Is the theory of anthropogenic global warming religion or science? From Brandon Smith at alt-market.com:
Faith in an ideology based on a desire for power over others and the need to feel personally superior without any legitimate accomplishment is perhaps the most dangerous state of being an individual or society can adopt. I would refer to such a mindset as “zealotry,” an integral element of cultism and an extreme result of the elitist side of faith.
Zealotry and cultism are not limited to the realm of the religious. Zealotry is a clever devil hiding in the woodwork of any political or academic construct, and this includes the scientific community when it strays away from empirical logic and honest data into a world of pseudoscience and social engineering. I cannot think of a better example of zealotry feeding scientific cultism than the highly propagandized climate change/global warming movement.
Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is quickly becoming the overarching rationale for almost every policy toward global centralization, as well as a scapegoat for nearly every major crisis from mass shootings and the rise of ISIS to geopolitical shifts in economic structures. Global warming has been projected as a magical force deviously underlying everything. It is presented by climate scientists and activists as an all-encompassing behemoth of cause and effect, yet nearly all of this frantic pontificating is supported by faith, rather than hard data.
The issue is one of transparency. Without transparency of experimental data, climate scientists and think tank operatives become immune to examination. That is to say, if climate scientists and organizations, many of which are funded by public tax dollars, are not required to reveal the raw data behind their claims on global warming, then their claims are no longer a matter of “fact” or scientific process. Rather, the assertions of climate scientists now become edicts from on high, messages from high priests with a private line to the god of science — a god that no one is allowed to question. Their words become gospel: carbon footprints in the sand.
Climate research institutions like the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have refused for decades to release the raw data behind their experiments, which they say prove the existence of man-made global warming. For many years the CRU refused to release any data that was not first processed to reflect its own desired outcomes and still refuses to release emails that might prove that climate scientists had rigged data in their warming models.
Professor Phil Jones of the CRU in charge of maintaining data sets famously told an Australian climate scientist in 2004:
“Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”
When opposition became more intense in reaction to the CRU’s secretive data, the organization had this to say:
“We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.”
Whenever the data issue becomes mainstream and pressure builds, climate scientists simply “lose” the original raw data, and once again we are asked to take them at their word.
Now think about that for a moment. Only in the past few years have climate scientists been pushed to give up raw data to the public, as well as to other unaffiliated scientists, for review. They have enjoyed almost complete immunity from scrutiny since the global warming farce began while acting as the CORE drivers of political and economic policy models by international organizations like the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Future laws and taxes that could affect the entire globe are being written and established on the word of a handful of unaccountable scientists who see their claims as sacrosanct and above investigation.
Despite the assertions of some global warming enthusiasts, little has changed since the release of the hacked “climategate” data and emails or public pressure on climate research institutions. These organizations continue to dismiss data requests made through the Freedom Of Information Act.
Recently, the NOAA released studies which it conveniently claims refutes satellite data proving that there has actually been NO global warming for at least 19 years. When asked by lawmakers to release research papers pertaining to the experiments that supposedly back the assertions of the NOAA, the NOAA refused.
Eventually, apologists for the climate cartel are forced to admit that the raw data is not available to the public. Climate scientists seem to be the only scientists in the world who get away with presenting theories and conclusions without being required to back what they say with hard data. Instead of admitting this is an absurd standard, apologists often defend the act of scientific secrecy, claiming that “average people” are not smart enough to interpret the data even if it was made available to us. We the “profane” public are too unclean to examine the holy books of climate scientists; we are expected to simply bow down to them and globalist entities like the UN as mediators between us and the gods.
To continue reading: Ecological Panic: The New Rationale For Globalist Cultism
