Guest post: Lord Monckton, are you a creationist?

[Peter from Citizen’s Challenge has an interesting question, and one I’d be keen to here more about. How much of Lord Monckton’s opposition to the science of climate change is fueled by his religious faith?

Peter comments on a recent presentation by Monckton that was sprinkled liberally with references to God and the Bible.

It is not uncommon for Jo Nova – who has published papers under the Science and Public Policy Institute of whom Monckton is an advisor – to also cite the work of religious conservatives.

Roy Spencer is a scientist on record for doubting both climate change and evolution. Indeed, the links between creationism and climate change denial may be deeper than we think.

Thanks again to Peter for another great post.]

Lord Monckton,

I’ve been reviewing your Minnesota Free Market Institute presentation. One of many disturbing aspects of your performance are the following statements. But, first to borrow from your 466 questions to Professor Abraham: Could you, Christopher Monckton, confirm that the following quotes accurately encapsulate your recorded comments?

5:20:  “… we all love the planet that the good Lord has given us. And he’s given us the stewardship of it, Genesis 1:22, very clear what our obligations are as stewards of the planet. We are to look after all that is in it, and over it and under it and swimming in the sea. We are not therefore to exercise that stewardship given to us by our creator in an irresponsible fashion. Therefore it is important that we do not waste money, effort, time, or resources on non-problems such as global warming. As I shall show you that it is.”

9:22 to 9:45:  A long Latin dissertation…{I guess to impress us}

9:45:  “‘Unto this was I born, for this came I into the world that I might bare witness to the truth.’ Now those words of our blessed Lord are a perfect mission statement…”

10:25:  “The truth is the truth whether you or I or anyone believe it or not. And here is why the truth matters. It was all very well for jesting (Pontius) Pilate to ask that question and then not to tarry for an answer. But that question that he asked: ‘What is the truth?’ Is the question which underlies every other question, it’s the only question in the end that really matters…”

It seems to me that for someone to deliver those words as movingly as you have, the infallible Bible must be central to how you view everything. That being the case, I’m puzzled – How can you claim to be an impartial conveyor of scientific information? This portion of your talk begs a few questions. But, first some clear definitions are needed, please consider the following.

You conveyed a commitment to the one and only true word of God Bible. That being a belief in a made-in-man’s-image of “God” sitting on a throne, looking down and judging all. Now, I have nothing against this faith-based image of God within the hearts of people and their families and churches. There is much tradition, comfort and strength there.

But, taking this personal need fulfillment to some absolute “I know the One Truth!, because of My God” level, mangles the honest pursuit of science where all must keep an inquisitive skeptical mind. We have a real world biosphere that your ancient Bible is oblivious to – why shackle your exposure to new information and learning with two thousand-year old tribal dogma? Which is exactly what you do! Talk about a dishonest “Appeal to Authority.” This is but one reason I claim your presentation was political showmanship and not science, and even worse, not education.

Beyond that, another unavoidable implication of glorifying your personal “blessed Lord” is that you believe your Lord on his Throne executed that six day rush of creation, six thousand years ago… the entire cosmos, poof, just like that. Are you, Lord Monckton, a Creationist?

I ask because honest science has unhitched itself from that made-in-man’s-image God. Today we appreciate the true God of time and creation is well beyond the understanding of us Earth bound sinners, filled, as we are, with our own self absorbed natures, our self serving greed and follies, and tragedies, leavened with a touch of love now and then. This does not mean the religions are wrong… it simply means there is so much more that no religion has, or can, encompass. God is in your heart – but, beyond your understanding.

Lord Monckton, if you are a Creationist – how is it you can use graphs going back hundreds of thousands of years? This is central because understanding our climate demands an appreciation for Earth’s processes on very long time scales. It has no room for a six thousand-year ago creation, nor the notion that God is just chomping at the bit to call it quits with his personal Armageddon. There’s room for that within ones heart, if that is what you want or need. But, not without, in the real physical biosphere, nor within the science struggling to understand it.

The science is extracted from the real living Earth… which is, after all, where we come from and what sustains and nurtures us. Lord Monckton, your right-wing, Republican glorified, contempt for understanding that real living Earth, is contemptuous in itself.

As for your grand allusions to the Christian ethic: Why does that allow you to handle your “adversaries” with such venomous scorn, bordering on hatred? How is it you find it so easy to broad-stroke many thousands of serious scientists as frauds – as the whole of your presentation clearly implies? Why are you so dismissive of learning about Earth’s Biosphere – as your bitter attacks on Earth observation funding proves? Do you actually believe there is nothing outside of your bubble for you to learn from?

You finished off your slide program with another pompous Latin quote: “OMNIS SPIRITVS LAVDET DOMINVM,(All breath praise to the Lord) emblazoned above crossed USA & Canadian flags, with your seal superimposed upon the bottom portion of the flags. Incidentally, another grosser example of you’re symbolizing some notion of “dominion” over the USA, came in slide #2. How dare you!? I’ll never understand how those salt of the earth Minnesota Republicans so loved you.

But, back to the matter at hand. Understanding what is going on within our biosphere and its climate. Lord Monckton, I will agree, lefties and Democrats have made plenty of mistakes, fine. But, even Republicans must notice their own track record of pushing very bad, very long term, very hideously destructive, very costly mistakes themselves. Don’t you?

Why your eye for an eye until the whole world is blind attitude? Why can’t we all try to start learning about our climate in a serious manner rather than hiding behind politically motivated, corporate driven entertainment? Why can’t you, and your Republican backers, open your minds to real world information?

The scientists are not the bad guys!

Why not shut up and sit down to listen, think and learn for a while?

About these ads

29 thoughts on “Guest post: Lord Monckton, are you a creationist?

  1. John Bayne says:

    I would like to vigourously defend Lord Monkton against any appeal to science outgrowing Gaileo and even worse still outgrowing God. The thing which Galileo hated most about Aristotle was his atheism, especially in declaring that gravity was not infinitely particular, because if it was, then gravity would be infinite, and if it is, then there is not only God but gravity is the very hand of God, only dealing with matter on the most particular level, that is, gravity only deals with matter by identifying all matter on its most broken down level which is it indivisible level which is infinitely small, which although in space and time is not of it, which also means not from it, but rather from God, through creation in a literal 6 24 hour days. If the days were aons long then there would be no more chance of life without the sun for say a Monday night lasting 10,000 orbits of the earth about the sun. If people want to dare to talk to Lord Monkton like, dear sir, with all due respect, if you want to bring faith into the world of science is not that rather naive? And to such I reply, if you want to go down that path, I would reply by saying, are you not rather naive to fail to openly denounce Galileo who was obviously devoted to God, and gave the glory to God and not himself, and yet chide Lord Monkton who is in Galileo’s mould not atheists that is in Aristotle’s mould. Satan has baffled atheists with science like the trick in a midaeval far eastern market with the pea under one of three thimbals in which the marketer relies on sleight of hand to make his money. My message is, if one jumps to conclusions like the man who leapt from a plane without a parachute, it matters not how meticulously one is accurate with their figures, a false first premise ruins it all from the very start.

  2. Watching the Deniers says:

    Pete, thanks again for engaging in a polite manner. Again, I’d stress more dialogue should be like this.

    One thing I’d like to make clear: I make a distinction between “sceptics” such as your self (the ordinary individuals who claim to have doubts about the science) and the professional “deniers” such as Monckton etc.

    These are the people working in think tanks directly funded by industry. Tax records made available to the public show which companies are funded by Exxon, Koch etc. They are also the same think tanks that deny global warming. Follow the money indeed…

    Again, I’d stress no one is claiming natural disasters did not happen in the past.

    *****Climate change increases the probability that such disasters will happen more frequently****

    We cannot point to Russia, China and Pakistan and say with 100% confidence that AGW caused those disasters. However, given the extremes and temperature and the precipitation rates we can infer that these are in line with predictions.

    Again it is about risk management, which is why the entire insurance industry is deeply alarmed about AGW. They have watched the frequency of large scale disasters and the dollar amounts (damage caused and payouts) skyrocket.

    They are not “taken in” by scientists. They are wathcing their bottem lines are concerned. For them its about the future of their business.

    Afterall, if the giant reinsurance companies go out of business (and that is what may happen if they are forced to pay our larger premiums more frequently) most large scale infrastructure projects will become unfeasible.

    You cannot build a new power plant, road, bridge or building without insurance. If the costs of insurance become too much, then infrastructure development slows down.

    People think we are against development.

    Actually, we are deeply concerned that the sophisticated network of finance underpinning our advanced industrial civilisation will be compromised.

    Check out slide 6 of this presentation on AGW and the insurance industry:

    http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/126171/anna-gero-iag-namoi-climate-change-forums.pdf

    8/10 of the largest ever insurance payments are for climate related events – in this case hurricanes. While the frequency of hurricanes may not increase, their intensity will.

    Put aside questions of the science, the insurance industry is already paying out more and more. If you want a index that measure the impact of climate change, then look at figures coming out of the insurance industry.

    Try this analogy: there have always been wars in the past. However do you give up on ay international co-operation that seeks to reduce the risk of conflict?

    Or do we throw are hands up in the air and say “Well war has always happened, who cares about future victims?”

    Climate change is a real risk.

  3. adelady says:

    Living in a place at the thirsty end of a grossly mismanaged river system, I’m fully aware of the issues that can worsen rivers. (Except our local problem is with over-extraction and a trickle of water rather than the floods of rivers like the Indus.)

    Once again, I’d ask you. If scientists were telling us that we had this kind of problem because of some stage in one of the several important changes that affect the earth, would we not do everything we could to avoid, reduce or delay the impacts on human populations?

    Given that science also tells us about the physical properties of CO2, wouldn’t we try to avoid accelerating or worsening a ‘natural’ process? After all, these natural events usually take several or many millennia. We could have a beneficial effect on many, many human generations while we work out how to adapt to the predicted new stability point of the climate.

    I’m not at all convinced that being ‘natural’ is always a virtue.

  4. Pete Ridley says:

    Adelady, it would be a hard-hearted person who didn’t have enormous sympathy for those suffering in Pakistan and elsewhere from those horrendous floods (and droughts). I suspect that many of those ‘Christians’ that you seem to mock are doing much much more than you of I to alleviate their suffering.

    The current Pakistan flood disaster is reported in the Daily Telegraph as “ .. the worst in the UN’s history: The United Nations has rated the floods in Pakistan as the greatest humanitarian crisis in recent history ..”. For people like us the impact is unimaginable but what you and other supporters of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis appear to overlook is that severe floods and severe droughts are nothing new in Pakistan or elsewhere in Asia. Although in the media this was distorted to read as though it is the “.. worst in history .. ” what is conveniently overlooked is that Pakistan’s history didn’t start until 1947. Records of such catastrophic weather events in the area now known as Pakistan go back long before the UN was established just 2 years prior to the creation of Pakistan..

    Monsoons are essential for survival in Asian countries, providing them with their water for the whole year, even though they often bring extensive flooding. When the monsoons fail there is drought. The Rupee News article “History of floods in the Indus Valley of the 9000 year old Pakistani Civilization” (Note 1) has some very interesting information, including QUOTE:

    During a warm period 6,000 years ago, the Indus was a monster river, more powerful and more prone to flooding than today. Then, 4,000 years ago, as the climate cooled, a large part of it simply dried up. Deserts appeared whether mighty torrents once flowed. ..

    But what caused these thousand-year cycles of Indus drought and flood? .. Professor Martin Gibling of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, a river expert who has worked in the region, thinks that changes in the strength of the monsoon caused by climate change may be to blame. ..
    So, will global warming have the reverse effect, returning the Indus to the monster river of 6,000 years ago? “That is the million-dollar question”, said Professor John Clague, from Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, Canada, an expert on the Asian monsoon. “There is huge uncertainty… and this is a matter of heated debate amongst scientists at present.” UNQUOTE.

    There’s that word “uncertainty” again, but “huge” this time.

    Another point to bear in mind as far as the consequences of such flooding is concerned is the manner in which the Indus is being managed and the changes brought about by population growth QUOTE:

    .. Due to the population growth, the people are today living in the alluvial flood plains which used to left for the river to meander about. Today the river is changing its course and as it flows down, it engulfs many of the populated areas. 500 km of river bed’s floodzone is called “kacha”. This is the natural flood plain of the river. However today the “kacha area” is inhabited by millions of people. Those who live in the flood plain (kacha) are poor people who do not have the means to live in safe lands. ..

    Climate change may not be the only cause of Pakistan’s woes. There is also a sense that the current floods have been exacerbated by the way the Indus has been managed. .. “What we’ve done is apply a system from the West that just doesn’t work [in South Asia],” said Professor Sinha.

    That problem has been made worst by deforestation. Trees protect the headwaters from erosion. But over the past half century, more sediment has been flushed down the rivers as forests have been cut. ..
    UNQUOTE.

    It is speculative to suggest that the catastrophe caused by the current floods is due to our use of fossil fuels. Have a read of the article and learn from it.

    Fred, may I point out again the comment that I quoted above from one of those scientists regarding the “huge uncertainty”. You of all people here should be aware of the significance of that in relation to the assessment of risk.

    NOTES:
    1) see http://rupeenews.com/2010/08/15/history-of-floods-in-the-indus-valley-of-the-9000-year-old-pakistani-civilization/

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

  5. Fred Orth says:

    There is value in seeing Pete’s counterpoints, though, I still must maintain that commonsense tells me that the scientists are on to the reality of what is occuring. The challange, on all of this, is what we need to do, how much of it can we do, and, how do we do it.

  6. adelady says:

    JBowers.

    I wonder how those ‘christians’ feel now about the advantages of global warming for the suffering poor of Pakistan.

  7. J Bowers says:

    Well, the Cornwall Alliance and Interfaith Stewardship Alliance have openly declared they want more global warming.

    A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Response to Global Warming
    E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., Paul K. Driessen, Esq., Ross McKitrick, Ph.D., and Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.

    Go to page 22 to see what I mean.

    I find some of Monckton’s phrasing reflects theirs pretty closely. I must emphasise that there are many faith based positions on global warming that run completely counter to the above.

    @ Pete Ridley: Yeah, yeah, yeah, it’s being discussed intelligently and knowledgeably at Deltoid, Rabett Run, Policy Lass and elsewhere. Don’t get too excited. Where did the MWP go?

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Thanks for that – I think we can join the dots on these guys.

      And yes, there are many religious people who accept climate change and acting to care for “the creation” (see E.O. Wilson’s appeal).

      I’d note that Tony Abbott, leader of the liberals is very conservative Catholic. Steve Fielding, the independent senator for Family First is an evangelical Christian. Both doubt the science. Monckton is a conservative Catholic. Spencer also doubts evolution.

      I think it’s a spill over of the US culture wars. Australia tends to follow US trends. That are conservatives have adopted the same “agenda” of the Republicans is no surprise.

  8. Fred Orth says:

    Pete, non.

  9. Pete Ridley says:

    Hot(tish) off the Watts Up With That press “BREAKING: New paper makes a hockey sticky wicket of Mann et al 98/99/08” at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/14/breaking-new-paper-makes-a-hockey-sticky-wicket-of-mann-et-al-99/#more-23450 – enjoy.

    Check out the paper “A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF MULTIPLE TEMPERATURE PROXIES: ARE RECONSTRUCTIONS OF SURFACE TEMPERATURES OVER THE LAST 1000 YEARS RELIABLE?” at http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/mcshane-and-wyner-2010.pdf . It concludes “Research on multi-proxy temperature reconstructions of the earth’s temperature is now entering its second decade. While the literature is large, there has been very little collaboration with universitylevel, professional statisticians (Wegman et al., 2006; Wegman, 2006). Our paper is an effort to apply some modern statistical methods to these problems. While our results agree with the climate scientists findings in some respects, our methods of estimating model uncertainty and accuracy are in sharp disagreement. On the one hand, we conclude unequivocally that the evidence for a ”long-handled” hockey stick (where the shaft of the hockey stick extends
    to the year 1000 AD) is lacking in the data”.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

  10. Pete Ridley says:

    Fred, I guess that you are aware of the EPA/Dept. of Energy/Ceres-sponsored “Insurance In A Climate Of Change. The Greening of Insurance in a Warming World” web-site (Note 1). “While climate change poses material threats to the insurance industry, it also presents enormous opportunities for advancing innovative and proactive solutions”. Being cynical as well as sceptical I expect anyone in marketing to welcome any business opportunity, whether founded on fact or fiction.

    In saying that it “Seems that my whole industry is in denial” are you referring to the entire insurance industry or just the medical insurance side that you are involved in? If the latter, are customers included in that? If the former then from a sceptics perspective that’s a healthy (pardon the pun) sign. If what you say about the industry being in denial is correct then the propaganda pushed out by that EPA/etc project since 1996 (Note 2) and Lloyds in their 2006 “360 Climate Change Report” (Note 3) has fallen on deaf ears, at least in the US – wonderful.

    Nick, how much would that “fat fee” be that you speak so confidently about?

    NOTES:
    1) see http://insurance.lbl.gov/
    2) see http://insurance.lbl.gov/about.html
    3) see http://www.lloyds.com/NR/rdonlyres/38782611-5ED3-4FDC-85A4-5DEAA88A2DA0/0/FINAL360climatechangereport.pdf it is possible that this link may not work nut a Google will find it.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley.

  11. Pete Ridley says:

    Fred, BTW, is there a family connection with the Lecture Theatre?

  12. Pete Ridley says:

    Fred, thanks for the information about yourself. I prefer to know a bit about the people I am debating with. It’s good to hear you say “Still trying to learn something every day, but, am starting to forget more than I learn. Such is life”. I know the feeling. Unfortunately it is only as we get older that we realise how little we really know and understand. Many of those who support The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis are recently out of their nappies but think that they know it all. Time will hopefully change that.

    On the matter of climate change and learning, I was frightened into finding out about it after reading a March 2007 review in The Sunday Times magazine of “6 degrees – Our Future on a Hotter Planet” by environmental activist Mark Lynas. I ended up very concerned about the future for my children and grand-children. Now I am 31/2 years older and much wiser on that subject.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley.

  13. Nick says:

    Clearly,Monckton was tailoring his presentation to his audiences likely religious leanings. He believes in nothing more than the evenings engagement, the seduction of the punters,and securing his fat fee.

  14. Fred Orth says:

    Seems that my whole industry is in denial.

  15. Ben says:

    Pete Ridley is a denialist internet stalker suffering from logorrhea. You will no doubt start getting “personal e-mails” at your private e-mail accounts shortly.

  16. I’m no Monckton fan, but Monckton is a Roman Catholic, which means that he is not necessarily a Young Earth Creationist. Furthermore, I believe the Pope has acknowledged the reality of anthropogenic climate change and has been supportive of figuring out ways to curb it. See here:

    http://www.catholicsandclimatechange.org/church_teaching/vatican_messages.html

  17. Pete Ridley says:

    Are you in the Insurace business?

    • Fred Orth says:

      Medical stoploss. Educated at the University of Denver, MA from the University of Oklahoma. Still trying to learn something every day, but, am starting to forget more than I learn. Such is life.

  18. Pete Ridley says:

    Fred, are you from Tulsa?

  19. Pete Ridley says:

    For completeness I should have provided another couple of links, one to Lord Monckton’s the 6=part presentation (Note 1) and the other to his 12th July Science & Public Policy Institute document (Note 2) refuting what Professor Abraham said in his June presentation. Enjoy

    NOTES:
    1) see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z00L2uNAFw8&feature=player_embedded#at=17
    2) see http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/response_to_john_abraham.pdf

    Best regards, Pete Ridley.

  20. Fred Orth says:

    Pete, Wow, your notes are fantastic. This discussion gets deeper and deeper. Thank you.

  21. Pete Ridley says:

    Mike, as you are probably aware, in October Lord Monckton gave a presentation to Minnesota Free Market Institute (Note 1) at Bethel University, with supporting slides (Note 2). Bethel University is a Baptist Christian “faith school” which declares that it is “ .. committed to integrating evangelical Christian faith with learning and life .. ”.

    Professor John Abraham of the Minnesota’s University of St. Thomas responded to that presentation (Note 3) with his alternative version of the truth. St. Thomas’s is a Catholic Christian “faith school” which declares its conviction that “We actively engage Catholic intellectual tradition, which values the fundamental compatibility of faith and reason”.

    You choose here to support the notion that Lord Monckton might be driven by religious fervour in his challenge to the notion that our use of fossil fuels is causing global climate change leading to a catastrophe if unchecked. I don’t see you suggesting that Professor Abraham too might be driven by his own religious fervour. Could this be due to a certain bias on your part? Further, I can find no information about Lord Monckton’s religious beliefs so in fairness to him would you please provide links to your sources.

    Another Mike (environmental activist Mike Kaulbars) at Greenfyre) had several recent articles trying to ridicule Lord Monkton, one commenting on the exchanges between Monckton and Abraham (Note 4) and the most recent (Note 5) being little more than a collection of derogatory comments (as in the above article).

    The comment that I posted there is equally relevant here and will hopefully be helpful to you and your readers.

    QUOTE:
    Politicians, environmentalists, “big money and other supporters of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis appear to be getting increasingly worried about the general public’s reducing concern about the unsubstantiated claim that our use of fossil fuels will cause catastrophic change to global climates. Lord Monkton, despite his peculiarities, is doing a fine job spreading enlightenment world-wide to counter the politically motivated scare-mongering that is being promoted by the UN, its IPCC, George Soros, Ted Turner, Al Gore, Maurice Strong and friends. Have a look at “We Know About Soros — But Who Is Maurice Strong?” (Note 6) by American Thinker’s Ed Lasky,

    You should also have a listen to George Soros (Note 7), whose objective is quite clear when saying “ .. this would be the time .. you really need to bring China into the creation of a new world order .. ”. Soros quickly added the rider “ .. uh, uh, financial world order .. ” but soon after repeated “ .. we need to have a new world order that China has to be a part of the process of creating it .. ”. Soros goes on to talk about the creation of a new world currency to replace the dollar.

    Have a read of the third comment on that blog to understand more about Maurice Strong and the UN (guess where Strong lives). Another interesting comment on these power-brokers is available in the Canada Free Press 2008 article “George Soros, Maurice Strong and company redefine the Middleclass” (Note 8) and I love this contemporary comment by one Judi McLeod. “The story of the economic meltdown of 2008 begins and ends with the United Nations and its carefully managed One World Order” (Note 9). There’s plenty more like that if you Google “power behind AGW Gore Strong Firth Soros”.

    Many who are sceptical of The Hypothesis are accused of closing their minds to the scientific evidence, which of course I reject. On the other hand many supporters have closed their minds to the motives of the non-scientific promoters behind The Hypothesis.

    I invite you all to look further into the non-scientific drivers then reconsider whether or not there is evidence to support the hypothesis that the UN’s real agenda has nothing to do with concern about global climate change but everything to with:
    - redistribution of wealth from developed to underdeveloped economies,
    - establishment of a framework for global government,
    - enhancement of the finances of a privileged few.

    UNQUOTE.

    NOTES:
    NOTES:
    1) see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0
    2) see http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/monckton_2009.pdf
    3) see http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
    4) see http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/a-glorious-defeat/
    5) see http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/lily-the-pink/#comment-8722
    6) see http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/we-know-about-soros-%E2%80%94-but-who-is-maurice-strong/
    7) see http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/soros-china-must-be-part-of-the-new-world-order/
    8) see http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5216
    9) see http://www.theodoresworld.net/archives/2010/05/maurice_strong_and_george_soro.html

    UNQUOTE.

    I was impressed by Professor Abraham Professor Abraham’s honesty and said so on “A glorious defeat (Note 4). He did acknowledge in his attempted rebuttal of Lord Monckton that “ .. he’s a pretty compelling speaker. He’s very eloquent, has a wonderful way with words and gave a pretty convincing speech. In viewing his presentation any reasonable audience member would have a number of conclusions and specifically climate risks aren’t as serious as we’ve been led to believe and there’s a bit of a conspiracy .. ”. This is why the supporters of The Hypothesis are trying so hard to ridicule Lord Monckton. It’s the last resort when no valid argument exists with which to refute in any convincing manner what he says. What did Ghandi say “First they ignore you. Then they insult you. Then they fight you. Then you win”. In the eyes of the general public Lord Monckton and like minds are winning the debate.

    One Marco, renowned across the blogoshere for his derogatory remarks could find nothing to say in response to my comment quoted above except “IT’S A CONSPIRACY! IT’S A CONSPIRACY! And all those thousands of scientists, all over the world, are in it. Right. Even the 9/11 conspiracy nutters make more sense. Pete, I already knew you were nuts, but you sure have a way of reinforcing that notion”. You’ll find more of his inane comments at Note 4 too (along with the comments of an even nastier individual, Ian Forrester), all very enlightening I’m sure.

    Marco keeps going on about “thousands of scientists” who support The Hypothesis but I wonder who he is talking about. My scepticism is not about the impacts of climate change or about mitigating against those impacts or even about whether or not global temperatures, droughts, floods, tornados, etc. are changing. My scepticism is about whether such changes are abnormal as a result of our use of fossil fuels. I am sceptical about the claimed level of understanding that scientists have of global climate processes and drivers and I am suspicious of the motives of some scientists. After all, like you and I, they are only human.

    It’s such a shame that outstanding analytical brains such as Marco’s belong to a members of that group of blinkered individuals who “have closed their minds to the motives of the non-scientific promoters behind The Hypothesis”. I recall making a similar comment about his closed mind back in June on the “A Glorious Defeat” thread. He has indicated before that he seems to believe that the only politics involved is from the sceptical side of the debate (Chris Colose’s consequences-of-being-over-concerned thread 11th Nov). Never mind, it’s never too old to learn. Marco should feel at home here so I’ll try to get him over to clarify these points (for some reason they are not being posted on the Greenfyre blog). I’ll try again to get him to reveal what is the field that he specialises in. There are too many Marcos in the world for me to find out for myself.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley.

  22. Fred Orth says:

    This post, and the comments, have really caused me to give it a lot of thought. I tend to see in gray rather than black or white. In other words, I prefer to see people as individuals rather than to group masses into massive groups. I cannot see religion as a barrier (though it may well be a prejudice) towards ones’ position on climate change.

  23. adelady says:

    Oh I don’t think so, mrluigi. If you look at the thread on Skeptical Science on “Why I care” about climate change there’s a whole mix of attitudes and backgrounds with atheists and christians agreeing in almost the same words. Almost – because atheists don’t think they have a duty to God to take good care of the planet, we just think it’s our duty, full stop.

    And in the “denier” camp we have the wonderful libertarians. So-called because they honestly believe that the most important thing in life is to reduce taxes – the idea of loving one’s neighbour is something they won’t even agree to in theory. As for doing unto others – that would be before they do it to you rather than as you would have them do unto you.

    I believe many of these people call themselves christian. How they can say those words without choking or laughing out loud is a mystery to me. But it’s very easy to see why they are deniers. They’re paralysed with fear that they might have to pay taxes or prices for something they didn’t think of first. (They seem happy to pay subsidies to fossil fuel companies out of taxes – though they tend to deny that that amounts to very much. Phooey, it’s huge. )

  24. mrluigi says:

    I don’t think there is any point in trying to link climate change denialism with creationsim. The link is much simpler – it’s directly between denialism and religion of any kind.

    If you believe in a god who looks after you, why would you be concerned about climate change? Your god will either (a) intervene somehow before things get too serious and save humanity or (b) use climate change to wipe out the human species and take you off safely to heaven and eternal life.

    No. to be serious about climate change, you have to be an atheist. We know that taking action is the only hope for life on earth.

    • John Bayne says:

      Mr luigi, it is universally accepted that Galileo Galilei is the Father of modern science, and directly in his mould is Sir Isaac Newton, two very Bible based theists and the two greatest scientists ever. Galileo hated nothing more than Aristotle’s mentality, and so all of you who think scientists are atheists better think again, it is only the Aristotelean philosophers posing as scientists in the Galilean mould, who give people the idea that scientists do not believe in God. Mad scientists, dishonest philosophers who cares about the name so long as we know how undesirable and deluded their point of view is. Like the Word of God declares infallibly, “The fool saith in his heart, there is no God. Corrupt are they, adn have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.” Ps.53:1. I am not surprized because what makes an atheist is not what he truly thinks is true but the way he thinks, and the way he thinks is that he hates the idea of an all mighty perfectly just Creator for then the atheist would feel accountable for his abominable attitude to his fellow man and cruelty to animals as well. There are many so called Christians who would tremble, like Caiphas, who in spite of being high priest and getting reliable reports from his spies to Christ ressurrecting Lazarus to the extent that he was plotting his death as well for that reason alone, still openly denied the resurrection. One thing we can say for sure about anyone who does or thinks like Ciaphas on the subject of theism and the ressurrection, is that, like Caiphas, it is impossible for them to be honest.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 772 other followers

%d bloggers like this: