Are you now or have you ever been a global warming denier?
Guest post by David Ross
Some have suggested that the Fakegate affair has been discussed enough. They are wrong. Peter Gleick is a minor figure in climate science and his actions are of little account. But the reaction of all the global warming alarmists, who see nothing wrong with what he did, is much more significant.
More important still: this is an aspect of the climate debate that everybody can understand. It is much simpler to grasp than the issues raised by Climategate. You don’t need to be a climatologist or scientist or statistician. There’s no need to draw a graph or drill an ice core. All the information you need is straightforward and laid bare.
The fact that, despite all this, those alarmists still can’t distinguish right from wrong, tells many of us more about the climate debate than anything else. Until Gleick and his supporters admit that what they both did is wrong, we shouldn’t let them off the hook.
Others don’t want to see the science content of Watts Up With That diluted. I agree. But would also argue that we humans are part of the biosphere and examining what forcing mechanisms are operating on us and how we react is a scientific issue. I suspect that what many of the alarmists really want is not geo-engineering to “fix” the planet; it is to conduct a large scale controlled experiment in social engineering. Unfortunately for them, they are discovering that people do not behave as predictably as CO2 molecules.
The alarmists main concern seems to be the possibility that their monopoly might be broken and that “contrary” views might be heard in the classroom. As they regard Gleick as a “hero” and heroes are tend to be taken as role-models. I wondered what kind of stuff they do want taught to our kids. So I dumbed-down Fakegate (for the benefit of the ethically challenged) to an analogy that could be used as a classroom assignment.
***************
School Assignment 1: Citizenship and Ethics
Someone hacks your Facebook account and posts all your personal stuff online. They also insert a page with stuff you didn’t write that makes you look like a horrible person. The hacker emails 15 of his friends and says he got all the stuff, including the nasty bits, from your account. His friends show all this stuff to everyone at school and they tell them it all came from your account.
Almost everyone at school, even the teachers, now hates you and tells you so. You tell everyone that the nasty bits are fake and that you didn’t write them. But the teachers don’t believe you. They say that because most of the stuff is true the nasty bits must be as well. They post some of the pages on the school website highlighting the nasty bits and tell everyone not to talk to you.
Some of your friends speak up for you and point out some flaws in the faked parts that prove they are forgeries. The flaws are substantial enough to actually identify the hacker. The hacker then confesses but only to hacking your account. He says he got the page with the nasty bits anonymously in the mail and that he only hacked your files to find out if they were true. You’re shocked because at the same time he was hacking your files you had invited him to come and talk to your friends.
The teachers ignore the evidence of forgery and then try to justify the hacker’s actions, saying that although document phishing and impersonation is wrong, the hacker is a “hero” because they always thought you were a horrible person; horrible persons are increasing and the school is heading towards a horrible person catastrophe.
Q: Discuss the ethical implications of what just happened. There are bonus marks if you can work in a reference to polar bears.
***************
As for junk science, the movies “The Day After Tomorrow” and “An Inconvenient Truth” are both used in our schools to “teach” kids about climate science. But they deserve an article of their own.
One meme currently being propagated by alarmists, that has all the appearance of a coordinated PR campaign, is that skeptics arguments and tactics are no different from creationists who want to “teach the controversy” in schools. I am not religious and don’t want to see creationism taught in schools, other than perhaps a single paragraph mentioning that such views exist. My belief in the theory of evolution has not changed. However, because of the climate debate, I am no longer as contemptuous of creationists as I once was.
It is regrettable that the alarmists are inserting religion into the “debate” (but it is part of a pattern of caricaturing skeptics). They also don’t seem to realize that, as the extent to which they are wrong about the climate becomes increasingly revealed, they will strengthen the hand of those who want creationism taught in schools.
It is however wrong to assert that studying religion cannot teach us anything useful.
***************
School Assignment 2: History
The Medieval Alarm Period
In the Middle Ages, cathedrals could take centuries to build. Three or even six hundred years was not uncommon. Throughout Medieval Europe there were always many cathedrals in various stages of construction. Except that in the decades leading up to the year 1000, very few significant building projects were started and many existing ones were abandoned.
Most of Christendom had convinced themselves that Jesus would reappear on, what they believed to be, the 1000th anniversary of his birth. Nobody saw any point in starting projects or continuing existing ones that would not be finished before the end of the world. We can only assume that this millenarian malaise affected all areas of life, not just church-building. People gave themselves over to fervent prayer and further demonstrated their fervour by roasting heretics. It must have been a grim time. If there had been a Vatican newsletter back then, perhaps it might have sounded like this:
“God’s wrath continued to worsen during 988 – a year in which unprecedented combinations of extreme weather events killed people and damaged property all over Christendom. The clerical evidence for the accelerating influence of human sinfulness further strengthened, as it has for decades now.” [1]
When Jesus failed to appear, the Vatican (or perhaps we should call it the Infallible Panel on Christ’s Coming), assured their flock that the fire and brimstone would definitely start raining down on the anniversary of his crucifixion, instead of that of his birth.
Another three more decades of prayer and malaise followed. When it eventually became obvious to all that Christ wasn’t coming any time soon, the clergy told the people to rejoice, because all their prayers and piety had worked, and God, in all His mercy, had postponed Doomsday. There was then a boom in cathedral building, financed off the backs of the long-suffering peasants as they strove to show their gratitude. And the power and authority of the clergy was stronger than ever.
The church maintained its grip for centuries and became ever more corrupt, as institutions with absolute authority always do. On top of all the taxes and tithes, it eventually introduced a system of carbon credits called indulgences where people could avoid being carbonized in hell by paying a fee to offset their sins. When even the dumbest of village idiots, in the dumbest village, of the dumbest province, saw through this scam, there was a rebellion. Centuries of bloodshed ensued before the people of Europe began to realize that perhaps it would be better to keep church and state separate.
Q: Discuss how crises, either real or imagined, can be used to seize or hold onto power. Bonus marks for making any valid comparisons to current events.
***************
I didn’t mean to offend anyone’s religious sensibilities. We all have our bad epochs. There are many different interpretations of history, but there does seem to be a consensus that it tends to repeat.
Let’s use some material so beloved of left-leaning teachers that it is almost as mandatory in their classrooms as a Koran in a madrassa.
***************
School Assignment 3: English Literature
The 1952 play, The Crucible, by Arthur Miller, portrays the Salem witch trials and popularized the phrase “witch hunt”.
Q: Discuss the language used by the protagonists. Demonstrate how the choice of particular words or appeals to authority can be used to exclude or dismiss counter evidence or opposing points of view. The following excerpts may be useful.
HALE: This is a strange time, Mister. No man may longer doubt the powers of the dark are gathered in monstrous attack upon this village. There is too much evidence now to deny it. You will agree, sir?
HATHORNE: Now, Martha Corey, there is abundant evidence in our hands to show that you have given yourself to the reading of fortunes. Do you deny it?
DANFORTH: What are you! You are combined with anti-Christ, are you not? I have seen your power, Mister, you will not deny it!
Bonus marks for illustrating your answer with current real world examples.
***************
Science is based on observation, religion on authority. The more the global warming alarmists ignore observation and appeal to authority, the more like a religion they become.
***************
School Assignment 3: Citizenship and Ethics
Tick whichever is applicable. People who do not believe in man-made catastrophic global warming should be…
1. branded as deniers.
2. harassed in their homes and workplaces.
3. forcibly tattooed on their bodies.
4. gassed with carbon monoxide.
5. obliterated with explosives.
If you ticked all of the above, full Marx.
References:
1. (inspired by) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/climate-change-denial-_b_1185309.html
2. “We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.”
Greenpeace
3. “Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.”
Richard Glover, radio talk-show host and 20 year columnist for the Sydney Morning Herald
4. “I’m prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics – put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas – say, carbon monoxide.
You wouldn’t see or smell anything. Nor would your anti-science nonsense be heard of again. How very refreshing.
Jill Singer, writer for the Melbourne Herald Sun
5. 10:10 video -has to be seen to be believed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Mw5_EBk0g
***************
Final Assignment: Question for everybody
There used to be a time when junk science was not taught in our schools and our kids were not indoctrinated. There used to be a time when scientists and everybody could debate in a climate of free enquiry, free of censorship and intimidation. Has the climate changed?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
We actually do, and his name is David Zucker. Working with far smaller than budgets than Mel Brooks he has made even funnier spoofs. Airplane! and Naked Gun are legendary of course, but Scary Movie 3 and 4 are also top shelf. Zucker has a whole bunch of anti-leftist political ads also. Few people know that he worked with Southpark founders and notable anti-leftists Matt Stone and Trey Parker on BASEketball. The perfect man for the job.
It takes a special kind of genius to spoof ‘Saw’ using Dr. Phil and Shaq …
Two School Assignment #3’s? Is one optional over the other? (I would take it so were I actually still in school just to escape the additional punishm -er- work.)
Sorry in advance; discovered while reading for comprehension and cohesion on the text of the article …
.
Beesaman says: @ur momisugly March 18, 2012 at 6:05 am
An interesting point to ponder on and forgive me for using warmist rhetoric. But what will be the tipping point that causes the paradigm shift? From Warmist alarmism to climate realism…
___________________________________________
I am very much afraid the tipping point will be towards the default condition of humanity, namely TYRANY disguised as “Global Governance” this time around.
I have been increasingly alarmed about the exploding growth of government since the 1980’s. Dr Evans pulls it all together and essentially shows how we have gradually approached the “Tipping Point” where the tax paying “Regular Joes” are becoming out numbered by the The Regulating Class These people are the supporters of big government or expanding government. They are: NGOs, the UN, WTO, EU, western governments, politicians, labor unions, bureaucrats, teachers, academia, accountants, lawyers, welfare recipients, large corporations, banks, financial houses, insurance companies, and therefore the Mainstream Media… all the people who financially benefit from an expanding government. Unfortunately this group is well organized and rapidly expanding in numbers.
Dr. Evans defines the regulating class.
The meat of the Gleick affair has been chewed to the bone with no new chewing points being offered recently. We turned the corner on meaningful information to lawndarting anything remotely related to Gleick. We went from justified outrage to sniping to piling on and it began to look undignified. We left debate for bickering and we lost some distinction between the skeptical and alarmist behavior patterns and which have helped to identify the moral high ground.
Appropriate coverage should continue but it is time to put away the lawn darts. Things will pick up again in the courtroom which is the only place the important things will matter. Just don’t anybody call me and others “concern trolls” for having this view because I have a response to that and I “ain’t eskeered to use it”.
@tolo4zero,
Nice try but no cigar. Ross would need to change “all the” to “those”. But then what would be the significance of this?
PS: We seem to now have a case of the pot calling the kettle black: http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-double-standard-institute-tried-scam-greenpeace-internal-documents
Worship of the state
“Jung stressed the importance of individual rights in a person’s relation to the state and society. He saw that the state was treated as “a quasi-animate personality from whom everything is expected” but that this personality was “only camouflage for those individuals who know how to manipulate it”,[33] and referred to the state as a form of slavery.[34][35][36][37] He also thought that the state “swallowed up [people’s] religious forces”,[38] and therefore that the state had “taken the place of God”—making it comparable to a religion in which “state slavery is a form of worship”.[36] Jung observed that “stage acts of [the] state” are comparable to religious displays: “Brass bands, flags, banners, parades and monster demonstrations are no different in principle from ecclesiastical processions, cannonades and fire to scare off demons”.[39] From Jung’s perspective, this replacement of God with the state in a mass society led to the dislocation of the religious drive and resulted in the same fanaticism of the church-states of the Dark Ages—wherein the more the state is ‘worshipped’, the more freedom and morality are suppressed;[40] this ultimately leaves the individual psychically undeveloped with extreme feelings of marginalization.[41]”
—Carl Jung
The greens drive to Global governance
apologize for this being a more religiously minded message than usual for this blog, but the topic keeps coming up in this thread so I believe it deserves address.
This may be surprising to the more secular minded people, but Christian believers should find very little to worry about in the efforts of Maurice Strong and his ilk to create some new religion. This kind of thing is actually going on all the time, and has gone on all the time. Our history shows that attempts to stop people like this have always been far more destructive than the pseudo-religions are themselves.
Believers will do well to remember the words of Gamaliel, the 1st century Jewish scholar and rabbi, as recorded in the Christian book of Acts. (Gamaliel is also highly regarded in Rabbinic traditions)
When Peter and the other early apostles began to spread their teachings in Jerusalem, many of the orthodox wished to suppress them violently. But Gamaliel gave this simple, and wise, advice:
“if it be of men, it will come to naught, but if it be of God, ye will not be able to overthrow it; lest perhaps ye be found even to fight against God”
For a believer, all one needs is a simple faith in this proposition to know that all these alternate religion ideas will fall to pieces on their own. Note that I also am aware of the obvious corollary: those religions which have prospered and spread over the centuries without burning themselves out must have some spark of the Divine in them, even if I don’t agree with them myself. My disagreements are a mark of my own limitations, not God’s.
Let Maurice Strong and his wife strive as hard as they wish. If they are only relying on themselves, anything they build will pass away with them. (that’s the way of this world) And who knows, they might accidentally do some good along the way without meaning to; ie, providing funding for these different groups to coexist, even if it won’t lead to the end the Strong’s are hoping for.
Wow.
Is that where all this started?
Not with Lucifer and his fall from grace?
Not with being cast out of the Garden if Eden for (woman) being tricked to eat of the tree of Knowledge?
Wow. I hadn’t realize all this had ‘roots’ so recent …
.
World governance would be ok, as long as it is the very definition of altruism. I do not think the Strong’s have anyone else’s well being in mind but their own. Does altruism even exist today?
Bravo David Ross!!!….Encore!
David,
This is one of the best posts I ever followed on WUWT, mainly because of the replies in generated.
Thanks a lot for bringing the discussion to an upper level….
Please do not withdraw this article – self-censorship is the worst one…
I believe you have unfairly compared CAGW to Medieval Christianity — to be specific, you were unfair to Christianity.
My understanding is that the 10th Century (900s) had as many cathedrals as the 9th and 11th centuries. See for example http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cathedrals_established_in_the_11th_century
Also, I understand that the dark ages of Mediterranean buildings and economies ran from about 640 to 940, and ended prior to the year 1000. See for example http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/104822/sec_id/104822
Finally, I believe that year-1000 millennialism was a minority position within Christianity, condemned by the Council of Nicea and the Council of Constantinople, among other Christian authorities.
Beesaman says: @ur momisugly March 18, 2012 at 6:05 am
We’re there. The only way climate looks alarming is when it is taken out of context, fudged, precedence ignored, or distorted. There’s nothing catactrophically “new”–by that I mean nothing that would convince climate realists that there’s a worrisome shift in the climate paradigm. You have to be wearing blinders to believe puny man can force climate beyond what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (or Le Chatelier’s Principle) dictates.
And the laws of nature are not surmountable.
David
Please don’t change a word. The intellectual exercise is enjoyable, including reading and considering the many and varied comments you inspired.
I believe this posting over at Ace of Spades HQ has some bearing on this subject:
http://minx.cc/?post=327601
Read down the bullet list. I sure see a LOT of parallel with the climate alarmist community.
Volker Doormann says:
March 18, 2012 at 9:46 am
Very nicely articulated Volker. I agree that my statement is my personal theory. Your personal theory is that the “idea of science is a … scientist … searching knowledge and adding knowledge about the order of nature.” I would like that to be my theory as well but experience has taught me otherwise. I offer the defense of consensus as one reason why scientists do not always seek out knowledge. When something new comes to light, people take sides. The side they take is not usually based on knowledge but on belief. If a scientist believes that something cannot be true, he/she will take the side that the knowledge is false and will attempt to prove it is false. Some will spend their entire career being wrong. I repeat my earlier comment that scientists will rarely question their own beliefs (in science). They would rather defend them with false evidence. Why else would a scientist remove proxy data from the temperature record when it diverges from the actual measured record and yet let the same proxy data remain in the older temperature record? Because it confirmed his belief that the world is warming.
Scientists do pursue knowledge. Of course they do. But in a world where grant money follows policy and where tenure depends more on the number of publications and less on the quality of contained knowledge, the average scientist has a belief system that is not very skeptical IMO.
You ask how I know if something is true or not. When it comes to climate science I believe very little. How can we make conclusions on things that take centuries to unfold when we have collected only a few decades of measurements? When it comes to the basic laws of physics I see truth because mathematical equations and physical processes work together. F does equal MA. When it comes to the great questions such as the “Big Bang”, how can I believe that scientists know how the universe formed when they can’t account for over 90% of the mass of the universe? And when it comes to soap operas how do you know the pretty girl wasn’t just toying with a couple of flirty church men who were trying to convince her of Jesus? “Both” is a great answer for someone being coy. Toss a coin.
David: I like your first example. I don’t mind the others. They don’t offend my religious sensibility, but as the thread shows they have become a lightning rod for outrage, real or feigned (if I were an alarmist troll, I would jump to hyperventilate about how your essay was attacking religion and lowering the tone here at WUWT; a cheap smear, and thus irresistible to trolls). So maybe if you deploy this again/more generally, you can just use the first example. It says a great deal in a powerful, intuitive way. Insofar as the main objective here is to reveal the alarmists as morally and intellectually bankrupt in their continuing defense of Gleick, I’d say it is exactly enough.
Well done, however, on all of it. I am glad you got the hate-speech examples in at the end.
Do any of you people know the difference between a “recognized religion” and a cult? I’ll tell you: Popularity, and therefore political and economic influence. As with most anything else like this; Follow the Money.
michaelozanne says:
March 18, 2012 at 10:40 am
Archonix,
There was no consensus in maintaining its rule. That was done by brutal repression , land bribes, hostage taking, military force, financial impositions, hostage taking and control of inheritance rights.
==========================================================
And religions don’t do that? LOL . Have you looked at Islam lately?
fenbeagleblog wrote: “Bravo David Ross!!!….Encore!”
Thanks fenbeagleblog. That means a lot. I’m a big fan of your work. And jealous. I wish I could draw like that.
***********************************
Garry Stotel wrote: “The video is shocking – WTF?!! Is that some kind of spoof?”
No, its for real (i.e. not a spoof by skeptics) but they did retract it. It is absurd to claim that skeptics have any funding comparable to the alarmists when you consider the money that must have been spent on that one video.
***********************************
Heggs wrote: “That second item in the references about the threat just blew me away.”
Me too, when I first read it. Greenpeace did not really retract it. The comments that followed that article are quite entertaining. See links and additional info in my previous post
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/02/things-about-peter-gleick-that-might-also-interest-or-intrigue-you/
***********************************
Allan MacRae wrote: “Cologne Cathedral is awe-inspiring. You should go.”
Yes it is. But do you think anyone will gaze in awe at a forest of windmills off the White Cliffs of Dover, in a hundred years? Plus one to the Christians.
***********************************
Beesaman wrote:
“what will be the tipping point that causes the paradigm shift”
When heads of state start to say “I don’t believe” not just “doubt”
It will be a Martin Luther moment…ouch did it again.
***********************************
Steve G3345
whatever
***********************************
wfrumkin wrote: “Nobody expects the CAGW inquisition:D”
Darn, wish I’d thought of that one. Would have been the best response.
***********************************
wfrumkin wrote: “A Mel Books style feature film would skewer the warmistas nicely. Does our side have any film makers?”
What would we call it?
Blazing Turbine-Paddles, Apocalypse Not, Thermaggedon,
Ice Core Zebra, The Mann Who Would Be King
Gone With The Solar Wind, Farenheit 4510, Some Like It Hot
***********************************
“The whole point of the post is stifling of free expression.”
Thanks Phil
***********************************
Mike wrote: “Ross wrote: “But the reaction of all the global warming alarmists, who see nothing wrong with what he did, is much more significant.” This statement, which is the premise of the rest of the post, is a lie. Many mainstream climate scientists and science reporters have clearly stated that what Gleick did was wrong.”
I concede it is ambiguous. I should have written: “all those global warming alarmists” or left out the comma as tolo4zero suggested.
**********************************
David UK wrote: “You mean Hitler? If you do, I wasn’t aware of a general ban on the usage of the name?”
You referenced Godwin’s Law so I thought I should respect it.
***********************************
Regarding the last paragraph:
“There used to be a time when junk science was not taught in our schools and our kids were not indoctrinated. There used to be a time when scientists and everybody could debate in a climate of free enquiry, free of censorship and intimidation. Has the climate changed?”
I was going to make it clear that this was my romantic view of an ideal, but cut that part at the last minute. I still think these values were held up as an ideal more in the recent past than they are now, even if they weren’t fully practiced. Every age and every person has their own set of delusions and prejudices. It was inspired by the “I have a dream” speech but I couldn’t make that too obvious, as I don’t measure up to MLK.
***********************************
scannit wrote
“I like using the analogy to bring the issue to a common level that everyone can relate to. But I wonder how many AGW believers will take note, not many if history proves to be any indication..”
They might take note if more of us post comments on alarmist or ambivalent forums. The assignments are concise chunks that can be copied and pasted to make a point. You can pick the ones you want and leave the rest.
Some people will never be swayed by a purely scientific arguments. But a good analogy might work. I think we should post more of them here at WUWT for people to use as a resource.
Why not crowd-source real assignments i.e. teaching material that teachers can actually use. If we posted them here or on some other website for teachers to download, it might force the alarmists to confront specific scientific points (instead of their usual straw-man “myth” busting).
I propose the creation of a school-marmy cartoon character to present the material. We can call her Auntie Science 🙂
***********************************
My personal beliefs should really be irrelevant. For the record: my beliefs about God and climate change are simple: as I wrote about the 10:10 video: “has to be seen to be believed.”
Ironically “anti-Catholic bigotry” is the reason I am an atheist. I grew up in a part of the world where sectarian strife is still very real. It turned me away from religion at a very early age.
***********************************
To all the Christians who took offense:
If thine eye offends thee, see an optician. That plucking business is a really bad idea.
Would it have made a difference if I had placed the analogy on the planet Teegeeack?
[Eh…come to think of it, it would http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu%5D
I don’t know why you are so defensive about the actions of other people a thousand years ago. I would not take offense if you pointed out some dark acts by atheists. I am not responsible for the latter and you are not responsible for the former.
So then each of us will give an account of himself to God
Romans 14:12
***********************************
To all the Christians who didn’t:
Kudos. You make belief in a benevolent God far more credible. Nice cheek by the way.
I still meant what I said about amending/retracting the article if necessary. I do not want to alienate climate skeptics or alarmists. And creating unecessary controversy is not fair on Anthony. I think he has enough on his mind of late.
I’ve learned my lesson. Next time I’ll leave the Catholic church out of it and pick on the Ottoman Caliphate instead.
I didn’t have time to read all the comments, so this may have been covered.
Ayn Rand has an excellent analysis of the progressive/liberal/socialist ethics in her book “The Virtue of Selfishness”.
I paraphrase: In order to define a rational system of ethics, one must answer two questions; What are values? Who should be the beneficiary of a person’s values? The collectivists ignore the first question and answer the second question “Anyone but yourself”. …………. This belief inverts morality and allows anything goes as long as the purpose is the advancement of the sacrifice of all-to-all. They can lie, cheat, steal, kill to achieve their ends.
Read the book for a full explanation.
The collectivist’s ethics are based upon the philosopher Immanuel Kant’s definition of ethics in his book “Critique of Pure Reason” (1776) – “An action is not moral unless you derive no benefit from it whatsoever”. This means if you desire to be moral and derive happiness from helping others, you are at best amoral. The only way to be moral is to do so out of duty, with nothing derived from it whatsoever. This morality was later termed “Altruism”.
If you wonder at the pinched-mouth, holier-than-thou, nanny-state, we-can-do-anything-we-want-as-long-as-we-are-helping-others mentality of the collectivist crowd, look no further than their ethical beliefs. Their politics, and now their “science”, is now based on the altruist ethics.
For a proper rational ethics, and it’s philosophical underpinnings; the best/shortest explanation is contained in Galt’s speech in Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”. I paraphrase again: Man’s highest moral purpose is his own joy. This can only be achieved by the three primary values of Reason, Purpose and Self-Esteem. To attain those values, one must practice the virtues of:Rationality, Independence, Integrity, Honesty, Justice, Productiveness and Pride (pgs. 932-934 paperback edition) There is no more rational moral code on earth, and it puts all other moral codes to shame. She ties the values and virtues required of Human Nature to reality; each and every one of those values and virtues is defined with the proper ties to reality – “existence exists” and to consciousness.
The early human philosophers claimed that a Rational moral code was impossible. Ayn Rand did it, and in so doing, demonstrated the fatal flaws in the Altruist’s morality. You are witnessing the logical extension of their moral code at work.
Paul Richards
@ur momisugly David Ross says:
March 18, 2012 at 1:12 pm
I’ve learned my lesson. Next time I’ll leave the Catholic church out of it and pick on the Ottoman Caliphate instead.
====================================================================
Be careful. You could lose your head.
I have been trying to, and finally succeeded in offering my comments on what I regard is a very good site. I would like to add that I finally think that despite so much engrained opposition to the Cosmic (comet) theory it is steadily becoming more widely accepted as the explanation for the Younger Dryas. I have been disappointed to date however that the full range of reasons why the THC (North Atlantic Ocean Circulation) is not plausible as an explanation has not been in the forefront. I have been trying to make this point for a number of years now. I began my quest with my book “Sudden Cold and Examination of the Younger Dryas” (see http//www.bclimate.com).I have notw coniuned with this a paper I have just completed that I plan to circulate to those interested.
[snip – over the top – Anthony]
OK, I’m closing this thread as it has dengenerated into religious zealotry flaming. michaelozanne’s recent off color comments that I had to snip are a perfect example. We all have better things to do. – Anthony
@David Ross: March 18, 2012 at 1:12 pm
I shall take you at your word regarding your intended meaning.
What do you make of this
http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-double-standard-institute-tried-scam-greenpeace-internal-documents ?