The Church Of Climate Scientology

The Church Of Climate Scientology: How Climate Science Became A Religion


Here are three ways the Climate Scientologists abuse science.
  1. They use manipulative language.  If you are ever asked the incoherent question “Do you deny climate change?” you have found yourself a Climate Scientologist. No one denies “climate change.” “Climate change” is a constant. The “climate,” which is an averaging of weather over long timespan, is an inherently changing phenomenon. There’s no “climate non-change.” Don’t tell me “Oh, we all know what we mean by climate change”--because I don’t, and neither do you. “Climate change” is a manipulative, rubber term used to mean anything from “the climate changes” (which everyone agrees with) to “we impact the climate at least a tiny amount” (which everyone agrees with) to “we impact the climate for the better” (yes, that’s possible) to “we are making the climate much more dangerous” (which much fewer people agree with) to “we are making the climate much more dangerous and the only response is to stop using fossil fuels but also incoherently oppose nuclear power and hydroelectric power while advocating the worst-performing energy technologies, solar and wind.” Climate Scientologists are usually advocates of the last, bizarre position. Since they can’t argue for that view honestly and directly, they dishonestly name their view “climate change.”
  2. They won’t admit when their theory fails. Modern climate science is dominated by the hypothesis that CO2 is the major driver of climate—so much so that increasing it from .03% to .04% of the atmosphere has brought us to the verge of catastrophe. One simple question to ask about this hypothesis, which has been around for many decades, is: “Does it agree with experiment?” Since the theory uses computer models to make apocalyptic predictions about the future, one straightforward question to ask is: can the climate prediction models actually predict climate? The answer is no. As my colleague at Center for Industrial Progress, physicist and mathematical modeler Eric Dennis, writes in a forthcoming essay on climate modeling: the biggest phenomenon in climate modeling over the last 15 years is the spectacular failure of the models to predict what happened over this period: flat global temperatures, no significant warming trend. This was the one test the climate modelers were forced to stick their necks out for, and they have failed it.
  3. They intimidate, rather than explain.  Two weeks ago I participated on an energy panel with a prominent critic of fossil fuels. Anticipating that he would raise the climate issue, I devoted much of my 5-minute opening to trying to explain the big-picture evidence about fossil fuels and climate. Here was his response, in full. He flashed a Power Point slide with an ominous-looking picture of a desert with the text “6 Degrees Celsius” (implying it would get that much hotter) and said “We’re in trouble. The smartest people on the planet have told us that, and we’re listening to them.” I asked him to explain to me and to the audience how the “smartest people in the world” had proven this so we could understand it for ourselves. His response? He told the audience that since these (unspecified) people are smarter than I am, they should listen to him instead of me. In freshman logic, we are taught that this is the fallacy of “appeal to authority.” The true scientist has no need for appeal to authority—he uses his expertise to give clear explanations for anyone seeking them. For example, if you ask a good physicist about quantum mechanics, he will give you an overview of the evidence, such as the famous double-slit experiment that classical mechanics couldn’t explain. But too often, if you ask a question about climate science, a Climate Scientologist will try to intimidate you to take his beliefs on faith.

Comment: Read the entire article at Forbes (above link)

More from the Wall Street Journal: Climateers Can’t Handle the Truth
Donald Trump, our new president-elect, has been tagged for indiscriminately referring to climate change as a hoax. Here’s what he actually said at a campaign rally in South Carolina one year ago about climate advocacy: “It’s a money-making industry, OK? It’s a hoax, a lot of it.”

This statement, with its clearly framed qualifications, is true and accurate in every detail. It’s a statement of basic truth that can be embraced, and increasingly should be, by exactly those people most concerned about man-made climate change.

Yet it won’t be, for reasons demonstrated by the New York Times’ adoption of the term climate denialist, whose deliberately non-discriminating function we now take care to state precisely: It enables a kind of journalism that is unable—incapacitates itself—to stumble on truths that would be inconvenient to climate religion.


  1. We all know that global warming, er "climate change" caused by people who drive cars and use air-conditioning is a fraud and nothing but a useful political tool used for social engineering.

    The one area where man likely is causing climate change is conveniently ignored: bioengineering the atmosphere (aka chemtrails). We are being bombarded on virtually a daily basis. Blue skies are gone and a thing of history because of chemtrail spraying. The complete lack of media coverage on this topic tells you the results of this program are not positive. Just what is the purpose of chemtrails? I've heard everything from weather manipulation to covert vaccination of the population to poisoning the atmosphere in order to create a subtle soft-kill effect and lessen the population. Chemical spraying of the atmosphere is as plain as the nose on your face and to deny it is simply foolish. But the reason for it is still speculative.

  2. The official term is geoengineering.

  3. It strikes me that, whatever the truth is about the connection or lack thereof between the "greenhouse effect" and actual climate change, that those who believe there is a connection might do well to start doing the math correctly on the "benefits" of supposedly "green" technologies like electric cars and solar panels. As far as I can tell, most "green" technologies actually make climate worse.


Any anonymous comments with links will be rejected. Please do not comment off-topic