Climate Change- a belief system

Following up some clues and doing a bit of research on one Mike Hulme, I have uncovered the reality of what we are actually up against in this 'Climate Change' 'dispute'. It is actually a truly Machiavellian attempt at changing the entire way we view ourselves, but forced on us by a new elite who have in mind only the grasping of power, by whatever means are needed to do so. This explains why arguments about the science have proved so ineffective in slowing the power-thrust of this movement, why they pursue their policies with such disregard to any scientists who disagree with their social agendas and why, despite the revelations of corruption with the Climategate disclosures the whole juggernaut seems to keep on without the slightest slowdown.

Have a read of this article and see if it does not change how you see this entire process!
 

Here is a short quote from this article, but it should give you enough of an insight to make you want to read the full thing, though it is quite lengthy.

We always said that Climate Change was a belief system, and there you have it. It has abandoned the pretence of objective science. As Hulme reveals, it is a postmodern narrative and the IPCC is a “classic example of a post-normal scientific activity”. This is leading to ridiculous situations. In early November 2009, a certain Tim Nicholson was granted permission to take his former employer Grainger to a tribunal. Commenting on this, his lawyer states:

Essentially what the judgment says is that a belief in man-made climate change and the alleged resulting moral imperative is capable of being a philosophical belief and is therefore protected by the 2003 religion or belief regulations.

Nicholson said he had tried to set up a carbon management system for the company, but was unable to work out its carbon footprint because staff had refused to give him the necessary data. He accused the chief executive, Rupert Dickinson, of showing “contempt” for his beliefs by not minimizing carbon emissions. Commenting on this issue in The Guardian, Andrew Brown, clearly in favour of coercion, writes in an article entitled We’re doomed without a green religion:

The justification for burning heretics was perfectly simple: dissent threatened the survival of society…not to coerce, itself becomes immoral…Compulsion will be needed but compulsion alone won’t do it…They need to believe in what they are forced to do…and that will also mean its dark side: the pressure of conformism, the force of self-righteousness, huge moral weight attached to practically useless gestures like unplugging phone chargers. They need, in fact, something that does look a lot like religion…Should that happen, the denialists, who claim that it is all a religion, will for once be telling the truth…

Mike Hulme has recently published a book entitled Why We Disagree About Climate Change from which some of his quotes above are taken. I can do no better than quote extracts of the book review by Joseph Bast in American Thinker:

More than a few people will be tempted to buy this book based on the promise, implicit in its title, that it offers an examination of the ideas and motives of both sides in the global warming debate. But that is not what this book is about. Rather, it is the musings of a British socialist about how to use the global warming issue as a means of persuading “the masses” to give up their economic liberties. The fact that the author, Mike Hulme, is a scientist who helped write the influential reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and many other influential government agencies makes this book more disturbing than informative.

…socialists like Hulme can frame the global warming issue in such as way as to achieve seemingly unrelated goals such as sustainable development, income redistribution, population control, social justice, and many other items on the liberal/socialist wish-list.

It is troubling to read a prominent scientist who has so clearly lost sight of his cardinal duty — to be skeptical of all theories and always open to new data. It is particularly troubling when this same scientist endorses lying by others to advance his personal political agenda.

Read this book if you want insight into the mind of a scientist who has surrendered all moral authority to speak truthfully about global warming. Avoid it if you are looking for a book that explains why we disagree about climate change.

This information is slightly dated, November of last year, but highly relevant still.
 

Paul