THE ORIGINS OF RELIGION

The human instinct to worship one or more nebulous beings in nebulous localities goes back to the five million years of our early evolution when we were faced with hostile surroundings and the necessities of daily survival. Societies were disciplined and dictatorial, much as monkeys, deer, lions and meerkats are today; and even some sub-groups of contemporary human society such as armies or criminal gangs. Obedience to a leader and rejection of those who do not conform is essential. Those who survived were the best followers of orders.

In order to ensure obedience to the leader, rituals were developed to make him appear special. He was approved and advised by supernatural beings, and the people had to be made to believe a whole theology to support the legitimacy of the leader. Priests and a church which sanctified the leadership were supplied. Anyone who disagreed was rejected, and their genes did not survive. The survivors evolved an instinct for worship and acceptance of authority which many still possess.

In this way, over the millions of years we acquired an instinct to believe, to accept irrational and supernatural explanations for those parts of our life we cannot control, and support and worship for leadership.

The world today is still controlled to a great degree by religious beliefs, which assist the maintenance of leadership. Such systems tend to be resistant to innovation, to changes in technology and new forms of social organisation, and history has many examples of the downfall of entire civilizations because of religious and social dogma, conquered, replaced or overcome by those who have better technology, and less rigid conformity.

The most prosperous and most civilized nations of this world have become this way because they have been able to overcome the stultifying influence of religions and the backwardness that they encourage. Although no country is free from religious influence, in one way or another, many of us have minimised this influence, so that we can develop new technologies and new ideas which can promote economic and social progress despite religious interference.

Many of the most prosperous states in the world no longer have the burden of an official state-sponsored religion which can force citizens to behave in the way determined by the priests.

Humanist and sceptical groups in many countries have established the right of freedom of worship, or of non-worship. New Zealand is one country where a large proportion of the population declare themselves to possess no religion, where Members of Parliament and those giving evidence in Court are not forced to swear allegiance to any God.

At least, this was so until the growth of the Environmental Movement in the second half of last century. This movement has now reached the dimensions of a State and World Religion, both in New Zealand and in the world at large.

It is difficult to draw a distinction between a religion, a cult and an irrational belief. All have their origins in the human instinct to worship. They are just a matter of degree. Nazi Germany fell foul of the belief that Germans were a superior race. In Stalinist Russia any measure could be justified on behalf of a mythical working class. These beliefs were every bit as strong, and as disastrous for their victims and their believers as any belief based on a supernatural God.

Environmentalism does have a God, a Heaven and a Devil. so it comes close to qualify as a religion. It demands constant and increasing sacrifices and represents an increasing threat to freedom of thought, of science. and of future human progress. It has Ministers in every country but does not have a Pope or a single Holy Book.....

Early humans were surrounded with a hostile world, into which incursions were only made for essential purposes: food, clothing, shelter. Industrial developments in the eighteenth century led to a situation where the outside world was no longer dangerous, as humans had guns, provisions and transport.

The Romantic Movement reversed the dangers of the outside world to argue that the world without humans was actually superior and artistically sublime. The concept of Nature which was superior to human habitation became widely accepted. Even the most primitive humans came to be regarded as superior (Noble Savages), from those like Rousseau, who hated humans and human society.

The concept of The Environment has its origins in the belief in Nature. Traditionally humans have always considered themselves to be superior to other creatures.

Members of the Romantic Movement, who rebelled against the pollution and squalor of the Industrial Revolution, considered humans were inferior to other organisms which existed in a separate part of the world called Nature.Everything that happened there was Naturalwhereas everything the humans did was Artificial and thus inferior.

The prototype science fiction novel -Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein - established a genre which still dominates our literature and public entertainment with its message that science and technology is dangerous and harmful and will inevitably cause disaster.

The Environmentcarries this belief much further, to the extent that Environmentalism has become a substitute for religion. Everything that humans do is harmful to The Environment.

The Environment has not only become a substitute for God. It is also a Heaven on Earth. There are no holy scriptures, but there is an amateur priesthood who are consulted regularly to comment on every news item. In each country there is a Minister and Ministry of the Environment which promote its demands. There is a United Nations Environment Programme. There are many local and international organisations which promote its doctrine. These include Greenpeace, The Worldwide Fund for Nature, The Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and many others.

The demands of The Environment include regular and increasing sacrifices on its behalf. All human activity is either forbidden or it has to be more expensive than before. It has to endure uneconomic solutions and expensive permission from environmental authorities.

Where is The Environment? It is everywhere and nowhere. What is it? It is a mixture of Heaven, Nature, Never Never Land, Narnia, Erewhon and Utopia. One thing it cannot be is a territory where humans have no influence, just as there is no territory which has no influence from other organisms. We must continually Protect The Environment from the harm done by humans or at least Mitigatethem. It would perhaps be better if there were no humans at all.

There are several dogmatic beliefs of this substitute religion which are in conflict both with scientific thought and with straightforward common sense.

Most of us attempt to decide the merit of alternative actions by Risk Analysis. The risks and costs of the alternatives are assessed and choice is made on the level of risk compared with estimated rewards. For public bodies this takes the form of Cost-Benefit Analysis. Environmentalism replaces this rational process with the Precautionary Principle where the supposed benefit to the environment is always chosen, even if the risk is zero. This is used to enforce costs, restrictions, and threats to human life.

Most religions claim that they exist to benefit humans in general, although believers usually have priority. Environmentalismis the only religion where humans are a dangerto the planet and must not just be brought under control, but maybe even eliminated altogether, in order to benefit all other organisms, particularly those who are endangered by the mere existence of humans..

The most outrageous demands of most religions are tempered either by the existence of a big boss (for example, the pope) or by a holy book which supposedly summarises their doctrine, but which is in practice subject to interpretation...

Environmentalism has no such traditional authority. Any person claiming to be an environmentalist or an ecologist can claim the right to comment, object to or forbid any action, and is currently welcomed by the media without permitting a dissenting opinion

The world’s news services are trawled to reveal any event or behaviour which can be construed as evidence of damaging human behaviour. Everything we do is unsafe or harmful. It is surprising that we seem to be living longer in spite of the threats that surround us.

Every event is a disaster and every potentiality is based on a combination of the worse circumstances that can be envisaged.

It is difficult to characterise this attack on rationality. Traditional religions are tolerated in most Western nations. We may object to gay discrimination, arranged marriage, male of female circumcision, but in general most of us favour the right to practice religion and express religious opinions.

It is different if, as with the environmental religion, they have political parties and they have policies which interfere with freedoms of the entire population, Even worse is when they employ scientists to promote what are essentially political and religious policies. They use the public reputation of science and scientists for truthfulness, balance and impartiality to enforce biased political policies which are expensive, harmful and dangerous. They employ an array of devices to conceal their true objectives. This is not just delusion or misunderstanding it is fraudulent.

EVOLUTION SCIENCE

All of the claims of Environmentalism are in contradiction to the science of evolution.

The Greek philosopher Heraclitus is supposed to have said everything flows and for most people it is surely obvious that everything about the world is constantly changing.

Medieval society believed otherwise. They thought that everything about the world was static and unchanging, apart from the occasional cyclones, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, often blamed on the anger of God. When these special events were over, the world returned exactly to where it was before.

Carl Linnaeus, who in 1735 launched the most popular classification system for all organisms, believed that they were all constant and unchanging, individually created by the almighty.

It was only early in the 19^thcentury with the discovery of fossils of extinct animals and the geology of Hutton and Lyell that it became obvious that the earth and all of its organisms have changed by evolution.

Early works of Cuvier, Erasmus, Darwin, Lamarck and Robert Chambers led to the formulation of a general theory of the mechanism of evolution by Darwin and Wallace in 1858 and the publication of Darwin’s book “The Origin of Species” in 1859. This theory has been comprehensively confirmed by recent work on genetics and the mechanism of heredity.

Darwin had noted that most organisms had more offspring than could survive. They also possessed variability. The survivors of each generation would be those from this variety that could cope best with each changed circumstances. Over time the living organisms would undergo obvious change. Each organism is involved in a “struggle for existence” or “survival of the fittest”. Darwin showed that this process could be carried out on domestic animals and birds by selective breeding.

Darwin himself was captured by his community beliefs. His wife was an enthusiastic Christian and he struggled long before admitting in his final autobiography that he was an “Agnostic”. The confession was censored from this work until his granddaughter published the full version as late as 1958.

Darwin saw that the process by which the fittestsurvived was Selection. but he still believed in Nature,so he made a distinction between Natural Selection and Artificial Selection, admitting a human privilege that his theory denied.

The process does not need this distinction. Selectionoperates in the same manner whether it is by deliberate or inadvertent action of a particular organism, an action of the climate, or earth changes, They all have the effect of processing evolution.

Evolution by selection applies to all organisms including humans. Humans therefore have no privileges over others. They have no supervising deity, no after life, and no responsibility for other organisms, except for their own survival.

Darwin’s theory was later wrongly altered to incorporate the idea that humans are special by Julian Huxley, Ernst Mayr and others.

The Origin of Species explained that the term Species is merely a classification category decided arbitrarily by taxonomists. The decision on separation of Species is both arbitrary and variable. At present there are two competing methods, that of Linnaeus, based on appearance and behaviour, and that based on DNA sequences. Whichever is chosen, the number of species can be any figure that taxonomists decide; there is no definite number.

The reasons for separating one species from another are not standardized and are almost impossible to decide for fossils viruses or bacteria.

Organisms participate in mutual struggle for existence, and some are more successful than others. The process is so complex that the future cannot be predicted. Occasionally a particular organism becomes extinct and human activity may play a part in the process, but we are not obligated to intervene unless our own interests are involved.

The disagreement between the Environmentalist Religion and Evolution Science can be summarised in the following table.

ENVIRONMENTALISM	EVOLUTION
The Environment	The Environment has no physical existence.. Organisms interact in such a complex manner that no clear boundary can be drawn between one group of organisms and another.
Humans are responsible for the *planet*.	Humans are just one of many organisms interacting with one another. No organism is responsible for any other organism unless its own interests are involved.
Humans are destroying the *plane*t	Humans have only a minor influence on organisms in general.
Sustainability	Sustainability is the reverse of evolution. Evolution cannot be stopped, let alone reversed. Each organism tries to take advantage of evolution, but to stand still is the road to decline..
Endangered species	All organisms evolve and new ones replace old ones. The term *species* is a human artifact which tries to classify evolutionary progress. Organisms that become less common make way to others which renew the world..
Ecosystems	Ecology is the study of interaction between organisms. It is a dynamic process and it occurs at every level. It is not possible to divide organisms into convenient packages. Every region, whether small or large, is constantly changing, never static,
Biodiversity	The numbers of organisms interacting in one area cannot be satisfactorily counted, and they depend on the climate and the evolutionary success of each organism. There is no ideal number nor is a larger or smaller number a reason for concern.
Conservation	Possible only to a limited degree.No point in opposing inevitable change.
The Selfish Gene	A theory that only the evolution of individuals is important. It ignores the importance of social evolution and the development of instincts.
The Noble Savage	The belief that primitive peoples are somehow superior and free from problems of more developed societies is untrue

People are, whether they realise it or not, controlled by evolution. Those Individual or collective actions which assist not only future survival but also the development of a harmonious society are unpredictable.

The past behaviour patterns of humans must be judged to have succeeded since the numbers and influence of humans have increased, despite actions such as war, genocide, famine, earthquakes, volcanoes and changes in the climate. Human use of science, technology, innovation and social interaction have brought about these changes and they must undergo continuous encouragement and development for social or individual survival in the future.

Environmentalists are opposed to all technological evolution. If they succeed in preventing it, they will cause the downfall and disappearance of the human race, something they seem so fond in anticipating.

The most basic of all instincts is selfishness without which none of us can survive. A harmonious society has to invoke a whole array of procedures to control individual or collective selfishness and eventfully to breed generations where collective benefit is instinctive.

Environmentalists use science to exaggerate every disaster and use science to try to claim they will get worse.

In order to understand how their deception is made it is necessary to understand the scientific method.

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

The Oxford English Dictionary¹defines the scientific method as

a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

The Free Dictionary²

The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis

INDUCTION

The procedure described in these definitions is called induction. Its use as the scientific method was publicised by Francis Bacon³
The procedure may be shown diagrammatically as follows⁴:

Figure 2.1 The Inductive Method⁶

Observation comes first. The hypothesis and then the theory arise from the observations. The validity of the theory depends on the efforts placed in its modification from future observations.

For most of us the scientific method is what is described in official scientific publications.

Yet PB Medawar in his “Is the Scientific Paper a Fraud?⁵ argues that

The scientific paper in its orthodox form does embody a totally mistaken conception, even a travesty, of the nature of scientific thought. The conception underlying this style of scientific writing is that scientific discovery is an inductive process. What induction implies in its cruder form is roughly speaking this:scientific discovery, or the formulation of scientific theory, starts with the unvarnished and unembroidered evidence of the senses. It starts with simobservation - simple, unbiased, unprejudiced, naive, or innocent observation - and out of this sensory evidence, embodied in the form of simple propositions or declaration of fact, generalizations will grow up and take shape, almost as if some process of crystallization or condensation were taking place. The theory underlying the inductive method cannot be sustained. Let me give three good reasons why not. In the first place, the starting point of induction, naive observation, innocent observation, is a mere philosophic fiction. There is no such thing as unprejudiced observation. Every act of observation we make is biased. What we see or otherwise sense is a function of what we have seen or sensed in the past.

David Hume and particularly Karl Popper have also asserted that this procedure is invalid.

Popper says⁵:

By an inductive inference is here meant an inference from repeatedly observed instances to some as yet unobserved instances, I hold with Hume that there simply is no such logical entity as an inductive inference; or, that all so-called inductive inferences are logically invalid. I agree with Hume's opinion that induction is invalid and in no sense justified.

Popper is quite famous for the following quotation:

...no matter how many instances of white swans we may have observed, this does not justify the conclusion that allswans are white.

Of course, he is right. The statement that all swans are white is incorrect today. If it follows from an inductive study of swans it is obviously incomplete. It could not be considered to be a conclusion from a properly conducted scientific study. It is easy to falsify it

If it was made before the discovery of Australia it was correct and could be acceptable as part of a properly conducted scientific study of swans at the time,

Scientific conclusions are never final, as future scientific discoveries may modify or alter them. It is therefore foolish to suggest that some past scientific conclusions are false.

Science does not claim truth. Scientific statements are always temporary because they always assume that they may need to be replaced or modified in the future.

Popper makes an excuse for his hostility to induction in the following passage.

What we do use is a method of trial and the examination of error; however misleadingly this method may look like induction, its logical structure, if we examine it closely, totally differs from that of induction.

He also makes it plain that he prefers deduction

I assert that scientific knowledge is essentially conjectural or hypothetical.

DEDUCTION

The alternative logical procedure Popper seems to favour is deductive reasoning⁴

Figure 2.2 Deductive Reasoning⁴

Here the study begins with a proposed theory and the investigation consists of an attempt to find observations and make experiments which might confirm the theory.

Medawar is equally scathing about this system⁶.

deduction in itself is quite powerless as a method of scientific discovery - and for this simple reason: that the process of deduction as such only uncovers, brings out into the open, makes explicit, information that is already present in the axioms or premises from which the process of deduction started. The process of deduction reveals nothing to us except what the infirmity of our own minds had so far concealed from us.

Here he seems to be saying that we did not need to be told that the earth goes round the sun or that an atomic bomb can be made because we ought to have known it already. This is surely nonsense.

Harré⁶in his book on Great Scientific Experiments gives a useful discussion on deductive and inductive logic and shows that his examples often use a mixture of both deductive and inductive reasoning.

Harré gives the following examples of inductive reasoning⁵.

Galileo The Law of Descent.
Robert Boyle The Spring of Air.

Many more may easily be found.

Darwin’s theory of evolution arose from observations.

Alfred Russell Wallacewent through the same process. Many geological theories arise from observation. Continental Drift is an example.

Biology has many examples of induction:

Harvey. Circulation of the blood,
Fleming Discovery of penicillin.

Then in Physics we have:

Newton’s apple..,
Becquerelradioactivity.
Hahn Nuclear Fission

The prevalence of deductive reasoning hardly needs mentioning. We have been the beneficiaries of Newton’s Laws of Motion ever since he proposed them..With thermodynamics they control our knowledge of the atmosphere.

Popper and Medawar were wrong to condemn induction in science and Medawar was wrong to condemn deduction. Both of them implied that science is exclusively personal. In fact, science is a cooperative enterprise where the different necessary procedures of scientific investigation may be made by different individuals, or even by different disciplines.

Science builds on past discoveries. Newton claimed that his discoveries were obtained by standing on the shoulders of giants.

VALIDATION

Any scientific study, theory or conclusion should be validated before it could be generally acceptable, it should be capable of simulating past observations and of forecasting all future conditions for which it may be considered appropriate, both to a satisfactory level of accuracy.

FALSIFIABILITY

Popper considered that scientific statements can only be accepted if they can be falsified⁸.

There can be no ultimate statements in science: there can be no statements in science which can not be tested, and therefore none which cannot in principle be refuted, by falsifying some of the conclusions which can be deduced from them⁴.and In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality⁹.

All scientific observations should be capable of being repeated by an independent investigator,

There are considerable difficulties in applying the test of falsifiability to investigations outside a laboratory. Such studies therefore need to be validated.

OPINIONS OF EXPERTS

A number of scientific disciplines are unable to apply validation, or qualify for falsifiability. This includes geology, taxonomy, cosmology, anthropology. It is also true of disciplines on the edge of science, such as psychology, sociology and economics. The opinion of experts could be criticised from the fact that the experts concerned can often be considered to have a conflict of interest since they benefit from income, prestige or status connected with their expertise.

MATHEMATICAL MODELS

Scientific observations may most conveniently be summarised by their ability to resemble a mathematical model. It is important to recognise the distinction between science and mathematics.

Mathematics is formalized logic. It is based on deriving the consequences of rigidly defined assumptions. It is never necessarily a representation of reality but its conclusions are truthful.

Scientific theories often use mathematical models to summarize observations or measurements.

An example is the model that the Greek astronomer Ptolemy made of the movements of the planets using the earth as its centre. It involved complex epicyclesfor the planets and an equant for the earth.

When Copernicus proposed that planets and the earth revolved around the sun, Galileo, Kepler and Newton provided a much improved mathematical model for this theory which was much simpler. Unfortunately some people believe the model rather than reality. So some schoolteachers and scientists think that the sun does not go round the earth. Yet everybody knows that it does. The principle of relativity had to await Einstein before it was used to modify Newton’s Laws and even he did not supply a relativity theory for rotating bodies..

ACCURACY

All measurements are inaccurate but guidance on which of several measurements is better only came with the development of mathematical statistics models which could simulate the behaviour of a set of measurements. Although there are now many such models intended for different purposes only one of these is currently in regular use. It is the Normal or Gaussian distribution and it is present on every computer spreadsheet and scientific calculator. It is often successful for sets of measurement that are approximately uniform, symmetrical and numerous but it unsuitable for skewed distributions and for outliers.

CLIMATE SCIENCE

Measurements of the climate are essentially non reproducible and therefore not capable of being falsified. Weather Forecasting is largely a deductive process using local numerical models compiled from basic physics and local climate pattern development. It is comprehensively validated from the success of its forecasts.

CLIMATOLOGY

An example of a scientific discipline which cannot be falsified or validated is climatology.

Its results are based on the opinions of experts

According to Merriam-Webster¹⁰Climatology is

the scientific study of climates

and Dictionary.com¹¹¹

the science that deals with the phenomena of climates or climatic conditions

As Chapter 1 shows, meteorology is also the scientific study of the climate, much of which has to be taken into account when making a forecast. Climatology is much concerned with past climates for which the only average is often the best guess of experts

CLIMATE CHANGE PSEUDOSCIENCE

It is only recently that climatology has been overwhelmed by intrusion of the doctrine of climate change which does purport to forecast future climate, but, so far, unsuccessfully, by defying so many accepted principles of traditional science to an extent that it has to be considered as pseudoscience. It has only been able to survive by suppression of all forms of open debate and by political pressure.

Climate Change Pseudoscience is a deductive process, designed to provide evidence for the theory that climate is controlled by emissions of trace atmospheric gases (so called greenhouse gases) by human activity.

Attempts to validate it have failed. It has been repeatedly falsified. It thus qualifies as a pseudoscience.

It has also rejected much of the established knowledge of climate science.

*ASSUMPTIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE PSEUDOSCIENCE*	*ASSUMPTIONS OF CLIMATE SCIENCE*
Emissions of greenhouse gases warm the earth.	Most scientists agree that this is so. But there is no evidence of harm and good evidence that they are beneficial.
The Earth is flat.	The Earth is an oblate spheroid.
The Sun shines both day and night with equal intensity.	The Sun shines only by day, varying with time and season and affected by clouds overcast and precipitation.
Radiant energy entering is balanced by energy leaving.	No part of the earth is ever in equilibrium and there is never an energy balance.
No energy is used to maintain life, yet humans emit gases.	Entry energy could never equal that leaving because energy is used to maintain life and erode the earth. Storage may change.
All heat transfer is by radiation.	Most atmospheric heat transfer is by conduction, convection, and latent heat transfer.
Temperature of the earth can be assessed by multiple manipulation of weather station and sea surface measurements	It is impossible to measure the temperature of the earth by any method.
Temperature is increasing decadally.	Annual temperature change by the IPCC method has been unchanged for 18 years..
Models are evaluated by scientists with a conflict of interest.	Distortion, manipulation, fabrication and fraud have been tolerated.
The process is claimed to follow the scientific method.	No claim has ever been validated and they have been repeatedly falsified.
Models never make predictions, only projections.	Weather forecasting models predict temperature for a few days ahead to ±2ºC with a bias of ±1ºC.
Greenhouse gases are well mixed.	Greenhouse gases are never well mixed as is shown by NASA satellite measurements.
The sea is being acidified.	Parts of the ocean are already saturated as they emit carbon dioxide. Extra carbon dioxide would increase their proportion slightly
Sea Level is rising.	Most measurements are upwardly biased from storm damage, harbour improvement, land subsidence from buildings. and removal of minerals and ground water. Since GPS levelling was established, changes have been small or negligible
Ice is melting	The Arctic ocean periodically changes with currents. The ice on the Antarctic continent is currently increasing.
Extreme events are increasing	Evidence is poor