Revisit Global Bla Bla: Religion Rejecting Science

Daily Caller News Foundation

MIT professor: global warming is a ‘religion’

4:57 PM 08/29/2013

inShare5

tasch

• 
  

• 5
  inShare
• 2

Throughout history, governments have twisted science to suit a political agenda. Global warming is no different, according to Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

“Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly. It has also been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions,” writes Lindzen in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

According to Lindzen, scientists make essentially “meaningless” claims about certain phenomenon. Activists for certain causes take up claims made by scientists and politicians respond to the alarmism spread by activists by doling out more research funding. — creating an “Iron Triangle” of poor incentives.

“How can one escape from the Iron Triangle when it produces flawed science that is immensely influential and is forcing catastrophic public policy?” Lindzen asks.

Lindzen compares global warming to past politicized scientific movements: the eugenics movement in the early 20th Century and Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union under Stalin. However, the MIT professor argues that global warming goes even beyond what these past movements in terms of twisting science.

“Global Warming has become a religion,” writes Lindzen. “A surprisingly large number of people seem to have concluded that all that gives meaning to their lives is the belief that they are saving the planet by paying attention to their carbon footprint.”

“There may be a growing realization that this may not add all that much meaning to one’s life, but, outside the pages of the Wall Street Journal, this has not been widely promulgated, and people with no other source of meaning will defend their religion with jihadist zeal,” he added.

President Obama announced his plan to tackle global warming this summer.

“I refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that’s beyond fixing,” Obama said. “And that’s why, today, I’m announcing a new national climate action plan, and I’m here to enlist your generation’s help in keeping the United States of America a leader — a global leader — in the fight against climate change.”

A recently leaked report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims there is a 95 percent chance that human activity — mostly from burning fossil fuels — is the main cause of global warming.

However, there has been no rise in global temperatures for the past 15 years.

Tags: Global Warming,

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/29/mit-professor-global-warming-is-a-religion/#ixzz2dafs222W

---

Since people measure facts by who reports them, here is Lindzen:

VITAE  He doesn't work for the UN, but did complain his name was used as supporting that global warming Chinese menu of consensus. He didn't.

SPEECH  "Deconstructing Global Warming."

Core Issue; Intentional destruction of families by the left

For the second day running, the bulk of what I wrote vanished in Blogger.  It has a great feature that when you cut an paste, if you touch the left margin, the entire section above is highlighted and vanishes when your picky touches return.  You can't get it back.  Brilliant.


So, in mild disgust, let me recap as my view of a core issue in America. This is an important entry, so work through it. I could have broken it up, but read the whole thing.  You would have loved the first version.


I started with the recollection of a recent report that says, using me as a standard, being "1", people in the late thirties and forties are a "4" in the category of expectations. Today's college students are a "10".  Employers reading this know what is going on.  Where did this sense of entitlement come from, even as the competence of graduates plummets? 


In the LBJ era, Senator Moynihan was raised from obscurity as a scrivener in the bowels of government with the small, in-house printing of his "The Case for National Action." Moynihan was warning people about the social consequences of the destruction of the family.  He was raised by his mother.  His figures on children born without a father around:

1950:  Blacks - 18%   Whites - 3.5% (I think)  Harlem:  43%

1960:  Blacks - 60%   Whites - 26% 

Today's numbers:

2008:  Blacks - 72.3%    Whites - 40.6%

Moynihan, an old-school Democrat:

...a community that allows a large number of men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring rational expectations about the future - that comunity asks for and gets chaos.

The black community is starting to get it. 


This astounding destruction of the American culture was easily accomplished with the help of the Democrats, TV, schools, and movies. The thrust, narrowed to a headline, was "free love" and "bad priests." The actions taken by the left are designed and don't need central conspiracy to direct action. This is the original asymmetrical warfare. 

Behind their actions is the ancient words of Karl Marx, The Frankfurt School, etc.  These people have been quietly executing a plan to destroy western culture, family, religion, and economics.  If you think this is overblown, consider you are the frog in the pot of water gradually being heated until the frog dies.  


For God's sake stop listening to talking heads and put the current governmental actions into historical perspective. Anyway, sorry, back to the narrative. You can "Google" all this.  


When Hitler came to power, the Frankfurt school left Germany and settled in NY, a smart idea for Jewish Marxists. They established a formal relationship with Columbia University (get it, yet?). They went back after the capitalists beat Hitler, having established New York City as patient zero. 


You would have enjoyed my essay, but here is the bottom line.  Marx believes the family must be destroyed because it is the result of capitalism and, itself, causes exploitation of children by their parent.  I quote from the Communist Manifesto to show I am not setting up a straw dog to mock:

...What is the present family based on?  On capitalism, the acquisition of private property.  It exists in all of its meaning only for the bourgeoisie, but it finds its complement in the enforced lack of families of the proletarians and public prostitution.

The family of the (41) bourgeois naturally falls by the way-side with this, its complement, and both will vanish when capitalism vanishes.

Are you accusing us that we want to end the exploitation by parents of their children?  We confess to that crime.

But, you say, we abolish the closest relationships, by putting social education in place of the domestic one.

And, isn't your education, too, determined through society?  Through the social circumstances, within whose scope (42) you educate, through the direct or indirect involvement of society, by means of the education system, etc.?  The communists are not inventing the influence of society on education, they are only changing its character, they tear education away from the influence of the ruling class.

The common turns of speech about family and education, about the close relationships of parents and children become the more revolting the more as a result of burgeoning industrial development the family ties for the proletarian are torn apart and children are simply transformed into articles of trade and instruments of labour....

Marcuse of the Frankfurt School in his "Eros and Civilization" provides the theoretical basis for twisted, sexually disturbed Germans (see Freud, Jung, Hitler etc etc) to engage in irresponsible sex. Such an argument always find a home in adolescents and they were and are the target:

...He believes that a socialist society could change this by replacing the 'alienated labor' with "non-alienated libidinal work" thus resulting in "a non-repressive civilization based on 'non-repressive sublimation'". In other words, Marcuse believes that a socialist society could be a society without needing the performance of the 'poor' and without as strong a suppression of our drives as in today's society.

Cutting through all this, here is the bottom line:  To create a Marxist state the revolutionaries have to destroy religion and the family, as these normal human instincts block the establishment of the perfect state.  The Frankfurt school was pissed that modern labor (sorry, labour) was moving into the middle class and subject to its mores. They were no longer clear tools.  The Frankfurters saw the future revolution coming from blacks and women.  Read the paper, lately?


1984


Below is the theme of 1984 taken from the Wiki on H. G. Wells, 1984. (Its not a bad thing) The novel is a reduction to the absurd, you would hope, of the communist movement. Take the time to read the section below and reflect on what the Democratic Party is ramming through right now.  [I need to interject, most Democrats are useful idiots not realizing who is leading the charge. As Reagan quipped, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, they left me." Or something like that.]


The True Believers know they are going to suffer a body blow this November, but don't care.  They would like to stay in power and are setting up the basis of future control, but they understand they hit a perfect storm and are "all in."  (Lately, I read that Goldman created the crisis two years ago in order to have their candidate win. I no longer dismiss theories about Goldman Sachs.)   


I don't think the typical American understands true belief and the ability to lose or die for an idea.  Relativism, the expressed philosophy of Mr. Clinton, has replaced religion, the Constitution, and the family.  You don't sacrifice yourself for a relative position. 


Below, see what Wells thought was a horror. We are closing in on it, so much that I am sure this book will quietly vanish from curricula. 


------------------------


Wiki - 1984

This novel is about a Utopia, an ideal state- a bad ideal state. It is therefore a novel about ideas, and its themes are as important as its plot. They will be studied in depth in the chapter-by-chapter discussion of the book. Most are expressed as fundamental principles of the Utopia, the brave new world. Some come to light when one character, a Savage raised on an Indian reservation, confronts that world. As you find the themes, try to think not only about what they say about Huxley's Utopia, but also about Huxley's real world- and your own.

1. COMMUNITY, IDENTITY, STABILITY- VERSUS INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM

Community, Identity, Stability is the motto of the World State. It lists the Utopia's prime goals. Community is in part a result of identity and stability. It is also achieved through a religion that satirizes Christianity- a religion that encourages people to reach solidarity through sexual orgy. And it is achieved by organizing life so that a person is almost never alone.

Identity is in large part the result of genetic engineering. Society is divided into five classes or castes, hereditary social groups. In the lower three classes, people are cloned in order to produce up to 96 identical "twins." Identity is also achieved by teaching everyone to conform, so that someone who has or feels more than a minimum of individuality is made to feel different, odd, almost an outcast.

Stability is the third of the three goals, but it is the one the characters mention most often- the reason for designing society this way. The desire for stability, for instance, requires the production of large numbers of genetically identical "individuals," because people who are exactly the same are less likely to come into conflict. Stability means minimizing conflict, risk, and change. 

2. SCIENCE AS A MEANS OF CONTROL

Brave New World is not only a Utopian book, it is also a science-fiction novel. But it does not predict much about science in general. Its theme "is the advancement of science as it affects human individuals," Huxley said in the Foreword he wrote in 1946, 15 years after he wrote the book. He did not focus on physical sciences like nuclear physics, though even in 1931 he knew that the production of nuclear energy (and weapons) was probable. He was more worried about dangers that appeared more obvious at that time- the possible misuse of biology, physiology, and psychology to achieve community, identity, and stability. Ironically, it becomes clear at the end of the book that the World State's complete control over human activity destroys even the scientific progress that gained it such control.

3. THE THREAT OF GENETIC ENGINEERING

Genetic engineering is a term that has come into use in recent years as scientists have learned to manipulate RNA and DNA, the proteins in every cell that determine the basic inherited characteristics of life. Huxley didn't use the phrase but he describes genetic engineering when he explains how his new world breeds prescribed numbers of humans artificially for specified qualities.

4. THE MISUSE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONING

Every human being in the new world is conditioned to fit society's needs- to like the work he will have to do. Human embryos do not grow inside their mothers' wombs but in bottles. Biological or physiological conditioning consists of adding chemicals or spinning the bottles to prepare the embryos for the levels of strength, intelligence, and aptitude required for given jobs. After they are "decanted" from the bottles, people are psychologically conditioned, mainly by hypnopaedia or sleep-teaching. You might say that at every stage the society brainwashes its citizens.

5. THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS CARRIED TO AN EXTREME

A society can achieve stability only when everyone is happy, and the brave new world tries hard to ensure that every person is happy. It does its best to eliminate any painful emotion, which means every deep feeling, every passion. It uses genetic engineering and conditioning to ensure that everyone is happy with his or her work.

6. THE CHEAPENING OF SEXUAL PLEASURE

Sex is a primary source of happiness. The brave new world makes promiscuity a virtue: you have sex with any partner you want, who wants you- and sooner or later every partner will want you. (As a child, you learn in your sleep that "everyone belongs to everyone else.") In this Utopia, what we think of as true love for one person would lead to neurotic passions and the establishment of family life, both of which would interfere with community and stability. Nobody is allowed to become pregnant because nobody is born, only decanted from a bottle. Many females are born sterile by design; those who are not are trained by "Malthusian drill" to use contraceptives properly.

7. THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS THROUGH DRUGS

Soma is a drug used by everyone in the brave new world. It calms people and gets them high at the same time, but without hangovers or nasty side effects. The rulers of the brave new world had put 2000 pharmacologists and biochemists to work long before the action of the novel begins; in six years they had perfected the drug. Huxley believed in the possibility of a drug that would enable people to escape from themselves and help them achieve knowledge of God, but he made soma a parody and degradation of that possibility.

8. THE THREAT OF MINDLESS CONSUMPTION AND MINDLESS DIVERSIONS

This society offers its members distractions that they must enjoy in common- never alone- because solitude breeds instability. Huxley mentions but never explains sports that use complex equipment whose manufacture keeps the economy rolling- sports called Obstacle Golf and Centrifugal Bumble-puppy. But the chief emblem of Brave New World is the Feelies- movies that feature not only sight and sound but also the sensation of touch, so that when people watch a couple making love on a bearskin rug, they can feel every hair of the bear on their own bodies.

9. THE DESTRUCTION OF THE FAMILY

The combination of genetic engineering, bottle-birth, and sexual promiscuity means there is no monogamy, marriage, or family. "Mother" and "father" are obscene words that may be used scientifically on rare, carefully chosen occasions to label ancient sources of psychological problems.

10. THE DENIAL OF DEATH

The brave new world insists that death is a natural and not unpleasant process. There is no old age or visible senility. Children are conditioned at hospitals for the dying and given sweets to eat when they hear of death occurring. This conditioning does not- as it might- prepare people to cope with the death of a loved one or with their own mortality. It eliminates the painful emotions of grief and loss, and the spiritual significance of death, which Huxley made increasingly important in his later novels.

11. THE OPPRESSION OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

Some characters in Brave New World differ from the norm. Bernard is small for an Alpha and fond of solitude; Helmholtz, though seemingly "every centimetre an Alpha-Plus," knows he is too intelligent for the work he performs; John the Savage, genetically a member of the World State, has never been properly conditioned to become a citizen of it. Even the Controller, Mustapha Mond, stands apart because of his leadership abilities. Yet in each case these differences are crushed: Bernard and Helmholtz are exiled; John commits suicide; and the Mond stifles his own individuality in exchange for the power he wields as Controller. What does this say about Huxley's Utopia?

12. WHAT DOES SUCH A SYSTEM COST?

This Utopia has a good side: there is no war or poverty, little disease or social unrest. But Huxley keeps asking, what does society have to pay for these benefits? The price, he makes clear, is high. The first clue is in the epigraph, the quotation at the front of the book. It is in French, but written by a Russian, Nicolas Berdiaeff. It says, "Utopias appear to be much easier to realize than one formerly believed. We currently face a question that would otherwise fill us with anguish: How to avoid their becoming definitively real?"

By the time you hear the conversation between the Controller, one of the men who runs the new world, and John, the Savage, you've learned that citizens of this Utopia must give up love, family, science, art, religion, and history. At the end of the book, John commits suicide and you see that the price of this brave new world is fatally high.

Freeman Dyson agrees with me

Ray mentioned the recent NYT article and backlash about Freeman Dyson. I wasn't even going to mention it, as the exercise of attempting to bring reason to the discussion is pointless. However, there is another reason to mention the recent reactions. The article is here.

(Oh, Ray, the film Knowing was excellent.)

Below is the introduction to the article. I just add it here as imbeciles have taken to attacking him. The article quotes a lawyer making fun of him. What the hell do lawyers know?

You see, he committed a religious taboo by dis'ng global warming. Obviously, off with his head.

“lousy science” for “distracting public attention” from “more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet.”

In his 20's, he unified quantum and electrodynamic theory. He hung out with, oh, Einstein, Bohr, Fermi, Feynman (whose NY accent is hysterical to listen to), Teller, Oppenheimer and Witten. To this day, he still lives on Princeton's campus. Off with his head! In the vein of disclosure, I recently sent him an email fan letter.

The TIMES:

FOR MORE THAN HALF A CENTURY the eminent physicist Freeman Dyson has quietly resided in Prince­ton, N.J., on the wooded former farmland that is home to his employer, the Institute for Advanced Study, this country’s most rarefied community of scholars. Lately, however, since coming “out of the closet as far as global warming is concerned,” as Dyson sometimes puts it, there has been noise all around him. Chat rooms, Web threads, editors’ letter boxes and Dyson’s own e-mail queue resonate with a thermal current of invective in which Dyson has discovered himself variously described as “a pompous twit,” “a blowhard,” “a cesspool of misinformation,” “an old coot riding into the sunset” and, perhaps inevitably, “a mad scientist.”

Dyson had proposed that whatever inflammations the climate was experiencing might be a good thing because carbon dioxide helps plants of all kinds grow. Then he added the caveat that if CO2 levels soared too high, they could be soothed by the mass cultivation of specially bred “carbon-eating trees,” whereupon the University of Chicago law professor Eric Posner looked through the thick grove of honorary degrees Dyson has been awarded — there are 21 from universities like Georgetown, Princeton and Oxford — and suggested that “perhaps trees can also be designed so that they can give directions to lost hikers....”

But in the considered opinion of the neurologist Oliver Sacks, Dyson’s friend and fellow English expatriate, this is far from the case. “His mind is still so open and flexible,” Sacks says. Which makes Dyson something far more formidable than just the latest peevish right-wing climate-change denier. Dyson is a scientist whose intelligence is revered by other scientists — William Press, former deputy director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory and now a professor of computer science at the University of Texas, calls him “infinitely smart....”

So, none of this matters where the party is concerned. The life of the individual is dead, only the party matters. (Dr. Zhivago) So, we will remove Mr. Dyson from history (1984). A few clever articles and he will be doubleplus bad. HATE HATE HATE (1984)

From later in the article:

Dyson may be an Obama-loving, Bush-loathing liberal who has spent his life opposing American wars and fighting for the protection of natural resources, but he brooks no ideology and has a withering aversion to scientific consensus....

This open-minded approach is what morons call genius, only because they do not understand it. Einstein wrote he would drill on the thick part of the board while others occupt themselves with the thin part. You can't teach intellectual honesty, especially when it gets in the way of state control.

OK, a little more since he also dis's Gore, Hansen

Speaking at ...Boston University, Dyson announced that “all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated.” Since then he has only heated up his misgivings, declaring in a 2007 interview with Salon.com that “the fact that the climate is getting warmer doesn’t scare me at all” and writing in an essay for The New York Review of Books, the left-leaning publication that is to gravitas what the Beagle was to Darwin, that climate change has become an “obsession” — the primary article of faith for “a worldwide secular religion” known as environmentalism. Among those he considers true believers, Dyson has been particularly dismissive of Al Gore, whom Dyson calls climate change’s “chief propagandist,” and James Hansen, the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and an adviser to Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Dyson accuses them of relying too heavily on computer-generated climate models that foresee a Grand Guignol of imminent world devastation as icecaps melt, oceans rise and storms and plagues sweep the earth, and he blames the pair’s “lousy science” for “distracting public attention” from “more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet.”

Like I say, it is already boring talking about "global warming," but we cannot forget those who use mass propaganda for making money and securing state control of everyone for fun and profit. The green movement has long been the new face, coming from Europe, of the communist movement.

The White House Blog for March 10, 2009, states:

The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Chair Nancy Sutley announced yesterday that Van Jones – an early green jobs visionary — will start Monday as Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at CEQ: Van Jones has been a strong voice for green jobs and we look forward to having him work with departments and agencies to advance the President’s agenda of creating 21st century jobs that improve energy efficiency and utilize renewable resources

Who is this guy:

A few short years ago Anthony (Van) Jones (left) was a San Francisco Bay Area radical agitator–a committed Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, waging war on the police and capitalist system.

Today Van Jones holds a key position in the US government and has the ear of President Barack Obama.

I don't know what else it takes to wake the sleeping. Its is like the film I mentioned, Knowing, to be afflicted by the Cassandra effect - knowing what is happening and not being able to do a thing about it.