2 of 18

Write now Article Tools

Page 5 of 5

tested the waters and the winds, politicians began to slowly climb aboard the AGW juggernaut as the public perspective, carefully trained in the "right" direction by the schools and the media began to shift. Had Paul had the resources of a omnipresent media and compulsory public school system at his beck and call, Christianity would've spread to all corners of the planet within his lifetime and it would've been he, not the Romans burning heretical "deniers" at the stake, just as AGW adherents do only in effect (so far) to AGW "deniers" today.

Today, AGW cannot be denied. At least, not by anyone in any sort of official position within the education, media, political, economic nor certainly scientific communities. As Christianity did when it gained power, and in order to keep and grow that power, anyone who speaks out against AGW is in effect burned at the stake in their given profession. Nothing about climate or weather that does not support AGW may be published for widespread dissemination. Scientific American made an editorial decision to summarily turn away any article in any way regarding climate that questions warming and/or its root cause, human activity. Moreover, canons of scientific literature published BAGW (before AGW) are deemed heretical and are effectively tossed into the raging bonfires set by AGW zealots at the urging of their high priests. Researchers and writers of same, if they do not confess their sins in later publications are similarly excised.

(The First Church of) AGW demonstrates all the hallmarks of a religious movement, but a very modern one. The Roman Catholic Church, which for years burned scientific heretics at the stake, found it necessary, as science and technology advanced, to "go with the flow" and eventually accept modern science up to an including a recent Papal bull admitting that evolution is not at odds with Roman Catholic doctrine. How is the evolution of AGW any different? It is thoroughly modern, to be sure, and places its "cases" and proofs in science and, more often, quasi-science from the get-go. But in the end, it comes down to belief.

Most adherents to AGW have no more scientific background than do most of us who "believe" in evolution as a scientific fact. And this is what the elite propagators of this new, powerful and wealthy religion are relying upon. It's enough for you to believe, you don't really need to understand the nuts and bolt, just as it's enough for the laity to believe in any given supernatural-based religion; you needn't be a theologian.

In the final analysis, however, AGW is a far more disingenuous form of belief than most religious structures. While some in any faith will be strict adherents to whatever gospels and doctrine extant to that religion, most "church" leaders and followers are happy enough to accept their beliefs as a matter of faith. While leaders of AGW expect all of us to convert to their belief system (or at least to shut up if we don't), absent the sort of evidence typically rigidly required of science in order to identify something as a "fact," at the same time they insist it's not a matter of faith and use science and quasi-science to mount their cases. Like any religion though, AGW can be in the end de-constructed by anyone willing to do so, and face the inevitable slings and arrows the establishment and true believers will cast at he or she who does.

Learn more about this author, J.M. Schell.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

• << previous page
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

Add your voice

Know something about Why do so many people believe in catastrophic global warming??
We want to hear your view. Write now!