Meteorologist Likens Fear of Global Warming to 'Religious Belief'

CNS News ^ | December 2, 2004 | Marc Morano

[MikeEdwards]

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. . . . .

[TXnMA]

Things change.

Earth's environment is inherently unstable.

I defy the alarmists to provide data that shows ten (or even three) millenia) of stability in the critical parameters of Earth's environment -- with or without the (alleged) influence of humankind.

[DBrow]

So since it is a religion, does that mean they can't teach it in public skuls?

[Republic_of_Secession.]

These are some great points. Science has in fact long since become the new "religion" & is certainly treated as such by many secularists. Bill Maher (for one) routinely asserts that global warming is real & refers to the "scientific consensus" as if scientists were holly oracles or the new equivalent of unquestionable Catholic priests. Skepticism should be at least as equally applied against scientists as it has been against religious leaders. The notion that scientists -even if they reach a supposed consensus- should never be questioned or critiqued is antithetical to the true purpose of science. Questioning scientific results is healthy & is supposed to be the norm. These crusaders of scientific "holly writ" are really nothing more than scientific fundamentalists.

[hophead]

I wonder what these alarmists would have said, had they been around, when the glacial ice caps started retreating from as far south as Pennsylvania? (that was long before the industrial revolution) How about when Utah and South Dakota were ocean floor. I guess the fires from Neanderthals was the cause of that. I do think there is global warming, but it is not caused by or controllable by us mere humans.

[NutCrackerBoy]

already posted here

[Trepz]

So since it is a religion, does that mean they can't teach it in public skuls

Now that one cracked me up. Thanks for the laugh.

Maybe some of the lawyers working to combat the anti CHRISTIAN lawyers union will bring that up before a judge. Just imagine the judge faced with such a question.

[GreenFreeper]

ping...

very good article pointing out the hypocracy of some scientists. This is what I have been saying for quite some time!!

"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."

[FBD]

[SNIP]: -"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.

He believes the key to improving the science of climate change lies in altering the way scientists are funded....

...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.

-Lindzen is a professor at MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences.-

---

Ha! Well at last, an honest scientist:
"Hey, we don't have a global warming problem...we just need the funding."

[Rabid Dog]

Great article - and sound bite.

[nmh]

The majority of scientists are atheists. Is it any surprise they push godless evolution? Now the openly mock "religion".

[skeptoid]

"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.

For more on the 30’s and 40’s Arctic warming see:
http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/wca/2004/wca_27b.html

Lots of pages at the Greening Earth Society with solid information. They explain why the sky is not going to fall.

[Marine_Uncle]

Thanks for the ping.

[Marine_Uncle]

Very interesting site. Thanks for reference.
I found the article on supposedly vanishing Krill off the Antartic ice packs signalling a global warming trend most
interesting. Just goes to show once again the agenda set forth by many organizations such as Nature and how the MSM just love to report supposedly good scientific research which is not upon carefull scrutiny found to be so good.
The articles concerning the Artic circle warming where also quite interesting.
Gentle readers that still will view this post, I recommend checking out this site. For me at least it was a bit of an education, not having delved into any scientific literature on this issue.

[ForGod'sSake]

Ha! Well at last, an honest scientist:

At least one that was able to get his voice heard above the "Sky is Falling" crowd. There are lots of 'em out there, they just don't fit the one world gov't agenda and their opinions rarely see the light of day. Seems our friends in the media are either accomplices or willing dupes, or some of both. Puppets, but to whom?

FGS

[FBD]

>"Seems our friends in the media are either accomplices or willing dupes, or some of both. Puppets, but to whom?<"

Maybe it's all just a matter of "religion' to both the media, and the scientists? Lindzen seems to imply that:


..."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,"

[Minuteman23]

...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.

Makes sense to me, which is why it'll never fly. Government doesn't support either "simple" or "logical", both of which this guy is advocating. Thanks for the ping.