ENVIRONMENTAL AND EPIGENETIC IMPACTS | STATE OF FEAR IN THE GREENHOUSE | ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES CO-OPTED INTO A “RELIGION” OF PERPETUAL CATASTROPHES” by Jeffrey Thayer (September 2024)

 

“ENVIRONMENTAL AND EPIGENETIC IMPACTS | STATE OF FEAR IN THE GREENHOUSE | ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES CO-OPTED INTO A “RELIGION” OF PERPETUAL CATASTROPHES” by Jeffrey Thayer (September 2024)

FEAR Abbreviation Meaning

The abbreviation FEAR is often interpreted as False Evidence Appearing Real, a concept suggesting that fear is frequently based on misconceptions rather than actual threats. This acronym is commonly discussed in the context of psychology and self-help to illustrate how irrational fears can hinder personal growth and decision-making.  https://www.allacronyms.com/FEAR 

A wise sage once asked:  Does a goldfish know they are in an aquarium?  Some now ask:  “Do humans know we are in a terrarium greenhouse?”  If not, why do we label the atmosphere “greenhouse” gasses?  And why are the people of the world perpetually told there is too much carbon dioxide, methane and catastrophic rising temperatures?  Are we living in a perpetual “State of Fear”?  In this short article we return to our on-going study of “ENVIRONMENTAL AND EPIGENETIC IMPACTS … &c.” examining what could be characterized as a “superstate” spanning across all man-made boundaries of nation-states some label a new world order; but we discuss as a “State of Fear.”.  And this “State of Fear” has its own co-opted religion in this century:  Environmentalism; a 1923 psycological term.  Transcripts from embedded videos are summarized and discussed in this article, followed by an embedded video of Charlie Rose interviewing doctor, author and screenwriter Michael Crichton regarding his novel:  “State of Fear”.  That interview focusses on the world-wide reaction to Michael’s contrarian research and conclusions on global warming narratives, and his exposure of co-opted scientists, social engineers and politicians creating money raising and taxing schemes to fight a catastrophe which is not scientifically founded.  Readers can obtain a public domain copy of Crichton’s “State of Fear” PDF here:  https://archive.org/details/state-of-fear-crichton 

Michael did his research and came to the conclusion of global cooling.  He included that research in the text of the novel and an extensive bibliography of notes and comments. The book contains many graphs and footnotes, two appendices, and a 20-page bibliography in support of Crichton's beliefs about global warming.  This appendix is followed by a bibliography of 172 books and journal articles that Crichton presents "...to assist those readers who would like to review my thinking and arrive at their own conclusions.  His views can be found here at his website:  https://www.michaelcrichton.com/works/state-of-fear-authors-message/   ‘State of Fear':  Not So Hot” (2005) New York Times.  https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/books/review/state-of-fear-not-so-hot.html .  See also:  “Crichton’s State of Fear, Book exposes faulty climate change arguments”. (2005). https://reason.org/commentary/crichtons-state-of-fear/ 

“1923, as a psychological theory (in the nature vs. nurture debate), from environmental + -ism. The ecological sense is from 1972. Related: Environmentalist (n.), 1916 in the psychological sense, 1970 in the ecological sense.”. https://www.etymonline.com/word/environmental 

Environmentalism Is the New Religion - Ian Plimer

This video features Ian Plimer, discussing the idea that environmentalism has become a new form of religion, particularly in light of the decline of Christianity and socialism. He argues that environmentalism has adopted religious traits such as a fear of skepticism, apocalyptic warnings, and a belief system grounded in dogma rather than science.

_________

“Environmental Sciences turned into a Religion of Catastrophes.” Dr. Ian Plimer.

https://youtu.be/idYdVQ6nwfA?feature=shared 

SUMMARY

Overall

Ian Plimer criticizes modern environmentalism, drawing parallels between it and organized religion. He claims that environmentalism is based more on fear, dogma, and irrational belief than scientific evidence. He critiques its apocalyptic narratives and its fear of doubt and skepticism, arguing that it discourages contrary evidence and scientific debate. Plimer suggests that environmentalism creates unnecessary fear and global problems, especially in the developing world, by exacerbating issues like food shortages and economic decline. He believes a true discussion between environmentalists and scientists can only occur once environmentalism acknowledges its religious nature.

Highlights

• 🌎 Environmentalism as religion: Plimer argues that environmentalism has evolved into a new religion with dogmatic beliefs.
• 📜 Fear of doubt: Environmentalism, he suggests, is afraid of skepticism and uncertainty, much like fundamentalist religions.
• ⚠️ Apocalyptic narratives: The environmental movement, according to Plimer, draws people in with warnings of calamities if behaviors don't change.
• 🧑‍🔬 Misrepresentation of science: He critiques how environmentalism claims to be based on science but ignores contrary facts.
• 💼 Impact on the developing world: Environmental policies, Plimer contends, worsen issues like disease and food shortages in poorer regions.
• 🏙️ Urban religion: He notes that environmentalism is largely an urban-based movement, detached from the natural world.
• ❄️ Climate skepticism: Plimer, a geologist, states that the planet has experienced numerous warming and cooling cycles, and that fear of warming is misplaced.
• 🌍 Exacerbating problems: He believes that environmentalism creates more problems, particularly by damaging economies.
• 📖 Religious foundations: Environmentalism, he claims, is based on a religious, not scientific, foundation.
• 🤝 Call for dialogue: He suggests that real dialogue between environmentalists and scientists can only happen once the religious nature of environmentalism is acknowledged.

Summary

1. Ian Plimer suggests that environmentalism has taken on characteristics of a religion, replacing older belief systems like Christianity and socialism.
2. He critiques its fear of skepticism, saying it avoids doubt and contrary evidence, much like a fundamentalist religion.
3. Environmentalism, according to Plimer, uses apocalyptic warnings to attract followers, telling them humanity faces its greatest crisis.
4. Plimer argues that environmentalism is not truly based on science, as it ignores inconvenient facts and promotes alarmism.
5. He points out that non-scientists, such as journalists and celebrities, often spread environmentalism’s message, further distancing it from factual discourse.
6. The environmental movement’s urban base, Plimer says, is disconnected from the natural world, which it claims to protect.
7. He also emphasizes that previous climate changes did not cause fear and argues that warming should not be a major concern.
8. According to Plimer, environmentalism worsens problems in the developing world, such as through harmful policies leading to economic collapse.
9. He compares environmentalists to creationists, stating that their beliefs are dogmatic rather than scientifically grounded.
10. Plimer believes true discussion with environmentalists can only happen if they recognize their movement’s religious nature.

Geologist, Prof. Ian Plimer: "As soon as someone tells you it's warming, the reply you give is: Since when?"

"We have been cooling down for the last 4000 years. It's all about when you start the measurements."

"If you take measurements from the Medieval Warming... we've cooled about five degrees since then. If you take measurements from the Roman Warming, we've cooled about five degrees."

https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1833068014557602144?s=46 

________

The Debate From Both Sides | Warming or Cooling? | Catastrophe? | Just a Money Grab?

https://youtu.be/k7FlfZyDRaU?feature=shared 

Summary of Transcript: 

Global Warming: Reality or Myth?

This debate features Ian Plimer and George Monbiot discussing the validity of climate change science. Plimer is critical of climate change advocates, claiming global warming data is manipulated, while Monbiot defends the science, accusing Plimer of fabricating evidence.

Overall

The video presents a heated debate on global warming, focusing on whether the phenomenon is a man-made crisis or a natural cycle. Ian Plimer challenges the consensus on climate change, suggesting that the science is flawed and motivated by government agendas like taxation. George Monbiot argues that the overwhelming scientific evidence supports man-made global warming, pointing out inconsistencies in Plimer’s arguments. Monbiot also addresses the controversy surrounding leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit, acknowledging unscientific behavior but rejecting claims that it discredits the entire field of climate science.

Highlights

• 🔥 Climate change skepticism: Ian Plimer questions the validity of climate science, calling it manipulated and politically motivated.
• 📊 Denial spread: George Monbiot expresses concern that climate change denial is growing, despite increasing scientific evidence.
• 💰 Government taxation: Plimer argues that governments use climate change as a way to justify higher taxes and bureaucratic control.
• 📧 Email controversy: The Climatic Research Unit's leaked emails are discussed, with Monbiot condemning unscientific behavior but rejecting broader conspiracy claims.
• 🌍 Science vs conspiracy: Monbiot asserts that claims of a global climate conspiracy would need to involve tens of thousands of scientists, which he finds implausible.
• 🌋 Volcanic CO2: Plimer claims volcanoes produce more CO2 than human activities, which Monbiot refutes with geological evidence.
• 📉 Cooling claims: Plimer states that global temperatures have cooled since 1998, while Monbiot calls this a misleading cherry-picking of data.
• 🔬 Scientific fraud: Monbiot accuses Plimer of committing scientific fraud by misrepresenting data in his book.
• 🧪 Data manipulation: Plimer claims that satellite and ground temperature measurements are manipulated to show warming trends.
• 🧭 Historical warming: Plimer points to Roman and medieval warming periods as evidence that current temperature changes are not unprecedented.

Summary

1. Ian Plimer argues that climate change is overhyped and suggests the science is manipulated for political reasons, such as increasing taxes.
2. George Monbiot defends the validity of climate science, claiming that the overwhelming evidence supports the existence of man-made global warming.
3. Monbiot highlights the growing trend of climate change denial, which he finds troubling as scientific evidence becomes more robust.
4. The Climatic Research Unit email controversy is addressed, with Monbiot condemning unethical behavior but rejecting claims that it discredits climate science.
5. Plimer's assertion that volcanoes produce more CO2 than human activities is challenged, with geological evidence showing the opposite.
6. Monbiot accuses Plimer of selectively using data, particularly focusing on 1998 to claim global temperatures are cooling.
7. Plimer argues that temperature data from satellites and ground stations are manipulated, while Monbiot dismisses these claims as fabrications.
8. Historical periods of warming, such as during Roman and medieval times, are cited by Plimer to argue that current climate changes are not unusual.
9. Monbiot consistently criticizes Plimer for scientific dishonesty, accusing him of fabricating data to support his claims.
10. The debate concludes with both sides entrenched, with Plimer continuing to question the motives behind climate science and Monbiot defending its integrity.

I was misinformed or was I?  Correction Needed?

In 2005 or thereabouts, when I first read Michael Crichton‘s book “State of Fear”, I specifically recall reading a dispute existed between Michael and his publisher. My first recollection before writing this article was it was a publishing house other than Harper and Collins. Looking for the source today while writing this article concerning that dispute; as regarding an advance paid to Michael to write the book, it appears either my memory was wrong, or the story has been scrubbed from the Internet. But I do recall it. And what I recall is this. 

I recall reading an article that his then publisher approached him to write a novel with the theme of global warming.  Michael agreed, but said he would do so with his “own” research.  My recollection is his publisher advanced Michael $2,000,000.  Michael did his research and came to the conclusion of global cooling.  He included that research in the text of the novel and an extensive bibliography of notes and comments.  And he presented his manuscript to his publisher who refused to publish it unless he returned the advance.  Michael returned it and the book was published.  The  actual published book contains many graphs and footnotes, two appendices, and a 20-page bibliography in support of Crichton's beliefs about global warming.  This appendix is followed by a bibliography of 172 books and journal articles that Crichton presents "...to assist those readers who would like to review my thinking and arrive at their own conclusions.  His views can be found here at his website:  https://www.michaelcrichton.com/works/state-of-fear-authors-message/   ‘State of Fear':  Not So Hot” (2005) New York Times.  https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/books/review/state-of-fear-not-so-hot.html .  See also:  “Crichton’s State of Fear, Book exposes faulty climate change arguments”. (2005). https://reason.org/commentary/crichtons-state-of-fear/ 

https://youtu.be/iwNgKX-yCS4?feature=shared 

Michael Crichton on Global Warming

This video features Michael Crichton discussing his views on global warming and critiquing the scientific consensus around climate change. He challenges predictions of catastrophic outcomes and questions the accuracy of climate models while acknowledging that the earth is warming.

Overall

Michael Crichton acknowledges the earth is warming and humans are contributing to it, but he is skeptical of claims that carbon dioxide is the primary driver of global warming. He believes the sun and land use changes also play significant roles. Crichton critiques the political aspects of climate science, emphasizing that scientists cannot accurately predict long-term climate effects. He suggests that a significant amount of money, such as the proposed $558 trillion for climate change mitigation, should not be spent without validating the data thoroughly. He also criticizes the media and certain prominent figures, like Al Gore, for exaggerating the threat of global warming to generate fear. Ultimately, Crichton advocates for a more dispassionate, data-driven approach to understanding climate change.

Highlights

• 🌍 Warming: Earth has warmed by about 0.7°C over the last 100 years, and Crichton believes this trend will continue.
• 🔬 Human involvement: He acknowledges human activities, including increased CO2, contribute to warming.
• 🌞 Primary driver: Crichton questions the idea that CO2 is the primary driver of global warming, suggesting the sun plays a major role.
• 📊 Data concerns: He emphasizes the importance of thoroughly validating climate models and data before making expensive policy decisions.
• 📉 Predictability: Crichton points out that long-term climate prediction is nearly impossible due to the chaotic nature of the climate system.
• 📺 Media influence: The media and public figures exaggerate climate catastrophes to gain attention.
• 🌐 Consensus science: Crichton argues that consensus in science is political, not scientific.
• 📚 Critique of Al Gore: Crichton is critical of Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth, labeling it emotionally driven rather than data-based.
• 💵 Cost of action: He questions the economic cost of drastic actions to combat climate change without stronger evidence.
• 🔄 Other priorities: Crichton believes addressing issues like disease and poverty should take precedence over climate change.

Summary

1. Crichton believes the earth is warming, and human activities are a contributing factor.
2. He questions the focus on CO2, suggesting that natural factors, like the sun, may be more influential.
3. Climate models, according to Crichton, are unreliable for long-term predictions due to the chaotic nature of the climate system.
4. He criticizes media and political figures for dramatizing global warming, leading to public hysteria.
5. Crichton urges that policy decisions should not be made without thorough validation of data, referencing the immense financial costs involved.
6. He views the scientific consensus on climate change as driven by politics rather than empirical evidence.
7. Al Gore's portrayal of climate change in his film is, in Crichton’s opinion, filled with exaggerations and unsupported claims.
8. Crichton emphasizes that while addressing climate change is important, other global issues like poverty and disease should take priority.
9. He remains skeptical of drastic measures without better, validated predictions of future climate outcomes.
10. In Crichton’s view, science should remain focused on data, not consensus or popular opinion.

https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1833068014557602144?s=46