Is climate change theory a science or a religion? It has elements of both but my background in religion leads me to believe that the theory known as “Climatology” leans more towards the spiritual than the scientific. The adherents of the theory display a more cult like belief in its validity than could be expected based on the scientific method.
Both science and religion have a role in society and the formation of cultural norms and, outside of the descriptive language used, scientific and religious establishments have a lot of similarities. Both science and religion have predictive elements: when you do an experiment or a ritual, you expect certain results. And both offer prophesy or speculative possibility based on their belief system. Daily activity is based on the teachings of authoritative texts and individuals. Heretics must prove their beliefs to a supervisory board and must gather a number of supporters of their case if they want their ideas to become canonical. If your heresy is accepted, it becomes interwoven in the fabric of established principles – if it is not, the heretic is shunned and vilified.
One important difference between science and religion is the concept of falsifiability. Karl Popper, the noted philosopher of science, proposed that statements and theories that are not falsifiable should not be considered scientific. Declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientific would then be a false science or pseudoscience. Something is falsifiable if one can conceive an empirical observation or experiment which could refute it. For example it was long believed by naturalists that all swans were white since no one in the West had ever seen a swan of a different color, even going back to Roman times. The proposition that “all swans are white” is falsifiable if one non-white swan should be found. And in 1697 a Dutch explorer found, in Australia, the first non-white swan known to the western world. All valid scientific theories are falsifiable, no matter how improbable the falsifying observation might be. Religious theories, in contrast, are not generally seen as falsifiable – there is no way to prove that Jesus did not ascend to heaven, or that Buddha did not enter Nirvana or even that angels do not exist. There can never be enough observable data to falsify any of these beliefs.
In the scientific method, natural phenomena is observed and described. A hypothesis is then formulated to explain the phenomena. The hypothesis is then used to predict other phenomena or results. Tests or experiments are developed to challenge the predictions – the tests are designed to maximize the possibility of disproving or falsifying the hypothesis. In the case of Climatology, none of the predictions or experiments have succeeded in validating the claims of the hypothesis. Yet, Climatologists still persist in their adherence to the theory.
A prediction made in accordance with a scientific theory is either accurate or not. If it is not accurate, the theory needs to be reevaluated. Al Gore, one of the dominant proclaimers of climate change theory, made many predictions in 2006. If the predictions had come true, the theory would have gained some scientific legitimacy. Gore and his fellow believers, predicted that by now (2018) there would be an ice-free Arctic, a drastic decline in the polar bear population, little or no snow in Canada and the northern United States, Florida would be under water and that the global ocean conveyor belt, the natural, constantly moving system of deep-ocean water circulation, would slow down considerably and perhaps even stop due to disruptions in the climate. None of these predictions have held up. In other sciences, when your predictions fail you go back and see what’s wrong with your theory. Climatologists didn’t do that. Instead, they changed up their style of presentation. They stopped making short-term predictions and started making predictions of the far distant future, when no one would be around to challenge them. They, also, switched the term “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” so they could incorporate record cold temperatures and snowfalls into their theory. Climate, like God, behaves in mysterious ways – rising temperatures, lowering temperatures, droughts, floods, whatever happens is proof of climate change theory. Specifically, they claim changes are mostly the result of human action. And, although their claims have not been substantiated, they declared their “science” to be settled and indisputable – no one is permitted to question it on pain of being ridiculed, ostracized or even worse if the Climatologists have their way.
These are not the marks of a science but of a religious cult. Climatology is basically an apocalyptic religion proclaiming that the sins of mankind will be responsible for worldwide floods, hurricanes, crop failures, famines and even (weirdly) economic issues and political unrest unless humans mend their evil ways. If world leaders do not repent and force their people to adhere to the strict policies created by the advocates of climate change theory, the Earth will be visited by terrible destructive forces that will end life as we know it. And people must be forced by the rule of law to obey the dictates of the Climatologists. Climate deniers (their word for heretics or infidels) must be punished politically and economically for daring to doubt the Climatologists who are selflessly working for the salvation of the world.
Sadly, due to the support of the media who are always interested in sensationalist rhetoric, and politicians around the world who have found Climatology a good vehicle for controlling the masses, this cult has become one of the most popular religions in the Western world. It is particularly favored by people claiming to be atheists and people who have been calling themselves environmentalists since at least the early 60’s. How is this possible? Human social structures, like religion, simply can’t be eliminated from society. People might say they don’t believe in God but they MUST believe in something. The State itself often replaces religion, but in a so-called free society, where church and state are supposed to be separated, an outside, distinctly organized substitute is needed. Rulers have always maintained a symbiotic relationship with organized religion and in the case of Climatology the Globalist state has found a perfect alternative for belief in God. Climatology is the religion of choice for the large middle and managerial class of people, and for the social elite – those for whom money and materialism offer insufficient satisfaction and who are not otherwise cemented to a spiritual identity such as Judeo-Christianity. It is also a religion that the State can happily get behind and champion – who would argue with a politician who wants to use science to save the world? Of course such a dynamic belief system needs to be well funded and that means funded by the public purse. How would a tax payer deny leaders money to save the world? And all this public money means the Globalist leaders have plenty of resources to satisfy their own agenda, even if it not directly related. To protect their own interest, their own cash cow, Globalists throw their might behind Climatology and label themselves “Defenders of the Science” just as knights of old called themselves “Defenders of the Faith.” They proclaim themselves protectors of humanity and the future and anyone who dares denounce the God of Climate Change Theory must be cast out of society. Some Climatologists, such as noted crank Bill Nye, have even publicly advocated death for “Climate Deniers.” Insanity? Well, clearly not science. It is only religious fanatics who wish death on infidels. Scientists use reason, not force, to gain adherents to their theories. But when a theory is so broadly speculative that it becomes unfalsifiable, reason isn’t enough. The Globalist state profits from championing Climatology and is not afraid to use all its powers to force individuals to conform to its ideology.
Climatology is a perfect State religion and it will be around for a long time. God help us.