Tag Archives: Organised Religion

Institute of Physicists under Attack

Filed under Global Warming
Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

The UK Institute of Physicists submitted a strongly worded thirteen-point memorandum to the UK Parliament commission of enquiry into the CRU.  Leading scientists promptly attacked the submission in emotive terms, without addressing any of the points in the memorandum.  The I.O.P. response to the attacks is strangely meek.  It looks suspiciously like they are backing off, and I wonder why.

Every one of the numbered thirteen points in the “Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics (CRU 39)” is valid. There is no need for them to publicly apologise or, cap in hand, to stress that the I.O.P. “has long had a “clear” position on global warming, namely that “there is no doubt that climate change is happening, that it is linked to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, and that we should be taking action to address it now”.  That “no doubt” sounds more like a recital of a creed than a scientific position.

For goodness sake, the IOP made submissions about disclosure of climate data, the implications for the integrity of scientific research, and appropriate terms of reference for the UEA independnt review. Valid submissions. So why is it subjected to attacks unsupported by any specific rebuttals of any of its points of submission?  Here they are:

John Houghton: “I consider it not only inappropriate but highly irresponsible for a body like the IOP to appear to presume a judgment on what is clearly not a simple issue without having the full facts and without presumably knowing the full context,”

Stefan Rahmstorf: “I was taken aback when I first read it,” he says.  “The evidence is both misinformed and misguided.”

Arnold Wolfendale: ‘the evidence is “not worthy” of the Institute and ‘the submission “further muddies the waters regarding global warming”.’

These generalised and emotive attacks are totally inaccurate as criticisms of the IOP submissions, but ironically, would be accurate if applied to the IPCC reports.  But for some reason the IOP does not call on the critics to be specific about their problems with the submission.  Instead, it rolls over, apologises and and quietly surrenders.

That is truly sad. The forces supporting AGW are mighty indeed if a body like the Institute of Physics is compelled to recant like Galileo. Are we returning to the dark ages?


I.O.P. Memorandum:  http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm

WUWT Report: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/13/iop-fires-back-over-criticism-of-their-submission-to-parliament/

AGW Religion:  http://www.herkinderkin.com/2010/01/anthropogenic-global-warming-as-organised-religion/

Vegetarianism and Global Warming – what Next?

Filed under Global Warming
Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Francis Moore Lappe’s daughter Anna has written her own book – “Diet for a Hot Planet”.  Her mother wrote “Diet for a Small Planet”, promoting a vegetarian lifestyle, back in 1971.  Now her daughter is doing her own thing and playing off the title of her mother’s book.  And she is pitching her update of her mother’s original ideas as a measure to combat global warming.

This Anna Lappe is a sad case of one of my pet peeves – someone who degrades what could be a real environmental message by climbing on the global warming bandwagon.  Inevitably, AGW will be exposed for what it is – the biggest scientific scam since Piltdown Man.  The perpetrators of the Piltdown hoax sought to discredit the theory of evolution. While they were misguided creationists, at least they had the saving grace of humour.  AGW is far more sinister – it is a con of biblical proportions that will make its promoters extremely rich, and is intended to provide the religious power base of the UN.

Along comes Anna Lappe, preaching sustainable agriculture.  Nothing wrong with that – factory farming over time destroys the land, sooner or later.  The California dustbowl, land slips in hillsides stripped of trees and over-grazed by sheep and cattle, pollution of streams and rivers with run-off from farms, decline in bird populations, increasing reliance on pesticides that destroy not only the pests but also their natural predators.  And so on.  But climate?

“We hear little about how food affects climate,” she said.  No surprise – because it does not significantly affect global climate (although it clearly can affect local climate – for example, deforestation and excess draw-off from rivers both powerfully affect local climate).

Every human being has a religious standpoint, and vegetarianism, like atheism, monotheism, polytheism, agnosticism, animism, communism, capitalism or any other ism (or AGWarmism), is a form of religion.  Anna Lappe has every right to believe in vegetarianism – and every right to talk about it.  But to claim that meat-eaters contribute to global warming is twaddle.  Even Realclimate says that methane is not a threat to the planet.  And it is becoming more and more evident that CO2 is not the pollutant that the AGW believers say it is.

All the CO2 and methane from farming or any other source has a negligible effect globally.  And contrary to Lappe’s beliefs, livestock rotated through cropping fields enhance the fertility and sustainability of the land with their manure.  Want to destroy land?  Just crop it year after year.  Want to sustain it?  Put everything you don’t eat back into the land as compost.  Plant it in grass every so often, then graze it with cattle or sheep, then let the pigs in, and then the chickens.  Then crop it again.  Small-holding real organic farmers have known that for centuries.

The pity is, when the world backlash rejects AGW, it may also reject all environmental and conservationist theories and initiatives, even the ones that are soundly scientifically based.  They will be tainted by association.

Reference: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/03/AR2010030302065.html

Al Gore goes on the Attack

Filed under Global Warming
Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

On Accuweather.com on March 1,  Brett Anderson’s and Joe Bastardi’s blogs coincidentally carried Al Gore’s NY Times Op-ed of 27 February 2010.  Here it is.

Thanks Brett and Joe.   This kind of stuff needs debating.

None more than this Gorey drivel.  He gets the big guilt thing going – our grandchildren will one day look back on us as a “criminal generation”.  And he even beats the tobacco drum – “industries and companies whose business plans are dependent on unrestrained pollution … are ferociously fighting …  just as tobacco companies blocked constraints on the marketing of cigarettes.”

Man, the skeptics are evil.  They refuse to buy into having their cost of living ballooned, and their taxes increased.   They refuse to have to pay for carbon credits and have the money sent to developing nations to finance their coal-burning power stations and their industries that produce windmills and solar panels with cheap labour to sell back to us.  They refuse to be taxed on carbon emissions.  Why do they exhibit this “criminal” behaviour?

First: AGW is a theory no better than any other theory about climate change.  Actually, it’s worse than some – Richard Lindzen has some very specific criticisms below.   (Thanks JB for the tip).  So it’s not that skeptics blindly and stubbornly refuse to believe something unpalatable, it’s just that they are genuinely skeptical!  Skeptical of a religious crusade based on bad science, argument from ignorance, wilful exaggeration and personal attacks.  A crusade that is already leveraging the power of the state to impose its charges by force of law.  Hmmmm.   I believe it was the founder of Scientology who wrote that if you would be rich, start a religion…  http://www.herkinderkin.com/2010/01/anthropogenic-global-warming-as-organised-religion/

Second: Even if AGW was proven and not merely a theory, increasing costs by carbon credits, taxes or whatever would not reduce our consumption of fossil fuels any more than the savage cost increases of the 1972 oil shock.  All such measures do is cause inflation.  (Maybe Gore counts on the fact that most of his audience were not even born in 1972, or were too young to remember.)  So the cure for the unproven AGW is as illusory as the malady itself.  Gore and the rest of the leaders of the AGW religion probably feel that they cannot lose.  When we have paid and paid and become impoverished, the earth will not overheat and they will say “See, together we saved the earth”.  And we will be so grateful…


Richard Lindzen on AGW  http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/02/dr-richard-lindzens-talk-at-fermilab.html If you’re scientifically minded, click on the archive bit at the bottom and go through Lindzen’s full presentation.