CSIRO boss issues apology for ‘religion’ jibe

Forced to apologise…

Forced to apologise…

The Climate Inquisitors got their way and forced an apology – an update on this story from yesterday.

But it is a pyrrhic victory, since it is the zealotry that infects the alarmist cause. [Read more…]

CSIRO boss: warming alarmism ‘more like religion than science’

Even the CSIRO boss is a 'denier' to the zealots…

Even the CSIRO boss is a ‘denier’ to the zealots…

Finally worked it out, then, have we?

Here are some ACM articles from years past on the subject:

Even the CSIRO boss is surprised at the vehemence of the disciples of the Church of Alarmism. [Read more…]

Maurice Newman on the climate religion

Maurice Newman (image – ABC)

Another enjoyable read from Maurice Newman, former chairman of the ABC:

ONCE upon a time when Christendom was at its peak, missionaries would be dispatched to the four corners of the globe in search of converts. They believed their mission would expand the influence of Rome and save heathens from eternal damnation.

It was a compelling message. Convert and enjoy everlasting life in the hereafter. The advantage the missionaries had was that the religion they taught had no hypotheses that could be tested. Death – “the undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveller returns” – meant that the afterlife could be neither proved nor disproved. Faith was the only thing needed.

Climate science is a bit like that – push the rewards and the catastrophes far enough into the future, and have faith that the prophecies will come true. However, unlike heaven, which we may reach at any time, climate prophecies need to be distant enough to make them hard to challenge yet sufficiently close to generate urgent action. [Read more…]

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.

Cardinal criticises religious climate zealots

Can spot a fake religion when he sees one

UPDATE: Josh records Cardinal Pell’s speech (on which this article was based) in cartoon form here.

The irony – a spiritual leader within a faith-based belief system (the Catholic Church) possesses far more capacity for rational thought than thousands of “scientists” and politicians swept up in the quasi-religious tide of climate alarmism.

We can only attempt to identify the causes of climate change through science and these causes need to be clearly established after full debates, validated comprehensively, before expensive remedies are imposed on industries and communities.

I first became interested in the question in the 1990s when studying the anti-human claims of the “deep greens”. Mine is not an appeal to the authority of any religious truth in the face of contrary scientific evidence. Neither is it even remotely tinged by a postmodernist hostility to rationality.

My appeal is to reason and evidence, and in my view the evidence is insufficient to achieve practical certainty on many of these scientific issues.

Recently Robert Manne, following fashionable opinion, wrote that “the science is truly settled” on the fundamental theory of climate change: global warming is happening; it is primarily caused by the emission of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide; and it is certain to have profound effects in the future .

His appeal is to the “consensual view among qualified scientists”. This is a category error, scientifically and philosophically. In fact, it is also a cop-out, a way of avoiding the basic issues.

The basic issue is not whether the science is settled but whether the evidence and explanations are adequate in that paradigm.

I fear, too, that many politicians have never investigated the primary evidence.

Much is opaque to non-specialists, but persistent inquiry and study can produce useful clarifications, similar to the nine errors identified by the British High Court in Al Gore’s propaganda film, An Inconvenient Truth.

The complacent appeal to scientific consensus is simply one more appeal to authority, quite inappropriate in science or philosophy.

Read it here.

Today's Gore-bull News


Gore-bull warming

Al Gore has been getting way too much publicity recently, thanks to the launch of his new fictional book “Our Choice”, which follows up from his last fictional book “An Inconvenient Truth”. Al Gore, as any fule kno, won’t debate climate change with anybody, and when someone hits him with a difficult question unexpectedly at a news conference, the microphone is snatched away and they are hastily ejected (see here).

But that doesn’t stop big Al from smearing anyone who disagrees with him, or the IPCC, as evidenced by this quote:

“The United Nations organized, along with the scientific bodies of the national academies of science and their counterparts, the 3,000 best scientists in the world [not true – Ed] from all of the fields that are relevant to this issue,” he explained. “Over the last 20 years they have conducted the most exhaustive examination ever on a challenge like this. [Or more strictly “the most exhaustive ONE SIDED examination” – Ed]

“They’ve issued four reports — they’ve all been unanimous [Not true again. Dissenters were silenced and the Summary for Policymakers only selected the views that fitted the agenda – Ed], and the last one called the evidence unequivocal. Now, does that mean there are still some people who are gonna have a contrarian view? No, of course there will still be some. But, there are still some people who believe that the moon landing was staged on a movie lot. You know, a significant percentage as it turns out … Or that the Earth is flat. But that doesn’t lead public policy makers to take both sides of that into account.” (source)

Also, Gore is now abandoning facts [how can you abandon something you never embraced before? – Ed] and is appealing to people’s religious beliefs. We all know global warming is a religion, now even Gore agrees.

Gore tells Newsweek magazine in a pre-publication interview, that he has been adapting his fact-based message – now put out by hundreds of volunteers – to appeal to those who believe there is a moral or religious duty to protect the planet.

“I’ve done a Christian [-based] training program; I have a Muslim training program and a Jewish training program coming up, also a Hindu program coming up. I trained 200 Christian ministers and lay leaders here in Nashville in a version of the slide show that is filled with scriptural references. It’s probably my favourite version, but I don’t use it very often because it can come off as proselytising,” Gore tells Newsweek. (source – h/t Andrew Bolt)

Proselytising? Al Gore? Surely not.

UK tribunal rules climate change is a "philosophical belief"

Tim Nicholson

Tim Nicholson

A UK employment tribunal has ruled that an employee can take his employer to an unfair dismissal tribunal on the grounds that he was discriminated against because of his views on climate change.

The relevant regulations, the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003 state the following:

3. – (1) For the purposes of these Regulations, a person (“A”) discriminates against another person (“B”) if –

(a) on grounds of religion or belief, A treats B less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons; (source)

“Religion or belief” is defined as “any religion, religious belief, or similar philosophical belief” and it is the last part of this definition that is important here, as the judgment confirms that belief in AGW is a belief system, as opposed to an opinion or viewpoint. The BBC manages to report it without drawing any such conclusions, buried in the darkest corner of their website:

Tim Nicholson, 42, of Oxford, was made redundant in 2008 by Grainger Plc in Didcot, as head of sustainability.

He said his beliefs had contributed to his dismissal and in March a judge ruled he could use employment equality laws to claim it was unfair.

But the firm appealed against this as it believed his views were political.

After the hearing on Monday, Mr Nicholson said he was delighted by the judgement for himself and other people who may feel they are discriminated against because of their views on climate change. (source)

To be honest, I hardly think that those who believe in climate change are the ones who can claim to be discriminated against. After all, they are not called flat earthers or Holocaust deniers every day of the week.

Unfortunately, reading the judgment, it is pretty clear that the judge was looking for a way to allow the appellant to fall within the scope of the Regulations:

30. In my judgment, if a person can establish that he holds a philosophical belief which is based on science, as opposed, for example, to religion, then there is no reason to disqualify it from protection by the Regulations. The Employment Judge drew attention to the existence of empiricist philosophers, no doubt such as Hume and Locke. The best example, as it seems to me, which was canvassed during the course of the hearing, is by reference to the clash of two such philosophies, exemplified in the play Inherit the Wind, i.e. one not simply between those who supported Creationism and those who did not, but between those who positively supported, and wished to teach, only Creationism and those who positively supported, and wished to teach, only Darwinism. Darwinism must plainly be capable of being a philosophical belief, albeit that it may be based entirely on scientific conclusions (not all of which may be uncontroversial). (source – Word document)

But the judge did say one very interesting thing, when setting out the criteria for a philosophical belief (my emphasis):

It must be a belief and not … an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.

That just about sums up the present state of the climate debate!

%d bloggers like this: