Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
In The Beginning Was the Word - And The Word Was AGW
Published on December 10, 2009 By Dr Guy In The Environment

We believe in one God the Global Climate Change, Destroyer of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

 

A proponent of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) told me the other day that “97% of Climate Scientists know AGW is a FACT!” (his words exactly).  I called him a liar.  And I never touched Google (or Bing).

 

What has gotten lost in the latest development of AGW, the East Anglia emails and source code, and indeed it has been lost for many years, is that AGW (call it Global Warming or call it Global Climate Change – but it is neither) is not a fact.  It is not even a theory. And if 97% of a bunch of people want to call it a fact, then they may be adherents of the idea of AGW, they may be acolytes of AGW, but they are not scientists.

For in the real world, science is not religion.  And facts are very scarce.  Science recognizes very few facts (1+1=2 is a fact, Evolution is a theory, not a fact, AGW is not even a theory, just an hypothesis).  And the method to obtain “facthood” is long and complicated and also well detailed.  And any scientist knows this.

 

And in one Lord Al Gore, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of Phil Jones before all worlds, God of God, CO2 of CO2, Global Warming of Climate Change, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made;

 

But AGW has been thrown out of science. It is no longer in that realm.  It is now a religion.  You can see it whenever an article, post, comment or news story is printed about it.  The adherents do not talk of hypotheses and testing and trial and error, of proof or method.  They talk of facts.  The fact that any reasonable, sane, non-idiotic, non-moronic person has to know is true if they know anything.  There can be no doubt.

 

Kind of like Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition.  The truth is not relevant.  Dissent is squashed!  Dissenters are called names, compared to Nazis and flat earthers, ridiculed  and in some cases, threatened!  Yes, they do all that to protect their god, AGW.

 

who for us polluters, and for our pollution, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Climate Research Unit of the Hockey Stick, and was made polluter, and was crucified also for us polluters. 

 

They deny all other facts that do not fit into their creed.  They will use a source if it agrees with them, but woe to that source that turns against them!  Heretics must be made example of!

 

When the truth of the deceit was revealed by a hacker or whistle blower, the normal reaction of true scientists would have been anger and a call to clean up the morass and get the house in order!  So that integrity could be restored to the field.  Indeed, many scientists in other fields are doing just that.  Calling for a full accounting and audit to try to restore some integrity to the climate field.

 

He suffered and was de-polluted, and the third day he rose again according to the Tricks of Michael Mann, and ascended into the heavens as a non-greenhouse gas, and sitteth on the right hand of Rajendra Pachauri. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the polluters and greenies, whose kingdom shall have no CO2.

 

But what are the climatologists, that “97%”, are doing is trying to spin what “hide the decline” and “tricks” are.  Ignoring the suppression of dissenting views revealed in the emails, and the source code that shows a hockey stick in every box.  They are not concerned about being lied to (did they already know?), but trying to explain away 2 phrases.  That in the grand scheme of things are really irrelevant to the discrediting of the science.  THEY discredited their science.  They made it a religion - with willing high priests like Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri.  Neither of which know word one about science, but that does not matter to the faithful.

 

They are quick to point out that “only climatology scientists” are qualified to speak on the issue, but just as quick to cite a source from someone who is not in the field.  The drink the kool-aid of denial of those who tarnish and threaten the skeptics, because it fits with their creed, not due to any insightful revelations.

 

And we believe in East Anglia University, NASA Climate Research Unit and the Met Office, who proceedeth from the Al Gore and Michael Mann, who with the Michael Mann and Phil Jones together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets.

 

One of the favorite tactics I have seen is jumping on the Orwellian Newspeak bandwagon. All of a sudden, lag becomes lead.  Magically!  How?  By the wave of a climatologists written word!  Data shown to have been deficient is massaged into the realm of gospel, with no doubt allowed.  Pish Posh the idea that the data was massaged to support the message instead of being used to find the truth.

 

The sad part is that they are destroying what they want the world to believe is the second (or third) coming of the messiah.  For in suppressing dissent, hiding data, attacking skeptics, and trying to force a blind faith to their new Creed, they may be damaging the real science that could advance their dogma scientifically, instead of religiously. 

 

In the end, AGW could be a valid theory and in time a fact.  But because it is now a religion, we will probably never know if it is valid, or a hoax.  The “Chosen” have made sure that no more science can take place, only blind faith.  And that is not going to sway any more people.  Just alienate them.

 

And we believe one holy Global Warming and apostolic Climate change. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of pollution. And we look for the resurrection of the ecology, and the life of the world without men.

 


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Dec 10, 2009

I have to say I've seen the, if I can make up a word, "religification" of this global warming fad. I find it awe inspiring, in a train wreck sort of way, that people are so desperate to convert to this pseudo-religion with such a miss mash of "facts" floating about. I have to wonder, not being a religious person myself, what drives a person to this? What is missing from their lives that they need the comfort that only impending disaster can bring? Normally, this wouldn't bother me much, I feel each is free to believe as they wish. What gets me is now it has seeped beyond its true believers and they want me and all the other "heretics" to pay for their religion. Anyone in their way is a blasphemer (looking back at history, it's starting to sound familiar). One can look back at history of the church and find startling similarities. Folks, they didn't call them the Dark Ages because the sun wasn't out. Do people really want a return to that or something similar? Folks need to wake up quick, before this nightmare becomes a reality. Is this the reality of the post-large war world where idle hands do the work of the devil? 

on Dec 10, 2009

"religification"

Sweet!  I love it!

on Dec 10, 2009

Good on ya, Dr Guy, and welcome back.

on Dec 11, 2009

"religification"

Sweet! I love it!

Thanks Tova. There might be a better, real, word for it, but if so I haven't heard it yet.

on Dec 11, 2009

I have to say I've seen the, if I can make up a word, "religification" of this global warming fad. I find it awe inspiring, in a train wreck sort of way, that people are so desperate to convert to this pseudo-religion with such a miss mash of "facts" floating about. I have to wonder, not being a religious person myself, what drives a person to this?[/quote]

Geez NC, that could be a whole book in itself trying to figure that out!  I am a religious person, but I know my religion is not trying to be "science", and I also know that the only person I have to prove anything to about it is me.  That's why they call it faith.  I am not a bible thumper, so perhaps one of them would have a better answer to the question.  I practice mine and let everyone else practice their religion or their non-religion.

[quote who="Tova7" reply="2" id="2470618"]
"religification"


Sweet!  I love it!

Gotta second Tova's comment!  I have already used it (with attribution).  Besides, if you can get "Borked", there sure is religification of this issue!

Good on ya, Dr Guy, and welcome back.

Thanks Daiwa. Glad to see some familiar faces back as well, and still posting!

on Dec 11, 2009

Welcome back, and an excellent article. I am constantly amazed at how people state "global warming" is a fact. They're blind, stupid, and lazy. But then it's just one of many new religions spreading around the world. Talked to any anti-toacco nuts lately? Talk about religious zealotry!

The one thing all of these religious nuts share is the refusal to have their claims muddled with actual facts.

on Dec 12, 2009

Gotta second Tova's comment! I have already used it (with attribution).

I saw that Doc, thanks. Feel free to use it at your pleasure.

on Dec 18, 2009

Any word yet on the dollar amount of US taxpayers money that Obama wants to give away to the wise leaders of the third world for our CO2 sins? I heard Hugo Chavez got a lot of applause on his anti-capitalism speech, with his grubby hand stretched out for those very same capitalist created dollars.

Sounds like the name of a great new PC game- Sins of the CO2 Empire, only thing is if you play the US taxpayer faction you can't win. I'll have to pitch that one to Brad.

on Dec 18, 2009

The one thing all of these religious nuts share is the refusal to have their claims muddled with actual facts.

I dont agree totally.  Like all religions, they do use facts - facts that are convenient and fit their faith.  But those that do not, they attack the messenger, not the message.  Look at most of the "rebuttals" for the faithful and the most common theme is that the person is unqualified to speak on the subject (As an aside - in truth anyone is qualified to speak on the subject since we all experience it, but some carry more authority than others).

I have been researching this (as a break between my studies and research into HEOA) and found that there are indeed some deniers (there are still some flat earthers too), but the vast majority of skeptics are more concerned with the quality of the data.  And when that is questioned (like why was only 40% of the historical readings from Russia used?), the faithful then burn the skeptic at the stake - instead of rationally discussing the problems or questions concerning the hypothesis.

Thanks for the welcome, BTW.  We are about to get slammed with a snow storm, so that may allow me to catch up some of the past articles.  Yours and BFD are at the top of the list (they are some of the most enjoyable to read).

on Dec 18, 2009

Any word yet on the dollar amount of US taxpayers money that Obama wants to give away to the wise leaders of the third world for our CO2 sins? I heard Hugo Chavez got a lot of applause on his anti-capitalism speech, with his grubby hand stretched out for those very same capitalist created dollars.

I have heard $10b (of the $100b) annual amount.  But even $1 is too much.  And while I am sure Chavez is going to get some, it is laughable.  After all, he is one of the ones that have been gigging the rest of the world on oil prices for years!  And will continue to do so.  Nothing that happens in Copenhagan will change the fact that the world is based on oil, and will be for some time to come at least.

on Dec 21, 2009

I have heard $10b (of the $100b) annual amount. But even $1 is too much.

Thanks. I agree and will go one further. It cost to much to send people to the conference. Haven't they heard of teleconferencing? If anyone has any doubt, it should be clear now...green is a control device for the modern day peasants, not the ruling elite. Land kept the people loyal to the nobility in the past. Tomorrow it will be energy, and many of these fools are clamoring for it.

on Dec 21, 2009

It cost to much to send people to the conference. Haven't they heard of teleconferencing?

They should have. Besides creating "An Inconvenient Truth", Gore also created the Internet!

on Dec 21, 2009

A proponent of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) told me the other day that “97% of Climate Scientists know AGW is a FACT!” (his words exactly). I called him a liar. And I never touched Google (or Bing). What has gotten lost in the latest development of AGW, the East Anglia emails and source code, and indeed it has been lost for many years, is that AGW (call it Global Warming or call it Global Climate Change – but it is neither) is not a fact. It is not even a theory. And if 97% of a bunch of people want to call it a fact, then they may be adherents of the idea of AGW, they may be acolytes of AGW, but they are not scientists. For in the real world, science is not religion. And facts are very scarce. Science recognizes very few facts (1+1=2 is a fact, Evolution is a theory, not a fact, AGW is not even a theory, just an hypothesis). And the method to obtain “facthood” is long and complicated and also well detailed. And any scientist knows this.

Who cares that this “proponent” of AGW calls it a “fact”, it has nothing to do with the scientific consensus which is still at 97% of climatologist. All that means is 97% of climatologist believe man is the best explanation of the recent observed climate changes, that qualifies AGW as a theory.  

People have a strong tendency to turn their beliefs into convictions and then their “facts”, but just because many take strong stances to ovoid coming off as wishy washy on certain subjects doesn’t religify these convictions. How the religious can call all these various convictions especially people they now dismiss as "lying to get money" a religion and not get the irony is beyond me. I think these emails show that none of them consider AGW a fact don’t you? As you said “Facthood” is not easily obtained, there’s still a heated debate as to whether glass is a liquid or a solid of course they’re still debating AGW, even if Florida disappears from the map they’ll still be a debate as to the cause.

Scientist are subject to conformational bias just like the rest of us, although there generally more aware of it’s hindrance to critical thinking, that’s why they have the peer review process. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo

Will you please learn the definition of a “scientific theory”before using the term again. For the thousandth time “evolution” and the ‘theory of evolution” are two different things. evolution or common decent is a fact, it has achieved “facthood” the “theory of evolution” is an attempt to explain how this fact happened. Just like there’s the fact of gravity and the theory of what it actually is. A scientific theory can never ever become a fact or a law, it’s only a “container” for facts and observations. 

on Dec 22, 2009

Who cares that this “proponent” of AGW calls it a “fact”, it has nothing to do with the scientific consensus which is still at 97% of climatologist.

point 1:  Apparently he did and he is one of the faithful

point 2: Consensus means something in Poliltics, but is useless and even counter productive in Science.

Sorry, Did I upset your faith?

How the religious can call all these various convictions especially people they now dismiss as "lying to get money" a religion and not get the irony is beyond me.

Seems you like to use contorted sentences.  But let me clarify something for you.  The religious are the believers, not those accusing the faithful of religion.  I did not poll them to find out if they were atheist or not.  Nor did you.

I think these emails show that none of them consider AGW a fact don’t you?

And note I did not claim that. Why are you creating your own strawman and then besting it?

Scientist are subject to conformational bias just like the rest of us, although there generally more aware of it’s hindrance to critical thinking, that’s why they have the peer review process. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo

AH!  Opinion!  How about this one: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

Or how about some FACTS: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

You like youtube?  How about this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ

How about the point that this article is making: http://www.politicallyincorrectfacts.com/Global_Warming/Stifling_Decent_Main.htm

You see, you are a classic religious!  You dont discuss or debate the issue at hand, you try to again turn it a strawman and then best it (like accusing me of saying the Sun does not rise in the east and then proving me wrong - sure it is esay when you get to dictate what each side says!)

Will you please learn the definition of a “scientific theory”before using the term again. For the thousandth time “evolution” and the ‘theory of evolution” are two different things. evolution or common decent is a fact, it has achieved “facthood” the “theory of evolution” is an attempt to explain how this fact happened. Just like there’s the fact of gravity and the theory of what it actually is. A scientific theory can never ever become a fact or a law, it’s only a “container” for facts and observations.

Apparently I do know the difference, but you are woefully ignorant of it.  Evolution is not a "Fact" but a theory supported by testing and observation (which is as close to a fact that most things get to).  What you call "evolution" could be more accurately described as mutation, and the theory of evolution does explain it. 

You use the term facts, yet apparently you do not have any.  But that is ok.  I am not hear to tear down your religion - as long as you do not make me convert to it or pay for it.

 

on Dec 22, 2009

point 1: Apparently he did and he is one of the faithful

Again who cares that some joe is over stating his belief to be a fact, climatologist are not that certain.

point 2: Consensus means something in Poliltics, but is useless and even counter productive in Science.

Ya I don’t know what you’re talking about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

Sorry, Did I upset your faith?

I have no faith in AGW, I’m open to the possibility that these scientist are wrong in there conclusions. We’ve discussed this many times before so you should know that.

Seems you like to use contorted sentences. But let me clarify something for you. The religious are the believers, not those accusing the faithful of religion. I did not poll them to find out if they were atheist or not. Nor did you.

When I say religious I mean god fearing folk. I don’t have your inexplicable propensity to describe strong opinions as religions. 

And note I did not claim that. Why are you creating your own strawman and then besting it?

You claimed in your third paragraph that the field of climatology is now a religion, so 97% of them are now no longer scientist but some sort of cult whom have abandoned the scientific method for dogma.

AH! Opinion! How about this one: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

I linked that video because it does a very good job of showing why every article does not get peer reviewed.

[quote]Or how about some FACTS: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html[/quote]

LOL, So peer review means an automatic fact huh. Well if that’s the case the greater number of facts are the proponents of AGW’s side.

Here’s one of the only articles listed you don’t have to pay for from John Stubbles, steel industry consultant. This is the big conspiracy trying to keep bad science and agenda driven opinion pieces of of the body of legitimate work. This is what the video I linked effectively addressed, there is no conspiracy and here’s 500 more peer reviewed articles from apparently anyone with an opinion to prove it. 

[quote]You like youtube? How about this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ[/quote]

Please, John Colman in the first 2 min he proves he has no idea what climatologist are saying about the effects of GW. “it’s going to turn the planet into an oven and we’re all going to bake and die”. No climatologist has ever said anything like that, he’s as full of it as All Gore. We should let them debate maybe they’ll kill each other. Also meteorology and climatology have nothing to do with each other.

You see, you are a classic religious! You dont discuss or debate the issue at hand, you try to again turn it a strawman and then best it (like accusing me of saying the Sun does not rise in the east and then proving me wrong - sure it is esay when you get to dictate what each side says!)

No, I have not put up a single strawman, however you have turned conformational bias into a full blown syndrome.

Apparently I do know the difference, but you are woefully ignorant of it. Evolution is not a "Fact" but a theory supported by testing and observation (which is as close to a fact that most things get to). What you call "evolution" could be more accurately described as mutation, and the theory of evolution does explain it.

No you still have no idea. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

 

2 Pages1 2