That quote comes to us from The New Republic, which like a lot of liberal outlets that took the word of a non-existent scientific consensus on Global Warming, seems somewhat surprised by the delay in the destruction of all life on earth.
Even as scientists asserted an incontrovertible consensus on climate change, a funny thing has happened over the last 15 years: Global warming has slowed down. Since 1998, the warmest year of the twentieth century, temperatures have not kept up with computer models that seemed to project steady warming; they’re perilously close to falling beneath even the lowest projections…
If scientific models can’t project the last 15 years, what does that mean for their projections of the next 100?
That’s obvious really. It means they’re worthless. Anyone can predict that the world will end in 100 or 1000 years. Everyone from cult leaders to Al Gore and Prince Charles have done it.
The problems happen when the Date of Doom is set a little too close to the present and can be exposed by the simple fact of its non-existence.
The ecoscammers claimed that they were practicing science. But their doomsday predictions required a pattern of numbers in the present day. They wildly fudged those numbers, but there’s only so much you can fudge. If you predict that an asteroid will hit the earth in 2100, then you need to have
1. An asteroid
2. A course for the asteroid that will lead it to collide with the earth
What Warmunists really had was an asteroid that was in the Solar System but not actually headed for the earth. What they had was a hypothetical apocalypse that their own numbers didn’t even support.
The difference between religion and science is that one is revealed truth and the other is theory. But when men and women in lab coats start predicting the end of days if the heretics don’t repent and cast out their incandescent light bulbs and SUV’s, then what you have is theory as revealed truth. An experiment in eschatology.
Environmentalists parade around the corpse of science on their shoulders, mount it on their walls and proclaim that science is on their side. Once you completely murder a system of using trial and error experimentation to confirm a theory, then you might as well use it as a banner on a flagpole or a trophy in your living room. But the environmentalist’ science has as much relation to a living field, as the head of a dead moose mounted over a bed and breakfast’s fireplace does to a living creature.
Ideology has killed science and now claims its intellectual credibility for its own. But purging dissenting scientists, burning books and silencing all critics with jeers is not science, no more than what passed for it in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany was science. It is the fanaticism of an ideology, the championing of backwardness, the exploitation of titles and terminology to silence debate and betray the ethical trust of inquiry.
It’s still true. This isn’t science. This is a scam by profiteers and false prophets of leftist ideologies.