Global Warming and the Temple of Science

Recent revelations regarding the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit have cast doubt upon many of the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

In November 2009 a Russian hacker (or perhaps a mole at the CRU) broke into the Universities email server and stole over 30 megabytes of data containing over a thousand emails and dozens of data files. Surprisingly, most mainstream media outlets didn't even report the break-in for well over a week (although the blogosphere was "lit up" within hours).

And what exactly was revealed by the "random sampling" posted online by the hacker? Consider the following tasty tidbits regarding falsifying data:

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

and...

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

How about hiding evidence relating to Freedom of Information requests pursued by other scientists to verify their findings.. surely they wouldn't do that - after all, the CRU has been called "the gold standard of peer reviewed science"...

"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.We will be getting Caspar to do likewise."

It turns out that that after years of refusing to release the information, in September 2009 they simply declared that the data "was lost". (I'm sure it was -- and probably just as thoroughly as the emails were deleted... Unfortunately for them, email servers keep copies of our emails... woopsie! But the shoddy cover-up is not surprising, given their penchant for shoddy "science")

How about coercing peers and even scientific journals that dare to publish contradictory findings?

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think? I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

So much for there really being a "consensus", it would seem. After all, with a real consensus why would there be such a need to ostracize scientists, or even entire journals?

And in a 2005 email, Phil Jones, Director of the Climate Research Unit, had this to say regarding whether global warming was even happening at all:

"The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant."

Isn't statistically significant? Mr. Jones seems to be cavalierly ignoring the multi-billion dollar statistics regarding R&D spending and public policy decisions for nations around the globe. (For instance, since 1998 the US EPA has declared CO2 a pollutant based on bogus CRU and IPCC representations of the "data").

Is this really what our modern science has become; Developing preconceived notions and sticking to them, despite contradictory evidence? Having blind faith in these notions that is so ardent that you erase that which is blaspheme? Even demonizing and persecuting the non-believers?

And so this brings me to the title of this piece: Global Warming and the Temple of Science. After all, what qualifies something as a religion? According to popular dictionaries, religion is that which is "a cause, principle, or belief held with ardor and faith; especially without provable evidence."

So do the IPCC and CRU's beliefs rise to the level of being a religion?

• They have their own beliefs and principles; that man is causing unnatural warming (and subsequent destruction) of our environment. Heaven for them is having our climate not change (something mankind will likely never be able to achieve - natures' forces are truly awesome); hell for them is having the oceans rise, deserts grow, tsunamis and hurricanes wiping us out and so forth (climate change hell has been very well defined by the preachers) All of this somehow reminds me of the days when men feared lightning, except a on a global scale now.
  
• They hold these beliefs ardently, and with extraordinary faith (despite pesky data that continually contradicts them). Their alarms are heard around the globe, often laced with desperate and extreme language.
  
• And they do it without the proper provable evidence; it was "lost", woopsie!. (There's plenty of other serious evidence problems, such as the discredited "three tree study", the demonstrably flawed computer models, the "warmed over" climate data... but still, they preach that they know the truth)
  

So it would seem that "Climate Change" meets the definition of a religion. Even beyond the dictionary definition, there seems to be similarities. For instance; a religious hierarchy where certain roles perform certain functions within the system.

From the Prophets at the University of East Anglia's CRU (revealing the "truth"), to the preachers at the IPCC (spreading the word), to (implicated) climatologists/bishops at prestigious US Universities (ie; Michael Mann of Penn. State/State Pen., et al) and elsewhere around the world, there have been plenty of Holy Men preaching their gospel (and casting the non-believers out of their "science"). The movement even seems to have a High Priest; the Pope of Global Warming, Mr. Al Gore.

Indeed, Al "the Pope" Gore had declared the issue of global warming was settled. There will be no more debate (because there is a complete, absolute consensus). Having a debate when there is such a complete consensus would be, well stoopid, or so he has said. (oops, I guess he didn't get the email... despite having invented the internet...)

Not surprisingly, Al was nowhere to be seen when this story broke - reports were that he was hiding under a sacrificial altar somewhere. It appears that Mr. Gore is the modern day Jimmy Swaggart.

And not surprisingly, the believers are still desperately clinging to their guns and IPCC reports. From Holdren (the 'science' czar) down to the rank and file believers, they maintain their blind faith and steadfastly refuse to read and acknowledge the falsehoods and corruption rampant in their church.

At the end of the day, even "Chicken Little" realized his beliefs were false, and were being used against him by the fox (to eat his friends). Time will tell if the alarmists eventually recognize that they are being exploited.

Others would characterize their behavior as equivalent to small children throwing a tantrum when they don't get their way, stamping their little feet while they screamed and cried. (I think this characterization isn't that good, it gives an even worse impression of naughty children than they deserve.)

But don't think that this is the first scandal to rock the Temple of Science. History is replete with corrupt businessmen, politicians and scientists collaborating to hoodwink the public, pushing their expensive snake oil on the trusting, innocent masses. (Although few had the economic damage potential of this one)

We're all aware of mans many foibles, and the cause of this scandal (like so many others) would seem to fall under the weakness often called avarice, or greed.

Ironically, this is one of the main things that so many religions warn us so ardently about.