Darwinism Evolution Intelligent Design Science

“Climate Denial” — What’s Next, “Evolution Denial”?

Spread the love

Actually, we’re already there. Many Darwinists critical of ID no longer reside in the culture of rational discourse. They know they are right as much as any religious dogmatist. But the alarmism takes this one step further. Because denial poses a danger to the body politic, deniers must to rooted out. Moreover, those who root them out, as the defenders of virtue against evil, thus require additional powers to root them out. After that, persecution Soviet-style is not far away.

“A former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg has received multiple death threats for questioning the extent to which human activities are driving global warming. ‘”Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened,” said the professor. “I can tolerate being called a skeptic because all scientists should be skeptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal.” Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology […] recently claimed: “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.”‘”

AUTHOR: Forrest Kyle
SOURCE: http://science.slashdot.org/…

20 Replies to ““Climate Denial” — What’s Next, “Evolution Denial”?

  1. 1
    GilDodgen says:

    After watching The Great Global Warming Swindle last night I am struck by the similarities between global warming theory and Darwinian theory. They both represent publicly funded, pseudo religious cults, with dogmas that may not be challenged — not even by facts, evidence, and logic. The parallels with ancient idol-worship cults are interesting: mother earth and animals are deified.

  2. 2
    antg says:

    I have no reason to disbelieve the scientific consensus on global warming.

    However when it comes to matters of biology I think that those who discount the obvious manifestation of design in nature should be called ‘design deniers’.

  3. 3
    DaveScot says:

    I have no reason to disbelieve the scientific consensus on global warming.

    If you watch the The Great Global Warming Swindle video and pay close attention to it you’ll have many reasons to disbelieve.

    By the way, science isn’t carried out by consensus. Whenever you hear “scientific consensus” a big red flag should pop up. Consensus is how democracy operates. Objective truth is how science operates.

  4. 4
    Rude says:

    Apart from anything else one would have doubt the Global Warmingists, what with all the hype and propaganda and political posturing, the downright dishonesty and vilification of skeptics.

  5. 5

    GilDodgen: Idol-worshipping cults often required human sacrifices. How far does your analogy extend?

  6. 6
    Joey Campana says:

    antg,

    I have no reason to disbelieve the scientific consensus on global warming.

    You have the right to choose your own personal view, but the perpetuation of the process of science demands that there be scientists that disbelieve the scientific consensus on global warming.

    Skepticism is necessary, since the distinction between cause and mere correlation is often subtle. It is frequently the case that the difference is unknowable based on current knowledge.

  7. 7
    tribune7 says:

    GilDodgen: Idol-worshipping cults often required human sacrifices. How far does your analogy extend?

    Perfectly, it seems.

  8. 8
    tribune7 says:

    I have no reason to disbelieve the scientific consensus on global warming.
    According to TGGS, there is no reason to believe there is a consensus.

  9. 9
    Jaz says:

    When people use science to elevate a certain ideology, it certainly discredits science, doesn’t it? It wouldn’t be the first–or last–time a wolf wore sheep’s clothing.

  10. 10
    DaveScot says:

    Doug’s comment was deleted as it was entirely baseless.

  11. 11
    DaveScot says:

    Jaz

    The global warming dogmatists are largely the same as the chance & necessity evolution dogmatists. I believe that when global warming is discredited and the supporters exposed they will lose credibility everywhere else. It’s a shame that these people have besmirched science by transforming it from honest, objective inquiry into agenda driven, politicized, consensus crap. These cretins posing as scientists are going to set scientific credibility back immeasurably. It’s a perfect example of the moral in the story of the boy who cried wolf.

  12. 12
    Doug says:

    Sorry Dave,

    It was just wierd. Jaz, that is the point I was trying to make. The entire playing field is bonkers. Deception from the materialist camp is at a fever pitch and it’s hard to sift it out.

    Science has lost so much face that it is trying to find a suitable donor for a face transplant.

    Scientists must have been excited when nietze said “God is dead”. They must’ve thought they found a donor.

    Talk about a wolf in sheep’s clothing. 🙂

  13. 13
    Doug says:

    Oops, sorry.

    Checking notepad.

    Dave,

    You need to look no farther than who is promoting the science. Al Gore.

    But the ground is getting harder to sort out. Don’t you think?

  14. 14
    realpc says:

    I am very skeptical about the global warming hysteria. It’s human nature to form cults, and scientists are just as human as everyone else. There is probably some political motivation involved, and progressives are much more likely than conservatives to be global warming alarmists.

    However, I am also skeptical about global warming deniers. We really don’t understand climate well enough to be sure one way or the other. We should pay attention to how we damage the natural environment, and we should make some effort to prevent future disasters.

    I really don’t understand why this blog has so many posts about global warming. What is the relationship between that and ID? Other than that they are both related to conservative Christian politics.

    I am very sympathetic with conservative Christians on many issues, especially ID. But I think the association between politics and ID is harmful to the cause of scientific ID.

    Mainstream science despises ID, and it’s mostly because of the political associations. They won’t even consider the logic and evidence behind ID. All they care about is the connection with Christian creationism and conservative politics.

    I would like to see ID distance itself from religion and politics and stick to what it’s really about — science.

  15. 15
    kairosfocus says:

    Hi Realpc:

    I see your:

    I really don’t understand why this blog has so many posts about global warming. What is the relationship between that and ID? Other than that they are both related to conservative Christian politics . . . . I would like to see ID distance itself from religion and politics and stick to what it’s really about — science.

    Actually, there is another, and highly relevant set of connexions — apart from the mere psychology of polarised movements as is in brief discussed above. I wish to highlight:

    1] Religions, ideologies, scientific theories, etc have an often implicit common element — philosophical/ worldview implicaitons and context. [There is a dearth of philosophical literacy in modern education, which tends to supress ability to understand this underlying issue.]

    2] Lakatos, summarised the structure of scientific research programmes as constituting a worldview core with a belt of scientific theories sharing that core.

    3] In part, that means that it is only when several of the key concepts in common across a domain of theories come under simultaneous empirically anchored and/or logical challenge that the mutual reinforcement of the system begins to destabilise, i.e. we see more or less scientific crises and possible revolutions.

    4] Many of those who take a deep buy-in to both materialistic evolutionaism and the “consensus” on global warming, are also bought-in to evolutionary materialism, often understood to be “Science.” [So, there is a natural tendency to be hostile to those who buy-in to theistic or theistic-like worldviews . . .]

    5] More generally, as well, the prestige of “Science,” as institution, is often involved in the debates we see. And,

    6] Science and politics simply do not mix well. For, objectivity, provisionality of findings and prudent restraint are not well fitted to the sort of emotional manipulation, blind loyalites and biases and distortions that so often the meat and potatoes of political decision-making. [Oh, the march of folly that that implies, as Tuchmann pointed out long ago . . .]

    In such a matrix, it would not be surprising that dissent movements, on both evolutionary materialism and the physics of climate, will find themselves on the sharp end of the rhetoric of “consensus.”

    On climate, I am of course not a climatologist. But it seems to me that we need to be very careful to distinguish computer models and projections from empirical reality [even as we distinguish theories and reality], and that we need to recognise that key data-sets are a part of the dispute, e.g. satellite atmospheric temp readings vs surface readings. I think the Creationists have a bit of a point, too, that we need to be a bit more cautious in our projections into and constructions of the purported distant past.

    Further to this, when the damaging economic and thus social consequences of the stringent energy use measures being proposed are more certain than the science on which the measures are rationalised, we should take pause before committing ourselves to say collapsing energy use by upwards of 30% to gain a dubiously small degree of delay in te projected warming trends. [Recall, physical work is about imposing orderly motions on objects, thus is linked to economic work and energy use.]

    I think that being sober about climate vulnerability is a no-brainer, and the need to find energy alternatives is also a no-brainer, given the broader cluster of issues, e.g. political instabilities that seem to characterise major oil-producing regions.

    Hope this all helps

    GEM of TKI

  16. 16
    antg says:

    Mmmm… didn’t expect such a reaction to my earlier comment in #2.

    Let me rephrase: I have no reason to disagree with the majority of climate scientists on the causes of global warming. I have no problem with skeptics making a case against for reasons of academeic freedom and also because skeptics do provide a valuable function in science. skeptics should be free to express their dissent and I think that was the point of the original post

    I will concede that science does not work by consensus, but neither does it work with ‘objective truth’.

    A final point, just because the global warming movement has taken the form of a religion with its own apocolypse, prophets and systems of sacrifices / paths of salvation doesn’t mean that the underlying science is wrong! Lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Humankind is intrinsically religious in nature including the secular types whether they like it or not. Unfortunately this often causes a blurring of the boundary between science and politics.

  17. 17
    Webwanderer says:

    antg quote

    “A final point, just because the global warming movement has taken the form of a religion with its own apocolypse, prophets and systems of sacrifices / paths of salvation doesn’t mean that the underlying science is wrong!”

    It doesn’t mean the science is right either. Religious movements, with those proclamations of apocalypse and doom, have historically been more about advancing an agenda than in clearly expressing science and facts.

    There are two issues on the table. One: is global warming actually happening, and two: is it being caused by the activities of man? It’s critical to be clear on the difference.

    There appears to be considerable evidence that average temperatures are higher than they were a couple of hundred years ago, but are lower than they were a few hundred years before that. So it appears that current temperatures are not uniquely high, and that temperature changes are naturally cyclic without relevance to human industrialized activity.

    The human element however, is charged with political correctness. Here scientific relevance is not so much about the temperature as it is a tool for assigning blame in order to gain power and control agendas. Facts to support the agenda are magnified and manipulated, while dissent and contrary evidence is denigrated and suppressed. There is a great deal of science that supports the hypothesis that the amount of CO2 that man creates cannot affect temperature in any significant degree.

    What appears to be happening is that a certain, unquestionable, set of scientific facts and assumptions are being canonized and promoted as a basis for a moral crusade for changing entire societies. Unfortunately this crusade is ultimately less about controlling temperature than about gaining power and controlling the societies. This is a crusade that only benefits the orthodoxy that is promoting it.

  18. 18
    celal777 says:

    The global warming advocates run a blog call Real Climate. Just from reading the way they respond to queries i get the distinct impression they either try to obfuscate or be very very economical with their responses so as not to give any more away than they have to. It’s like their theories are their little babies and they are watching veeeeery carefully over them to protect them. And what did Popper say ? Let people throw all the stones at it they can and see if it’s still standing when it’s all over. No way with these guys. But then climatology must be as much a science as predicting the stock market is a science.

  19. 19
    JGuy says:

    This will be interesting.. Gore to be questioned:

    http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm

  20. 20
    jmcd says:

    Did anyone catch the propaganda on the History channel last night? They were counting down the ten grewayest threats to humanity: #5 super volcanoes, #4 asteroid impact, #3 nuclear war, #2 pandemic, and, drum roll please, numero unno was global warming, seas rising 40ft and the temperature of Earth resembling that of Venus (900f)!

Leave a Reply