Dave S.

Repeating what I’ve been saying for a long time – there are better ways to spend money than a preemptive strike on global warming. The UK Times publishes an article about one of those ways. Times Online May 30, 2008 Mark Henderson, Science Editor, Copenhagen ‘Forget climate change, we should spend on nutrition’ Malnutrition should be the world’s major priority for aid and development, a panel of eight leading economists, including five Nobel laureates, declared yesterday. The provision of supplements of vitamin A and zinc to children in developing countries, to prevent avoidable deficiencies that affect hundreds of millions of children, is the most cost-effective way of making the world a better place, the Copenhagen Consensus initiative has found. Three Read More ›

Freeman Dyson (one of our greatest living thinkers IMO) talks about Global Warming in a New York book reviewThe Question of Global Warming . Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound. Scientists and economists can agree with Buddhist monks and Christian activists that ruthless destruction of natural habitats is evil and careful preservation of birds and butterflies is good. The worldwide community of environmentalists—most of whom are not scientists—holds the moral high ground, and is guiding human societies toward a hopeful future. Environmentalism, as a religion of hope and respect for nature, is here to stay. This is a religion that we can all share, whether or not we believe Read More ›

Prominent climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball talks about the links between evolution and global warming controversies. HT to UD subscriber Frost for the link to the article. Environmental extremism must be put in its place in the climate debate By Dr. Tim Ball & Tom Harris Wednesday, January 9, 2008 Canada Free Press Many people are starting to realize that much of what they’ve been told about climate change by governments, the United Nations and crusading celebrities is simply wrong. Not surprisingly, the assertion that “the science is settled” in a field the public is coming to understand is both immature and quickly evolving, is triggering growing public skepticism. Alarmists respond by upping the ante, making even more extreme and nonsensical Read More ›

California’s top court legalizes gay marriage Hat Tip to Wesley Elsberry’s message board for homozygous church burnin’ ebola boys After the Bar Closes.

From NOAA here These are annual average temperature (top) and precipitation (bottom) in the United States from 1895 through 2007. The magnitude of change in the trend lines, +1 degree in temperature, +2 inches annual rainfall, is interesting but not nearly as interesting as the slopes being almost identical and straight as an arrow. That’s an amazing correlation for there to be no direct causal factor in common. Warmer, wetter, and more CO2 are good things for agriculture. God help us all if those trend lines go towards colder and drier. If it does we’ll be inventing ways to make global warming happen.

Read More ›

Barry poses the debate topic: A soldier amuses himself by ripping a baby from his mother’s arms and tossing it in the air and catching it on a bayonet. Resolved, it is self-evident that the soldier’s action is wrong in all places and at all times. However, Barry restricts the range of answers by not allowing anyone to assert whether it would be right or wrong if God commanded the killing. As many of us know, God, according to the Old Testament, did indeed command the killing of babies. My position is that in the ordering of baby killing God was wrong and therefore cannot be a trusted source of moral absolutes. If the Old Testament is a true accounting Read More ›

As the prior article here talks about some moonbats in the Swiss government have concocted a set of rights for living things that even includes plants’ rights. This appears to be relevant to some other hot-button topics here in recent days. First of all it occurs to me that for the holocaust to happen it was a necessary factor for plants to have their right to life stripped from them. It’s really the first step down a slippery slope that ends with people having the right to life stripped from them. David Berlinski take note. We don’t want to overlook this in the future when we round up the usual suspects for holocaust scapegoating. The second thing that comes to Read More ›

Let’s say that Darwin’s theory of evolution was a necessary factor for the holocaust. Now class, what science journal should we try to publish this in? Anyone? Anyone?

Another great article on Lew Rockwell dot com.

Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design
by Charley Reese

I am an agnostic when it comes to explaining the origin of life. I don’t believe yet in evolution, creationism or intelligent design. I can see flaws in all three. I just simply don’t know and frankly don’t think it matters whether we know or not.

My main conflict with the evolutionists is that they wish to assert their theory as fact and to employ government power to ban discussion of creationism and intelligent design on the grounds that they are unscientific or, worse from their point of view, religious. I am against banning any idea, theory, speculation or body of guesses. Human history shows us to be far too error-prone to go around eliminating dissent by majority vote of one of the more ignorant classes in our society, namely politicians.

Science has been itching to replace religion in Western culture for some time. You can see for yourself how science assumes the characteristics of religion. There is the priesthood (scientists, or at least those who call themselves scientists) and laity, which is the rest of us. Theory becomes dogma. Dissenters are persecuted. The high priests of science want the government not only to fund them, but to enforce their dogmas with the power of the law.

I believe in the separation of church and state. I also believe in the separation of science and state. In fact, I believe in the separation of practically all aspects of life from the state, which should basically tote the mail and guard the coast.

Read More ›

There are people who believe that because Darwin provided a theoretical basis that humans and animals have a common ancestor it becomes a rationale for treating humans more like animals. Thus we get things like Nazi Germany and the holocaust. I suppose that’s one way of looking at it. Another equally valid way of looking at it is that common ancestry becomes a rationale for treating animals more like humans. Thus we get things like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. It’s all a matter of how you choose to look at it. It’s really more a reflection on your own soul which way you choose to see it. Good people do good things. Evil people do evil things. Read More ›

It seems Intelligent Design isn’t the only thing that Wikipedia distorts and censors…

Wikipedia’s zealots

The thought police at the supposedly independent site are fervently enforcing the climate orthodoxy
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post Published: Saturday, April 12, 2008

As I’m writing this column for the Financial Post, I am simultaneously editing a page on Wikipedia. I am confident that just about everything I write for my column will be available for you to read. I am equally confident that you will be able to read just about nothing that I write for the page on Wikipedia.

The Wikipedia page is entitled Naomi Oreskes, after a professor of history and science studies at the University of California San Diego, but the page offers only sketchy details about Oreskes. The page is mostly devoted to a notorious 2004 paper that she wrote, and that Science journal published, called “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.” This paper analyzed articles in peer-reviewed journals to see if any disagreed with the alarming positions on global warming taken by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position,” Oreskes concluded.

Read More ›

Win Ben Stein’s Monkey By Chuck Norris Tuesday, April 22, 2008 Evolution. Intelligent design. These are terms that can cause great consternation in the minds and hearts of many, particularly opponents of each view. Now, that anxiety and debate have resurfaced in theaters everywhere with Ben Stein’s new documentary, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” The press kit says, “(‘Expelled’) exposes the widespread persecution of scientists and educators who are pursuing legitimate, opposing scientific views to the reigning orthodoxy.” (To see a trailer of the movie or access its free resources, go to www.getexpelled.com.) I like Ben Stein. I think he’s funny, creative and an insightful commentator on a host of issues. I’m not bent on defending him or “Expelled,” but I’m Read More ›

Chris Mooney writes: I am Labeled a “Creationist Apologist” …by Greg Laden. Or as one of my own commenters put it, “Either you really are just [bleep]ing stupid, or you’re a closet creationist in this blog group. Pick one.” I won’t be deleting that comment despite the profanity, because I want to have it all on the record–the record of what now happens at ScienceBlogs if you say certain thing that people don’t want to hear. All this happened, I suppose, because I dared to point out the obvious: Expelled is a success. I mean, it’s the eighth highest grossing political documentary of all time…after its first week. Randy Olson of course knows this, because he’s, like, a filmmaker. But Read More ›

One of the worst things about one side making connections to Hitler is it invites return fire of the same kind. This should be filed under the category “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”.

How many of you knew that beloved evangelical Christian minister Jerry Falwell shared Adolf Hitler’s views about the importance of maintaining the purity of the white race?

I’m not saying “modern” evangelicals feel this way, any more than “modern” Darwinist are that way, but… as long as we’re dredging up the past of one side it’s only fair to dredge up the other’s too.

Addendum: No one seems to have picked up on the point that Falwell, as an evangelical Christian biblical literalist, did not believe in “Darwinism” yet he still shared his racial thinking with Hitler. Further proof that you don’t need Darwin to be a racist.

From The Nation “Agent of Intolerance”

Read More ›