The climate change religion is anti-human

And it sure as hell isn't "science".

Yesterday I casually called the current climate change alarmism a leftist “religion”. Maybe I should clarify. It certainly has the characteristics of a religion. Also of a psy-op. Also of government propaganda.

What it doesn’t look much like is science.

Your Spidey senses should start tingling that maybe climate change alarmism isn’t science when you consider just how long they’ve been peddling this “crisis”. And also how the claims of doom morph over time.

In the ‘70s, all the chicken littles in science, media, and government were screaming about global cooling and the imminent ice age due to man’s CO2 emissions. Then (since the climate didn’t cooperate with them) the alarmism switched to global warming.

Then, when the climate still wouldn’t conform to their story, they switched to the much more vague “climate change”. Temperature too cold? It’s your fault, sinner! Too hot? Flog yourself, sinner, and lower your carbon footprint!

It should also make you suspicious that the same type of people (leftists and their associated cronies) all along have been insisting that the solution to these climate crises just happen to be what they’ve always wanted all along: increased government controls over the economy along with financial benefits to their politically connected friends via carbon credits, solar energy subsidies, and thousands of other expensive and destructive boondoggles.

I should make one thing clear. The earth could well be warming and man-made CO2 emissions could well be the cause. I can’t rule that out. What I can rule out is that these alarmists know it to be true because of science. All those very particular (and hilariously so) claims are nonsense.

Let’s start with the strongest scientific claim the climate alarmists have — perhaps the only one. CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas, and the “greenhouse effect” (all else equal) is a real phenomenon.

But of course, all else is definitely not equal. The earth is a bewilderingly complex byzantine web of positive and negative feedback loops when it comes to all things weather and climate.

And we humans don’t understand the earth’s climate system. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar. These particular liars in question think they understand the earth’s complex climate system so well in fact, that they can build a predictive model of it and tell you the average temperature of the globe decades into the future!

These are the claims of snake oil salesmen, people. Pure charlatans.

We know a few things about how various parts of the earth’s climate system works, but enough to model it and make any sort of prediction about the future? Nonsense.

Today’s climate scientists can’t even model how clouds work.

Clouds.

Think that might be a tiny hole in the accuracy of their model?

First of all, they don’t have one model that works. They have dozens of models — and none of them work. Not even close.

The priests — (ahem) excuse me, “scientists” — trot out a bunch of models and make predictions about the future that cover a range of “predicted” outcomes — all in the hysterically alarmist direction.

Every time, what actually happens to the “global temperature” here in the real world is something completely different.

Then (because they are scientists, see) they take one or two of their models and tinker with them until they “hindcast” the actual observed temperature. Then they point to the new models and proclaim, “These models are accurate!”.

That’s not how science works. That’s more like how an Ouija board works.

I don’t know a whole lot about climate science. Almost nothing. I know that the sun is the primary driver of the earth’s weather systems and that the whole miraculous thing is complicated. That’s about it.

But I did get a Bachelor’s degree in Business Finance, so I know how financial forecasting models work. And how those models work, see… is they are a web of lies.

It’s not the data in a model that drives the outcome. It’s the assumptions. A good business forecaster can take the same set of data and make their model spit out any result he wants simply by tweaking the assumptions.

A smart analyst in a big company tweaks those dials so the model spits out the answer (and accompanying recommendation) that his boss wants.

Same thing here.

The people funding all these scientists are all pushing an ideological agenda. The scientists know what kind of “science” gets funded, and what doesn’t. The government’s big fat thumb is all over the scales — and they have a bias.

This type of “science” isn’t what we usually think of by that term. It isn’t the application of reason using the scientific method in an attempt to understand ourselves and our world. That would be noble and beautiful.

This is propaganda. And it’s evil and disgusting.

For more on this topic, I recommend the work of Bjorn Lomborg, particularly The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It!. Also (and perhaps even more importantly) the work of Alex Epstein, particularly Fossil Future and The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.

Even if the alarmists are right and the earth is warming or changing or whatever the claim is, that doesn’t answer the question of what we should do about it.

Does it make sense to pour endless amounts of money (and destroy our productive economy) to prevent the change? Or does it make more sense to use our resources to adapt to the change?

The work of economist Robert Murphy is an excellent resource to show that the policy recommendations of climate alarmists don’t make the slightest bit of sense — unless you despise humanity or something.

Well, I don’t. I’m quite fond of humanity. And also of you, dear reader. Thanks for your time.

Naturally,

Adam

PS: Wanna learn some of the things that made me such a smarty-pants radical? Look into Liberty Classroom by the great Tom Woods. You won’t regret it. Or maybe you will. How can I tell? I’m super-radicalized!