Ye gods, Maryann! (Pardon the pun.) Your efforts makes my following contribution rather paltry! It does, however, offer you support:

Monotheism is probably the correct root religion; even the most primitive of tribes could conclude that a single God exists. Religion is an attempt to rationalise and understand; that it also can be (and is) used for control is one of its failings – being of human construct, religion does have many, many failings. It is this use of control that is so endemic in the Climate Change Cult; to question it, to not fully immerse yourself in its teachings, condemns you as a heretic; that this heresy is to condemn not just yourself, but all future generations to a life of purgatory, is why all deniers should be expunged from the Earth. As religions go, it looks to be one of the most brutal (see Richard Parncutt and Kathleen Dean Moore ).

Great thread. I particularly appreciate Urmonotheismus and the proposal for combatting carpet snakes.

Mar 29, 2014 at 5:39 PM | Richard Drake

It is very fortunate that thinking on religions and similar complex topics has evolved, otherwise we’d never grope our way nearer to the truth ;) Tylor appears to have a laudable range of thought and was working very early in the field when simpler assumptions were made, it would be a miracle if he got everything right. Nevertheless, the spirit if not the exact form of some of his ideas seems to have proved robust. And there’s been a whole century of very productive groping since he ceased to be.

Regarding particular (cultural) trajectories for religion, just like for the biological tree of life these are complex, have big gaps where data is missing, and are still fuzzily mapped. Again just like for biology, similar innovation has occurred in temporal or geographic isolation, but never in precisely the same way, which is not an expectation. It helps to know that a lemur came before a monkey came before man, but if a half monkeyish-lemur-like creature on a different trajectory on an isolated continent cropped up, it would be no means alter our understanding of the basic mechanisms of selection that support biological evolution. Nor the big insight this gives (and also gave even long before the discovery of DNA), to any branch we cared to examine on that tree of life, even a brand new branch. Similarily, the particular trajectories in isolated or partially interacting world regions / eras regarding animism or ancestor reverence or monotheism etc. imho don’t prevent the simpler evolved mechanisms from being applied to the new cultural branch of CAGW, in order to gain a similar depth of insight.

Mar 30, 2014 at 8:01 AM | Radical Rodent
"Monotheism is probably the correct root religion"

Religion is an emergent phenomena that is a fundamental part of our evolution. There are signs of religion even before our own species Homo-Sapiens-Sapiens, hence there probably isn't a a 'correct root religion' as such, but a range of emerging characteristics that strengthened and became more coherent over time. Particular types of religion tend to express the cultural sophistication / stage of the practising population, and similar religious innovations serving a culture can occur in geographical isolation.

I find a useful view of religions, whether traditional or new secular, is as an 'aligning device' for society, containing both a model of the world and a control system to enforce compliance with that model. Personal or organisational interests will indeed soon align for an up-and-coming candidate, but the candidate is still an emergent one rather than a consciously constructed one (which is not to say that many deliberate conscious contributions will nevertheless have been made to it).

I like this idea too. For evidence that it has cult like, religious undertones in popular culture, look no further than its juxtaposed manifestation in the latest blockbuster Noah. I like the scientology and Maurice Strong references too, after all, Strong - while he was UN undersecretary - opened their new church in New York. I can't help getting the feeling that Strong was very impressed with Scientology's methods of proselytism, propaganda and their aggressive defence mechanisms and was happy to spread his wings to give them an establishment endorsement. Perhaps both organisations were eager to compare notes on the *communication* of dogmas?
Although I do prefer to refer to Agenda 21, SD, CoR and Limits to Growth (etc) in less conspiratorial terms and more as open examples of the delusional motivations that Marxist ideology offers in the name of green politics. I'm more surprised by the fact that the narrative has gained so much traction in the light of all the evidence - both scientific and political - and I think, well convinced actually, this owes as much to technology and herd behaviours as it does to *cult-like* thinking, although they're reciprocal for sure...
That said, this train of blog-thought has (unfortunately) led me to the Wiki and an entry under HG Wells' Open Conspiracy, together with a hyper-conspiratorial quote:

"It proposes that largely as the result of scientific progress, a common vision of a world "politically, socially and economically unified" is emerging among educated and influential people, and that this can be the basis of "a world revolution aiming at universal peace, welfare and happy activity" that can result in the establishment of a "world commonweal [sic]".[2] This is to be achieved by "drawing together a proportion of all or nearly all the functional classes in contemporary communities in order to weave the beginnings of a world community out of their selection."[3] This will ultimately "be a world religion."

So I'm holding this thought that the fiction of these politico-religious musings was set long ago, and I'm trying to connect this to the mechanisms that will help its facilitation to the masses... And to my favourite *availability cascades*... It's all about the herd!
So who was it that said *the medium is the message*? Gah! Another trip to the wiki and another fine insight by Marshall McLuhan:

"... the form of a medium embeds itself in the message, creating a symbiotic relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived."

Well, that one was concerning television, but now we have a much more powerful one - the net - and the world of twitter, possibly the greatest weapons in the armoury of the *availability entrepeneur*.
I downloaded at cost the paper by Timur Kuran and Cass Sunstein, so I'm not sure whether I can do muchos quotos without stepping on feet. So just the (well-worn) abstract:

An availability cascade is a self-reinforcing process of collective belief formation by which an expressed perception triggers a chain reaction that gives the perception increasing plausibility through its rising availability in public discourse. The driving mechanism involves a combination of informational and reputational motives: Individuals endorse the perception partly by learning from the apparent beliefs of others and partly by distorting their public re-sponses in the interest of maintaining social acceptance. Availability entrepreneurs-activists who manipulate the content of public discourse-strive to trigger availability cascades likely to advance their agendas. Their availability campaigns may yield social benefits, but sometimes they bring harm, which suggests a need for safeguards. Focusing on the role of mass pressures in the regulation of risks associated with production, consumption, and the environment, Professors Timur Kuran and Cass R. Sunstein analyze availability cascades and suggest reforms to alleviate their potential hazards. Their proposals include new governmental structures designed to give civil servants better insulation against mass demands for regulatory change and an easily accessible scientific database to reduce people's dependence on popular (mis)perceptions.

I don't want to publish and be damned any more than this, but the paper was not expensive and afforded superlative examples of the costs associated with bad decision making, driven by environmental catastrophism, poor evidence and a herd mentality.
The technology available now to deliver messages in succinct, easily understood soundbites has played a significant part is the dissemination of the CAGW narrative, so much so, that I wonder that had the internet insurgence in the mid 90's - when we all got online with dialup - not happened, the narrative would not any where near as advanced as it is now. There simply would not be the opportunities for resale.
Drat and double drat! This discussion thread made me spend over two Sunday hours... And it's still not finished!

I think that we, and most warmists, are at risk of placing to much faith ;-) on AGW as a religion and as a force for change. Admittedly the UK is different from almost the rest of the world, with the exception of Australia, but we really don’t do commitment here anymore. Religion, AGW, Christianity or Wicca are more hobbies than life choices. For most of the population, belief only extends as far as ticking boxes in surveys. When mood or fad changes we might as likely be Jedi than warmist. Practical evidence also suggests the rest of the world is following suit because cutting CO2 isn’t on anyone’s personal agenda. Much like sin, CO2 is something we want to see others stop but will get round to it ourselves tomorrow… or next week… Politicians haven’t even taken the time to familiarise themselves with the basic concept when they happily demand lower energy bills from the utilities and start portioning up the Greenbelt for new housing, that is only necessary because of all the uncontrolled immigration. Why don’t they know that these policies are pro CO2?

None of that means the warmist bandwagon isn’t strong and growing but it’s not our weakness for religions that is responsible. It’s more like our weakness for the UN, the EU, the civil service, charities, all those administrations we’ve tied ourselves up in, to supposedly save the poor and helpless. Religions have the same power but it’s not connected to the deity aspect but to our desire to be part time benefactors and create a safety net for our world. Thus a person might donate money to the poor as but few would part with so much they couldn’t afford what they wanted. Whenever a conflict arises, self interest wins. Politicians in particular love to give our money away and it’s a reflection of our relative prosperity that we let them. If we can’t stop our government giving money to places with space programs or atrocious human rights failings, how can we stop them frittering it on windmills?

The other overused meme is that parents will do anything to protect their kids. Parents are mostly programmed to save their kids from immediate perils but a commitment to save grown offspring and grandkids from problems decades down the line is far less strong. That we inconvenience ourselves now to save somebody else’s grandkids from an intangible problem is highly unlikely.

People hate to decry warmism because they don’t know what it’s costing them or that our expenditure will have almost no effect. However they will fight against the rising costs without even knowing that it’s AGW policy they balk against. If AGW action persists, it will take on the same mantle as the welfare state but with less obvious benefits. Those who really want action on CO2 (rather than the gravy train) will be left disappointed because like the UN etc, huge amounts of money will be frittered with very little to show for it.

Richard, thanks for the encouraging words. Yes, the *conversation*, and many of it's participants were bizarre. Twitter is a marketing dream, get those memes cascading :)

Mar 30, 2014 at 12:43 PM | Richard Drake
As I tried to express before (perhaps not well), it’s not about specific flavours of religion, nor is it about prediction. Though the latter is a valid game too, it may be mug’s game at the current state of knowledge. Despite vastly more time and intellectual effort spent on biological evolution than cultural evolution, and literally thousands of brilliant thinkers contributing to the former, for both a whole century after Darwin yet before the discovery of DNA as the underlying mechanism, and then for another sixty years after that, I would humbly suggest that no-one has a clue what is going to evolve next, or even what would evolve next absent the influence of man. By productive (intellectual) groping I mean progress on understanding current and past evolutionary systems in biology and culture, and with religions a subset of the latter. The fact that an overall net decline in traditional religions has occurred during this same century, with some receding significantly and others applying a lick of paint and undergoing considerable resurgence (as you note), has no particular bearing on that understanding, except to provide a little more data. The fact that we can’t predict the next religion any more than we can predict the next biological species, doesn’t stop us from mapping the underlying mechanisms to an already existent new (secular) religion, i.e. CAGW, then seeing how this fits (apparently very well) and obtaining insight thereby. Whether we can use such insight to help minimise downsides or at least prevent the rise of a similar negative cultural entity in the future, is a whole other battle, and given as you note a context of much religious resurgence in some parts of the world, maybe an unwinnable one.

Regarding names, I don’t think my views are quite like anyone’s, as they’re a synthesis of stuff from over decades, and coming very much from the evolutionary perspective (first the biological and then the cultural, and then out of the strong Darwinian end of cultural, memetics). These are more interlinked than one might think because you need a populational and ‘group selection’ perspective as a pre-requisite really, and also you can’t draw parallels with another system without invoking the biological side. And I like parts of stuff from various writers but not often all of it, and sometimes only small parts. I also avoid theological thinking except as data (for the same reason one would have to question the objectivity of a committed consensus climate scientist’s view on the social phenomenon of CAGW for instance), though I guess I’ve read a fair amount and I note 4 books on Islam and 2 on the Ismailis right next to my screen as I write. But I don’t think either that I’ve thought of anything particularly original, I simply stand on a raft made by literally hundreds of others. Anyhow, a very long trail to get there. And a few writers at the more recent end of that long trail of whose work I typically like parts of but not all of, are folks such as Stephen Jay Gould and Susan Blackmore (though she tends to overdo the shock statements), David Sloane Wilson, Carl Zimmer (for de-emphasis of the ‘God gene’), Henry Plotkin. A whole bunch more I guess, but typically having small portions on religion within wider works on the domain of cultural evolution; at the very popular end of the market I recall Jared Diamond had stuff about religion and bonding, I presume in his most excellent work ‘Guns, Germs, and Steel’ as I read that some years back. I have some paper works at I guess the very obscure end of the market too. Someone I haven’t read but have seen a few interesting quotes from is Joe Henrich; time is always my enemy. I specifically don’t like the kind of antagonistic New Atheism that Dawkins’ goes for, and Dennet to some degree, especially considering that Dawkins’ appears not to acknowledge the effect of secular cultural entities with similar characteristics, and is a very firm believer in CAGW to boot! I guess if you really want to know what I think you should read my stuff. Of course it’s fine not to but don’t get me to write it here 0: And of course it’s perfectly fine not to go with any of it either, if your own perspective has provided you tools that you think have more explanatory power.

Mar 30, 2014 at 1:54 PM | stewgreen
"Cult like behaviour, explains why people drop evidence and reason, but think they are being logical."

+10

My post yesterday, 3/29, consisted almost entirely of quotes from "The First Global Revolution" published by the Club of Rome, the Kosmos Journal, published by the Club of Rome, the Club of Budapest, founded by the Club of Rome, and the website green-agenda.com, where the other organizations' statements are reprinted.
The last two paragraphs are mine, and I used quotation marks or included green-agenda.com's quotation marks to identify the sources of statements included in my post. I accidentally omitted the closing quotes on the title "The First Global Revolution". The eugenics statements are posted on many websites.
The UN Commission on Environmental Strategy and Planning claims a mandate to "change human behavior" by using a strategy "based less on the facts ... than on the values they hold."
Steven Rockefeller (often described as the father of sustainable development), co-authored a book in 1992 called “Spirit and Nature: Why the Environment Is A Religious Issue” describing the principles espoused by the IUCN. This site includes an extensive referenced history of the UN's central position in the creation of CAGW; http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_History.htm
The IPCC is currently prioritizing computer modeling over environmental data in climate predictions.
I'm a chemist in Santa Barbara, CA. I have a major problem with news articles such as this recent local one, in which someone with a PhD in atmospheric physics refers to a president who says that CO2 is a pollutant in our drinking water as a really smart guy; http://www.independent.com/news/2014/mar/27/faith-community-targets-climate-change/
We have more censorship of non-CAGW-alarmist content in the US than I've seen in other regions in the world, and politicians with greater financial involvement in CAGW.

Yes, Maryann, I was a bit perplexed by some of the responses to your post – almost as if they were for a completely different post! (Despite re-reading several times, I cannot find where you referred to Jesus, never mind Yeshua; perhaps I am missing something)

While not a theologian, my own observations lead me to Christianity being probably the simplest of religions; its basic premise is on the words of Jesus, which could be summed up as: “Follow me, and believe.” He condemned no-one, actively seeking the sinners and forgiving them – with the proviso of, “Sin no more.” That this went against the wishes of the religious leaders of the day could make him a “denier” of his time. No ceremony need be involved; no leaders required, no special clothing to be worn, no sacrifices to be made (that all those have been introduced into "Christianity" just shows you human failings). Perhaps if we were to follow the example set by Jesus, and try not to sin (lie, cheat, steal, coerce, bully, fornicate, etc, etc…), try not to condemn others, try to be more actively concerned about others, then we might lead fuller, richer, more contented lives. Should the likes of Dawkins (who is really just trying to set up his own religion) be correct, well, you will have done nothing to regret, and have no time to consider regret; IF he is wrong, however, he and those who follow his thinking will have an eternity of regret. Which would you choose?

I know that I am now going to get a barrage of comments about the evil perpetrated in the name of Christianity – that such events happened merely further demonstrates human failings, not a flaw in the original teaching.

Richard Drake - are you saying, without any evidence whatsoever, that Maryann in a member of a cult. That's very warmist, what we should be addressing is what she says. Most of us shy away from the idea of a conspiracy because we don't want to be associated with the those who believe the US security forces smuggled 1million tons of explosives into the twin towers and wired them up without any suspicion on the part of the management and workers, still more who they got to be suicide bombers on behalf of the US, or that MI6 planned and executed the death of Princess Diana, or the fake moon landing etc. etc. Clearly people who believe such nonsense are delusional. I think. (I'm not the sharpest knife in the cutlery drawer, and I'm sitting at the back of the class but I appear to have read that if a lot of people believe something, even if it's obviously not true, they're not delusional. I don't have the brain cells to understand that - then again a sociologist friend of mine once told me, "There are no absolute truths". Think about it.) Back to how we try to position ourselves. What Maryann has said, with hard evidence because it's no secret is that the UN, and a lot of powerful people in the various Clubs of "Some city" have a conspiracy to reduce growth and destroy Western Industrial Civilisation. Perhaps you don't regard there being a conspiracy because they're open about what they're trying to do, which boils down to world government - clearly not democratic. What Maryann quoted is straight from their documents and websites - they are too powerful to be concerned about the little people knowing their goals - and to that end is true.

If you're saying that the members of some sect, or cult, can never be believed I take issue, because if you're telling the truth it really doesn't matter what your antecedents are you're evidence can be verified. (Although I could be very wrong sociologywise and it could be that if there are too many people telling the truth it could be a lie).

So you're assertion that "... The Watchman's Post 'Sponsored by the Gethsemane Olivet Fellowship' which is based in New Zealand. I took that to be the 'About Us' and that Maryann belongs to that group. I still assume so."

I know you wouldn't be so ungallant as to imply a lady was lying, but you're implying she's hiding her true motivations (I think), if she has any, when even a cursory search for what she said on this blog will demonstrate the truth of it.

Funny associates or not the truth is the truth and her motives for telling it aren't relevant - is it?

I was just about to post on the main topic when I was asked to confirm the previous post by typing in the word "omabled" - I believe I may have stumbled on a new verb - "to omable" - which I will leave others to put the meaning to. Here's some to start the bidding:

"omable" to rule with benign intelligence.
"omable" to pick the victims of your next assassination on Thursday morning.
"omable" to provide the people with all their needs medically.
"omable" to read an autocue meant for the Taoiseach and welcome yourself to Ireland.
"omable" to provide strong global leadership.
"omabel" to send out for DVDs to give a Prime Minister as a lasting memory of your first meeting at the White House

I believe I might have stumbled on a new party game.

Jiminy, good post and Andy West thanks for giving us the other perspective, you're obviously playing at home here.

For me the turning point was the Enlightenment, which was probably made possible by the reformation, but not, I suspect with the approval of the Protestants, because it's very purpose was to challenge religious, or traditional beliefs with science.

Having said that I hesitate to put my oar in in the face of the intellectual discourse that has preceded my intervention, but I will. Having thought about whether it's a cult or a religion, and having previously put alarmists down as those who'd rejected religion and now needed a replacement, I have now come down on the side of cult, simply because there but for a typographical error is an apt description of warmists - no I didn't mean that, but couldn't resist it, sorry.

The reason I believe it's a cult is that all religions expect some sort of ritual worship, and I don't know of any for Warmism. As for the rest there appears to be a natural need on some people to live in a state of fear for the future and believe they can do something about it. Human sacrifice, sprinkling the earth with holy water, singing hymns or praying being examples of efforts to allay the upcoming doom.

Which brings me back to whether it's a religion. Notwithstanding the lack of ritual worship the warmists have all the characteristics of religions/cults and believe what they choose to believe. Not least of which is the visceral hatred of those who don't accept their beliefs. (This one's for you Jiminy, I was brought up a Catholic in Liverpool when the first thing anyone tried to do in work or socially was to find out which religion you belonged to. The Catholics, with typical arrogance, lumped every version of protestantism together, but their most virulent enemies were the Orange Order. As was the case in any working environment religions were soon known (you could be a Catholic, or Protestant Atheist, you still had to choose sides) and I was working with an Orangeman we got to talking about the problems between the religions and he said to me that he couldn't understand it, because we all wanted to go to the Pier Head, but were prepared to hate and knock seven bells out of each other because one of us wanted to go to the Pier Head on the number 5 bus and the other wanted to go on the number 86 bus. Which I thought summed it up nicely).

I had paid no attention to this debate until around 2006 when I read in the South China Morning Post a headline saying that 2500 scientists were in agreement that the world was warming, humans caused it and we all had to do what our political leaders told us to do else there'd be no world for our grandchildren -or words to that effect. I saw immediately the sort of rubbish I'd been told as a kid, if you ate meat on Friday, or missed mass on Sunday you'd suffer eternal damnation - it was a philosophical conundrum I'd pondered since I was 11 years old and had turned me away from the path of righteousness - how could the omniscient creator of the universe give FF about an 11 year old boy eating meat on Friday? Yet there were, and probably are, hundreds, not to say billions, of people who sincerely believed this to be true.

So it doesn't surprise me that there are people who actually believe they can foretell the future state of the climate and that they have adherents deaf and blind to all evidence to the contrary.

It's a cult. Or a religion.