False Idols

In July I wrote about faith in secular societies.:

I mentioned climate change because this seems to be the aspect of modern politics in supposedly secular countries which most closely resembles a religion. Once again, we have the sacred texts, the high priests, the apostates, punishment of unbelievers, calls for sacrifices, and indoctrination all wrapped up in a great moral crusade stretching beyond our lifetimes that secures the blind faith of the followers. It makes me laugh when I hear atheists refer to “Science!” when talking about climate change: these people are no more able to challenge the pronouncements of the scientists, whose words have been filtered through the media and politicians, than a medieval peasant was able to challenge the high priests’ interpretations of sacred texts. They are as much wedded to faith as their devout ancestors, but they don’t realise it.

Below is a tweet from fake Indian Elizabeth Warren:

Elizabeth Warren is no more able to verify a climate scientist is accurately interpreting data than an illiterate farmer could tell if a bishop was faithfully reading the words of the bible. As for the message, a climate scientist is equally likely to spout self-serving guff as any high priest that’s walked this Earth, safe in the knowledge the average worshiper has no way of challenging them and in any case wouldn’t dare.

At least yer average medieval peasant had some useful survival skills at his disposal. What’s Warren got that’s useful, other than high cheekbones and more neck than a giraffe?

Liked it? Take a second to support Tim Newman on Patreon!

30 thoughts on “False Idols

  1. When I was younger and cleverer I did read some of the papers that were the basis for the whole GW scam. As it happened I was well qualified to do so. My assessment is that its early days were marked mainly by incompetence, before swapping slowly to the dishonesty that was necessary to defend the results of the earlier errors.

  2. If your living depends on you believing something to be true you will believe or say anything. The Weinstein case shows this. Climate change will only collapse when someone changes the funding. I rest my hopes on Trump but the system has lots of inertia.

    I work in an area of insurance where statistics matter a lot and it’s amazing that you don’t have that much good data for many things once you start digging, (by asking why?/how do you know that? a lot.) The extrapolation from very limited data is tricky thing. The climate boys and girls did it without any self doubts though as their livelihood depend on self belief. They never asked where the info came from or how it was manipulated to get where it is now. Climategate proved that beyond doubt. As a commenter in the FT said, the global climate models are things of wonder and carefully created. The response is that they might be but the assumptions are not well understood or even the plausible range isn’t well understood (look at estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity to doubling co2 for a tangible example( and the input time series are woeful.

    And now we are supposed to invest trillions in emissions reduction. They base this on using the rcp8.5 pathway, still, though we are miles under it. And th people who choose to work in green finance under Carney and so on are converts at the start who quite the precautionary principle which shows they are idiots.

  3. Have you noticed that science pretty much disappears when the discussion is transgenderism? Then we are warned against scientism.

  4. “and we have a moral obligation to protect this Earth for our children and grandchildren”

    So… when does she start to advocate for getting rid of welfare programs in order to fund asteroid defense research?

    After all, moral obligations, Earth, children/grandchildren and all that. 🙂


  5. When I was a sprog taking science lessons it was dinned into me that studies/experiments were meaningless without results, and such things should be ignored.
    The IPCC have promoted the works of Professor Mann, who says that the data and calculations supporting his assertions are his own private property. It has also promoted the works of the Climate Change unit at the University of East Anglia, whose representative, Prof. Jones, testified that all data and calculations had been lost.
    These omissions clearly invalidate the learned Professors’ assertions, but more than that, they make it clear that the IPCC is not making even the most basic check on its sources, and is therefore not doing much that is scientific.
    I’d put my money on “nobody has a clue, but some people get paid loads for claiming knowledge”

  6. If you want an easy example of “WTF” data-manipulation-by-blind-faith-in-algorithm, download the raw and homogenised data for the De Bilt temperature station in the Netherlands.

    Also look up what the homogenisation is supposed to do.

    Put the two datasets in Excel, and calculate the difference. This is the correction. Plot it. it’s a weird inverted stepped pyramid that makes no physical sense.

    Then download the metadata for what must be one of the best-documented stations on the planet, and try to reconcile what the homogenisation algorithm is intended to acheive with the correction applied to the data, in view of the metadata. You can’t. It’s completely
    irrational, and passes neither the Ronseal test nor the laugh test.

    We told the KNMI about this years ago – they didn’t reply.

    If it can’t do what it says on the tin on a super-well documented and well-sited station, how can it be trusted on sketchy data from Upper Buttistan? And we’re supposed to rearrange all of society and the economy on this basis?

    And you point this out to the adherents and you get “It’s only one station. it averages out”. “Can you show me how?” “errrrr…”. It’s the “God works in mysterious ways” thing all over.

  7. It is scientific method that has lead to knowledge and it’s applications. Scientists are just as ignorant as rest of humanity, theories that aren’t falsifiable is not science.

    I was born in 1970, since than climate scientists have claimed that world was cooling, then warming and now it is changing, this isn’t science, it is neurotic people and their loony ideas.

    People who fret about weather remind me a lot of doomsday cults that are convinced world going to end on certain day, and when that day comes and goes without incident, they redouble their belief that end of world is near. I wish green activists would rejoin churches, unease about environment is pagan belief and not warranted by facts.

  8. The whole fucking point of science is that belief is not a requirement.

    “What’s Warren got that’s useful, other than high cheekbones and more neck than a giraffe?”

    Her recipes in the Pow Wow Chow book are very good, however, the news is she just nicked them from a passing French chief.

  9. Is Pocahontas still claiming native American ancestry? I think even the Dems aren’t falling for that one any more…

  10. @abacab. Exactly what I am talking about. Tim’s core point is that these things are taken on blind faith by the converted. When you start to tackle them on the foundational points, akin to asking for evidence that a God exists, they shift ground and argue that without [religion/ climate change] the world would *probably* be a worse place therefore we should carry on with [religon / climate change]. We always end up with the precautionary principle aka Russtovich’s asteroid point which I also delight in making when warmist converts end up there in arguments.

    Happy New Year!

  11. Pingback: Samizdata quote of the day « Samizdata

  12. The key word here I think is cult, since this is the sort of behaviour that you might expect from Scientologists, but not from supposed “scientists”.

    Actual climate science used to be a genuinely hard science, although the field itself was relatively small. With the creation of “Global Warming” for largely political purposes it has become so tainted and debased that the entire discipline has been thrown into disrepute.

    If you have to manipulate the data to prove your point and your doom-and-gloom predictions are always wrong (Ice Free Arctic by 2013, etc.) then that is not science, it is no better than a pseudo scientific cult.

    The Science is Settled!

  13. Don’t forget that 95% of Global warming model predictions state that the measured temperatures RIGHT NOW are wrong.

    There are plenty of websites that plot the predicted-from-computer-models temperature with the actual,measured temperatures and none of them accurately predicted the result. The longer the time, the greater the divergence.

    If I could embed a graphic, I would but the 1st graph in this link shows what I mean.


    And again …


    As a comparison, I produced an excel spreadsheet to predict my height and weight, using the growth rate and weight gain of the first 6 months of my life. By this time I should be 187 feet tall and weigh in the region of 72 tons. Any minute now, you’ll see I’m right …

  14. What’s Warren got that’s useful, other than high cheekbones and more neck than a giraffe?

    She’s a horse’s backside?

  15. Phil B

    “As a comparison, I produced an excel spreadsheet to predict my height and weight, using the growth rate and weight gain of the first 6 months of my life. By this time I should be 187 feet tall and weigh in the region of 72 tons. Any minute now, you’ll see I’m right …”

    Excellent !

  16. Just seen someone on FB claim, with a straight face, that climate change will lead to an inevitable Malthusian nightmare.

    Must have missed that in the IPCC reports, since it’s not in any of their scenarios.

    A perfect example of the religiosity of the whole thing, from people who couldn’t explain adiabatic lapse rate without Googling.

  17. Also, a lot of people who are deeply into the AGW religion are vigorously anti traditional religion. As TimW would say, we’re seeing substitution effects here.

  18. “I was born in 1970, since than climate scientists have claimed that world was cooling, then warming and now it is changing, this isn’t science, it is neurotic people and their loony ideas.”

    1970 was the first Earth Day which was also broadcast nationally by CBSTV and introduced by Walter Cronkite the most trusted man in America so that makes you a child of the revolution. Yes I can well remember the chilling threats of the coming ice age, they were truly frightening there was a specific documentary of one of the Leonard Nimoy series In Search Of.. this one in particular was in Search Of The Coming Ice Age with a doom laden Leonard Nimoy commentary we all believed this at the time.

    I have lived long enough to have witnessed the following climatic changes and major milestones:

    Global Cooling
    Ozone Depletion
    Acid Rain
    Global Warming
    Climate Change
    The Adjustment
    Carbon criminalized as a pollutant – US EPA
    Climate Change declared a sin – The Pope

  19. Eco-freakery (of which Glo-Ball Warning is the bayonet point) is the third arm or better still, the middle leg of cultural Marxist evil.

    The first and senior branch is anti-racism. More accurately anti-white hatred which is now obvious for all to see. This is the engine-room of CM. 50 years were spent building up a head of steam behind “racism” in the hope folk would reach a point that they piss their pants at the mere use of the word. That has been partly successful but not universally so.

    Then, in the manner of one smearing their own excrement, they have sort to spread the synthetic outrage to women/gays/ selected paraphilliacs etc. Again partial success. All latterly shown to be entirely callous ploys by the adoption of Imported Beards as their new best friends. Despite the imports liking for dealing harsh with CM’s old best friends. Their old pals are dumb enough to ignore their likely future well-being. Thus making themselves still a useful club to hit whitey with.

    Finally we come to the eco-freaks whose direct aim is the loading down of Western industry, commerce and technological progress with heavy chains of lies. And if they can corrupt science along the way so much the better. Marxian trash spit on objective reality anyway.

    Thus the eco-freaks and scienctistic stooges are not “misguided” . They know very well the evil they do and they mostly know the cause they serve.

  20. Bardon – I was born on original Earth day in 1970, my father thought it auspicious and that I was going to be a green Jesus when I grew up. I have long believed there is a lot of religious beliefs mixed in with environmental movement that was launched in late 1960s.

  21. Bardon – that is freaky video, good way to terrify children.

    I have never really believed global warming because of 180 switch from global cooling that occurred in 1980s. It is significant error if scientists scare people for over a decade about cooling planet and then say we got it wrong, the planet is actually warming. I do remember that I bought into the disappearing ozone layer hysteria in late 1980s and how humans wouldnt be able to go outside soon enough.

  22. Did any of the commentators here listen to Sam Harris’ “takedown” of climate deniers with an expert?

    Very sad. A normally quite logical and objective debater giving a free pass to one side of the discussion and leaving lots of questions unasked (such as, “what’s the source data for that and have you seen the original dataset?” or “what would critics of that point say and why would they be wrong?”).

    I’ve struggled to listen to any of his podcasts since as it was such an uncharacteristically biased discussion.

  23. Reading the outfall from the Creative writing unit of the UEA, makes me wonder if they have heard of the Laws of Thermodynamics, or have any understanding of the chemical reactions that occur in the atmosphere…

    The runaway greenhouse effect supposedly in action on Venus is a favourite, by their account Venus keeps getting hotter.

    The other work of genius was this, https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-the-independent.pdf

  24. @TJ – in round terms, the earth is 150 million kilometres from the Sun and Venus is 100 million. If you calculate the energy falling on 1 square metre (or 1 square foot, mile, Imperial Russian Arshin, Royal Egyptian cubit or whatever unit of measure you favour) you will see that Venus has an incoming quantity of radiation of 2.25 times that of the Earth.

    Who could have guessed that if you stand 50 million kilometres nearer the biggest fire in the vicinity, you would get warmer … by a factor of 2.25 (OK, due to the clouds in Venus’ atmosphere, the incoming radiation reaching the surface layers of the atmosphere is somewhere in the region of 1.8 to 2 times that of Earth but you get the picture). Bugger all to do with CO2.

    Incidentally, Mars with essentially zero atmosphere shows signs of “global warming” too … amazing that elevated CO2 on Earth can somehow magically affect a planet over the hard vacuum of space.

    More tax to save the Martians is what I say (NOT!).

  25. re. affecting Mars over the vacuum of space, look up “teleconnections” in the context of tree-based measurements of historic temperature. It was argued with a straight face that a particular tree’s growth responded to the global “climate field” rather than to the amount of light, water and nutrients available to it.

    That was quite some polishing of a turd of a spurious correlation. But they stuck by it.

    The other fun one is the “Bear poop problem” when looking at individual trees – if a bear poops next to a tree, it will be fertilised and show a small growth spurt. This will however be interpreted by the methodology as an increase in temperature (since you can’t split out temp / hydration / nutrient effects from tree ring diameters and they just presume it’s all temperature because reasons). Seriously.

    This is not Engineering-level science here….

  26. “I have never really believed global warming because of 180 switch from global cooling that occurred in 1980s”

    I watched this documentary below when I was in Brooklyn and we were pretty freaked out about the coming ice age. It must have been far scarier in freezing Canada though?


  27. For a long time I took gobular warming at face value. I remembered the Ice Age warnings of the 1970s, but winters seemed to be becoming milder. 1988-9 sticks in the mind especially.

    But something flicked a switch. I heard a BBC news report around 2000 that said AGW had been conclusively proven… by using computer models. As an IT consultant, I immediately realised that this whole subject was so much BS as models are Garbage in-Garbage out. Looking into the matter, it was clear that there was no scientific basis for their theory at all, especially the way that CO2 was supposed to reflect heat back to the Earth’s surface. It failed basic tests of thermodynamics and physics.

    Abacab mentions dendrochronology, which was a massive own goal and eventual nail in AGW’s coffin. It was all uncovered in the Climategate e-mails. The whole use of proxies is a dubious science anyway and tree-rings especially are very blunt instruments. All they tell you really is whether it was a nice growing season for the tree or not, which probably might only last three months in any case. What made it worse, was that the scientist in question (Keith Biffra at the UEA ?) had used a tiny subset of the number of trees sampled, because they gave him the right result. He then exacerbated the error by ignoring the last 20 or 30 years of the tree rings because they deviated from the model and replaced them with “real” thermometer readings. Garbage in Garbage out.

Comments are closed.