Climate scepticism akin to creationism?

Al Gore creating the alarmist religion

This is just the latest in the long line of attempts to demonise climate scepticism. The US National Centre for Science Education (NCSE) has announced that it will be tackling the teaching of climate scepticism in the classroom, just as it has tackled the teaching of creationism:

NCSE is proud to announce the launch of its new initiative aimed at defending the teaching of climate change. Like evolution, climate change is accepted by the scientific community but controversial among the public. As a result, educators trying to teach climate change, like their counterparts trying to teach evolution, are often likewise pressured to compromise the scientific and pedagogical integrity of their instruction. But there was no NCSE for climate — no organization, that is, specializing in providing advice and support to those facing challenges to climate change education.

With the launching of the initiative, NCSE itself becomes that organization. As NCSE’s executive director Eugenie C. Scott explained in a January 16, 2012, press release, “We consider climate change a critical issue in our own mission to protect the integrity of science education.” She added, “Climate affects everyone, and the decisions we make today will affect generations to come. We need to teach kids now about the realities of global warming and climate change, so that they’re prepared to make informed, intelligent decisions in the future.” (source)

But which side of the climate debate is really closer to creationism?

  • Which side has a pre-determined “cause” that must be defended at all costs?
  • Which side suppresses inconvenient data that doesn’t fit the cause?
  • Which side attacks heretics that dare challenge the cause?
  • Which side takes scientific findings and shoehorns them into the results it needs to support the cause?
  • Which side hides uncertainties in order to prevent the cause from being diluted?
  • Which side tries to stifle debate in order to protect the cause?
  • Which side has armies of paid organisations the spread “the word”? Think all the Green-bankrolled blogs and websites
  • Which side believes that the world will end unless the cause is blindly worshipped?

On the other hand, however:

  • Which side champions impartial, free-thinking scientific enquiry?
  • Which side isn’t beholden to any “cause”?
  • Which side welcomes all data, whether inconvenient or otherwise, to increase understanding?
  • Which side welcomes debate, since, again, it leads to greater understanding?

Check out this great essay over at Number Watch, which exposes in great detail the frightening similarities between climate alarmism and organised religion. Here is the introduction:

It was Michael Crichton who first prominently identified environmentalism as a religion. That was in a speech in 2003, but the world has moved on apace since then and adherents of the creed now have a firm grip on the world at large.

Global Warming has become the core belief in a new eco-theology. The term is used as shorthand for anthropogenic (or man made) global warming. It is closely related to other modern belief systems, such as political correctness, chemophobia and various other forms of scaremongering, but it represents the vanguard in the assault on scientific man.

The activists now prefer to call it “climate change”. This gives them two advantages:

  1. It allows them to seize as “evidence” the inevitable occurrences of unusually cold weather as well as warm ones.
  2. The climate is always changing, so they must be right.

Only the relatively elderly can remember the cynical haste with which the scaremongers dropped the “coming ice age” and embraced exactly the opposite prediction, but aimed at the same culprit – industry. This was in Britain, which was the cradle of the new belief and was a response to the derision resulting from the searing summer of 1976. The father of the new religion was Sir Crispin Tickell, and because he had the ear of Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, who was engaged in a battle with the coal miners and the oil sheiks, it was introduced into international politics with the authority of the only major political leader holding a qualification in science. The introduction was timely yet ironic since, in the wake of the world’s political upheavals, a powerful new grouping of left-wing interests was coalescing around environmental issues. The result was a new form of godless religion. 

I recommend you read it all. And then decide whether it’s the sceptics that should be lumped in with the creationists.

Comments

  1. Mark Bailey via Facebook says:

    if anything, the climate change alarmists are using their beliefs as their new religion….

  2. Dave Gardner via Facebook says:

    Well, you have the “religion” of the “gobal warming” fanatics and the “religion” of politicians trying to cram all sorts of crud down our throats… Yep. Climate changes… but there’s not a darn thing we can do about it. One volcano in the Philippines (Mt. Pinatubo, for instance) or in the U.S. (Mt. St. Helens) or elsewhere (Krakatoa, for instance) burps more crud into the air than any humans can imagine and will change the earth’s climate for many years. One tsunami caused by one earthquake can destroy the environment (at least for humans) in ways that humans can’t comprehend. One period (of tens of years) of solar flares and other solar activities can fry us or cause our climate to change… and there’s not a damn thing we can do about it. Sure, it’s good for us to be “good stewards” of the environment and not dump pollution… but to *tax* for “carbon footprints”…. good Lord, we *ARE* (and the whole planet is based on) CARBON-BASED LIFE-FORMS…. (StarTrek made that point very clear.) … Every time a whale poops or farts, you get “biopollution” –and you don’t see us issuing environmental impact statements or fussing for emmission control. The politicians should be taken out and dumped in the ocean to “feed the fishies” ……. that way they are “taking care of the environment” … *sigh*

  3. Ian F Somerville via Facebook says:

    Climate scepticism is based on SCIENTIFIC FACT whereas Creationism is built on FAITH.How can these idiots get it so wrong ? All the Climate Believers theories are based on “debunked theories” and “fattening a world government bank account” by deception and propaganda.

  4. Vermin Ratt via Facebook says:

    man made climate change bullshit is the religion of death

  5. It’s about conditioning the children.

  6. Matthew 8:26
    And when he (IPCC) got into the boat, his disciples (IPCC scientists) followed him. And behold, there arose a great storm (catastrophic climate change) on the sea, so that the boat (the Earth) was being swamped by the waves (cyclones, melting ice caps, ocean acidification, carbon pollution); but he was asleep. And they went and woke him, saying, “Save us, Lord (IPCC); we are perishing.” And he said to them, “Why are you afraid, O ye of little faith?” Then he rose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm. And the men marveled, saying, “What sort of man is this, that even winds and sea (the climate) obey him?”

    • The Loaded Dog says:

      It’s interesting that you should make this connection Baldrick. Because whereas one faith accepts (by faith) that an almighty GOD controls the weather of this planet (perfectly feasible if you believe in an almighty omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient GOD) the other is diametrically opposed claiming in effect (again by faith) that man can control the weather. (not so feasible but in fact ridiculous) So it’s man vs God is it? Very interesting..

  7. Chris Ozman says:

    I have been pointing out for a couple of years similarities faced by Scientists who question man-made climate change and those who question the Theory of evolution. As we are natural allies I find it a little offensive that you haven’t noticed this yourself and seem to be insinuating that Creationism is a negative concept worthy of derision.

    I submit that the post “Intelligent Design” era in the U.S. has put us in a box that climate-skeptics are now starting to share with us. We are your future, figures of fun not to be taken seriously as the “Scientific” community has closed ranks to shut our views down. Does this sound familiar?: we share the same data but start with different assumptions, we will not get research funding unless it fits the prevailing paradigm, we are ostracised by our peers, many of whom share our views but are too scared to say so. There are many others in our community who remain neutral to the idea of the existence of God but simply cannot accept the blind-faced lie of Darwinism. Evolution (from species to species, not to be confused with natural selection) is falling apart as a concept. Despite 150 years of intense inquiry into the fossil record to find a single proven link from anything to anything, there remain only “candidates”.

    I know many people reading this will be quietly thinking “poor delusional dear” but I would like to think there are intelligent free-thinkers here of the truly scientific persuasion (which if Science is truly honest should include the possibility of supernatural causes if they exist) and who would never dismiss an idea unless it was proven wrong. Is it just possible that your thoughts are simply a result of an overwhelming “groupthink” win by the very same propagandists that climate skeptics find themselves up against? (see…the label is already a win)

    Please understand that the tactics they are using on “climate-skeptics” have all been used before on “Creationists”, you would do well to study them , forewarned is forearmed. Personally I think you would do well to spend a few months wading through the thousands of truly enlightening articles on creation.com as well, in fact I would expect nothing less from the open-minded readers here. Also, another I recommend is Ben Stein’s amusing film “Expelled” showing what happened to real Creationist Scientists in the U.S. who wouldn’t “play the game”, it is completely interchangeable with the situation Scientists who doubt man-made climate change now find themselves in.

    • Sad Chris, sad.

      We all accept there are gaps in the understanding of evolution and it is appropriate to research these, but any evidence which comes up is freely available for discussion. There isn’t a line of thought to be protected.

      Produce the merest evidence for the assertions of your magic book and we will gladly take it on board. Until then, it isn’t science, it’s religion, and it’s well enough funded by the churches without needing support from public funds.

  8. Luke Joyce via Facebook says:

    I’m sick of being told I’m sceptical of climate change.

    I accept climate changes, and has done for billions of years. I’m sceptical that our gases have more of an impact then the sun.

  9. We know that this bullshit should have been dead and buried a long time ago ..but there are those out there that want to believe it.

  10. why is it they present what is deemed FACTS on climate change, based on weather, and state global warming exists and we need to cut C02 emissions, yet all these experts and scientists can’t figure out why whales, dolphins etc beach themselves, fish turn up dead on coastlines, now seals, and birds drop from the sky. throw in animal plagues and what you end up with is ‘theories’ amongst scientists and environmentalists. it would be sensible to attribute pollution in our oceans as a reason for dead fish etc but a lot of the time, that isnt blamed cos there is no evidence to support it in the areas where it has occurred. the fact that all nations have ships cruising our seas with the potential for an environmental disaster speaks volumes on what we think of protecting the ocean environment. oil tankers being the main culprits. as for global emissions, governments that have chosen to accept the global warming theory do so but implement measures that increase their revenue via industries that provide a countries economic growth and prosperity. their theory is to replace existing sources of energy with renewable energy that at present isnt cost affective. they won’t embark on introducing energy sources that are cheaper and the best alternative, instead they choose what they see as fessible in the eyes of those who are the people responsible for the renewable push in the first place. to some things up, in the old days, you use to go shopping, the checkout operator would manually punch in your groceries and you paid cash. a simple straight forward operation. computers and technology initiated and produced by scientists, academics and big business sold their new revolutionary ideas to the world and we moved into a new modern world. faster and easier. yet when i go shopping, i still pay by cash, yet stand arms folded waiting on the operator to scan the goods of the woman in front of me, then she has to manually punch in a 15 digit code, then after shes finished, that woman pays via credit card, but after she has used 2 other cards via eftpos that have insufficient funds. financial institutions have crippled nations providing credit to those with no substantial income, creating a debt controlled society. people have no savings and countries have mounting debts and problems. as for the car manufacturing industry, did anyone think that maybe it is a hidden agenda to cripple it forcing the likes of ford and holden to close, allowing a market to flourish in the electric and hybrid vehicle field? the world of new technology is driven by environmentalists and socialist scientists. id say the world was a better and safer place when we had a US-Soviet Union balance. yes the nuclear threat, but when communism collapsed, capitalism exploded and we’ve had more war, more credit, more debt, more technology and a world living with increasing recessions and every human being diagnosed with some sort of new age medical condition.

  11. a carbon tax will provide a cleaner greener future for the next generation. they’d be those 18 year olds with debt collectors after them for car payments and defaults with mobile phone companies, credit card institutions, with bodies covered in tattoos pushing prams on welfare, and playing their ps3’s all day smoking meth threw their glass pipers or drinking their goonsack.

  12. Far more Scientific evidence for creation, than there will ever be, for Global Warming and related Political Agendas.

    • Chris Ozman says:

      Well said David, my views on the subject were even more forthright but it appears they were just too much for the blog-boss here and weren’t even published. What an odd response from a Scientist who claims he is all for free thought, but just like the people he criticizes, apparently the only ones allowed here are the thoughts that agree with his own. A pity, this blog has a big readership in Christian circles, I think it’s time to blow the whistle on it.

      • Chris Ozman says:

        Even ODDER don’t you think? He publishes this, but not the original comment I refer to. I’m sure the average person would have found nothing at all threatening in what I previously submitted, how about you publish it Simon and let others make up their own minds? What exactly is it that scares you about a Creationist’s viewpoint? Fascinating.

        • Odder still that you choose to attribute such spiteful motives to these events. There is something called a spam filter on my blog. Your comment was in it. It is now posted. For what it’s worth, my view is that creationism has no basis in science WHATSOEVER. If this causes me to lose a few fundamentalist readers, so be it. This is the whole point of the post. It is offensive for climate sceptics to be compared with creationists, since creationists are placing their faith in a “holy” book. And having posted your comments, I will not be allowing this post to become a soapbox for the “scientific basis” for creationism. Sorry.

        • Chris Ozman says:

          Ok, well I owe you an apology Simon, so…sorry from me too.
          I understand you don’t now want to go off topic by pursuing Creationism
          (although by your own admission you picked the fight first) I would like to make one further comment and will then no longer respond.

          You say creationism has “no basis in science WHATSOEVER”, on what basis do you say that? Have you read the material? Any material? If you haven’t you are no better than the dogma espoused by the Climate change thugs, “trust me I’m a Scientist”.

          I suggest you really DO go to creation.com (run entirely by Scientists), although it would take months to read it all, you should probably start at creation V evolution on the left hand column. As for “Gnome”? Your evolutionary “gaps” are actually gigantic crevasses, grand canyons of empty space starting from creating life from non-life right up to what holds the universe itself together. I submit to you not “the merest evidence for the assertions of your magic book” but vast reams of it all written by Scientists. As I depart, dear gentlemen, I leave you with 3 final words, creation dot com.

        • Sorry Chris, but you seem to be blinded by your faith. And believe me, I allow anyone to believe what he or she wants.

          But, AGW and Creationism are both believes, and I’ll show you why I think that.
          AGW starts with the believe that manmade gasses produce global warming. All other possible explanations are excluded upfront.
          Creationism starts with the believe that God started the creation of life. All other possible explanations are excluded upfront

          Climate skepticism and evolution theory are scientific approaches.
          Climate skepticism looks for evidence and reproducable tests. Nothing is sacred, all can be tested and rejected.
          For Evolution theory goes the same.

          So, putting Climate skepticism and Creationism on the the same level is very strange, since Climate skepticism is about science and Creationism is about Faith and Relegion.

          Don’t let society be forced to a believe. Keep an open mind and let the scientific approach prevail. We had the Enlightment to get rid of dogma’s. Now let’s no turn time back to get a similar dogma back. Keep the scientific method alive, don’t burry it.
          Climate skepticims is about science, not faith!

        • The Loaded Dog says:

          Scarface, no Christian “denies” that their belief system is any more than what you say it is..viz..a “belief system” with faith being THE central component. This is not disputed.

          Further to this another central component of [true]Christianity is the freedom of choice and the sancitity of free will.

          So to draw comparisons with [true] Christianity and the religion of AGW is only comparible in that they are both belief systems. This arrogant assumption that only an”elite priesthood” of the “church” are capable of deciphering the secret doctrines is completely alien to Christianity. It is completly consistent with the esoteric teaching of occultism and AGW however. Do some research. 😉

  13. So NSCE claims the religion of creationism is similar to the science of scepticism; and the science of evolution is similar to the religion of global warming alarmism !

  14. uhavitbad says:

    The hockey stick graph is the best example of creationism.

  15. Russ Jimeson via Facebook says:

    AGW is a faith based belief. Just as no one has ever seen God, no one has ever observed a CO2 molecule back-radiate heat to an already warmer surface. It is simply unscientific under the second law of thermodynamics. End of story, unless you want to argue that water can flow uphill.

  16. Richard N says:

    I agree with the point that there are similarities in the outright suppression and alienation of AGW skeptic scientists and any scientist who even mentions the words intelligent design or creation.Indeed this line of thought seems to send the powers that be into a kind of rage and any such heretics are usually summarily dismissed under the guise of some other reason. From my own point of view the possibility of life and the human race evolving from bacteria or thin air holds as much water as Al Gores doomsday rants.

  17. John Westman says:

    [snip – interesting, but 100% off topic – Ed]

  18. Sorry Simon, I have to agree with Chris here. Evolution is still only a theory and very few scientists have made a move to test it and creationism.

    Most scientists do tend to be very biased in regard to that issue and I’ve proven it on more than one occasion. In fact the reaction I get when pushing the evolution bias by scientists is no better than the kind of treatment I receive from alarmists of AGW. None have been able to answer my questions or simple accuse me of being delusionsal, seriously is that not what we as sceptics get from aramists?

    It’s really irrelevant in this discussion though about who is more akin to creationists, this is more about who is more like a religion and you outlined that yourself in your original post. It’s about “faith” in the “cause” that is the deciding argument. Yes the environmentalists, the green movement is more akin to a religion than skeptics, but nearly all scientists are biased and have a preconceived idea regarding creationism and evolution, yet evolution like AGW is still just a theory both of which have been debunked on various levels especially scientifically. Not everything can be proven scientifically, at least not yet.

  19. Personally I don’t deny the climate is changing and I doubt there is anyone that does. If these mythical people exist then perhaps we should actually support this woman. I am, however, a ‘mathematical computer model denialist’. Perhaps if we got the nomenclature straight the problem would be half solved and this woman would stop looking for ‘reds under the bed’

  20. Steven Hales says:

    To use Steve McIntyre’s oft used phrase there’s an awful lot of scientific “hand waving” around the boundary crossing of non-life to life just as there is HW around the boundary crossing of non-consciousness to consciousness. Not to say there isn’t a physical explanation but those uncertainties still give substance to questions of ‘who am I’ and ‘why am I here’. In climate science I find an awful lot of hand waving over what a globally averaged temperature really means. If energy is accumulating in the earth system then that is an awfully crude measure of it.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: