Climate Alarmism Akin to Religious Zealotry


Celebrity persons of influence, including Bill Nye The (Non) Science Guy are so transparently unqualified to espouse political rhetoric under the guise of “science”; yet, to the chagrin of rational and independent thinkers everywhere, pop-culture icons continue to hold unjustifiable sway over the minds of large swaths of dimwits seemingly unaware of their intellectual deficiencies and vulnerabilities to groupthink. 

For over 10 years now the media, politicians, and embarrassingly unqualified entertainers presenting as “Scientific Experts” have been actively campaigning and shouting down skeptical inquiry in defense of Climate Theorists. The Climate Science community’s refusal to and/or inability to provide satisfactory answers to questions born from logic or any among the scientifically contradictory research speaks volumes; instead, seemingly in collusion with the media and global politicians, any dissent or questions running afoul of the narrative have been systematically suppressed and/or ignored, no matter how damning to the “settled” science they so vehemently protect.

One must wonder why, if man-made climate change theory has been declared “accepted, settled science”, have many in the climate science community along with global politicians, mainstream media, and self-proclaimed “experts” such as Bill Nye, gone to such great lengths to silence, suppress, or bully anyone from heralded scientific experts and former UN IPCC climate experts, to a cartoonist having poked a little deserved fun at climate science methodology in order to protect a narrative so supposedly concrete. A federal judge recently gave the go-ahead for a climate scientist to sue a dissenting internet bloggerYep, it seems to be a slippery slope indeed if even regular citizens practicing their fundamental rights of free speech risk censorship, simply for voicing concern with the many dubious questions surrounding climate theory. 

In An Inconvenient Truth — Gore stated with absolute confidence that unless we took “drastic measures” to reduce greenhouse gasses, the world would reach a “point of no return” in a mere ten years. We’re still here, and the climate activists have postponed the apocalypse, again. And, they’ve changed “Global Warming” to Climate Change, so now any fluctuation in climate or natural event Mother Nature bestows upon us can be and often is blamed squarely on man-made climate change.

None of the doomsday predictions made by alarmists, ever, have been proven correct… ever. This might indicate that it’s Mother Nature who’s calling the show, while the hubris of man makes room for those with agendas to pretend man is so mighty, our planet’s fate will be determined on our own by using our air conditioners or by enabling industrialism’s damage by buying things. The fact politicians have conjured numerous ways to fight climate change which all happen to involve revenue, ostensibly in order to combat the “apocalyptic” predictions courtesy of UN IPCC warnings of imminent disaster and doom, in itself should provoke critical thought and questions for the global citizenry; however, the media, the UN, the Nobel Prize Committee (by awarding perhaps the most shameful Nobel Prize in world history [by a nose, even more shameful than Obama’s prize awarded for doing absolutely nothing back in 2009 before he had passed any legislation whatsoever] to Al Gore for having been recorded giving a now disproven, ridiculous PowerPoint presentation consisting of one disproven or heavily exaggerated assertion after another) – the list goes on and on – have done all they can do to control this one singular version of the climate narrative. 

Federal and state legislators actually bring in revenue by laughable decree – for corporations and the citizenry alike to compensate for their “carbon footprints”. Is that not among the most amazing examples of lunacy in government overreach? Charging people and corporations (whose costs obviously trickle down to the 49% of American citizens who actually work for a living) to offset something as abstract as a “carbon footprint” is among the most egregious repercussions dealt upon common man in the name of a far from settled, highly suspect science. A science with an ever-growing list of competent, unbiased scientific experts voicing dissent with the passing of each year. A science the global population has been intentionally and erroneously informed has reached a “97% consensus” among the scientific community. That go-to liberal talking point (as it requires absolutely zero independent thought; solely the unsubstantiated parroting for which liberals are known) that , at this point, sounds quite similar to nails on a chalkboard, has been incontrovertibly debunked by a superfluity of scientific researchers. 

  • The most important fact about climate science, often overlooked, is that scientists disagree about the environmental impacts of the combustion of fossil fuels on the global climate. 
  • The articles and surveys most commonly cited as showing support for a “scientific consensus” in favor of the catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis are without exception methodologically flawed and often deliberately misleading. 
  • There is no survey or study showing “consensus” on the most important scientific issues in the climate change debate.
  • Extensive survey data show deep disagreement among scientists on scientific issues that must be resolved before the man-made global warming hypothesis can be validated. Many prominent experts and probably most working scientists disagree with the claims made by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

~UN IPCC Report on the so-called “scientific consensus” – Follow this link for the full study

Arguably the source most cited by hyperventilating climate alarmists, bequeathed upon the peasantry, came in 2004 from an essay produced by Harvard historian, Naomi Oreskes (You read that right – not a scientist). Unsurprisingly, Ms. Oreskes essay was not peer-reviewed, was made into a profitable book, cleverly titled “Merchants of Doubt” (which in 2015 was made into a movie), and built her entire career making the false claim that “deniers” make up a minute minority among the scientific community.

The NIPCC had this to say of the research and flawed methodology used to determine the 97% consensus farce: “Although not a scientist, she concluded 75 percent of the abstracts either implicitly or explicitly supported IPCC’s view that human activities were responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented” (NIPCC Report on Climate Consensus, p. 25). Al Gore cited her claims in Inconvenient Truth, as well. It’s fair to say Ms. Oreskes conclusions provided a succinct talking point easily understood by even the most dense among we mere peasants. 

According to an in-depth study on the supposed climate “consensus” conducted by the The Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change, numerous problems and ethical questions have surfaced with regards to the methodology used by the Harvard historian.

  • It’s now widely-known Orsekes failed to scrutinize and properly categorize the scientific studies included in her research. 

  • Oreskes’ definition of “consensus” is notably remiss of whether man-made climate change is either dangerous or benign. 

  • Her review “inexplicably” overlooked or simply ignored hundreds of articles by prominent global warming skeptics – John Christy, Sherwood Idso, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, among many others. 1,350 of these ignored articles can now be found in an online bibliography (PopularTechnology.Net) 

  • Her methodology was inherently flawed; and, while she’s not a scientist per se, her conclusions have been instrumental in promoting and enabling global political, economical, and industrial ramifications that will negatively affect common Americans for years to come. The very fact Oreskes was not and is not a scientist undermines any findings and conclusions she made through her unqualified analysis of scientific research available to her. 

  • It has been discovered that her original assertion based on the 928 scientific papers was also flawed; as to query a result of that number, the words “Climate Change” must be used; yet, a query using search terms “Global Climate Change” yields over 10,000 results of climate studies, research, and abstracts. 

  • Oreskes recorded running her queries using the search term “Global Climate Change”; however, it has become abundantly clear she either employed manipulation tactics to substantiate the preconceived conclusions as intended, or lacked professionalism and competency by conveniently omitting the precise keywords used to conduct the study. 

In short, Ms. Oreskes’ conclusions, which provided the left with the “97% consensus” talking point, are entirely unscientific and performed by an unqualified non-scientist now known to have utilized flawed methodology and mishandled data, undermining Ms. Oreskes integrity and the conclusions so many on the left have been smugly and condescendingly been citing as “fact” for a decade. Take a moment to laugh at the gullibility (or) deception committed by the countless dimwits who have parroted the “consensus” B.S. over the years. 

As reported in ‘The New American’, Global Warming alarmists, the U.N. IPCC, and the Climate Science community at large continues to “double down” on claims they’ve made which have proven falsified, to the dismay of scientific experts around the globe:

“Global warming — temperature predictions: Perhaps nowhere has the stunning failure of climate predictions been better illustrated than in the “climate models” used by the UN.

The UN climate bureaucracy, known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), produces periodic reports on “climate science” — often dubbed the “Bible” of climatology. In its latest iteration, the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the UN featured 73 computer models and their predictions. All of them “predicted” varying degrees of increased warming as atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) increased.

The problem is that every single model was wrong — by a lot. Not only did temperatures not rise by as much as the models predicted, they have failed to rise at all since around 1996, according to data collected by five official temperature data­sets. Based just on the laws of probability, a monkey rolling the dice would have done far better at predicting future temperatures than the UN’s models. That suggests deliberate fraud is likely at work.

“Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH), analyzed all 73 UN computer models. “I compared the models with observations in the key area — the tropics — where the climate models showed a real impact of greenhouse gases,” Christy told CNSNews. “I wanted to compare the real world temperatures with the models in a place where the impact would be very clear.

“Using datasets of temperatures from NASA, the U.K. Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research at the University of East Anglia, NOAA, satellites measuring atmospheric and deep oceanic temperatures, and a remote sensor system in California, he found, “All show a lack of warming over the past 17 years.” In other words, global warming has been on “pause” for almost two decades — a fact that has been acknowledged even by many of the most zealous UN climate alarmists. “All 73 models’ predictions were on average three to four times what occurred in the real world.

“Almost laughably, in its latest report, the UN IPCC increased its alleged “confidence” in its theory, an action experts such as Christy could not rationalize. “I am baffled that the confidence increases when the performance of your models is conclusively failing,” he said. “I cannot understand that methodology…. It’s a very embarrassing result for the climate models used in the IPCC report.” “When 73 out of 73 [climate models] miss the point and predict temperatures that are significantly above the real world, they cannot be used as scientific tools, and definitely not for public policy decision-making,” he added.

I’m sure everyone must have forgotten by now the comically erroneous doomsday prophesies asserted on the first Earth Day in 1970. Some of my favorites are: the end of civilization within 15-20 years; 100-200 million deaths to starvation annually for 10 years; urban dwellers having to wear gas masks to survive; and one of the best… a new Ice Age by 2000.

So if you think this hysteria hasn’t been happening since 50 years ago and beyond, you’re mistaken. The scary part about “climate change” is the global politicians and elite, media, and pop culture are so fully committed to its unproven, logically fallible theory that to hold out for the truth, and some reliable science (or a collective concession) is far from likely in our lifetimes.

I’ve read one scientist who dissents from man-made theory put it something like this: Science has always been vulnerable to erroneously believed “settled” theories. He mentions that the only recourse we may count on is that science always corrects itself eventually, but it usually requires the generation hyping the erroneous conclusions they’ve arrived at, and embraced by their world, to die off and the births of new generations of scientists to disprove and correct previous scientific “gospel”.

The Hockey Stick Graph that started it all… Compare this scientific conclusion with regards to something as complex and multi-factored as global climate change and scientific theories postulated by Albert Einstein or Sir Isaac Newton; the elementary simplicity of this “settled science” is comical and indicative of the times in which we live.

Michael Mann’s “scientific”, two axis graph (which reached scientific consensus in historically record time) showing solely carbon dioxide and temperature correlation is so beneath the complexities of what one might expect of true science; particularly, a field of science applied to determining the driving variables of the earth’s climate. It’s actually laughable. A 2nd grader could research their theory and come away with a complete understanding.

Whatt’s Up With That is one of the more prominent sites available for researching scientific dissent, not only calls into question the “Settled” Science that is Climate Theory, credible scientific experts around the globe contribute research, hypotheses, and debate ideas in an effort to practice proper scientific methodology where the prominent Climate Theorists and media have failed. Here’s one of vast multitudes of examples unavailable through mainstream media:


For the past 20 years, there hasn’t been a global warming trend, despite 30% of all manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 being made over just the last 20 years….

We’ll get about another 0.3C of beneficial CO2 warming recovery between now and 2100 per CO2 doubling, LESS the cooling effects of the coming Grand Solar Minimum expected to start around 2035 and last 50~100 years…

There is a good chance global temps may well be cooler by 2100 than they are now….

The disconfirmed CAGW hypothesis predicted 3C~6C of CO2 induced warming by 2100, which is impossible, and explains why the disparity between CAGW projections are so devoid of reality:

Some scientists go so far as to pretend that we people of earth can either accept their findings and support every political policy made to usurp Mother Nature; or, be relegated to the flip side to full, unquestionable worship of their gospel – to be labeled as one who could care less if our descendants will have to develop gills in order to survive the damage our questions do to this settled science.

Science by definition is to seek truth. These same guys are the first to label one in search of that truth “anti-science” or in denial. Their hubris and hypocrisy is mind boggling.

Last Friday, I wrote an article poking fun at the overly defensive reactions had by Michael Mann, one of the top climate scientists made famous by his “Hockey Stick Theory” (Used as the premise to Al Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Truth’), in reaction to a recent ‘Dilbert’ comic strip. He and a group of his climate minions flooded Twitter with accusations of denial, anti-science, and all the cliché ad hominem attacks to which everyone has grown accustomed. 

This weekend, I decided to attempt tweeting some of the research I’d been conducting on my own time and the logical questions which followed; also pointing out some logical fallacies never acknowledged by climate alarmists. I specifically chose Mark Boslough, a renowned physicist and Michael Mann minion, for his tweet I’d cited in the article, in support of Mann accusing “deniers” of never presenting evidence to support their claims; falsely alluding to the ignorance of skeptical inquiry. 

Of course, I chose to include Michael Mann in my series of tweets in support of the return to the Scientific Methodology and principles the Pillar of Science deserves. The result of such endeavors was disconcertingly predictable and expected – Scientific Climate “expert”, Mark Boslough silenced the dispute as per standard procedure, and ‘blocked’ me on Twitter, avoiding any potential further interaction. How very “un-sciency” of him:


Mr. Boslough’s Wikipedia page detailing the vast extent of the expertise he so succinctly exhibited in debate with who he alleges as “anti-science”; although, at no time did I pay anything but the utmost respect & deference to the Pillar of Science; while, the “expert’s” side of the argument seemed to be overwhelmingly complete with rhetoric, ad hominem attacks, deflections.



While Mr. Boslough tweeted his unscientific and laughably typical talking points (which ironically put him in the same class as those “deniers” he falsely stated only make claims always without evidence), the expert answered net zero legitimate questions he was asked; referring to this writer as a “denier”, “gullible” for referencing scientific research not performed by either himself or his closest peers; but, rather, independent bodies and scientists still beholden to the virtues demanded of them by the Pillar of Science. Non-believers, read the supposedly “debunked” emails and decide for yourselves if verbatim quotes advocating and advising concealing contradictory findings from the science community, journals, and most importantly, the media, could truly be debunked.Again, this is one of the “expert” voices in the scientific community that silences skeptics and suppresses scientific dissent while calling people with rational, logical questions to their methodology, “deniers” and “anti-science”:

The opportunity to see firsthand a so-called “expert” failing miserably, or outright refusing to address legitimate questions with legitimate answers was long-awaited, satisfying, and redeeming altogether. The fact is, it’s not denial or anti-science to demand a return to scientific principles shamed by Climate Science; but rather, skepticism should be regarded as pro-science, as for most who voice dissent do so not out of political motivations (as seemingly inherent for mainstream Climate Scientists). Scientific dissent and skepticism can be largely attributed to those who seek truth in the face of a science known to have disgraced scientific protocol, methodology, and principles.


While scientists are quick to assume absolute proof based on questionably arrived at correlations between CO2 and Global Temperatures; here is a graph that shows a disconcerting correlation between Global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and CO2 as a result of Climate Change Hysteria.

Imagine that skeptics are correct, that the skeptic is justified in their demands for scrutiny; for scientific journals to stop suppressing dissent; for climate scientists to stop ignoring contradictory findings and publishing solely supporting findings – it would make fools of so many of the planet’s politicians, who we know would do anything to avoid such profound embarrassment and being exposed for imposing massive economic impacts based on unsound science; it would dismantle a trillion dollar per annum industry of regulatory control, tax revenue, and vast riches collected by a very small, exclusive group of “green” inspired entrepreneurial individuals.

Mathematics is considered the ONLY fundamental, absolute truth in this life in which we may place our complete trust. The Pillar of Science, while rightly not categorized as absolute, consists of noble virtues established and upheld by so many of the earth-shakers of our history, intent on remaining true to principles and values in order to reveal to the world unbiased, uninfluenced, inherent truth. As long as we allow climate science to escape its responsibilities and obligations to scientific principles, we are denying ourselves of our right to the truth. 

A Hilarious Satirical Research Study Correlating Increased Postal Charges to Global Warming and Co2 Emissions – Click Here


Click here to follow Hans on Twitter

Hans Comprix is a marine veteran of the Global War on Terror & conservative writer. He’s a contributor for Intellectual Conservative, having previously contributed to ‘American Thinker’ and ‘Now its Dark’ magazine. Email hans.comprix@com for comments, questions, or hate mail. 

Comments are closed.