Protesters demonstrate climate alarmism is a religion

Last weekend saw the “March for climate”, and I posted a list of some of the zany and crazy protest signs. But, I wasn’t much focusing on the people themselves. One WUWT reader in Oakland, CA snapped this photo showing protesters with their signs, praying (or meditating) to ….who? what? They even had what looked like a priest. Clearly, the premise here was a religious experience.

Advertisements

200 thoughts on “Protesters demonstrate climate alarmism is a religion

  1. The freedom to be wrong is okay in a tolerant society, the freedom to harm those who question dogmatic claims of settled science is not okay especially when their functional names are fact checkers, model evaluators, and skeptics of advocacy-driven over reach.

    • At least they don’t harm anyone while meditating. I wish all alarmists (and other extremists) would limit their action to meditation… with our without priest.

      • That doesn’t look like a very big “crowd.” Worthy of attention, really? I’ve seen bigger audiences for the dude who plays bongo drums in the subway under Grand Central Station.

      • But they are not doing anything productive. They are not engaged in gainful employment, nor are they contributing anything valuable to society or to other individuals. They are merely taking up space. Haring after wills-o’-the-wisp and expecting others to pay attention–the emptiest gestures one can imagine. I find that harmful, and the opposite of this country’s history and ethos.

      • John, I feel it is far better to meditate over what is the right thing to do, than doing the wrong thing to be “productive.”

      • Some disciplines require clearing the mind of all thought in order to meditate. Obviously these folks have attained mastery of the art.

      • Interesting you should mention Dogpatch. Al Capp was particularly fond of skewering hippies. link He’d have a field day with the climate marchers.

        Capp thinks because we’re filthy and useless, we’re unsanitary and unemployable.

      • Green Gulch made me think of Galt’s Gulch.

        Then the idea of a bunch of Greens inadvertently referencing Atlas Shrugged had me giggling for 10 minutes.

        ^_^

    • Spot on, Anthony – on the photo I also note what seems like an altar, neatly covered with a suitable cloth, and decorated with small objects of a sort : icons!

    • A better question is, why are these Buddhists naively breaking their vows, not to mention the law, by bringing politics into a religious non-taxable retreat center? Trendy signs and slick mottos are not the way of real Buddhists.

      • I know nothing about Buddhist vows, but non-profit organizations, including religious ones, are not enjoined from advocating policies. With Pres. Trump’s recent EO, they are unlikely to be harmed by advocating for specific candidates for office.

  2. When Marx said “religion is the opiate of the masses”, what he intended was to replace the drug.. What he did was make fentanyl, which is way worse than the low grade opium it replaces..

    • “Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.” Karl Marx

      Opium was the most common painkiller in Marx’s day. He believed it was an illusion created to comfort the poor in their poverty, rather than anyone making the effort to elevate them out of their poverty.

      • It is obvious from that quote that Marx knew so little about religion that he is barely able to comment meaningfully on its origin, purpose, achievements or misuse. Absent any understanding of the higher nature of Man, he was reduced to passing comment on how people coped with what he felt were reasons enough to rise up and kill the oppressors, grab the material assets and divvy them up.

        Not only did Marx not understand religion, he also doesn’t seem to have understood the meaning of wealth, reducing it, as he does, to redistributable ‘things’. The fact that priestly classes rampaged through history twisting the Messages to their liking, even arrogating unto themselves the power to forgive sin, does nothing to undermine the nature, purpose and effects of True Religion.

        Fake religion such as that which worships the state or a party or a race, rides on the coattails of Truth, Wisdom and Virtue, dragging them into the muck of personal desire. Marx borrowed the list of religion’s forgotten virtues and calls their origin ‘opium’, and proceeded to replace them with cheap alcohol.

        Alcoholic distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against spiritual distress. Alcoholism is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the sobbing heart separated from its Creator.

      • [Alcoholic distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against spiritual distress. Alcoholism is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world]
        Religion is a firewall against fear. Fear is a side product of our consciousness. Getting drunk is a way to expell fear.

      • “Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

        – A Wise Muppet

      • these wise words fit in with my narrative that I was trying to convey here….

        Look into the opposite to see what will justify you to start life eternal…

        [heaven coming to earth ]

        Matthew 25.

        [hint: fear is the opposite of faith]

        I am going to bed. God bless all here.

      • I used to have a healthy distain for religion, and its attendant practices. I considered it a curiosity with no applicability to the real world.
        Then, about six months ago, I stumbled across Jordan Peterson. He is a clinical psychologist and tenured professor at the University of Toronto. Google his name to discover the context in which I discovered him.
        I have since been “religiously” watching his lectures on Youtube.
        To say the experience has been life changing, is to underplay the experience.
        Not only have I discarded all of my previous views of religion, I also feel regret that he was not around when I was twenty. I do not exaggerate when I say I would have done things differently.
        For those with an open mind, I strongly recommend you seek him out.

      • I think it’s a desire for the MSM to stop handing the few a bullhorn just because they like what they say.
        (They’ve been doing it for decades.)

  3. there is nothing wrong in being religious.
    In fact being non-religious, i.e. being an atheist or an agnostic, does not make sense.
    I explained this here:

    http://breadonthewater.co.za/2017/02/23/first-letter-to-a-prisoner-prison-ministry/

    Unfortunately, the masses have always been fed with the nonsense coming from of the “capital”
    At one stage this led to Martin Luther putting his arguments on the church in Wittenberg.\ This unleashed the powers [of money in the church] to start a campaign against the protestants (=protesters)
    Most who did not want to get burned alive for their faith, fled to the USA.

    Perhaps you see a pattern? The USA probably would not be what it is today except for those fleeing poverty and persecution……

    • Hey, Henryp, the Catholic Church burned Giordano at the stake and made Galileo live the end of his life under house arrest for saying the earth orbited the sun. The well-established relationship between occult ideation and intelligence is inverse. I’m thinking Benji is going to bite one of us.

      • Ron Long;

        Giordano Bruno was not burned at the stake by the Catholic Church. He was burned at the stake by secular authorities for causing riots everywhere he spoke. The only involvement of the Catholic Church was arranging an opportunity to recant his mysticism, to be convinced not to speak to too many people at once, and thus not be condemned to death. When I say riots, I mean attempted lynchings, and by attempted, I mean that Giordano Bruno had managed to get out of all of the previous riots he incited with his skin sufficiently intact to go somewhere else. Only his death about 200 years before the publication of “On the Origin of Species” prevents him from being given the first Darwin Award. The claim that he was persecuted for suggesting that there was life on other planets ignores the edict of the Bishop of Paris in 1277 that was never countermanded by any pope declaring ‘that it is anathema to teach that God could not create rational beings on other worlds’.

        Galileo was not persecuted for suggesting that the Earth went round the Sun, he was persecuted for declaring that there were biblical verses that proved he was right. Galileo had a flaming, technicolor ego that forced him to not refer to any observation supporting his views on heliocentrism that he could not claim sole credit for, and when he was confronted by the paucity of his supporting evidence, he just made stuff up. In his dialogue on two systems he attributes the cause of the high tide and low tide happening at noon and midnight (I forget which is which) to the orbital motion of the Earth around the Sun. He dismissed the claim that the tides had anything to do with the position of the Moon and did not know that there were two high tides and two low tides each day, let alone when they occurred. Adding to his troubles, he grossly oversold the utility of his telescopes as scientific instruments. He declared his telescopes to be the ne plus ultra of telescopes, but the resolved the distant stars as disks, so they could not be so far away as to not have observable parallax. As it happens, while the Copernican model did put the Sun in the center, none of the planets actually orbited the Sun and his model had exactly the same number of equants and epicycles as the Ptolemaic model. It was Kepler that proved that planets moved in ellipses with the Sun at one focus by painstaking efforts at fitting Tycho Brahe’s to circular orbits and then determining what curves the observations did fit when he proved to himself that they were not circles.

        Galileo was imprisoned in what would be comparable to the Playboy Mansion, if you took away all of the Playboy Bunnies.

      • I think he means Kenji, Anthony’s dog. Kenji is a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, which happily accepted his membership application.

      • Richard Bell May 6, 2017 at 12:44 pm

        Giordano Bruno was found guilty of heresy by the Roman Inquisition. Heretics were always handed over to secular authority to be burned. Among the eight, mostly theological, charges of which he was found guilty was claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and of their eternity, which was indeed contrary to Church dogma at the time. He had probably seen normally invisible stars while in England, where an early type of telescope was known.

        I don’t know to which alleged riots you refer. The French embassy in London was attacked by a mob while he was there, but that was a response to outrages against Huguenots during the wars of religion in France. He did have to keep moving because of his theological teaching, which some Protestants found as distasteful as the Catholic Church. The Venetian Inquisition turned him over the Rome.

        You are also mistaken about Galileo. The Roman Inquisition found him “vehemently suspect of heresy”, for holding the opinions that 1) the Sun lies motionless at the center of the universe, that 2) the Earth is not at its center and moves, and that 3) one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to “abjure, curse and detest” those opinions. These verdicts were indeed based upon scripture, but the fact is that he was tried and found guilty because of his scientific conclusions. It didn’t help that he put the pope’s opinions in the mouth of a character named Simplicio.

        You’re also wrong about the Copernican model. In it, Earth is indeed just another planet orbiting the Sun. The reason he needed some of the same “adjustments” of the Ptolemaic systems was because he supposed circular rather than elliptical orbits. You’re right of course that Kepler used Tycho’s observations of Mars to determine that planetary orbits are elliptical, with the Sun at one focus.

    • >>In fact being non-religious, does not make sense.

      Actually, being Agnostic or Atheist is the only regime that makes sense. If you want to assert something exists, it is beholden upon you to provide sufficient evidence. But you cannot.

      In fact, this lack of evidence is a deliberate ploy by god – to differentiate between those who will believe any old nonsese, and logical rationalists who will demand evidence first. Since god is a super-intelligent being, it will naturally prefer those who seek evidence before believing, rather than blind sycophants who will believe anything.

      And so it is the Atheists who will inherit the Earth, not the Meek.
      Atheists are god’s chosen people.

      Ralph

      • Ralph

        clearly you did not ready any of the two links providing you sufficient proof

        but I will still give you another chance to argue with me:

        quote
        You think it is reasonable to believe that everything you see around you just came by accident. Life did not come forth by creation (a plan) but by evolution. You believe in Murphy’s law (Murphy’s law = given that there is a chance that something will happen, then, if there is enough time available, eventually it will happen). You still refuse to accept that the creation of the whole universe was part of God’s plan for us to be born. Now I will ask you: never mind the question about how life came into being and how incredibly small the chance is that you are alive today. What about the next question: where does matter itself come from? Where did all the atoms that form the person that you are and the earth that you are living on and the air that you are breathing, came from? If you believe there is no God, then obviously in the beginning there must have been absolutely nothing. Good for you if you believe in the Big Bang theory. But the question still remains: where did all the matter that forms the universe, originate from? You see what the problem is? It does not make sense to believe that there is no God because it is not logical. In fact, if you believe there is no God, you are actually saying that you believe that out of absolutely nothing and guided by absolutely nobody, an incredible intelligent and intellectual person (like yourself) with a material body came into being. Now, for you to believe that such a miracle could have happened, you must actually have a much bigger faith than that of a person simply believing and admitting that there is a Higher Power, a God who created him for a specific plan and purpose!

        end quote

        I suggest you read this quote in the original context and come to me with arguable points as to why I should not believe in God…

      • Henry,

        Imagining some entity which created mass and energy explains nothing. It’s just naming something which cannot be demonstrated by evidence or reason to exist. There is every reason to assume instead that mass and energy are simply properties of spacetime, which might for all we know now have always existed. No creator required.

        Supposing an eternal, supernatural creator-being is infinitely less satisfying rationally than simply positing that spacetime, mass and energy themselves are eternal.

      • Chimp

        you are reasoning from a belief system that there is no plan to begin with.
        That is also a belief…/faith

        To calculate the chance that you actually exist is then so small that it is of the same order of one in the number of stars available in the universe, probably even less.

        Perhaps you should try to understand the whole of everything I had said. Our conscience is linked to our belief system, hence we had people like Hitler and others responsible for the holocaust [ the killing of the people of God] – since the people committing these crimes …. [you finish my sentence]

        Don’t think that there is no consequence of our [evil] deeds. There is. It is our call for justice when seeing injustice that confirms that we come from God….

      • Spacetime Harmonic Oscillator

        http://pubs.sciepub.com/ijp/4/1/4/index.html

        Energy field waves propagate in the fabric of spacetime. Interaction between spacetime field propagation and matter will generate physical photons. There are three regions of spacetime; (1) events in timelike region corresponding to the expanding universe, (2) events in lightlike region, the fabric of spacetime corresponding to spacetime with no expansion, (3) events in spacelike region corresponding to residual or evanescent universe. Universe is similar to a harmonic oscillator with two phase, right and left expansions. The equilibrium position for a two phase universe is the fabric of spacetime with surge of the stored energy in a singularity, expanding into the next phase of expansion. The evanescent universe is the spacelike event region where mass will decay. Expansion of universe and creation of matter is due to energy field propagation and superposition of energy fields in the fabric of spacetime.

      • Chimp, the scientific method can still be used at a personal level. You go through the usual steps and perhaps form a conclusion. You may be able to get proof for yourself, but it usually isn’t repeatable to the point where it would convince anyone else. At this point, use of the scientific method collapses in the larger sense. Others may try out your method and have varying results from success to total failure. A properly repeatable experiment comes up with the same result each time. Non reproduction doesn’t mean it is false, just that you can’t move it to a general audience. There are plenty of delusional people out there too, but since they vary a lot too, you can’t prove anything with them either. Thus it becomes a matter of faith, not science. As a general rule, I’m ok with people having faith in a higher power or other beliefs as long as they don’t try to beat me into submission with it, which is what the AGW crowd is trying to do.

      • henryp May 6, 2017 at 1:02 pm

        Correct behavior doesn’t require the existence of a god, whatever that might be. Nor does it require belief in such a thing.

        Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Jains, Zoroastrians, Buddhists (if that’s a religion), Shintoists, pagans, animists, agnostics and atheists have all committed atrocities. Religious and ideological belief systems of any kind make atrocities more likely, not less.

      • “henryp May 6, 2017 at 11:49 am

        ” Ralph”

        clearly you did not ready any of the two links providing you sufficient proof ”

        You did not provide any proof henryp. Unless, you count religious proof is oxymoronic.

        It requires the reader to be delusional, drank life ending Kool-Aid, or are practicing mesmers.

        “henryp May 6, 2017 at 11:49 am
        but I will still give you another chance to argue with me:”

        At this point you are actively proselytizing and should be blocked

      • henryp May 6, 2017 at 1:02 pm

        I’m not arguing from any belief. I don’t know if there is a “plan” or not. I just see no evidence of any such thing. Quite the contrary.

        Since belief in a plan for the universe cannot be confirmed or shown false, it’s not a scientific hypothesis. It’s simply a matter of faith. The gift of faith has not been granted me. It is my practice to doubt and question everything. Show me the evidence, then we can talk.

      • ralfellis @May 6, 2017 11:33 am:
        In fact, this lack of evidence is a deliberate ploy by god – to differentiate between those who will believe any old nonsense, and logical rationalists who will demand evidence first.

        Glad to see someone here gets it. Put another way; if there were a God, It would create religion, particularly the Abrahamic varieties – in lieu of simply showing Itself, in plain unambiguous sight, to everyone, everywhere, all the time – as a means for sorting out the non-sapient (i.e. without souls) meat robots. The soul being that facility which produces the thought: “Wait a minute . . . this is bulls__t.” Or, more formally: The machine does not question the purpose of its programming.

    • yes, I meant Kenji, the wonder dog. I think there are comments here by persons who struggle with cognitive dissonance and mix in non-scientific thoughts way too soon. I am an introspective scientist, and I am always examining my beliefs, especially since I wrote and published “there is no anomalous climate signal detectable against the normal (noisy) background” and received an astonishing amount of threats. Sure Giordano was a rascal, but he was burned at the stake by the Inquisition and one of the main reasons cited was his astronomy comments. If you think Galileo gave up his freedom willingly you are right because the alternative was death. The issue of Climate Skepticism is filled with anti-science pressures, and we all know friends who just find it convinient to follow along the global warming path. Think scientifically as long as you can and only retreat as far as is needed.

  4. Everybody knows that the earth was an Edenic paradise before we tasted the forbidden fruit of fossil fuels…

  5. Here Griff, Nick, seaice 1, etc. is the only proof of CAGW that is forthcoming. Nick, you are at least trained as a scientist. Take this opportunity to explain in clear logical terms convincing proof without models, which you will agree need more work to be useful in the demonstration, that most or all of the warming is caused by human activity sourced CO2. Knowing that it has warmed from the bottom of a cooling stretch in the 1970s to the end of the century is not in dispute by reasonable people and I believe it is thought by all, certainly by many on both sides, that the pace of warming has at least slowed in the new millennium thus far.

    Don’t divert to arguing against any Luddites who don’t accept that it has warmed at all or I will accept this as you having failed. I’m even happy to accept that there isn’t sufficient signal thus far for reasons you can offer, but will entertain your reasons for expecting a crises of heat in the offing. Make the explanation falsifiable and tell me what signs will falsify it. This needed by the whole proponent side. It is a fair challenge and it would put a debate on a fruitful path. I and a good percentage of the scientific sceptical community are prepared to be convinced by solid evidence. With respect, G. P

    • Gary,
      Do you really expect anyone who accepts CAGW respond to your challenge? You know how afraid of the facts the believers are, moreover; you set them up with an impossible task because the immutable laws of physics (COE, SB and the Second Law) and the data tells us that the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on temperature is less than the lower limit claimed by the IPCC and its self serving consensus fabricated around the reports it generates.

      • Fair enough co2isnot, but constantly putting it out there and getting no takers for a reasonable, necessarily formal request, that brackets the issues fairly says much. If repeatedly put out there it becomes a matter of decency to take up the challenge. They be 97% (granting them this silly figure) we be 3% but our small numbers still sway the majority of citizens and creates 97% of their problems in achieving their goal. Surely many of their own non scientifically literate believers would eventually be amazed that someone hasn’t stepped forward to smack the skeptics down. Maybe the challenge should have a prize. Maybe it should be in a full page ad in big newspapers and a subject of talk shows and ultimately a moderated series of debates.

      • How about a presentation of the theory and findings of CAGW by a blue team and a critique by a red team with independent moderators who sum up the results to give a status of knowledge on the subject. This can be followed by another blue/red work over of what, if anything should be done in the policy/economic/research sphere based on risk analysis of the findings.

        Oh and if Nick or others refrain from appearing on this thread, then we can probably count on keeping them away by presenting the challenge each time. If no one takes up the challenge, the policy response should be clear. Future funds could be based on the willingness to engage in the debate. If you have nothing to offer in debate you can be assumed to have nothing to offer in your research.

      • Gary,
        The red/blue team approach is the way to go and I hope the Trump administration makes it happen. Yes, a prize might help and if I win the lotto, I’ll put one up. It’s a sure bet (not the lotto).

    • When the “Alarmists” like Nick, Seaice and Griff explain to me what caused the Ice Ages and the Medieval Warm period, I might start taking them serious…right now, I consider them clowns of the liberal circus…

      • The illiberal circus, it seems obvious to me, Bob. Even that garb is a costume . .

    • Gary,
      If I can offer something to the debate. It’s my understanding that the only observable effect of increased atmospheric CO2 is from NASA’s analysis of their own data which showed that the planet has greened by 14% in the last 30 years.

      It conforms to the definition of a credible climate period over which to measure effects.

      It’s a fairly simple but, indisputable observation as far as I can see. And of course, 30 years ago, quite the opposite effect was predicted. Like everything else, the alarmists predictions have, and are, failing miserably.

      It should really be publicised.

  6. Straight out of Eric Hoffer and “The True Believer” on turning a cause into a religion. It looks more like Berkeley than San Francisco, though.

    • Tom, it is possible that this Buddhist group has chosen to support the Climate Change (TM) movement as a consequence of their religion – Buddhism has been around way, way longer than Climate Change (TM).

      Anthony – same comment – bashing a religious group isn’t a particularly sound way to promote our skepticism of Climate Change (TM).

      And now that our Government has relaxed the rules on religious leaders, and religious organizations, from becoming politically active, be prepared for a lot more religious groups taking up the cause of Climate Change (TM) in misguided support of stewardship of the Earth.

      • Read the signs.
        Look at their clothes.
        Look at their backpacks.

        Nothing they are wearing looks homespun or handsewn, even the black garbed religious office holder.

        Lots of modern fossil fuel fabrics and materials.

        There are white things spreads about in several spots. I’d suggest flower petals, but what petals look like that?

        The signs have absurdities masquerading for ‘wisdom’ in the lowest forms.
        “Bees collect nectar without harming flowers…”

        Nectar is bait, produced by the flower to fool gullible insects into collecting and spreading pollen and pollenia.
        Once certain flowers are fertilized, by receiving pollen/pollenia, the seed begins to grow and the flower dies. Putting the lie to their childish foolishness. Life begets life, life consumes life.

        Yellow and black banded insects tend to be wasps, not bees. Quite a few wasps take ownership of nectar sources and actively sting approaching or passing critters. I’ve been nailed several times over the years by aggressive territorial wasps. One European giant wasp, stung me right through a western hat I wore for shade and protection. I added a wide leather band where the bugger stung through the hat.

        There are yellow and black bumble bees and carpenter bees, but only a little yellow and mostly black.

        Carpenter bees tunnel into wood, deposit an egg, some stunned insects/spiders as brood food.

        Then there is “Green Gulch for climate, jobs and justice.” Just not including the “American Way”, are they.

        Plus their ‘other’ sign:
        “Solidarity transforms injustice”…

        Whatever that means…

  7. A sign on the ground says “Cultivate Compassion”.

    The leftists think they are compassionate because they chant the correct slogans and virtue signal by carrying the correct signs. Republicans, on the other hand, are literally the most generous people in the world. link Who is actually more compassionate?

    Most of the left and I parted company when I realized that they didn’t actually care about real people.

    • Claiming victimhood status (they’re victims because non-believers are “destroying their planet”, you see) ostensibly bestows moral authority and social license upon the claimants and allows pre-emptive actions to “defend” themselves.

      The can get away with this due to a credulous, stupid and desperate news media.

      • I maintain, Piper, that the “news media” is anything BUT “credulous, stupid, and desperate”.

        The center of the Democrat party is the activist media; the knuckle-dragging politicians follow their every move and win elections through mass-media propaganda that would have made the USSR and Germany envious.

  8. The satellite view appears to show a very large, dangerous-looking cloud. Looks like a smug cloud.

  9. OM : The sound of universe – Meditation is Easy

    The climate system is particularly challenging since it is known that components in the system are inherently chaotic. Understanding climate is not.

  10. Is there really a shortage of jobs in the USA? Seems like lots of want ads out there, but unqualified applicants?

    • There’s no shortage of jobs. There is a serious shortage of unqualified applicants.

      • OH, nuts! I meant ‘QUALIFIED’ applicants! Proofread! Proofread before clicking! Sorry!

      • Proofread! Proofread before clicking! Sorry!

        Sara, believe me. “I feel your pain!” 8-)

  11. Maybe in a few hundred years, Climate Change really will more formally morph into religion. Accordingly, maybe into several branches — European and American climate orthodoxies? It took almost 300 years for Christianity to evolve into the formalisms of the Catholic church. There evolved an Eastern orthodoxy centered in Greek culture, and a Western orthodoxy centered around the Roman culture. The central tenents of both were similar in origins of the early teachings and words of “prophets” and prophecies.

    The two climate orthoxy centers may emerge geographically organized. A SanFran-Boulder orthodoxy which incorporates elements of oriental mysticisms and drug-THC altered mental states. And a second, Brussels orthodoxy arising which more closely adheres to IPCC formalisms with an emerging Islamic flavor of more violent methods of silencing dissent (such as “Charlie Hebdo” solutions to blasphemy).

    Common elements of such an evolution are things like ordained priesthoods, scriptures, worship centers, and formalized tithings, centered around a dogmatic faith, were scepticism and doubt are not welcome.

    We can already see the elements of all of those in climate fanatics todays. IPCC scripture, prophesies of climate doom, demons in the various forms of the carbon molecule (makes sense because we are carbon-based life forms), and calls for atonement of sins, and the creation of a Mannian climate priesthood that demands not to be questioned.

    From origins of the Climate orthodoxy, we took a bite of the fossil fuel apple several hundred years ago (and it tasted Good!) and have since been kicked out of the Garden of Eden, even though human life before 1800’s was typically short, brutish, and hard scrabble. The climate religion will take humanity back to that if allowed, while men and women of strong moral character sit silently by and do nothing.

    • Saint Michael Mann to replace Moses and Archangel Michael?

      Could happen. But IMO when the Climate God fails as did the Communist God, another alternative belief will emerge for unbelievers in the already existing spiritual religions.

      • The meaning of saint would have to significantly transform in meaning.
        e.g. saint Ahriman, satanic saintness, large and whiny saints, saint elitist…

    • “men and women of strong moral character sit silently by and do nothing” is an oxymoron, just as Edmund Burke’s quote “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Good men/women would actually do something rather then sit it out while something evil happens.

  12. I wondered how long it would be before the REAL aspect of it raised its head.

    If only these poor souls could spend some quality time in some of the truly vast, empty landscapes in this country, or in Mongolia, or in Canada, or any one of a hundred vast, open uninhabited places! What would their response be if they were dumped off with a box of crackers and a canteen of water in our local forest preserves? Would they have panic attacks if they couldn’t find their way to a Patagonia clothing shop or a Panera cafe?

    Are there going to be nuns and monseigneurs in this New Religion, too? Abstaining from bad practices such as untrammeled sex and leaving trash behind seem like a good idea to me.

    I think I’ll stick with Reformed Druidiism. Earth can take quite good care of herself. If Mother Earth decides it’s time for us to go, we’re toast, so we might as well live it up, right?

    • I would rather dump them all off on the high Eastern Antarctic ice sheet surrounded by 1000 km in every direction of more ice.

      • What DO you have against Antarctica, Joe?

        Look, they trash every place they go to. They don’t pick up after themselves. They wear clothing made from the very thing they despise the most, petroleum. They contribute nothing but hot air, loud noises and trash to the planet, but if you point that out to them, they get angry with you because THEY CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

        So why would you dump them on what is essentially a pristine wilderness like Antarctica?

    • “If only these poor souls could spend some quality time in some of the truly vast, empty landscapes in this country, or in Mongolia, or in Canada, or any one of a hundred vast, open uninhabited places”

      I think Siberia would be a very good fit for most of these lost souls…permanently! Lots of peace and quiet there.

      • Siberian does have some deep, wide holes that are the result of methane sublimation and explosion. They could move there. Unfortunately, they might annoy the local indigenous Siberians and Yakutians and the caribou. Always respect the caribou.

      • Ron. I think the most productive thing we could do is give them a free 6 month visit to Venezuela with the promise of a very large stipend upon their return. Then a 6 month stay in Texas, Utah, Idaho, WY or other red states to write a comparative thesis on the benefits of Socialism/Communism vs a Representative Republic and their role in defending the Republic vs starving is a Communist/Socialist country. Those that recognized the goodness of a representative republic and the evil of Socialism/Communism could return to their previous homes. And those who still loved Socialism/ Communism would get twice the stipend and free travel back to Venezuela for a year, and keep repeating the cycle.

  13. Notice the complete lack of discussion amongst the climate alarmists. In the card game of reality, they are holding far too weak a hand to enable them to believe with such conviction. We know they are not scientistically inclined,and as a religion, per usual, there is nothing to discuss, as the Truth has been made known to us by Apostles Al and Bill, and Michael and assorted other seers, and Hollywood film scripture. Praise the Apostles and pass the contribution plates. Uncle Al is making do with a measly hundred $million his preachings have generated.

  14. I find the word combination “Protestors Demonstrate …” to be confusing since “demonstrating” is a synonym for “protesting”. May I suggest “Protestors Show …”?

  15. Edited to make a point —

    When people ask why people would join such a church, how they could be so blind, one need not look any further than {Al Gore}. He is the first reason the church succeeded as well as it did. {Gore} knew how to appeal to the right demographics. Some would say he knew how to appeal to all demographics, as he was well liked outside of his {core group} by political officials in some of California’s highest rankings.

    He was in some senses more of an advertiser than a preacher. He advertised his ideas in such an honest, thoughtful, and exciting manner that one could not help but believe him and in what he was saying.

    The bottom line is that the members of {the Climate Justice cult} adored {Gore}. They regularly called him “{savior}” and respected his absolute authority. Without his power and control over them, the final suicides would not have occurred, nor would have the move to Jonestown. When life is hard, the weak will grasp at anything to find hope, which is what many believed they had found –Jim Jones.

    (Source: http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=33190 )

    Sad.

    Open hands, fingers forming empty circles….

    Hearts full of love, minds empty of facts, it is such a vacuum which a cult leader so easily fills.

    And, as henry pointed out, these groups often take bona fide religious doctrine, doctrine based on history (See, e.g., Josephus) and rational thinking (See, e.g., Blaise Pascal)
    and twist it to suit their purposes:

    On the surface, the basic doctrine of Peoples Temple seem{ed} to fit most mainstream Christian denominations. …. however, it was everything but this. Peoples Temple’s basic doctrine was fairly simple: it was “not really a church, but a socialist organization” …

    (Ibid.)

    And those poor people often never find out what (who, actually….) they are really dealing with ….

    **********************************
    PERSONAL:

    For anyone in or seriously in danger of joining such a group:

    Look to Jesus. He is the Way to Truth.

    The Tao ends with: This is the Tao. I do not know if anyone has ever kept it.

    Set that book aside and open the Bible to the book of Romans. There, you will find out that you don’t NEED to keep it! All has been taken care of FOR you! :)

    ….I have the desire to do what is good,
    but I cannot carry it out.
    For what I do is not the good I want to do;
    no, the evil I do not want to do — this I keep on doing. ….

    So I find this law at work: When I want to do good,
    evil is right there with me. …. I see another law
    at work in the members of my body,
    waging war against the law of my mind ….

    Who will rescue me from this body of death?
    Thanks be to God — through Jesus Christ … .

    Romans 7:18-25

    Rejoice!

    I am praying for you.

    Janice

    • Doesn’t have to be Jesus, Janice. It can be any deity, including Mother Earth.

      The problem is the emptiness, the gap that exists because of a lack of a spiritual upbringing of any kind. There is a need in every human being to have a connection to the Divine Unknown, whether it’s Jesus, Einstein, or a full-bodied vaporous apparition in a grove of oaks. And epiphany is the moment of mental connection to the Divine Unknown, that ‘I was blind but now I see’ moment.

      Try reading Greg Matloff’s ‘Starlight, Starbright’. He’s a physicist. He explores all angles of odd phenomenon as part of the process of understanding the physical world.

      • Apparently, you cannot read, henryp. You are dismissing Buddhism, Tao, and Zoroastrianism, all three being valid religions, all three offering peace of mind and the end to the emptiness, the gap that exists because of a lack of a spiritual upbringing of any kind. There is a need in every human being to have a connection to the Divine Unknown, AS I SAID ABOVE. There are others which also offer the peace of mind these empty-headed protesters seek and none of them have anything to do with Jesus.

        It’s unfortunate that your point of view is as narrow as that of thee protesters.

      • Sara

        clearly you are ignoring my question?
        Which person / God said that He would go and prepare a place for us [on the other side/ heaven/beyond etc] ?

      • A) – Jesus is NOT God. He was the Son of God, birthed by a human woman, and he made NO such claims as those you’ve posted..
        B) – Jesus did NOT found any church. His cult of followers did that, 200 years AFTER he was dead. The Christian faith was a cult and was persecuted by the Roman government. You are historically and ontologically incorrect.
        C) – Your personal view of things is not the only one that is acceptable, whether you like it or not.

      • Sara,

        Correct. There’s no reason to think that the itinerant, rural, Galilean Essene preacher Joshua, son of Joseph, meant that the chief tribal god Yahweh was literally his father in any sense.

      • And one more thing, which I left out intentionally: Jesus was a Hebrew/Jew. His mother was a Jewish woman. In Judaism the heredity comes through the matriarchal line. Jesus was raised in what would now be termed an orthodox Jewish home. He is recorded as having left his home when he reached adulthood (at that time it was quite early in life) and is thought to have spent many years with a colony of Essenes.

      • Sara,

        Yes. Joshua, son of Joseph, preached an Essene message. He didn’t want to start a new religion, but to purify Judaism. He took up where his cousin John left off.

        The second most favorite book of the Essenes, based upon the Dead Sea scrolls, was Enoch, which didn’t make it into the Masoretic canon. Enoch went directly to Heaven, like Jesus, so the rabbis who assembled the Masoretic text in the AD 7th to 11th centuries chose to leave it out. The book also makes embarrassingly clear that biblical cosmology is ancient Near Eastern, bearing no resemblance to the then reigning Ptolemaic universe, let alone later modern astronomy and cosmology. The only Christian denomination to adopt the whole of Enoch was Ethiopian Orthodoxy, but some of its passages are found in NT books.

        The Masoretic text is the basis for Protestant translations of the OT, which is why they differ so notably from the Orthodox Christian OT, which is the “Apostles’ Bible”, ie the Septuagint, the Greek translation of scripture as it was known in Jesus’ time. When Paul writes of “scripture”, he’s referring to the Septuagint.

      • Sara,

        “A) – Jesus is NOT God. He was the Son of God, birthed by a human woman, and he made NO such claims as those you’ve posted”

        I say he most certainly did, though one not familiar with the texts and beliefs of the Israelite people might not recognize Him doing so . . They did, and sentenced Him to death for it, I am quite sure;

        And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?

        But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

        Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

        Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

        What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

        He was not sentenced to death for claiming he was the Christ, which they would have no reason to do, given the many miracles they saw him perform first hand . . It was for the “sitting on the right hand of power, part, I’m rather sure. That meant wielding the very power of God, to them . . and that can only mean he was claiming to be God.

      • John,

        As you must know, the four gospels disagree on the details of the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus. They do agree that he was silent or evasive as to various charges. It appears that he wanted to be convicted, in order to be executed, but also didn’t want to lie.

        He never directly claims to be the Son of God, but does speak of himself as the “Son of Man”, if that particular account is to be believed. When asked directly if he’s the Messiah or Son of God, he’s evasive, answering questions with questions or saying, in effect, “if you say so”.

        Mark and John are the more reliable accounts, especially the later, which might well be eye witness. John was probably an actual disciple. Mark is probably the first to be written, but is clearly a story based upon Greek models. Matthew brings in a lot stuff intended to bolster the narrative of divinity. Luke of course is reporting only hearsay, since he wasn’t there.

      • John,

        I’m just stating the facts as to what the gospels say.

        That Matthew brings in some clearly bogus stuff is a fact. The most likely explanation for that is to help the new cult compete with other popular first century cults. That the gospels disagree with each other on important issues is also a fact.

        Dunno if our host would tolerate my educating you on NT scholarship or not, but I’d be happy to do so, if allowed.

      • John,

        For instance, you left out the preceding verses to your quotation, which don’t support your contention. So you must know that you’re prevaricating. That is, again telling falsehoods against God.

    • Some people seek honesty, truth, and knowledge.

      Others seek happiness, which is a fleeting human mental state and often relies on faith in the “human spirit” (WTF that is, I don’t know).

      The two types of people do not mix well.

      • No faith required for the scientific method. An hypothesis is either confirmed or shown false by comparison with the natural, physical world, ie objective reality.

      • I’ve always thought it better to have Confidence in the Scientific Method. It has proved itself reliable within the limits of human ability to use it. No faith needed, though I don’t particularly object to using the word faith as a common shorthand for confidence.
        IMO

    • Faith is necessary to know the most important things. Science limits itself to knowing only material “things,” which are of less importance than spiritual, non-material “things” (truths).

      • Science and religion are two ways to find the same thing: truth. The Truth. Did not Jesus refer to that in his talk to Pilate?

        Read the scripture and become wise. Wise men still seek Him. Mostly when they go on their way they find a King and find an innocent child…

      • “Science and religion are two ways to find the same thing: truth. The Truth.”

        Yes, that’s what everyone is looking for.

      • According to my reading of the Bible, Henry, it was Pilate who asked Jesus that question and Jesus declined to answer it.

        Or, then again, perhaps He did answer it, albeit not in words but with His living presence. After all, Pilate must have been very blocked, cognitively speaking, not to see the reality that was present before him and right under his nose.

    • This I know without need of faith;

      At least one self aware conscious entity exists.

      All else requires faith in some form for me to “know”.

      • It is not possible for you to know any such thing.

        You can believe it, but believing isn’t knowing.

      • “It is not possible for you to know any such thing.”

        What ‘it’ are saying it’s not possible for me to know, Chimp? . .

      • Isn’t it obvious?

        You claim to know that at least one self aware conscious entity exists.

        I’m not sure how a discussion of epistemology is warranted here.

      • “You claim to know that at least one self aware conscious entity exists.”

        Do you doubt your own existence, Chimp? . . This is difficult to believe . .

      • John,

        No, I don’t doubt that I perceive myself, but I try to avoid saying what I know or don’t know.

        Science has taught me that. I try to be precise. I have reason to be confident in my physical existence, but can’t be sure what that really means, in terms of knowledge.

        Science requires being skeptical about everything, by which I mean everything. Even when all available evidence supports a certain conclusion, there is always room for doubt about the details.

      • “No, I don’t doubt that I perceive myself … ”

        End of little debate, you just acknowledged that you know without need of faith that at least one self awarfe conscience entity exists . .

        “… but I try to avoid saying what I know or don’t know.”

        Who care what you try to avoid saying? You just acknowledged that you don’t doubt that you perceive yourself (“self aware”).

        “Science has taught me that. I try to be precise.”

        Oh . . and blah blah to you too . .

        “Science requires being skeptical about everything, by which I mean everything.”

        This is not science . . You really need to check the dictionary more . .

      • John,

        The philosophy of science isn’t in the dictionary.

        The definition of “know” is, but isn’t relevant. You can “know” a person by being able to recognize him or her through perception. But in the strict scientific sense, nothing is “known”. Observation requires perception, but doesn’t necessarily amount to knowledge of causes. Objective reality might simply be an illusion.

        Science restricts itself to testing hypotheses. It can’t say anything about ultimate reality. Probably all there is is the physical world, that about which science can say things and reach tentative conclusions.

        That’s why I said we’re getting too far afield into epistemology. You think you know that you exist, but the possibility exists that that’s an illusion.

      • Chimp . . I need a reality check here . . after attempting to reason with you several times of late, I am unable to feel confident that I am dealing with a . . consistent person.

        For example, You wrote;

        “No, I don’t doubt that I perceive myself, but I try to avoid saying what I know or don’t know.”

        Yet, this is right after telling me;

        “It is not possible for you to know any such thing.”

        Were you effectively saying you know it is not possible I could know such a thing there? . . or, just sorta floating a trial balloon . . expressing a potential, or?

        See, to me, a flat statement of fact, is a declaration that one knows that something . . and you do that a lot, it seems to me . . so, you subsequently saying that stuff about trying to avoid saying what you know or don’t know, seems . . well, dishonest, frankly. Like it really doesn’t matter what you said or meant at one moment, in terms of what you might say or mean later.

        Can you see the problem with accepting that line about you trying not to say what you know, given that I (and I think most everyone) sees your many flat statements of fact as you effectively saying things you feel like you know? I could site other examples that cause me to doubt your consistency, but can you see how I might get tired of trying to reason with a person who . . can see them-self in two rather different ways in the same interaction?

      • John,

        You appear incapable of reasoning. Otherwise you would not imagine that the global biblical flood actually happened.

        If the distinction between perception and ultimate knowledge escapes you, then there really is no point in discussing epistemology with you.

      • “You think you know that you exist, but the possibility exists that that’s an illusion.”

        No, there is no such possibility, logically speaking. Some “self” would have to be experiencing an illusion, for it to be an illusion at all . . and that “self” would be have to be aware of the illusion (self aware), and that would be “me”, by definition, lightweight ; )

      • John, solipsism dates back as far at least as Bishop Berkeley, and is irrefutable. Never took any classes in philosophy?

      • John,

        Having failed to teach you elementary science, it’s no surprise that I now have failed to teach you basic epistemology.

        Surprising that someone who always cries “circular logic” can’t spot it immediately in his own assertions. Or maybe not.

        Again, please try to consider the difference between perceiving something and knowing it.

      • Chimp, your not saying anything . .

        “Again, please try to consider the difference between perceiving something and knowing it.”

        I did, that’s why I wrote the original comment . . You say you have no doubt about your own existence, and that’s what i expressed as the truly knowable thing . . I have no idea how you could declare it impossible to know at least one self aware consciousness exists, while telling me you know (have no doubt that) you exist . . it’s loony tunes time to me.

    • Not bad.

      Faith is a way of proceeding in the face of total existential uncertainty.

      It is not the only way of course, but its a simple fix for simple people.

      Faith is therefore functionally effective, and orthogonal to any truth,

      If God were demonstrably True,or False,Faith would be unneccessary,

      Ideas of God are of course all anthropogenic: extrapolations of the human world view onto the infinite mystery that us – ‘whatever is the case’.

      Atheists and the religious are equally deluded: both miss the point, which is that both consider that their tools of judgement – the categorization of their experience into space, time, causality – are essential properties of the entire universe, and eternal truths, rather than simply a way to reduce experience into a comprehensible sequence of connected memories that form their life stories.

      Where its really at is far far weirder than either atheists or the religious have managed to conceive. In fact its inconceivable. The sophisticated student of philosophy mysticism and so on arrives at that understanding which breeds true humility: arrogance is left with those whose faith convinces them that they have found the Truth, rather than a single incomplete way of establishing a relationship between Self and Other.

      The devout are like climate scientists: both are bedazzled by the perceived truth of the models they use to judge the world. Both have failed to understand that the map is not the territory: whatever the world is, it is always more, and may be of an entirely different order, to what they think it is.

      The real irony is the modern fashionable Buddhist – a discipline that teaches people how to NOT think about what the world is, and thereby release them from their involvement with human models including Faith – treat it as simply another Faith, and interpret the modesty of uncertainty as the moral code of certainty, simply replacing one Faith with another…

      • Leo,

        “Faith is a way of proceeding in the face of total existential uncertainty.”

        It’s way of proceeding in the face of any uncertainty at all . .

        “It is not the only way of course, but its a simple fix for simple people”

        Sir, when you drive through an intersection on the green light, that’s you proceeding by faith . . You can’t be certain no one will violate their red light . . and if you really want to , you can insult yourself for doing it, but it gets ya home . .

        “If God were demonstrably True,or False,Faith would be unneccessary,”

        Um, which God? . . In the Book, there are stories about people who literally saw God demonstrate His existence, but, it turn’s out that’s not the only aspect (existence) one can be uncertain about . . (and you still might want to get home eventually ; )

        “Atheists and the religious are equally deluded: both miss the point, which is that both consider that their tools of judgement – the categorization of their experience into space, time, causality – are essential properties of the entire universe, and eternal truths

        Not if that God fella you just alluded to exists. (I mean the universe Creating one ; )

        You’re farting around with imagined up things, not Him. You’re basically ascribing to “the time space continuum” supremacy/primacy over the Entity that made it . . IF that God exists.

        You can play with little toy gods all you want, in your imagination, while talkin’ about humility, but I suggest you seek the real deal, in reality-land . . on your knees . .

      • “Atheists and the religious are equally deluded…”

        “The sophisticated student of philosophy mysticism and so on arrives at that understanding which breeds true humility”

        You think we mere mortals are under some obligation to take that kind of hypocritical crap from you in silence, sir? Get real, I advise . .

      • Please consider;

        “The devout are like climate scientists: both are bedazzled by the perceived truth of the models they use to judge the world. Both have failed to understand that the map is not the territory: whatever the world is, it is always more, and may be of an entirely different order, to what they think it is.”

        Of course the map is not the territory, Leo, but why don’t you apply this concept, and refrain from assuming the “devout” are actually deluded/bedazzled, based on the mere “map” of them you can generate in your mind? Why are you behaving as though your maps of them couldn’t also be of an entirely different order, to what you think they are?

        If God does exist, for instance, then there might very well be millions of people on Earth right now, who have actually been informed of His existence by Him . . Right? But you, thinking those little images in your head are the “territory”, so to speak, just defamed and insulted them for no good reason.

        True humility? Or presumptive hypocrisy? Live it, sir, don’t just preach it, I suggest. And just in case your “maps” of this joint are in error, as you ostensibly realize they might be, tear yourself away from that sophisticated mystery philosophy long enough to ask (humbly) for some Help with those maps, I goad, ’cause I did once upon a time, and to my utter amazement I got a very clear response . .

      • I recall reading where Gautama Buddha, in his youth, at one of the major turning points in his life, said, “All is Sorrow”. I think he was thinking about the world, and trying to understand it, at that time, and not rejecting it.

        I must say I was a little deflated when I first read Gautama Buddha’s statement. It didn’t seem to bode well for the future. :) But, I’ve come to believe that all is not sorry, there is a lot of pleasure and good in life, and it may all end in sorry, if death is final and there is nothing good to come afterwards, but then we don’t know that, do we. So I’ll look on the bright side.

        I can’t help thinking that we don’t know everything there is to know about existence. I think there are a lof of unanwered questions.

        For example: How is this possible? A child of about five years of age, who was born 50 years after World War II was ended, somehow knows the names of the pilots of an American aircraft carrier that fought in the Pacific during World War II, and he even gave the investigators the name of a ship which they could not identify at first; couldn’t find a record of it, but then through diligent research found that there really was a ship in that area by that name. There is no possible way this child could have known the names of these people or ships. So how did he know?

        There is a university in the Southeast U.S., (sorry, can’t remember its name) that has dedicated a wing to a study of people like this, mostly children, who seem to have knowledge of things happening in the world that took place before they were born. I believe they have something like 1,200 documented cases of these kinds of things.

        That’s not to say one should draw conclusions from such things, but this has to make one think. If you don’t have an answer to this, then you don’t have all the answers.

      • TA,

        Sorry, but your story of the five year-old is complete, total and utter bollocks, to use the Anglo-Saxon technical term.

        The USN doesn’t need to use reincarnated kids for historical research. We have records galore of air crew and ship’s company for WWII aircraft carriers. My brother is the world’s leading naval aviation historian. Neither he nor CHINFO has ever had to resort to the supernatural in researching WWII history.

        I’m standing by for you to provide me a reputable source for your fable.

      • Chimp wrote: “Sorry, but your story of the five year-old is complete, total and utter bollocks, to use the Anglo-Saxon technical term. . .

        I’m standing by for you to provide me a reputable source for your fable.”

        I saw a feature on this boy about a year ago (he was about five at the time the program was filmed) on the Science channel, or NatGEO, so that’s where I got my initial information, but here’s a reference from the internet for you. I think you will have to agree that I didn’t just make this up.

        http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Books/page?id=7760166

        “The following description of “Soul Survivor” was provided to ABC News by the publisher, Hachette Book Group.

        “Soul Survivor: The Reincarnation of a World War II Fighter Pilot” is the story of James Leininger, who — a little more than two weeks after his second birthday — began having blood-curdling nightmares that just would not stop. When James began screaming out recurring phrases like, “Plane on fire! Little man can’t get out!” the Leiningers finally admitted that they truly had to take notice.

        When details of planes and war tragedies no two-year-old boy could know continued — even in stark daylight — Bruce and Andrea Leininger began to realize that this was an incredible situation. “Soul Survivor” is the story of how the Leiningers pieced together what their son was communicating and eventually discovered that he was reliving the past life of World War II fighter pilot James Huston. As Bruce Leininger struggled to understand what was happening to his son, he also uncovered details of James Huston’s life — and death — as a pilot that will fascinate military buffs everywhere.

        In “Soul Survivor,” we are taken for a gripping ride as the Leiningers’ belief system is shaken to the core, and both of these families come to know a little boy who, against all odds and even in the face of true skeptics, harbors the soul of this man who died long ago.”

        end excerpt

        I would like to hear a good explanation for that. And, like I said, there is a university in the U.S. that studies these things and they have 1,200 documented cases along the lines of the boy in the piece above. They say that most of the people they study are children, and they speculate that the reason for this is because children are closer to their past life and remember more of it. That’s their theory anyway.

        I’m not advocating either way, I don’t know, I’m just saying there are questions that need answering.

      • Readers ought to note, I feel, the way some speak with absolute certainty, about “negatives”, which they cannot possibly be absolutely certain of;

        “Chimp wrote: “Sorry, but your story of the five year-old is complete, total and utter bollocks, to use the Anglo-Saxon technical term. . .”

        He can’t know that, unless he’s some sort of God himself, obviously, yet he speaks as though he somehow does know it with absolute certainty . . Another glaring example of this “I am an all-knowing God, and I say so!” bravado can be seen up above, when Sara emphatically declares; “Jesus is NOT God”. A (to me) childishly ridiculous claim to know that negative, of a sort one would essentially have to be (a) God to know with such certainty.

        Dismiss all such people as self-worshiping imagination believers, I suggest. There’s no other rational explanation, I can think of, for how they got so certain.

      • TA,

        That’s the alleged case I thought you had in mind, but didn’t know if there were others.

        It’s clear that the parents found Huston to be a likely candidate for the supposed memories of a previous life. The boy himself has no recollection of the alleged incidents.

        It’s bogus.

      • TA,

        “I would like to hear a good explanation for that.”

        Well, the Book, I believe is an actual Communication from God, provides an explanation for such things . . Now, I can’t be sure of course, but I see what might be a clue in the exclamation related in your comment
        “When James began screaming out recurring phrases like, “Plane on fire! Little man can’t get out!”. Little man? That doesn’t sound like the reincarnated pilot. or the boy, speaking to me . . Consider ‘Mark 5’, for example;

        And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes.

        And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit,

        Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains:

        Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him.

        And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones.

        But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,

        And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.

        For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit.

        And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.

        And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country.

        Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding.

        And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.

        And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea.

        And they that fed the swine fled, and told it in the city, and in the country. And they went out to see what it was that was done.

        And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid.

        And they that saw it told them how it befell to him that was possessed with the devil, and also concerning the swine.

        And they began to pray him to depart out of their coasts.

      • “That’s the alleged case I thought you had in mind, but didn’t know if there were others.”

        Yes, 1,200 other cases, so they say. I would like to be able to dig into the details of all of them. That would be interesting reading. I’m going to have to try to figure out which university is doing these studies.

  16. Amen Janice, but also:

    Speaking to a woman accused of adultry, Christ said “. . .go and sin no more. . . I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.” (John 8:11-12; NKJV.)

    The Church did not come from the Bible; the Bible comes from the Church. Christ founded the Church. There is only one true Church. There are many false churches. Look for the true Church and follow it when you find it. (Pray for enlightenment from the Holy Spirit.)

    This is not a matter of science or reason, but of Faith.

    • In Protestant theology, the believer is justified by faith alone (Paul’s Letter to the Romans). Hence, God must remain hidden for faith to have any value. If God can be shown by reason and evidence to exist, then there is no scope for faith.

      Thus, it is blasphemous to imagine that myths in the Bible, allegedly the Word of God, reflect the actual history of the universe, since they are so totally at odds with objective reality, ie the Work of God.

      • Real Faith in God should allow us to change our behavior. It is a challenge, as Janice’s quote from St. Paul indicates, but with God, all things are possible.

        Apparent contradictions between scripture and science are due to a misunderstanding of one or both and re-evaluation is necessary as there should be no contradiction between the word of God and his creation. Individual interpretation is not the answer. (Individual interpretation of the Bible is the reason there are so many Christian sects.) Only the true Church can correctly interpret the Church’s Bible.

      • There is no one true church.

        The Bible conflicts irreconcilably with reality and with itself on almost every page of the relevant passages. No amount of interpretation can possibly bring the Word into alignment with the Work of creation. Nor should a believer expect it to. The whole point is to believe in the irrationally absurd, otherwise faith has no value.

        But it is a lot easier to read evolution into the OT than it is to twist modern astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, hydrology or meteorology out of its text.

      • Just for Chimp:
        (I can see we need to drop the religion topic, but, I need to clarify, here, the unintentional misstating of my Protestant views):

        1. The existence of the garden is evidence for the existence of a gardener.

        2. It requires very little faith to believe in a creator-God. Most people do.

        3. Faith comes in, for Messianic Jews and Christians, with Jesus: some people will believe in Him as Lord and Savior, others do not have the faith to do that. There is MUCH scope for faith there.

        4. Characterizing as “myths” the historical accounts of a book whose precisely fulfilled (sometimes, to the very day) predictions (as verified by archaeology and non-Biblical historical records) have proven it is a highly reliable document is to simply state a belief.

        Yes, Paul writes in his letter to the Romans that we are justified by faith alone. And he also wrote this:

        …. what may be known about God is plain to them,
        because God has made it plain to them.

        For since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities —
        — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen,
        being understood from what has been made,
        so that people are without excuse.

        Romans 1:19, 20

        Given the evidence,

        it takes far more faith to believe that God does not exist.

        Still praying for you! :)

        Janice

        ****************

        P.S. Dear Chimp,

        Please don’t take my not responding from here on as disrespect or disinterest — I just think it’s time for me to drop it (for now, heh :) ).

      • Aaaa — sorry — I just read your 1:45pm comment, Chimp — and thus, must add:

        nothing in the Bible (if read correctly, e.g. not taking passages meant to be metaphorical about the Sun, for instance, literally) contradicts the principles of the sciences. Unless there is a miracle involved (a rare occurrence). And miracles are, indeed, a matter of faith based on evidence (a Gardener who could create such a garden could, logically, do anything the Bible reports).

        And, now, I will just not read anymore — if I don’t know what you wrote, I won’t know I need to address it!

        Janice

        #(:))

      • Janice,

        It takes no faith whatsoever to be agnostic as to the existence of something like a god. It takes only a need for evidence to state further that there is no need to imagine such a thing.

        As I’ve said before, after about 800 BC, the OT does become more or less historical, but of course with spin. Before that time, however, it is legend and before that myth. I don’t know which prophecies of which you speak, since you didn’t bother to name them, perhaps knowing that I could easily show your claims false.

        The passages about the sun are no more metaphorical than all the other passages so preposterously at odds with reality.

        In the Genesis 1 myth, the uncreated waters and the created night and day, morning and evening (Day One), the solid dome of heaven (Day Two), earth, its seas and plants (Day Three) all exist before the sun and moon (Day Four). How could that possibly be interpreted metaphorically?

        Joshua 10:12-13: “On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: ‘O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon’. So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.” For what exactly is this passage a metaphor? Clearly, its author considered the sun and moon both to move over the earth in the same way.

        Psalm 19:6: “(The sun) rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat.” How is this a metaphor? It describes what the author imagines actually happens. Today we say that the sun “rises”, although we know it doesn’t really do so. But the ancient Near Easterners didn’t know that earth goes around the sun.

        Psalm 19:15: “(The sun) is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.” Obviously, it is the sun who moves, and not the earth.

        Ecclesiastes 1:5: “The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.” Again, plainly it’s not a metaphor. Otherwise how to explain the sun hurrying back to the point from where he must once again arise.

        There are also lots of passages in which the Bible makes a big deal about the immobility of the earth. Those aren’t metaphorical or figurative. God literally laid the foundations of the earth, with His own hands. Nor are the pillars of the earth metaphorical. Neither are stars falling to earth from where they hang suspended from the dome of heaven. They’re the heavenly host, and sing. God walks on the dome and personally operates the levers which open the storehouses of snow, hail and rain.

        But if you can somehow convince yourself that these passages aren’t meant to be literally true, then what makes you think that the waters and the earth “bringing forth” living things isn’t a metaphor for evolution? Biology is a lot easier to read into an interpretation of the Bible than is astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, meteorology or any other modern science, as I’ve said.

        These passages are obviously not metaphors. For more than 2000 years after they were written, up until the beginnings of modern science, no one commented on their being metaphors. Everyone (except a few pagan astronomers) believed that the sun went around a stationary earth, and thought that that was what the Bible was saying. Then along came Copernicus.

        Sorry, but it’s simply laughable that you consider, because there was supposedly a Garden of Eden, that there must have been a creator. Surely you must see that.

        You don’t seem to get the theological point that God must remain hidden for faith in Him to be of any value. Which is why creationism is not only anti-scientific but false religion, ie heretical, anti-Christian blasphemy. Not just in Protestant theology, but all true Christian belief.

        As Early Church Father Tertulian wrote, “I believe precisely because it is absurd.” Luther echoed his thought, saing, “In order to be a Christian, you must tear the eyes out of your reason.”

      • Chimp,

        I think you’ve been lied to, about what the term ‘faith’ means. Might want to check a dictionary, just in case, ya know?

      • “Psalm 19:6: “(The sun) rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat.” How is this a metaphor?”

        Same way we say the sun rises and sets. Check any weather site right now, and you’ll see the time of sunrise and sunset . . right? It’s metaphor, and I’d bet (at a thousand to one odds ; ) that you use those metaphors too. Why?

      • John,

        No lie involved, unlike your baseless belief in creationism.

        I know what “faith” means both in general and specifically in Christian theology. As Luther points out, it has to be blind. You however seem somehow to have missed the main point of Protestantism. It isn’t just not accepting the primacy of the bishop of Rome, reading the Bible in vernacular rather than Latin translation or rejecting apostolic succession and the authority of Church in favor of “only scripture”. It is salvation by faith and faith alone.

        Hebrews 11:1 has a good description of faith in its theological context. “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” (ESV)

        If God, Jesus and the Resurrection make rational sense, then where is the need for faith?

      • John,

        The passages I quoted make abundantly clear that in the Bible the sun literally rises, runs across the sky, then sets. We continue to use those terms figuratively, for convenience. But in the Bible, it’s plain that there is no metaphor involved.

        The sun literally returns to the place of his rising. And yes, he is an anthropomorphic being, like God.

      • John,
        Have never wondered why the vast majority of Christians are not fundamentalists, biblical literalists, or more accurately, inerrantists?
        The fact is that worshiping a book instead of God is the grievous sin of bibliolatry, a form of idolatry. If you imagine the Bible literally to be “true”, then you’ve committed the sin of blasphemy, calling God cruel, incompetent and deceitful.
        I fear that such grave error must amount to mortal isn, so that fundamentalists are doomed to spend eternity suffering the fires of Hell.

      • Chimp – Christ said “. . .you are Peter and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18, NKJV)

        The Orthodox Churches and Catholic Church interpret the reference to Peter differently, but they believe that God founded one true Church for all people. Those Churches comprise the vast majority of Christians in the world. All other Christian churches split off from The Roman Church or were created by men.

  17. Sadly for this new Church it’s

    All
    Gone
    Wrong

    Still, maybe it will come to hold the record for the shortest lived faith.

  18. From the placard labelled “Green Gulch Farm Zen Center”, I gather that these people think they are practicing zen. Although zen is often practiced in association with religion, it is not itself a religion and no religious observance is necessary for the practice of zen. Essentially, zen is simply spiritual practice and its purpose is to enlighten the mind with the direct experience of reality itself beyond all conceptualized forms in which our minds may imagine it. The traditional zen masters say that in this enlightenment the true indivisibility and inseparability of the self and the universe become fully realised and the universe is experienced as one’s own self. As to the truth or untruth of this claim, I can only say that one must practice it oneself to tell that, or in other words “Suck it and see!”.

    It is said that there are many ways to spiritual enlightenment and Zen is the way of direct knowing by immediate personal experience. Its practitioners disdain prejudices and preconceptions, second-hand knowledge learned from books or other people and blaming others for one’s own faults, failings and unwanted experiences, which are all regarded as self-defeating blocks to enlightenment.

    But what can we see all these self-styled “climate justice warriors” practicing? Closed-minded prejudice against perceived “climate change deniers” when nobody is denying that the climate is changing; reverence for book-learning from idolized “climate scientists” whose half-baked climate theories have never even been tested let alone proven, and condemnation of all civilization for committing the abomination of global geocide when there is no real evidence that any such crime is being committed!

    These people are not practicing zen. They are practicing self-delusion, which is the very opposite of zen!

    • That’s a well thought out response, RP, but when you face people like these, whose minds are closed to seeing the physical evidence around them, and who fail to admit their own hypocrisies (food sources, clothing, etc.), what do you propose as a solution?

      I’m concerned, after seeing the violence that accompanied protests last fall and continuing through last weekend, that what these people want IS some sort of violent confrontation so that they can be the victims of some imaginary retaliation by other people who don’t agree with them.

      These people are entitled to their opinions, even if we find them to be rather silly. The fact that they refuse to even listen to an opposite view, refuse to engage in reasonable discussion and applaud/support violence against people who’ve done nothing to them, is unsettling at the very least.

      So what would you suggest as a remedy? I don’t think we can afford to ignore them, especially after Bill Nye’s asinine ‘jail the deniers’ remarks and Shekla’s attempts to get the government to persecute anyone who disagrees with so-called ‘climate science’. This borders on fanaticism and witch hunts.

      • Hi Sara. I concur with your observations about these people.

        You ask for my solution. Actually, I don’t think we need to do any more than we are already doing to solve the problem that they are presenting. Their house is built on popular make-believe and it is only a question of time before everyone grows tired of maintaining the ever-larger illusions that are required to support it. In fact, the environmental alarmists’ apocalyptic doomsday cult is already visibly declining as dame nature continues to be stubbornly un-co-operative in producing the heat-death of the planet which their number-sorcerers proclaimed was imminent and the public’s faith in them is eroding as a result.

        But as if that was not enough, they are also demonstrating daily, in places like Germany and South Australia, that their technological prescriptions for saving the planet from man-made global warming are not only not fit for purpose but are economically disastrous as well. How long can the politicians who have been promoting these green disasters and paying for them with their electorates’ money expect to stay in office afterwards? The clock is ticking for them all.

        So, in essence, Sara, the “solution” that I am suggesting is simply to leave this crazy death-cult to itself and let it bring about its own demise by manifesting the contradictions that are inherent in its nature and suffering the collisions with reality that ensue. The only way that I can see for it to avoid this fate is for it to evolve into something more truthful and relevant to the real needs of the environment.

    • you echo my exact point made earlier.

      Buddhism is not a faith, it is a set of techniques to allow people to move beyond faith.

  19. It appears the climate tyros, after their extended tantrums, were given a ‘time out’ under a shade tree….

  20. All this shows is it’s really not about the climate; like all issues taken up by the progressive West, it’s about them.

  21. Maybe they are practicing meditation around the tent.

    Some doctors are claiming that meditation is better for battlefield PTSD patients, than giving them drugs.

    We should promote meditation amongst the alarmists to help them with their TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome). It will help them calm down, and be less violent when their bubbles are burst by the truth. They might even reach enlightenment! :)

    • Btw, meditation *does* work. At least to a certain extent (physical).

      I was a stone-cold skeptic about meditation, but I let a girlfriend of mine talk me into going to a learning session in meditation back in the 1970’s. So I went, and went through the routine they teach, and was amazed to find that it actually had an effect on me.

      I literally could sit down right now and within five minutes could lower my heart rate and breathing rate by practicing this technique. I can’t say that I found any enlightening thoughts while doing this, but I never really did it on a regular basis, which is what you are supposed to do in order to enlighten your mind. But you definitely get the calming, slowing effect every time you do it.

      I don’t know how the technique works, but it does. You could have knocked me over with a feather when I realized it. I would never have believed it, without personally experiencing it.

      So, I guess a good lesson is one should not dismiss something out of hand, before trying it.

      I think meditation would do the alarmists a world of good (and it’s simple to learn, you can learn it in a day). They might even have their mind opened and realize that Trump isn’t such a bad guy after all.

      • “I literally could sit down right now and within five minutes could lower my heart rate and breathing rate by practicing this technique.”

        I think you are quite right about physical meditation effects having a positive effect on the body. When you are breathing correctly, the blood oxygen %SPO2 is healthy (92%+) which in turn tends to normalize the heart as well as the brain (and everything else). Focussing the brain on something positive, or neutral, also has a better chance of the brain entering Beta brain wave activity which is also very relaxing which allows the body to self heal.

        We see the opposite with a health defect like say, sleep apnea. Lack of sufficient oxygen, and the heart suffers as well as the brain, and at some point people then die peacefully in their sleep. Or the abuse of opioids, which depress the self breathing regulation, and too much and you also die because of lack of oxygen. Oxygen is our primary fuel, and controlling that via meditation can have very good health outcomes.
        No religion required. Or medication.

        We should infiltrate the Left at these protest rallies, and suggest that we all ‘meditate’ first as a way of getting to the truth. Since meditation is sort of considered left field, and we aren’t challenging any CAGW sacred cows at the rally other than just me the truth, then maybe we can get them to calm down on the climate crisis they imagine.

      • I think meditation would do the alarmists a world of good

        I think part of the problem here is that the alarmists (and ‘progressives’ in general) are good at pretending and mimicry and not necessarily very good at much else beyond emoting. Which makes them… better, you see… more human than we evil, stupid non-collectivists.

        Of course this also makes them group-thinkers easily led by manipulators and they’re dangerous in large quantities. One or two morons you can usually manage or avoid. Ten morons, on the other hand…

    • The purpose of meditation is to develop self-awareness so we act with attention. As only our physical bodies are present in the moment (right now), but our minds and thoughts can wander (past and future), during meditation one tries to focus the mind on the body. Ultimately, the goal is to develop “divided” attention so you can be self-aware in the moment while thinking, observing, or doing other things. You want to eliminate acting “mechanically” without attention and awareness. This is a simplification. It takes long, concentrated effort.

      If you actually give attention to yourself and what you do, you will discover there are many yous (or Is from your perspective) within you. That is why you do not follow through on your resolutions. The I that made the resolution never shows up to carry out the resolution, having been replaced by a different I within you.

  22. Relevant to all of this discussion is my posting on Jordan Peterson at 5:04pm above.
    Listen to some of his lectures, and be prepared for a life changing experience.

  23. I absolutely LOVE how WUWT threads about climate stuff morph into serious (and sarc) debates about religion and even get bogged down into some of the minutiae of things particular religions say. Seem to remember some comment about this being a religion site, not a science site, recently on here too.

    I need to pray for you all a bit more.

    • Reverend,

      Unfortunately it is a valid rap against this site that it promotes the false religion of creationism, contrary to the disclaimers of our gracious and esteemed host. But I understand why he doesn’t want to shut up people who, for the good of climate skepticism, should be squelched here. I can see why he tolerates creationism but not “Sl@yerism”, which is scientific, while creationism isn’t, but outside the mainstream of “climate science”, which is more relevant to the site than is biology.

      IMO some discussion of religion is relevant, if it helps fundamentalists to realize that their cult of creationism isn’t science, and that there is no scientific “debate” over the reality of evolution.

      I keep asking creationists to explain how they imagine that new species are “created”, if they don’t evolve, or if they all suddenly appeared all at once, just one time. Does God just poof them into existence? One moment, no pheasants. Next moment, Poof! Pheasants!

      If all God’s creations are perfect, why then is there extinction? This was a serious worry after Cuvier demonstrated the fact of extinction in 1798. Jefferson didn’t buy it, adhering to the religious belief in the Great Chain of Being, which is why he asked Lewis and Clark to be on the lookout for mastodons in the Wild West. But by the 1820s, the accumulation of overwhelming evidence convinced him of the reality of extinction.

      • I keep asking creationists to explain how they imagine that new species are “created”, if they don’t evolve, or if they all suddenly appeared all at once, just one time. Does God just poof them into existence? One moment, no pheasants. Next moment, Poof! Pheasants!

        As opposed to one moment no universe, next minute Poof! Big Bang?

        which just goes to show that applying Causality beyond the here and now is not necessarily helpful…

        Evolution is just a model.
        Creationism is just a model
        The big bang is just a model
        Everything you know is just a model.

        The point being there are helpful models, in the context of some value judgement, and there are unhelpful models, in the context of some value judgement.

        There is no rational basis for any absolute value judgement. Therefore no one can say what ultimately is helpful in an absolute sense, therefore no absolute judgement can be made as to whether anything is morally right, or morally wrong.

        However we can say that certain patterns of behaviour create self persistence, whilst others do not. Men who jump off cliffs thinking they can fly, are not morally wrong, merely evolutionary dead ends.

        Men who insisted upon the existence of a curiously anthropocentric Being who conducts the orchestra of the Universe, were able to justify the imposition of a moral code on the basis of supernatural instruction:That moral code created a society that was stable enough to survive and prosper.

        Some lies, have persistence.
        Others do not.

        societies that believe in man made climate change and revel in anthropic guilt, may well be too precious to persist. Perhaps that is the whole point. Darwin rules…

      • “Unfortunately it is a valid rap against this site that it promotes the false religion of creationism, contrary to the disclaimers of our gracious and esteemed host”

        If you are really honest with yourself you will see that this is the kind of argumentation that warmists use. Using an assumed conclusion as a premise is never a good idea.

        “If all God’s creations are perfect, why then is there extinction?”

        Perfect is a potentially ambiguous word. Perhaps extinct species were created perfectly for a temporary purpose.

        It’s interesting how we all excel at some things, and miserably fail at others. Humility and self-doubt are so important.

    • Hey, you Rev Boy Badger – and Chimp –

      Evolution is a series of genetic mutations that benefit the survival of an organism.

      Don’t think so? Homo sapiens is a primate, a massively large order or mammals composed of 16 families and 72 genera. Humans and the rest of the order of Primates all have hands with fingers and thumbs, and toes on their feet. Some have prehensile toes, as well as prehensile tails. This biological order is made up of thousands of species within the genera, including the great apes (gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees), but out of all that genetic diversity Homo sapiens is the ONLY primate with an opposable thumb.

      The opposable thumb benefited Homo ergaster (distant ancestor) and H. ergaster’s descendants inherited that genetic mutation, evolving into modern humans, H. sapiens. How is that possible? Beauty IS in the eye of the beholder.

      Birds used to have teeth. Chicken embryos X-rayed in the egg show pre-hatching tooth buds that disappear when the chick hatches. No modern birds have teeth after hatching because the genetic marker was switched off long ago.

      This is a tiresome and ridiculous argument. If you bothered to ask a biologist about evolution and what I said, you’ll get a confirmation that I’m right and creationism is a bunch of hooey, as asinine as Lysenkoism and Lamarckianism.

  24. Interesting discussion here about Christianity and such. I am pleased with the level of discussion on this board, even when there are disagreements. I am a Christian, but for now I won’t jump in with particulars on theology here.
    What I will comment on is Marx’s view of religion. He knew that it makes people happy. Marx’s goal, and still the goal of current leftists is to make people unhappy so they will tear down what they have.

    As Elle Woods said in Legally Blonde:
    Happy people don’t shoot their husbands.

  25. Chimp, Sara, etc

    I am impressed by the no. of reactions here, showing again that rather than science,
    it is religion and politics that are the two most talked about subjects.\

    I am sure you must realize that if you are the creator of something, i.e. the artist, you cannot, yourself, actually being inside the object that you have just created? You have to look at it from the outside toward it. This is fairly elementary thinking. I cannot believe that you would think that if God exists, one must be able to SEE Him clearly.

    But, as the scripture says, you are able to see him.
    I have explained it for you here:
    http://breadonthewater.co.za/2017/02/20/if-god-exists-why-cannot-we-see-him/

    You should read this, especially the evidence / links that I show where it seems that God did decide to show us what he did look like.

    There is no other person/deity who claimed the same things as Jesus did, namely that He is still there, after His death, to prepare a place for us beyond life. In fact, we can go as far as saying that you should be able to see this from the miracles in nature that happen on a daily basis. For example, I recently heard that there is a flower who just looks like female hommel-bee. When the male hommel bee sees it, he thinks : pleasure time. In this way he distributes the seeds of the flower….

    You call it evolution?

    I say it is a miracle…..

  26. Is this a Rorschach Test? I think many here, including Anthony, jumped to conclusions based on expectations and biases. From the image and the signs, it appears that this group may be protesting the injustices (and atrocities like corn ethanol that caused so much death and malnutrition) that the extreme global warming catastrophe narrative has enabled. It appears to me that these silent protesters may well be among the center left like Freeman Dyson- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs
    and Bjorn Lomborg- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5YmgekQyNk
    and myself who protest the extremist narratives of both the right and the left.

    • Well I don’t think that. I look at these people and their signs and think, whatever it is they’re smoking I’d best leave it alone. You could be right though and they’re just taking the piss.

  27. You can be assured that it is quite possible to lead a happy, full life with no involvement of religion. Indeed, its absence might clear the mind for more progressive thoughts. Religion is somewhat antithetic to science. The error bars are quite different.
    It is embarrassing to read the religious assertions in this thread. Geoff.

    • Geoff

      generally speaking, I find a lack of respect by people [like you] on scientific websites for people who believe [in God, any religion].
      This is not acceptable. On a website like WUWT I think we are all students and teachers to each other. Religion and science are two ways to find the same thing: the Truth. It took me more than 30 years [to hear the voice of God], I think in the case of Moses it took double that amount of time. You too, will hear it, some day as we are all on a journey to discover the reason for being born.
      You just have to knock on the door before someone responds….
      True enough, Jesus {God} did wonder if He would still find faith on earth once He would come back. Just philosophizing on that, that would be the day when you die or when the world ends, whichever comes first = [equal to] to the day when the universe ends.
      [as the years before you were born and after your death don’t really count]

      Just to make sure I understand your belief:
      if you believe there is no God, you are actually saying that you believe that out of absolutely nothing and guided by absolutely nobody, an incredible intelligent and intellectual person (like yourself) with a material body came into being.

      I think for you to believe that such a miracle could have happened, you must actually have a much bigger faith than that of a person simply believing and admitting that there is a Higher Power, a God who created him for a specific plan and purpose! Good luck with that faith of yours!

  28. Hi Doug. You say:

    From the image and the signs, it appears that this group may be protesting the injustices (and atrocities like corn ethanol that caused so much death and malnutrition) that the extreme global warming catastrophe narrative has enabled.

    I’m afraid I cannot see anything in the image and the signs to indicate that. Perhaps this is a Rorschach test as you suspected.

    What I do see in the image and the signs is a group of people who are calling our attention to four things which they are concerned about, namely zen practice, jobs, climate and justice. However, if they were really practicing zen properly they would not need to be concerned about the other three things because they would know that the universe is already providing just the right jobs for everyone in it, that it is already maintaining and controlling the climate in perfect order and with meticulous care and that everything that really happens in the universe is always perfectly just and fair. In short, they would accept that all is well with the world and understand that in reality there is nothing for them to be concerned about.

    Therefore, I think the fact that they are concerned about these other things – so concerned, in fact, that they have gone on a protest march about them – must mean that they cannot have understood what zen is about and cannot be practicing it properly.

  29. Back in the 90s, during the peak of the whole New Age thing, I got a reading during a New Age festival at that park. Well one thing for sure, love it or hate it, the Bay Area is a place where you can go shooting, get a reading, drink a farm to table herb infused expensive cocktail and a greasy and wonderful “hangover cure” burrito all within a few hours.

  30. Would this be tantamount to cultural appropriation, in the millennial-speak of today? perhaps, it is religio-apppropriation?

  31. People are desperate to believe in something and for some reason humans have a deep need to scare themselves . Predictions of climate Armageddon appeal to the same group think of burning witches .
    Eco – pretenders have relied on fossil fuels every day of their lives and if so convicted of harm would stop using them . Not going to happen and why should it ? Co2 is the greenest fuel on earth and warming does more good than harm because as we all know climate changes .
    A trace gas representing a fraction of 1 % causing the earth to have a fever . Who gets away this utter BS ?
    The Climate Con relies on a scientifically illiterate population , governments hungry for more tax revenue and grant seeking business promoters looking for government to make them rich out of a mann made up
    paper dragon .
    Survey people on the street about what CO2 vs Co , what CO2 represents as a percent of the atmosphere and whether CO2 has been higher before human use of fossil fuels .
    The fewer the facts the stronger the opinions and the easier to con people . Warming any day over cooling .

    Why would greenie pretenders want to reduce a trace gas that is essential to greening the earth ?

    • a few things come together. 1. obviously there is a great need for a uniting principle. This may be the result of secularization. Threats of unknown phenomena come to the rescue in this case. Cllimate threat is excellent. 2. technological and scientific illiteracy makes vulnarable against false prophets using preudo-science 3. activists attack the industrial society and free market. Now combine 1. 2. 3.

  32. I found it amusing that this picture represents the religious nature of global warming believers.
    Im convinced that AGW BELIEVERS are completely brainwashed by the main stream media.
    “97% ” evokes a Pavlov dog reaction.as does ANY harsh weather event.They drool when there is a drought or hurricane or tornado.
    Noone bothers to investigate the science ,as they 100% trust PBS and the NYTs.
    But the MSM never vets the liar climate scientists lies.So the climate scientist liars have a direct bug in the public’s ear.
    Im a lifelong Democrat and Im describing how my friends have been brainwashed.
    I took the picture BTW .Thanks Anthony for not posting my name.
    Im scared to death Nutsacksilly would be going through my garbage can.

  33. @Goldrider
    “That doesn’t look like a very big “crowd.” Worthy of attention, really? I’ve seen bigger audiences for the dude who plays bongo drums in the subway under Grand Central Station”

    What is the optimum size crowd that’ll satisfy you? I recall that when hundreds of thousands turned out for a climate march in Manhattan several years ago, many comments here were disparaging of the large number of “useful idiots”

Comments are closed.