Sarah Palin: Just say NO … to Copenhagen

_{William Dembski

December 5, 2009

Climate change, Global Warming}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Mr. President: Boycott Copenhagen; Investigate Your Climate Change “Experts”

The president’s decision to attend the international climate conference in Copenhagen needs to be reconsidered in light of the unfolding Climategate scandal. The leaked e-mails involved in Climategate expose the unscientific behavior of leading climate scientists who deliberately destroyed records to block information requests, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and conspired to silence the critics of man-made global warming. I support Senator James Inhofe’s call for a full investigation into this scandal. Because it involves many of the same personalities and entities behind the Copenhagen conference, Climategate calls into question many of the proposals being pushed there, including anything that would lead to a cap and tax plan.

Policy should be based on sound science, not snake oil. I took a stand against such snake oil science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population has increased. I’ve never denied the reality of climate change; in fact, I was the first governor to create a subcabinet position to deal specifically with the issue. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. But while we recognize the effects of changing water levels, erosion patterns, and glacial ice melt, we cannot primarily blame man’s activities for the earth’s cyclical weather changes. The drastic economic measures being pushed by dogmatic environmentalists won’t change the weather, but will dramatically change our economy for the worse.

Policy decisions require real science and real solutions, not junk science and doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood that capitalizes on the public’s worry and makes them feel that owning an SUV is a “sin” against the planet. In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to “restore science to its rightful place.” Boycotting Copenhagen while this scandal is thoroughly investigated would send a strong message that the United States government will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices. Saying no to Copenhagen and cap and tax are first steps in “restoring science to its rightful place.”

– Sarah Palin

Comments

StephenB: Your quote should be attributed to Mustela Nivalis.Voice Coil_{December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT}

---Voice Coil: "Since you would use reason to decide between two moral systems, each of which claims to be absolute and objective, it seems that, by the same argument, one could demonstrate that a particular moral system is absolute." I will hearken back to a point I made to another blogger some time ago. The moral standard is a measure of and evidence for the “good.” Something is good if it operates the way it was designed and intended to operate. A good can opener opens cans; a good pencil writes well. If someone takes a pencil and tries to open a can with it, he will not only fail to open the can, but he will destroy the pencil in the process. That is because a pencil is not a “good” can opener. A good human being is one that operates according to the way he was designed, namely to practice virtue and pursue that end for which he was made. If he denies his humanity and decides to act like an animal, he will, like the pencil, fail to achieve his end and, because of his nature, will not be happy. If there is no design, or no end, then there is no such thing as good or bad because there is no created standard to meet or violate. Without design, there can be no morality. One must either believe in an objective morality that leads us toward the good, or one cannot logically believe in any morality at all. Oh sure, some can claim to “create” their own morality, or “work one out,” but such positions make no sense. If, in a positive sense, humans have no destiny to reach or no inherent dignity uphold, or, in a negative sense, if they have no destiny to lose or no nature to corrupt, then there can be no such thing as good or bad behavior and, therefore, no such thing as morality. Either objective morality exists or no morality at all exists. Those are our only two choices. Morality is much like rationality. One either accepts the fact that we live in a rational and moral universe or one does not. We can establish several corollaries, all of which are essential. A rational universe can exist only if it is also a moral universe; a moral universe can exist only if it is a rational universe. In keeping with that point, reason is meaningful only if truth exists, and morality is reasonable only if the good exists. Similarly, truth is possible only if the good exists, and the good is possible only if truth exists. By contrast, if truth doesn't exist, goodness cannot exist; if goodness doesn't exist; truth cannot exist. Further, unity, truth, beauty, goodness, and life must all exist as a whole; none can exist without the other four. To uphold one is to uphold the other four; to do violence to one is to do violence to the other four. Where lies reign, death, ugliness, division, and immorality also reign. Where truth reigns. beauty, life, unity, and goodness reign.StephenB_{December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT}

Clive:
That’s the definition of a standard in ethics, is that it is something extrinsic to both, otherwise it is convention of one, or both, or all.
Do you really want to respond that you know that your ethical standards are objective because standards in ethics are by definition objective?
Two can only agree when there is a third reference point of which the two can recognize, external to their own preferences, otherwise it is one’s convention.
And when the parties differ over which external reference is truly an objective standard?Voice Coil_{December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

Voice Coil,
How do YOU ascertain that it is not?
How do I know that freedom has to be a concept that over-arches all involved? Easily, I think about it, and realize that if it were anything that anyone devised and subjected others to, it wouldn't be real freedom. The standard has to be transcendental, otherwise there can be no real standard between the two. That's the definition of a standard in ethics, is that it is something extrinsic to both, otherwise it is convention of one, or both, or all. But we know that it isn't convention. Two can only agree when there is a third reference point of which the two can recognize, external to their own preferences, otherwise it is one's convention. But if it is a convention, than in principle it could be the exact opposite, and freedom could be slavery. Also, I would recommend reading On Ethics, The Poison of Subjectivism, The Abolition of Man, and De Futilitate from C.S. Lewis.Clive Hayden_{December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

Clive:
By discerning that relativism of human devising is wrong and not in accord with human nature.
This is a rehearsal of the content of your moral system. But that doesn't answer my question. It doesn't follow from the postulate that "relativism of human devising is wrong and not in accord with human nature" that your moral system is not itself of human devising. Reciting, "these values are absolute and not of relativistic human devising" doesn't help, because that content itself may be of human devising. How do YOU ascertain that it is not?Voice Coil_{December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

StephenB at 112, Please excuse the delay in replying -- I could get used to these off-line weekends. —-Mustela: Thanks for the question. You write: "However, when in response to my question of how to resolve disagreements over moral standards, you say “We put it to the test of reason. All moral truths are reasonable if properly understood.” which suggests that you believe you can logically prove or defend you moral standard. Which is it?" Keep in mind that I was trying to answer the question about how one can discern from among competing and potentially contradictory moralities, which is a little different than trying to prove that morality is objective. That's a fair distinction. However, I think the question is still valid. Since you would use reason to decide between two moral systems, each of which claims to be absolute and objective, it seems that, by the same argument, one could demonstrate that a particular moral system is absolute. That would be much more compelling than the argument from intuition. Am I misunderstanding your position?Mustela Nivalis_{December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

Voice Coil,
How do YOU discern whether you are in possession of absolute standards, or rather have embraced more ordinary standards, of human devising, that include the content “these are absolute standards?”
By discerning that relativism of human devising is wrong and not in accord with human nature.Clive Hayden_{December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
12:07 AM
12
12
07
AM
PDT}

I agree with Faded Glory. The concept of objective morality is incoherent both for the reason he gives and on the grounds that they are prescriptions for the behavior of social animals which can only originate from an intelligent agent. The only alternative, that they are created by an inanimate and purposeless Nature, is nonsensical as I think we all agree. Objectivity is not necessary as a justification either. It is more than sufficient that morals are based on the collective recognition and assertion of individual rights based on common interests. If anything, the appeal to objective morality is an attempt to smuggle in a presumption of the existence of God since it is argued that only He could be the author of any objective morality. My response to that has always been to ask what reason do we have for assuming that such a divine morality is better than our own?Seversky_{December 13, 2009
December
12
Dec
13
13
2009
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT}

The concept of objective morality is incoherent and this can easily be demonstrated using reductio ad absurdum: An objective morality would exist even if there was no subject to contemplate it. This is obviously nonsensical. fGfaded_Glory_{December 13, 2009
December
12
Dec
13
13
2009
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT}

Clive:
Indeed indeed, there is no defense against it on your assumption of relativism, any assertion to the contrary is smuggled-in objectivism.
OK. How do YOU discern whether you are in possession of absolute standards, or rather have embraced more ordinary standards, of human devising, that include the content “these are absolute standards?”Voice Coil_{December 12, 2009
December
12
Dec
12
12
2009
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT}

Voice Coil,
(Fred entered the room just as his son’s decapitation was completed. His wife and daughter were next. Ever mindful of eternal truths he quickly concluded, “why that’s just WRONG!” and therefore swung into action, confident in the validity of the measures to follow! Later, he was thankful for his upbringing. “Why,” he mused, “if I was one of those relativists I wouldn’t have known WHAT to feel.”)
Indeed indeed, there is no defense against it on your assumption of relativism, any assertion to the contrary is smuggled-in objectivism.Clive Hayden_{December 12, 2009
December
12
Dec
12
12
2009
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
Everyone, except those who have lost their mind or their consience, knows what to feel without consulting any standard, because the standard is built in to their human nature and in nature itself.
That doesn't seem to be what Clive is saying.
That includes the skeptic who claims to be a moral relativism, but who doesn’t really live that way when the chips are down, as when his family has been murdered. Indeed, the moral relativist refutes himself by even posting here, claiming in the name of moral truth, that no such thing as moral truth exists. Can’t you see the humor and the irony?
Fortunately, I make my arguments in the name of fickle whim and spineless relativism, and am untouched by your irony rays.Voice Coil_{December 12, 2009
December
12
Dec
12
12
2009
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

In case it's of interest: From Paul Nelson at Evolution News:
Marc Hauser’s Surprising Thesis: If You’re Human, You Are Built to Understand Right and Wrong For some weeks, I’ve had a note in my calendar to wrap up a piece of unfinished business from my coverage of the University of Chicago Darwin conference – i.e., to say something about Marc Hauser’s fascinating plenary lecture on the origins of morality. Hauser argued that moral behavior is largely insensitive to gender, education, cultural background, class, or even religious belief. Rather, humans seem to be hard-wired (biologically) with a moral sense. Find a member of the species Homo sapiens, Hauser argued, and you’ve located an organism that knows some actions are right, and others, wrong. Here is how Hauser put his case in a recent essay: "Recent discoveries suggest that all humans, young and old, male and female, conservative and liberal, living in Sydney, San Francisco and Seoul, growing up as atheists, Buddhists, Catholics and Jews, with high school, university or professional degrees, are endowed with a gift from nature, a biological code for living a moral life. This code, a universal moral grammar, provides us with an unconscious suite of principles for judging what is morally right and wrong. It is an impartial, rational and unemotional capacity. It doesn't dictate who we should help or who we are licensed to harm. Rather, it provides an abstract set of rules for how to intuitively understand when helping another is obligatory and when harming another is forbidden." ...
Read the rest.Apollos_{December 12, 2009
December
12
Dec
12
12
2009
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

Good grief, that should read, "those who have lost their mind or their conscience"...StephenB_{December 12, 2009
December
12
Dec
12
12
2009
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

"Oops, that should read, "the skeptic who claims to be a moral relativist"......StephenB_{December 12, 2009
December
12
Dec
12
12
2009
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

---Voice Coil: "Later, he was thankful for his upbringing. “Why,” he mused, “if I was one of those relativists I wouldn’t have known WHAT to feel.”)" But isn't that the point. Everyone, except those who have lost their mind or their consience, knows what to feel without consulting any standard, because the standard is built in to their human nature and in nature itself. That includes the skeptic who claims to be a moral relativism, but who doesn't really live that way when the chips are down, as when his family has been murdered. Indeed, the moral relativist refutes himself by even posting here, claiming in the name of moral truth, that no such thing as moral truth exists. Can't you see the humor and the irony?StephenB_{December 12, 2009
December
12
Dec
12
12
2009
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

---Voice Coil: "Well, at least it isn’t “Vice Coil.” Oops, I got your handle wrong every time, didn't I.StephenB_{December 12, 2009
December
12
Dec
12
12
2009
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

Ciive:
Or it might not, on the premise of relativism, have any conviction whatsoever...
Clive, your position requires us to imagine that, upon encountering your family being sadistically tortured and killed, you would quickly consult an objective standard of moral behavior to determine whether what you were observing was wrong. Absent guidance from such a standard, you wouldn't know what to feel, might remain indifferent to those actions, or even experience joy and elation. (Fred entered the room just as his son's decapitation was completed. His wife and daughter were next. Ever mindful of eternal truths he quickly concluded, "why that's just WRONG!" and therefore swung into action, confident in the validity of the measures to follow! Later, he was thankful for his upbringing. "Why," he mused, "if I was one of those relativists I wouldn't have known WHAT to feel.")Voice Coil_{December 12, 2009
December
12
Dec
12
12
2009
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

Voice Coil,
Rather, your scenario exemplifies an instance in which an incomparable strength of conviction and action might be motivated by quite local and relative feeling and reasoning that needs no assistance whatsoever from objective standards, nor any explanation or justification vis such abstractions.
Or it might not, on the premise of relativism, have any conviction whatsoever. But it does have conviction, and it will have conviction, and the conviction comes from the objective fact that those actions would be wrong. If they were not wrong, all relative feeling could range from joy to elation to horror, with no basis for comparing any relative feeling to which feeling should be correct in the circumstances. You take it for granted that there would follow a conviction that those actions were wrong, but on the premise of relative morality, you cannot take it for granted, the opposite reaction and conviction could and would be just as valid.Clive Hayden_{December 12, 2009
December
12
Dec
12
12
2009
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

"Voice Call?" (just noticing). Well, at least it isn't "Vice Coil."Voice Coil_{December 12, 2009
December
12
Dec
12
12
2009
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

Voice Call, thanks for keeping your sense of humor.StephenB_{December 12, 2009
December
12
Dec
12
12
2009
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

StephenB:
The skeptic can do that in his sleep.
OK. Its off to bed. Have a great weekend. (Really).Voice Coil_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT}

---Voice Call: "You’ve interpreted arguments such as mine as evidence both of a desire for continued immorality and as evidence of (unrecognized) knowledge of an absolute standard of morality. Not so simple, after all." It isn't all that complicated. As one gets deeper and deeper into vice, it becomes more difficult for him to perceive those same moral truths he once belived because they are now a reproach on the way he lives. However, he unconsiously knows the truth, that is why he starts rationalizing, saying there is no moral law after all, whistling past the graveyard and eventually trying to drag others down with him by arguing against the truth. Misery loves company. There is a way back, but very few find it. About the only person I know of personally is Bernard Nathason. He performed almost 60,000 abortions, and his conscience was all but dead. Killing babies became easier and easier, even routine. Yet, for some unknown reason, he beat all the odds and made it back. Most don't.StephenB_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT}

----Voice Call: Looking for conradictions in my comments: I wrote, "The history of those who deny these first principles is a history of those who, offended at the prospect of objective moral truths and the demands that it might place on them, would prefer to live in an irrational world in which no truths exist at all. It’s as simple as that." Yes, that's right. And now: ----"It can only be because that you feel a moral obligation to call attention to the fact, courteously of course, that I am dispensing inaccurate and potentially harmful information. You are challenging me for moral reasons and I am trying to answer those challenges for moral reasons." Where's the problem? You refuse to acknowledge that which you instinctively know to be the case, even if that knowledge is buried or has been made inactive through choice. Some, on the other hand, have acquired so many bad habits that they have killed their consience and have lost their ability to perceive that which was once obvious to them. I would prefer not to attribute that to anyone personally. In any case, the relative strengths of our positions is obvious from the fact that I answer all of your questions, even if not to your satisfaction, and you anser none of mine. Further, it requires no intellectual exertion whatsoever to simply repeat the mantra, "I'm not convinced, I'm not convinced, I'm not convinced." The skeptic can do that in his sleep but it doesn't mean that he has probed the depths of the subject matter.StephenB_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
Why do you challenge my assertions except to guard against the possibility that I might be propogating error? And why would you care if, in fact, that is what I am doing?
So far, you've posited two explanations: Earlier:
The history of those who deny these first principles is a history of those who, offended at the prospect of objective moral truths and the demands that it might place on them, would prefer to live in an irrational world in which no truths exist at all. It’s as simple as that.
And now:
It can only be because that you feel a moral obligation to call attention to the fact, courteously of course, that I am dispensing inaccurate and potentially harmful information. You are challenging me for moral reasons and I am trying to answer those challenges for moral reasons.
Those are wildly at odds: You've interpreted arguments such as mine as evidence both of a desire for continued immorality and as evidence of (unrecognized) knowledge of an absolute standard of morality. Not so simple, after all.Voice Coil_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT}

---Voice Call: "It certainly does not follow from the the fact that you can construct an analogy (LNC : logical reasoning :: moral law : further moral reasoning) that the second term of your analogy is necessarily true." Just as reason depends on the existence of objective truth, morality depends on the existence of objective moral truth. IF there is no truth, there is no destination for the vehicle of reason to take us. Reason would be a faculty all dressed up with no place to go. Similarly, if there is no objective moral truth, then there is no way to meet a standard that doesn't exist and no way to be moral. Further objective morality can only exist in a rational universe, and a rational universe can exist only if it is also a moral universe. An irrational universe cannot be moral, and an amoral universe cannot be rational.StephenB_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

----Mustela: Thanks for the question. You write: "However, when in response to my question of how to resolve disagreements over moral standards, you say “We put it to the test of reason. All moral truths are reasonable if properly understood.” which suggests that you believe you can logically prove or defend you moral standard. Which is it?" Keep in mind that I was trying to answer the question about how one can discern from among competing and potentially contradictory moralities, which is a little different than trying to prove that morality is objective.StephenB_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

Clive:
What would be compelling would be if someone began torturing your family to death for fun, then you would have a lived dialectic.
The very powerful course of action this might prompt, including, under some circumstances, killing the perpetrators to protect one's family from those acts, requires in no way sanction or motivation from an "objective morality," a concern that would be remote for both you and me in that circumstance. Rather, your scenario exemplifies an instance in which an incomparable strength of conviction and action might be motivated by quite local and relative feeling and reasoning that needs no assistance whatsoever from objective standards, nor any explanation or justification vis such abstractions.Voice Coil_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

---Voice Call: "And that is the challenge of my original question: how do you demonstrate for yourself that the characterization of the above paragraph is false?" Yes, that is precisely the problem. How does one demonstrate a self evident truth? One cannot. On the other hand, one can come to recognize it for himself. Forgive me for the repetition [I asked this of another blogger], but ask yourself why you care so much about this subject. Why do you challenge my assertions except to guard against the possibility that I might be propogating error? And why would you care if, in fact, that is what I am doing? It can only be because that you feel a moral obligation to call attention to the fact, courteously of course, that I am dispensing inaccurate and potentially harmful information. You are challenging me for moral reasons and I am trying to answer those challenges for moral reasons.StephenB_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

---Mustela Nivalis: "Moral standards are not so objective. Simply asserting that they are is not compelling. The only way I know to convince someone that certain truths are self evident is to suggest that they come to see it for themsevles, which was why I asked you those four questions back @91. Once we realize that we all have that motive of setting things right for moral reasons, we come to see that such a quality is inate. I submit that you continue to dialogue with me because your apprehension of objective moralily, either actively recognized or not, prompts you, and all of us for that matter, to challenge those whom we believe to be in error. If you really do go through the exercise, that is, if you answer the "why's," you will recognize the objecive moral component inhernet in the answers that you come up with.StephenB_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply