Canadian philosophical researcher Shawn Alli has posted a highly critical series titled: The CO2 Climate Change Cult Series.
Philosophy researcher, book author, Shawn Alli thinks global warming science has “cult-like status”. Photo source here.
Though he does not appear to be some famous academic professor, his series does poignantly bring up a number of inconvenient points that have leading climate scientists confounded.
Ideologies underpinning IPCC science
Alli sent me an e-mail asking if I’d look over Chapter 7 and 8, which I did. Today’s post focusses on Chapter 7, which starts off powerfully:
Many objective and impartial scientists believe that they have no ideologies and never work to prove what they want to prove. This is a nonsensical belief. Under the ideologies of racism and eugenics, Western-European scientists in the past intentionally prove what they want to prove. The same concept is true in the present. The ideologies of man-made CO2 climate change are underpinning the science behind the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). One example of this ideological science is the IPCC’s claim of the Himalayan glaciers disappearing in 2035.  It’s only because of climate skeptics and deniers that the IPCC retracts their nonsensical claim three years later.  But despite the admission of error the Chair of the IPCC Dr. Rajendra Pachauri refuses to apologize.  The fact that the public outrage surprises him and damages the IPCC’s credibility,  demonstrates that the IPCC is 100% out of touch with the global general public about climate change.
The reason why the error is such a large problem is because of two reasons: science and socio-economic-political implications. The CO2 cult holds the IPCC to the level of god-like status, forever defending their cause. This pushes CO2 cult believers to claim that the IPCC reports are the highest form of climate knowledge on the planet.”
If you don’t believe that leading climate journalists have been taken over by the cult, Alli presents a number of quotes from the Guardian’s George Monbiot, and from the Newsweek staff, who maintain that the science is rigorous like no other, and thus beyond dispute.
Hockey stick: Distortion of reality…”junk environmental ideological science at its best”
Alli also thinks Michael Mann’s hockey stick chart, in its attempt to remove the Medieval Warm Period, was “intentionally manipulating the global general public and distorting reality.” He adds:
But even if you dismiss the hockey stick graph argument and the fraudulent data from climate scientists, you have to face the reality that global warming ends in 1998. After years of voracious denials […] the IPCC finally admits the stall of global temperatures in kind terms in Working Group 1 of their fifth assessment.”
“junk…ideological science at its best”
On the claim by the IPCC that man caused the warming from 1800 to 1998 and that the recent pause is due to natural variability, Alli calls this selective logic: “junk environmental ideological science at its best.”
Alli then writes how he posed three questions to leading (alarmist) climate scientists, such as Kevin Trenberth, Richard Somerville, Tom Wigley, on whether they are surprised by the recent pause. In general they answer that they are not, and that the models continue to be right for the most part. Alli responds, focusing on Wigley’s response:
Professor Wigley points out that there’s nothing surprising about the temperature lag. I would correct him and claim that there’s nothing surprising about the temperature lag now, due to the passage of time; but in 1998 it would be very surprising.”
Indeed one only needs to look at the course of the 100+ models to see that the pause had never been expected.
Models “all guesswork”…”no way” they can be accurate
Alli also comments on the tweeking of models so that they better match the reality, i.e. “scientists are starting with a result and creating a model that proves it.” Alli gives this practice the deserved grade of “F”.
This is ideological science at its best. And this is what a lot of Western-European science is about, explaining past events through particular ideologies. “
Even more shocking is that Alli feels that the scientists “don’t understand chaos theory at all“, and sums up the models: “…there is absolutely no way that any current climate model can be accurate. It’s all guesswork based on past trends“.
So why are scientists and activists so convinced by the science when it is so faulty? Alli thinks it gets down to the human need for a religion and purpose: “The issue of man-made CO2 climate change gives individuals an opportunity to justify their existence fighting a ‘righteous cause’ in the face of corrupt and greedy private interest energy groups.”
In the end, reacting to the fact that only 3 of 31 leading scientists and activists were willing to dismiss the claim that climate change leads to more violence, Alli sees this as evidence of a “cult-like status” in climate science.