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.


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.