This is his powerful conclusion:
Why did so few true scientists speak out against the eugenic slaughter perpetrated by Hitler, or the famines caused by the Lysenko nonsense, or the millions of deaths from AIDS and malaria and yellow fever that could so easily have been prevented, but were not? And why do so few true scientists today have the courage to stand up and be counted against the cruel absurdity that is “global warming” theory, a theory that is now killing millions in the Third World because, while we can afford to pay $2 rather $1 for a burger, they are below the breadline already and simply cannot afford the doubling of food prices which, according to the World Bank, has resulted directly from the belief that “global warming” is a “global crisis” – a belief gladly fostered not only by the State but also by academe, by the media, and by the commercial world, for all imagine that they can profit greatly by it at our expense.
These dreadful and continuing episodes of careless, callous mass slaughter of innocent people by the governing class have one factor glaringly in common: they occurred because scientists lacked the moral fiber to stand out publicly and persistently against the bastardization of natural philosophy itself. They did not thunder: they cowered. Too many are cowering now, when they should be courageous enough, and true enough to their disciplines, to speak, speak out, and speak on until the truth is heard.
And why? Why this widespread, serial cowardice on the part of the scientific community? Yes, that community is now heavily, indeed almost exclusively, dependent upon the taxpayer for its funding. Science is a monopsony, with the State more or less the only paying customer. Yes, that community may legitimately say that most of its members do not specialize in the increasingly narrow fields in which the scientific debate about “global warming” is taking place. Yet there is another and more terrible reason why our scientists have so often and so catastrophically let down the millions whose deaths their cringing passivity has allowed.
Precisely because the worst sort of scientists are prone to say, intolerantly, that religion is not a legitimate pastime for any scientist, many scientists have come to the view that they no longer need to adhere to any moral precept at all. Morality, they say, is the province of religion and not of science. We, they say, can do what we like as long as we can get away with it, and there is no such distinction any more as true or false, right or wrong, just or unjust.
Perhaps, therefore, no one should be allowed to practice in any of the sciences, particularly in those sciences that have become the mere political footballs of the leading pressure-groups, unless he can certify that he adheres to one of those major religions – Christianity outstanding among them – that preach the necessity of morality, and the reality of the distinction between that which is so and that which is not. For science without the morality that perhaps religion alone can give is nothing.
That is right: evil in the world exists because too many scientists are Godless and spineless atheists. They hate God, and as humans are created to His image, they also hate humans. But if you hate God, then He will be wrathful and he will mess up your experiments, like in Quantum Physics. And the Lord Monckton has the answer: only those who believe in a religion may practice science, so they will have the moral compass (as given by God) to do good and avoid doing evil.
But what religions would be acceptable? Here I say that we need consider each religion carefully. Not just any religion will do. As a renowned expert both in science and in religion, I have separated the wheat from the chaff:
Christianity – obviously, as this is the outstanding religion when it comes to morality. And to science – just look at how many great scientists were Christians: Galileo, Newton, etc etc.
Judaism – well, Einstein was a Jew, and I’m not prejudiced. So Judaism is also acceptable.
Catholicism – no, the papists persecuted both Galileo and the Lord Monckton. They also invented the Inquisition.
Orthodox Church – no, orthodoxy is the opposite of scepticism. And they are heretically wrong about the Filioque.
Islam – no, a religion of oppression and terrorism. Need I mention Usama bin Laden? Need I mention Barack Obama? Need I mention Obama bin Laden?
Hinduism - no, they believe in a lot of weird gods. They believe in holy cows. And need I mention Pachauri?
Buddhism – no, they don’t believe in reality, so how can they then do science?
Atheism aka Humanism– no! This is also a religion, because to not believe in God is also a religious position. But the absence of a punishing but loving God makes it utterly amoral.
Liberalism – no! The Godless religion of Liberalism (aka Communism aka Fascism) is just like Atheism. Actually, they are the same thing. Thus spoke Ann Coulter!
Environmentalism – no! This is a religion of Gaia worship that believes that mosquitoes are more valuable than humans. No other religion has caused more deaths in the history of mankind.
Anthropogenic Global Warming – no! This is also a religion, and their god is CO2. They believe that CO2 has supernatural powers which allow it to control the climate, and that they must appease the wrath of the CO2 god by living in discomfort and misery. Also see Environmentalism.
Witchcraft aka Wiccaism - no! Ritually practiced at the NASA compound, according to information from credible sources. A religion of evil, mocking God!
Pastafaranism aka Flying Spaghetti Monsterism - no, this is not even a real religion. It is just a mock religion invented by atheists in order to make fun of respectable religions (i e Christianity). Pathetic! Has many supporters in academia, but do not let that fool you! They will not fool me again, that's for sure!
So in summary, to be a practicing scientist, you should prove that you either are a Christian (obviously) or a Jew (I'm not prejudiced).