Intelligent Design

Global Warming Hysteria; Darwinian Certitude

Spread the love

Thank you DaveScott for the post below, which contains some of the most convincing material on the falsification of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis I have seen yet.  I write this separate post to highlight this statement by Professor Carter, the scientist providing the data:

“And I started with a picture on my title slide of a Salvador Dali painting.  I forgot to say that being a professional scientist, at the moment, is like living in a Salvador Dali painting.  You are surrounded by these exquisitely detailed scientific interpretations done by scientists who are fellows of the Royal Academy, leading scientists in the world, and they are nearly all imaginary.”

I hope those of you who have wondered why we post global warming material on a site devoted to the ID issue now understand the parallel.  For political, philosophical (and dare I say “religious”) reasons, the global warming crowd uses computer projections to IMAGINE a problem, and before you know it their imaginary problem has become a scientific consensus.  For philosophical, religious and (probably political) reasons, Darwinists imagine that life developed according to Darwinian principles (remember, in Darwinism the imagination of the researcher counts as evidence for the theory), and lo and behold, a scientific consenus has arisen. 

The key thing to rememember is that the scientific consensus then becomes self-perpetuating, because anyone who challenges the orthodoxy gets Gonzalized (a new term I’ve coined which is similar to being “Borked” in politics). 

20 Replies to “Global Warming Hysteria; Darwinian Certitude

  1. 1
    Atom says:

    Gonzalized = Sternberged? (A term I’ve heard before?)

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    I have my own “religiously” motivated way at looking at the weather, not to belittle man’s responsibility to be good stewards of the earth, but I feel, just like many other Theists, that God is ultimately in control of the weather. And I, for one, am extremely relieved that He is ultimately in control.

    A poem:

    In a windswept field the clouds build
    The sky grows dark, the air smells of coming rain
    As a nervous world stews in fearful anticipation
    Fearful anticipation for the promised Wonders,
    Of the new promised Wonders from the Ancient Ones hand
    Yes, the mighty foretold Wonders
    Soon to be seen across the land
    Could this be THE prophesied cleansing rain?
    Will He finally wash away all our tears and pain?
    Lightning cracks the sky open,,,
    For a brief instance the glorious white light of His kingdom is revealed
    The tear in the sky threatens to rip the sky asunder
    The world roars applause with a loud sustained thunder
    An applause for the glorious light we have glimpsed
    From the world of light promised past death’s weakened fence
    Yes, of the glory promised to our every fiber and sense
    Another longer bolt of lightning teases us yet again
    And again the world with thunder shouts an encouraging reply
    Yes, Encouraging the glory of paradise to swallow this world whole
    Yet, it is followed by a long low grumble for being teased yet again
    For being teased yet again with the coming of a glorious paradise
    A long low grumble yearning jealously for the promise that is so soon near
    But alas, the sky closes behind the lightning bolt’s rip
    All the world is still as it was
    The clouds open up, The rain pours down
    But it is not really raining, the clouds are really crying
    Crying for the world must face yet another day
    Face yet another day of being one step short of paradise.

  3. 3
    GilDodgen says:

    …the global warming crowd uses computer projections to IMAGINE a problem…

    And Darwinists use computer programs to imagine how RM/RV+NS can explain all of life’s diversity, complexity, information content, etc. And in both cases the programs are rigged to produce the desired result.

    As many UD readers know, this is an area of particular interest to me. The general public is often easily swayed when it hears that “a computer simulation has demonstrated…” It’s like a stamp of sanctification by the scientific priesthood which reassures that certain claims can be trusted, when, in fact, computer simulations can be designed to deceive — sometimes even the programmers themselves!

  4. 4
    DLH says:

    BarryA’s parallels are well shown by

    See Prof. Carter’s paper and slides at:

    The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change, R M Carter

    Besides numerous primary references, Carter provides:

    The following URLs contain much useful discussion and many additional references on the pros and cons of human-caused global warming. Peer-reviewed literature on global warming has for many years been subject to a stifling conformity, whereby views that differ from the IPCC alarmist consensus are suppressed or otherwise discounted. Achieving a balanced view on climate change therefore demands that an interested party seek out the sort of informed but informal discussion that can be found amongst the following links:”

    * Bob Carter’s biography:
    Tom Nelson, critical analysis of the CO warming issue:
    Roger Pielke’s blog on climate issues:
    Senator James Inhofe, climate issues:
    • John McLean, analysis and links on climate change:
    Bob Carter, analysis and links on climate change:

    Francis Massen, news, analysis and links on climate change:
    Steve McIntyre, critical analysis of the statistical basis of climate change issues:
    NZ Climate Science Coalition, useful links and documents on climate change:
    Analysis and comment on climate-related issues:
    Sherwood and Keith Idso, critical comment on climate-related issues, especially CO2
    Cooler Heads Coalition, thorough coverage of climate news:
    Peter Glover, analysis and links on climate change:
    An international group of climate experts with special strength in meteorology:
    John Daly (dec), considered contrarian viewpoints on climate change:
    Lavoisier Group, discussion and useful links on greenhouse issues:
    PAGES, up-to-date data on ancient climate change:
    critical analysis of the ‘hockey-stick’ graph: climate change science:
    Doug Hoyt, critical analyses of climate change science:
    Pat Michaels blog on climate issues:


    Carter’s observation

    Peer-reviewed literature on global warming has for many years been subject to a stifling conformity, whereby views that differ from the IPCC alarmist consensus are suppressed or otherwise discounted.

    is particularly apropos to the ID/Evo debate.

  5. 5
    Paul Giem says:


    Sternberging describes what can happen to one who believes that ID should get a hearing. Gonzalizing is what happens to one who actually believes in ID. Gonzalizing is arguably harder on one’s career, though neither strike me as very pleasant.

  6. 6
    russ says:

    And Dembskiing/Marksing is what happens to you when you do ID at your workplace.

  7. 7
    Atom says:

    lol, thanks for the distinction Paul/Russ. Sounds about right.

  8. 8
    BarryA says:

    Paul, Russ and Atom, I coined the term in all seriousness and here’s why. Language is very powerful. If there is a term for something, then it exists. Why is this important? It is important because over the last few days on this very blog we have seen some who would deny that there is any such thing as a penalty for believing in or espousing ID. These are the same types of people who would have argued in 1987 that it was absurd to suggest the Democrats did a political hit on the Bork nomination.

    Then the term “borking” was coined. Now that there is a term for it, when it happens it is almost impossible to deny that it exists.

    It is important to have a term — a single term — to define what happened to GG. The reality will give rise to the term which in turn will make the reality impossible to deny.

  9. 9
    selectedpete says:

    Long time lurker, 1st time post. Dr Dembski, I have been soaking up as much as I possibly can here, and just finished listening to CD #11 of the Design Revolution. I won’t claim to have absorbed everything, but that is what replay is for now isn’t it?

    This GWarming post reminded me of a quote I read recently that seemed appropriate:

    “If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out of it but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no-one dares criticize it.” – Pierre Gallois

    Another title might be “When Lemmings Access Simulation Software”

    I am glad to see a parallel drawn here between the supposed consensus of GW and the same consensus of Macro Evolution. The psychology and the trajectory of the tiny animals from the cliff face are remarkably similar!

  10. 10
    BarryA says:

    As if she intends to emphasize my point, Sally_T just admitted (or at least implied) that she would have participated gleefully in gonzolizing GG.

  11. 11
    DLH says:

    BarryA’s parallels are well shown by Prof. Bob Carter’s paper and slides at:

    The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change, R M Carter

    Carter’s observation:

    Peer-reviewed literature on global warming has for many years been subject to a stifling conformity, whereby views that differ from the IPCC alarmist consensus are suppressed or otherwise discounted.

    is particularly apropos to the ID/Evo debate.

  12. 12
    BarryA says:

    Welcome to the site Pete!

  13. 13
    howard says:

    Sometimes you are reminded just how ingrained this ‘imaginary’ perception is. On a televised discussion here (in the UK) last night on religious tolerance, a leading politician spoke about the problem being ‘fundamentalists’ – not only terrorists, but those who ‘still challenge Darwin and Darwinism’, because, most ‘sensible’ religious people in Europe today do not.
    How insidious this error has become!

  14. 14
    mike1962 says:

    howard: “but those who ’still challenge Darwin and Darwinism’, because, most ’sensible’ religious people in Europe today do not.”

    I wouldn’t be too hard on this person. I would guess that his/her statement was due to the either/or dichotomy embedded (deliberately, I believe) in the minds of such by the darwinista establishment. “Either you believe darwinism is true or you believe God created the world in six 24-hour days, and the latter is tantamount to believing the earth is flat”, etc.

    The world is full of ridiculous notions, and it will take time to correct this one in the general population.

  15. 15
    mynym says:

    Another title might be “When Lemmings Access Simulation Software”

    The psychology and the trajectory of the tiny animals from the cliff face are remarkably similar!

    Good metaphor. There seems to be a pattern to the psychological dynamics which cause people to begin imagining things in order to keep running with the Herd. Some type of internal urge to merge can be seen in Darwinism. The irony is that people governed by this type of psychological dynamic seem to want to cite themselves as if they are the epistemic equivalent of empirical evidence. Whether citing their own imaginations or the “scientific consensus” they’re often trying to find ways to point to themselves instead of focusing on facts, logic and empirical evidence.

  16. 16
    Alann says:

    When it comes to global warming it always seems to come back to the disbelief that humans could be part of the problem or be part of the solution.

    This at least strikes me as riduculous. Humans have cut down entire forests (96% of all forests on the North America continent have been cut down compared to 200 eyears ago). Humans have annihilated entire species and driven others to the edge of extinction. Humans have been responsible for problems on a global scale before (destruction of the ozone layer), and were able to reverse the problem. There are over 6 billion humans, and we have turned over a third of all the worlds land into farmland to sustain that population. Also should there urge every strike us we have created sufficient weapons to not only destroy ourselves, but to potentially whipe out all life on this planet.

    It should never be viewed as a question of can we do something, but rather a question of what should we do. I admit this is not an easy question; however when asked in temrs of if we should pursue more fuel efficient vehicles or cleaner alternatives like hydrogen fuel cells the answer is simple: Yes.

    In my mind we should hurry the transition aways from gas powered vehicles. We have people complaining about “strict” standards which would lower vehicle emmissions by a tiny margin over 10 years when we have the technology and capacity to reduce those emmissions to near zero in the same timeframe. We have all the reasons we need to do it (issues with foreign oil, other forms of air pollution) without raising the specter of global warming.

  17. 17
    rob74 says:

    This point has probably already been made, but I think that the global warming myth will greatly affect the way the theory of evolution will be perceived in the future.

    If the global warming science is discredited in the near future by cooling temperatures, then everyday people will lose the faith in science that has been prevelant since the A bomb.

    If the “consensus” is wrong with global warming, other scientific positions will be more readily questioned.

  18. 18
    getawitness says:

    As one who believes global warming is quite real, and quite significant, I think the global warming posts hurt the credibility of this site. As ID gets affiliated with all other kinds of deniers — global warming denial, HIV/AIDS denial (Johnson and Wells), etc. — it seems to challenge orthodoxy for its own sake.

    Anyway, in response to BA77, a few lines from Bob Dylan:

    High water risin’, six inches ‘bove my head
    Coffins droppin’ in the street
    Like balloons made out of lead
    Water pourin’ into Vicksburg, don’t know what I’m going to do
    “Don’t reach out for me,” she said
    “Can’t you see I’m drownin’ too?”
    It’s rough out there
    High water everywhere

    Well, George Lewis told the Englishman, the Italian and the Jew
    “You can’t open your mind, boys
    To every conceivable point of view.”
    They got Charles Darwin trapped out there on Highway Five
    Judge says to the High Sheriff,
    “I want him dead or alive
    Either one, I don’t care.”

    High water everywhere

  19. 19
    Frost122585 says:

    We know that climate varies way up and down- getawitness bases his belief of global warming not from his person scientific research but from his silly world view that industry america and capitolism are the cause of all of the world woes. Thank God he was removed.

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    In response to #18

    Jars of Clay-Flood;plindex=2



Leave a Reply