Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
The blurring of environmentalism and religion
Posted by: Billy Hollis on Sunday, April 29, 2007

Tim Blair highlights an article in which Gore does his usual schtick. And, boy, does it work:
"All of a sudden he just fired up and he wasn't this smooth politician anymore. His hair, which is usually slicked back, was out of place, he had sweat on his brow, and he was gesticulating wildly. You could feel the energy from the back of the room. It was the moment when I felt I had touched on something real. That was the moment I really felt convinced."


Anyone who's ever been to an old-fashioned southern revival meeting recognizes this for what it is. Gore is calling down the holy Gaia spirit, and clearly some of the audience members are receptive to it.

I'm not making any insinuations about the nature of southern revivals. I think the folks involved them are completely sincere. Just as I think the folks that have become Gore followers are sincere. But if you can't see the similarities in the religious nature of the emotions involved in both cases, you're being willfully blind to them.

** Update 12:13 CST

I knew that quoted passage reminded me of something, and I finally remembered it. It's from If This Goes On..., a novella from Robert Heinlein in which a future USA has become a theocracy. The preacher referred to below is an actor pretending to be Nehemiah Scudder, First Prophet and founder of the theocracy:
Gradually, he worked himself up, his face sweating and his hands clutching in the style that had called down the Spirit in a thousand Mississippi Valley camp meetings; my heart began to beat faster. He was preaching against sin in all its form - the harlot whose mouth is like honey, the sins of the flesh, the sins of the spirit, the money changers.
Reading the two side by side makes my point better than anything I could say.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
By the way, I’ve been involved in an e-discussion with scientists about claims by those who say global warming is all natural and not human caused. The ire of these scientists was aroused by what they consider a pseudo-scientific fraudulant film called "Swindled." (I haven’t seen it). Anyway, one sent a nice summary of models which show clearly that models that conclude human involvement in global warming do far, far better explaining the evidence than those which posit natural causes. Unfortunately I can’t post it here, so if anyone wants it e-mail me and I’ll send it as an attached file. Oh, and I know a few of these scientists are Republicans, so their dislike of the global warming deniers is not partisan. I don’t really care so much about Gore or his movie (which I also haven’t seen), I just follow the science.

So you choose: those who treat global warming or global warming denial as a religion, or the scientists.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
So you choose: those who treat global warming or global warming denial as a religion, or the scientists.
Well, if you choose the scientists, that would automatically mean not choosing Gore, wouldn’t it?
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Billy, are you seriously treating the writings of an atheist in a work of fiction describing an actor pretending to be a preacher as an accurate depiction of religion? Your point would be much better made if you used a reporter’s description of a preacher.

I should be clear that I like Heinlein’s fiction, even though I disagree with much of his philosophy such as his atheism(http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/Heinlein.html). And I agree with you that many use environmentalism as a religion or a replacement for one.
 
Written By: Rory Daulton
URL: http://
Billy, are you seriously treating the writings of an atheist in a work of fiction describing an actor pretending to be a preacher as an accurate depiction of religion?
I fail to see what’s wrong with that. The actor in that account is supposed to convince an entire nation that he is Scudder. And effective fiction often models real life. That Heinlein account sounded very much like the southern-style revivals I attended as a child.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
That Robert A. Heinlein was an atheist adds a few more brownie points to one of my favorite authors. At least he was not deluded by superstition. The Human cause of global warming has evolved from superstition to Religion. The Earth is warming, so those who apparently hate their own species blame it on Home Sapiens. It’s part of the dogma of the “Church of all Evil is caused by Humans” and Gore is playing the part of Pope.

Watching Gore and the other ‘true believers’ is like watching a tent preacher exhorting his flock to give up sin and worship the true God. In Gore’s screed that is Mother Earth, and should be worshiped at the Temple of Gaia. Heretics must be silenced by any means and the Left have been perfecting those means for generations.

Each day more Climatologist are speaking out against the hysteria of Global Warming. They are taking their carriers in their own hands. They could be fired by a Politically Correct Political Class.

One thing is clear. AGW fits neatly into the agenda of Luddites who worship the feet of Threau at Walden Pond. They would like to retreat to a simpler time, uncomplicated by modern problems, but they can’t go back to the Garden of Eden.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://faroutfishfiles.blogspot.com/
I fail to see what’s wrong with that. [...] And effective fiction often models real life.
As I read your post (with its update), you seem to be using the Heinlein quote as evidence that "Global Warming Activists" are acting like revivalists. I agree that the quote is illustrative but not that it is evidentiary. The quote is too many levels removed from direct experience (atheist—fiction—actor pretending) to be any use as evidence.

Effective fiction does indeed often model real life, but it also often models preconceptions and other untruths. The kind of fiction your Heinlein quote belongs to must be determined by other means.
That Heinlein account sounded very much like the southern-style revivals I attended as a child.
That sentence is much better evidence than anything you put in your original post. Did you leave it out for brevity?
Reading the two side by side makes my point better than anything I could say.
The quote illustrates the point but it does not "make it."

Perhaps my Christian background makes me more sensitive to the "evidence versus illustration" issue more than most people are. Despite the common misconception, I find my fellow Christians to be more precise and logical than average. We have to be, or we get laughed at. And yes, I do find that faith and reason go together very well. (I do realize that this last point of mine is only tangentially related to anything that you wrote today.)
 
Written By: Rory Daulton
URL: http://
Anyway, one sent a nice summary of models which show clearly that models that conclude human involvement in global warming do far, far better explaining the evidence than those which posit natural causes.
And how many inputs do these models include and exclude? And if you put the best known past data in, up to 10 years ago, do they predict with reasonable accuracy current conditions? And these models, perhaps they’ve been biased to show that human involvement does more then nature?

And were they built by the same people who made the models for short-term forecasts? ’Cause they’re soooo accurate.

I don’t know, I’m just saying...
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
And how many inputs do these models include and exclude? And if you put the best known past data in, up to 10 years ago, do they predict with reasonable accuracy current conditions? And these models, perhaps they’ve been biased to show that human involvement does more then nature?

And were they built by the same people who made the models for short-term forecasts? ’Cause they’re soooo accurate.
This is much easier than short term forecasting. I’m just going by what the vast majority of scientists say, from both political parties. There are quite a few I know and trust — they are intellectually honest and most are rather apolitical. So yeah, I don’t really spend much time thinking about Gore and what’s doing on this — politicians spin things. But I do take the scientists seriously, and think it’s misguided to try to find reasons not to believe them in order to maintain a political position.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"Unfortunately I can’t post it here"

Any particular reason? Are these models secret?

**********************

"Your point would be much better made if you used a reporter’s description of a preacher."

Because, as we all know, reporters are not only better writers, they are also more knowledgeable and objective, especially about religion.

***********************
"At least he was not deluded by superstition."

Religion is not the only superstition. Being an atheist does not automatically guarantee that someone is not superstitious, and your saying that religion is a superstition does not make it so.

 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
There’s a huge leap between implicating human activity in global warming and showing that it’s both desirable and possible to undo the changes. Nobody has come remotely close to scaling that gap.

When—and I can’t remember if the excerpt was posted here or elsewhere—an article talks about people in NYC marking where the coastline would be if the sea level rose "10 feet, a moderate estimate" and the actual worst-case estimate for the 21st century is 2 feet...there’s your problem!

 
Written By: Matt
URL: http://intermissionphoto.com
Long-term climate predictions are "much easier than short term forecasting"?

Man, some both drink the kool-aid AND eat the muffin.
 
Written By: Firehand
URL: http://elmtreeforge.blogspot.com
But I do take the scientists seriously, and think it’s misguided to try to find reasons not to believe them in order to maintain a political position.
It is not misguided to be skeptical given the plethora of contradictory data, the fact thst "the models" - though perhaps robust compared to natural cause models - are not very predictive thus far, and a long history of science making incorrect calls (though science eventually manages to get it right, which is more than can be said for non-scientific disciplines). One must also never lose sight that scientists are human too and are prone to bias and influence, intentional and unintentional (and which can have nothing to do with politics).

Do you take all the scientists seriously Mr. Erb? Are you capable of validating their work? Is your trust influenced by personal bias? I’m not referring to political bias either. It’s perfectly possible to be skeptical of simply the science as it stands right now, without introducing politics.
 
Written By: Aardvark
URL: http://
I’m just going by what the vast majority of scientists say, from both political parties
How do you know there is a majority? What’s the total number of scientists anyway?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Human over-population and expansion has drastically altered the natural world. Is is so difficult to believe that our activities are changing the climate. Even if you don’t care about other species we should curb our dumping of toxins on the planet, simply for self-preservation.
 
Written By: Closets
URL: http://vclosets.com
Long-term climate predictions are "much easier than short term forecasting"?

Man, some both drink the kool-aid AND eat the muffin.


Actually, although "much" might be a bit strong, in general, it is a bit easier to model next decade’s climate than next week’s weather. This is because, with weather, we are trying to predict the precise state of the atmosphere over a given region at a given time. However, with climate, we are only dealing with trying to predict averages, often both temporal and spatial. In general, averages are much more nicely behaved mathematically than non-averaged data. In particular, the manifolds that the climate solutions occur on have much smaller dimensions than those for weather. This can make an enormous difference.
 
Written By: litsskad
URL: http://
Even if you don’t care about other species we should curb our dumping of toxins on the planet, simply for self-preservation.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the entire global warming issue, since carbon dioxide is not a toxin.
 
Written By: litsskad
URL: http://
Even assuming that Global Warming is mostly a natural phenomenon, we could still decide it was not in our interest and attempt to mitigate it.

Looking at the numbers, the only way you’re going to lower CO2 emissions from humans is to use a ton of nuclear power and make vehicles electric.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Do you take all the scientists seriously Mr. Erb? Are you capable of validating their work?
Yes, and it involves a modicum of trust. I know that the culture of the scientific community is very focused on evidence and testing, and thus when a consensus emerges that is robust, I tend to believe there is something there. Here we see a consensus that has built since the first really serious green house gus theories emerged in the eighties about global warming. The increasing level of data and sophistication of models is immense, and at this point most of the naysayers are obviously politically driven, while the scientific community has a consensus that is bipartisan and global. That’s powerful evidence.

And its logical that as we’ve pumped massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere it would alter the climate. Why would one doubt it? How much and what one can do about it, well, those are other questions. But even the Pentagon sees this as a major national securitiy threat, and I think people have to ask themselves if their knee jerk opposition to the idea that humans in part cause global warming is less a thoughtful reaction to all the science being done, and more a political reaction based on their general dislike of the sorts of people who have been warning about global warming.

I guess, though, I do have a bias in that I know a number of scientists who I believe are of the highest integrity and have vastly different political views, and they are convinced that this is a major issue, and are seriously alarmed at the prospects for the future. These aren’t political junkies with a cause, but scientists reacting with alarm at real data.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Looking at the numbers, the only way you’re going to lower CO2 emissions from humans is to use a ton of nuclear power and make vehicles electric.
Nuclear power is an improvement, but I think we probably need to plan for what happens, I’m not sure we can really prevent most of the consequences. Of course, oil production is peaking and likely to drop in the future, which will lead to economic recession and thus less energy use and less CO2. Gee, maybe the market will handle it after all ;-)
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"I’m just going by what the vast majority of scientists say, from both political parties"

I am curious. How does one identify the political affiliation of a scientist? Are they now granting new degrees? Ph.D.(R) and Ph.D.(D)? M.S.(R) and M.S.(D)?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Terrific post! It really is obvious that Gore and his acolytes quite deliberately co-opt the oratory and vocabulary of religious worship for their purpose, which they do indeed see and wish to sell as a matter of significant spiritual import. The very first sentence of the Fleming article that Blair discusses speaks of people from all walks of life “united by a single mission – to spread the word…”

I expected on reading that sentence that the article would go on to address the religious aspects of the “mission” but, despite referring to “environmental evangelists,” the reporter didn’t say anything about what unbridled faith, hope and charity might be doing to scientific objectivity about the actual data from which ideas about global warming derive.

Of course it isn’t only in the flogging of AGW that the lines between religion and the political objectives of the moment become indistinct.

Sunday morning my teen was idly channel surfing and stopped for a minute on what sounded to me, in the adjacent room, like a Spirit-filled, husky-voiced black male minister just one hallelujah away from breaking into tongues and possibly leaping out into the congregation. Glancing in, I was surprised to see a middle-aged white female with short frosted blonde hair (couldn’t see the scary mascara on our set) making it very clear that she’d made careful study of the sort of charismatic preacher she sounded and moved like.

Right behind me, my 9-year-old peeked in, stared for a moment at the screen and asked as sincerely as you please, “Is that Hillary Clinton?”

As soon as I could stop laughing I told her no, it’s not actually Hillary but it does seem to be, more and more all the time, what Hillary is willing to become if it will get her the job that she wants.
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
I know that the culture of the scientific community is very focused on evidence and testing, and thus when a consensus emerges that is robust, I tend to believe there is something there.

At various times the ‘scientific consensus’ was the Sun revolved around the Earth, Bleeding cured the patient, and Venus was a wet tropical planet. To quote Robert A. Heinlein “Does history record any case in which the majority was right?” Lazarus Long, Time Enough for Love
And it’s logical that as we’ve pumped massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere it would alter the climate.
Human contribution to the CO2 in the atmosphere is about one third of one percent (Biomass decay 300 giga tons, Humans 1.2 giga tons) hardly a “massive amount” which would change the climate.
These aren’t political junkies with a cause, but scientists reacting with alarm at real data.
The problem is the data and how it’s used. Computer models use assumptions about the future to predict outcomes. Another word for assumptions is a guess.

No one denies the planet is going through a warming period. It’s done that before and will do it again. The idea that humans are the driving force is a form of hubris akin to an ant climbing an elephant’s leg with sex in mind.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://faroutfishfiles.blogspot.com/
"Looking at the numbers, the only way you’re going to lower CO2 emissions from humans is to use a ton of nuclear power and make vehicles electric."

Or we could back up the calendar and go back to 1970 - before all of these Autos started belching out all of this CO2 - Carbon Dioxide. Is that a toxin? As stated earlier, No. It is in fact required of plants for photosynthesis. You know, the creation of Oxygen - also not a toxin.

What did those dastardly Autos belch out back then? CO - Carbon Monoxide. Now that is a toxin. And that bugger cannot be easily tanslated in the natural world from Toxin (poison) to a non-toxic substance. And the addition of the catalytic converter to the guts of said Auto is the culprit.

Now ask yourselves - do I want CO2 or CO puking out the back end of autos?

It is not that simple. But when you look at the generation of CO2 as a greenhouse gas to the effect now being debated, you cannot get past the same number over and over again - 1970 and the appearance of the catalytic converter.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Okay, I think I want to add some nuance to my position, seeing as we have all these sci-fi references:

I want nuclear-powered cars. Pop the hood and add a drop of plutonium every 3 years or so. Dang, the control rods are acting up - better replace ’em.

Oh, and they fly, of course.

 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Yes, and it involves a modicum of trust.
You mean faith.
I know that the culture of the scientific community is very focused on evidence and testing, and thus when a consensus emerges that is robust, I tend to believe there is something there.
The history of science is not one of consensus but the story of men like Charles Darwin, Galileo, and Albert Einstein taking the risk of being heretics and opposing the scientific consensus. The high priests of science take advantage of the fact that most of the population has no ability or interest to understand the minutia of their field and use that fact to exagerate how well they understand the world. The reality is that the scientific consensus is really just the current best guess, agreed upon by a majority and reenforced by a review system that squealches desent and enforces a homogeneity upon opinion. At least until somebody comes along and destroys it with overwhelming evidence. The problem is that these episodes are usually fought in obscure university halls and the public never sees their nasty and even comical side, which how the "scientific community" wants it.

The list of silly ideas that have passed for the "scientific consensus" over the years includes eugenics and the idea that diseases could be cured by blood letting. Until the 1970’s plate tectonics was considered heresy by the geological community, and the nastiness of a few lone heretics parallels today’s global warming debate, but at the time the general public had no idea it was going on.
The ire of these scientists was aroused by what they consider a pseudo-scientific fraudulant film called "Swindled." (I haven’t seen it).


Maybe you should before you make any further statements on the subject. It makes the case very clearly and presents an enormous amount of very convincing scientific evidence. Why would they have an emotional reaction to a film about science? We are talking about facts and theories here, not personal insults. The fact that these scientists get angry when somebody contests their (rather flimsy) theory should raise all sorts of red flags.

Pseudo-scientific and fraudulent serious acusations for somebody who is standing there with highly questionable and easily manipulatable mathematical models as their only proof.

The best part of the film is when all of the scientists who appear in are asked if they are being funded by oil companies. They all laugh and wish that they were being paid by rich oil companies. Of course these are just normal every day scientists doing honest work, but they have been treated to all kinds of indignities.
 
Written By: DS
URL: http://
Well, this article seems to the latest Bush war against the climate.

Booooosh!
 
Written By: cap joe
URL: http://
It makes the case very clearly and presents an enormous amount of very convincing scientific evidence. Why would they have an emotional reaction to a film about science?
Not having seen it I can only go by what my scientist colleagues are saying. They say it isn’t about science, it’s dishonest, and is dangerous because it appears on the surface to be credible. They even point to claims by people who were interviewed that their statements were taken out of context and presented unfairly.

As to your attempt to brush off a scientific consensus by pointing to times science has been wrong, that logic would lead one to dismiss anything scientists say. Your kind of thinking is anti-rational and anti-reason. You are letting politics and ideology determine what you take from science. It’s that kind of thinking that disgusts those of us who take science seriously.

Sure, scientists might be wrong. But the chances are far greater that the minority of those who question the consensus are wrong than those who support the consensus. And, of course, there is a wide range of possible political responses, accepting the scientific communities consensus does not require one adopt Al Gore’s policy stance, one can still argue that a free market approach is the best way to go. Argue about policy, don’t try to deny reality.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
As to your attempt to brush off a scientific consensus by pointing to times science has been wrong, that logic would lead one to dismiss anything scientists say
Actually, no. It’s pointing out that many scientists believe and say things before all the facts are known. While scientists aren’t always wrong, they certainly aren’t always right; skepticism is a healthy thing.

Why do you insist that those skeptical of AGW are so because of political beliefs? Why can’t you accept that some — probably many — of us see enough of a gap in the available data to prevent reaching the conclusion that man is the prime cause of global warming? And why is it that those who oppose the notion of AGW are politcally motivated, but those who embrace it are not?
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Why do you insist that those skeptical of AGW are so because of political beliefs? Why can’t you accept that some — probably many — of us see enough of a gap in the available data to prevent reaching the conclusion that man is the prime cause of global warming?
That’s fairly easy to explain - if he insists that the skeptics are driven by ideology, then he can dismiss their arguments without examining their arguments. A form of political correctness which pretends consensus equals proof and that those who argue anything else are guilty of substituting ideology for science.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
This is one of the best summations of the situation I’ve read.
Sorry folks, the train has left the station. There are billions of dollars to be made in carbon offsets by many powerful corporations, individuals, and governments.
There could be 14 inches of snow in Miami and there would still be a “consensus” on global warming.
As always.... follow the money.
 
Written By: Jay Evans
URL: http://
It sure would be nice if some anonymous scientist would publicize his secret summary of climate models.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I’ve stated many times that there are reasons we should be adopting other fuel sources, reducing pollution and increasing efficiencies, other than "global warming." It makes sense from an economic standpoint, and a stewardship/conservation of resources standpoint.

When it comes to climate change, I’ve learned over the years, that there’s a lot that scientists don’t know. For instance, what effect does solar radiation have on climate change? And if scientists don’t know how a variable effects the model, then the model isn’t as accurate as it should be. Now, eventually it will probably be accurate enough, but it must include all major variables.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com/
I’ve stated many times that there are reasons we should be adopting other fuel sources, reducing pollution and increasing efficiencies, other than "global warming." It makes sense from an economic standpoint, and a stewardship/conservation of resources standpoint.
And, of course, you are right, Keith. But it seems to me that Global Warming has been just the latest club to goad those who don’t fully embrace environmentalism. 35 years ago, the earth was being ruined by pesticides and other pollutants. 25 years ago, it was depletion of the ozone layer that was going to kill us all. 15 years ago, it was Alar and other food treatments. Bovine steroids, irradiated foods, genetically modified foods, etc., have all be held up as Things That Will Kill Humanity.

Now it’s Global Warming and "If We Don’t Do Something About It Right Now, We Are All Doomed." Pardon me if I don’t get too excited about it, since the warming appears to be well within historical limits.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
By the way, I’ve been involved in an e-discussion with scientists about claims by those who say global warming is all natural and not human caused. The ire of these scientists was aroused by what they consider a pseudo-scientific fraudulant film called "Swindled." (I haven’t seen it). Anyway, one sent a nice summary of models which show clearly that models that conclude human involvement in global warming do far, far better explaining the evidence than those which posit natural causes. Unfortunately I can’t post it here, so if anyone wants it e-mail me and I’ll send it as an attached file. Oh, and I know a few of these scientists are Republicans, so their dislike of the global warming deniers is not partisan. I don’t really care so much about Gore or his movie (which I also haven’t seen), I just follow the science.

So you choose: those who treat global warming or global warming denial as a religion, or the scientists.

Written By: Scott Erb


Hmmm . . . an appeal to authority. Scott doesn’t dissapoint . . .

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Note that Scott’s defense of Carter also rests on an apeal to authority. Discredited authority, in that case . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Although discredited authority may be better than unnamed authority . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
In defense of Dr. Erb-
I believe that Scott is being completely honest with his comments in this post. It stands to reason that his colleagues in the scientific community likely have a knowledge of global warming comparable to his own knowledge of politics. Strong with pure theory and abstract concepts .....
 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
Amazing. One defends going with scientists, and the response is derision, insult, and attacks on science! Yeah, citing scientists about science is just "appeal to authority." Better to go with political pundits and those with an agenda.

They say that when the other side just calls names and insults, it’s an admission they lost the argument.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"Yeah, citing scientists about science is just "appeal to authority."

Is this the level of scholarship you use and expect of your students? You call "cite" the unsupported claim that some anonymous scientists of some sort(Botanists?) support your arguments? Bush league.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
...verbiage verbiage my scientist colleagues verbiage... - Erb
You know how sometimes some liquid you’re drinking all of a sudden winds up in your nasal passages? I hate it when that happens.
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
Is this the level of scholarship you use and expect of your students? You call "cite" the unsupported claim that some anonymous scientists of some sort(Botanists?) support your arguments? Bush league.
Do you deny that the UN report contains massive amounts of scientific data and was worked on by scientists all over the world? I admit that when I talk to friends who are scientists, knowing their integrity and knowledge, I find that more credible when people claim that a scientific consensus should be rejected because science has been wrong in the past, or when people start talking about the ’high priests of science,’ as if scientific analysis was a religion. It simply appears to me that the attacks on scientists are driven by politics, not really by evidence that their conclusions may be wrong.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
How is it that the skeptical scientists are driven by a political agenda but members of the consensus are not?

 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
And then there’s this.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider