The Climate Cult, environmentalism as a religion.

It was Michael Crichton who first identified environmentalism as a religion (link to 4 min clip) in 2003.  Global Warming has become the core belief of this new Eco-theology. The term is shorthand for anthropogenic (or man made) global warming. It is closely related to other modern belief systems, such as political correctness, the regressive liberal media and various other forms of scaremongering, but it represents the leader in the assault on science.

The activists now prefer to call it "climate change." This gives them two advantages:

1.) It allows them to use as "evidence" the inevitable occurrences of unusually cold and warm weather.

2.) The climate is always changing, so they must be right ..right?

It all began in Britain, the cradle of the new belief and was a response to the searing summer of 1976. The father of the new religion was Sir Crispin Tickell, and because he had the ear and government funding of the Prime Minister who was engaged in a battle (she wanted nuclear) with the coal miners and oil sheiks, it was introduced into international politics. The result was a new form of godless religion.

Blind faith is a belief held without evidence. The scientific method is based on precisely the opposite concept, as famously declared by Thomas Henry Huxley:

"The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge  authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind  faith the one unpardonable sin. And it cannot be otherwise, for  every great advance in natural knowledge has involved the absolute  rejection of authority, the cherishing of the keenest scepticism, the  annihilation of the spirit of blind faith; and the most ardent votary of  science holds his firmest convictions, not because the men he most  venerates hold them; not because their verity is testified by portents  and wonders; but because his experience teaches him that whenever he  chooses to bring these convictions into contact with their primary  source, Nature — whenever he thinks fit to test them by appealing to  experiment and to observation — Nature will confirm them. The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification."

After a tradition of British skeptical philosophers the scientific method was painfully established, only to be abandoned after a few decades. It's one of the great ironies of the modern age that the nation that was the cradle of the scientific method lead to its abandonment. The great difference is that religion/faith requires belief in an intangible concept or philosophy, while science requires belief in tangible evidence and disbelief when new evidence comes along. There is great variety in faith. Atheism is just as much faith as theism. There is no tangible evidence either way. There is no fundamental clash between faith and science - they do not intersect. The difficulties arise when one pretends to be the other.

The climatistas like to use the name of science, but they do not like its methods. They promote slogans such as "The science is settled" when real scientists know that science is never settled.

The royal Society, as a major part of the flowering of the tradition, was founded on the basis of skepticism. Its motto "On the word of no one" was a stout affirmation. Now, after the takeover, the Greens have changed this motto of centuries to one that manages to be both unoriginal and sinister - "respect the facts," or more suitably "respect our interpretation of the facts." When people start talking about "the facts" it's time to start looking for the fictions. Real science does not talk about facts; it talks about observations, which might turn out to be inaccurate or even irrelevant.

The world could have warmed by a fraction of a degree or it might have cooled. This could be in part due to the activities of mankind or maybe not. It all depends on how valid a hypotheses one has and the observation quality.  Science is at ease with this situation, but perhaps a bit too at ease. People accept various theories, such as gravitation or evolution, but only due to the tangible observation and practical applications. 

The intangible concepts are lumped in and the lines between science and philosophy are blurred into religion. Mixing the intangible with the tangible equates to religion. While keeping to only the intangible is philosophy and sticking to just the tangible is actual science.

It is in the nature of religion to be authoritarian and prescriptive. Essential to this is the concept of sin - a transgression in thought or deed of theological principles. Original sin in the older religions is talking pleasure in fruitless fruit. The original perversion was derived from one of the fountains of life on Earth - sex.

The new religion goes even further back to the very basis of all life - carbon. Banning carbon is another great sin, being a fruitless fruit as well. By hampering plant growth rather than saving it. The amazing properties of carbon allow an amazing complexity of compounds and the existence all of life to be possible. CO2 is the primary foodstuff, the beginning of the food chain. All nutrients consumed start out as atmospheric carbon dioxide. Therefore banning carbon is an ideal candidate for an "original sin," since none can escape from dependence on it. This manna that gave us life is now regularly branded in media headlines as "pollution" and "toxic": this is surely one of the most perverse sayings in the history of language.

Absolution is the corrective to sin in religion, and most religions main source of power comes from their claim of having a monopoly on absolution. So it is with the new godless religion. Furthermore, it is natural that once perverse, man (and religion) creates false markets. In the past popes sold papal indulgences in sin, which freed the prosperous from those consequences. 

Likewise, the new environmentalist pardoners sell carbon offsets. In modern society (and some ancient too) these activities divert effort from wealth creation and so act as an economy sink. They also grant to the rich a comfort that is not available to the poor - a sure road to success for the rich.

Torment is the stick and salvation is the carrot. Perhaps the best you can say about the new religion is that the object of salvation is the Earth, but this is also the worst you can say being inhuman and inhumane to the humanity of Earth. Science is also inhuman but unlike religion, it does not seek to dictate policy. It can provide information for policy makers, such as "if you do this many people are likely to die" but it does not say "you must, or must not, do this." Religion on the other hand, depending upon its particular variety will say "they must be saved" or, "let them die."

Religions vary in how they treat unbelievers, ranging from disregard to slaughter. The new religion relies at present on verbal assault and character assassination, though some would go further. They call the infidels "deniers," as they deny the deniers any sort of public platform for their views.

Apostates are universally even more criticized than infidels. They have turned their backs on the "true" faith, whatever that might happen to be. Partial apostates, or heretics, are even more loathed and through the ages have been subjected to the most appealing punishments and deaths. "Skeptical environmentalists" are of the faith, in fact they are serial believers; accepting that global warming is man made, but reject the sacrifice of humanity to the belief. But even this is unacceptable; what's a few million death from poor sanitation and mosquito bites, etc. so long as people can be made to conform? Those who leave the movement over its anti-human, anti-scientific tendencies and drift into extremism are consequently subjected to vilification. Every commentator or blogger who disbelieves will be the target of abuse from self appointed social "justice" warriors. 

It is human nature to not like to admit it when making a mistake, even to ourselves. So if, for example, we buy a magic device that improves the fuel efficiency of a car, subconsciously we drive more conservatively to prove that we have not been tricked. Religions exploit this weakness as a means of creating and reinforcing commitment. If someone can be induced or talked into making a sacrifice they then have a stake in the cause.

Windmills for example, are the new symbol of power, not physical power in which they are lacking, but political and religious power. These symbols (idols) are like the great domes of temples, the statues of a prominent dictator or the big "M" arch of MacDonald's. Windmills are ugly and destroy the visual landscape and cause noise pollution, but that is their purpose. It's part of the sacrifice. It wouldn't be bad if they were simply useless, but it's worse than that.  Conventional generating systems of equivalent power output have to operate for 80% of the time, while the wind isn't blowing hard enough or is too soft, and then be switched to warm standby when it is just right, an expensive and wasteful process. Windmills are there to remind us of our commitment, willing or not, to the cause, both in excessive taxation and loss of visual and aural pleasantries.

(Don Quixote charging the mythical beasts of his day; https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3299/3503448168_7cfb49b975.jpg)

As in other forms of brainwashing, continued conditioning is a necessary part of the process to reinforce the beliefs eventually becoming ritual though repeating tiny sacrifices indefinitely. Going around the house switching off lights performs the same function as repetitive chanting of mantras. This serves little function as turning them back on uses more power and wears them out eventually. The fact it's pointless is in fact the whole point.

Contradictions and irrationality was not only tolerated by traditional religions, they accepted and embraced them as part of the mystique. Words and phrases repeated indefinitely and in weird contexts, until they begin to lose all meaning and become self-preserving mantras said only to affirm a dogma.

Irrational contradictions are everywhere in the modern theocratic world. The EU, for example, unjustly destroys a small industry making traditional barometers, on the grounds of an irrational fear of mercury, then later imposes the use of fluorescent light bulbs that spread that same dreaded substance in great amounts across the world, all on the basis of the threat of climate change.

While not at all obvious to those who are familiar solar research, those who are not familiar confidently assert that it is "obvious" that man made CO2 will cause runaway warming. It is obvious in the same way that it's obvious that a senseless act of suicide-bombing will earn the eternal attentions of 72 raisins in paradise. The modern eco-theologian's capacity to believe six impossible things before breakfast has been restored from fantasy to accepted normality.

Proselytism is how most religions seek to grow. Science and philosophy do not seek or need converts. They teach those who are willing to learn, but do not impose on those who are indifferent. Successful religion have a different imperative. Mob mentality reinforces the beliefs of existing converts and participating in the quest for converting helps quench the inevitable doubts they might hold. Religions that take hold are structured to encompass this growth tactic. Those who can recruit others to the cause (evangelists) are therefore held in a higher regard than those who seek the truth.

Demagoguery is a feature of religion. Some have the capacity to hold the masses in their grasp. It is often a mystery as to why, as their social charisma often does not stand up to criticism. They are idols of the day, who often turn out to have lead feet, as so frequently happens with televangelists.

One of the most infamous demagogues of the godless religion is Al Gore. He's certainly no great speaker, but he makes up with it with pizzazz. This disregard for truth is exemplified by his classic pose in front of an image of hurricane Katrina. Even most adherent climate change "scientists" usually refrain from drawing conclusions from such an isolated event. 

Likewise his style of prophecy, such as rise in sea level due to floods, greatly surpass the more modest claims of other climate "scientists." As in biblical prophecies, Gore promises sweltering heat and flooding etc. unless we change. Gore also displays all the characteristics of the classical religious hypocrite. He disregards his own prohibitions with recklessness and extravagances. By his own measure (carbon footprint) his sins are great; at least 20x those of an average American. It's "OK" though, because he purchases absolution (carbon offsets) through his own company. Being a private individual it is not known whether he profits directly, but at a minimum he is not paying out of his taxable income and worst of all, he is demonstrating that those rich enough are immune to the requirements the new religion has for poorer adherents. Something shared by all religions over the centuries.

Attempt at prophecy always comes to a bad end. Only in ancient religious texts and the currently popular fantasy fiction do prophecies come true. Likewise, divination was and is greatly regarded in all cultures, ancient or modern. Stars observed, chickens and other animals slaughtered in order to examine their steaming entrails, cards were shuffled and crystal balls peered into. Comparatively recently the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth relied on the advice of astrologers.

Divination has now returned with the examination of the entrails of ancient trees and geological layers of earth. Though the methods used are invalid (they wrongly assume linearity and uniformity) and have been extensively shown to be irreproducible and misleading, the results have been paraded before the world in defense of the new religion's sacrificial policies.

Modern divinations main form has become computer models. Forty odd years ago an instruction passed around that no PhD's were to be awarded on the basis of computer models unsupported by measurement. Now huge and generously funded university and government departments do nothing but develop computer models (math), involving assumptions about physical interactions (physics) that are still not completely understood by science. Their misleading results are then used by the new international priesthood to frighten the people into conforming.

Mencken's definition of puritanism - "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." It is an unfortunate trait of many varieties of religion that puritanism is a key component and climate change is far from being an exception. Nothing the proponents offer involves an improvement or even maintenance of contentment, quite the opposite in fact. You might think that any philosophy would involve ups and downs, good and bad, but think again. Virtually everything you enjoy is now "sinful" - transit, holidays, shipping, having a comfortable temperature in your home, being free of the stink of rotting garbage, and so on.

As with the flagellants of old, for many people a feeling of self-righteousness not only overshadows all discomforts, but stems from them. The rest of us need to be coerced into conformity and dis-ease. It's unfortunate that there are people (killjoys) who still get their kicks out of pushing others around. The idea of others enjoying the little pleasures of life, such as enjoying a fine wine or cigar is intolerable to them. They will exploit it through any means - the distortion of science, the bribing of weak politicians, the repetition of propaganda - to achieve the elimination of the hated practices. The eleventh commandment for the killjoys is "thou shalt not have fun," and global warming/cooling provides the perfect playground for them.

Science is built on freedom of speech and publication. Even the most foolish of hypothesis must be allowed and offered for examination. In much of religion the opposite is true; challenging the established dogma is heresy, for which is punishment has ranged from exile to horrifying torture and death. The greatest of ironies produced by the successful policy of "peer review" by the eco-theologians is none other than the Royal Society has been orchestrating the attempt to censor any deviation from establishment beliefs. And it should come as no surprise that authoritarian politicians would give such suppression the force of law.

It is curious bit of history that those who advanced the hypothesis for Copernican's heliocentric model and Einsteins adaptation of Newtons gravity was in fact a coverup for the truth that the Sun's EM field, color frequency and sun spots are the controlling elements for changes in temperature. In the establishment climate change dogma the Sun is barely mentioned, while the puny efforts of mankind are blown out of proportion. In a scientific approach to climate, a full understanding of the behavior of that solitary driver (the Sun, but not the Sun's heat) would be the first prerequisite, but this is waived in the interests of blind faith; so leading solar researchers have been deprived of funding, if they get any at all.

"Ratchet reporting" is one of the most exploited ways of angling the information. News of unusual warm weather, for example, is given expansive coverage, while cold weather is all but ignored. Thus the spring of 2007 was extremely cold in parts of North America but this was kept secret from the British, whose delightful summery spring was presented as though it was bad news. The fact that Britain had no spring in 2006 was conveniently overlooked, except as a comparison to establish that 2007 was substantially warmer.

It is demonstrated that the media knows that they are peddling untruths by the tricks they get up to. If they were confident of the "truth" of their case there would be no need for it to be faked. They are frequently caught making up their numbers and graphs, but this is realized by only a few internet surfers. If you have a good case, you can always present both sides, but they do not. The great majority of people have no idea there is an alternative view. That is not science, it is religion.

Religion has always played an important part in the creation of authority. For thousands of years it took the form of the "Divine Right of Kings" or the "Mandate of Heaven." Once you get a population to believe, the rulers get away with almost anything. The alliance between the church and state (or shaman and warlord) has long been the foundation of authoritarianism. 

Even when the dogma is a godless one, such as Marxism, it is imposed with religious zeal, for that is how conformity is created. Because they are hidden in a quasi-religious formula some even accept laws that openly restrict liberty and standard of living, which at one time would have provoked riots.

It is characteristic of businesses that they eventually part ways with the entrepreneurs who create them and are taken over completely by a different type of corporate manager: the same is true with religions. The brutally suppressed gnostics who were the early Christians were a different breed from the Catholic cardinals, bishops and abbots in medieval Europe and lived the rich life. There were also the humble and saintly mendicant friars. The same varieties all exist within the new eco-theological movement as well.

Money is the basis of the new religion. It poured in from many different foundations and naive donors. Like the money hungry cardinals, bishops and abbots, the eco-activists found that they had to maintain and innovate their product (anxiety) to keep the income rising too. They had to keep increasing the imaginary threats both in scope and number.

With money comes power. During the start of the eco-movement the political parties were all effectively bankrupt, so the temptation to hang onto the coattails of a movement with so much momentum was too irresistible. Even conservatives at the time submitted to a coup that was totally against everything they had ever believed.

Another way to power was entry-ism. After one adherent to the cause obtained a position of authority they could recruit others of like mind. After that the media and science too succumbed to the intruders. A new breed of eco-editors achieved a monopoly of reporting in areas that coincided with their beliefs. With powerful media groups behind them it was not hard to get the protection of the law to intimidate their adversaries. Opposition to the movement was largely confined to the internet and a few determined individuals in remote institutions, such as the withering British House of Lords.

(Don Quixote taking one for the team against the environmentalists; https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Don_Quixote_6.jpg)

Patronage produces great architecture and art at its best and at its worst it produces vast acres of unsightly, overly useless windmills and rigidly controlled research. What passed as authentic scientific research thirty five years ago now barely exists. To get funding, a research project has to conform to one of the mantra descriptions, such as "sustainable development." Doubters are afraid to speak out. Their institutions are dependent on millions in grants at the disposal of green officials to obtain "appropriate" results relevant to climate change and related scares. When an institution is fighting to stay afloat, scientists do not rock the boat unless they want to look for a new job.

The extravagances of the tax-funded, computer model-fueled, lavish institutions enjoyed by the eco-priesthood, contrasted with the meager gatherings of their relatively ineffective scientific opponents, is the very stuff of comical satire. Just as Renaissance scholars had to go into hiding from the inquisition of their time, so critics of the new religion are mostly confined to the hideaways of the internet. As ever, money and prestige determine the ease of propagating one's views.

One of the last enclaves of science to fall was the British Royal Society for the encouragement of arts, science and manufacture. They now offer their followers the opportunity to make public confession of their "sins" in the form of their "carbon footprint." They even have a program of "Carbon Control" directed at young impressionable minds, urging them to take control of their carbon emissions. This ruthless exploitation of the receptivity of the young, and their relentless indoctrination, is one of the less pleasant characteristics of religion and the new eco-religion as well. As the Jesuits say "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man."

In conclusion humanity's spirit is sick. It soared during the enlightenment of the Renaissance and flowered afterwards. It beat off the tyrants of the twentieth century only to be overtaken again. Now, at an alarming rate, it surrenders its freedoms to a concocted eco-theology based on a fraudulent mix of science and philosophy. Of course, it is not only science that has suffered in the overwhelming cultural downturn. The once great artistic tradition has given way to displays of dead animals and "shock pieces." Entertainment is debased by displays of uninspiring and baseless celebrity. Extremists of the new eco-religion regard the poorer of humanity as an inconvenience or a pestilence to be thrown by the wayside (not including themselves, of course.) 

Above all, science represented a new way to battle the primal superstitions that plagued our ancestors, a creation of pure reason, a monument to the complexity of the human brain. It is too valuable just to be tossed away for the superstitions that it once sought to rise above.

Wisdom comes from an understanding through philosophy.

Understanding is lost with irrational knowledge. 

Irrational knowledge comes from irrational observations obtained through science. 

Knowledge is lost when it becomes baseless information. 

Baseless information comes from religious belief in facts without understanding or observation.

 Influence: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm (this is not a copy/paste though, I just share similar thoughts on the idea)