Er klimareligionen i virkeligheden en kult?

Diverse — Drokles on May 19, 2012 at 6:44 am

Jeg hører til de der sammenligner dyrkelsen af menneskeskabte klimaforandringer med en religion. En anden sammenligning kunne være en kult. De to udelukker jo ikke hinanden da større religioner kan indeholde og endda været drevet af en kult. Under alle omstændigheder har PEter Miller, en læser af Joanna Nova’s blog, en fremragende kommentar

I, unfortunately, have had past dealings with a religious cult, which was not one of life’s great experiences. So, I have first hand experience of dealing with bigoted zealots who have taken an extreme, twisted and intolerant interpretation of something quite reasonable and acceptable.

The leaders of cults are there to make money and ensure the continuation of their comfortable lifestyles. In religious cults, the ‘select few faithful’ are the ones who pay for their leaders’ lifestyles and in return receive a dose of feeling good and therefore smugly think themselves superior to the unbelievers. Remember, in cults, no discussion or dissent is tolerated with unbelievers – hence the universal refusal of CAGW cult members to debate with sceptics.

In the CAGW cult, the Team, Pachauri, Hansen, Gore and others live their comfortable lifestyles and are not funded by the ‘select few faithful’, but by governments. There is no difference, both as I said earlier, have “taken an extreme, twisted and intolerant interpretation of something quite reasonable and acceptable”. The expression “something quite reasonable and acceptable” here is that the world’s climate is changing – but that is the norm, climate is never static!!!!

The climate of the planet we live on is constantly changing. We all know that and there is nothing we can do about it. The latest warming cycle, since it began in the mid 1850s, has been no different from the 12 or so warming cycles in the Holocene period, which preceded this one.

I am going to repeat this so you understand: THE LATEST WARMING CYCLE SINCE THE MID 1850S HAS BEEN NO DIFFERENT FROM THE 12 OR SO WARMING CYCLES IN THE HOLOCENE PERIOD, WHICH PRECEDED THIS ONE.

Carbon dioxide levels have risen over the past 150 years and undoubtedly a small percentage of the 0.7-0.8 degrees C in the rise in global temperatures over the past 150 years is due to this. No one knows what this percentage is; the global warming industry (aka the CAGW cult) says it’s 100% due to carbon dioxide, while the sceptics believe it is comfortably under 50% – I personally think it is around 10-20%.

Anyhow, in closing I include a definition of the word ‘Cult’:

“A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.”

In the CAGW cult, the “religious veneration of the particular object” is: The world is doomed, unless, we the chosen, do something about it, so give us more money. From this stems the unsightly grant addiction exhibited by almost all ‘climate scientists’

The ‘relatively small group of people’ are the Team, Pachauri, Hansen, Gore etc.

So, no, the word ‘cult’ is not a derogatory one in the instance of ‘climate scientists’, it is an accurate one.

Så kom der alligevel noget ud af flere timers prokrastinering. Det er i øvrigt min fremhævning med fed tekst fordi temperaturudviklingen i den tid man har kunnet måle på den med nok termometre ser “quite reasonable and acceptable” ud. Og det med en af kultledernes egne ord, som de faldt i en af kultens domkirker, agtværdige BBC

A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Den menneskeskabte opvarmningsperiode i efterkrigstiden ligner altså til forveksling de to naturlige opvarmningsperioder fra sidste halvdel af 1800 tallet og ligger, hvor man måtte formode at naturen, var den blevet spurgt, havde lagt sin tredie varmeperiode.

1 Kommentar »

  1. Al denne snak om klimaforandringer og fossile brændstoffer, går i virkeligheden ud på at skræmme folk væk fra dette, og gå over til vedvarende energi, da man ved at der en dag ikke er flere fossile brændstoffer tilbage. Isen smelter måske, men det burde den også gøre.
    Skandinavien var dækket af kilometer tyk is for mange tusinde år siden. Nu er den væk, og det kan umuligt have været menneskers skyld. Siger man dette til en klimafantiker, vil han gøre som en muslim, der bliver konfronteret med, at profeten Muhammed stod bag tusinder af mord på “Vantro”.
    Ja, klima er blevet en religion, og kulter er, som i de fleste andre religioner, ved at opstå i den.

    Comment by Den Slimede Prins — May 28, 2012 @ 7:44 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress