What is worse than having blind faith in religion? It is the establishment of falsehoods, and then masquerading those untruths as evidence to encourage the masses to subscribe to your religion. Churches throughout history have used this tactic. Now, the priests and priestesses of global warming are doing just that.
Hat tip to anonymous for their comment to my previous post about carbon footprinting for bringing to my attention the video, The Global Warming Swindle, which I have watched in full.
What if something you believed in was shown to be demonstrably false? Would you still cling to your beliefs? There is a religion that is succumbing with ever more alacrity to increasing mountains of evidence against it. That religion is called the Church of Global Warming.
Global warming has become the church that brooks no dissension. We are persecuted for thinking we are allowed to doubt the global warming orthodoxy. Enter a new documentary, called The Global Warming Swindle, which interviews a plethora of scientists, expert in climatology, several of which were involved in the musings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Here's what they say:
Patrick Moore, Co-Founder Greenpeace
I don't even like to call it environmental anymore, because really it is a political activist movement. It has become the strongest force there is for preventing development in developing countries.
Nigel Calder, former editor of The New Scientist journal -
The whole global warming business has become like a religion, and anyone who disagrees has become a heretic.
Ian Clark, Department of Earth Science, University of Ottawa
We can't say that CO2 will drive climate. It certainly never did in the past.
Piers Corbyn, UK Climate Forecaster
None of the major climate changes in the past 1,000 years can be explained by CO2.
John Christy, IPCC Lead author
There is not a concensus of thousands of scientists. Many simply think that [man-made global warming] is not true. We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science.
Paul Reiter, who resigned in disgust from the IPCC
Look at the bibliographies of the people and it simply is not true [that the IPCC is an authoritative body]. There are quite a number of non-scientists. Those people who are specialists, but don't agree...and resign, and there have been a number of them that I know of--they are simply put on the author list and become part of the world's 2,500 top scientists.
Global warming is a great business with tens of thousands of people making their livelihood from it. When global warming becomes completely debunked, these people will be out of jobs. Global warming hinders industrial progress in the developing world. Climate change in the past is very natural, so why would we think it would be any different today? Co2 increased rapidly during the industrial boom of post WWII, when the average temperatures went down. Satellite and weather balloon data disprove the theory that greenhouse gas increase cause increase in atmosphere warming.
Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, relies on ice core surveys--Vostok found clear correlation between CO2 and earth's temperature. In this he is correct. But al Gore is incorrect in his analysis--experts have proven that CO2 is not an indicator of temperature, but is a result of temperature. Temperature fluctuation leads CO2 by about 800 years in every study that has been done on the subject. Thus the fundamental assumption of global warming fails.
Volcanoes produce more Co2 than all human sources. Bacteria and animals do as well. But biggest source of CO2 is the oceans. Oceans are so gigantic that it takes hundreds of years for them to warm up and cool down.
In the past, scientists were much more modest in their statements about their ability to predict the climate. All current models assume that man-made CO2 is the primary cause of global warming. Models include variables for twice as much CO2 heating than has actually occurred. As in nearly every other facet of our society, those scenarios which conjure up excitement are the global warming scenarios that are picked up by the media. Nigel Calder, journalist and scientist says that most journalism fails in its integrity when it comes to global warming. To him, the modern occupation "environmental journalist" is a conflict of interest.
What can it hurt to be on the safe side of global warming? It hurts the entire developing world. Nearly every country in Africa is dramatically behind in the technologies and comforts of life. Africans say that it does not make sense that the rich countries can still have their luxuries, but that the poor people must be constrained to live within their existing squalor, never being allowed to achieve the African dream.
It is immoral. Patrick Moore calls the fanatics of global warming "anti-human".
I hereby apostatize from the Church of Global Warming. And I have a clear conscience.