Image 01 Image 03

John Kerry invokes scripture, calls climate change skeptics ‘immoral’

John Kerry invokes scripture, calls climate change skeptics ‘immoral’

The Party of Science strikes again

In a speech given yesterday to the Atlantic Council, Secretary Kerry made a few… interesting remarks.

Saying of economic concerns, “this is not a choice between bad and worse. Some people like to demagogue this issue. They want to tell you, “Oh, we can’t afford to do this.” Nothing could be further from the truth. We can’t afford not to do it. And in fact, the economics will show you that it is better in the long run to do it and cheaper in the long run.”

He droned on for about 40 minutes, waxing poetic about ‘science’ before finally reaching his hyperbolic conclusion.

Blaming the end of the world on ‘climate skeptics’, Secretary Kerry broadly invoked scripture (though no specific scripture was cited), and begged his audience to ignore climate deniers whose actions weren’t only wrong, but immoral! And why? For the children™.

to leave the planet Earth in better condition than we were handed it, to live up to even scripture which calls on us to protect planet Earth. These – all of these things are the so-called consequences of global action to address climate change. What’s the other side of that question? What will happen if we do nothing and the climate skeptics are wrong and the delayers are wrong and the people who calculate cost without taking everything into account are wrong? The answer to that is pretty straightforward: utter catastrophe, life as we know it on Earth.

So I through my life have believed that you can take certain kinds of risks in the course of public affairs and life. My heroes are people who dared to take on great challenges without knowing for certain what the outcome would be. Lincoln took risks, Gandhi took risks, Churchill took risks, Dr. King took risks, Mandela took risks, but that doesn’t mean that every risk-taker is a role model. It’s one thing to risk a career or a life on behalf of a principle or to save or liberate a population. It’s quite another to wager the well-being of generations and life itself simply to continue satisfying the appetites of the present or to insist on a course of inaction long after all the available evidence has pointed to the folly of that path. Gambling with the future of Earth itself when we know full well what the outcome would be is beyond reckless. It is just plain immoral. And it is a risk that no one should take. We need to face reality. There is no planet B.

Follow Kemberlee Kaye on Twitter


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Not A Member of Any Organized Political | March 13, 2015 at 5:08 pm



    Preaching about morality by an Irish Catholic who supports abortion and has been sucking from the public trough and his wife’s fortune while evading taxes for decades?

    He should take his dead horse face and fake George Peppard voice and go wind-sailing or something.

      Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to JackRussellTerrierist. | March 14, 2015 at 1:16 pm


      He should take his hypocrit mouth and spit in the face of a strong Northeastery.

      That would do more for the climate than all his excessive jetting in the sky – which there is no debate about being bad for the environment.

“Our core mission from the very beginning has been to investigate, explore space and the Earth environment, and to help us make this place a better place,” Bolden said. NASA studies everything from the depths of the oceans to the solar energy coming into the Earth’s atmosphere.

Cruz pushed back against the “Earth” part of NASA’s mission. “Almost any American would agree that the core function of NASA is to explore space,” he said. “That’s what inspires little boys and little girls across this country.”

“I am concerned that NASA in the current environment has lost its full focus on that core mission.”

Bolden defended spending more money on Earth science activities, saying he is “proud” of it since it’s led to a greater understanding of the planet.

“We can’t go anywhere if the Kennedy Space Center goes underwater and we don’t know it — and that’s understanding our environment,” Bolden said, in a clear reference to global warming-related sea level rise.

Yeeeeeup. Gotta have BIG GOVERNMENT to save geniuses like this from unemployment.

    Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to Ragspierre. | March 14, 2015 at 1:18 pm

    Oh, and don’t forget Obama’s order to NASA to support the Mulism, Islamic conquest of space. (So the Iranians can put nukes in space all the sooner????)

nordic_prince | March 13, 2015 at 5:21 pm

Since when did Kerry ever give a flying fig about Scripture?

“Gambling with the future of Earth itself when we know full well what the outcome would be is beyond reckless. It is just plain immoral. And it is a risk that no one should take. We need to face reality.”

So. I’m getting preached to about “reality” from a fake Irishman who’d throw a rolling cat-fit if he was told he could make a conference call instead of going to the next junket in Switzerland to meet with other members of the Eloi.

Stick it…sideways.

    Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to Ragspierre. | March 14, 2015 at 1:20 pm

    RE: “Gambling with the future of Earth itself when we know full well what the outcome would be is beyond reckless. It is just plain immoral. And it is a risk that no one should take. We need to face reality.” Spoken like the extreme self-stroking egotist he is………

And Samson said, “With the jawbone of a donkey, heaps upon heaps, with the jawbone of a donkey have I struck down a thousand men.” Judges 15:16

That’s what comes to my feeble mind when Kerry and Scripture ‘word associate’.

It was the late Michael Crichton who first prominently identified environmentalism as a religion, in a speech back in 2003. (speeches available to read or download here).

Professor John Brignell expanded on that here, breaking down the cult into its component parts:

• Faith and skepticism
• Sin and absolution
• Proselytes and evangelists
• Demagogues and hypocrites
• Infidels and apostates
• Sacrifice and ritual
• Prophecy and divination
• Puritans and killjoys
• Confession and salvation
• Envoi

Now it’s turning into a full-on doomsday cult. Listen to the language of any given warmy. Every part fits.

I wonder what God thinks of Kerry’s pro-choice. According to the surviving testament, God frowns upon his children committing murder (i.e. terminating a human life from begetting/conception) without cause and due process.

As for global cooling/warming, climate change/disruption, carbon and green credit markets, go build an ark.

    Deodorant in reply to n.n. | March 13, 2015 at 7:14 pm

    You may wonder, but you don’t know.

    He is trying to build an ark. You are just too obtuse to understand that. Maybe if you understood the allegory in the story of Noah, you could get on board.

      Ragspierre in reply to Deodorant. | March 13, 2015 at 7:40 pm

      Oh, yah. He’s rebuilding it from the original, which his wife bought and had moved to Sun Valley. Everybody knows.

      “In winter, he [Kerry] goes helicopter skiing while staying at his wife’s Idaho retreat, a 15th-century farmhouse transported from England and reassembled on the banks of the Big Wood River in Sun Valley. In summer, he windsurfs and sails off the coast of Nantucket, where she has another home. The couple have an 18th-century town house in Boston where the kitchen is two stories high. There is a 23-room town house in Washington, an 88-acre Pittsburgh area estate, a private Gulfstream jet and a personal staff of six, including caretakers and a cook.”

      You are SUCH a tool.

        Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to Ragspierre. | March 14, 2015 at 1:23 pm

        Paraphrasing…”by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned.”

        “Ye shall know them by their fruits.”

      Every good religion has its flood myth. As long as we finally accept that Warmenism is just another religion, and mind our protections regarding separation of church and state, it’s all good.

        platypus in reply to Amy in FL. | March 13, 2015 at 8:18 pm

        Amy, this is legal insurrection. A website founded on l-a-w. There is no separation of church and state. There is a constitutional prohibition against the govt establishing or restricting religion.

        More importantly, the world wide flood described in Scripture is not a myth. Much evidence of sea creatures has been found in the Rocky Mountains and other places far from the sea. Moreover, the flood of Genesis describes a phenomenon that left scars upon the earth that can be verified from space. In short, the earth cracked like an egg and the water inside gushed out in mammoth gushers which swamped the planet much like that tsunami swamped that resort in the Pacific.

        If you want to make a compelling argument for or against something, do not assume a fact that can be known with a modicum of research.

        platypus in reply to Amy in FL. | March 13, 2015 at 8:23 pm

        I agree that Man Made Climate Change is a religion. That means that the constitution prohibits the government from promoting it or funding it. Obviously, the govt cares not about following the constitution so it is up to us to stop arguing about what might or might not be true and focus instead on arguing that any action by the govt to support it violates the constitution.

    Phillep Harding in reply to n.n. | March 14, 2015 at 6:22 pm

    Do not combine issues. It’s a good way to lose both.

Henry Hawkins | March 13, 2015 at 6:58 pm

Dr. John Michael Crichton speaking on the claim of ‘scientific consensus’:

“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”


“The other thing I will mention to you is that during the last 100 years, while the average temperature on the globe has increased just .3 C, the magnetic field of the earth declined by 10%. This is a much larger effect than global warming and potentially far more serious to life on this planet. Our magnetic field is what keeps the atmosphere in place. It is what deflects lethal radiation from space. A reduction of the earth’s magnetic field by ten percent is extremely worrisome.

But who is worried? Nobody. Who is raising a call to action? Nobody. Why not? Because there is nothing to be done. How this may relate to global warming I leave for you to speculate on your own time.”


“Increasingly it seems facts aren’t necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It’s about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.”


Crichton died in 2008. The above quotes are from roughly 2003.

    Deodorant in reply to Henry Hawkins. | March 13, 2015 at 7:27 pm

    Agreed, consensus is not a guarantor of truth. But neither is denial of unpleasant facts. Neither is your ideologically based conclusion.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Deodorant. | March 13, 2015 at 7:43 pm

      You do not understand science. If an assertion is made, whether it be global warming is going to destroy the world, or I’m a psychic, or aliens abducted me, or cold fusion is real, and the evidence supports what would be a ground-breaking, monumental new scientific discovery, you literally cannot keep scientists from swarming to the new discovery. This isn’t happening with global warming. In lieu of incontrovertible evidence and successful replications of experiments and studies – sought but never found – the global warming set of believers is forced to employ politics, sales & marketing, and shaming to establish the cherished belief in global warming.

      Consider that agreement with your assertion that folks often deny unpleasant facts. Invest in a mirror.

        A US social scientist infiltrated a cult whose leader predicted the apocalypse would arrive on December 21st, as would a flying saucer to save her followers. When neither came on the appointed day, most of her followers, far from abandoning the cult, accepted their leader’s message that doom had been postponed and became even more fanatical.

        I think that’s what we’re seeing here.

        Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to Henry Hawkins. | March 14, 2015 at 1:35 pm

        That bares repeating.

        “Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

        Dr. John Michael Crichton speaking on the claim of ‘scientific consensus’:

      Is that what you got from these thoughts?

      I took from this even more uncertainty as to the actuality, especially as there are consequences of inaction and action.

      If only one could trust either side these days not to manipulate.

      Consensus is no guarantor, but isn’t it being claimed by many that it is?

        Henry Hawkins in reply to oldschooltwentysix. | March 13, 2015 at 8:58 pm

        In the particular case of global warming, this ‘consensus’ is articial in that they simply won’t allow anything or anyone who disagrees. Since they only respect and allow ‘scientists’ who believe, of course there’s a consensus – of believers. If you don’t believe you are labeled a denier and cast out, not allowed to spoil the math that gives their belief ‘consensus’.

        I had a website based on scientific skepticism, the scientific method, and critical thinking, and I often staged experiments to test what I considered dubious assertions by believers in the palpably untrue. In one instance, I sumbitted a fake report of finding bigfoot tracks in the Blue Ridge Mts. I made it sound like every other such report in that bigfoot organization’s database except for one detail – I gave my fake bigfoot four toes instead of five. The report was rejected out of hand because of it. You see, they ‘knew’ that bigfoot had five toes not four, so my report couldn’t reflect a bigfoot. Probably an injured bear print, they said.

        The reason I faked that particular detail is because one of the strongest arguments believers have for the existence of bigfoot is the consistency of reports on what bigfoot looks like and how it behaves. My fake report, and many others, revealed how that consistency was artificial because they reject out of hand reports that do not conform to it.

        This is how global warming believers treat scientists who do not join the consensus. They are considered wrong by default and are eliminated from the count. This behavior is reflective of faith-based belief systems and is more akin to religion than science.

      never go full retard.

      jhkrischel in reply to Deodorant. | March 14, 2015 at 2:30 am

      The cornerstone of the scientific method is the falsifiable hypothesis statement. Consensus be damned, and even *evidence* be damned – even astrologists have *evidence*.

      The question is, do you have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement?

      More specifically:

      1) a list of observations that are *excluded* by your hypothesis;
      2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is your favored hypothesis (rather than the null).

      Astrology does not have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. Intelligent Design does not have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.

      Neither does AGW.

    InEssence in reply to Henry Hawkins. | March 13, 2015 at 9:22 pm

    In global warming, it is hard to reach a consensus, because a consensus would involve the concurrence of a scientific fact. But global warming is devoid of any scientific fact.

    For example, “Greenhouse Gas” is an oxymoron. Greenhouses allow radiation and inhibit convection. Any gas that inhibits convection is by definition, not a gas.

    It is true that atmospheric gases average the temperature, but water vapor is almost all of that effect. Carbon Dioxide contributes about 3% to averaging and 95% of Carbon Dioxide is from plants. So a 50% reduction of Carbon Dioxide would only affect the temperature a fraction of a degree for a few hours.

    If that is not enough, all living things benefit from temperature averaging. For example, wild swings in temperature are used to pasteurize milk. If you want to kill something, wild termperature swings are pretty effective.

    CO2 tracks temperature (not vice-versa). More plants grow when it is warmer, and plants account for 95% of the Carbon Dioxide. Scientists have used that fact for decades to determine the temperature of the Earth thousands of years ago.

    Any person, who has some knowledge in this area, could keep adding to this all day long. But no scientific fact supports or explains global warming.

      fulldroolcup in reply to InEssence. | March 15, 2015 at 12:18 am

      Plants don’t “account for” 95% of CO2. CO2 is a product of animal life, as well as geologic processes such as vulcanism.

      Plants inspirate CO2 and convert it into oxygen via photosynthesis.

Midwest Rhino | March 13, 2015 at 7:03 pm

Professor Chaos Kerry and his sidekick, General Disarray, are threatening our little planet. Unless we pay them a trillion dollars, they will melt us, and flood Florida.

He sounds like a wannabee super villain, thinking he controls the world. You silly humans must pay Lurch, or he will crush you with his warming ray. “My death ray is as real as gravity, bow you little mortal”×400

Midwest Rhino | March 13, 2015 at 7:50 pm

“Science also tells us that when the water temperature drops below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, it turns to ice. No one disputes that,”

Who is this “science”, and what science book are you quoting from Johnny?

PV=nRT is the language of science, Professor Chaos. The pressure of the skate blades melts ice below 32 degrees. High school science is obviously beyond your ability. And for no extra charge, guess what … water doesn’t boil at 212 either. Unless you are at sea level. In Denver water boils at 203 F.

This nut drones on about failed models as if they actually predicted something correctly. They couldn’t even build a model that worked for past data, but they used it anyway and guess what … it failed again over the new improved data.

But they just have to say “SCIENCE” … no more discussion please, because that is all they know. They can’t even handle the variables in PV=nRT, but they think they know anything about our incredibly complex atmosphere, multiple ocean currents, solar variations, volcanic disruptions, earth’s magnetic pole oscillations, etc. ?

“Why the long face, Hoss?”

    Henry Hawkins in reply to platypus. | March 13, 2015 at 9:04 pm

    My Tom Sawyer-like 10 year old nephew walked by our TV when Kerry’s face was on the screen and said, “that guy looks like Florida”.

It seems like there are a lot of good arguments for and against the reality of global warming on a scientific basis. But rather than debate the scientific pros and cons at a place like , we seem to be arguing the reality based on what percentage of scientists believe or not. Science isn’t a popularity contest. Let’s talk about the data.

    Your blog post that you’ve linked to here had 118 views (counting mine, and however many other LI readers clicked over out of curiosity).

    I appreciate what you’re trying to do, but is a blog with virtually no readers (save those you can herd over from blogs with lots of readers like this one) really the place to try to start up some kind of “more scientific debate”?

    This post itself is not on the science of the issue anyway, so much as the overtly religious tone the Warmies have taken recently. For the science on this issue, I would suggest heading over to Anthony Watts’ blog or any number of respected, well-trafficked and better-established internet communities. Again, with all respect to you for wanting to “start” a scientific debate on this issue, you might find more value joining in the existing debate at, the most widely-read global warming and climate science blog in the world. Good luck!

    jhkrischel in reply to MYC. | March 14, 2015 at 2:35 am

    Let’s be clear, science isn’t just data – even astrologists have oodles of observational data of stars, planets and moons.

    Science is, as Feynman put it, “the belief in the ignorance of experts”. In order to play the game, you need falsifiability. No matter how many reams of computer printouts you have, or how many people in lab coats you have chanting, or how many peer reviewed papers you have written, if there isn’t a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, you’re not doing science, *period*.

    The shameful fact of the matter is that a *lot* of papers written in scientific journals, specifically epidemiological studies, are simply sideline navel gazing – no falsifiable hypothesis statement, and you’re not doing science. You may be coming up with interesting ideas to *apply* the scientific method to, but dear lord, correlation isn’t causation.

      Ragspierre in reply to jhkrischel. | March 14, 2015 at 8:58 am

      Yeeeeup. THIS.

      Louis Pasteur was the COUNTER-consensus thinker WRT to the causes of disease. His ideas were revolutionary and stoutly opposed by respected scientists of the day. But he put them out as a scientist MUST; this is my theory, which I submit may be falsified or verified by experimentation. Have at it.

      This is exactly the OPPOSITE position of charlatans like Michael Mann, of the laughable “hockey-stick” fame.

        Midwest Rhino in reply to Ragspierre. | March 14, 2015 at 10:33 am

        Except Pasteur went against established science, whereas when Gore started pushing his global warming agenda, it was always just a political thing. There was never established science. The guy that Gore got it from had some CO2 ideas but he later thought they’d gone way overboard on the CO2 claims. In terms of science it was only theory, and never presumed that CO2 increase was bad.

        The only consensus was with Gorites, and the only scientists that signed on were looking at the money. The IPCC report never had the 97%, that was just the forward written politically. The scientists just contributed pieces that were not conclusive at all.

        AGW was never science, it was the corruption of science, largely prompted by Gore BS. The question is how does such a big lie garner so much power, to destroy careers of “deniers”, and take control over American industry?

        This was Gore’s mentor, who died in 1991. He would have advised against everything Gore did. Algore saw an opportunity to use it politically, but Al doesn’t do “science”. The article was from 2000, before AGW religion was so established.

        Omni: [If it happens], what will the warming of the Earth mean to us?

        Revelle: There may be lots of effects. Increased CO2 in the air acts like a fertilizer for plants. . . . you get more plant growth. Increasing CO2 levels also affect water transpiration, causing plants to close their pores and sweat less. That means plants will be able to grow in drier climates.

        Omni: Does the increase in CO2 have anything to do with people saying the weather is getting worse?

        Revelle: People are always saying the weather’s getting worse. Actually, the CO2 increase is predicted to temper weather extremes.

    Phillep Harding in reply to MYC. | March 14, 2015 at 6:35 pm

    Sure. Let’s discuss data.

    Starting with “When will the warmist crowd release their raw data and show what they did with it to come up with the results they did?”

    Anyone who took a lab class in their college days should have taken one look at what was actually released and flashed on their college days.

    “WHY WON”T THEY SHOW THEIR WORK?!?!?!? Why are they trying to hide the evidence?”

All that’s missing are the flying rotten tomatoes and a laugh track.

Snake oil. I tire of the AGW true believers. Kerry is a charlatan and he knows it. Just another fake in a long line of fakes. The true believers just substitute AGW for religion. Anyone that believes that line of BS is a true idiot, not worthy of the time it takes to explain there is no real evidence, only fake evidence.

What the author is missing is the great danger to our society’s socioeconomic health, not mention the deaths that might happen if we follow the mandates placed on us through combating the AGW failed hypothesis. He wrongly believes that there are no consequences to doing what the warmists are asking us to do. That line of thinking is not only ignorant, it is a perfect case of the blind following the blind. Making societal policy based on a failed hypothesis is ridiculous and the plan of fools.

Climate change or global warming or global disruption-pick your Newspeak Empirical Nonsense-is based on poorly placed temperature probes, probes placed where the sun doesn’t shine-in the ‘hot-under-the-collar’ Inner Party Elites’ butt (as implied in the above picture).

BTW: The Outer Party Global Cult of Hope Against Climate Change weekly meeting is this Friday. Come and howl at the moon. Be ready to be axiomatic about anthropocentric climate change. So, don’t forget to bring your probes. We need your input.

Of special note; one of the Inner Circle VIP elites will be speaking to our group about mankind’s climate privilege.

I’m in my sixties now, but back when I was a high schooler and a collegian during the Silly ’60’s and Sillier ’70’s,we were assured that the world was heading for a new ice age. So, what am I to believe? I have neither the time nor instrumentation to monitor climate worldwide.

    ScottTheEngineer in reply to Kepha H. | March 17, 2015 at 7:03 am

    I remember hearing about the coming Ice Age in grade school. It was seared in my memory as clearly as I remember sitting on a gun boat in Cambodia on Christmas in 1968.

John Boy Kerry(Who, you may recall, served 4-months in Vietnam 45-years ago while observing US Warriors behaving “ Ghzeeengaaas Khaaaaaaaaan..”)married into a few hundred million in the Seventies and(NOT ENOUGH!!)into a Billion in the Nineties.

John Boy, not that you’d ever, ever, ever expose your useless self to the unaccustomed terror of critical thought, Dude, but I hereby challenge you to read up on the “Little Ice Age” of several centuries last millinium.

Those danged carbon evoking horses, cows and fireplaces of those danged Medieval Folks!! They Baaaaaad.

The Left’s increasingly unhinged rhetorical and intellectual infantilism, demagoguery and histrionics directed at political opponents have become constants as immutable and as predictable as the Sun rising in the morning.