Time to Put an End to the Climate Cult
By Spike Hampson < >
The climate cult has gotten out of hand. It now threatens to prevail in politics by convincing the ignorant that the science is settled.
Anybody who has a basic understanding of the science knows that it is not settled. A number of inconvenient facts seriously undermine the idea that catastrophic global warming caused by humans is about to overwhelm us. Here are three of them:
Emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere are causing far less heating than the climate models have been predicting.
There is no scientifically reputable method for measuring the human contribution to carbon dioxide emissions relative to emissions from natural sources.
Measured sea level rise in recent decades is insufficient to account for the alarmist forecasts about the amount of rise by the end of the century.
As long as the general public is unaware of realities such as these, the cultists will continue to proselytize using emotional appeals about saving the world and moralistic shaming of any who disagree.
Common sense has already stimulated a fair portion of the general public to adopt a "wait and see" attitude about the issue. These people have not seen any sign that warming temperatures or rising sea level are causing anything drastic to happen, and they recognize that extreme government measures like the Green New Deal require revolutionary changes to our economic and political systems. Their lifetime experience also tells them that catastrophic weather events like hurricanes, droughts, and the like are not significantly more frequent or intense than when they were young.
But there are two concerns that must be addressed: the global warming cult is promoted using more emotion than reason, and politicians in power around the world have already bought into the scam. These two realities greatly advantage the global warming believers in their quest to have governments take aggressive action to save the planet.
The weaponizing of emotion is a problem because we as humans are generally more influenced by emotional appeals than by logical argumentation. The cultists use their distraught emotional state to challenge the immoral resistance of the skeptics. Whether or not it should be that way is not the point; emotion will always trump logic unless the logic is too compelling to ignore.
As for the politicians in power around the world, they have become true believers because it serves their interests to have augmented control over resources and individuals. Most of them have become climate cult members because not to do so would leave them vulnerable to self-doubt and self-flagellation. By taking actions to solve a problem they allow themselves to believe in, they can feel honorable about the increases in wealth and status and control that then come their way.
Climate science has been corrupted by the money and prestige that flow to it so long as its supposedly objective research yields findings that support the climate cult narrative. Climate scientists have been bought with government money. Reporters have realized that critical examination of the climate change cult will diminish their access to the powerful individuals who feed them stories. Big corporations have adapted to the fact that their public image will be smeared and their lobbying efforts complicated if they stop pretending to be ideologically aligned with key politicians when it comes to climate science.
The situation has been allowed to get out of hand. The main problem is that nobody stood up to the barrage of proclamations that the science is settled, and by default, the true believers were left free to move on to the question of what to do about rising levels of carbon dioxide. Those of us who are aware of how shaky the science is in support of global warming are now in the highly defensive position of arguing against proposed solutions to a problem that does not exist. But if we challenge the proposed solutions, we leave the impression that we accept that the problem is real.
We have little choice: we must aggressively challenge the science. Only this will break the stranglehold that emotion has on the nature of the debate. Only with industrial-strength logic and mastery of the facts will we expose the cultish nature of the global warming movement. The science is flawed, and anybody even superficially informed knows this to be the case. It is time for a bold counter-attack.
If we are to counter the cultists' emotional appeals, we need the confidence that comes from being well informed. When we can credibly point to an aspect of the climate science that is weak, the cultists must respond — usually by shifting the discussion to some other aspect of the climate change narrative that is believed to be beyond questioning. We must be prepared for this by having a similarly well founded rebuttal to this new line of attack.
If we are to thwart the climate change cult in its efforts to "save the world," we need to be knowledgeable about the basics of climate science. The good news is that the major questions in climate science are not hard to understand and do not require high expertise. The bad news is that if we don't do battle over the science, then the climate change sect may succeed in its mission to replace capitalism and liberty with a revolutionary system of governance that stresses "compassion" and "equality" instead.
Most climate change cultists are deeply reluctant to discuss the science they think justifies their belief system. They don't know enough of the science to do that. Getting them to do so is like chasing a greased pig. We have to go get dirty.
If the idea of intellectual combat appeals to you, go arm yourself with a greater awareness of the many reputable sources of skepticism that can be found online. There you will find many well informed challenges to climate change science. But don't expect Google to help you with your search; Google blatantly favors URLs that deplore climate change skepticism over ones that exemplify it.
One good place to start would be with YouTube videos of presentations given at the Heartland Institute's annual International Conference on Climate Change. The conference is in its 15th year, so there are plenty of presentations you can test before settling on one to watch. Particularly effective speakers on climate change science are Lord Christopher Monckton, Dr. Ian Plimer, Dr. Tim Ball, Dr. Patrick Moore, and Dr. Nils Axel Morner.
As for a website that projects climate change skepticism, you might check out wattsupwiththat.com. This is the most visited skeptics' website on the internet.
Finally, for a monograph that covers all the major issues in climate science from the skeptic's point of view, I would be happy to send you a PDF of my Global Warming: The Unsettled Science. Just email me the words "Global Warming," and I'll send it to you: hampson@geog.utah.edu.
By Spike Hampson < >
The climate cult has gotten out of hand. It now threatens to prevail in politics by convincing the ignorant that the science is settled.
Anybody who has a basic understanding of the science knows that it is not settled. A number of inconvenient facts seriously undermine the idea that catastrophic global warming caused by humans is about to overwhelm us. Here are three of them:
Emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere are causing far less heating than the climate models have been predicting.
There is no scientifically reputable method for measuring the human contribution to carbon dioxide emissions relative to emissions from natural sources.
Measured sea level rise in recent decades is insufficient to account for the alarmist forecasts about the amount of rise by the end of the century.
As long as the general public is unaware of realities such as these, the cultists will continue to proselytize using emotional appeals about saving the world and moralistic shaming of any who disagree.
Common sense has already stimulated a fair portion of the general public to adopt a "wait and see" attitude about the issue. These people have not seen any sign that warming temperatures or rising sea level are causing anything drastic to happen, and they recognize that extreme government measures like the Green New Deal require revolutionary changes to our economic and political systems. Their lifetime experience also tells them that catastrophic weather events like hurricanes, droughts, and the like are not significantly more frequent or intense than when they were young.
But there are two concerns that must be addressed: the global warming cult is promoted using more emotion than reason, and politicians in power around the world have already bought into the scam. These two realities greatly advantage the global warming believers in their quest to have governments take aggressive action to save the planet.
The weaponizing of emotion is a problem because we as humans are generally more influenced by emotional appeals than by logical argumentation. The cultists use their distraught emotional state to challenge the immoral resistance of the skeptics. Whether or not it should be that way is not the point; emotion will always trump logic unless the logic is too compelling to ignore.
As for the politicians in power around the world, they have become true believers because it serves their interests to have augmented control over resources and individuals. Most of them have become climate cult members because not to do so would leave them vulnerable to self-doubt and self-flagellation. By taking actions to solve a problem they allow themselves to believe in, they can feel honorable about the increases in wealth and status and control that then come their way.
Climate science has been corrupted by the money and prestige that flow to it so long as its supposedly objective research yields findings that support the climate cult narrative. Climate scientists have been bought with government money. Reporters have realized that critical examination of the climate change cult will diminish their access to the powerful individuals who feed them stories. Big corporations have adapted to the fact that their public image will be smeared and their lobbying efforts complicated if they stop pretending to be ideologically aligned with key politicians when it comes to climate science.
The situation has been allowed to get out of hand. The main problem is that nobody stood up to the barrage of proclamations that the science is settled, and by default, the true believers were left free to move on to the question of what to do about rising levels of carbon dioxide. Those of us who are aware of how shaky the science is in support of global warming are now in the highly defensive position of arguing against proposed solutions to a problem that does not exist. But if we challenge the proposed solutions, we leave the impression that we accept that the problem is real.
We have little choice: we must aggressively challenge the science. Only this will break the stranglehold that emotion has on the nature of the debate. Only with industrial-strength logic and mastery of the facts will we expose the cultish nature of the global warming movement. The science is flawed, and anybody even superficially informed knows this to be the case. It is time for a bold counter-attack.
If we are to counter the cultists' emotional appeals, we need the confidence that comes from being well informed. When we can credibly point to an aspect of the climate science that is weak, the cultists must respond — usually by shifting the discussion to some other aspect of the climate change narrative that is believed to be beyond questioning. We must be prepared for this by having a similarly well founded rebuttal to this new line of attack.
If we are to thwart the climate change cult in its efforts to "save the world," we need to be knowledgeable about the basics of climate science. The good news is that the major questions in climate science are not hard to understand and do not require high expertise. The bad news is that if we don't do battle over the science, then the climate change sect may succeed in its mission to replace capitalism and liberty with a revolutionary system of governance that stresses "compassion" and "equality" instead.
Most climate change cultists are deeply reluctant to discuss the science they think justifies their belief system. They don't know enough of the science to do that. Getting them to do so is like chasing a greased pig. We have to go get dirty.
If the idea of intellectual combat appeals to you, go arm yourself with a greater awareness of the many reputable sources of skepticism that can be found online. There you will find many well informed challenges to climate change science. But don't expect Google to help you with your search; Google blatantly favors URLs that deplore climate change skepticism over ones that exemplify it.
One good place to start would be with YouTube videos of presentations given at the Heartland Institute's annual International Conference on Climate Change. The conference is in its 15th year, so there are plenty of presentations you can test before settling on one to watch. Particularly effective speakers on climate change science are Lord Christopher Monckton, Dr. Ian Plimer, Dr. Tim Ball, Dr. Patrick Moore, and Dr. Nils Axel Morner.
As for a website that projects climate change skepticism, you might check out wattsupwiththat.com. This is the most visited skeptics' website on the internet.
Finally, for a monograph that covers all the major issues in climate science from the skeptic's point of view, I would be happy to send you a PDF of my Global Warming: The Unsettled Science. Just email me the words "Global Warming," and I'll send it to you: hampson@geog.utah.edu.
