It’s an interesting point you raise here. I find myself disagreeing though! The vast majority of people who take an interest in climate change aren’t praying or preaching. I don’t think it’s a case of a ‘better future’, the reality is that nothing gets done, there will be no future. However cult-like it may appear, surely a movement against climate change is better than nothing?

doesn’t this get boring for you?

Tom, first I tried to explain, the science - why I think climate change is a natural phenomenon. Now I am trying to explain the sociology behind the climate change movement. And I find it very interesting. As a someone who studied history, I can see a very strong continuity here.

Where else present it than in a “climate change blogging competition”?

And you belivers should be more critical towards your holy books and your priests. Because they do not always tell you the truth.

boring.

Apparently you have run out of arguments, Tom. Poor you.

Pointing out a similarity between the ancient “obsession with weather” and the modern “obsession with weather” is a valid comparison. It is a pitty, that you are unable to make any comment.

doesn’t make sense to “argue” with people who call you a believer, compare scientific evidence with holy books, and degrade scientists to priests.

Scientists - I mean real scientists - know, there is no evidence, climate change is manmade. It has not been proven. Your climate change beliefs are totally unscientific. This is another thing, which makes it similar to religion.

It was the president of the World Federation of Scientists dr. Zichichi, who addressed an Open Letter to UN secreatary Ban-Ki-Moon in 2007 with a protest against the climate change irrationality.

And even if chances are minimal to persuade the “other side”, it still makes sense to compare the strength of your arguments. If arguments are weapons, you can test them only in a battle.

Well, if it walks like a religion and it talks like a religions… One of the hallmarks of extreme environmentalism is its hatred of the material world, which is a trait it shares with some religions. As well, many of its adherents are intolerant of dissent. Those who question the message of apocalypse are regarded as heretics, or “denialists”, to use green terminology. Most damming of all, the route to salvation for the fundamentalists lies in performing superstitious rituals such as changing light bulbs!

Yes. Of course the climate change is a religion - but not for all, only for few people. It’s like any movement: some people want to live it so strong that they lose their ability for criticism.

However, this doesn’t mean that human wouldn’t be the guilty of causing or expediting the climate change.

The point is, that the climate cult in the antiquity in fact did NOT know, how to control weather/climate/gods. They just pretended to.

Is it better today? Can new lightbulbs really change global mean temperature?

Maybe the plans to “fight climate change” are just crap. And in fact our climate priests do not know, how to affect global temperatures. They just pretend to know.

Like the astrologers of the past.If they said “I do not know”, they would immediately lose their jobs.

Perhaps you find a part of solution in my precedent post:
Why the IPCC position is understood so dogmatically?
http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/why_the_ipcc_position_is_understood_so_dogmatically

@ Paul: Your post about the “dogma” makes a good point. Actually the 1992 Rio conclusions were something like the Nicene Creed.

1) You do not know something. You have no evidence.
2) A religious congress is convened.
3) Various opinions, suggestions and beliefs fight there. Then they vote.
3) Some opinion takes the most votes and it becomes a law. A dogma.

Thank you very much ..
I agree all!

John Brignell gives a good summary of the [url=
climate]http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm]climate change as religion[/url] theology, where he identifies the following religious characteristics:

- Faith and scepticism
- Sin and absolution
- Proselytes and evangelists
- Demagogues and hypocrites
- Infidels and apostates
- Sacrifice and ritual
- Prophecy and divination
- Puritans and killjoys
- Censorship and angles
- Control and taxation
- Contradictions and irrationality
- Wealth and power
- Confession and salvation
- Envoi

They get really upset when you call them out as the religious fanatics they are.

And these are the ten commandments:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/25/Georgia_Guidestones_English_Full.jpg

Prophets of Doom:

Some days ago the Greenpeace people climbed on the roof of our Parliament with billboards like “Act now on climate or we are doomed.” Or something like that.

Very similar to the times of Jesus, when Palestine was full of self-appointed prophets of doom standing on street corners and preaching “Repent, the Judgment Days is coming”. (e.g. see in the movie Monty Python’s Life of Brian)

Vitezslav and Mike I’m deeply involved in the climate change cause. And because of the blind believers, people who don’t understand the actual science or economics behind climate change, the entire movement to decrease our emissions will fail.

Yes climate change today looks like a religion and we need sceptics like both of you to keep us grounded and burst our little bubbles when necessary.

Love the discussion here - So many good points!! Whether something is based on fact or faith, there will be people who follow it blindly, making it difficult for bloggers/journalists.

Very disappointed with Tom Schaffer though (if it bores you, piss off and get some respect for people’s opinions other than your own. He’s making a good point)

I have tried to sum up just what kind of a marketing trick this is:

http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/climate_change_as_the_new_religion._a_lesson_in_advertising/

There is a new link in the comments from Huffington Post where they talk of how the climate talks are being sabotaged by big polluters. Just goes to prove that branding it as religion is nothing but trying to create confusion.

It is very easy to brand the Green Thingy as a religion. It is very easy job, because it does have a lot of the formal attributes of religion. Especially the obsession with weather caused - allegedly - by our sins. After all religions were invented primarily as a primitive “weather control” mechanism.

I think it’s interesting that those who agree with the view that Climate Change is occurring are called “believers”. Not scientists, not members, not supporters but “believers”.

This instantly gives the impression that it is an entirely faith based view, when actually the majority of people have based their views on scientific evidence.

I would agree with Hemant and others that comparing Climate Change to a religion is a way of undermining it. Religion is now associated with fundamentalism, terrorism, cults… what better way to dismiss a group than to call them “believers”.

The paradigm is pretty simple. We have believers on one side and non-believers (deniers, heretics) on the other side.

The Precautionary Principle says, we should not wait for scientific evidence, because then it might be too late. So we act based on faith/fear, not science.

Until we discover, how strong is the influcence of CO2 on temperatures, it all just a matter of belief.

Jodi - I don’t think it was to intentionally to undermine it, its just an observation based on how people treat climate change and act because of it.

You can’t deny that some climate change activists are just accepting it without even knowing the science (some might say religiously) - and I’m sure you would say that climate-change “deniers” are just blinding refusing the science. Religiously. It’s just an observation.

Helena - I would like to believe that it is just an observation, but look at how it is being used here by those who are sceptical… Vitezslav, Mike for example. They are both clearly using the comparison with religion to make anyone who does think Climate Change is a problem seem irrational.

Sure, there are plenty of people who are acting on Climate Change information they have received from the scientific community which they haven’t looked into. I think that happens with most things though doesn’t it.

How much medical advice, nutritional advice, lifestyle advice, financial advice etc. etc. have you gone and researched all the data on before acting on it? Probably not a lot. If your doctor says that taking a certain medicine will kill you, well you’ll probably act on that advice if the rest of the medical community backs up that advice.

PThe fact is that with most things in our lives we’re not experts and so we turn to those who are to give us direction. At the moment the majority of the scientific community are telling us that Climate Change is a serious threat and people are acting on that information. Yes, it makes sense to find out as much as you can, but realistically not everyone has the time or inclination to do that. I don’t think there is anything strange about that.

Oh please! You call us deniers, flat-earthers, lunatics; don’t try and play innocent.

It doesn’t matter what the precautionary principle says if you base your decisions off of fraudulent claims. And the climate change hysteria is through-and-through an utterly disgraceful fraud. The supposed “cure” is worse than the condition! And will do nothing to stop climate change, since it changes on it’s own all the time! Where do you get the idea that you think you can predict or control nature? How arrogant can you get?

Mix a little truth (the planet has warmed) with a tonne of bullshit (man-made Co2 what did it), repeat it a million times on national tv and voila! Most people are too dense to pick apart the details, just like you said!

Jodi, you cannot say that the “majority of scientific community are telling us that Climate Change is a serious threat”. Scientists tell us, that they do not know yet, what caused the recent warming. It may be manmade CO2 or not. If IPCC was honest, their Assessment Reports would be one blank page with big letters “WE DO NOT KNOW YET”.

After another 30 years we will know more. The 1980-2000 warming might have been caused by the thermal inertia of oceans - a delayed response to solar warming.

If in the next 30 years solar activity goes down (as we expect due to the Suess cycle) and Earth temperatures skyrocket up (after the 1998-2009 stangation), we will know, that it is manmade.

@ Mike: I would like to hear more about why you think this is one huge conspiracy. Why the IPCC, world governments and scientists are colluding together to pretend that the earth is warming when really it isn’t. Clearly the business community haven’t been included in the scam so I just would like to understand their motivations. Maybe it would help clarify your views for me. 

@ Vitezslav - The UK government recently published a document citing climate change as the single greatest threat facing the country. And they’re not alone in making such statements. The scientific community IS in consensus over the fact that global warming is occurring and that it is a problem. I do agree there is uncertainty about “why” and “how much” but there is little debate that it is happening. I’ve sat through enough conferences and read enough books to know that people are taking this very seriously. And no, not just fanatatical environmentalists - but top scientists, academics, politicians and business leaders.

I guess the difference between yourselves and me is that you’re willing to wait another 30 years to see if predictions of warming are borne out. If they aren’t, fantastic (I’m as ecstatic as you are) and you can gloat till your heart is content. If they ARE borne out however, by that stage we’re pretty much screwed. So what is the cost of inaction versus action?

As you say “WE DO NOT KNOW YET” - I for one, would prefer to act rather than sitting on my hands in the hope that it will all turn out to be a false alarm.

Jodi, let me ask you a question. What exactly do you want to replace fossil fuels now? Solar, wind, biomass can cover just a tiny fraction of the consumption and at a very high price.

Now we can just go nuclear. Otherwise you can do nothing now. Just wait till the technology develops.

You can just wait in the anteroom of some scientists and wait year after year as their research makes their small steps, from experiment to experiment. You can sit there on your hands, if you prefer.

Jodi, what is your standard of proof? It is not my intention to explain why they are colluding, just to point out the fraud in the science and solutions proposed. Though I think that the founder of the weather channel, John Coleman, puts it succinctly here and here (@5 mins).

@ Mike - why do you have the right to demand justifications from everyone else when you’re not willing to defend your stance. You keep suggesting there is a collusion among the international community of scientists, politicians, and academics. I want to know on what basis you think this. What evidence do you have that everyone is working together to deceive the public? Who do you think is masterminding the whole plan? Who is paying all the scientists to fabricate results? Who has convinced all the peer reviewed journals to print lies? Please… I’m interested.

@ Viteslav - it’s not simply about replacing fossil fuel use outright, right at this very moment. You’re absolutely right, there isn’t the right technology at the moment to completely abandon fossil fuel use. I don’t think anyone on this platform is suggesting we replace all coal stations with windmills tomorrow.

That doesn’t mean we can’t supplement coal/oil usage where possible by making use of green technology, it doesn’t mean that we can’t reduce our use of fossil fuel through changes in lifestyle and it doesn’t mean that we can’t invest in technological innovations in this area.

It’s not a choice of going all green or nothing, it’s about moving in the right direction.

Jodi - I’m not saying that the following is what’s happening, but to answer your question,

“Why the IPCC, world governments and scientists are colluding together to pretend that the earth is warming when really it isn’t”

Look up “Divide and Rule” on wikipedia. The threat of global catastrophe? Perfect. Unfortunate if that was ever the intention by our global powers.

@ Helena - weren’t we already divided? If anything Climate Change is acting as a uniting force. It’s being used to urge developed and developing countries to work together. It is a basis for communities to join forces. It is grounds for national and international coalitions. Success in meeting the challenges posed by Climate Change rest on the world being more united. Terrorism - yes I can see how that could be based on the logic of divide and conquer. In terms of Climate Change I’m not sure I follow your logic.

@ Helena- and if this isn’t what you think is happening why bother bringing it into the debate?

Jodi, I was asking what standard of proof you would hold me to that would convince you that there is some sort of collusion going on, otherwise I am just throwing shit at the wall and hoping it sticks.

Rather than a conspiracy, I would brand it as a collision of mutual coinciding interests between the scientists, the UN, environmentalsts, lobbyists, the media and the government. Does that satisfy you? It’s just a coincidence, no conspiracy needed.

I state again that I can only expose the fraud in the science and proposed “solutions” to these imaginary problems. It is up to you to decide whether this means there is some sort of conspiracy, because it is quite frankly irrelevant, and a distraction.

The proof is in the pudding. If I am right that the science is wrong, then they are colluding whether by conspiracy, or by coincidence.

Jodi, if CO2 has strong impact on temperatures (which I do not think), the temperatures should already now be some 5°C higher (judging by the ice cores correlation).

In that case we need to stop emitting completely plus suck some 100ppm CO2 out of oceans and atmosphere.

Just slowing down our emissions is a useless symbolic gesture, that costs billions and helps nothing.

The only solution is inventing new technologies. And inventions cannot be planned or anticipated. Conferences do not help.

Jodi - I was answering a question you posed! Surely you weren’t speaking rhetorically.

And I think fear is a pretty good tool to divide the nation. I don’t quite believe anything at the moment but I’m always open to possibilities. The original version of the video above is an example of fear-based campaigning.

coming from a developing country where climate change (for the worse)  is not an intellectual exercise, but a reality of everyday life that is a matter of survival, I amazed by the kind of discussions taking place here. 

Why is it strange humans have been ‘obsessed’ (I would say preoccupied) by weather, it is part of the conversation we have with nature.

I thought religion is based on believing in something you do not see. perhaps the next holiday trip should be to the equator - visit the drought stricken places so you can perhaps be a believer.. talk to the people there.
Local journalist and farmers tell me otherwise
http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/role_of_journalism_in_public_life_the_case_of_climate_change_in_acp_countri

but as always , being cautious about an ‘ism’ is never too bad. see the comment from Michael Braungart about eco-dicatorship…

http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/leaderless_climate_change_and_why_young_people_should_get_angry/

Climate always changes. Frauds pretend that it is unnatural and that man is to blame.

K, do you think, that in the preindustrial period there were no years of gad drought or floods? Read the ancient chronicles.

And yes, In Africa it is about survival. Because they are not industrialised and developed enough. You need to follow the example of Europe. Observe and learn.

@ Helena - no I wasn’t speaking rhetorically. I wanted a response from Mike, and I didn’t think the response you gave answered my question. Particularly since you apparently didn’t actually believe the explanation you provided.

@ Mike - Mighty big coincidence huh! We keep going round in circles in these various debates. I’m clearly not going to convince you. And you aren’t convincing me. So let’s agree to disagree.

@ Vitezslav - Your last comment to me doesn’t make sense. You say that if temperatures were 5 degrees higher now then we’d have to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere in order to reduce global temperatures.

Ok?

But they’re not 5 degrees higher now so other than making it very clear that we need to prevent it ever reaching that point (because then any problems would be pretty much irreversible) I’m not sure what you’re getting at.

Also, I think your comment to K was out of order “observe and learn” - how patronising. Surely his comment deserved a more well thought out response than that.

@ Jodi.
1)  CO2 levels increased by cca 1/3. So temperatures should also inrease by 1/3. They have not. If the reaction is just delayed, then stopping CO2 emissions does not avert any warming. In that case we would need a technology to get CO2 levels down. We do not have such technology yet, so Copenhagen conference has nothing to talk about and is pointless.

2) Patronizing? It is a historic fact, that Europe brought to mankind the greatest technology and prosperity in the last centuries. So Europe showed the path. The others follow the example. What is patronizing with that?

(Get me right please. I am not boasting of European successes, they are not my personal achievements, neither Czech achievements. I am just stating the facts)

@ Vitezlav -

1) As we’ve said time an time again, we don’t know exactly what is going to happen. Predictions about warming vary. On one had you say it’s all a load of crap. On the other you say but if it’s true, well then it will be really bad and too late to do anything. Sure, our efforts might come to nothing. Then again, maybe we can pull ourselves together in time to make a difference. I personally think it’s worth the effort.

2) Yes, patronising! Europe managed to rape much of Africa and Asia of their resources, arbitrarily carve up their land, enslave their peoples, impose European rule and then abandon them to their fate. Much of the problems being faced by ex-colonies is due to the impact of imperialism. So suggesting that they somehow failed to “follow the example” is incredibly naive. The fact that you can’t see how patronising you are is worrying in itself.

Jodi, to me it is worrying, that you repeat Kreml propaganda, which was invented in Soviet Moscow.

The difference getween holocaust and colonialism is that while in holocaust people diaspeared, colonialism led to a tremendous boost in population in the occupied countries.

Enslave? You must be joking. The native rulers of Africa and Asie enslaved their pepople all the history. Only the whites finally ended and banned slavery. We did not rule them worse than their native kings.

Throw your communist history books into your fire place, please.

K - if what you are saying is accurate, then you put it beautifully

Jodi - cheer up, I was chipping in - giving you an answer, a perfectly possible scenario as none of us would know, and not attacking you either I’ll have you know. Relax and enjoy the discussion without feeling the need to disprove anyone!

@ Vitzeslav - Ahhh yes! You caught me out… I’m a commie. Grew up under Stalin so you’ll have to excuse my propaganda. Thankfully there are clear minded folk like yourself out there to put Reds like me in our place. :S

Watermelons - Green on the outside, red on the intside. Had to say it.