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 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Dec 22, 2009

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

Well, Apparently he did, as did I since he was the one that told me.  indeed, he is not the only one.  I suggest you go read the comments here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense

Just because you did not say that (and no one is claiming you did or even Phil Jones did) does not make the fact that many of the faithful ARE saying it.

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

The apparently you do not understand science.  Science is about observation, hypothesis, tesing, theory and finally facts.  There is no room for consensus.  Scientists can agree, but they do not go around (at least the competant ones) trying to build a consensus.  instead they try to use the scientific method to prove their hypothesis.

We’ve discussed this many times before so you should know that.

WE have not.  I have been away for some time and only recently (see the date of this posting) returned.  You should know that.

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

Strong Opinions are not drifting on the winds of changing facts.  First it was GW, then GCC, then AGW, then AGC.  Each time the FACTS failed to back up the dogma, the creed changed.  That is not opinion (well it is if you are as set in your opinions as a jelly fish), but attempts to explain how your religion (the your used in the royal sense) must be the correct one and that all facts support your belief system.

I have an opinion that all liberals are wrong.  That does not change just because they were elected.  GW became GCC because of changing facts.  When it did not heat up, the religion did.

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.

Again just because an orange and an apple are fruits does not make them the same.  I stated that AGW has become a religion.  I never stated that everyone of the faithful (or even the heretical high priests who probably are just in it for the money) are stating it is a fact.  As usual, you are attempting to create a straw man and then break it down.  But alas, the written word betrays you here.

 

on Dec 22, 2009

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.

Again the straw man.  FACT: There are some Peer Reviewed Papers that do not support AGW.  You made the "leap of faith" to think meant it must be a fact.  Again with the false strawman.

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.

Again with the strawman!  You love them! I showed you a very biased YouTube.  Just as yours was!  But where you take yours as gospel, you want to assign mine to some sort of inviolate fact, and then go so far as to say "No climatologist" as if I ever stated that the religion of AGW was limited to just a bunch of faux scientists that call themselves climatologists!  You deny the statements you try to attribute to me have never been stated by anyone?  After all, your chief spokesman and bottlewasher is Al Gore, and we do not have to look far to see the whoppers he has told.

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

You have put up nothing but strawmen,  instead of trying to discuss what I wrote originally, or what I wrote in response to your post, you have continually tried to rephrase what was said, or even put words into my mouth.  At best that is creating strawmen, and at worst just a very poor attempt at lying.

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

Oh, I do.  it is you that does not know science.  Consensus does not belong in science, yet you continually try to impose it.  No less than Freeman Dyson ridicules consensus in science: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html

All consensus in science does is great a religion, and any self respecting scientist would avoid it like the plague.  But the religious use it to advance their religion since it means nothing.  So why do you continue to try to use it?  clearly AGW is going to have to go through the normal (Observation, Hypothesis, Testing, Theory, Proof, Fact) process if it is to be anything other than a religion.  And that is the antithesis of what the AGW crowd wants to see.

 

(Sorry for the split post, but I noticed your quotes got messed up and I remember JU has a limit on quotes, so I broke the response into 2 parts).

on Dec 23, 2009

[quote]Well, Apparently he did, as did I since he was the one that told me. indeed, he is not the only one. I suggest you go read the comments here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense[/quote]

Many people are very passionate about this doesn’t make it a religion, allot of don’t like being in the test tube while running the experiment.

The apparently you do not understand science. Science is about observation, hypothesis, tesing, theory and finally facts. There is no room for consensus. Scientists can agree, but they do not go around (at least the competant ones) trying to build a consensus. instead they try to use the scientific method to prove their hypothesis.

No kidding a consensus is not useful in science I never said it was, it’s usefulness is in helping the public decide a course of action. Say 97% of astronomers and astrophysicists  say that a meteor is going to hit us in a few weeks but 3% say not to worry these guys just want more money, Yea I’m going with the consensus, cause I don’t have access to a big telescope or the ability to determine if what I saw was going to hit us or not.

WE have not. I have been away for some time and only recently (see the date of this posting) returned. You should know that.

There’s no time limit on “before” we’ve discussed this before, WTF.

Strong Opinions are not drifting on the winds of changing facts. First it was GW, then GCC, then AGW, then AGC. Each time the FACTS failed to back up the dogma, the creed changed. That is not opinion (well it is if you are as set in your opinions as a jelly fish), but attempts to explain how your religion (the your used in the royal sense) must be the correct one and that all facts support your belief system. I have an opinion that all liberals are wrong. That does not change just because they were elected. GW became GCC because of changing facts. When it did not heat up, the religion did.

Science changes with new information, it’s not a weakness. Eventually we get a pretty good bead on what the natural world is telling us.

Freeman Dyson is about as liberal as they come so he must be wrong.

Again just because an orange and an apple are fruits does not make them the same. I stated that AGW has become a religion. I never stated that everyone of the faithful (or even the heretical high priests who probably are just in it for the money) are stating it is a fact. As usual, you are attempting to create a straw man and then break it down. But alas, the written word betrays you here.

There’s no strawman, you’ve claimed that AGW is junk science and become a religion and that the scientist are complacent in this. There motivation just like in a real church is irrelevant.

 

on Dec 23, 2009

Again the straw man. FACT: There are some Peer Reviewed Papers that do not support AGW. You made the "leap of faith" to think meant it must be a fact. Again with the false strawman.

You wrote, “AH! Opinion” in response to a video making a logical argument against the contentions that AGW decent was being suppressed. Then you write “OR” as in the alternative to opinion, “how about some FACTS”. FACTS as in plural then link to a collection of 500 articles and I’m supposed to believe that what you meant was that you were just pointing out the single FACT that someone bothered to make a list of 500 articles submitted for peer review arguing against AGW and you understand that they were all just opinions as well? Then you accuse me of putting up a strawman, B f’n S.

Again with the strawman! You love them! I showed you a very biased YouTube. Just as yours was! But where you take yours as gospel, you want to assign mine to some sort of inviolate fact, and then go so far as to say "No climatologist" as if I ever stated that the religion of AGW was limited to just a bunch of faux scientists that call themselves climatologists! You deny the statements you try to attribute to me have never been stated by anyone? After all, your chief spokesman and bottlewasher is Al Gore, and we do not have to look far to see the whoppers he has told.

There’s no comparison the video I linked was not opinion, you can fact check everything he said, he even shows you how to. Not once in this discussion have I linked to any propaganda or anyone saying that AGW was an immutable fact. They have all been direct rebuttals to specific claims that can be easily fact checked by anyone.

Talk about a strawman, what I quoted was from the video my response was limited to what John Coleman said in that video, I attributed nothing to you. Your response to me saying “All Gore is full of it”, is to tell me he’s my chief spokesman and bottlewasher, WTH.

You have put up nothing but strawmen, instead of trying to discuss what I wrote originally, or what I wrote in response to your post, you have continually tried to rephrase what was said, or even put words into my mouth. At best that is creating strawmen, and at worst just a very poor attempt at lying.

I have responded to your conjecture that AGW is some sort of religion even though you’ve offered nothing but ambiguously worded unsupported conjecture to support it. Not understanding it is not putting up a strawman. 

Your final response to you not understanding what a theory is has nothing to do with that and I already addressed what you do say there.

on Dec 26, 2009

Many people are very passionate about this doesn’t make it a religion, allot of don’t like being in the test tube while running the experiment.

This is true.  Religion requires an additional element - blind faith.  And of course the final element, the priesthood.  AGW has both.  Only the faithful would deny that Gore has become the next Peter for this church, especially in his own mind.  He is a useful tool for the rest of the "men behind the curtain".  And lest we forget, the attack dogs that attack, both physically and professionally, all those that do not believe in the new god.  I think I made a compelling, if brief, case for the new religion with this article.  But the faithful will only see that as an attack on their faith, not a dispassionate critique of the messengers (for a change, yes I am attacking the messengers).

it’s usefulness is in helping the public decide a course of action.

You see your problem?   You are internalizing all taht is said.  It is all "I,I,I,I,....".  Which is fine.  But in so doing, you are missing what others are doing.  They are not building a course of action with consensus, they are trying to silence the skeptics (AL Gore, Jimmy Carter - need I post their quotes of Nazis, and the other trashing of skeptics?).  As YOU say, consensus is good when deciding upon a course of action.  It is useless in science, and that is my criticism.

There’s no time limit on “before” we’ve discussed this before, WTF.

So Post it.  Post where we have discussed this before.  WHile my views have changed on AGW as my knowledge of the issue has increased, I do not recall posting about this on JU before (or anywhere else other than in informal conversations).

I know I did comment on an article of Brads (that I do remember) about Pirates and Global Warming.  Perhaps that was the reference?

Science changes with new information, it’s not a weakness. Eventually we get a pretty good bead on what the natural world is telling us.

Freeman Dyson is about as liberal as they come so he must be wrong.

Science does not change, but perhaps you were talking about the hypothesis?  If so, you are correct.  But unfortunately, the Hypothesis has not been changing to fit the changing facts, only the "massaged" data that is changing.  The "facts" are such inconvenient things such as CO2 has increased over the past 10 years, but the temperature has not (hence the reason it went from warming to change).  The Hypothesis did not change, the facts did, and so the fix had to as well.  That again is not science, it is faith.

There’s no strawman, you’ve claimed that AGW is junk science and become a religion and that the scientist are complacent in this. There motivation just like in a real church is irrelevant.

Again with the strawman!  NO, I never claimed anything about AGW, only the PROPONENTS of AGW.  SO I will not bite on your strawman.  AGW is a valid scientific hypothesis that has been hijacked by a bunch of jihadists in the name of their religion.  As such, the science is being subverted by the high priests in order to protect the faith.  That is where the science is being killed.  Not by any skeptics, but by the faithful of AGW.

on Dec 26, 2009

Duplicate

on Dec 26, 2009

You wrote, “AH! Opinion” in response to a video making a logical argument against the contentions that AGW decent was being suppressed.

Yes, and that is the author's OPINION.  I then offered others, and then facts and such.  YOu do realize what an OPINION is, correct?  There is nothing wrong with having one, but having one does not make one right.

There’s no comparison the video I linked was not opinion, you can fact check everything he said, he even shows you how to.

I did, and can show you the confirmation, refutation of the "facts" and disagreements with his opinions - which is what I did.  Most of the Video was not facts  but his OPINION.  YOu really need to learn the difference between the 2.  That is probably why you cannot see the corpus christi for the science.

 

I have responded to your conjecture that AGW is some sort of religion even though you’ve offered nothing but ambiguously worded unsupported conjecture to support it. Not understanding it is not putting up a strawman.

No, you have attempted to change my article to one that is easily disproven, and then proceed to disprove the changed article.  I never stated that AGW was bogus or religion, I have clearly stated that the adherants of AGW are the religious and the faithful.  YOu keep trying to change the thesis and the debunk it.  I have not let you.  There is a reason I continually mention Al Gore (proven a liar now over a dozen times - publicly), Phil Jones, Michael Mann and Pachauri.  I have not really talked at all about how CO2 increases temperatures or about positive and negative reinforcers now have I?  But then neither have you.  YOu have tried to change the debate, but not offered any facts, just a bunch of opinions that I do not bite on.

Sorry, I know I am a heretic and skeptic (I am not a denier - that is a faithful word for those who are lobotomized believers).  But then I do know the difference between the science of AGW and the believers of the religion of AGW.  One is a valid scientific study that has been coopted by a bunch of religion zealots belonging to the second.

on Dec 28, 2009

Welcome back!  Glad you have only been busy, and didn't fall prey to an unwelcome demise. 

 (Other than that, I have nothing to add to the conversation.)

on Dec 28, 2009

Welcome back! Glad you have only been busy, and didn't fall prey to an unwelcome demise.

Thank you.  I hope you have been doing well.  Happy New year!

2 Pages1 2