From this thread:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/14/149585/1.ashx
I posted the following article regarding a speech by MIT professor, Richard Lindzen on Global Warming. I think you’ll find it fits right in with your thoughts. I emailed Professor Lindzen and received the reply that follows.
Meteorologist Likens Fear of Global Warming to 'Religious Belief'
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
December 02, 2004
Washington (CNSNews.com) - An MIT meteorologist Wednesday dismissed alarmist fears about human induced global warming as nothing more than 'religious beliefs.'
"Do you believe in global warming? That is a religious question. So is the second part: Are you a skeptic or a believer?" said Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen, in a speech to about 100 people at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
"Essentially if whatever you are told is alleged to be supported by 'all scientists,' you don't have to understand [the issue] anymore. You simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief," Lindzen said. His speech was titled, "Climate Alarmism: The Misuse of 'Science'" and was sponsored by the free market George C. Marshall Institute. Lindzen is a professor at MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences.
Once a person becomes a believer of global warming, "you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by all scientists -- except for a handful of corrupted heretics," Lindzen added.
According to Lindzen, climate "alarmists" have been trying to push the idea that there is scientific consensus on dire climate change.
"With respect to science, the assumption behind the [alarmist] consensus is science is the source of authority and that authority increases with the number of scientists [who agree.] But science is not primarily a source of authority. It is a particularly effective approach of inquiry and analysis. Skepticism is essential to science -- consensus is foreign," Lindzen said.
Alarmist predictions of more hurricanes, the catastrophic rise in sea levels, the melting of the global poles and even the plunge into another ice age are not scientifically supported, Lindzen said.
"It leads to a situation where advocates want us to be afraid, when there is no basis for alarm. In response to the fear, they want us to do what they want," Lindzen said.
Recent reports of a melting polar ice cap were dismissed by Lindzen as an example of the media taking advantage of the public's "scientific illiteracy."
"The thing you have to remember about the Arctic is that it is an extremely variable part of the world," Lindzen said. "Although there is melting going [on] now, there has been a lot of melting that went on in the [19]30s and then there was freezing. So by isolating a section ... they are essentially taking people's ignorance of the past," he added.
'Repetition makes people believe'The climate change debate has become corrupted by politics, the media and money, according to Lindzen.
"It's a sad story, where you have scientists making meaningless or ambiguous statements [about climate change]. They are then taken by advocates to the media who translate the statements into alarmist declarations. You then have politicians who respond to all of this by giving scientists more money," Lindzen said.
"Agreement on anything is taken to infer agreement on everything. So if you make a statement that you agree that CO2 (carbon dioxide) is a greenhouse gas, you agree that the world is coming to an end," he added.
"There can be little doubt that the language used to convey alarm has been sloppy at best," Lindzen said, citing Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbles and his famous observation that even a lie will be believed if enough people repeat it. "There is little question that repetition makes people believe things [for] which there may be no basis," Lindzen said.
He believes the key to improving the science of climate change lies in altering the way scientists are funded.
'Alarm is the aim'"The research and support for research depends on the alarm," Lindzen told
CNSNews.com following his speech. "The research itself often is very good, but by the time it gets through the filter of environmental advocates and the press innocent things begin to sound just as though they are the end of the world.
"The argument is no longer what models are correct -- they are not -- but rather whether their results are at all possible. One can rarely prove something to be impossible," he explained.
Lindzen said scientists must be allowed to conclude that 'we don't have a problem." And if the answer turns out to be 'we don't have a problem,' we have to figure out a better reward than cutting off people's funding. It's as simple as that," he said.
The only consensus that Lindzen said exists on the issue of climate change is the impact of the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty to limit greenhouse gases, which the U.S. does not support.
Kyoto itself will have no discernible effect on global warming regardless of what one believes about climate change," Lindzen said.
"Claims to the contrary generally assume Kyoto is only the beginning of an ever more restrictive regime. However this is hardly ever mentioned," he added.
The Kyoto Protocol, which Russia recently ratified, aims to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2010. But Lindzen claims global warming proponents ultimately want to see a 60 to 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gasses from the 1990 levels. Such reductions would be economically disastrous, he said.
"If you are hearing Kyoto will cost billions and trillions," then a further reduction will ultimately result in "a shutdown" of the economy, Lindzen said.
**************************************************************************************************
I emailed Professor Linzen, and he replied. Re: Global Warming Religion question? |
| |
From: | Richard S. Lindzen |
Sent: | Fri 12/28/07 4:32 PM |
To: | debbie |
Dear Debbie,
As you say, one can usually spot a cult when you see it.
However, pinning things down more concretely is a bit more difficult. Personally, I suspect that the distinction between a cult and a religion is intrinsically fuzzy, and, as a more or less religious individual, I don't think that religion per se is bad.
For example, the founding fathers of the US were commonly deists. They strongly believed (consistent with the Pentateuch) that an infinitely superior G-d who was unknowable by man was an important defense against the claims of human tyrannies. I share this view.
That said, religion is generally characterized by beliefs that are not subject to empirical or logical proof; ie, it is a matter of faith. As a rule, these beliefs serve a variety of purposes. Thus, for many, their religious beliefs constitute an heritage held in common with ancestors and community. If these beliefs encourage generosity and compassion for others, then they are a force for good. I suspect that religion turns into cult when the purposes become very specific and exclusionary. Thus a religion that promises wealth to the believer, and pain and suffering to the non-believer is heading in the direction of cult.
With respect to environmental issues in general and global warming in particular, the transition to religion takes place when a person who is ignorant of the actual science not only believes alarming claims that he or she does not understand, but when that individual wants to believe these claims. The question then arises as to why someone would want to believe such claims. For some, it would appear that the answer is that they have been assured that all scientists agree with such claims. The very thought that all scientists in an immature science like climate all agree on anything (much less with all the numerous unrelated claims) is beyond belief. Nevertheless, for individuals who feel at sea when confronting science that they don't understand at all, it must be reassuring to think that by consenting to the line on global warming, they are safe because all scientists agree. Indeed, they immediately feel intellectually superior to all those who question the claims of global warming. In addition, people are told (quite falsely) that simple gestures like switching to fluorescent bulbs are tantamount to saving the earth. This brings god-like significance to otherwise ordinary lives. The combination of god-like significance attaching to trivial gestures and the feeling of superiority to others is quite a powerful combination. It further offers the opportunity and pleasure of condemning others, and forcing them to change their ways. By this time, one is well on one's way to a cult. For Hollywood types, moreover, belief in global warming offers redemption for dissolute and extravagant life styles.
As with all cults, global warming hysteria, is also subject to cynical exploitation. Hedge funds stand ready to make billions out of trading carbon credits. Snake oil salesmen can know offer carbon offsets to the unwary. Etc. Etc. My hope is that the global warming hysteria comes to an end before too much pain, suffering, and conflict occurs.
Best wishes for 2008,
Dick
*************************************************************************************************************************
From this thread:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/14/149585/1.ashx I posted the following article regarding a speech by MIT professor, Richard Lindzen on Global Warming. I think you’ll find it fits right in with your thoughts. I emailed Professor Lindzen and received the reply that follows.
Meteorologist Likens Fear of Global Warming to 'Religious Belief'
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
December 02, 2004
Washington (CNSNews.com) - An MIT meteorologist Wednesday dismissed alarmist fears about human induced global warming as nothing more than 'religious beliefs.'
"Do you believe in global warming? That is a religious question. So is the second part: Are you a skeptic or a believer?" said Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen, in a speech to about 100 people at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
"Essentially if whatever you are told is alleged to be supported by 'all scientists,' you don't have to understand [the issue] anymore. You simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief," Lindzen said. His speech was titled, "Climate Alarmism: The Misuse of 'Science'" and was sponsored by the free market George C. Marshall Institute. Lindzen is a professor at MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences.
Once a person becomes a believer of global warming, "you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by all scientists -- except for a handful of corrupted heretics," Lindzen added.
According to Lindzen, climate "alarmists" have been trying to push the idea that there is scientific consensus on dire climate change.
"With respect to science, the assumption behind the [alarmist] consensus is science is the source of authority and that authority increases with the number of scientists [who agree.] But science is not primarily a source of authority. It is a particularly effective approach of inquiry and analysis. Skepticism is essential to science -- consensus is foreign," Lindzen said.
Alarmist predictions of more hurricanes, the catastrophic rise in sea levels, the melting of the global poles and even the plunge into another ice age are not scientifically supported, Lindzen said.
"It leads to a situation where advocates want us to be afraid, when there is no basis for alarm. In response to the fear, they want us to do what they want," Lindzen said.
Recent reports of a melting polar ice cap were dismissed by Lindzen as an example of the media taking advantage of the public's "scientific illiteracy."
"The thing you have to remember about the Arctic is that it is an extremely variable part of the world," Lindzen said. "Although there is melting going [on] now, there has been a lot of melting that went on in the [19]30s and then there was freezing. So by isolating a section ... they are essentially taking people's ignorance of the past," he added.
'Repetition makes people believe'
The climate change debate has become corrupted by politics, the media and money, according to Lindzen.
"It's a sad story, where you have scientists making meaningless or ambiguous statements [about climate change]. They are then taken by advocates to the media who translate the statements into alarmist declarations. You then have politicians who respond to all of this by giving scientists more money," Lindzen said.
"Agreement on anything is taken to infer agreement on everything. So if you make a statement that you agree that CO2 (carbon dioxide) is a greenhouse gas, you agree that the world is coming to an end," he added.
"There can be little doubt that the language used to convey alarm has been sloppy at best," Lindzen said, citing Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbles and his famous observation that even a lie will be believed if enough people repeat it. "There is little question that repetition makes people believe things [for] which there may be no basis," Lindzen said.
He believes the key to improving the science of climate change lies in altering the way scientists are funded. 'Alarm is the aim'
"The research and support for research depends on the alarm," Lindzen told CNSNews.com following his speech. "The research itself often is very good, but by the time it gets through the filter of environmental advocates and the press innocent things begin to sound just as though they are the end of the world.
"The argument is no longer what models are correct -- they are not -- but rather whether their results are at all possible. One can rarely prove something to be impossible," he explained.
Lindzen said scientists must be allowed to conclude that 'we don't have a problem." And if the answer turns out to be 'we don't have a problem,' we have to figure out a better reward than cutting off people's funding. It's as simple as that," he said.
The only consensus that Lindzen said exists on the issue of climate change is the impact of the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty to limit greenhouse gases, which the U.S. does not support.
Kyoto itself will have no discernible effect on global warming regardless of what one believes about climate change," Lindzen said.
"Claims to the contrary generally assume Kyoto is only the beginning of an ever more restrictive regime. However this is hardly ever mentioned," he added.
The Kyoto Protocol, which Russia recently ratified, aims to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2010. But Lindzen claims global warming proponents ultimately want to see a 60 to 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gasses from the 1990 levels. Such reductions would be economically disastrous, he said.
"If you are hearing Kyoto will cost billions and trillions," then a further reduction will ultimately result in "a shutdown" of the economy, Lindzen said.**************************************************************************************************
I emailed Professor Linzen, and he replied. Re: Global Warming Religion question? |
| |
From: | Richard S. Lindzen |
Sent: | Fri 12/28/07 4:32 PM |
To: | debbie |
Dear Debbie,
As you say, one can usually spot a cult when you see it.
However, pinning things down more concretely is a bit more difficult. Personally, I suspect that the distinction between a cult and a religion is intrinsically fuzzy, and, as a more or less religious individual, I don't think that religion per se is bad.
For example, the founding fathers of the US were commonly deists. They strongly believed (consistent with the Pentateuch) that an infinitely superior G-d who was unknowable by man was an important defense against the claims of human tyrannies. I share this view.
That said, religion is generally characterized by beliefs that are not subject to empirical or logical proof; ie, it is a matter of faith. As a rule, these beliefs serve a variety of purposes. Thus, for many, their religious beliefs constitute an heritage held in common with ancestors and community. If these beliefs encourage generosity and compassion for others, then they are a force for good. I suspect that religion turns into cult when the purposes become very specific and exclusionary. Thus a religion that promises wealth to the believer, and pain and suffering to the non-believer is heading in the direction of cult.
With respect to environmental issues in general and global warming in particular, the transition to religion takes place when a person who is ignorant of the actual science not only believes alarming claims that he or she does not understand, but when that individual wants to believe these claims. The question then arises as to why someone would want to believe such claims. For some, it would appear that the answer is that they have been assured that all scientists agree with such claims. The very thought that all scientists in an immature science like climate all agree on anything (much less with all the numerous unrelated claims) is beyond belief. Nevertheless, for individuals who feel at sea when confronting science that they don't understand at all, it must be reassuring to think that by consenting to the line on global warming, they are safe because all scientists agree. Indeed, they immediately feel intellectually superior to all those who question the claims of global warming. In addition, people are told (quite falsely) that simple gestures like switching to fluorescent bulbs are tantamount to saving the earth. This brings god-like significance to otherwise ordinary lives. The combination of god-like significance attaching to trivial gestures and the feeling of superiority to others is quite a powerful combination. It further offers the opportunity and pleasure of condemning others, and forcing them to change their ways. By this time, one is well on one's way to a cult. For Hollywood types, moreover, belief in global warming offers redemption for dissolute and extravagant life styles.
As with all cults, global warming hysteria, is also subject to cynical exploitation. Hedge funds stand ready to make billions out of trading carbon credits. Snake oil salesmen can know offer carbon offsets to the unwary. Etc. Etc. My hope is that the global warming hysteria comes to an end before too much pain, suffering, and conflict occurs.
Best wishes for 2008,
Dick
*************************************************************************************************************************
Coffee
