How Gaia Replaced God

A review of a new book on the global warming fraud:

What will especially raise readers’ ethical hackles are his disclosures of duplicity at what should be the most credible institutional levels in ensuring that counter-claims to the received wisdom are suppressed.

For a particularly egregious example of bad faith in communicating with the public, Solway cites a 2009 University of Illinois survey concluding that 97.4% of scientists agree that mankind is responsible for global warming. But the methodology of the survey was grossly corrupt. Of the 10,257 respondents, 10,180 demurred from the consensus. They were summarily rejected, even though included amongst them were solar scientists, meteorologists, physicists, and other scientific experts. Seventy-five of the remaining 77 respondents agreed with the proposition that global warming is caused by humans and voilà! That equals 97.4%. In fact, only .008% of the respondents concurred with the hypothesis. This is intellectual fraud of breathtaking arrogance, yet it is only one of a slew of truth-traducing offenses Solway has amassed.

How do academics and other global-warming stakeholders justify their complicity in manufacturing consent? Solway explains it as a form of cognitive dissonance of the type one often finds in religions and triumphalist ideologies, where ends are privileged over means. In his chapter on environmentalism as religion, Solway explains how Gaia, the earth’s divine avatar, replaced God in our secular age.

Environmentalism has been transmogrified from a wholesome movement to make the earth a healthier and cleaner habitat for human beings into an antihumanist, eco-worshipping cult, where man’s footprint anywhere at all is perceived as inherently toxic.

Yup. And the public schools are propagandizing our kids in this new religion.

5 thoughts on “How Gaia Replaced God”

  1. The story isn’t god vs. gaia. The story is how authority has replaced evidence.

    First we have the fraud of calling 0.008% to be 97.4% which is certainly bad. But then these results get published and instead of howling those doing so out of the establishment they are referenced to perpetuate the fraud.

    Tar and feathers are too good for these frauds. How can you make reasonable decisions when the foundation they are based on are lies?

    So many arguments on this blog (by some of our nameless friends) are just indirect reference to authority by charts. Lies are still lies even when you throw in charts and numbers.

    This is why sound principles and raw data trump most arguments.

  2. More commentary on the Doran2009 paper
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=eab_1294025168

    Direct link to the Doran paper:
    http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/012009_Doran_final1.pdf

    Yes, the questions were nearly meaningless, and the “97% of scientists” soundbite was utterly dishonest. Color me unsurprised.

    However, there’s nothing in the Doran paper to support the assertion that “10,180 demurred from the consensus”. Only 3146 replied, and of those, 82% (about 2580) agreed to both questions. So one can only say that about 566 disagreed, while 7111 simply didn’t respond. I rather suspect that the no-response set would be more contrarian, because sceptics smelled a rat and didn’t waste their time on a biased survey. See the Lewandowsky furor over at WUWT.

Comments are closed.