36 thoughts on “Climate Worship Is Nothing More Than Rebranded Paganism

  1. The parallels between climate alarmism and religion are very compelling.

    The apocalypse is near, because we say so, you are a heretic if you don’t believe and penance is required for salvation.

    A great deal of magical thinking is required.

    Like

      1. Actually, no, it can’t. Per the IPCC

        “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible”

        We can project approximations, but even if the models were perfect, and they are far from it, chaos will have its way.

        For a good start on understanding how climate models work and their limitations, see

        https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/02/Curry-2017.pdf

        Like

  2. The parallels are not in the least “compelling.” They break down very quickly when it is noted that the bulk of the actual evidence is on the side of the “alarmists” while those who use such epithets rely mainly on cherry-picked, out-of-context and outlier science typically funded by fossil fuel special interests.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. You provide an excellent example of why alarmism is more religion than reason.

      First, you have a devil, the fossil fuel industry, so you can dismiss contrary evidence as the work of Satan. Just like he hid all those fake dinosaur bones to make people believe in evolution.

      You have dogmatic beliefs, but you don’t have the least understanding of what they mean.

      Actual evidence does not favor alarmism. Models do, but they are not actual evidence. If you want to understand the limits of models, see the link above.

      Actual evidence tells us the models overstate the effect of CO2 by at least twice and maybe 3 times.

      Or as Stevie Wonder put it, ‘When you believe in things you don’t understand, that’s superstition’

      Like

      1. @Tabor
        You simply cannot accept the fact that it is a very small minority of scientists working in the field who find ZERO reason to be alarmed. And that there are many more respected scientists at the opposite end of the alarm spectrum than at the end that you prefer for ideological reasons. And yet you continue with your silly accusations of dogmatic thinking against others?

        Further, I note that you always come back to one narrow subject – CO2 models because there you find enough disagreement among scientists to cherry-pick the views you prefer. The reality is that the human race is destroying the global environment in a way that cannot be sustained. At some time the issue will have to be dealt with and it won’t be free. People who believe that we have a moral obligation to future generations and to our fellow human beings in the most vulnerable places believe we should make a start now.

        Like

        1. Galileo was part of a small minority supporting the Copernican view of the Solar System opposing a majority who held the Geocentric view. Majorities are often wrong.

          But I do not disagree that we face serious environmental problems. There are many forms of pollution that are truly dangerous. There are also overfishing and deforestation that do great damage.

          But we aren’t doing much about those because we have become so obsessed with CO2. In fact, the push for ‘renewable’ energy is driving a lot of deforestation.

          Like

  3. The use of the phrase “emotional meltdown” in referring to Greta Thunberg completely dismisses the fact that her concerns for the environment are real. And that she has Asperger’s Syndrome.

    So everyone who has voiced concerns about the damage we have done to this planet and the changes we are pushing is part of a “cult” is basically what Mr Maitra is saying. Another attempt to dismiss legitimate concerns about what has been happening to this planet and what WE have done to accelerate it. Are some environmentalists overzealous? Sure. So are Trump supporters. But Greta Thunberg is a lot smarter than they are.

    I wonder what Mr. Maitra’s home country is and what kind of effects are being felt there.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. No change has ever come easily. Witness what it took to stop slavery and even more telling the blood it took to establish equal rights a century after the Civi War. “All men are created equal” was the founding ideal, but it took two centuries of turmoil, death and terror to implement it.

    Why? Because the established power feared change. Change that might lead to an uncertain future. Even the “end of civilization” per the Mississippi Declaration of Secession.

    Fast forward to the modern environmental movement. The author of that silly screed for the Federalists invoked visions of left wing asceticism prompted by wild eyed fanatics wanting to also “end civilization” as we know it. Yet, the goal is a cleaner planet. A planet we can thrive on so long as we don’t muck it up so we have to crowd into some remaining habitable corners a century or two from now.

    It may be that some of the science is still evolving. But to postulate that thousands upon thousands of scientists and journalists are all being taken for a ride to perdition by eco-fascists according to handful “right (pun fully intended) thinkers” like the author is tantamount to lunacy.

    BTW, I agree with Russell. That the Federalists are packing our courts is scarier than the national credit card in the hands of Republicans. And that is saying something.

    IMHO

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Did you miss the explanation of how the IPCC works in the previous thread?

      https://tidewaterforum.blog/2019/09/24/at-top-level-climate-modeler-goes-rogue-criticizes-nonsense-of-global-warming-crisis/#comments

      It is not necessary for thousands of scientists to be participants in a conspiracy. All that is necessary are a few hundred corrupt UN politicians and journalists with a common goal.

      Everything you “know” and believe about climate is filtered through them.

      Like

      1. A few hundred with a common goal?

        A goal that is so pernicious, so destructive and so evil, yet not even the most investigative scientific minds and tough as nails journalists cannot break the cabal.

        I am very skeptical about conspiracies on a global scale affecting billions of people.

        The classic line is that two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead.

        The industrial countries spend 100’s of billions, maybe a trillion, every year to protect the fossil fuel industry and ensure a constant supply without interruption. And their agenda is not secret. Some of their lobbying and think tank funding might be, but there is no second guessing the incredible force that money and power has.

        I can see that side of the equation.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Again, a conspiracy is not required.

          135 nations make up the IPCC. Each has the same vote as us. At least 100(or their leaders) stand to cash in from the Paris Accords, and that’s just a down payment.

          They don’t have to conspire, they just have to independently vote their short term best interests. This isn’t about climate, it’s about redistribution.

          Like

          1. Suppose that is the case. How long do you think we can have very rich countries bordering very poor ones? If the poorest nations strip the forests, deplete the fisheries, burn coal and clog the oceans don’t you think we will feel the effects?

            It is like having the smoking section in the back of the plane. We all breathe the same recirculating air.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. So, we agree it is not about climate but about redistribution.

            Poor nations are not poor because they border rich ones. They are poor because they are corrupt and lack the Rule of Law, particularly property rights protection. Certainly, in the past, colonialism contributed to national poverty, but that is gone. Now, national poverty is the result of corruption, socialism, Islam or a combination of the three.

            Redistribution is not the cure, free market capitalism and the Rule of Law are.

            Like

          3. “So, we agree it is not about climate but about redistribution.”

            To be more precise, I stated a supposition.

            The smokers in the back of the plane may be weak willed and undisciplined, but we still have the breathe the same air.

            Colonialism ended mostly in the last half of the 1900’s. The indigenous peoples in Africa learned how to govern “Western Style” as they saw it applied in their own lands while under European rule. That corruption was taught to folks who had no history of democratic institutions. It takes time.

            Even more time when we supported the dictators to prevent any kind of socialism from taking hold during the Cold War. (Iran, anyone?)

            We can all smugly stand by and point fingers. Or we, as the “West”, can decide that a good use of some of our riches might be to raise those nations out of their current situations.

            BTW, if Greenland does melt, we might find ourselves among the Third World. Then we’ll see how strong our institutions really are.

            Liked by 2 people

      2. “Everything you “know” and believe about climate is filtered through them”

        Only if you’re too lazy to do your own due diligence and dig a little bit.

        Actually, your extreme views on the issue have forced me to move from a solid level of knowledge to a significantly more in-depth understanding, particularly in terms of research methodology and data validity.

        Thanks, but we will agree to disagree.

        Like

          1. That was a slog, but I think I got most of it (not sure about some of the highest level math). While dated, it does make a compelling case against 8.5 which I’ve repeatedly stated is overblown.

            I find it interesting that there is only one direction more knowledge and information can lead; to YOUR position.

            I understand increasingly why you and trump are kindred souls…

            Like

  5. RE: “These are the very normal people who hand-pick Supreme Court Justices.”

    Good for them. Given the credentials of the writer, I’d say he’s qualified the make the point he does, and it is certainly an interesting one. Instead of ridiculing him, or pretending to be smarter than him, it would be well to grasp his thesis.

    Like

    1. “Instead of ridiculing him, or pretending to be smarter than him, it would be well to grasp his thesis.”

      Should we implore the well-credentialed writer to extend the same courtesy to the teenage girl he’s so interested in?

      His “thesis” seems to be that we’ve strayed from our “Judeo-Christian values”–a term, incidentally, more popular among conservatives than academics–and have replaced god with worship of climate disaster. Is that about right? That the US was founded on Judeo-Christian values, or even that such an idea can be explained in a coherant manner, is never supported with evidence, merely asserted as . . . gospel (see what I did there?).

      If you read that pablum and thought, “this is clearly a man to be taken seriously” I’m not sure what more we could possibly have to discuss.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. RE: “His ‘thesis’ seems to be that we’ve strayed from our ‘Judeo-Christian values'”

      I would put it a little differently. His thesis is that the contemporary environmental movement looks a lot like medieval paganism.

      You may recall that after the fall of the Roman Empire the Catholic Church became the dominant social/political institution across Europe. All the best science and philosophy was happening within the Church, generally inaccessible to the common man. Thus, paganism — especially the animistic view of nature — was synonymous with ignorance.

      We see much the same pattern with environmentalism today plus, strikingly, a resurgence of animistic thinking. Few environmentalists actually understand the science their political activism is based on. Gaia is Mother Earth. Witch hunts and witch burning, especially of environmental apostates, is common.

      In this context, a return to Judeo-Christian values would actually consist of a return to science and philosophy of the type that set the stage for the Enlightenment and the Modern Era.

      Like

      1. RE: “Yes, medieval Christendom was famously supportive of science.”

        If you know your history, then you know it was. Medieval science was primitive by today’s standards but what there was of it was Church sponsored.

        Like

          1. John, this is a part of history most people know about.

            I’m sure if you go to your favorite search engine and type something like, “heretical scholar” or “heretic execution” you’ll find all the information you need.

            Like

          2. You should try running the searches yourself. Most of the heresies of the Medieval period concerned scriptural interpretations within different factions of Christians. None I can find concerned a conflict between science and the Church.

            Like

  6. This one came up back when the Pilot was still taking comments, but, told you so.

    https://retractionwatch.com/2019/09/25/nature-paper-on-ocean-warming-retracted/?fbclid=IwAR28RKKvfcDZxEi8JqYuvEdwRt2LeCFYIDM5hvByy0JRncMloo_E_1AqmN0

    The AP article was a big deal in the Pilot and on national news when the original article came out telling us the seas were warming much faster than expected. Let’s see how much ink the retraction gets.

    Just kidding. Articles not supporting the narrative never get printed.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s