Environmentalism Becomes a Death Cult (7)


Taking Responsibility

An all too common response to this line of discussion is what in another context has been called “willful blindness.”  That is, we so desire for our lives to be comfortable and safe that we purposely avoid engagement with information that threatens our sense of security. eyes-coveredWere the descent of environmentalism into genocidal madness the only event of this kind perhaps it could possibly be written off.

But, it is not.  In fact, the entire project of seeking an unearned position of moral superiority has led to similar evil outcomes.  I’ve previously discussed this aspect of the “animal rights” movement among many others.  Were we to create a generalized statement for how to rise to the very top of faux-moral superiority in Western Civilization it might be something like this.

Ultimate moral superiority can only be obtained by taking the position that your civilization, nation, religion, economy, culture and self are so irredeemably evil that they should all cease to exist.

This is the place that we have been willingly, even enthusiastically led by those who hate everything that we hold dear.  And, one of the primary reasons that they have been so successful is that we who know better have chosen to remain silent.  After all, why bother to speak up when those seeking our destruction wield so much social, economic and emotional power?

arnoldjtoynbee1-2xIt has been observed that “civilizations die by suicide, not by murder.”  If we seek the ideological thread that ties together environmentalism, pacifism, animal rights, open borders, abortion, multiculturalism, intersectionality and many other radical movements it is a carefully cultivated civilizational, national and personal self-hatred and consequent suicidal impulse.

Thus, we have been effectively cut off from the Judeo-Christian understanding of humanity (Genesis 1:26-31) …

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.


Valour and Cowardice by
Alfred Stevens (1817-75)

… as well as the Christian assessment of human worth (Romans 5:8):

but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

There are many people in our nation to whom these Biblical passages are falsified by the human ideologies into which they have placed their allegiance.  They work incessantly to convince Christians to abandon their faith so as to align themselves with the misanthropic human ideologies at large in our culture.

So, regardless of the cost, those of us who know better must find the courage to speak up against this rising tide of destruction.  Otherwise our cowardice will testify against us when the time of accounting arrives.

Environmentalism Becomes a Death Cult (6)

cropped-collapseofindustrialcivilizationCrossing the Line

How can you determine that a cult has crossed the line into a death cult?  Surely there are subtle “canary in the mine” ideas and incidents that could predict that such a transformation is occurring.  We’re long past that point.

nyt-human-extinctionNo, there’s no doubt that we’ve entered death cult territory when the most prestigious newspaper in the United States publishes an op-ed titled Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?  The author is Todd May, a professor of philosophy at Clemson University.  His case rests on the ideas discussed in the previous post.

It is humanity that is committing a wrong, a wrong whose elimination would likely require the elimination of the species, but with whom we might be sympathetic nonetheless for reasons I discuss in a moment.

To make that case, let me start with a claim that I think will be at once depressing and, upon reflection, uncontroversial. Human beings are destroying large parts of the inhabitable earth and causing unimaginable suffering to many of the animals that inhabit it.


Human extinction fantasy of a blessed, healed earth

This paragon of morality, this wise and kind man continues to make his case for human extinction.

Unless we believe there is such a profound moral gap between the status of human and nonhuman animals, whatever reasonable answer we come up with will be well surpassed by the harm and suffering we inflict upon animals. There is just too much torment wreaked upon too many animals and too certain a prospect that this is going to continue and probably increase; it would overwhelm anything we might place on the other side of the ledger. Moreover, those among us who believe that there is such a gap should perhaps become more familiar with the richness of lives of many of our conscious fellow creatures. Our own science is revealing that richness to us, ironically giving us a reason to eliminate it along with our own continued existence.

Oh yes, he admits that, as a biased human he has qualms about this conclusion.

It may well be, then, that the extinction of humanity would make the world better off and yet would be a tragedy. I don’t want to say this for sure, since the issue is quite complex. But it certainly seems a live possibility, and that by itself disturbs me.


Oh blessed instrument of human cleansing, rain down upon us!

Well then, given this superior man’s reasoning and conclusions how can we but hope for and support the means necessary to deliver the planet from our evil grip?  Hey, we have the means at hand to pretty completely do the job.  Why not use our nuclear weapons to wipe out humanity?  Ridiculous you say … why, not at all.  Here’s a report on one man’s human genocide fantasy for saving the earth from humans.

… Samuel Miller-McDonald, who writes at The Trouble today that perhaps the only hope for avoiding catastrophic global warming is for a nuclear war to reduce human population and consumption. You need to read the whole thing to appreciate its full dementia, but here is the climax of the argument:

One wrench that could slow climate disruption may be a large-scale conflict that halts the global economy, destroys fossil fuel infrastructure, and throws particulates in the air. At this point, with insane people like Trump, Putin, Xi, May, and Macron leading the world’s biggest nuclear powers, large-scale conflagration between them would probably lead to a nuclear exchange. . .

A devastating fact of climate collapse is that there may be a silver lining to the mushroom cloud. First, it should be noted that a nuclear exchange does not inevitably result in apocalyptic loss of life. Nuclear winter—the idea that firestorms would make the earth uninhabitable—is based on shaky science.  …

It is a stark reflection of how homicidal our economy is—and our collective adherence to its whims—that nuclear war could be a rational course of action.

Note that this evil-minded man doesn’t necessarily want to kill all humans.  Rather he hopes that:

It could provide justification for nationalizing energy industries with the interest of shuttering fossil fuel plants and transitioning to renewables and, uh, nuclear energy. It could shock us into reimagining a less suicidal civilization, one that dethrones the death-cult zealots who are currently in power. And it may toss particulates into the atmosphere sufficient to block out some of the solar heat helping to drive global warming. Or it may have the opposite effects. Who knows?


Environmentalism’s fondest fantasy

But what if this “best case” fantasy begins to seem unlikely?  At that point the earth might be better off if the nuclear war was designed to trigger total human extinction.  Surely with enough and properly targeted bombs we could trigger a “nuclear winter” that eventually kills every single human.

This is not just a death cult, this is a cult that imagines and hopes for the death of most or all human beings, and does so under the pretense of a superior morality.  Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that environmentalism has become a genocide cult.

Is there any point where those of you who thoughtlessly regurgitate whatever environmental talking point is passed down by our politicians and media decide that things have gone too far?  Is there any point where your pursuit of unearned moral superiority is undermined by the gross immorality of your ideology’s conclusions?  I’m seriously asking.


One instance of human extinction pornography from a myriad.

Environmentalism Becomes a Death Cult (5)

Setting the Stage

How does a cult transition into a death cult?  While I don’t claim to have a general answer, for the case of environmentalism it appears to have been converted by a combination of frustration and extreme misanthropy.  The frustration occurred because a solid and persistent majority of the human race has resisted embrace of radical environmental ideology and its proposed policies.  For brainwashed cult members this resistance in the face of “indisputable” facts can only be caused by a combination of stupidity and evil.  This leads directly to misanthropy, since the human race has demonstrated its unworthiness by resisting.

But there is a third factor, that being the earth conceived as a living entity that has been victimized by the human race.  So, the pathetically insane logic of radical environmentalism concludes that this “victim” can only be saved if its incorrigible victimizers are removed.  That genocidal idea has recently transitioned from the radical fringes of environmentalism to its mainstream.  In this post I will trace what appear to be the two primary steps by which this outcome has occurred.  In the following post I will explain why I believe it has entered the mainstream of environmental thought.

Humans are a Virus on Mother Earth

Have you noticed this theme regularly occurring in Hollywood movies?

The Matrix (1999)

While likely not the original, my first experience occurred while watching The Matrix.  Here we encounter a world:

In the near future, a computer hacker nicknamed Neo discovers that all life on Earth may be nothing more than an elaborate facade created by a malevolent cyber-intelligence, for the purpose of placating us while our life essence is “farmed” to fuel the Matrix’s campaign of domination in the “real” world.

humans-are-a-disease-a-virusNear the movie’s climax, Agent Smith, a

super-powerful computer programs devoted to snuffing out Neo and the entire human rebellion

shares his insights with a key character:

Because humans spread to an area, consume the natural resources and, to survive, must spread to another area, Smith says we are not mammals but viruses, the only other creature that acts that way.

So, yes, it is a villain who says this, but one who represents a force so beyond humanity that it has been able to enslave us without our even realizing.  Surely this creates credibility for the idea.

Although there are numerous examples along the way, let’s jump ahead 19 years to document the flowering of this idea into its current misanthropy.

The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)

the-day-the-earth-stood-stillIn this remake of the original:

At a McDonald’s, Klaatu meets with a Mr. Wu. We learn that he is another alien who had been assigned by the same group of alien civilizations to live with the humans for 70 years. Upon learning from him of humanity’s destructive tendencies, Klaatu decides that humans shall be exterminated to ensure that the planet with its rare ability to sustain complex life can survive. Mr. Wu decides to stay on Earth, having seen another side to humanity that he loves. Klaatu can’t see this love so he orders smaller spheres previously hidden on Earth to begin taking animal species off the planet. This is compared to Noah and his ark and the flood that destroys the world.

While humanity is ultimately spared, it is not without a consequence that will warm the heart of radical environmentalists.  The visiting space ship emits:

a massive EMP which destroys GORT, saving humanity, but at the price of Earths technology becoming useless and immobile.

The Happening (2008)

thehappeningposter3_partIn this movie it is not aliens who threaten humanity’s destruction, but rather:

The man suggests to Elliot and Alma that the toxin is produced by plants. He explains the way plants can communicate with other plants, and the way they can release chemicals to get rid of specific pests.

That’s right, Mother Earth has decided that we humans are pests that need to be eradicated.  The ending of this movie does not bode well for the future of we human “pests.”

Humans are No Better (and likely worse) than Animals

love-animals-moreAlthough this idea appears to have germinated in the animal rights movement, it’s easy to see how a denigrated humanity supports our demotion to just another animal.  This idea is undeniably in our cultural mainstream.  For example, the BBC has published an article titled: “Humans are nowhere as special as we like to think.”  The Huffingtonpost has published an article titled: “Top Scientific Minds Declare That We Are Just One Among Many Animals.” And the Boston Globe has published an article that asks: “Why is history always about humans?

be-kind-to-animals-they-are-better-than-humans-32340529Who among us hasn’t talked to people who proudly proclaim our equality (or even inferiority) to animals?  How confident would you be to proclaim humanity’s superiority to animals in a social setting with many people around?  That this idea has penetrated deeply into many people’s consciences can hardly be doubted.


What we are observing here is the mass marketing of human self-hatred.  I have previously discussed the faux-moral superiority sought through hatred of your nation or civilization.  Thus this phenomenon is simply a generalization of this growing psychological aberrancy.  Once the human race has been dethroned from being created “in God’s image” to just another animal or worse, the barrier to imaginging the blessings of our eradication is lowered to the point that it can be crossed without fear of social opprobrium.  In fact, as we shall see in the next post, it now leads to a platform at the top of our social hierarchy.

Decoding Progressivism (10)

Toxic Masculinity Edition


Nancy Pelosi Defends the Honor of Violent MS-13 Gang Members

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi responded to President Trump calling violent MS-13 gang members “animals,” at her weekly press briefing Thursday morning. Pelosi says Trump’s comments as reported are a new low, and make her wonder if the president believes “we are all God’s children” or not.

“When the president of the United States says about undocumented immigrants, ‘these are not people, these are animals,’ you have to wonder, does he not believe in the spark of divinity? In the dignity and worth of every person? ‘These are not people, these are animals,’ from the president of the United States.”

“Every day you think you’ve seen it all, along comes another manifestation of why their policies are so inhumane,” she said.

“Calling people animals is not a good thing,” she said, before ending the news conference and walking out.

Nancy Pelosi Can’t Find a “Spark of Divinity” in Middle Americans who Don’t Vote Democratic

Emphasis added.  Wow.  Surely suburban men are now even worse!  By the way, Progressives now also hate white suburban women.

Scarborough asks her:

But how do Democrats who have the right policies economically. in their minds, how do they reconnect with a middle America who feels like sometimes they are looked down upon because of their faith or their values?

PELOSI: Well, thank you for asking that question because the cultural issue, and especially when it comes to rural America, the isolation that some people feel there, plus they don’t think that Democrats are people of faith, when the fact is that we are. And I say, this will be a little not in keeping with the spirit of the day of unity, but I say they pray in church on Sunday and prey on people the rest of the week, and while we’re doing the Lord’s work by ministering to the needs of God’s creation they are ignoring those needs which is to dishonor the God who made them.

Can there be any doubt why President Trump encouraged the Democrats to re-elect Nancy Pelosi to Speaker of the House?  Please Speaker Pelosi, keep sharing your Progressive Wisdom with us!

So you see, by Nancy Pelosi’s logic it’s not MS-13 gang members who prey on others, but rather church-going middle Americans.  Thanks for so conclusively confirming Peggy Noonan’s statement that “we are patronized by our inferiors.”

President Obama Denies the Source of Islamic Terror

Emphasis added.

This week came news that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant burned alive a Jordanian pilot in a metal cage. … — beheadings, mass murders, rape, human slavery, state sponsorship of terrorism, and military conquest — jihadists are perpetrating in Muhammad’s name. …

Obama has reinforced the left’s proclivity to condemn critics of radical Islam instead of the jihadists who fight in its name.

Only last week, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest and Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz staunchly denied to an incredulous press corps that the Taliban is a terrorist organization. … The purpose of the White House’s ludicrous denial is to hide that the basis of the Taliban’s enmity, strategy, and objectives is a doctrine of Islamic supremacy.

Such suppression is nothing new for the administration. As early as early 2009, it renamed campaigns in the struggle against Islamic extremism “overseas contingency operations.”

Progressive Chris Murphy Explains Away Islamic Terror

Shortly after three men with knives and a van spent eight minutes murdering and maiming people at random on London Bridge, one of the Democratic Party’s leading voices on national security responded on Twitter. Chris Murphy began by criticizing Donald Trump for sounding the alarms. “My god,” he wrote. “@POTUS has no idea that the goal of terrorists is to instill a level of fear in the public disproportionate to the actual threat.” The Connecticut senator tried to put the threat in proper proportion. “Terrorism is a real threat,” he acknowledged, “but remember that since 9/11, you have a greater chance of being killed by a falling object than by terrorists.” Murphy then issued a five-point rebuttal to Trump’s approach to terrorism. He did not issue a five-point plan for defeating falling objects.

Maybe Murphy didn’t do this because falling objects are not equivalent to three men ramming and hacking people to death on London Bridge.

And yet we continue to kowtow to this movement’s presumption of intellectual and moral superiority.  They grow strong through our cowardice.

Environmentalism Becomes a Death Cult (4)

climate-cultEnvironmentalism Becomes a Cult (2)

I’ll begin by sharing a definition of a cult.

great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work

In environmentalism we find its adherents demonstrating “great devotion” to an “idea” (climate change, previously global warming) an “object” (earth) a “movement” (the political project to save the world) and a “work” (the supposedly scientific project to prove that destructive global warming, or climate change, or something really really scary) is occurring.

The First Step to Cult-hood

As long as this movement acknowledged the fact that their hypothesis was falsifiable, they could maintain that their project was scientific.  The first major step away from this position occurred when they began to maintain that “the science was settled.”  The unavoidable fact is that science is never completely “settled.”

In 1633, when the Catholic Church convicted Galileo of heresy, it was “settled science” that the earth was at the center of the universe.  Of course, eventually the empirical data proved that this was not the case, so the position taken by science changed accordingly.


Our computer models aren’t wrong, the world climate is wrong!

In the early 1900’s the Newtonian theory of physics had reigned supreme for centuries.  This was “settled science” if ever there was.  However, it was overthrown by the revolutionary theories of Albert Einstein (i.e., general and special relativity).

And yet, the adherents of environmentalism maintain that a relatively young branch of science, using computer models as its main source of information, has delivered unassailable laws of nature!  By so doing they reveal that they are actually operating as a cult.

Retreat to a Non-Falsifiable Hypothesis

But full cult-hood was not reached until, in 2009, the priests of environmental “science” changed their movement’s name from “global warming” to “climate change.”  By so doing they officially abandoned the pretense that they were investigating a falsifiable hypothesis to embrace a theological, non-falsifiable belief.


Yet another non-emotional, scientific argument for “climate change”!

The benefit is that virtually anything can be blamed on “climate change.”  Is it colder than normal, it’s “climate change!”  Is it warmer than normal, it’s “climate change!”  Are we experiencing a drought, it’s “climate change!”  Is it raining more than average, it’s “climate change!”  Are there more or less hurricanes, it’s “climate change!”  And on and on.

But it gets even more pathetic.  One of the Power Line site’s favorite pass-times is documenting all the insane non-climate things that are blamed on “climate change.”  For example, ebola outbreaks, ISIS and Islamic terrorism, rising and falling water levels in the Great Lakes among many (and equally absurd) others.

My personal favorite is the climate scientists who had to abandon their expensive, long planned expedition to study Arctic ice thinning (due to global warming) by ice thickening…and blamed the fiasco on, you guessed it, “climate change!”

As a practicing Christian I am not against religion.  However, I am against a religious cult masquerading as a scientific endeavor.

That is what has happened to environmentalism.  And, there are real-world consequences to the foisting of this hysteria onto the general public.  A significant portion of people now live in a state of unresolvable guilt for simply existing.  They fret over every thimble of gas consumed, every plastic bottle or straw used.  They think that the world is ending within decades, so are deeply depressed.  They doubt that they should have children.  And, they flee to the politicians who claim to be their saviors but who are actually charlatans who fleece their wealth, freedoms and self-respect.

But this is not the end point.  For, in recent days it has become apparent that environmentalism is transitioning from a mere cult into a death cult.

Environmentalism Becomes a Death Cult (3)


We’re not cult, we’re serious followers of science!

Environmentalism Becomes a Cult (1)

Can a movement that claims to be “scientific” actually be a “cult?”  This post will begin to explain why I think the answer is a definite yes for environmentalism.  Note that at this point I haven’t modified “cult” with “death,” but this will come in good time.

Environmentalism is not “Scientific”

For something to actually be “scientific” it must adhere with reasonable fidelity to the “scientific method.”  Most of the general public who harangue us climate change skeptics have no understanding of the scientific method.  So, I’ll start by the subversive tactic of education.  Here is a good definition of the scientific method.

screen shot 2019-01-08 at 5.15.17 am

Although the entire definition is important to understand I’m going to focus on the key phrase “experimentation to the truth of falseness of the hypothesis.”  A “hypothesis” is defined by Google as:

a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

If the hypothesis of “climate change” or “global warming” were scientifically assessed it would have been discared long ago.  Here are a few reasons why.

Falsified Predictions

One of the most compelling means by which a hypothesis can transition to a credible theory is by demonstration of predictive power.  That is, before an event occurs it can accurately predict the outcome.

More Numerous and Powerful Hurricanes


More frequent and powerful hurricanes are coming due to “global warming”!  What?  Never mind, nothing to see here!

Do you remember the hysteria-mongering of the “global warming” community following the tragic Hurricane Katrina disaster?  Let this remind you.

“I think the biggest lesson from Katrina a year later is that those same ingredients, you know, a city below sea level hit by a major hurricane, will be replicated by global warming all along our Atlantic and Gulf Coast lines,” Tidwell said on August 24, 2006.

CBS anchor Russ Mitchell predicted that there would be “continued high levels of hurricane activity and high levels of hurricane landfalls for the next decade or perhaps even longer.” “For years now, experts have been saying we’ve entered a period of increased hurricane activity that may last a long time.” (September 22, 2005)

On September 18, 2005, Nightly News anchor John Seigenthaler said, “scientists studying the earth’s climate say we are experiencing stronger hurricanes in this century, a trend that’s likely to continue.”

So, these climate scientists were undeniably making predictions based on their theories of global warming.  So, you might ask, how accurate were their predictions?

As the years passed, the more obvious it was that fewer major hurricanes were hitting land. In April 2015, the American Geophysical Union reported that the United States has been in a nine year Atlantic hurricane landfall drought. A record low. AGU said, “Such a remarkable ‘hurricane drought’ has never been seen before – since records began in 1851 … the last major hurricane – of Category 3 or higher – to make landfall in the U.S. was Hurricane Wilma in 2005.”

So, did the climate change community own up to this pathetic predictive failure?  No, they simply pretended it never happened and hoped the rest of us would not notice.

The Ice Caps are Disappearing


Look! A polar bear is on ice!  That’s irrefutable scientific proof for “global warming”!

The “climate change” hysterics have also been predicting that “global warming” is causing the polar ice caps to melt.  However, in 2015 data from NASA satellites debunked this prediction.

Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.


We were prevented from proving that the ice caps are melting by unexpectedly thick ice!  But it’s because of “climate change”!

We also have what could go under reality making satire obsolete, as scientists saying into the arctic ice sheet to prove it is melting…but with embarrassing results.

Scientists who cancelled their Arctic expedition due to thick ice conditions haves an interesting excuse for why they had to abandon their research project — climate change. …

Barber’s expedition set out in late May after being caught in 25-foot thick ice off the northern coast of Newfoundland. The expedition was forced to turn back after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for a four-year project to study the effects of global warming on Hudson Bay.

Now, Barber and fellow researchers are blaming their botched expedition on global warming, or climate change, as they call it.

Their evidence? Not much, except the opinions of some scientists involved — at least, The Guardian didn’t present any evidence otherwise. The paper just assumed climate change was the culprit.

So, did the climate change community own up to this pathetic predictive failure?  No, they simply pretended it never happened and hoped the rest of us would not notice.

Global Temperature is Significantly Rising

The very term “global warming” contains a falsifiable hypothesis.  For, if the empirical data shows that the earth isn’t actually warming at anything near the rate predicted (or even at all) then the hypothesis has been disproved.    And, wouldn’t you know it, scientists have been publishing peer-reviewed papers at a high rate that are not supportive of the “global warming hypothesis.”

temperatures-global-real-proxy-steiger-17Last year there were at least 60 peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals demonstrating that Today’s Warming Isn’t Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable.
Just within the last 5 months, 58 more papers and 80 new graphs have been published that continue to undermine the popularized conception of a slowly cooling Earth temperature history followed by a dramatic hockey-stick-shaped uptick, or an especially unusual global-scale warming during modern times.
Yes, some regions of the Earth have been warming in recent decades or at some point in the last 100 years. Some regions have been cooling for decades at a time. And many regions have shown no significant net changes or trends in either direction relative to the last few hundred to thousands of years.
Succinctly, then, scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals have increasingly affirmed that there is nothing historically unprecedented or remarkable about today’s climate when viewed in the context of long-term natural variability.

This is a big problem for “global warming” hysterics.  The real world data wasn’t following the predictions of their computer models (recall the discussion in this post).  Something had to be done to keep the multi-billion dollar government funded gravy train running.

So, between 2008 and 2009 the previously dominant term “global warming” was replaced by a new dominant term, “climate change.”  And, as I’ll discuss in the next post, this is when all pretense to “science” was dropped and environmentalism became a cult.

Environmenrtalisn Becomes a Death Cult (2)


Just another carefully reasoned, dispassionate argument for the credibility of climate science!

Scientific / Technical Ignorance in Advanced Western Society (2)

Computer Simulation Challenges

How many people in the general public know that the entire theory of destructive “global warming” rests on the output of computer simulations of the earth’s climate?  Surely it is a small minority.  How many people in the general public know even the most rudimentary facts about how a computer simulation is constructed, what are its limitations and how to judge the credibility of its results?  A tiny minority is clearly the case.

earth-computer-modelI actually know quite a bit about this general area having managed development of a comprehensive and sophisticated commuter simulation of wireless systems.  Mind you I am not claiming knowledge of world climate computer modeling.  However, it is certainly true that the understanding of wireless system operation is massively more mature and certain than that concerning the earth’s climate.  It is also true that the scope and complexity of a wireless system computer simulation is a tiny fraction of that required for world climate.  Therefore, were it the case that even for much simpler wireless system models there were deep, intractable issues concerning evaluation of the credibility and accuracy of their results, this would then also apply to earth climate modeling.

It turns out that there were major issues concerning credibility and accuracy.  Other groups in the company developed their own computer simulations.  Since a multitude of engineering decisions had to be made on model application and parameter settings these models didn’t always agree.  Given that for each group professional ego and future funding was at stake it became impossible to resolve these differences.  This failure significantly undermined senior leadership confidence, as tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in contractual performance were regularly in the balance.

If, due to the often unpredictable and chaotic behavior of wireless signals propagating in the real world (among many other issues), it was exceedingly difficult to assess the credibility and accuracy of wireless system simulators, then the difficulty is massively more for assessing earth climate simulations.

The difference is that, whereas with the wireless company incentives of profit/loss pressed towards truthful resolution, in “climate change” all incentives press towards ignoring these issues.  For the scientific community future funding is directly dependent on the belief that the results are true.  For the media, profit and influence are maximized by reporting terrifying results.  And for the funding politicians future political power is directly related to frightening the general public into voting for more government power to address the “problem.”  Thus, although there are huge issues with the credibility and accuracy of computer climate modeling, their discussion is effectively suppressed by all of the interest’s groups who benefit from climate hysteria.


Global Cooling, Global Warming, Climate Change … It really doesn’t matter so long as the general public is panicked into ceding more power to our elite caste.

Yes, I know that I’ll now be branded a “climate denier.”  But then, when all the opposition has is character assassination you can be sure that the facts aren’t on their side.  I’ll also point out that 90+% of those making this accusation don’t know the first thing about the actual scientific method, let alone computer modeling or climate science.  But, when you terrify people with incredible claims what can be expected other than emotion overriding critical thinking and common sense?

Environmentalism Becomes a Death Cult (1)

environmental-death-cultOpening Comments

Over the years of this blog I’ve rarely addressed the area of environmentalism.  Although I may have commented as an aside somewhere, the only post specifically dedicated to this topic is this one.  This lack of coverage isn’t due to a lack of interest or attention on my part.  Rather, I simply always had higher priority topics to address.  However, now that there is a Democrat majority in the U.S. House of Representatives it appears that radical environmentalism will become a major political issue.  Therefore, it’s time to comment at some length.

I will eventually directly address the “death cult” issue.  But, if you will grant me your patience I’d like to begin a couple of steps back.

Scientific / Technical Ignorance in Advanced Western Society (1)

We live at a time when the wondrous benefits (not a universally accepted description) of science and technology have been made available to mass-market consumers.  One of the most visible and utilized is wireless communication technology.


The author in discussions after presenting at the International Symposium for Development of Radio Resources in Tokyo, Japan (2008)

I’m focusing here because it is an area in which I am highly knowledgable.  I have had an almost four-decade career in technical and business areas of the wireless industry.  I worked for 27 years at what was then a dominant U.S. based wireless systems company, starting as an engineer and eventually becoming a senior technical leader.  I was a primary technical contributor (with a dozen issued U.S. patents) to the first fully digital wireless system (virtually all current wireless systems are digital) designed by that company, which became a highly successful, long running product line.  I have represented this company at national and international forums, communicating technical information on cutting-edge wireless system research.  I’m not sharing this to brag, but rather to explain that I actually do know a tremendous amount about this area.

Therefore, prior to discussing environmental science (an area in which I am certainly not an expert), I will comment on the general situation in the area where I certainly am.  I trust that this discussion will be useful for illuminating some of the key issues associated with the general public’s understanding of and policy prescriptions for environmentalism.

Uninformed Emotional Responses

People who don’t know anything about a given technology but who have become paranoid about their health can respond irrationally.  I came across this response at least twice in my career.

In one case, a group in Scandinavia opposed installation of a cellular site in their neighborhood.  Their concern wasn’t aesthetic, but rather that since the antenna “looked big” it was a cancer concern.  Little did they know that the electro-magnetic field strength caused by the site was tiny compared to that of a cell phone operating near their body.  But they felt otherwise due to an uninformed emotional response.  Note that cell phones have been shown by a multitude of substantial medical experiments to pose no risk of cancer.


Field strength plot using a color temperature scale (see left-side of the figure).

In a second case I was presenting to a regional director of the Department of Transportation on ad-hoc wireless technology.  We used a color temperature chart to plot electro-magnetic field strength on a road grid.  It is normal practice to plot the highest strength signals in red (the “hot” color) and lowest in blue (the “cool” color).  When I put up the chart the director said something to the effect of “So you’re saying that I’d get cancer on the red streets?”  Of course, this was utterly ridiculous.  However, due to their powerful emotional response the entire presentation became useless.

If you take all the false claims of cancer risk from cellular systems and multiply them by one-million then you may get close to the level of emotion-directed fear mongering that has been applied to “global warming” / “climate change” theory.  The resulting emotional chaos in the general public is thus not surprising.

A New Reformation (4)

New-Reformation-ComponentsSeven Components of a New Reformation (Part 3)

This post completes the summaries.

7. Transformed church governance

It appears that every form of church governance, from highly hierarchical (e.g., Catholic) to highly democratic (e.g., Congregational) and everything in-between has been corrupted by secular ideology.  Nor does it seem likely that any established denomination will agree to change their existing form of governance.

Obviously I’m in no position to comment on denominations beyond the PCUSA.  However, significant light can be shed by this experience to suggest some general conclusions.

The fundamental point about the demise of the PCUSA is that it was an act of “murder” as opposed to “suicide.”  By these (shocking I expect) metaphors I mean that the rank and file members resisted the apostasy of the leadership for decades.  In fact, it appears that it was only by subversion of the governance process that the leadership was able to gain the upper hand.  The “fingerprint” of this betrayal can be seen in the following figure.


The 2006 Subversion

Note that from 1999 through 2006 the number of churches “dismissed” (i.e., exited the denomination) was negligible. Over this same time period we see a general increase in the number of members lost. However, in 2008 the number of dismissed churches and lost members became significantly worse than the general trend would lead one to expect.  Did anything happen in the PCUSA to cause this or was it simply random variation?  It was the former.

Here is the report of a pastor on the 2006 General Assembly that tells the tale (emphasis added).

A number of years ago our denomination’s constitution was amended to limit ordination to those who are faithful in marriage, which is between one man and one woman, or chaste in singleness. This wording was approved by a majority of the regional bodies, and re-approved twice by larger majorities each time. At the time it was added it was not a new limitation, but made explicit an understanding that had historically been practiced within the denomination (and for that matter in nearly all Christian denominations).

What made the PUP Report unconscionable was that it amends the denominational constitution by an unconstitutional process. It by-passed the regional bodies whose approval is required by the constitution itself. It is as though the U. S. Constitution were to be amended by a simple majority vote of Congress, by-passing the states. Advocates of the ordination of ineligible people, unable to change the constitution, proposed to “interpret” it by altering the meaning of the phrase “shall not” so that it from now on it means “may.” A prohibition was changed by interpretation into permission, because the advocates of change could not muster the votes to pass an amendment.

If you think that this description is a partisan distortion, note that it was confirmed by a national news source.

Like other mainline Protestant groups, Presbyterians have been debating for decades how they should interpret Scripture on salvation, truth, sexuality and other issues.

But tensions erupted after a June 2006 meeting, when delegates granted new leeway in some cases for congregations and regional presbyteries to sidestep a church requirement that clergy and lay officers limit sex to man-woman marriage.

Note that this subversion of church governance occurred after the “wording [on sexual requirements for leadership] was approved by a majority of the regional bodies, and re-approved twice by larger majorities each time.”  The conclusion is unavoidable, that being the elite leadership chose to use corrupt means to get their way in direct contradiction of the denomination’s clear and legitimate will.

Illegitimate Victory

The loss of membership that followed the 2006 coup eventually allowed the Progressives to gain the upper hand.  Here’s how I have previously described this process.

But because they had jettisoned the Bible and Confessions, other means of achieving their ends had to be found.  Those means were abuse of the PCUSA’s rules, turning their democratic assumptions into cudgels by which to beat any opposition into submission.  This was accomplished by making life miserable for any majority that opposed their radical ends, and eventually, to drive them out of the church.

The result has been a PCUSA transformed from a Christian denomination to something completely foreign.

The elite Progressive strategic goal was always to deceive, discredit, demoralize and ultimately destroy any and all opposition from orthodox-minded Christians.

In this cruel goal they have succeeded.  Now they undisputedly control the PCUSA.  To accomplish this end they have made it into a theological laughing stock and a pathetic little appendage to the secular Progressive political machine.  And, having illegitimately achieved this position they now demand that those of us in opposition shut up or leave.

Lessons Learned

What lessons in church governance can we take from the appalling experience?  I suggest the following as a starting point for reform, once again with a focus on the PCUSA.

  1. A semi-permeant denominational bureaucracy, centered in our Presbyteries and General Assembly, was allowed to grow too powerful over the past fifty years or so.  They became the core, unstoppable force that sustained unwanted movements over the decades of theological/political warfare necessary to grind down opposition.  This class of nomenklatura has virtually no allegiance to Christianity as a lived faith and total allegiance to the diktats  of secular Progressive ideology.  Therefore, any reformed form of denominational governance must dissolve this power base and prevent its regrowth.
  2. As much as I love our historic (i.e., pre-1968) Confessions it must be admitted that they have proved ineffective as defensible boundaries for orthodox theology.  One obvious issue is their age, thus rendering their language almost incomprehensible to contemporary minds.  But a second major issue is their scope, comprehensiveness and number.  That is, they are so all-encompassing and complex, so many in number, that the core doctrines of Christianity become difficult to discern.  Thus, though they must not be lost, we need a simpler, clearer definition of orthodox Christian doctrine upon which to build a reformed church.
  3. Financial accountability must be reestablished between our governing and educational institutions and the laity.  Therefore, financial support must move from the current “Per-Capita” involuntary tax to a voluntary system of local church support.  By this means our institutions would have to “earn their keep” by demonstrating their effectiveness and efficiency.

Clearly the above ideas are short on implementation detail.  However, unless we identify the top-level goals of reformed governance the whole process can be easily derailed.

A New Reformation (3)

New-Reformation-ComponentsSeven Components of a New Reformation (Part 2)

This post continues the summaries began in the previous post.

4. Separation of theology and ideology

Over the past sixty years Christian theology has been fragmented into many ideology-driven paths.  For example we have feminist, liberation, queer, environmental, black, social gospel, pacifist, postmodern and many more.  These theologies explicitly embrace a human-derived ideology as their foundational organizing principle.

However, the invasion of ideology into Christian theology is far broader and deeper.  For, when we investigate the work of Mainline Protestant denominations we find an almost perfect correlation in time and focus area between theological output and secular Progressive ideology.  In fact it’s worse than that, because it is clearly secular Progressivism that sets the agenda for supposedly Christian denominational leaders.

This corruption of theology by human ideology has deeply undermined the credibility of Christianity, both for those inside and outside of the church.  Although there will always be different theologies, we must find our way back to arguing about what the Bible teaches rather than how to align theology with human ideological movements.

5. Social and cultural engagement

Some Christians have proposed social and cultural isolation as the model, the most prominent example being The Benedict Option.  While I too long for an ark into which to flee, the growth of the state in scope and power makes such a move impractical.  Yes, the secular barbarians may continue to leave the Amish alone.  But they will surely continue their assault on religious freedom with unabated vigor against the rest of the Church.

Our best hope is to reengage with the culture as unapologetic Christians.  We should not try to create our own ghettoized sub-culture, but rather invade the institutions of entertainment, ideas, information and education.  Yes, we will be hated and powerfully resisted.  However, we must hold fast to the promise that God has made through the Gospel.  I believe that throughout our institutions of cultural power there are people whose lives are empty of true hope and meaning.  With God’s providential power as our source of confidence we can unashamedly make our case for Christ in the most hostile of domains.  Even if we should fail in the near term, who can say what God will do in the long term with the fruits of this Christian cultural labor?

Through the Gospel we can offer true hope and renewal to a broken, darkened world.  Let’s go forth with that faith, hope and love as our shield and sword.

6. Christ centered ecumenicalism

There will always be theological and denominational differences among Christians.  However, if we can’t unite around a core set of beliefs we will continued to be divided and conquered by the secular world.  We will also continue to be undermined internally by false teachers who leverage the unavoidable fact of doctrinal disagreement into “anything goes” theologies that deny and contradict Christ’s Gospel.

Perhaps it is the two “ecumenical creeds,” those being the Apostles and Nicene around which we can attempt such a unification.  These creeds are already accepted by most denominations (I apologize to my Catholic and Orthodox friends for this generalized term).  The point here isn’t to limit Christianity to its lowest common denominator, but rather to agree on a common set of essential beliefs that sit at Christianity’s core.  By so doing we can find common ground upon which to fight back against the forces of secular tyranny and religious heresy that seeks to destroy Christianity.