Is “Global Warming” a Religion?

by admin on November 18, 2013

I chose the lecture’s title largely in reaction to the sanctimonious tone employed by so many of those who advocate quite substantial, and costly, responses to what they see as irrefutable evidence that the world’s climate faces catastrophe, against people who do not share their view. To them the cause has become a substitute religion.

Increasingly offensive language is used. The most egregious example has been the term “denier”. We are all aware of the particular meaning that word has acquired in contemporary parlance. It has been employed in this debate with some malice aforethought.

An overriding feature of the debate is the constant attempt to intimidate policy makers, in some cases successfully, with the mantras of “follow the science” and “the science is truly settled”. The purpose is to create the impression that there is really no room for argument; this is not really a public policy issue; it is one on which the experts have spoken, and we would all be quite daft to do other than follow the prescriptions, it is asserted, which flow automatically from the scientific findings.

Writing recently in Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said of those with political agendas who found it useful to employ science, “This immediately involves a distortion of science at a very basic level: namely science becomes a source of authority rather than a mode of inquiry. The real utility of science stems from the latter; the political utility stems from the former.”

It is a proven technique. It is behind the expression I am sure you have heard that something is “above politics” or “too important to be left to the politicians”, with politicians themselves sometimes being the worst culprits of all in advocating that decisions they should make are in fact determined by others. Politicians who bemoan the loss of respect for their calling should remember that every time they allow themselves to be browbeaten by the alleged views of experts they contribute further to that loss of respect.

Scientists are experts in science. Judges are experts in interpreting the law and doctors are skilled at keeping us healthy-provided we take their advice. But parliaments –composed of elected politicians — are the experts at public policy making, and neither expressly or impliedly should they ever surrender that role to others.

Read more at: www.cfact.org

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

G. L. Black November 23, 2013 at 2:15 pm

Are f#%€~ng kidding me? Only an ignorant asshole would even raise such a question. If anything it is the climate deniers that are engaged in an unholy religion based on capitalism not science. Yeah quoting one shill on the oil industry payroll doesn’t change the science. You make me sick.

admin November 24, 2013 at 11:06 am

Your emotional response is typical of the religious response…here is an article from the Toronto Sun that sheds some light on where this whole denier accusation has headed… “If there were a webcam in Hades, I would imagine we could all tune to watch Satan shivering in the eternal lake of fire (which itself would have lost its inferno).

Hell has frozen over.

The BBC has reported it is “more likely than not” that the Earth is entering a period of intense cooling.

Why is this so remarkable? Because as much as any news outlet in the world, the British Broadcasting Corporation has been a cheerleader for global warming alarmism for the past 15 years.

No, that’s the wrong analogy.

Cheerleaders are largely appealing characters. The BBC has been more like an inquisitor, cruelly enforcing the alleged global warming consensus with a sadistic glee.

The Brit equivalent of our own CBC, the Beeb has, if anything, been even more sneering, smug and condescending than Canada’s Mother Corp toward those who dared question the “settled science” about climate change.

The use of the word “deniers” to discredit global-warming skeptics — a word designed to smear doubters as the moral and intellectual equals of Holocaust deniers — appeared early and often at the BBC.

Four years ago, when e-mails leaked from the world’s top climate scientists showing them frantically trying to cover up the fact that the Earth had stopped warming in about 1998 (at exactly the same time the UN was imposing the Kyoto accord on the developed world to limit carbon emissions), the BBC jumped into full defence mode.

It lauded the scientists who had been exposed. Rather than vain careerists who were fudging the data and endeavouring to keep their critics from being published in respected scientific journals, the Beeb portrayed them as brave knights attempting to slay the evil dragons of Big Oil and Big Carbon.

They were not serial dissemblers. No, to the BBC these climate scientists were victims of a smear campaign designed to preserve profits and prevent the world’s governments from taking much needed action to preserve our planet.

They were treated with nearly as much saintly veneration as the CBC treats David Suzuki. How dare anyone doubt their veracity?

So it was gobsmacking this week to see the BBC report on the work of scientist Mike Lockwood of Reading University in the U.K.

Lockwood (and dozens of other scientists) believes the sun is about to enter a period of low activity unseen in the past 10,000 years. This could, in turn, lead to a prolonged period of global cooling the likes of which the Earth has not experienced in at least two or three centuries — long, brutal, snowy winters coupled with cool, wet, pathetic summers.

In other words, our climate might be in for a Little Ice Age, according to the BBC.

This isn’t simply straight-up honest reporting. This amounts to a huge climb-down by the BBC which as recently as a year ago wasn’t reporting on alternative theories about climate except to dismiss those theories’ proponents as cranks and crackpots.

Nor is the solar-minimum theory something new. While the theory that carbon in the atmosphere causes dangerous global warming has only been believed in earnest for

25 years, scientists have known for centuries the sun goes through predictable peaks and valleys of its strength.

Also, for those who cared to listen (the BBC and most of the rest of the world’s consensus media did its best not to listen), we have known that those solar peaks and valleys corresponded very closely to periods of warming and cooling around the world.

With the UN’s own climb-down in September from its ironclad belief in the carbon/warming theory, it shouldn’t be a surprise that alarmist institutions such as the BBC would also back off.

Still, it’s a welcome development.”

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: