Friday, March 29, AD 2024 12:54am

The New Paganism: Climate Change

The Pagans are coming out of the woodwork, or more properly named, coming out of the ice sculpture.

What is turning into an annual event in Fairbanks, Alaska, a frozen ice sculpture of Al Gore, or what the locals call “Frozen Gore”, was unveiled.

Steve Dean sculpted the two-ton ice block in tribute to Al Gore and his ‘theories’ of man-made Global Warming.

The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner reports with my emphases and comments in this truncated article:

This year’s version includes special effects, thanks to a system that pipes the exhaust from a Ford F-350 out of Gore’s open mouth. Compeau [who funded the ice sculpture] will fire up the truck periodically this winter to create the “hot air” effect.

50 years [ago]. The average temperature for 2009 was 27.8 degrees in Fairbanks, about one degree warmer than normal, said Rick Thoman, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service.

Last winter, however, was unusually cold in Fairbanks. Temperatures in the winter months of 2008-09 were about 4 degrees below normal, according to National Weather Service figures.

The mocking tribute of Al Gore and the pseudoscience that he uses is cause for concern.  We need to start a movement to begin the separation of science and state in order to protect Americans from environmentalist fanatics such as Al Gore.

Americans have fallen for the line “the science says” argument before.  It’s become a religious mantra when well-meaning people start a sentence with “the science says” as if it were dogma.  Take for example the eugenics movement which Nick Rizzuto of Townhall.com wrote a great article on titled Separation of Science and State with my emphases and comments in this excerpt:

Policies based on “scientific fact” have a history of being more than just problematic, as with the veneer of absolute truth behind them they have oftentimes been downright irrational. This historic record should act as a guide to our current political occupation with anthropogenic global warming.

Arguably, scientific fact changes more rapidly than religious dogma. What was undeniable truth one day might be discovered to be quackery the next. The most glaring example of this in the 20th century is the science of eugenics [Margaret Sanger ring a bell?].

The science of eugenics insisted that the human gene pool was being polluted by various undesirable races and threatened to lead to the degeneration of the human species into a collection of feeble minded individuals. So popular was this science that it spawned no less than three Global conferences with attendees included scientific and political heavyweights of the time.

When eugenics took the form of government policy, it did so in a frightening way. Take for example the case of the Racial Integrity Act (RIA). In the name of fighting off the inevitability of human degeneracy that would occur if people were left to breed uncontrolled, the state of Virginia passed the RIA in 1924. This law allowed the state powers that today would cause us to recoil in horror. These powers included forced sterilizations, and the banning of intermarriage between minorities and whites.

G.K. Chesterton wrote that “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing–they believe in anything.” This is more true today than ever before.

Many political elites and intellectuals as well as people of faith have fallen for this ruse that man is the primary reason for global warming/climate change.

Using science as if it were an absolute is dangerous.

When we have the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Dr. John P. Holdren, the author of Ecoscience which advocates forced sterilizations, in an important position in the Obama administration we know we are entering a new Paganism in America.

America is falling into nature worship that is filling the vacuum of many Americans that stopped believing in God.

We need to be aware of this and keep vigil when more and more people continue to mislead about this falsehood of climate change.

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” (Holy Gospel of Saint Matthew 7:15)

Those that propagate the “science” that man is the primary reason for climate change are violating the First Commandment, “You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve.”  By using “science”, or in this case pseudoscience, in place of God, they are pagans in all but name.  Which is why the First Commandment contains, “You shall have no other gods before Me.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly points to the pseudoscience of climate change in 2112 and 2113 my emphases and comments:

2112 The first commandment condemns polytheism.  It requires man neither to believe in [such as climate change], nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God.  Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of “idols, [of] silver and gold, the work of men’s hands.  They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see.”  These empty idols make their worshippers empty: “Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them.”  God, however, is the “living God” who gives life and internvenes in history.

2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship.  It remains a constant temptation to faith.  Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God.  Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism [or environmentalism]), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc.  Jesus says, “You cannot serve God and mammon.”  Many martyrs died for not adoring “the Beast” refusing even to simulate such worship.  Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God;  it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.

Caveat emptor to those that adhere to man being the primary reason for climate change.

_._

To read the definition of Paganism by the 1911 Edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia click here.

To read the entire article, ‘Frozen Gore’ sculpture returns in Fairbanks to fuel climate change debate, by Jeff Richardson of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner click here.

To read the entire article, Time for Separation of Science and State, by Nick Rizzuto of Townhall.com click here.

A video of the Al Gore sculpture are available at www.frozengore.com.

Here is Governor Sarah Palin in front of the 2009 version of the Frozen Gore:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
73 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Todd
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 11:04am

Al Gore is hardly a fanatic. Environmental fanatics attack whaling boats, live in trees for a few years. Gore wrote a book, won a prize, and has speaking gigs. No different from any other celebrity.

I’ll grant you that celebrity is never a good engine to drive an issue, modern media outlets aside. But if you want to whine about paganism, look to the movement that has taken over every Sunday and holiday: professional sport.

Tito Edwards
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 11:27am

Todd,

Fanatics is defined as a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.

I think that fits Mr. Gore well.

Don’t you know that we should listen to celebrities on how to vote? 😉

Moe
Moe
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 11:41am

One who elevates the spotted owl over the needs of families, for instance, the loss of 30,000 logging jobs, is a fanatic. It is madness.

DarwinCatholic
DarwinCatholic
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 11:47am

If I can put my excessive reasonability hat on:

– I’d say that it’s not political programs based on “science” that are a problem, but rather programs which are based on fundamental mistakes about human dignity. Eugenics treated people as only being worth the sum of their traits, and treated humanity as an improveable commodity. It violated basic human dignity when it forced “defective” people to be sterilized. None of this has anything to do with the “science” of eugenics (which turned out to be wrong as well) but rather with not respecting human dignity. Similarly, environmentalists suffer from a poor understanding of human dignity when they get into thinking of humanity as a “cancer on the planet” or see human lives as worth the same or less than animal lives, or seek to violate human life in order to reduce the effects of humanity on the planet.

– There are some interesting ways in which environmentalism can fit into the same slot which paganism appealed to in the human mind, but I don’t think it’s right to simply equate environmentalism and paganism.

– Gore is a bozo in part because he gets the actual science involved wrong — and one of the big problems with a lot of environmental advocacy is that it proposes changes which would have very little measureable impact on the scientific metrics involved, yet would involve a lot of negative impacts on society.

– I’m not jazzed about the idea of a “separation of science and state”. To the extent that science is a way of knowing about the universe, one doesn’t want to rule it out of influencing political thinking any more than one wants to rule religion out of political thinking. However, it’s important to understand that science does not and cannot make moral or policy prescriptions. It can’t say “We must pass this law”. It’s only predictive, as in “If we make this change, this will be the result.” Anyone who claims that science says more than that is selling something.

Henry Karlson
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 11:58am

DC

You are right, environmentalism is not paganism, though both pagans and Christians can be environmentalists. As Pope Benedict himself has made clear, environmentalism is intricately connected to Catholicism and its pro-life message. If there are non-pro-life environmentalists encouraging evil, as there are, that must not be used to judge environmentalism itself– rather, it should be used as an example of where some environmentalists need to come to grips as to why one should be an environmentalist- reasons which include the whole of the Gospel of Life.

” “Can we remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change, desertification, the deterioration and loss of productivity in vast agricultural areas, the pollution of rivers and aquifers, the loss of biodiversity, the increase of natural catastrophes and the deforestation of equatorial and tropical regions? Can we disregard the growing phenomenon of ‘environmental refugees’, people who are forced by the degradation of their natural habitat to forsake it – and often their possessions as well – in order to face the dangers and uncertainties of forced displacement?” Pope Benedict XVI.

Don’t call him pagan!

Tito Edwards
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 11:59am

However, it’s important to understand that science does not and cannot make moral or policy prescriptions.

Good points in your comments, though in the past eugenicists were able to pass the Racial Integrity Act.

And I’m sure environmentalists will be pushing for radical legislation to tax and control American lives following the Copenhagen Climate Conference.

Henry Karlson
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 11:59am

Tito

Just because someone makes a statue does not mean they are pagans; are you going to say all the artists in the world, unless they are making icons and statues of the saints, are making idols?

Todd
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 11:59am

“I think that fits Mr. Gore well.”

Disagree. Mr Gore has his post-political career. He’s far from exuding the qualities of the extremists of the environmental movement.

Now, Mr Gore may be far away from denizens of the anti-science or anti-AGW wings, and certainly extremists on their side. Distance doesn’t equate with extremism.

I’ll back up much of DC’s comment. Eugenics is a horrific, anti0life pseudo-science. I don’t see any reasonable connection with the green movement. It might be that some greens advocate population control as part of an uninformed strategy. I don’t see eugenics gaining traction in either the mainstream green movement or in society at large.

Steering human beings away from hydrocarbon fuel makes great sense politically, economically, and scientifically.

Tito Edwards
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 12:04pm

HK,

Of course not.

Art can be used as a beautiful expression of God.

From Michelangelo to Bach, art has been an integral part of enhancing our spirituality and worship of God.

But I’m sure you knew that already just as much as you know I was referring to much of the “science” that is used to control peoples lives in the climate change movement.

c matt
c matt
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 12:23pm

I don’t see eugenics gaining traction….”

I don’t know – seems China’s one child policy got kudos at Copenhagen. That may not be eugenics per se, but it certainly seems like some traction in that direction.

Zak
Zak
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 12:33pm

I don’t think explicitly means what you think it does. Watch this:

The Ten Commandments explicitly refer to Wensleydale Cheese – “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor’s [including his Wensleydale, Stilton, Cheddar, or other cheeses].

mmmm, mmmm, delicious!

Tito Edwards
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 12:43pm

Why thank you for clarifying that Inigo Montoya.

Signed,

Vizzini

American Knight
American Knight
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 1:49pm

Did you kill his father 15 years ago?

Words have meaning, at least they used to. What does “environmentalism” mean? It seems to be an ideology and that makes it incompatible with Catholicity. That doesn’t mean aspects of it cannot be integrated into a Catholic worldview but environmentalism and Catholicity cannot go hand and in hand.

Conservation, which may be part of environmentalism, is not only compatible with our faith, I am fairly confident that it is the first commandment from God, He told Adam to tend His Garden. Adam was not permitted to destroy or worship the garden, but he had to take care of it for God as His steward. Of course, Adam screwed up, so some of us, his children, worship the garden and others want to destroy the garden. Some of us, are sons of the Most High, if sons than heirs and we are not only heirs to His promise, but we are also heirs of His garden, our planet, and we want to tend His garden, conserve it, enjoy it, populate it with large Catholic families, use it to benefit others and glorify God. I don’t think that can be considered environmentalism.

EnvironMENTALism is a mental disorder just like other ISMs including Communism, Socialism, Democratism, Mammomism, Liberation Theolgism, American Idolism, and yes, the cult of Al Goreism too. Heretics should be burned at the stake, or we can simply stake them and let the Anthropogenic Global Warming burn them eventually. 😉

Big Tex
Big Tex
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 2:05pm

One particular phrase grabbed my attention: “the science says…”

One of the first principles of science is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.

It’s often repeated: “but the science says…”

It seems as though some of the scientists in the AGW debate (see the recent Climategate episode) have gotten caught up in being fooled themselves.

Tito Edwards
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 2:07pm

Big Tex,

“the science says…” is the equivalent to what liberal extremists accuse Christians of saying “the Bible says…” when defending their position.

It has become their religion, ie, science or what I call scientism, to use in place of God.

Sad.

Todd
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 2:20pm

“It has become their religion, ie, science or what I call scientism, to use in place of God.”

Another example of taking one’s own subjective situation and interpreting others’ actions,words, etc., as if they thought the same way you did.

Scientists approach their vocation dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge, and if they’re lucky, wisdom. As in most all professions, some fail at both. Some even let science become their life, and these folks may be right, but they err in the social or political application of their “life.”

I can appreciate that scientists and others trained in science would get frustrated at the intentional ignorance tossed their way in an attempt to form a logical dissent.

What’s undeniable is that world temperatures have been on the rise due to natural cycles since the Renaissance. Trends toward warmer temperatures have ticked up at greater rates over the past century, more than would seem to be explained by the post-Little Ice Age trend. The attempt at rationalizing: “No, the weather isn’t getting warmer …” followed by “Okay, it’s getting warmer, but it’s not our fault …” followed by ” Okay, maybe we contributed some, but we can’t do anything about it …” has been all over conservative faces for the past decade or more.

Even if climate change weren’t a worry, it would seem to make sense for the US to unilaterally cut its use of hydrocarbons for political reasons, if nothing else. Why would loyal Americans want to continue to use West Asian oil if we could develop alternatives at home? Why wouldn’t oil companies embrace the creativity and ingenuity of their homeland, if not their science staffs? If we’re talking about religion or quasi-religion here, let’s not let Big Oil and its followers off the hook.

Tito Edwards
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 2:28pm

When scientists cannot agree on the global warming trends, if there are any or even affected by man, then why do we have to listen to celebrities such as Al Gore who doesn’t even have a science degree?

Especially with scientists heavily in opposition to the theory that man is the primary cause of global warming by 100:1, how can we take any of the science at face value at all?

And I haven’t thrown in the fact of the huge climate controversy that came out of East Anglia university of doctored and made-up numbers. Europe has accepted that these figures are wrong, why hasn’t the liberal elite here in America?

Because it is their religion.

Henry Karlson
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 2:46pm

Tito

Which scientists and in which fields? Secondly, does the lack of agreement of scientists make for truth or that we can ignore the issue? After all, it’s a classical argument against Christianity: Christians can’t agree with themselves, so why be Christian?

Tito Edwards
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 2:48pm

Henry K.,

Both you and I know the answer to your question.

As Catholics we have the three pillars that hold up the Church: 1) Sacred Scripture, 2) Sacred Tradition, 3) the Magisterium.

😉

Joe Hargrave
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 3:39pm

“Just because someone makes a statue does not mean they are pagans”

I wonder if that applies to soldiers who wear insignias, or regular American families that fly a flag on the fourth of July.

Todd
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 4:18pm

“When scientists cannot agree on the global warming trends …”

This is just fantasy. Every climatologist knows the temperature trends are rising. All accept that the increase in temperature has accelerated over the past century or so. Has human industry the cause?

100%? You’ll find some. 90%? 70%? Probably more like these numbers.

This is like your attempted “expertise” on liberation theology. If you want to be taken seriously, bring a few climatologists to the discussion to raise the bar and challenge you. If you prefer to repeat political talking points and cocktail talk, then we mark another AC topic under the label “ignorance here,” and move on.

And let’s be clear: there’s no problem with a person not educating her or himself on climate change. The problem is when such folks pretend to be serious commentators.

Tito Edwards
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 4:36pm

Todd,

Now you’re just trashing me with no evidence.

Keep up your malicious comments Mr. Pro-abortion ‘Catholic’ voter. (irony eh?)

trackback
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 4:39pm

[…] reasonable Catholic view (as opposed to the paganism & heresy plugged here) from Brother Guy: It’s true that in addition to human activity, many other factors may be […]

Brian
Brian
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 5:09pm

The Montreal Protocol was a good example of science working with government for the common good. CFC’s were destroying the ozone and most countries, including the US, took the advice of scientists and regulated it. I don’t think you will find many today who will dispute the fact that we would have been in big trouble if they had remained unregulated.

American Knight
American Knight
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 5:22pm

Tito,

I think you are a serious commentator and I like your observations. My only concern is how big is your carbon footprint? Mine is huge but not as big as Al Gore’s.

The assertion that Global Warming, Climate Change or whatever convenient moniker they are giving it this week is a religion is a very valid point that needs to be discussed more often.

I tend to confuse most people because I don’t fit the stereotype of a ‘conservative’ so when a ‘liberal’ meets me for the first time they tend to let their guard down. After I play with their heads as if they were a drunken kitten I ease them into exposing the fallacy of their own argument (if you let a liberal talk long enough they will refute their own position and then deny it). Once the argument has been destroyed I acknowledge that they are actually a logical human being who is in severe self-denial. Then they lash out at me.

When it comes to this particular topic their emotional reaction (it has to be emotional because if they tried to react reasonably they would have to acknowledge that they propose and invalid position) is to yell at me, “How can you not believe in Global Warming!*&^%?”

If it isn’t a religion, why do they want me to believe in it? If it is a fact then belief is not needed. If belief is required then it is either a religion or a lie or a religion of lies.

American Knight
American Knight
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 5:27pm

Brian,

The evidence is still out on CFC and the Ozone hole. It seems that was a cyclical thing and not caused by man.

The more plausible analysis is that CFC were a convenient tool to bring about totalitarianism through environmental concerns. It didn’t work. So they moved on to something that is so prevalent and necessary for life to function, impossible to control and concerns everyone: CO2. By making warming as a result of carbon emissions the neo-paganism of environmentalism will place us all under the yoke of the spirit of this world.

The conflict between environmental neo-paganism and the Catholic Church is inevitable. My money is on Christ’s Church.

Brian
Brian
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 5:35pm

What if some of us see idolatry in the stubborn refusal of some Americans to consider the possibility of global warming because it will require making changes, even modest sacrifices, to their consumerist lifestyle?

You can see idolatry in any movement, which is why the charge doesn’t have any bearing on the truth or untruth of human induced climate change.

Brian
Brian
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 5:49pm

“The evidence is still out on CFC and the Ozone hole.”

Really?
Odd since we’ve been able to verify most of it in laboratories. Not to mention that the ozone has been recovering now that CFCs have been regulated. But I guess you have your sources.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 5:52pm

Every climatologist knows the temperature trends are rising.

Aye, 0.6 C over more than a century. Bug me about somthing else.

American Knight
American Knight
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 5:57pm

I don’t dispute that the temperature of parts of the globe are increasing. I just haven’t seen any evidence that points the finger at man as the cause. I have also seen no evidence to indicate that any of the life-threatening measures proposed by enviro-fascist fanatics will do anything to reduce the temperature increases.

I agree with you about certain aspects of ‘materialism’; however, other aspects of good stewardship of the material given have provided a rise in the standard of material well-being of God’s children. The wealthy man of 150 years ago had a lower standard of material well-being than a ‘poor’ American today.

Someone please tell me why the same people running around screaming about global warming are the same ones always bitching and shivering because it is cold?

Joe Hargrave
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 7:01pm

I think that given:

a) the undemocratic nature of the massive, world-changing political program that the warming alarmists wish to impose upon the entire planet,

b) the unfortunate existence of bona fide scientists who are skeptical of the contribution of human activity to global warming

c) the pretty clear evidence that human civilization has survived historical periods considerably warmer than anything we may be facing in the near future,

d) the climategate scandal that revealed dishonest attempts to alter and/or hide findings that ran against the ‘consensus’,

and most importantly,

e) the anti-life, population control, eugenicist ideology of many of the major players in the secular environmental movement,

that

We have every right to be skeptical of this movement, to question and even resist its attempts to take control of the global economy through carbon taxes and other regulations, and to give the skeptical scientists and others a fair hearing.

If our choice is between a possibility that human activity might cause a slight rise in temperature and sea levels on the one hand, and shutting down all debate, levying massive taxes, and handing over more sovereignty to an international body that is vehemently opposed to Catholic teachings on sexual morality – I’ll take my chances with the C02.

American Knight
American Knight
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 7:06pm

“I’ll take my chances with CO2”.

Heretic. Blasphemer. Burn him. Wait. No. Hargrave is made of carbon – if we burn him we’ll be contributing to global warming. What do we do? Mother Gaia save us. 😉

American Knight
American Knight
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 7:31pm

Some Copenhagen attendees saw it for what it was, a tool for the UN to establish a Marxist one-world government. Since this is all clearly anti-human and anti-Catholic (you know those evil breeders) it must be of the spirit of this world.

Additionally, it seems that someone, probably the guy that designed the planet in the first place, set it up so that CO2 is absorbed in a stable ratio. It seems that since 1850 nature (no not Mother Gaia, just plain old planet Earth) has absorbed the CO2 that has been created, even the increased amount since man industrialized.

As we face the worst winter in 25 years and global temperatures plummet, store shelves go bare over fears of being snowed in and ski addicts are in a frenzy we should re-think this whole global warming thingy.

Let’s all say it together, “CO2 is our friend, Ohmmmmmm!” Televise that on C-SPAN.

Todd
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 8:11pm

“Now you’re just trashing me with no evidence.”

Trashing you? Hardly. I had the course in climatology thirty years ago. I read the scientific literature. There is no discussion among scientists on warming trends. They’re happening.

You’re also incorrect on my being pro-abortion. Been pro-life all my life. Another example of drawing illogical conclusions.

“As we face the worst winter in 25 years and global temperatures plummet …”

Another example of the dictatorship of relativism. Clearly AK doesn’t live in the southern hemisphere these days.

Ivan
Ivan
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 8:14pm

A few decades ago the EPA would have hesitated in classifying CO2 as a hazardous gas. By the time they are fourteen most youngsters would have learnt that for plants, CO2 + water + sunlight = oxygen + plant substance, and that CO2 is a byproduct of the respiration of almost all living things. The EPA are confident that the rot in the education system is so widespread that they fear no ridicule from the populace, they being too dumb to care.

Joe Hargrave
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 8:17pm

Ivan,

I fear that you might be right.

American Knight
American Knight
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 8:24pm

Todd,

157 dead in India due to . . . extremely cold weather.

Didn’t it snow in Saudi Arabia last year?

NWS stated that we set 1200 cold temp records across the US last week, including Miami/Ft. Lauderdale and West Palm Beach. Imagine the shock of all the yenta snowbirds; they wake up and think they’re back in Noo Yawlk.

And, no I don’t live in the Southern Hemisphere. . I hail from North America by choice and the South by the Grace of God.

American Knight
American Knight
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 8:31pm

Sadly, Ivan is probably right, education has been so dumbed down intentionally by the designers of the god-state that most people wouldn’t know how to formulate a question. We have become a nation of parrots. Squak, poly want a cracker, squak, global warming.

Nevertheless, to keep the remnant of thinkers quiet they will soon shift back to global cooling and the parrots will run around fearing a new ice age and calling for global taxes and population reduction (I think they are aiming for 500,000,000 according to the Georgia Guidestones).

Warming, cooling, heck, just go with Global Climate Change. Nov. 2008 was proof that undefined ‘change’ works best on the Idiocracy generation that was born when slick willy became president, oh the horror, the horror!

BTW – Todd, where I come from, you know the ignorant South, do you know what we call climate change? Seasons, you know, Winter, Spring, Summer, Autumn – crazy, huh?

Donna V.
Donna V.
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 8:32pm

Brian, some of us also see the AGW scam as an excuse to further widen the scope of government and its’ control over the proles (Al Gore, aka Elmer Gantry, and the Beautiful People can of course, buy themselves out of the restrictions they wish to place on ordinary people by purchasing carbon credits. That the sale of carbon credits happens to enrich Al Gore, is, I am sure, just a concidence.)

The very idea that “the science is settled, so shut up” is in and of itself profoundly unscientific. So is “hiding the decline” and jiggering data to come up with the results you want.

It’s all utter rubbish. And I believe the snake-oil salesmen who have been peddling it know that very well. They want more power over human beings, that’s all. Unfortunately, the well-meaning and creduous are taken in, but fewer and fewer with each passing day (she typed, as she listened to winter storm warning reports on the radio predicting 10-12 inches and a bad commute tommorrow morning.)

Brian, you are so quick to suspect corporate wrong-doing (and there are certainly corporate wrong-doers). Why do you frequently seem to assume that those who wish to expand the power of the state are driven by warm and fuzzy altruism? History says otherwise.

Ivan
Ivan
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 8:52pm

Hargrave,

Yes it is sad. CO2 may or may not be a greenhouse gas working its effects according the Arrhenuis theory. That does not bother me, what struck me was the alactrity and insousiance with which the EPA made its pronouncement. There surely was someone there thinking “Hang on a minute, I myself am breathing out carbon dioxide every few seconds. Let us put this to the public in a different way.” No, they were bold enough to expect no contradiction from the public. It encapsulates for me what the bureaucrats really think about the proles.

American Knight
American Knight
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 8:57pm

Donna,

History certainly states otherwise. Usually, the misanthropes that perpetrate government and corporate wrong-doing are the same ilk. Not just cut from the same cloth – they are the same ilk.

Look at the Goldman Sachs-NY Fed-Treasury Dept incest that has been going on since the meltdown, actually since 1910 – but that’s another story. What about Imelt from GE, who stands to make trillions when we are forced to use crappy ‘green’ technology.

Corporatism is alive and well in America. Funny how they pit the right against the left because of the left’s love of government, and the left against the right for the right’s love of big business – the enemy is the same. AGW is the perfect tool for the Big Government/Big Business club to rule us little people. Fools.

Brian
Brian
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 9:10pm

Donna,

I’m sorry that I or others gave the impression that the “science is settled”. That seems to be a very misleading way of putting things. It is my understanding that science is never “settled” as a legal dispute might be. The way we look at things is constantly expanding or being revised by new discoveries, new data, and the way that the peer review process exposes ideas up to the critique of others.
While we can talk about a “theory of global warming”, to be accepted or rejected, the reality is that there myriads of separate theories that attempt to explain climate data from various fields. When we speak of a consensus, we are not saying that somehow the majority of scientists have said “yea” in some kind of informal vote, if that were even possible. Consensus means that there some basic correlation between many different and independent attempts to explain the data. Kind of like Newman’s cumulation of probabilities. Some explanations are stronger than others, but the bigger picture, the paradigm, remains strong.

Speaking of Newman, think of religious belief. When I ask you the reason why you or another believe in Christian revelation, the answer, I suspect, cannot be reduced to one idea. There are many ideas or reasons for why we believe what we do. Some, perhaps, are stronger than others.

Many so called climate skeptic scientists question certain theories involved with global warming, but do not necessarily doubt the consensus, which seems quite strong.

Brian
Brian
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 9:18pm

“A few decades ago the EPA would have hesitated in classifying CO2 as a hazardous gas. By the time they are fourteen most youngsters would have learnt that for plants, CO2 + water + sunlight = oxygen + plant substance, and that CO2 is a byproduct of the respiration of almost all living things.”

I’m not impressed with this argument. Nitric oxide is a hazardous waste and yet is essential to life. So what. It’s context that’s important. CO2, like anything else I suppose, become hazardous in the wrong context.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Wednesday, January 6, AD 2010 11:02pm
Tito Edwards
Thursday, January 7, AD 2010 12:54am

Todd,

Yeah!

What they said.

Todd
Thursday, January 7, AD 2010 1:03am

“… do you know what we call climate change?”

AK, you’ve made the basic error in high school earth science, confusing weather with climate. Back to ninth grade, my friend.

Joe Hargrave
Thursday, January 7, AD 2010 1:41am

Todd,

I’m just curious – have you ever changed anyone’s mind about anything?

Art Deco
Art Deco
Thursday, January 7, AD 2010 6:07am

I had the course in climatology thirty years ago. I read the scientific literature. There is no discussion among scientists on warming trends. They’re happening.

You missed this one:

Sagan, Carl, Owen B. Toon and James B. Pollack
“Anthropogenic Albedo Changes and the Earth’s Climate” Science, New Series, Vol. 206, No. 4425 (Dec. 21, 1979), pp. 1363-1368

The money quote is on page 1367, second column:

“All changes except for urbanization produce an increase in the Earth’s albedo and a cooling of the planet.”

trackback
Thursday, January 7, AD 2010 9:30am

[…] accusation made by some on the internet that modern concern for the earth and its environment is paganism. I do not understand how any Catholic can hold this position, when leaders of the Church, including […]

Joe Hargrave
Thursday, January 7, AD 2010 9:41am

“All changes except for urbanization produce an increase in the Earth’s albedo and a cooling of the planet.”

If only we had listened to science back in the 70s!

We could have prevented this global ice age we are in the midst of, and worldwide famine that caused billions of deaths!

When will people learn to trust the “settled science”!?

Seriously, there were mainstream scientists calling for the building of CO2 FACTORIES to head off a coming ice age! Imagine if we had done it! Why should we ever listen to these people?

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top