April 29th, 2017

AGW: when a scientific theory becomes a religion…

…then those with an opposing view become apostates.

That’s especially true if the topic is one with very high stakes, such as AGW (anthropogenic global warming). Think about it this way: if a person is—(a) convinced that AGW has been proven beyond any doubt (b) threatens life as we know it all over the globe; and (c) can be halted and/or decreased by measures we understand and can control if only we had the will to implement them—then if follow that anyone who disagrees is a person who is endangering life on earth.

Science, of course, is not a religion, and the history of science is littered with theories that have been considered proven and then are disproven. So scientists must remain skeptical and open to any evidence that would challenge their theories and their findings. That’s difficult enough to do when the topic is an abstract one with few practical applications. But when a topic is highly highly politicized (as with AGW), the difficulty increases exponentially and the public also becomes very much involved.

Which brings us to an article Bret Stephens wrote in his new venue, the NY Times. It was really a rather modest suggestion that people listen to both sides of the issue—not so much on AGW (which he himself seems to believe is true) as on whether we know enough to accurately predict the future of AGW and/or to fix the problems it may cause.

The Twitter storm this caused has been virulent. But if AGW (and intervention to halt or slow its effects) is your religion, then someone like Stephens becomes the AGW devil. Then this sort of response seems perfectly reasonable (if crass):

“You’re a s–thead. a crybaby lil f–kin weenie. a massive twat too,” tweeted Libby Watson, staff writer at Gizmodo.

“I’m gonna lose my mind,” seethed Eve Peyser, politics writer at Vice.

“The ideas ppl like @BretStephensNYT espouse are violently hateful & should not be given a platform by @NYTimes,” she said.

Not only has Stephens been excoriated, but that last sentiment—that he shouldn’t be at the Times—has drawn enough support to be expressed in a petition, that now has about 27,000 supporters, asking that he be fired. It’s especially ironic, not only because Stephens just arrived there but also because the main thrust of his column was to ask people to listen to opposing voices. And although Stephens is voicing only the mildest of opposition to current AGW thought, his voice is intolerable to many people who like their echo chambers particularly echo-y:

“Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts,” [Stephens wrote]. “None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences. But ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism. They know — as all environmentalists should — that history is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors married to political power.”

But social media users didn’t care, with some — including several scientists — going so far as to order a subscription boycott of the Times on Friday.

“Each and every one of us should fully boycott the NY Times — don’t link to them, don’t click on their links. Their actions are inexcusable,” wrote one Twitter user. “You cannot be an ostensible paper-of-record and allow a science denier to spread propaganda.”

Adriana Heguy, a genomics scientist and professor of pathology at NYU, urged her colleagues to scrap their subscriptions, as well.

“Composing my letter to the editor today and canceling @nytimes,” she tweeted. “‘Balance’ means a VALID alternative opinion, not pseudoscience. I’m so sad.”

There’s room for plenty of sadness to go around. I certainly feel it, although I’m used to it, and I’m used to the sentiments expressed there.

The left has always had aspects of a religion, although many on the left don’t believe in religion. Or maybe because they don’t. Human beings apparently have a need to believe, whether they believe it or not.

63 Responses to “AGW: when a scientific theory becomes a religion…”

  1. Cornhead Says:

    Just because the CAGW people use numbers and computers doesn’t make it science. It is a prediction about events in the far distant future based upon computer models.The models have been horribly wrong in the past. The numbers have been corrupted. The is a strong financial incentive to scare people and come up with these predictions. And, of course, CAGW fulfills the need to virtue signal that we are saving the planet.

    Trump is supposedly putting the Paris Agreement to the Senate for ratification as a treaty; as Obama should have. This is pure genius. The public debate will be devastating to the warmists. Best of all several Dem Senators will be forced to vote no if they want to win reelection. And those that vote for ratification will be giving their GOP opponent another issue.

  2. huxley Says:

    Should that not be anthropoGENic global warming?

  3. neo-neocon Says:


    It is a science as the word is generally used. These days a lot of sciences use modeling. And many sciences project into the future and past (theoretical physics, for example).

  4. huxley Says:

    I thought the autofill was fixed?

    That’s not me at 3:19pm.

  5. neo-neocon Says:


    I’ve seen either word used. I’ve seen both words used.

    See this.

    But on reflection, I think “anthropogenic” is better. I’ll change it.

  6. neo-neocon Says:


    Have you completely refreshed your cache?

  7. huxley Says:

    I thought the climate change hysteria would be settling down by now, as the overpopulation stuff did in the 80s when it became clear that a billion people or so had failed to starve to death.

    Yet the climate change folks keep doubling and redoubling down. Even though the models are failing, their certainty keeps increasing with each IPCC report and the orthodox get nastier.

  8. huxley Says:

    I flushed the cache on my laptop a few days ago, not my main machine, where I’m writing now.


  9. Cornhead Says:


    I am a strict constructionist. And when the models have been so wrong for so many years it hardly qualifies as science.

    Left is completely unhinged. If there is a Senate debate on the Paris treaty, expect both a total meltdown and beat down.

  10. Griffin Says:

    Leftism is their religion. And all of the things that we see are just part of that religion. The unquestioned faith in science(only the kind that supports their beliefs of course),the fanatical feminism, and they have their gods like Al Gore and Obama and Bernie and others.

    I would put some of these peoples’ fanaticism right in line with any of the most devout Christians or Muslims.

  11. neo-neocon Says:


    I suggest you flush the cache on all the machines or devices you use, if you haven’t already.

  12. Paul In Boston Says:

    The problem is the innumeracy of the general public, especially the true believers. You can experience a temperature change going from room to room in your house that is as big as the 100 year change predicted by the models. I live in an old Victorian with three floors and the change going from the first to the third can be quite a bit bigger.

    The Boston Globe publishes a little graph each day on the weather page that shows the average daily high and low for the past thirty days. If you draw a line down the middle with a ball point pen, the width of that line is the extent of the predicted warming. All together now, “We’re all going to die!”

  13. huxley Says:

    neo: Which huxley are you addressing?

    I just cleared all my browsing data back to the beginning of time on this machine.

    I am somewhat surprised to hear, if I’m understanding you, that the cache on my machine affect the autofill on others’ machines.

  14. Ray Says:

    The late Edith Efron published a book titled “The Apocalyptics” and showed how environmentalism morphed into a apocalyptic doomsday cult. Remember Rachael Carson’s book, Silent Spring? We were all doomed by pesticides. The book was full of lies. CAGW is no different and I call it the climate cult. Remember that in the 1970s we were all going to die by global cooling, then in the 1980s by global warming and now we are doomed by climate change.

  15. Paul In Boston Says:

    Huxley @3:31. Not going to happen because literally trillions of dollars are riding on AGW via the clean energy, solar and wind, sustainable energy junk.

  16. n.n Says:

    Appeals to authority. Claims of [social] consensus. Conflation of logical domains (e.g. departures from the limited scientific domain in both time and space). Exaggerating claims of correlation from laboratory isolation to an open Earth system. Use of hypothesis (e.g. models) to prove a hypothesis. Pro-Choice masquerading as a religious/moral philosophy. Yeah, it’s a cult.

  17. huxley Says:

    Dr. Judith Curry of the “Climate Etc.” blog recently gave up her tenured position as a professor at George Tech because of the unremitting hostility from climate change orthodox.

    Dr. John Christy of U Alabama believes the shots fired last weekend at the building, where his office is located, targeted him.


    Between this and the various free speech crises, American academia is in serious trouble.


  18. realHuxley Says:

    Hmm. For the next week, I’m changing my username to realHuxley.

  19. carl in atlanta Says:

    Years ago I used to say that “CAGW is the greatest hoax since Piltdown Man” but CAGW has long-since dwarfed that little affair. For the truth read the blogs of Anthony Watts and Georgia Tech professor Judith Curry (ret.).

  20. realHuxley Says:

    Huxley @3:31. Not going to happen because literally trillions of dollars are riding on AGW via the clean energy, solar and wind, sustainable energy junk.

    Paul In Boston: That’s a huge piece of it, sure.

    Still, call me Ishmael or call me naive, I just didn’t believe Americans with science Ph.Ds. could sustain this level of nuttiness in the face of so much contrary evidence.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

    –Upton Sinclair

  21. Bob Kantor Says:

    I sent the Times this letter yesterday. It wasn’t printed.

    Climate change has long since ceased to be a scientific issue and is now a political one, with the media-approved experts playing the role of the Catholic Church in the time of Galileo. Readers of the Times should, but won’t, ask questions such as the following;

    From 1940 to 1970 the climate cooled slightly, yet at the same time the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increased. Isn’t it fair to assume that factors other than CO2 were at work?https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/

    According to NOAA, the rise in ocean levels over the next 100 years will be negligible https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.govsedsltrends/sltrends.html

    Predictions of temperature increase, using current models, have been grossly overstated, by a factor of two or three.

    Even if alarmists are correct, any controls we might put into place would have a negligible effect on climate, but would have a disastrous effect on working-class jobs and utility bills.

    I welcome comments. But please no sneering and Jon-Stewart-like condescension.

  22. neo-neocon Says:

    huxley (and/or realhuxley):

    When the glitch was happening, people were getting other people’s autofill on their computers instead of their own autofill. The problem then was at the host—a cahe problem at the host’s server.

    That was fixed, and the cache problem is better. But now, people who had gotten other people’s autofill on their computers during the server-cache glitch days, still had that other information on their computers’ caches as a sort of relic of the glitch. So each person has to clear his/her own cache to reset the whole thing.

    I hope that makes it more clear. It’s a bit hard to explain.

  23. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    These people cannot be reasoned with and since we cannot institutionalize them, ignoring and marginalizing them is the best that can be done.

    Al Gore’s disciples recently demanded $15 TRILLION over the next decade to fight AGW.

  24. J.J. Says:

    We thought “climate gate,” when all those revealing e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at University of East Anglia became public knowledge, was the nail in the coffin of CAGW. Nope! CAGW is like Dracula – a myth but seemingly immortal.

    The theory of man-made CO2 caused climate change has so many holes in it that only someone who wants to believe it would do so. However, those who accept ideas based on faith are attracted because it gives them a feeling of believing in something important – such as saving Gaia and human kind. It’s all quite simple they say. Clean renewables, they say. As they reject nuclear and hydro-electric power. We can power everything from wind and solar they say. As they ignore the laws of thermodynamics. And that solar and wind cannot power cars, trucks, and airplanes. It’s all technologically possible they say. As no nation has been able to demonstrate the technology even though some (Denmark & Germany) have tried.

    When climate scientists can explain the mechanism/forces that create El Ninos and La Ninas, then I will believe we are beginning to understand the forces that affect climate change on a global scale. Right now, we are still gathering data and trying to understand what forces are at work.

  25. realHuxley Says:

    J.J.: Well. The CO2/Greenhouse Gas story is a good one. I believed it. I still believe it. I’m what they call a “lukewarmist.”

    But I don’t get with the Catastrophic part, so I’m a “denier.”

  26. mollyNH Says:

    Nobody in their right mind discusses this absurd hokum anymore. Let the moonbats donate. Besides my own faith I only give to the Salvation Army they actually do things for needy people.

  27. blert Says:

    I’ve been ‘banned’ from Naked Capitalism for my scientific posts.

    1) Too logical

    2) Too fact based

    3) Too contrary to the AGW meme

    R-12 and R-22 have been banned world-wide.

    The key players were Maggie Thatcher, my Professor, and MYSELF.

    As I am the originator — to my Professor — of the entire notion that fluorine compounds ( R-12 and R-22 etc ) had NEVER been given any attention — by pure research.

    Rowland panicked… he’d covered virtually every other component of the atmosphere… and had overlooked Freons.

    I spent hundreds of hours trolling through Chemical Abstracts — from 1906 through 1973… and made my case my term paper.

    Rowland spun on a dime.

    He, naturally, omitted the fact that every thing he was doing was based upon my Term Paper.

    I don’t show up in the ‘official record’ whatsoever.

    Here’s the irony: EVERYTHING about AGW is based upon the Freon story.


    They think of AGW as Freon II.

    No doubt about it.


    Why did Rowland take my advice?

    Smartest kid he ever ran across… with the ‘cume’ and test scores to make a Nobelist believe.

  28. J.J. Says:

    realHuxley@8:26pm: The theory is that 400 particles of CO2 interspersed within 1 million particles of atmosphere can make big differences in world wide temperatures. Small, nearly imperceptible changes, yes. Even the Warmists admit this. Their answer? Radiative forcings. What are forcings? Water vapor, methane, aerosols, and ??? They tinker with values for forcings in their computer models, but they are all WAGs. There is no hard data, no experimental data.

    Even if CO2 was causing warming, a good case can be made for adaptation rather than mitigation.

  29. AesopFan Says:

    “Each and every one of us should fully boycott the NY Times — don’t link to them, don’t click on their links. Their actions are inexcusable,” wrote one Twitter user.
    * *
    I can get behind that idea.

    If most conservatives have quit taking the Times because it doesn’t ever say anything good about them; and the Left quits taking the Times because one person one time sorta kinda backed away from that position, then there won’t be anyone left taking the Times at all.

  30. Johann Amadeus Metesky Says:

    “Julian Simon, the economist who was legendarily skeptical about environmental doom, once posed a question at an environmental forum: “How many people here believe that the earth is increasingly polluted and that our natural resources are being exhausted?” Almost every hand shot up. He then said, “Is there any evidence that could dissuade you?” There was no response, so he asked again, “Is there any evidence I could give you—anything at all—that would lead you to reconsider these assumptions?” Again, no response. Simon concluded, “Well, excuse me. I’m not dressed for church.””

  31. realHuxley Says:

    The theory is that 400 particles of CO2 interspersed within 1 million particles of atmosphere can make big differences in world wide temperatures.

    J.J.: As I said, I am a lukewarmist, which means I buy the general theory of the greenhouse effect, but not the catastrophic notion that anthropogenic emissions are going to unhinge the earth’s climate, destroy civilization and kill hundreds of millions of people.

    The earth has unquestionably warmed since the Little Ice Age. It seems likely human emissions are part of that, though how much of a part is not known. Nor are the consequences known for increased emissions.

    I’ve been following this debate for over ten years. It’s clear the models are out of whack and the orthodox climate change folks have been making less than honest arguments while being quite nasty.

    I favor adaptation over mitigation.

  32. Donald Sensing Says:

    Michael Polanyi, a Fellow of the Royal Society and former professor of physical chemistry at the University of Manchester: “Any account of science which does not explicitly describe it as something we believe in, is essentially incomplete and a false pretension. It amounts to a claim that science is essentially different from and superior to all human beliefs which are not scientific statements, and this is untrue… .” Cited here.

  33. Oldgriz Says:

    AGW is based on computer models. Just like a video game the models say whatever the programmer wants them to say. I do not trust video game science to match reality with any exactitude.

    The models are just mental masturbation.

  34. cynical1 Says:

    The science is settled?

    Yeah well, 60 years ago having a penis made you a little boy…

  35. Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove Says:

    […] Neo-neocon discusses when a science becomes a religion […]

  36. JohnTyler Says:

    If science cannot explain the historical climate, how can they presume to predict the climate in the future?

    What caused the ice ages?

    If CO2 levels during an Ice Age are very low, how is it possible that EVERY Ice Age ended and “flipped” into periods of global warming?

    Every Ice Age began after extended periods of warm climate.
    How is this possible if CO2 levels were “high” during the warm periods?
    How can the climate flip into an ice age if the CO2 levels are high?

    The Medieval Warm Period (ca.950 to 1250 AD) – about 300 years of very warm climate – “suddenly” ended and the climate “flipped” into the Little Ice Age (ca. 1300 – 1850 AD)?
    What caused this?

    Please recall that in the 1970s the world’s most prominent climate “scientists” (e.g., Hanson) were screaming about the coming Ice Age !!!

    It will be shown – hopefully soon – that the AGW thesis is the greatest scientific scam in the history of the world.
    Just check out the “climate-gate” emails .
    By the way, it was predicted about 10 years ago that the ice caps would disappear.
    In fact, EVERY prediction the AGW religious zealots have made have NOT come to pass.

    They are charlatans, frauds and liars.

  37. Robert Says:

    “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” Richard Feynman

    Can you imagine the hate Feynman would receive today for applying the scientific method to the theory of CAGW.

  38. Kevin Says:

    I have observed that too; in humans, belief in “something” is intrinsic and cannot be escaped. Everyone at some point makes a decision: “what belief will fill the void in my soul”.

    After that, everything cam be easily interpreted thru a religious/cult lens. Apostasy, heresy, infidels, pagans, subconsciously or consciously everyone and everything is sorted into groups. Depending on your level of commitment, shooting through the window at the office of some heretic or another becomes a rational, even laudable ac.

  39. Kevin Says:

    And that of course brings us to the unfiltered unassailable truth of the Bible; “a man cannot serve two masters”. When someone, say a “pope”, claim allegiance to two, or even three religious principles, say agw, socialism/commnism and Christianity. Clearly only one religious imperative can be fulfilled. The rest are twisted or ignored to serve the one.

    What about communism vs agw? Again, a person cannot serve two masters. One set of beliefs is only a facade to cover the truth.

  40. Hawk Handsaw Says:

    It is my experience that all people at their cores are religious. It is built into us at the deepest level.

    Religious people, in the traditional sense of the word, know this about themselves, and so learn how to navigate between faith and reason.

    Secularists lack this self-knowledge. So because they admit to no faith, the never learn how to navigate it. It spills out of them in an uncomprehended spiritual panic. So they flail about until they find something to attach it to. Often it is environmentalism. But they never understand what is happening to them.

  41. Frog Says:

    It pains me to have to repeat that projections are NOT science. Science requires verification and reproducibility, and the AGW projections cannot, repeat, cannot be verified, independently reproduced, or disproved until that future point in time at which those projections are projected to be realized. Only then can we say whether the past projections were false or true. When we have data, not constructs.

    AGW, as so many other movements, is predicated on the human foolishness and gullibility of human beings. Which extends to millions willingly and righteously putting their own necks in fatal nooses, like communism in China in the 1940s. And worshiping false gods of all kinds.

  42. Frog Says:

    Neo @ 3:19pm
    You might do a turn at the history and philosophy of science, a quite deep subject. “Theoretical physics” is physics, rooted in physics’ principles well-verified. But a theory is just a theory until it is verified and its results independently reproduced time and time again.

    From Wiki: “Theoretical physics is a branch of physics that employs mathematical models and abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomena. This is in contrast to experimental physics, which uses experimental tools to probe these phenomena.” Hmm, “predict”. Yeah, sure.

    Theoretical physicists are speculators, in my book. I much prefer experimental physicists.

    Looking at great cost for a sub-quark thingie with a life of one-trillionth of a second may explain to those theoretical physicists who have concluded that thingie must exist how the creation of the universe was initiated, but they cannot explain the First Cause, what created the spark that set it all into motion. Or created math out of chaos. Imagine if a simple sum never added up reproducibly!

    Beware of theoretical physicists. They are too similar to politicians.

  43. K2 Says:

    “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” Richard Feinman

    Science is a methodology that can basically be boiled down to two components: 1) Create a hypothesis 2) Test it

    For hypothesis, think “climate model”. From what I can tell, no predictions made by current climate models have ever tested out as true. That means all the models are wrong.

    Time to start over.

  44. Hal Dall Says:

    For the religion of AGW, a little old but… http://numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm

  45. Jim Ring Says:

    IPCC Third Assessment Report
    Chapter 14
    Last paragraph:

    “In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

    This information was not included in the Summary Report for Policymakers given to the press and public.

    If the climate is indeed a coupled non-linear chaotic system (who can doubt the IPCC) then there is no rational or scientific basis to make a definitive statement about a future state of the climate.

    At this point the coupled non-linear chaotic nature of the climate makes scientific observations academically interesting but they by themselves have no relevance in predicting the future state of the climate. The climate is a system which means the relationships among these observations are what is important not the observations themselves.

    All the public discourse regarding the future state of the climate has been based on the false premise that the current climate models are predicting the future state of the climate when in fact the models are merely projecting these states.

    Predictions are the purview of science. Model projections can only agree with predictions when the models duplicate the real world.

    To base public policy on an unknowable state of a system defies common sense. However, too much money and political power is at stake for the Central Planners to do otherwise.

    I would argue that the Climate Model True Believers are the ones taking an unscientific approach to the subject.

    In January 1961 President Eisenhower in his Farewell Address identified the situation in which we find ourselves today:

    “Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
    In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
    It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”

    Other relevant publications from Eric Hoffer are: “The True Believer” and “The Temper of Our Times”

    From “The Temper of Our Times”: “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business and eventually degenerates into a racket.”

  46. Howard Hirsch Says:

    Back in the 70s I taught a course in energy and environmental policy at a state university branch in Minnesota. My objective was not to preach (although I had my own opinions on the issues and they were far from the environmentalist garbage promoting even back then), but to get my students to understand the implications and opportunity costs of choosing one policy over another–no matter what they advocated individually.

    In the course of researching materials to assign to my class, was amused to come across two books with completely different perspectives:
    Hothouse Earth by Howard Wilcox (1975), and The Cooling by Lowell Ponte (1976). While both too lengthy to assign, I did mention them in class with the observation that perhaps between the two outcomes we’ll come out even.

  47. ColoComment Says:

    I think it’s quite funny that the commenters at The New York Times are precisely proving that, contrary to Bret Stephens expressed preference in the article, the Left CANNOT have a calm, rational discussion about climate.

    They remind me of the mob scenes in Young Frankenstein — the ignorant grabbing their torches and pitchforks and baying hounds and mindlessly clamoring that there’s a fiend on the loose.

    I wonder how long Stephens will last there…..


  48. Fred Says:

    Why be suspicious of someone sprouting the message that “We are Doomed! Doomed I say, unless you give me unlimited political power and money”?

  49. DaveM Says:

    There is enemy more important among socialists than one who almost entirely agrees with you. Your opponents only need to be defeated, but those on your side who won’t collaborate must be destroyed. Since the belief in the AGW or it’s importance seem to be strongly married to the left, it only stands to reason that leftists who don’t agree will end up meeting ruin from their own.

  50. Peter Jackson Says:

    What’s really funny is that all of these people who absolutely positively *know* that man made CO2 is rapidly transforming the earth into an ice-less overheated wasteland would look at you like you were crazy if you told them that you absolutely positively *knew* that it was going to rain two weeks from Tuesday.


  51. Frog Says:

    re Jim Ring:
    1) Please define a “coupled non-linear chaotic system”.
    If the IPCC politicos understand its meaning, it cannot be very mathematical.
    2) “The climate is a system which means the relationships among these [scientific] observations are what is important not the observations themselves.” Kindly explain this, which sounds like nonsense. The “relationships” are important, not the data themselves? Who describes and quantifies said relationships? Take the relationship between ice and liquid water; what is its importance, and how should it be stated and used in your relationship system? What about supercooled water? What will you do with that?
    3) “Predictions are the purview of science. Model projections can only agree with predictions when the models duplicate the real world.”
    I almost agree. Predictions are not the purview of science, however, but a derivative of the scientific process of establishing and verifying data and hypotheses. Predictions cannot be verified until those points in the future become the present. When do your “model predictions” duplicate the real world? At an indefinite future point? At a real, agreed-upon future point? At what point?

  52. OregonJon Says:

    There is no surprise that an increasingly secular society has exchanged traditional church going for belief in the Science God. The themes are similar and familiar. Surrender to a higher God, i.e. the government’s wishes, or face eternal damnation.

    Personally, I’m agnostic. Pumping an ever increasing volume of greenhouse gasses into the enviroment doesn’t seem a great idea but so far none of the alarmist predictions have proven true.

    Let it be noted that so far the United States has done morec to reduce emissions than any other country. The private market has responded far more effectively than gas government. Meanwhile Germany is well on its way to powering down carbon free nuclear that is being replaced by renewables, largely biomass. Think wood chips. That is not working out so well in terms of CO2 reduction.

    No matter what we do in the USA carbon emissions will continue to increase. Insia, for example, will not meet their Paris Accords as they build more coal fired power plants to feed a growing population and economy.

    So let us not look for government mandates but to market mandates. Many companies are actively reducing their carbon footprints to satisfy the demands of shareholders and customers. Technology, whether it be more efficient products or more efficient systems like Amazon and Uber are making a significant difference.

    Meanwhile let those who believe in AGW concentrate not on contol and scolding but on building seawalls. It is time to stop praying for the sinners and to start dealing with their coming reality.

  53. Mrs Whatsit Says:

    Isn’t the cache problem here on the machine of the person who ISN’T the real huxley?

  54. blert Says:

    OregonJon Says:
    April 30th, 2017 at 11:57 pm

    Don’t be a dufus.

    Carbon Dioxide is PLANT FERTILIZER.

    This was established as FACT by NASA – – fifty-years ago.

    EVERY algae to Diesel scheme uses crazy partial pressured or carbon dioxide.

    If ANY of these terms is new to you….

    Then back off.

    You don’t belong in the argument.

    Leave it to the Freon ‘butterfly.'”

    My second Nobel was never awarded, either.

    That’s another story.

    { The unification of organic and in-organic chemistry at the physical chemistry level. This is // was as big as the transistor. No Nobel prize. That’s right, you don’t know a thing about it.}

    Both were, of me,… in the early 70’s…

    All research points back to that nexus… to me.

    Such unifications — in physics — defined hyper-genius … century by century.

    Chemists have their own heroes.

  55. blert Says:

    “or” = “for”

  56. Tatterdemalian Says:

    “If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair style.”

    – misquotation of Dawkins that turns out to be entirely accurate

    Specifically, atheism is the “STOP LIKING WHAT I DON’T LIKE!” religion.

  57. GRA Says:

    Griffin says, “I would put some of these peoples’ fanaticism right in line with any of the most devout Christians or Muslims.”

    There’s a difference between fanaticism and being devout, as well as differences between a devout Christian and a devout Muslim, as if a devout Christian and a devout Muslim (whatever you mean by devout) are equal. Unless, of course, I’m reading into your comment incorrectly.

  58. Rich Rostrom Says:

    Umm, not quite right. An apostate is a former believer who has repudiated the True Faith.

    A heretic is one who professes a distorted version of the True Faith.

    An infidel is one who was never a believer.

    Many religions get along better with infidels than heretics or apostates.

  59. Cornhead Says:

    John Hinderaker at Power Line puts it way better than me on the models problem,

    “Global warming alarmism is based solely on models, not on observation. But we know the models are wrong. They predict far greater warming than has been observed over recent decades. A model that has been proved wrong is worthless. It can’t be resuscitated by after-the-fact selective, politically-motivated tweaking.”

  60. Tuppenceworth Says:

    History shows us that at any time science was EVER settled, it is when Politicians, Kings, or Dictators got to the scientists and eliminated all questioning.

    This whole thing is a sham, and an awesome means of committing an entire population, society, even planet – to one’s will. Once the fear of God or any Deity is eliminated in society, one can fill that power vacuum (just like any other power vacuum) with a new world ordered fear – loss of one’s home or world. This is all supported by the amount of media showing the connected world disasters in real time, rather than as after thoughts. How long did it take to learn of a massive volcano eruption in 1814? Weeks or months. Today, live feed. It is easy to persuade the masses when the tools of self destruction lie in the palms of their own hands. It keeps getting easier. This was an instant cult guaranteed for exponential growth through social media in conjunction with the education system and all other inputs of societal shaming.

  61. Big Maq Says:

    Count me as a skeptic, but denying the possibility whole cloth is also a mistake.

    CO2 has been increasing (how much is man made is debatable, but seems likely to be a contributing factor – this point has a general consensus of scientists) and does contribute to “global warming”.

    But, many climate scientists don’t stop there, and take it MUCH further.

    They claim a “feedback loop” is generated by this, causing water vapor (another greenhouse gas) to exponentially increase the effects of that increase in CO2. This is the source of the “hockey stick” effect in the climate models.

    It is this last point that there is NOT consensus on, and is a major assumption behind almost all the computer models that have been developed.

    It is also the aspect that their climate models have failed to accurately predict.

    Even if the models were 100% accurate, there is plenty of disagreement about how “bad” it would be.

    There is plenty of focus on the potential downside effects, but not much on the potential upside, for example: More arable land to farm; Potentially faster growth rates for plants; Arctic becomes navigable year round. A ton of possible upsides could be listed.

    With all the focus and attention on the downside, many feel “something must be done” by governments.

    Then we get the usual top down government edicts suggested. The more draconian, the more these folks feel that disaster is averted.

    Leftists latch onto this and parlay that fear into policies aimed at their favorite bogeymen, with the levers of political control and influence in their leaders’ hands, of course.

    Thus it becomes a “religion”, as the science gets generalized up as being “settled” (only one small aspect may be so, but other assumptions are very debatable), and vested interests are incentivized to leverage the fear it generates.

  62. Ymar Sakar Says:

    The world will end in fire, that was the prediction. It’s also not hard to see that life was fine tuned and that human civilization only had a window of about 100,000 years on this planet. It’ll change dramatically and human civilization will go bye bye. One may take that as a reason for the lack of other civilizations that we can detect in the verse.



  63. Is global warming science or religion? | Вопросы и ответы Says:

    […] http://neoneocon.com/2017/04/29/agw-when… […]

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.

Monthly Archives


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge