Debunking Global Warming, Part 4: Environmentalism as Religion, Silencing the Critics

Previously, I mentioned that there are several red flags associated with the predictions of catastrophe, and the quasi-religious modern day belief in Global Warming, that I believe should make you very suspicious about the veracity of the claims made by climate change activists . . .

The first, discussed at length, is the tendency of the majority of Climate Change catastrophists to dismiss critics, attack them, discredit them—in short, do anything but answer the questions they raise or convincingly argue against their objections.

The second red flag is not just the desire but the active advocacy of silencing the critics. The Global Warming crowd is full of folks who want to make it impossible for dissent to be heard. For example, The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen recently advocated that the American Meteorological Society revoke their Seal of Approval for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating climate catastrophe! Read more here.

I find it peculiarly revealing that Cullen compared allowing meteorologists who are skeptical of Global Warming to stay on the air to allowing meteorologists who say that hurricanes rotate clockwise to stay on the air, apparently unaware herself, for all her climate expertise, that hurricanes to rotate clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere. Which would encompass an entire half of the planet that Cullen forgot about, there. Hmmm. Maybe she should be stripped of her credentials.

Global Warming Deniers

---

For those who haven’t given the history and purpose behind War Crimes trials much thought, you might be interested to learn (although, if you are reading me, then you are no doubt smart enough to already know) that the primary reason for War Crimes tribunals, and for discussing the likelihood of having them, is to effect and curtail the behavior of those we are at war with presently or might be at war with in the future, and specifically effect the treatment of their own citizens and the soldiers they capture, before there is anybody we can put on trial.

So when environmental activists like David Roberts advocate that we have War Crimes trials for people who are skeptical about the insanely divergent and inconsistent predictions of Global Warming doom, the intent is to silence present day critics. To be clear, what Roberts is advocating is the death penalty, in the future, for people who disagree with the predictions (or the prophesies, which would be a more accurate term given the faith-based nature of the Global Warming belief system) of global climate disaster caused by the free market and the astounding productivity and progress enabled by capitalism. And the reason that such a suggestion would even be floated would be as an attempt to silence present day critics, right now. Since getting the death penalty for the capital crime of disagreeing with liberals, leftists, and socialists is still extremely difficult. Stupid constitution!

Just recently, renowned environmental scientists—oh, no, I’m sorry, I meant: “windbag politicians”—Olympia Snow and Jay Rockefeller wrote a letter telling Exxon to start towing the Global Warming alarmist line on climate change, or face negative consequences. Read more here.

When The Church is so desperate to have critics silenced, one might well be forgiven for suspecting that not only is the evidence simply not there, but that even their faith is shaky.

In Aliens Cause Global Warming, Michael Crichton relays what happened to author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg:

We can take as an example the scientific reception accorded a Danish statistician, Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote a book called

The Skeptical Environmentalist.

The scientific community responded in a way that can only be described as disgraceful. In professional literature, it was complained he had no standing because he was not an earth scientist. His publisher, Cambridge University Press, was attacked with cries that the editor should be fired, and that all right-thinking scientists should shun the press. The past president of the AAAS wondered aloud how Cambridge could have ever "published a book that so clearly could never have passed peer review." )But of course the manuscript did pass peer review by three earth scientists on both sides of the Atlantic, and all recommended publication.) But what are scientists doing attacking a press? Is this the new McCarthyism-coming from scientists?

Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts. The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was "rife with careless mistakes." It was a poor display featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocaust denier. The issue was captioned: "Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist." Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to?

When Lomborg asked for space to rebut his critics, he was given only a page and a half. When he said it wasn't enough, he put the critics' essays on his web page and answered them in detail. Scientific American threatened copyright infringement and made him take the pages down.

Further attacks since have made it clear what is going on. Lomborg is charged with heresy. That's why none of his critics needs to substantiate their attacks in any detail. That's why the facts don't matter. That's why they can attack him in the most vicious personal terms. He's a heretic.

Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I'd see the Scientific American in the role of mother church.And that, in a nut shell, is the main reason that there is an effort to silence even casual critics of Global Warming: because they are heretics, and when your religion is nascent and struggling to establish and then maintain power, you cannot tolerate heretics, critics, or skeptics. And most of what goes on regarding Global Warming in the mainstream media, in politics, and with environmental activism, is religious and philosophical rather than scientific.

In Environmentalism as a Religion, Crichton argues just that point: that modern environmentalism is a religion, rather than an objective field of science, and he makes the case:

With so many past failures, you might think that environmental predictions would become more cautious. But not if it's a religion. Remember, the nut on the sidewalk carrying the placard that predicts the end of the world doesn't quit when the world doesn't end on the day he expects. He just changes his placard, sets a new doomsday date, and goes back to walking the streets. One of the defining features of religion is that your beliefs are not troubled by facts, because they have nothing to do with facts.

…

Most of us have had some experience interacting with religious fundamentalists, and we understand that one of the problems with fundamentalists is that they have no perspective on themselves. They never recognize that their way of thinking is just one of many other possible ways of thinking, which may be equally useful or good. On the contrary, they believe their way is the right way, everyone else is wrong; they are in the business of salvation, and they want to help you to see things the right way. They want to help you be saved. They are totally rigid and totally uninterested in opposing points of view. In our modern complex world, fundamentalism is dangerous because of its rigidity and its imperviousness to other ideas.

And he says a great deal more. It’s a must read.

Crichton is not the only one who sees modern-day environmentalism as a religion: so does self-described “green” David Orrell in his book, Apollo’s Arrow. Orrell addresses with some specificity the religious nature of the prediction—i.e., prophesies—of modern day Environmentalism.

David G. Danielson was giving Environmentalism as Religion serious thought back in 1995.

MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen also likens fear of Global Warming to a religious belief. H. Sterling Burnett makes the same point in Human Events. And you know what radical right-wingers those MIT meteorologists are!

So does Tom DeWeese make the argument that environmentalism is a religion, in Capitalism Magazine. Also, The California Conservative makes the point pretty well, as well. Debra Saunders does a great job covering it at Real Clear Politics.

And there is more. You can find your own. Global Warming is a product of modern-day secularism and the human need for religion, rather than the product of rigorous science. I can say this without a doubt, because there is clearly a consensus among Global Warming skeptics, and even some non-skeptics, that most of modern day environmentalism is religious in nature. And we all know that consensus is all the proof we need to establish something as indisputable, undeniable fact.