portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting global


UN IPCC Chief reveals global warming ‘is my religion"

IPCC Chair Pachauri forced out at UN climate panel after sexual harassment complaint
Pachauri's resignation letter on religion: 'For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.'
UN IPCC critic Journalist Donna Laframboise responds: 'Yes, the IPCC - which we're told to take seriously because it is a scientific body producing scientific reports - has, in fact, been led by an environmentalist on a mission. By someone for whom protecting the planet is a religious calling.'
Pachauri's full resignation letter here.
Climate Depot's Morano statement on Pachauri's resignation: 'The IPCC is quietly popping champagne corks today. Pachauri gone can only be good news for the UN IPCC' - Marc Morano: 'If Pachauri had any decency, he would have resigned in the wake of the Climategate scandal which broke in 2009. Climategate implicated the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists in attempting to collude and craft a narrative on global warming while allowing no dissent. Or Pachauri could have resigned when he wished skeptics would rub asbestos on their faces or conceded that the IPCC was at the 'beck and call' of governments. There were so many opportunities to to the right thing and fade away. But it took the proceedings of the Indian court system over the allegations of sexual harassment to finally bring Pachauri down. Things can only be looking up for the UN IPCC now that it has ridded itself of this political and ethical cancer.'
Many climate change activists are motivated by religious conviction. See:
Climate Depot round up of climate religion. Actor Harrison Ford's Green Religion: 'I needed something outside of myself to believe in and I found in nature a kind of God'
Flashback: Michael Crichton: 'One of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists.'

The problem with terms 25.Feb.2015 05:48

Mike Novack

"Religion" and "Dharma"

The terms don't QUITE mean the same thing in the East as Christian cultures use the term "religion". They can mean something of the sort, but also cover things outside that scope.

Thus "it's my religion" would ALSO apply to the beliefs of a dedicated Marxist (who would of course not even think of using that term to describe his or her faith).

To understand the difficulty, consider the western thinkers who have described certain branches of Buddhism as "not a religion; just a philosophy". Different cultures simply don't divide up the world and what terms do or do not cover the same way.

Mike 25.Feb.2015 06:36


it means it is a heart felt belief, something you would fight and die for.

Which is what I've been saying for years. It has everything a major religion has. High priests (Gore, Mann, etc.)
It has paying Penance (Carbon offset credits for example. )

Its all there, the funny thing is the same people who love this stuff, and think Christians, and other fundamentalists are delusional zealot idiots are much closer to those zealots mindset than they realize.

When the USSR fell, the extremist environmental movement in the US became the new home of the communist party.

Talk radio makes this claim to millions and they understand.

One thing it does not have 25.Feb.2015 07:00


Yes, but the one thing religion does not have that climate change does is science. Which is the difference between the Dark Ages and thereafter.

Garth, The Mismeasure of Man 25.Feb.2015 08:16


climate change does is science? no, it has the façade of science, not the substance.

In the 19th. century world scientists decided to prove what everybody then knew, that Northern European Englishmen where smarter and had larger brains than everyone else. The least intelligent were the sub African pigmies. Asians in between, and Irishmen somewhere between stupid Englishmen, and brown skinned Mediterranean eastern European types. This was established science of the day, and to prove what all scientist knew as fact in the 19th. century, they poured lead shot into the skulls of those groups and guess what, their conclusions matched what everybody knew.

Read Gould's book in the subject. He explains how the scientists prejudices and expectations clouded their objectivity, and their research and many were completely unaware of the subconscious skewing they were engaged in.

Current Climate Change science is no different. Its been reported that the reporting stations around the world had their average temperatures increased by 1 degree Celsius. Garbage into the computer models, garbage out.

So, perhaps we humans are not all that far from our dark aged ancestors in terms of objectivity and honesty.

"Talk Radio Makes This Claim To Millions And They Understand." 25.Feb.2015 08:51



Must be a dedicated student of Rush Limbaugh! That seems to be the shoe that fits.

As far as global warming, my guess is that the whole thing is most likely an academic groupthink supported conviction (these being disconcertingly common). But how would I know for sure? It's insane to just argue about this anymore on blogs. It's worse than arguing about the merits of various football teams.

There is no point in (seriously) arguing that things like communism, capitalism, global warming, etc. are religions. They are not. They are not "virtual people" either. It's stupid.

as far as "Religion" or "Dharma"? They don't mean the same thing.

Word Origin and History for dharma

1796, in secular sense, "caste custom, right behavior;" in Buddhism and Hinduism, "moral law," from Sanskrit, "law, right, justice," related to dharayati "holds," and cognate with Latin firmus, all from PIE root *dher- (2) "to hold firmly, support" (see firm (adj.)).

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper

"....from Sanskrit, "law, right, justice'". So it has a secular sense.

We should not be in the business of spreading ignorance.

a dedicated student of Rush Limbaugh! 25.Feb.2015 10:43


agree or not, the man has over 23 million listeners, and that number is based on what is advertising rates are, so I'm sure they are fairly accurate.

As to your point about it not being a religion, I believe its based on who you are talking to. There are many who treat it as a religion, and so it is a de facto religion. Something that has yet to be proven scientifically, despite the billions of dollars spent attempting to do that very thing. The end results of reality don't match those computer models of 2 decades ago, one decade ago, and only a few years ago. It simply hasn't happened.

Who Cares If (even) Global "Cooling" Is Happening 25.Feb.2015 17:43

Industrial/Automotive Air Emissions = BAD.


RE: Limbaughtomy 26.Feb.2015 22:21


"23 million listeners"

- do Africans "listen to" Limbaugh, or even know who-what he is?

A problem with the concept "science" 28.Feb.2015 12:23

Mike Novack

" Something that has yet to be proven scientifically, despite the billions of dollars spent attempting to do that very thing. The end results of reality don't match those computer models of 2 decades ago, one decade ago, and only a few years ago. It simply hasn't happened."

This is a misunderstanding of what science and is not. Science is NOT like mathematics. Because mathematics has no strong relationship to the "real world", because it is just a system of axioms and what can be derived from them, a proof, well a valid proof, is eternal truth << see below for why Godel's Theorem isn't an exception to that >>

Science is NOT like that at all. ALL scientific statements are tentative, temporary, even the ones we are most sure about. That's because science IS closely connected to physical reality and there can never be assurance that some future observation of physical reality can't force us to change our minds. This is closely related to the arguments of people like the "Creationists" who don't understand "evolution is only a theory". The point is, if you are after ABSOLUTE TRUTH then you aren't talking about science, because science doesn't deal in absolute truth.

Science cannot PROVE "global warming" in the sense that you are asking for. The sorts of "changes of model" you decry as evidence are in fact part and parcel of science, that it and its models DO change and are not eternal verities. Science only ever has "currently accepted explanation" and by the usual measures of settled questions in science (which remember, can not mean more than CURRENTLY settled) "global warming" is real. That is NOT saying that tomorrow somebody might not come up with another explanation of observed phenomenon and then that gains general acceptance in the community of science.

Godel's Theorem ---- Simplified An axiomatic system with the complexity of arithmetic (able to map arithmetic) is either incomplete or inconsistent. That is NOT saying "is inconsistent; we might in the future find a proven theorem wrong". If a set of axioms is inconsistent it isn't ONE thing you can prove wrong but EVERYTHING. It is the "incompleteness" that must be accepted as unavoidable. All that means is that there will be well formed statements of arithmetic that should be either* true or false but in fact cannot be proven. They AREN'T theorems of that set of axioms.

* Godel was showing that there were TRUE statements of that sort, but I'll stick to the "either" since one implies the construction of the other and if one of these is well formed the other will be too.