Skeptics already have heard that the psuedo-science CAGW consensus believes the skeptic community must be shown dire consequences for being critical of the consensus. Thus you have a situation easily leading to damage to skepticism (the community of skeptics).”
          Begging the question, false dilemma, etc etc.
          So far, you haven’t established a logical argument to support your conclusion. Only irrational, illogical minds will accept an illogical or irrational assault on their intelligence, and you can’t control other people.

      • Aphan on December 17, 2015 at 5:16 pm
        “ . . . I know of no serious organized religion on the planet today that says that if it’s followers do not obey every word of it’s mouthpiece, including whatever that mouthpiece says outside of the religious realm, that there will be soulful consequences. If you know of one, and can provide a link to it’s official dictates, I’m eager to learn.”

        Aphan,
        You can self-refute your above position (that I quoted), by simply googling something like ‘major modern religious stories of hell”.
        I think ‘hell’ is a soulful consequent type of story (mythology). Don’t you? And it is just one of many types of stories (mythologies).
        John

        • “You can self-refute your above position (that I quoted), by simply googling something like ‘major modern religious stories of hell. I think ‘hell’ is a soulful consequent type of story (mythology). Don’t you? And it is just one of many types of stories (mythologies).”
          That many types of stories (mythologies) mention a “hell” or not doesn’t refute my position. My position had nothing to do with whether or not a story (mythology) contains references to a soulful consequent at all. My position is that “I know of no serious organized religion on the planet today that says that if it’s followers do not obey every word of it’s mouthpiece, including whatever that mouthpiece says outside of the religious realm, that there will be soulful consequences.
          You cannot logically extrapolate from the mere mention of hell that:
          1) all major religions today teach acceptance and belief in a literal place called hell
          2) if a major religion today teaches acceptance and belief in a literal place called hell-all of the adherents to that religion do in fact totally accept and believe in that literal place.
          3) that if a major religion today teaches acceptance and belief in a literal place called hell-that it also teaches that its adherents must obey every word that comes from the mouthpieces of that religion or be sentenced to that literal place called hell.
          Again, logic establishes that there is a difference between what an actual religion teaches as its doctrine, and what you or I might assume or interpret to be what an actual religion teaches after filtering it’s doctrine through our own biases. Logic also establishes that it’s wrong to assume that every member of any given group feels/thinks/or believes the exact same things to the exact same degree.
          Thus, you have yet to prove that it’s even POSSIBLE for an AGW thinker to put forward a logical argument addressing the actual doctrines taught by any modern church, or the beliefs of the individual adherents of any modern religion.
          And again, “If you know of one (a modern church that actually teaches/declares that it’s adherents must obey every word of it’s mouthpieces-or there will be soulful consequences) and can provide a link to it’s official dictates, I’m eager to learn.”

      • Aphan on December 18, 2015 at 12:26 pm
        – – – – – – –
        Aphan,
        You and I must fundamentally diverge. Why? We must diverge on the fundamental appeal to faith (e.g. faith that stories {myths} of omnipotent omnipresent supernatural beings are true). Science is about restriction to objective epistemological methods. Therefore, faith is not relevant to what science demarcates as within science. I disagree with your apparent view that it is somehow relevant to what science demarcates as within science. Fundamental divergence, so I will end commenting on it here on this sub-thread. But I expect there will be a future post where there is again a juxtaposition of science and religion on WUWT so this kind of dialogue will occur again.
        Re: Self-Refute – I gave my recommendation to you that by you Googling ‘major modern religious stories of hell’ then you will self-refute your position of ”no serious organized religion on the planet today” has stories (mythologies) that tell of soulful consequences when religious dogma is not obeyed. I did Google it and found that, categorically, at least three of the major modern organized religions have the myth of hell currently held and have done so consistently from a thousand to thousands of years; QED. Because of that, I think there is an increased risk to the climate focused skeptical community when the mythological dogma of major modern organized religions absorbs the CAGW pseudo-science (religious-like) dogma with its hostility toward CAGW sceptic community.
        John

      • Aphan on December 19, 2015 at 4:28 pm
        John W? Are you still out there? Did you lose interest in this thread?

        Aphan,
        A deep breath young padawan grasshopper should take. Impatient be not.
        (Using Yoda speak, because I am in the Star Wars mode due to very soon going to see the just released new Star Wars movie.)
        John

      • John,
        I completely apologize. For whatever reason, I assumed from your prior comments that you wished to establish yourself here as someone who is fundamentally well versed in the application of logic and reason, and thus I attempted to engage with you in a discussion using logic and reason. Since you have not responded with sound logic or reason to the logical and reasonable statements I have presented (and emphasized) to you repeatedly, obviously my previous assumption was wildly incorrect.
        Of course, based solely upon your inability to accurately represent even one of my positions in this very limited forum, (and therefore create sound responses to them) readers might question whether your conclusions about current world religions and/or the millions of people that belong to them were formed using the fundamental rules of logic and reason, or not.
        P.S. Stating-“Fundamental divergence, so I will end commenting on it here on this sub-thread.” and then commenting AGAIN, 12 minutes later, demonstrates that not only do you directly contradict your own statements, but I find your reference to me as a “young padawan grasshopper” in “Yoda speak” to be both offensive and ridiculous.

  17. The global warming cult reminds me of that cult in planet of the apes that worshiped the nuclear bomb

  18. The AGU session proposes the witch doctors of CAGW pseudo-science combine forces with witch doctors of a major organized religion.
    Well, epistemologically speaking, 2×0=0. N’est ce pas?
    John

    • There are, regardless of what atheists or agnostics think on the issue, many sheep who will be led astray by these blind-at-best (and they KNOW they are blind, so they are culpable), wicked at worst, shepherds.
      Effect (befuddled sheep voting for the enviroprofiteer’s AGW-promoting (thus, windmills, etc, promoting) politicians)
      = significant.

      • Yup (wry smile):
        And, sadly,

        What has been will be again,
        what has been done will be done again;
        there is nothing new under the sun.

        Ecclesiastes 1:9
        The perennial battle for truth (in science, here) goes on — AGW is a defeated foe, but, refuses to surrender to that fact, thus, Warrior Anthony and MarkW whose stand for science realism lost him his job at a major U.S. laboratory, et. al. must fight on!
        It IS worth it. The lives saved, the struggling millions lifted out of misery, are WORTH IT ALL. That there will be more sc@ms in the centuries to come is irrelevant. Freedom and life and “happiness” are worth fighting for — every time.

      • Good point — and…. yeah…. it worked out just great with Stal1n…
        {THE STAL1N CLAUSE WAS SARCASM — O Literal Reader 🙂 }

    • Janice Moore on December 15, 2015 at 2:23 pm
      – – – – – –
      Janice Moore,
      Re: your flocks and shepherds
      Witch doctoring is the world’s oldest profession. I think it is so; in spite of claims it is prostitution to the contrary notwithstanding. My basis for thinking so is looking at mythology worldwide throughout recorded history and looking even further back with studies in archeology and anthropology
      Current modern religions have extremely sophisticated witch doctors leading them. The witch doctors are supported by extremely sophisticated mythologies, with extremely sophisticated folks attending to them to help guide their extremely sophisticated flocks. In every age the witch doctors and those following them considered themselves sophisticates wrt others.
      Just On A Personal Note: If you are implying I am an atheist or agnostic or a theist, then in the theological sense, I am not an atheist or agnostic or theist or any such stereotyped person in a theology-conceptual framework. Those narrowly theology centric concepts are irrelevant in a fundamentally broader view of reality.
      John

      • Dear John,
        I’m sorry to have to be telling you this in a letter. But, … ;)…
        Seriously, I did write as if you were either an atheist or agnostic, but, I tried to make my comment aimed, really, at “Any Reader,” so I wasn’t trying to declare anything about you personally. I hear you, that you don’t want to be labeled as either of those types of believers/non-believers. Got it. I simply do not know what you are (and I am not asking you, here).
        If you do not believe that Jeshua was the Messiah who died on the cross and rose from the dead, then I DO know what you are not. And, in my belief system (a very simple one, by the way), that (belief in Jesus/Jeshua or not) determines your eternal destiny. It is the only issue that really matters (not whether you consider yourself this or that or whatever). Where is John (i.e., the part of you that can say, “I think, therefore, I am.”) going when he dies? That is the only thing that really matters, in the end.
        Please forgive my seeming to attack you, just awkwardly trying to communicate. Glad you defended what you are; John deserves that.
        Janice
        P.S. I hope that other readers can see that, but for John widely opening the door, I would not have spoken of my religion in this detail.

      • Janice Moore on December 15, 2015 at 3:41 pm
        – – – – – –
        Janice,
        Re: your apology for perceiving that I thought you attacked me. Do not feel bad, because I perceived no attack from you. I perceived what appeared to be your voluntary offering of a laid-back litany for me. It was spoken sweetly and rather indirectly as litanies often are in a rather soft biblical format and context. And it seems that in your latest comment you continue and further extend the litany.
        The reason I thought you were inferring theology based stereotypes of me was your introducing the theological based stereotypes explicitly in reference to and response to my comment. Seems you are saying you just by happenstance used the stereotypes; coincidental like.
        The study of thousands of years of witch doctors/ shamans/ medicine men/ priests/ clergy is very interesting. Prima fascia, seems no change in the fundamental basis of them into all our modern age major religions.
        John

      • John said-
        “Current modern religions have extremely sophisticated witch doctors leading them. The witch doctors are supported by extremely sophisticated mythologies, with extremely sophisticated folks attending to them to help guide their extremely sophisticated flocks. In every age the witch doctors and those following them considered themselves sophisticates wrt others.”
        In order for anyone to agree with that opinion, one would have to agree that current modern religions are led by witch doctors-in particular “sophisticated ones”.
        We don’t refer to a heart surgeon as if that is someone who hurts/damages/causes hearts to become ill, or our family doctor as if he/she hurts/damages/causes our family to become ill. By the same token, the term “witch doctor” originally meant “someone who treated ailments believed to be caused by witchcraft”. Hence…the doctor himself/herself was not a witch at all, but someone who treated sicknesses that other people believed had been brought on by witches or evil spells or some other demonic origin.
        While I can understand how you could compare a modern religious leader to a witch doctor if that religious leader was declaring that they have the ability to heal ailments, either physical or spiritual, that other people believe have been brought on by “witches” or evil spells or demons…I’m just not aware of any of the major modern religions that state that actually DO that…outside of outright “possession” by demons and it’s accompanying exorcism as a religious rite. I can think of several religions that state that it is possible for a person to experience a miraculous healing event, (the word miraculous being applied to rare and unexplained circumstances) but I honestly cannot think of any religion that has claimed the ability to “cure” all ailments.
        I also find the term “extremely sophisticated witchdoctor” to be an oxymoron from the get go.

    • Yes, the really amusing fact is that somebody hit on the idea to arrange the meeting – and that it obviously wasn’t thought of at all as an odd and non-sensical idea. How could it ever come to be of any interest at a gathering of earth scientists?

      • AndyE on December 15, 2015 at 5:45 pm
        – – – – – – –
        AndyE,
        The backstory of how the session got on the program at 2015 AGU Fall Meeting in SF would be helpful to understand the deterioration of scientific integrity at the level of societies like the AGU.
        The premises, reasoning and concepts used as a basis for what the session said is more important than what the session said. It would be a great service to restoring the trust in science if we could get that info.
        John

  19. @ YOU — any religious leaders hustling for AGW whose tenets include the book of Proverbs:
    The Lord detests lying lips… . (Proverbs 12:22)
    And if you try to claim, “But, we didn’t KNOW…,” when God asks you about this someday…
    my guess is God’s response will be:
    “But, you knew that you did — not — know, yet you spoke with confident authority. Your reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of what you said which hurt so many of my children was an abomination in my sight. Look, there, and see the millions, MILLIONS, of souls who lived in misery and abject poverty thanks — to — the l1es you told about human CO2.
    You would now blame me? You would slander me to justify yourself? (Job 40:8)
    I gave you a gift: free will.
    And you chose to l1e.
    ………. and yet……… even now…….. turn, and I will forgive.”

    • Lol, maybe… . They DO have in their AGW High Holy Bargains Galore Store: crummy holy lightbulbs; holy electric cars; holy bamboo underwear; holy laundry detergent that doesn’t work; and holy necklaces made out of recycled cardboard.

      • Have to buy the detergent (the fantasy science mongering envirostalinists made it illegal to sell it in the U.S. after ~2010). 🙁 The rest? NO WAY. Mainly, I am an anti-“green”/”sustainable” buyer — those terms or the like on a product label make me NOT buy it)

      • Aphan, why do want your cookware to collapse ?? Doesn’t that kinda mess up the oven…and what the heck are ” Snuggies “, Kleenex tissue ?

  20. CAGW is a religion and is now proposing a merger with the Catholic Church of Rome. Papal indulgences will now be exchanged on par with Carbon Dioxide Credits.

    • I’m not a Roman Catholic, so I speak with slight hesitation, here, but it appears to me that the Pope has, if not explicitly declared, strongly hinted, that to emit excessive CO2 is a venal sin. Given the large number of R.C. members worldwide, AND MILLIONS OF THEM ARE IN VERY POOR COUNTRIES, this is a potentially significant bit of mal-theology.

      • No doubt the Pope will issue a Papal bull declaring CO2 a venal sin. Question is…will be park the plane and paddle across the pond, next time he wants to visit America?

  21. Mods, you really should fix that error I told you about 6 hours ago, it makes Anthony look bad !!
    RE:
    ” I attended this session yesterday, and I cam away with the impression that these researcher ”
    Should be CAME not CAM ???

    • Lol, Marcus — good for you to keep trying to help out Anthony. Just writing to you here to remind you that it happens ALL the time (people try to help out with the grammar/style/spelling/typos) — and reponse is: _________________________. Didn’t want our wonderfully enthusiastic Marcus to feel like it might be a personal thing and wanted to affirm your caring enough to SAY SOMETHING!!! 🙂
      (remember that “50 shades of red” post of mine to Gary Pearse on the bogus litigation thread? aaaaaaaaaaaa looks like I’ll have to write that again someday— he never read it!!! And I really want to thank him, for it meant so much)

  22. {bold emphasis mine – John Whitman}
    In the lead post, Anthony Watts wrote,
    “I attended this session [American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall Meeting Union presentation ‘The Role of Religious and Scientific Leaders in Bringing Awareness to the Urgency of Climate Change’] yesterday, and I cam[e] away with the impression that these researchers are holding their noses while they are forging ahead on the issue.”

    Perhaps the researchers also came away asking each other to watch each other’s back for incoming religious acolytes who would try to evangelize their scientific work product.
    John

    • Marcus says on December 15, 2015 at 3:14 pm
      I bet they fix it for you !!…GGGRRRrrrrrrrr……………….LOL

      Marcus,
      I could use a good fixer upper kinda faithful secretary for assisting in commenting here. Please make a referral of them to me, Appreciated. But tell them not to growl, it upsets my 1 year old granddaughter and 3 year old grandson.
      John

  23. I’d say that’s about it for “climate science”. Any of you folks out there who’re real scientists need to get out while the gettin’s good because it gets pretty ugly after this.
    Try to imagine any scientist in the past actually asking the Pope to advance your hypothesis. Galileo is spinning in his grave.
    It’s tremendously sad. We’re literally on the cusp of a new dark age.

  24. There can be no truce between science and religion.
    – John B. S. Haldane
    The enemy of science is not religion. Religion comes in endless shapes and forms… The true enemy is the substitution of thought, reflection, and curiosity with dogma.
    – Frans de Waal

    • “Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.”
      The National Academy of Sciences
      http://www.nas.edu/evolution/Compatibility.html

      • Aphan appears to have the “life” I do not so, Marcus, here’s your answer: go on line and Bing “Snuggies” — it appears to be a really DUMB LOOKING ITEM that only an intellectually impaired person would find appealing (and that’s fine — not trying to put those people down, just a fact about who might even possibly use one; they have their eccentric ideas…). I’ve seen TV ads for them and COULD NOT BELIEVE they were aimed at adults!!

      • Oh, MAN! Aphan — I hadn’t seen that before. Talk about being “impaired” — WHO IN THE WORLD??????
        I am chuckling — thank you for that!

      • I am REALLY, REALLY sorry I asked !! Now my little brain has short circuited….Why oh why did I look …..

      • I think I’m turning ” 50 shades of Green ” !!! LOL
        Ok, so it’s an ugly blanket with arms…and no I don’t want one thanks….

      • Religions can and do make empirical claims right and left. Want to eliminate Christianity? Produce the body of Jesus. Paul was pretty explicit about this. Ultimately, you either believe the primary witnesses were telling the truth or they were not.

      • My comment immidiately above was a response to the NAS statement. Intervening material was not under consideration.

      • We (well, most of us…. there is someone on this thread about whom I am seriously wondering…. ) read you, Juan Slayton. NOT about snugglies, heh.
        And, right on. The empty tomb is the key. Eye witnesses — Roman soldiers up for the death penalty for letting it happen… . Book: Who Moved the Stone by Frank Morison (http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/who-moved-the-stone-frank-morison/1111630242?ean=9780310295617 ) summarizes the evidence nicely.
        And…. look as hard as they might…. they’ll never find it for…. “Christ is risen!”
        #(:))

      • Juan-
        The statement says “Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence”, it does not say religious faith does not depend on empirical evidence at all.

  25. Science is the religion of many believers of climate change. When a philosophy becomes so deeply rooted that it will not accept opposition to its position the position becomes a religious one, not a scientific one. True science invites skepticism (examination). Climate change is like a giant snow ball rolling down hill. It doesn’t matter if it can be proven wrong. Believers will cling to their faulty studies and to climate PC to make their points.

  26. The event was an unprecedented gathering of natural and social scientists, philosophers, and theologians.
    And socialists.
    Joseph Stiglitz, a member of SocialistInternational.org and a former Clinton admin economic advisor was there as was Jeffery Sachs who can be found giving speeches at the Party of European Socialists.

  27. “The Role of Religious and Scientific Leaders in Bringing Awareness to the Urgency of Climate Change,
    The title of the presentation by Ramanathan is misleading. It should have been:
    “How dogma of United Nations climate theory can be strengthened by religious and scientific leaders”
    (Dogma – is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.)

Comments are closed.