Guest opinion By David Archibald
The Trump interregnum didn’t achieve as much as it could have done. President Trump did have the power to kill the global warming monster. The renowned physicist Dr. Will Happer was summoned to the President-elect’s presence on January 13, 2017. He served in the Trump administration for a while but left without writing the report saying global warming is a nonsense.
In my opinion, global warming/climate change is the religion of choice for militant atheists, without which their meaningless lives would seem empty, hollow, depressing and pointless. The former science journalist Nicholas Wade makes a case that we are hardwired to believe in a religion as it is a kind of software that enhances societal productivity. But some religions are better than others and global warming is one of the worst, being largely self-flagellation with some nature worship mixed in. Global warming, the religion, doesn’t build hospitals, nursing homes or anything else useful.
The global warmers were relatively harmless when they just told scare stories to each other and frightened the children but with the Biden Illegitimacy they are back at the controls, putting the economy into a nosedive. We will all be poorer, for no good reason, but the real problem is that the US economy will shrink relative to China’s which in turn means that more of our blood will be shed in defeating them in China’s war of choice. Within a couple of days of the inauguration the Chicoms were predicting America’s relative decline. As Napoleon said, “Never interrupt the enemy when his making a mistake.” Ten years ago the Republicans said that there is no point in making sacrifices for global warming if the Chicoms weren’t on board. So the Chicoms learnt to pay lip service to global warming and must be laughing their heads off as we commit economic suicide.
China’s oil production has now rolled over and is in decline but they are still attempting to increase coal production for at least the next decade. China’s carbon dioxide production is shown by this graph:
China now produces more than twice as much carbon dioxide as the US. China’s coal consumption of four billion tonnes per annum is the energy equivalent of 50 million barrels of oil per day.
Three groups continue to vie for world domination: the globalists, the Chicoms and the Islamists. The Biden Illegitimacy is in the globalist camp. The globalists woke up to the Chicom threat to their plan for world domination in 2015 as shown by Foreign Policy suddenly writing negative articles about China. The globalists realise that China’s war will entrench tribal divisions and make it impossible to enforce vegetarianism on the world. The globalists are on a timetable and they see the need to stick to it.
Thus the EU approved ‘maggot-like’ mealworms for human consumption a couple of weeks ago. This is to replace meat in the diet at some point, with global warming as the excuse. At the moment only a war with China will save us from this fate. If you think that is a bit far-fetched, consider that the warmers have been able to demonize carbon dioxide for a quarter of a century despite its being at a near-starvation concentration in the atmosphere. For the record, I would rather fight a war with China than eat mealworms.
This is the point at which Kristi Noem, the Republican Governor of South Dakota, can make herself useful. Governor Noem recently gave a speech titled in part “The Republican Party Has Failed America” in which she said, “Republicans have had chances to deliver for the American people. But we haven’t followed through.”
Well here’s a chance for Governor Noem to deliver for the American people. Produce the report on the science of global warming that President Trump failed to produce. It will be the first government report in the world saying that global warming is bad science. And that report will have as much authority as another government report on the subject.
The timing is auspicious. Also from Dr Roy Spencer’s website is this graph of the satellite temperature record from 1979:
There are over 40 years of records now and the earth’s temperature has increased by only 0.27°C, imperceptible to a human. There is a big La Nina developing in the Pacific with the result that January could be a negative number. Which in turn means there is something wrong with the climate models that say that we should be frying. As a nation we should check if the science is leading us in the right direction.
Any Republican state government could take on this task, for the benefit of all. In October, 2013 I was approached to quote on a similar exercise for Nebraska. This is an excerpt from the proposal:
Unfortunately some warmers at a local university offered to produce the report for free and no good came of it.
Eight years have passed and the need is more urgent than ever. Any politician who puts his or her name to this report will get millions of dollars worth of free advertising as the media pile on. It will be intolerable to the left, like vampires exposed to sunlight. Someone could ride this report all the way to the Whitehouse.
David Archibald is the author of American Gripen: The Solution to the F-35 Nightmare
“the Biden Illegitimacy”
Heh. That’s just another rabid, emotion-based belief system. Other than pulling the US out of the Paris Travesty, TraitorTrump showed over and over that he was no friend of Skeptics or of defeating Warmunism.
Wow, that fantasy world you live in is a sad little place.
Said the moron living in Trumpderland.
Ohhh, direct hit, boilers are out and compartments flooding fast. You best hurry, all the other rats will fill the lifeboats before you can get your tinfoil hat straightened for your grand exit.
Did you miss the part about the US becoming energy independent with a smoking hot economy due to lowered regulations and energy costs?
Also please specify what you thought was treasonous! The FBI knew in March of 2017 that the Russian Collusion claim was a hoax created by the Clinton campaign and the DNC, yet they covered it up to give us The Mueller Witch-hunt! The January 6th “insurrection” seems to have been largely created and instigated by Antifa and BLM agitators who are certainly no fans of Trump! The only real question at this point is how much the DemoKKKrat leadership knew about the planning and if the lack of adequate security was intentional or mere incompetence! There were lots of useful idiots involved as well, but Marxists always keep some of those around for special events!
Moron.
It is generally accepted that when someone resorts to insults it is because they are out of intellectual ammunition.
Bruce is in his House of mirrors, yet again. !
Zhou Bai-Den “listens to the scientists.”
to be honest, he advanced himself rather than any established political viewpoint or the viewpoint of any organised community of opinion…
I am an atheist* and a capitalist, I am NOT a leftist/socialist/marxist. *depending on how you define your god(s), if your god is something vague like the love you feel in your heart then yes I am all for it, but if your god is a giant invisible man in the sky, then no I doubt it. I am a life member of FFRF and American Atheists because I am all for the separation of state and church, INCLUDING the church of climate change. I became disenchanted with those two groups when they lurched leftward and started preaching global warming religion. All leftists use fossil fuels every day and they are hypocrites for doing so, they could live like the Amish.
And by the way if your life would be so meaningless and empty without an imaginary sky friend, that is a sad commentary on your life. We ask for proof of global warming, how about proof of your god(s)?
Where is your proof there is no god? Trot it out and show us. No religion requires more faith in a “god” than atheism.
Proof of absence, really ?? 😀
Yes. If it is so obvious it should be easy.
Never ever 😀
Been waiting several decades for prove no god exists, it is like cold fusion, just around the corner.
Tells me something about your understanding of science, waiting for an absence proof 😀
I’m still waiting for someone to prove that unicorns don’t exist.
Has nothing to do with science, it is religion. Atheists effeminately screech “There is no god!”. OK. Prove it. I just keep jabbing a finger in their eye and laughing. If their faith in their religion is so fragile it is shattered by me dropping a joke on them, well, then they need to sit down and SERIOUSLY re-evaluate what they belief.
And don’t miss the point, the left LOVES atheists, they are so easily manipulated.
I’m atheist, I sreech nothing, and doen’t ask to prove God. I just don’t believe what religious people tell me about religion, that’s all.
You can tell me a lot, but not “prove absence” or “prove existance”.
It doesn’t interest me, not the absence, not the existance.
And what leftist love in that concern doesn’t touch me.
And don’t the religious zealots like “2hotel9” absolutely HATE that idea.
You claim no interest in any of this, and yet clearly you are very interested in it. On a regular basis I read and hear atheists demanding religion be removed from everything. Sure, lets us start by removing the religion of atheism first, since it is, apparently, so inconsequential to any issues of actual importance.
You and I have discussed this before, you weren’t so antagonized by a simple joke then. What could possibly have changed?
Politics are politics, and religion is religion, that’s all.
It’s not my fault, some climatists behave like priests and declare every skeptic as heretic.
If it’s a discussion, I take part, yes, but in my daily life, it has no place.
Religions have placed themselves beyond logic and proof. They couldn’t survive otherwise. The only evidence, as such, for belief, is what they claim happens inside each believer’s head. There is no physical evidence observable to us, objectively, outside of human heads that necessarily implies or proves the existence of any God by any reasonable yardstick. There is nothing that’s known to us already in the universe that needs more explanation than logic and evidence can provide. There is no room for a god or supernatural explanation for anything we’ve encountered yet. No reputable field of science operates by religious principles.
We also know that many people are prone to believe absolute nonsense despite a more than sufficient evidence of their errors – flat earthers, moon landing hoaxers, 9/11 inside jobbers. birthers, etc. Many millions fall into that category. Many more millions fall into the category of mistaken beliefs about all sorts of things because of lack of knowledge. Many more false beliefs depend on faulty judgement. Many millions misunderstand the written word on a daily basis. If you take yourself to a large scale poetry site (poemhunter would do) and read the comments by readers about the poems they’ve just read, you’ll see that a significant proportion of readers who are there because of their interest in the written word have real problems understanding.it. The fault lies in us and one of its many aberrant products is religion.
Evidence of the non existence of a phenomenon atheists believe doesn’t exist? I’m quite happy with my position that the non existence of any God is proved beyond reasonable doubt (the very reasonable standard that’s required to demonstrate innocence) by the sheer absence of evidence in favour of it’s/their existence. As for the peurile “effeminately screech” remark, I suspect that reflects badly on the quality of your commitment to your own religion.
“Religions have placed themselves beyond logic and proof” Which is precisely why the political left has created their Man Caused Globall Warmining religion, can’t be argued with. And they are using it to push their agenda, create laws and regulations and brainwash children into accepting nonsensical crap.
As to my commitment to a religion, when did humor become a religion? Want to speak on religion causing harm? Lets us start with islam, then we can move on to catholicism.
The funny thing is: our French “Ministère des affaires étrangères” (State Dept) official stance on Macrongate and on the accusation on the secret account “offshore aux Bahamas”, that is, that the alleged PDF evidence is a fraud, actually implies the “Ministère des affaires étrangères” believes (or shall believe) the Obama long-form birth certificate is a computer creation and not authentic.
Krishna, I think the difference between an agnostic and an atheist is informative here.
The atheist has your science based only position, whereas the atheist takes a positive position on a negative position, as in “I know there is no God.” IE, faith in a negative.
I don’t know, if there is a God or not, it doesn’t interest me.
“Been waiting several decades for proof that GOD does exists,
….. it is like cold fusion, just around the corner.
If you don’t believe in god why do you capitalize the word? I am having more fun jerking you guys around with a simple joke than a basket full of puppies Oh, and a religious zealot? Wish my grandmother was alive to see that stupidity.
I capitalize it in respect of these persons believing in, as I capiatalize city names and countries.
Respect for other’s beliefs, what a novel concept. We should try it.
But why does fred250 capitalize it? It is he who so adamantly declares there is no god, then addresses to guy by name.
HOW do you define your god? Do that first and I might take a shot at refuting it.
I don’t define anything, you are the one throwing your religion into the mix. YOU say there is no god. Prove it. I will find out one way or the other when I am dead. Facts, on that other hand, are pesky little things, such as the fact the climate changes, constantly, and always has. Humans are not causing it and can not stop it. Got proof otherwise? Trot it out. You will have the same success with that as you have with proving there is no god.
YOU say there IS a god. PROVE IT
Or is HE just a figment on man’s imagination.
An ethereal entity that exists only within religious belief.
No, sweety, I have said no such thing.
GOD is a human construct.
You can choose to believe in that construct… or NOT. !
Where is your proof that there is a god?
Did I say there was? You say there is not. OK. Prove it.
So you just THINK there MIGHT be a God.
Is that what you are saying ?
NO PROOF.. just existing within your mind.
For someone who claims not to be concerned about this you are clearly awfully concerned about it. And angry.
I’ll prove there is no god when you prove there is no teapot circling the earth.
In an article titled “Is There a God?” commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, (Bernard) Russell wrote:
In 1958, Russell elaborated on the analogy:
There was a teapot circling the Earth, it may well still be there, was released by a cosmonaut on one their ’70s multi-orbit missions, at least that was the claim. None of this changes the fact the political left, in all its guises, is using the religion of Man Caused Globall Warmining to push their agenda.
Flying spaghetti monster in a teapot in solar orbit! Please disprove the existence of such a phenomenon or else accept that it exists. /sarc
Mmmmm, me likes spaghetti.
There is as much proof of FSM as there is of GOD.
Both are just figments of human belief.
climate science is evidence based; belief in god faith based. Two different things
Wich evidence ?
but all those accepting climate science – and again, they aren’t leftists just because they do that – are not advocating instant abolition of fossil fuels: they are working towards a transition away from them, as fast as feasible.
all will likely make some attempt at reducing fossil fuel in their lives, to different degrees
I take a slight issue with what you’ve said – they are working towards a transition away from fossil fuels (and that may be a laudable goal) but the substitutes they have decided on are simply not feasible. Nuclear would have been a better option, gas as an interim fuel would have been a far better feasible transition. The fact that these people are rushing headlong towards disaster has all the signs of a religious mania or group psychosis.
“The fact that these people are rushing headlong towards disaster has all the signs of a religious mania or group psychosis.” Dingdingding!!!! And there it is.
“ And that report will have as much authority as another government report on the subject.” I did not know that Noem had been elected President. If she is still governor of a small (soon to be formerly) oil producing state, what organs of science are available to her to produce this authoritative report?
She should phone Will Happer and ask him to email her the report. He has probably already written it. The media will attack her for being a non-believer and give her priceless free publicity when the Republicans are looking for a leader. She could then pull away from the rest of the pack. As I said, Nebraska asked me to do a similar exercise in 2013. She will be doing it for the country as it is obvious that global warming isn’t working as it was predicted to.
The left’s sick obsession with transgenderism is just another indication of the religion based ideology they are pushing. Their endless screeching about climate is driving real people away, only grifters and hucksters in government, media and academia are drawn to it.
I never understood that. A person’s gender, physical appearance or sexual orientation should be of importance only to that person, no-one else. If that person can live a full, happy life and contribute to society then it is nobody else’s place to either judge or benefit. The fact that some people treat it as a cause du jour or as a sickness just shows how shallow and empty those people’s lives must be.
It is called “gender dysphoria” and needs treated before it leads to far worse problems.Oh, well, the path to far worse is where we find ourselves today, thanks to the twisted and sick adherents of the political left. Thanks a lot.
Your comment isn’t a contradiction of what Richard said.
You are correct! It explains why he is wrong, gender dysphoria is a mental illness, those suffering from it need to be treated. Currently that ain’t what is happening.
Not all what Richard said is about gender dysphoria, because, and that what he said is “If that person can live a full, happy life and contribute to society then it is nobody else’s place to either judge or benefit.” These people need no treatment.
There are the one and the others and not all suffer from “gender dysphoria”and need treatment.
Having dealt with several people suffering from this I can say they did not live a full, happy life. All of them ended up committing suicide, all of them were heavily into body modification/mutilation and narcotics use. They all refused treatment because it was a “lifestyle choice”. And yes, Richard, telling them it was a condition and not an illness added to their problems. Changing the definition of words does not change the effect of an illness.
There are people suffering, and there are other. That was the discussions base.
Dysphoria is a psychological condition, not a mental illness. Can you comprehend that there is a difference?
How should one treat dysphoria?
Ask your psychiatrist. Oh, yea, they are only concerned with billable hours and shoveling out prescription drugs now. Never mind.
You are entitled to your opinion and I would defend your right to hold such opinions. We are unlikely to agree though.
Well that escalated quickly….
Left does that.
Ah, so you are of the Left.. that explains things.
As fred250 said; I was referring to you escalating things by bringing in transgenderism.
No, the political left has brought in transgenderism, I just point out their blatant hypocrisy illustrated by their use of it to drive forward their agenda. Ignoring what the political left is doing is not a viable tactic for opposing it.
Oh, and an operations question. Is there a way to set comments so newest is always at top of thread?
Yes
Well what is it then, please!
Atheism is just another form of religion. You believe something that can’t be proven.
Baldness is not a hair color, and atheism is not a religion.
If atheism is a religion, you should be able to provide a link to its scriptures, tenets, canons and other moral codes.
If I claimed to be Agnostic, but professed a hard line belief that there is no godlike creator, I would expect people to tell me that I am sitting in wrong box.
If I claimed to be Atheistic, but professed that I don’t have any Belief, I would expect people to tell me that I am sitting in the wrong box.
If I claimed to be bald, as I combed blond my hair & cleaned my comb by dropping the hair on their shoes, I would expect that other people would, at a minimum, be annoyed with me.
Atheism is just a not-belief, so it can’t be a religion.
Would it be too much for people to stop confusing religion and faith – they really are completely different things and, by many accounts, can both exist independent of each other!
If you got no faith your religion is a fad, at best.
Untrue. If a person has no faith then they are merely paying lip service to a religion but it is entirely possible to have faith and not follow any religion.
Faith in what? The mail? Human kindness? That the Sun will come up each morning and set each night? I have faith that there is no humor section in the leftists’ library. I have faith that government will screw you at every opportunity. No religion required for either of those, is there?
No, it is a religion which requires its adherents to hold a deep, burning faith in the non-existence of a god, which they can not prove one way or the other. As soon as you question this faith in any way they go all to pieces, being the delicate little flowers they are.
Wrong, I have certainely no deep, burning faith in a non existence of a God of what ever religion. It’s a subject I have no interest in, imagine !
And I have absolute no interest to convince the ones or the others.
Are you afraid of being called a dirty stink’n agnostic?
Is agnostic the lesser of atheist/agnostic? Why not just say agnostic?
If that is your personal experience then you’ve yet to meet anyone with faith.
Which is EXACTLY what you have done. !!
And there you lie, on the floor in pieces, over a joke. Oh, ye of little faith.
Not sure that is entirely correct. Faith requires no proof; it exists in its absence, but faith does not necessarily require religion either. Atheism exists because there is no absolute proof of a deity – faith and atheism are the 2 sides of the same coin. If there were proof of a deity there would be no atheism, but no faith either – belief would be either self-evident or not.
I am both right of centre politically, a strong climate sceptic and an atheist. I’ve been following WUWT for at least 10 years now as an antidote to the pervasive alarmism and bias in the media, and as a source of sanity in what has become an unproductively polarised debate. The site seems recently to be drifting ever further into advocating knee-jerk right-wing libertarian positions, and this post is the worst example yet. Right-wing table-thumping, devoid of insight. Ridiculous cherry-picking of temperature data. Unsupported and indefensible attacks on atheism. Much more of this and I’ll start treating the views on this site with the same respect as I treat the Daily Mail and Fox News.
Attack? Really? As for “Right-wing table-thumping”, wanting environistas to actually prove humans are causing climate to change before destroying our energy production, manufacturing and agricultural systems is now “Right-wing table-thumping”. That is down right comical right there.
Those are three traits, not two.
John,
Your sarcastic attempt at humor is both a waste of my time, not of benefit to the conversation, and something else as well.
Having once been young and foolish I would hesitate to take up a cudgel based on ‘right or left’ beliefs on anything these days. I now prefer to form my own opinions based on evidence.
I absolutely agree with you on that.
This site sometimes now seems to be driven by a particular US Republican/right political viewpoint and characterisation of all different views on that scale.
There used to be more about the science!
How could you, of all people, be more concerned about the science?
When do I not argue on the science?
I guess when I am saying the politics shouldn’t replace arguing on the science!
Dear Mr. Archibald, do you win a lot of converts to your opinion by insulting them? Are your logic and facts so thin you have to resort to ad hominem attacks, the last resort of those who are losing an argument? Don’t you know they hurt your arguments, distract and divert attention to you rather than your point? I thoroughly agree with your science, but you have hurt us with your insults against them.
Hard to agree with his science either when he confuses a monthly temperature anomaly for the long term warming figure in UAH.
Only person confused, is YOU, rusty
And its incurable.
James, James, Morrison, Morrison, Weatherby George Dupree
Is there anyone feeling left out? I will try to include them in another article. Now to the subject of your sentence construction. Your moving hand has writ and all thy tears shall not wash out a word of it: “but you have hurt us with your insults against them.” You speak of “us” but refer to “them” as the ones being insulted. In case you are not aware, that is bad English.
What limited exposure I have had to Kristi Noem speaking publicly has left me impressed by her cogent logical approach to issues at hand, topped with a dose of appreciation of the lot of the citizens she governs.
It would be a good thing if her influence were to extend on a bigger stage.
Except Noem’s record on covid is appalling. She has the second worst case numbers per million in the country and the 6th worst for deaths per million. Her lack of understanding of how the virus spread and unwillingness to do anything about it cost the lives of the people she is charged to care for. Hardly someone to be respected.
If you want a Republican who got it right, look at Phil Scott in Vermont. Lowest for both cases and deaths per million of the 48 contiguous states.
Ok, so it might be Phil Scott who commissions the report on global warming. Why I suggested Kristi of the perfect teeth is because she just delivered a speech on delivering for the American People. Walk the walk time for young Kristi. Take on a great burden. Endure the slings and arrows of the outraged. Be a river to her people. That sort of thing.
Freedom of religion, or perhaps freedom of belief is an important tenant of human rights. Belief is a fundamental human trait and its persistence through the evolution of humans is evidence of its value to human success. I don’t think bringing belief or religion into the debate about global warming is constructive except in terms of determining how belief plays a role in creating policy based on scientifically unfounded theories. There are clearly theists and atheists on both sides of the debate. I would suggest that everyone interested in this debate, myself included has beliefs that are not founded on pure objective fact and reason (my opinion of my own cleverness and charm comes to mind- just ask my wife) but that is not relevant to a debate that should be entirely founded on the objective evidence we can discover. Suggesting that belief in CAGW is somehow directly correlated with belief or non belief in God is itself perhaps just another belief system.
Faith or belief, and religion are not the same thing – I have known religious people who have no faith and I have known people of faith who follow no religion. Let’s not get the thinking any more muddled and confused than it already is, shall we? But I agree that the freedom to express one’s faith without fear of persecution or intolerance should be one of the first principles of a society.
Agreed.
Global warming, the religion, doesn’t build hospitals, nursing homes or anything else useful.
No … they follow the “broken window” theory of economic “growth”. These ecotheists intend to break all the windows in America and replace them with fewer, better windows and thicker insulation. They claim this will be BETTER than building hospitals … because they will SAVE us all from frying on an overheated planet.
And Nursing homes? Hahahahaha … the ecotheists WANT old people to DIE! Thus reducing the cost of end of life care … and thinning the population burden on mother Gaia.
I said many times Trump needed to pay for science that shows CO2 is safe. Science stays on the books for every, Trump was only ever going to last 8 years max.
He totally failed. Totally and utterly failed to kill this monster.
I agree he failed. But “proving” anything safe is impossible. What we need is a climate model that actually, you know, models the climate within some reasonable error bars.
Let’s fund it with a Science Prize like the X-Prize.
President Trump utterly failed on pretty much all aspects against the administrative state, the seditious States, and the out of control judiciary, etc.
But he had nearly zero support from anyone in politics. That’s because anti “conspiration theory” is a cult and prevents rational thinking (as is intended to) and “unity” is another cult. Pushing out false allies should be the goal. Trump has been surrounded by traitors at almost all levels.
Tucker Carlson said that Trump never tried to learn the way congressional politics work. Well it works like a kleptocracy so there is no point learning it.
The congressional investigations are useless. Unless they feel personally censored.
Also, the conservatives pretty much have themselves to blame for the systemic crisis of power. They have been praising economic “freedom” and telling people to “build their own” regarding anything and everything, ignoring even the most obvious network effects and practical impossibility to reinvent a technological world, arrogantly ignoring monopoly effects, including answering built your own Microsoft Windows, including on WUWT.
Now they realize they can’t build their own Twitter against the whole Internet, cloud and personal devices ecosystem (Google, Apple, Amazon…).
Conservatives have been systematically negating power systems because the power imbalance (in work relation) was the central argument of socialism advocate. They wanted the argument gone because they couldn’t easily deal with it and because like all people they are abjectly intellectually lazy. Now they are the subject of mockery of abjectly hypocritical socialism worshippers who have the support of monstrously powerful businesses with gigantic network effect.
The author certainly struck sensitive nerves, I have never seen so many I s in comments. What else could climate change, as defined by warmers, be called than a religion of the state based on fear when the remedy is poverty, redistribution of wealth, government forced lifestyle changes and the destruction of entire industries to be replaced by inefficiency at the direction of government. And all that without proof or debate to the point of destroying anyone with a challenging opinion.
I believe the remedy is an honest audit of the last election.
A comment on the “militant atheist” (as if there haven’t been enough already):
By this phrase, I am making the assumption (perhaps unwarranted) that David is referring to those who go around pushing to remove any form of religion or religious expression from the public view. These are the sort who would prevent a Christian valedictorian from thanking Jesus in her speech, or remove historical images from city seals.
As an atheist myself, I find these sort to be “atheist light”, or “weak atheist” at best. I think they lash out at religion NOT because they don’t believe in it, but because they are not secure in their own non-belief. Religious expression threatens them, so they try to stifle it so that they don’t have to question themselves.
Personally, I’m secure in my atheism, and your religious expression has no impact on me. Therefore I don’t need to prevent it.
You were doing so well, right up to the very last sentence, in fact. That last sentence was formed almost as a defence to an attack – very defensive language and expression. Whether atheist or believer, it shouldn’t matter in the slightest – I accept your atheism and defend your choice to think and behave in that way, as I hope you would accept the choice of believers or those who hold different ideas.
More of a commentary on the behavior I see in the atheists I’m talking about, who seem to view the religious expression of others as somehow impacting them.
I’m a volunteer firefighter in a rural department. Most of the members attend the same church and they are all some variety of Christian. When food is served at a meeting, there is a blessing. Doesn’t bother me, unlike those I’m referring to who would probably sue to stop it.
As for attack, though, just take a look at some of the comments here about atheists. Lots of people trying to tell me what I believe. Apparently I’m not capable of knowing that for myself. Very progressive of them.
I had noticed that there is a certain stance among some people, irrespective of political leaning, that are so insecure that they desperately need validation from others for their choices or values leading to them aggressively trying to change opposing viewpoints. I get a bit fed up with some of the hypocrisy tbh.
I’ve noticed much the same. Does it seem to you to be getting more widespread lately?
Maybe atheists, at least in America, feel scared? They don’t need validation of their choices of values, but just to feel that they are not under attack.
Bush (Senr): No, I don’t know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God. http://www.secularism.org.uk/33034.html.
I am happy to live in a country (Australia) where being an atheist is a non-event. In the 2016 census, 30% of Australians stated they had no religion.
Went to a funeral of a friend who was a staunch Catholic. 🙁
All the religious rigmarole that goes with such a funeral.
You just “go with the flow”.
Doesn’t mean I have to share his belief system
Look at 2hotel9’s acidic attacks on those who won’t bow to his religious convictions and beliefs
FundeMENTALism to the rotten core.
Actually that religious rigmarole can be very comforting to people brought up in that religion, especially in times of stress. I think there must be a psychological benefit to sharing a familiar service with other people in that situation.
It is interesting to read so many articulate and sincere expressions of why people are atheist and on their worldview.
If we’ve not got anywhere on climate in these comments, at least we have more understanding of the atheist viewpoint.
the article starts out with good intentions. It is very important to tie environmentalism to the religeous part of the human brain. With lack of real religion becoming a common theme in our modern Godless society, it is very important to call this out. Having said that the article Segways into disproving this religion. You cannot disprove a religion to people who worship it.
Does this mean that those who try to disprove the religion of global warming are in fact militant atheists?
Why does anyone worry about who’s chucking CO2 in the air? It matters not at all.
China might just save the world.
The talebanic left -globalists allied to the grotesque LBGT camp are by far the most deadly threat to the world.
It would be better for either the Russia-Chicoms or even the Islamists to win out than for that baleful globalist left alliance to gain the global dictatorship that they crave.
Go China.
Go Russia, Iran.
Go Allah!
Go anyone but the grotesque Khmer Vert.
to me that sounds like the expression of the viewpoint of a religious cult…
I’d rather debate this issue based on interpretation of arctic sea ice extent over the last 150 years.
Interpretation? Surely you mean solid, unequivocal, scientific data? Interpretation, belief – all the hallmarks of a religion.
If there is going to be a debate on the physical evidence, then it would involve 2 interpretations of that evidence, yes?
Because supporting the enemy of my enemy has always worked out so very well in the past.
“The enemy of my enemy is my enemies enemy, no more, no less.”
In my opinion, militant atheists are a distinct branch of atheists. Because atheism is an opinion and a conscious life principle, not a belief.
Atheist militants are believers (of atheism) and, as such, they can be very invasive. I think that’s what the author means.
David Archibald, wow. Am I the only one here who saw that you wrote, “ militant atheist” rather than “atheist.” And I’ve known a few “militant atheists.” A truly wretched, angry bunch who are true believers in cagw, and if you dare disagree get ready for screaming.
Thankyou Jeffrey. Only one person mentioned Kristi Noem. Nobody discussed the importance of at least one Republican government getting that report out. The comments section should be a brainstorming session on how to speed the process up, how to maximise the leverage etc. The Biden Illegitimacy, being illegitimate, feels the need to do as much damage as possible in the time left to it. We have to get inside their OODA loop and throw a spanner in the works. There should probably be at least three different reports by Republican Governments. One will say that the CO2 effect is minuscule, one will say solar-driven cooling is in train, another will say that a big contraction in US food production is likely due to shorter growing seasons.
Well David if you hadn’t started off by categorising the people on the other side of the argument and that in a way that many who support your argument couldn’t accept, we might have got to the substantive issue.
Labelling climate scientists as leftists and militant atheists is just the same as the practice of labelling skeptics as deniers, which I would suppose you condemn
“In my opinion, global warming/climate change is the religion of choice for militant atheists, without which their meaningless lives would seem empty, hollow, depressing and pointless.”
I’m more of a militant antitheist, but you certainly don’t need religion (ancient man’s early version of philosophy) to have meaning, and you certainly won’t stop an irrational movement (climate fear mongering) by appealing to faith or the supernatural, thus conceding “reason” to your opposition.
Republicans make the same mistake in politics/economics. You want *your* position to be the rational one – leave your faith out of it.
If one is looking for a religious metaphor for the current global power grab by the left wing environmentalist alliance, it is the gospel incident where Christ casts out the legion of demons from the man from the Gerasene region. (Mark 5, 1-20.) The crowd of evil spirits driven from the man take possession of a herd of pigs who all run off a cliff and drown themselves in the lake en masse.
In the 1990’s the Soviet Union collapsed and with it, the global following of communism and extreme socialism. The legion of worldwide supporters of that creed suddenly had no-where to go. The “demons” possessing these hard left socialists needed to find new homes.
So the “legion” jumped en masse into the environmentalist-climate movement. And this movement is enjoying success in coercing much of the world to collectively hurl themselves into the lake in economic suicide through the destruction of energy technology.
What happened to the old term “agnosticism?” I haven’t seen a single person use it. I guess there aren’t any real skeptics here. Everyone clings strongly to the end of the religious spectrum they identify with.
It’s a too high level.
The data you show gives a 0.7 C temp rise over the period not 0.27. You do the pursuit of truth no favours with such antics as regards cherry picking, as it gives ammunition to those who make the warming their raison d’etre. That 0.7 is possibly significant. I currently do not think we can attribute it all to humanity, that makes no sense, but there is a chance some portion of it is due to our impact on the world. Trying to pretend it is not possible also does the pursuit of truth no aid.
I make it +0.6 C but well said.
Gotta LUV those NATURAL El Ninos, hey rusty !
They are all you have.
Now.. Any evidence that ANY of this warming was from human released CO2.. ?
Or are you still EMPTY ?????
NO, there is NOT a chance
The only actual warming came at the two major El Nino events
No warming from 1980-1997, or from 2001-2015, cooling since the 2016 El Nino finished
There is absolutely ZERO signal of any warming by human released atmospheric CO2.
Those whom gods wish to destroy…
Indeed and pride goeth before a fall.
Thank you David Archibald – but you are being far too kind.
The Climate-and-Covid scares are false crises, concocted by wolves to stampede the sheep.
The tactics used by the warmist propagandists are straight out of Lenin’s playbook (below). The Climategate emails provided further evidence of the warmists’ deceit – they don’t debate, they shout down dissent and seek to harm those who disagree with them – straight out of Lenin.
The purported “science” of global warming catastrophism has been disproved numerous ways over the decades.
Every one of the warmists’ very-scary predictions, some 50 or so since ~1982, have failed to happen. The most objective measure of scientific competence is the ability to correctly predict – and the climate fraudsters have been 100% wrong to date.
There is a powerful logic that says that no rational person can be this wrong, this deliberately obtuse, for this long – that they must have a covert agenda. I made this point circa 2009, and that agenda is now fully exposed – it is the Marxist totalitarian “Great Reset” – “you will own nothing, and you’ll be happy!”
The proponents of both the very-scary Global Warming / Climate Change scam and the Covid-19 Lockdown scam know they are lying. Note also how many global “leaders” quickly linked the two scams, stating ”to solve one we have to solve the other”- utter nonsense, not even plausible enough to be specious.
Regarding the sheep, especially those who inhabit our universities and governments: The sheep are well-described in this essay by Nassim Nicholas Taleb as “Intellectual-Yet-Idiot” – they hold the warmist views as absolute truths, without ever having spent significant effort to investigate them. The false warmist narrative fitted their warped worldview, and they never seriously questioned it by examining the contrary evidence.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/25/moving-forward-a-new-wuwt-reference-resource-site/#comment-3172726
Excerpt from this worthwhile essay:
IYI = “Intellectual-Yet-Idiot”:
https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e2d0577
“The IYI has been wrong, historically, on Stalinism, Maoism, GMOs, Iraq, Libya, Syria, lobotomies, urban planning, low carbohydrate diets, gym machines, behaviorism, transfats, freudianism, portfolio theory, linear regression, Gaussianism, Salafism, dynamic stochastic equilibrium modeling, housing projects, selfish gene, election forecasting models, Bernie Madoff (pre-blowup) and p-values. But he is convinced that his current position is right.”
Our current crop of IYI’s have also been wrong about catastrophic human-made global warming / climate change, intermittent grid-connected green energy, Covid-19 lockdowns, the specious linkage of Climate-and-Covid” (“to solve one we must solve the other” – utter nonsense) and their grand solution to all the world’s problems: the totalitarian Marxist “Great Reset” (“You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy, sheep!”)
In fact, the Climate-and-Covid scares are false crises, concocted by wolves to stampede the sheep, and the IYI’s have enthusiastically supported these scams and have profited from them.
The Climate-and-Covid scares are supported by two groups – Scoundrels and Imbeciles.
The Scoundrels are the wolves, who know that both crises are deliberate lies, false crises they concocted to stampede the sheep.
The Imbeciles (aka the IYI’s and fellow dupes) are the sheep, who believe the Climate-and-Covid lies and fear them and repeat them without realizing that they are being led to the slaughter. Baaaaad!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/12/22/how-carbon-bureaucrats-lied-to-get-the-policies-they-wanted/#comment-3150822
THE CLIMATE FRAUDSTERS’ DECEITFUL TACTICS ARE THE QUOTES OF LENIN.
https://www.azquotes.com/author/8716-Vladimir_Lenin
“Truth is the most precious thing. That’s why we should ration it.”
“We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.”
“There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.”
“Free speech is a bourgeois prejudice.”
“The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.”
“People always have been and they always will be stupid victims of deceit and
self-deception in politics.”
“It is, of course, much easier to shout, abuse, and howl than to attempt to relate, to explain.”
“Democracy is indispensable to socialism.”
“The goal of socialism is communism.”
“The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”
“Trust is good, but control is better.”
“As an ultimate objective, “peace” simply means communist world control.”
“One of the basic conditions for the victory of socialism is the arming of the workers Communist and the disarming of the bourgeoisie the middle class.”
“One man with a gun can control 100 without one.”
“Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”
“Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.”