The Church of Climate Change


The astute blogger Bookworm Room has just published an important essay by our mutual friend Wolf Howling about so-called climate change, a leftist religion that seeks to enforce its dogma on a global scale. The climate-change movement brooks no dissent; its green inquisition will not hesitate to destroy the reputations and livelihoods of any who might dare to question its fanatic doctrines.

Make no mistake about it: When the Soviet Union collapsed, the true believers of Marxism-Leninism migrated to the various eco-movements that seek to consolidate power and redistribute wealth on a global scale.

We are entering a true crisis. Left unchecked, the eco-fascists will succeed — with the enthusiastic collaboration of the Democrat party — in installing a tyrannical authority that will render the United States Congress and the Constitution mute.

Here’s Bookworm’s introduction:

My friend Wolf Howling was kind enough to allow me to publish his essay synthesizing the economic, scientific, and legal issues arising from the political and academic worlds’ embrace of climate change. His essay is somewhat longer than the usual post, but extremely accessible and informative.

We stand at a critical tipping point in crucial areas of economics, science and the law, all related to climate change and all highlighted by recent steps that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) took to adjust our historic temperature record in response to a study that NOAA scientist Tom Karl conducted. That change to the temperature record, which seemingly relies on a few keystrokes, rather than data, to find warming where none existed before, comes at a critical time, when our government is about to undertake two huge commitments ostensibly to mitigate climate change.

First, the EPA has just imposed its Clean Power Plan to affect climate change mitigation. Estimates are that the plan will cost the United States over two trillion dollars in economic growth, without having any impact on climate change.

Second, the United Nations will be hosting a Conference on Climate Change in Paris (“COP21” or “Paris Conference”) this month. Attendees will work on a massive plan to redistribute the world’s wealth, in addition to considering plans for international taxation and creation of a court of “climate justice.”

Either the Clean Power Plan or the Paris Agreement has the power to hobble our economy. If both are put into play, the economic effect will be disastrous.

Read the full text here.

This entry was posted in America, Class Warfare, Climate Change, Constitution, Obama Watch and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.


  1. pkoning
    Posted November 13, 2015 at 9:16 am | Permalink

    The WSJ recently had an op-ed about the “adjustment” and “proxy data” schemes used to fiddle with the data used by these “scientists”.
    There is indeed a technical term for people who take their raw data and modify it. But “scientist” is not the one.
    Unfortunately the writer, not being up to speed on mathematical statistics theory, didn’t realize just how nasty this is. The simple answer is that, if you adjust the data, you can no longer use it for meaningful analysis. The reason is simple: you can no longer tell whether your conclusions come from the raw data, or from the adjustments you made.
    One of the adjustments mentioned was the use of “proxy data” to “fill in” observations for places where actual measurements were infrequent — like the polar regions. That might sound innocuous. It isn’t. Even if you simply fill in additional values that match the averages of the real data, you’ve changed the answers. In statistics, there is a big difference between the conclusion from the observations 1, 2, 3, and from the observations 1,2,3,2,2,2,2,2,2. Changing the number of observations changes the “standard error” (or “standard deviation”) — you may know this as “margin of error” in opinion poll reports. Those two data sets have different standard error (even though they have the same average), and the conclusions you could draw from them are not the same.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. Posted November 13, 2015 at 5:44 am | Permalink

    Hi, Robert.

    If you’ve not read it already, I can’t recommend Mark Steyn’s A Disgrace To The Profession highly enough.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Posted November 13, 2015 at 5:47 am | Permalink

      Oh, sorry about that. I know you don’t like swearing around here, but your comment system seems to have automatically picked up the title of my last post and added it to my comment. Sorry.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. A Bitter-American (clinging to guns and G-d)
    Posted November 12, 2015 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    That cartoon is funny and sad and terrifying, all at the same time.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. Posted November 12, 2015 at 11:36 am | Permalink

    Oy Vey… Robert, it’s posts like this that make me happily anticipate your Friday Photos posts!

    Look, I’m all for conserving our planet’s natural resources and working to insure our natural wonders. I’m all for being a thoughtful and conscientious steward of the environment and all of the animals (including humans) that call this piece of rock home. Heck, back when I was a young, idealistic college student, I even gave money to Green Peace because I was so compassionate.

    But somewhere in my maturation process, I discovered the “coming ice age” (as predicted in the late ’70’s) was contradicted by the “global warming” studies. I saw prestigious academics who were all over the place with predictions about the climate, trans-fatty acids, the evils of coffee and bacon — the list is seemingly endless!

    My father, a wise and experienced CPA, used to say “Follow the money…” That when I started using the CRAP test — a tool used by librarians to evaluate research sources. CRAP stands for Currency, Relevancy (or Reliability), Authority, and Purpose. When I started investigating the claims of climate change, I found large research universities with powerful, highly-paid researchers getting millions of dollars to study climate change and how to mitigate “the problem”. Then it became clear to me that no matter what the research showed — dire climate change, no change, or moderate change — the researchers benefited from doing more research. Think about it. If they had a study that concluded there was no significant change in the last 1,000,000 years, would those researchers receive any more research money? No. It’s in their own professional interests to further the research and the study of the climate. On this level, their studies fail the CRAP test, at least for me anyway.

    Now, what do you have in store for us tomorrow? Shoes? Hollywood stars? Starving artists? I can’t wait…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • kishke
      Posted November 12, 2015 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

      I’m all for conserving our planet’s natural resources

      That’s the thin edge of the wedge.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Posted November 13, 2015 at 5:57 am | Permalink

        With all due respect, anything short of the wanton disregard for the planet could be termed “the thin edge of the wedge”.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • kishke
          Posted November 13, 2015 at 9:58 am | Permalink

          I prefer wanton disregard for the planet to anything that gives these cruel, anti-human, anti-property, destructive, tree-hugging, bug-loving wackos a toehold in our society. Too late for that, of course. They have a lot more than a toehold now.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting