Posted on 12/02/2004 6:20:06 AM PST by bigsoxfan
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.
whats going on with the weather channel showing the polar ice caps are melting? is that real? anyone have any info ?
ANY philosophy has it's "True Believers", people who are at their core nothing but humans wrapped around one or two ideas, giving their all to it, and defending their single idea in the face of all evidence against it. (All of the gay people I know are in this catagory, for example.)
Likens to religious belief? It IS a religious belief. The religion of Deep Ecology, to be specific.
In the 9th & 10th paragraph above, the author answered my questions about the polar caps melting.
I have been saying this all along. Global warming is part of a Secularist Piety of people that do not believe in God. If you can show that you are "more sesitive, tolerant, etc" to the enviroment than your friends, then it elevates your standing above them. That is why it started with... "save the whales" then we did.....then it was " Save the harp seal" and we did, then they figured out they need to try to save something so big that it can never be resolved or figured out if it can be saved, so now it is... " save the planet".
An article I read here a few weeks ago said they aren't "melting" at all. A periodic change in prevailing winds has instead shifted the floating sea ice piling it deeper in some areas and leaving open water in others. The "Arctic specialist" in the article said this happens about every 50 years.
The article is here somewhere.
From MIT mo less. I bet Noam Chomsky won't be inviting Prof. Lindzen to his Festivis Party this year.
Dirt worshipers.
I note this article is from CNS. No doubt the MSM was much busier than such a minor story would be worth...
FWIW, I read a book based declassified CIA report wa-a-a-a-ay back in the late 70's that maintained the well known 'global cooling' conclusions of the time. What struck me was that the CIA had concluded that the weather patterns for North America had largely been anomalous; in fact, what seemed normal was really a fortuitous variation. That global weather change was coming was assumed (and normal) and the advanced strategery for American dominance was the issue at the center of the study.
Now...
The outcomes are all changed - and we're heating up! The Left is leading the charge instead of the evil CIA! The climatic changes are not due to natural flux but, instead, directly the result of corrupt Western civilization.
It is funny to note that the real weather change has been in laying the blame for the direction, mechanics and agents of the change. The final fault has been neatly labeled with culprits, economic class, type of criminal vehicles and even tied up with a pretty bow of American suburban addresses. Of course, the threat to the entire earth outweighs any false ideas of personal freedom of national sovereignty and these quaint notions must be sacrificed for the saving of the planet. In sum, a very nice package for some political agenda, eh?
I think Dr. Lindzen was on the UN climate change panel, too. If I recall correctly, he is the one that blew the whistle on the UN leadership and the MSM sonspiring to distort the panel's findings and labeling the culprits for political purposes. Lindzen believes the evidence demonstrates that we are, in fact, in a climate change flux.
What he disputes is the politicization and blame game going on - he does not throw out the evidence favoring climate change. But then, who would? Climate change is normal and stasis would be abnormal.
Good article
ok cool ... didn't notice that... thats not the spin they (the weather channel) put on it- they said the more it melts the more it would melt more - sunlight being absorbed by blue water rather than reflected by white ice - glad to see its bunk - 30 degrees in alabama this morning not too warm here... lol
bump for global warming hooey
BuMp.
It began with save the whale, and ended with kill the baby. Satan has many followers.
This is one speech that won't be reported on CBS, NBC, or ABC.
It's quickly becoming a cult.
It's not a worth article to print since it is 'ONLY' from a Professor at MIT that wrote it. lol
Thank God for global warming. The upper midwest would still be under sheets of ice without it!
And I wouldn't be able to recognize the USA on a map without the outline of the Great Lakes. lol
IF you'll recall, "Earth Day" began because of fears of global cooling - and it wasn't that long ago. Global warming is a much more convenient tool: if we have a warm winter, it's because of global warming; if we have a colder than normal winter with more snow than is usual, it's because of global warming. I believe the technical term is "JUNK SCIENCE."
The only thing possibly alarming, especially for those in denial about just how miniscule human impact actually is, Vs, say, solar output, oscillations in oceanic and atmospheric currents, oscillations in the Carbonate balanced equation, and the like, is that, no matter what we do or do not do, the glaciers will expand. We are in an interglacial period and it WILL end. The whole "global warming" debate is a debate about the nature of, and "root cause" of, a single random noise spike on the grand signal. We are bugs and the bumper always arrives - always. Algore and the whole Church of Chicken Little can eat my shorts. :=)
I've seen no such evidence. What I have seen is the annual pattern of Arctic Sea ice, which has nothing whatever to do with the level of glaciation.
A real good one is how they try to make people believe that the long standing case whereby the Gulf Stream results in an ice free corridor nearly up to Spitsbergen is cast as "evidence of Global Warming." Well if that is true, then "Global Warming" started a couple thousand years ago.
This is almost an exact parallel to the evolution vs creationism debate. The number of scientists who believe in the theory of evolution makes it true. The creationists are dangerous loons.
Ping
...where instead of watching "It's a Wonderful Life," they will view "Day After Tomorrow."
I am in Phoenix, why have we been covering our plants due to a "freeze?"
Uh, no. Read the article. He likens the "global warming scare" to a belief/religion where the facts are ignored. This is similar to a belief in creationism where the facts are ignored.
Agree. We all desire to know how we got here and where we are going. If you don't believe God is in control, you live in fear...an apparently you make stuff up.
Whoa. Deja Vu. Same article posted earlier. Similar comments from me.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1292585/posts
No, he had it exactly correct.
"Washington (CNSNews.com) - An MIT meteorologist Wednesday dismissed alarmist fears about human induced global warming as nothing more than 'religious beliefs.'"
You got it; a "religious belief".
In the scientific community, evolution is a religion that will not accept any unorthodox views. Just as the writer here refers to the global warming "religion". But the intentions of the believers are different, of course.
All of the facts are considered, only a few are accepted.
That is great news vis a vis my pending skiing safari - AZ, NM, then back through AZ and up along the E. side of the Sierra Nevada - sorry about your plants though, hope they will be OK! ;)
Have a great time!
http://www.arizonasnowbowl.com/interior/winteractivities/snowreport.html
No. Evolution is modified all the time to accept new facts as they are discovered. Unlike creationism which is a belief based on religious fears.
No it's not.
This is a religious question: "Do you believe in the theory of evolution?"
Subtle but important difference.
They've indoctrinated you well. You are member in good standing in the evolution believers club/religion. Congrats.
Total B.S. however.
Now who has been indoctrinated. You, who has been taught to refuse to evaluate facts that are contrary to your "religion" or me, who is open to all facts. hmmm.
We'll be all over it. We're planning to go there on the return leg, since it's so convenient to I-40. And after being way the heck up there in NE NM, even the 10K+ foot top of the lift there will not tax our flatlander lungs too much! ;)
The facts aren't usually the problem. It's your misinterpretation of the facts that is the source the problem. And those who dare to see it differently are shunned, demoted, fired or never hired in the first place.
Your religion is not open to unorthodox views.
Isn't it your religion that does NOT allow any facts that conflict with your religion?
Your religion is not open to unorthodox views.
Isn't it your religion that is NOT open to any unorthodox views?
You've already proven my point for me. Thanks.
Please answer the questions.
Isn't it your religion that does NOT allow any facts that conflict with your religion?
Isn't it your religion that is NOT open to any unorthodox views?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.