Is global warming "skeptism" science or a cult?
There is healthy skeptism in science. Then there's the kind of skeptism we see of global warming. In practice, are global warming skeptics practicing science or following a cult?
Dr. John Holdren may have put it best:
"Appreciation for this positive role of scientific skepticism, however, should not lead to uncritical embrace of the deplorable practices characterizing what much of has been masquerading as appropriate skepticism in the climate-science domain. These practices include refusal to acknowledge the existence of large bodies of relevant evidence (such as the proposition that there is no basis for implicating carbon dioxide in the global-average temperature increases observed over the past century); the relentless recycling of arguments in public forums that have long since been persuasively discredited in the scientific literature (such as the attribution of the observed global temperature trends to urban-heat island effects or artifacts of statistical method); the pernicious suggestion that not knowing everything about a phenomenon (such as the role of cloudiness in a warming world) is the same as knowing nothing about it; and the attribution of the views of thousands of members of the mainstream climate-science community to "mass hysteria" or deliberate propagation of a "hoax"."
Applicable definitions:
1. a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious
2. great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work...a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
3. The group is focused on a living leader to whom members seem to display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment.
4. The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
5. The group is preoccupied with making money.
6. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
7. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society.
8. The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group
9. Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
10. Provide simple answers to the confusion they, themselves, create. Support these answers with material produced or "approved" by the group.
http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/uploads/CultCharacteristics.htm
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult
1. Certainly, among the scientific community, contrarians are considered both spurious (of deceitful nature or quality) and unorthodox. Very few contrarians are experts in the field. Most are political types.
2. While contrarians seem open-minded about any hypothesis involving natural causes for global warming, they often have great fervent devotion to the belief that human activities don't affect the climate.
3. Generally, it's a small group of leaders they look up to: Senator Inhofe, a few fringe scientists, and a few bloggers. All leaders must share their belief system. Ideas from their leaders are "uncritically parroted", as Dr. Holdren put it.
4. Certainly, contrarians are very well organized within the media and blogosphere.
5. Contrarians often throw emotional fits at the mere mention of a carbon tax. Some contrarians are tied to fossil fuel interests.
6. While the scientific community welcomes skeptics at scientific conferences (American Geophysical Union for instance), the Heartland Institute only assembles like-minded contrarians - all devoted to the belief that global warming isn't a problem.
7. Most certainly. Contrarians see global warming science as a vast conspiracy orchestrated by world governments, with scientists falsifying their work to perpetuate the hoax. Peer-reviewed science is just more evidence of the conspiracy. Scary mentality.
8. The more one is fervently devoted to the idea that human activities don't affect climate, the more one is willing to deceive. Those who accept the science are labelled "alarmists", "warmists", or "Church of Gore followers".
9. Examine the comments section of a contrarian blog. It's full of like-minded cultists. Few of them care to read the body of peer-reviewed scientific literature, the IPCC reports, opinions from most qualified experts, unless of course they can cherry-pick something that they believe casts doubt on the science.
10. Contrarians refuse to accept a huge body of evidence. When presented with serious questions, they often refuse to answer directly, but parrot some talking point found on a blog.
Kat,
Globally, 2008 was in the top 10 warmest on record, although there was regional variation. January of 2008 (which your link points to) was anomalously colder than usual. The variation is mainly due to la Nina conditions.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081216.html
Davem,
Dr. Holdren didn't say those words. Distortion seem to be a trademark of contrarians.
alpinestar
I didn't read any of that sorry, but global warming is real. Sometimes the earth does get warmer for a period of time and sometimes colder.
The main reason you hear about it so much is the speakers are making money, it's all about the money. Al Gores jet is one of the worst for the environment they say which he rides over london in to give talk about car exhaust?
vendreda
i question everything even the things i approve of and global warming as far as im concerned is just a scam to hike taxes.
kat13900
I have friend who completely thinks that global warming is crap. She will go on and on about it for forever.
But Personally I don't know how much I believe in it, yea I do think we've done some damage, but this year was one of the coldest years since forever now.
http://arctic-council.org/article/2008/1/coldest_winter_in_many_years
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2009/01/since_the_skept.html
And on top of that I've heard the talk of water rising and such. But hmm wonder why? A little while ago on tv, I had seen something about man made islands. And how were just pouring tons of sand and dirt out into the ocean, in which will only make the water rise! In which we've blamed that on 'global warming' before as well.
http://www.palmsales.ca/
davem
When Dr. John Holdren says that those who don't agree with him are "contrarian cultists" it lends weight to the idea he's an alarmist idiot.
Agreeing with and following idiots like sheep won't garner much respect, clearly the cult is on the greenie's side, and it's a good one to stay away from.
Be scammed if you like, don't hold your breath for others to follow so obediently.
gwens18a
When I started reading this Lawrence Britt's "14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism" came to mind. One can go through the 14 steps and see that many of them can be converted to fascism not by the government, but fascism by strong powerful corporations wanting to promote their own cause of profit at all costs. For example, step three, "Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause". Who are these enemies of the fossil fuel industry, but climatologists who threaten them? How much money has the oil industry invested in clouding the message and attempts to discredit the science? Many who fall for fascism often end up it in a cult situation where logic is abandoned to blind adherence against overwhelming evidence contrary to their beliefs.
Of course it is much easier if they can be indoctrinated into the cult before they have the chance to learn the facts first.
Orignal From: Is global warming "skeptism" science or a cult?
Post a Comment