Decoding Progressivism (12)


Do you really want to bet your future on the “Democratic Socialists” who, as Senator Mike Lee said, “want Americans to trust them to reorganize our entire society and economy … when they couldn’t even figure out how to send out the right press release.”

Climate Catastrophe 😱 Edition

Representative Ocasio-Cortez tells us that “the world is gonna end in 12 years” because of climate change:

“Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us, are looking up, and we’re like: ‘The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?”

And, aside from turning the United States of America into the Union of Socialist States of America, it has been credibly estimated that the Green New Deal (GND) will cost at least 93 trillion dollars over ten years.  That’s one-half of the United States’ 2017 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) every year for ten years!  In other words add the current $4.7 trillion annual Federal spending (this excludes state and local government spending) to the $9.3 trillion GND to get an annual Federal budget of 14 trillion dollars, or 70% of our annual GDP.

Now, for all you Progressives who would rather  be “morally” correct than “factually” correct, please consider that GDP is not just all the personal income generated by the U.S. economy in a year.  Rather it is:

… the monies spent by the different groups that participate in the economy. For instance, consumers spend money to buy various goods and services, and businesses spend money as they invest in their business activities, by buying machinery, for instance. Governments also spend money. All these activities contribute to the GDP of a country.

Screen Shot 2019-04-02 at 7.48.14 AM

Total Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) data for 1980 – 2015 from the IRS. For you Progressives and Democratic Socialists (but I repeat myself) this is the basis for a “factual” argument.  But don’t worry, your “moral” correctness will magically create the wealth to pull this off!

In 2015 the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimated that the total reported personal Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) in the United States was $10.1 trillion.  Thus, were the Green New Deal and current federal government commitments funded by the income tax then every single cent of all AGI (i.e., from every taxpayer in the U.S., not just the top 1%) would have to be taken.  The only additional source for the over $4 trillion annual revenue shortfall  would be to seize vast sectors of the U.S. economy, which would amount to Communist-style collectivization.

But don’t worry “Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us,” nothing consequential to your personal freedom or standard of living will change.  Just look to the case of Venezuela to see a recent example of how well this will all work out (i.e., total civilizational collapse).

And so, given the imminent end, surely our woke Democratic Party will spring into action to save the world “for the children!” Well, not exactly.


The Gen Z group at least has the credible excuse of having been educated by a cadre of credentialed ideological know-nothings.  What’s the excuse for these much older Democratic Presidential candidates?  Oh yea, it’s that total Socialist power thing.

Making Sense of Progressive Nonsense (6)

North Korea Edition

The promised Progressive future is (NOT) bright!


This is not satire, it’s making a serious point.  Progressives, please try to think about it.

It’s almost impossible to believe, but Representative Ocasio-Cortez is celebrating the loss of 25,000 direct Amazon jobs and all of the ancillary jobs that its headquarter would have created.  Note: “worker exploitation” to a Democratic Socialist is defined as a “private sector job.”


The following was almost inevitable.


O.K., I’m willing to still call this satire.  It’s not quite dead yet!


Making Sense of Progressive Nonsense (5)


This in meant as satire, but is it really?

Environmental Death Cult meets Satire Killed by Reality meets Questions for Socialists meets Intentions vs. Results in the Green New Deal


Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

This an embarrassing, pathetic and dangerous time for our republic.  We have reached the point at which a 29 year-old know-nothing/wrongthing can be elected to Congress who believes that her ideological purity literally enables the fundamental physical transformation of the United States from fossil fuel based to green energy based within 12 years.  The Green New Deal document, released and then pulled yesterday, was pre-supported by most of the Democrat presidential candidates.

Others have provided the necessary assessment of this dingbattery. Following are comments on just a few of the too many cringe-inducing ideas in this document.

  • Ban cars. To be fair, under the GND, everyone will need to retrofit their cars with Flintstones-style foot holes or pedals for cycling. The authors state that the GND would like to replace every “combustion-engine vehicle” — trucks, airplanes, boats, and 99 percent of cars — within ten years. Charging stations for electric vehicles will be built “everywhere,” though how power plants will provide the energy needed to charge them is a mystery.
  • Gut and rebuild every building in America. Markey and Cortez want to “retrofit every building in America” with “state of the art energy efficiency.” I repeat, “every building in America.” That includes every home, factory, and apartment building, which will all need, for starters, to have their entire working heating and cooling systems ripped out and replaced with…well, with whatever technology Democrats are going invent in their committee hearings, I guess.
  • Eliminate air travel. GND calls for building out “highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.” Good luck Hawaii! California’s high-speed boondoggle is already in $100 billion dollars of debt, and looks to be one of the state’s biggest fiscal disasters ever. Amtrak runs billions of dollars in the red (though, as we’ll see, trains will also be phased out). Imagine growing that business model out to every state in America?

My personal favorite for absurdity is this (emphasis added):

We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.

Strassel-Green-DealBur for sheer infuriation this item may be the tops (emphasis added).

  • Build on FDR’s second bill of rights by guaranteeing: …
    • Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work

The fact that this bizarre screed was received with almost universal mockery and disbelief gives me cold comfort.  Yes, I understand that the Green New Deal has exactly zero chance to become law.  However, the following facts bode ill for our future.

  1. Our educational system has delivered people who are simultaneously so ignorant and so confident.
  2. There were enough people in a Congressional district to elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to the U.S. House of Representatives.
  3. As stated in the Los Angeles Times: “Equally notable, however, was the list of who signed on — most of the major Democratic presidential candidates in the race so far.”  Thus the supposedly most seasoned and serious Democrat politicians, either by cowardly submission or true-belief, supported this proposal.
  4. Ocasio-Cortez and company wrote and released this document based on their ideological fantasies that by simply believing so completely and having such good intentions they were sure to be right in all that was contained therein.

mazie_hirono_hawaii_aoc_green_new_deal_2_7-19-1-800x489They must have been shocked by the response.  Even a natural ally like Senator Mazie Hirono couldn’t help but point out an obvious logical flaw.  For these reasons Representative Ocasio-Cortez took down the web page that had previously held the Green New Deal FAQ document.

So how do I justify my title?  Here’s how.

Environmental Death Cult

While I’m absolutely sure that it isn’t intended (see below), were the Green New Deal ever actually implemented it would make the Ukrainian Famine caused by the Russian Communists look like a minor event.  Who can doubt that, as reliable, plentiful and affordable fossil fuels are ripped away and “replaced” by unreliable, scarce and prohibitively expensive “green energy,” tens, even hundreds of millions of Americans would die from cold/heat, starvation and social  chaos as the nation’s economy collapsed?

Satire Killed by Reality

I may have to give this topic up.  I simply don’t see how anything else could occur in reality that is so far beyond what could be imagined by the greatest satirical minds (oh please let this be true).  Progressivism has now surely killed satire.

Questions for Socialists

In my series of this name I attempted to force our Socialists to address obvious but unasked questions.  In order to implement the Green New Deal the United States would have to succumb to totalitarian Socialism.  So, here’s my question based on the Green New Deal:

How is it that a political movement that claims to be the vanguard of intellectual and moral thought could generate such an absurd proposal that is so widely supported within the Progressive movement?

Intentions vs. Results

The Green New Deal is a pinnacle of “good intentions” replacing “good results” (see all of the above).  This is the end result of the “participation trophy,” “self-esteem,” and “education by ideology” culture that we have allowed to grow over the past thirty years.  Yes, I blame those among us who have successfully pushed these ideas into our educational system and mass media.

However those of us who knew better but chose to remain silent and passive in the face of this onslaught must also accept responsibility for this situation.  The day is growing late, we must decide if it’s more important to ruffle the feathers of people pushing destructive ideas or protect our nation from the chaos that they would cause.


A political movement that knows nothing and forgets nothing is highly unlikely to be deterred by an abject failure.  They are true believers in their intellectual and moral superiority, so they can’t ultimately be proven wrong by actual events (e.g., most recently, Socialism in Venezuela).

Environmentalism Becomes a Death Cult (8)

culture+shock+deathwishClosing Thoughts

How did we go from a movement that sought to create a cleaner, safer environment for human beings to one that fantasizes about their extinction?  A starting point for understanding is the observation that the trajectory of environmentalism fits a pattern.  That is, many of the the people (perhaps a plurality) who inhabit Western Civilization have been convinced in general that their civilization’s sins are so heinous that it deserves to die.  And, that they, as beneficiaries of that civilization bear those sins in their persons as unearned, even stolen privilege.  Therefore their very lives and those of their fellows are not worth valuing or defending.

Look, for example, at the Open Borders movement.  What these people are literally saying is that the seven-billion people who live outside of the United States and European Union have the innate, absolute right to not only immigrate here, but also to be socially and financially supported by those already here.  This position is nothing other than a civilizational death wish made practical by immigration policies.

screen shot 2019-01-29 at 4.51.02 am

The Progressive Left’s attitude about the lives of their fellow citizens on display.

Of course this idea doesn’t envision our actual deaths, but rather our nation’s and culture’s death.  However, there is plenty of the murderous that will occur as our nation collapses into chaos.  This certainty causes not the slightest concern in our moral betters who demand this path be taken, as they imagine that they will sit atop this new world, thus living as well or better than they do now.  For those who suffer the consequences, well, they’re just finally getting what they richly deserve.

The underlying psychological cause of this guilt in the general population was brilliantly summarized in an essay titled “The Strange Persistence of Guilt,” by Dr. Wilfred M. McClay in The Hedgehog Review.

art-sd_guiltWhat makes the situation dangerous for us, as Fredriksen observes, is not only the fact that we have lost the ability to make conscious use of the concept of sin but that we have also lost any semblance of a “coherent idea of redemption,” the idea that has always been required to accompany the concept of sin in the past and tame its harsh and punitive potential. The presence of vast amounts of unacknowledged sin in a culture, a culture full to the brim with its own hubristic sense of world-conquering power and agency but lacking any effectual means of achieving redemption for all the unacknowledged sin that accompanies such power: This is surely a moral crisis in the making—a kind of moral-transactional analogue to the debt crisis that threatens the world’s fiscal and monetary health. The rituals of scapegoating, of public humiliation and shaming, of multiplying morally impermissible utterances and sentiments and punishing them with disproportionate severity, are visibly on the increase in our public life. They are not merely signs of intolerance or incivility, but of a deeper moral disorder, an Unbehagen that cannot be willed away by the psychoanalytic trick of pretending that it does not exist.

This is the description of a culture in which the affected members feel guilt-ridden about every possible ill that exists in this fallen world because they have been convinced that it all can somehow be traced back to them as the prime cause.  Therefore, they have no right to defend their right to exist.

But we can’t leave uncommented upon the misanthropy of the elite Progressive class that uses these ideologies of self-destruction to obtain and hold power.  Victor Davis Hanson, in an article titled “A License to Hate,” provided a dozen specific examples of elite hatred of and invective against a plurality of their fellow citizens.  He concluded with these thoughts.

screen shot 2019-01-29 at 7.08.21 am

Rick Wilson characterized Donald Trump’s supporters as his “credulous rube ten-toothed base” on CNN

What does all this hate speech signify?

One, there is terrible frustration among both the progressive Left (and the Never Trump Right whose luminaries have mused about replacing a supposed spent white working class with purportedly more energetic immigrants). So far Trump has not been stopped. His foreign and domestic agendas often find success and resonate with about 40-45 percent of the American people. Much of the uncouthness, then, reflects their own frustrations and sense of alienation that millions of Americans have tuned them out.

Second, most of the slurs are voiced by elites, especially politicos, journalists, and celebrities. Perhaps their angst is driven by class—as in how can their own superior logic and reasoning fail to resonate with 63 million voters? Answer: Trump voters are hopelessly obtuse to the point that they cannot even take care of their own personal hygiene or are now descending into simian status.


Jim Carey tweeted a picture of Trump supporters as apes who have devolved from MAGA hat wearing humans

Third, cowardice plays a role. Those who slander the deplorables and irredeemables assume that they can say almost anything and expect no pushback, given the white working classes lack the romance of the poor and the supposed panache of the elite. A race to the bottom develops in which the more the hatred, the more the clicks and the media exposure. Minority critics expect their own identity politics affiliations to shield them from criticism. Wealthy white elites virtue-signal their disgust for those without privilege as a way of ensuring that those like themselves, who most certainly enjoy privilege, are rewarded with ideological exemptions for it.

Finally, we are learning that the entire idea of political correctness was never much about universal ideas of tolerance of the other, or insistence that language and protocols must not stigmatize individuals by lumping them into stereotyped and dehumanized collective groups.  What we are witnessing, instead, is that it is fine to demonize millions, from their appearance to their purported hygiene and smell to affinities with feces and apes—if it serves political or cultural agendas.

In sum, cultural progressivism is about raw power, not principle.

How large of a step is it between visceral, dehumanizing hatred of fellow Americans and concluding that the world would be a much better place without their evil influence?  Let’s hope that we are not on our way to finding out.

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.

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?