Another Slice
This term “denier” is a favorite pejorative of evolutionists. It is Orwellian newspeak for those who do not automatically affirm the politically-correct answer, and the charge of malpractice from the government is extremely serious. Torcello calls for governments to enact laws enabling the incarceration of climate “denialists,” and now the government is, yes, equating AGW skepticism with malpractice.
When industries falter they seek protection and unfair advantage via government mandate and controls. Similarly, evolution has a long history of marshaling government controls to enforce its non scientific claim of spontaneous origins.
In recent years environmentalism has also been moving toward this strategy. But the labeling of those who don’t go along with questionable and urgent claims as “science deniers,” and charging them as guilty of malpractice, takes evolutionary thought to a whole a new level.
Religion drives science, and it matters.
I thought this report was supposed to have been toned down. It doesn't sound as if it was pulling its punches to me.
ReplyDeleteIan:
DeleteI thought this report was supposed to have been toned down. It doesn't sound as if it was pulling its punches to me.
Believe it or not this actually is toned down compared to the earlier false predictions.
Ch,
ReplyDeleteThey're totalitarians, so what could one expect. They know better how one should live, what they should think, how they should act, raise their kids, eat, ect.. The most repressive periods of monarchical rule have nothing on these people.
"Paranoia is a way of life for you, isn't it?"
Delete-- Emergency Medical Hologram, Star Trek Voyager "Message in a Bottle"
Yes, because we don't actually see what we see. And none of those things has ever been in the news. Who's a denier? ;)
Deleteeklektos
DeleteThey're totalitarians, so what could one expect. They know better how one should live, what they should think, how they should act, raise their kids, eat, ect..
Sounds like Baptists to me, substituting drink for eat.And yes,they seek to influence the government to enforce their view
When industries falter they seek protection and unfair advantage via government mandate and controls. Similarly, evolution has a long history of marshaling government controls to enforce its non scientific claim of spontaneous origins.
ReplyDeleteThe theory of evolution takes no position on the origin of life.
And, given that almost no one achieves any kind of political power in the United States unless they declare strong religious - more specifically, Christian - affiliations, it's hard to see how evolution could marshal government support - unless it's theistic evolution, of course.
Ian:
ReplyDeleteThe theory of evolution takes no position on the origin of life.
The consensus position amongst evolutionists is that it is a fact that the species arose spontaneously. And evolutionary thought extends beyond merely the species and says that life, the Earth, the solar system, the galaxy, etc., arose spontaneously. Regarding OOL, we have this, for example: “For those who are studying the origin of life, the question is no longer whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving nonbiological components. The question instead has become which of many pathways might have been followed to produce the first cells”? [1] Though other evolutionists are fortunately more circumspect.
And, given that almost no one achieves any kind of political power in the United States unless they declare strong religious - more specifically, Christian - affiliations, it's hard to see how evolution could marshal government support - unless it's theistic evolution, of course.
A distinction without a difference.
1. National Academy of Sciences, Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2d ed. (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999) 6.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteCH: A distinction without a difference.
DeleteYet, your claim that "the species arose spontaneously" is itself a distinction without a difference as no explanation as to what is implied by "assistance" is actually given, how it works, etc.
Some designer that "just was" complete with the knowledge of how to build biological organisms, already present, serves no explanatory purpose. This is because one could more efficiently state that organisms "just appeared", complete with the knowledge of how to build copies of itself, already present.
IOW, to actually provide assistance, it's unclear why the source itself wouldn't also be a purposeful, knowledge laden, entity, which represents the very same properties it supposedly explains. As such, it fails as an explanation.
I don't know why this is such a difficult concept for people to understand. Apparently, cognitive dissidence sets in and special pleading is invoked to resolve it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"When industries falter they seek protection and unfair advantage via government mandate and controls."
ReplyDeleteOne of my favorite economists Walter Williams explained, it's easier to convince a few hundred elected individuals, you need special favors than to convince millions of private individuals.
And fortunately there are laws against such "convincing," but it is difficult for laws to cover everything.
DeleteDr Hunter
DeleteAnd fortunately there are laws against such "convincing," but it is difficult for laws to cover everything.
34 billion spent on convincing 1998-2010 excluding campaign donations.
It's very important to elect those with good character and integrity. Preferably those who have morals where the 10 Commandments are the foundation.
DeleteI'm afraid when it comes to politicians I'm rather like Mercutio.
DeleteDr Hunter
ReplyDeleteI realize the religious nature of evolution as you've frequently pointed out e.g what God would or would not do but where is the metaphysics when it comes to AGW ?
Chimera:
DeleteGood question and as with evolution it doesn't boil down to one tradition or a simple story. Liberal Christianity and eastern religion / pantheism are two influences, but evolution itself is also important. Definitely evolution's need to remove providence and consequently the view of nature left alone plays a role. Lynn White, James Lovelock and Carl Sagan are example proponents who blended spiritual or metaphysical themes into their narratives. Michael Crichton had some interesting observations about environmentalism as religion. Interestingly Lovelock now agrees that environmentalism has become a religion.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/30/james-lovelock-environmentalism-religion
Should anyone be genuinely interested in the organizations Torcello is actually referring to, rather than the vague blanked statement of “those who question the faltering AGW (anthropogenic, or man-made, global warming) theory”, one such organization is the Heartland Institute, who also worked with tobacco company Philip Morris to question serious cancer risks to secondhand smoke, and to lobby against government public-health reforms.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute
On May 4, 2012, the institute launched a digital billboard ad campaign in the Chicago area featuring a photo of Ted Kaczynski, (the "Unabomber" whose mail bombs killed three people and injured 23 others), and asking the question, “I still believe in global warming, do you?”[30]
The goal of these organizations is to organize and fund the portrayal of AGW as a “major scientific controversy”. However, this is simply not the case. While what to do about AGW is in question, AGW itself is not a major scientific controversy.
Nor should climate science be confused with climate politics. Despite a 97 percent scientific consensus…
Approximately 56 percent, or at least 130 members, of the current Republican caucus in the House of Representatives deny the basic tenets of climate science. Sixty-six percent, or at least 30 members, of the Senate Republican caucus also deny the reality of climate change.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/27/3419542/climate-science-vs-climate-politics-graphic/
Study Finds 97% Consensus on
ReplyDeleteHuman-Caused Global Warming
in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/15/2014211/study-finds-97-consensus-on-human-caused-global-warming-in-the-peer-reviewed-literature/
Several studies have shown that people who correctly perceive the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming are more likely to support government action to curb greenhouse gas emissions. This was most recently shown in McCright et al. (2013), recently published in the journal Climatic Change. People will defer to the judgment of experts, and they trust climate scientists on the subject of global warming.
However, research has also shown that the public is misinformed on the climate consensus. For example, a 2012 poll from US Pew Research Center found less than half of Americans thought that scientists agreed that humans were causing global warming. One contributor to this misperception is false balance in the media, particularly in the US, where most climate stories are “balanced” with a “skeptic” perspective. However, this results in making the 3 percent seem much larger, like 50 percent. In trying to achieve “balance”, the media has actually created a very unbalanced perception of reality. As a result, people believe scientists are still split about what’s causing global warming, and therefore there is not nearly enough public support or motivation to solve the problem.
Such false balance has long been the goal of a dedicated misinformation campaign waged by the fossil fuel industry. Just as one example, in 1991 Western Fuels Association conducted a $510,000 campaign whose primary goal was to “reposition global warming as theory (not fact).” These vested interests have exploited the media desire to appear “balanced.”
Sounds like those stickers Cobb County school officials wanted to put on Evolutionary textbooks in 2002.
“This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”
I know there isn't enough evidence to stop these guys, but below adds to the FACT that climate change is a lot more complicated than anyone imagined:
ReplyDeleteTemperature fluctuations: Atlantic Ocean dances with the sun and volcanoes
March 31, 2014
Aarhus University
Natural fluctuations in the ocean temperature in the North Atlantic have a significant impact on the climate in the northern hemisphere. These fluctuations are the result of a complex dance between the forces of nature, but researchers can now show that solar activity and the impact of volcanic eruptions have led this dance during the last two centuries.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140331114502.htm