Angry in the Great White North

There are few things in life as satisfying as making a prediction, then watching it come true.

I made a prediction yesterday.  Based on what I was seeing, and based on some common sense projections, I predicted that the global warming movement would split in two.  In effect, it would be hollowed out as scientists, eager to redeem their battered reputations, would abandon the global warming movement and restart the climate science.  Left behind would be those who see global warming as a religion, in which belief in global warming (and in the economic cures they demanded) would be sustained on faith, regardless of what the scientists said.

And guess what?  It's been 24 hours, and I'm seeing evidence of it happening.  At a Penn State meeting, a meteorologist explicitly states that we have been "deceived" to think that global warming was about science:

Three professors urged an audience of about 60 on Tuesday to consider the ethical and moral implications of climate change, in addition to the obvious scientific challenges.

"We have to turn up the volume in the U.S. on the moral and ethical dimensions of this issue," said Donald A. Brown, associate professor of environmental ethics, science and law.

The panel was comprised of professors Brown, Nancy Tuana and Petra Tschakert, who discussed the conference's resulting policies and their opinions of the outcomes.

"A lot more attention was paid to the fact that this is an issue of extreme ethical impact," said Tuana, professor of philosophy; science, technology and society; and Women's Studies. "Lives are being already negatively impacted, and newer documents are reflecting that these are ethical issues."

Kenneth Davis, meteorology professor and audience member, also agreed.

"Focusing on the ethical aspect is critical," Davis said. "We are continually deceived to think of this as a scientific debate."

Let's be clear.  These panelists, and it appears that the audience as well, are all global warming believers.  The question of the Climategate emails was raised, and immediately dismissed:

After the discussion, an audience member viewing it online asked about "Climategate," a controversy over illegally obtained e-mail correspondence about climate change research.

"No one in the governments takes seriously the e-mail debacle," Brown said.

The Climategate emails have had a devastating impact on the global warming religion because they thoroughly undermined the perception that the global warming movement was based on good science.  Revelations of climatologists actively hiding data, suppressing dissent, and punishing skeptics have made it clear that for a lot of climatologists, the "science" aspect of global warming had become a nuisance.

But those emails have been taken out of context! It's the way scientists talk!  You don't get it!

Perhaps, but then how do you interpret the statement "We are continually deceived to think of [global warming] as a scientific debate" as anything by an admission that the science only mattered when it aligned with the political goals?

Especially when spoken by a scientist!

And what are those goals?  Massive transfers of wealth to the developing world:

Those nations that are affected the most are those who cannot protect themselves, panelists said, and developed countries like America have an obligation to them.

But if the science is bad then there is no obligation...no wait...let's not bring science into this.

As Kenneth Davis said, we've been "deceived" into thinking this is a "scientific debate".

Well, if global warming is not about science, then what is it about?  If it's about ethics, then it's about good versus evil. 

If you believe in global warming and in transferring billions to the third world, then you are good.

If you are a skeptic, either of the underlying premise, or of the proposed cure, then you are evil.

It is as I predicted.  As scientists are calling for a do-over on the science (which would cause a delay in any policy changes, as well as run the risk that the conclusions of new research might be very different from what the global warming alarmists believe to be true), the global warming believers are ejecting the science and reverting to religious dogma.

The global warming movement has taken the first steps down the road to becoming an irrelevant fringe group.

Worried about the future?  Kenneth Davis may or may not be worried about the future of the planet, but I bet he's worried about the future of his funding if global warming alarmism is discredited:

How energy production and use influences climate and environment will be the focus of Penn State's newly awarded Northeastern Regional Center of the U.S. Department of Energy's National Institute for Climatic Change Research (NICCR).

One of four Regional Centers formed under NICCR, which replaces the National Institute on Global Environmental Change established by Congress in 1989, Penn State's center will include research applicable to the region from Maine to Virginia and as far west as West Virginia. Heading the new Center will be Dr. Kenneth Davis, associate professor of meteorology, with Dr. David Eissenstat, professor of woody plant physiology as associate director.

I suppose Kenneth Davis might argue that having the Northeastern Regional Center of the NICCR in Penn State with him in charge is, ethically speaking, the right thing to do.

If skeptics are evil...: Well, if this is about ethics, and skeptics are evil, then what ought to be done with evil people?  Carey Roberts catalogues what the Greenshirts hope to do.