Climate Extremism & The Chilling Effect On Free Speech
From the GWPF and Dr. Benny Peiser
At the end of that process, some Global Warming deniers would never admit their mistake and as a result they would be executed. Perhaps that would be the only way to stop the rest of them. The death penalty would have been justified in terms of the enormous numbers of saved future lives. — Professor Richard Parncutt, University of Graz, Austria, 25 October 2012 
As I read the grim headlines from Paris, I was reminded of another encounter in another European city, Berlin, specifically at the Opernplatz where the Nazis staged one of their most infamous book burnings in 1933. One of the authors whose works they incinerated was the great German poet, Heinrich Heine, whose epigraph now lines a memorial marking this historically ominous event: “That was but a prelude; where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people as well.” And where they drive out and kill Jews, they will ultimately drive out and kill you, too. –James Kirchick, The Daily Beast, 10 January 2015
The message is clear: climate change deniers are scum. Their words are so wicked and dangerous that they must be silenced, or criminalised, or forced beyond the pale alongside those other crackpots who claim there was no Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Perhaps climate change deniers should even be killed off, hanged like those evil men who were tried Nuremberg-style the first time around. Whatever the truth about our warming planet, it is clear there is a tidal wave of intolerance in the debate about climate change which is eroding free speech and melting rational debate. —Brendan O’Neill, Spiked, 6 October 2006
I wonder what sentences judges might hand down at future international criminal tribunals on those who will be partially but directly responsible for millions of deaths from starvation, famine and disease in decades ahead. I put [their climate change denial] in a similar moral category to Holocaust denial – except that this time the Holocaust is yet to come, and we still have time to avoid it. Those who try to ensure we don’t will one day have to answer for their crimes. –Mark Lynas, 19 May 2006
In the climate wars, those that use pejorative names for people that they disagree with are the equivalents of racists and anti-semites, and deserve opprobrium and disrespect. It is very sad, not to mention bad for science, to see scientists engaging in this behavior. We need to open up the public debate about climate change, and get rid of the tyranny of political ‘correctness’ in the climate debate that is being enforced by a handful of self-appointed and readily-offended fools. –Judith Curry, Climate Etc, 11 January 2015
As George Bernard Shaw said, “All great truths begin as blasphemies”. In the West in the past, it was the Christian God that was protected by a censorious forcefield. Now it’s climate-change orthodoxy, the ideology of multiculturalism, Islamo-sensitivities, gay marriage… These days, speaking ill of any of those new gods could earn you a metaphorical lashing from the mob, or expulsion from polite society, or possibly a prison sentence. –Brendan O’Neill, The Australian, 10 January 2014
A globally-renowned climate scientist has been forced to step down from a think-tank after he was subjected to ‘Mc-Carthy’-style pressure from scientists around the world. Professor Lennart Bengtsson, 79, a leading academic from the University of Reading, left the high-profile Global Warming Policy Foundation as a result of the threats, which he described as ‘virtually unbearable’. In his resignation letter, published on the think-tank’s website, he wrote: ‘If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy.” –Willis Robinson, Daily Mail, 15 May 2014
Science regresses if it becomes intolerant of criticism. At the beginning of her reign, Queen Elizabeth I of England spoke words of tolerance in an age of religious strife, declaring that she had no intention of making windows into men’s souls. Unlike religion, science is not a matter of the heart or of belief. It exists only in what can be demonstrated. In their persecution of an aged colleague who stepped out of line and their call for scientists to be subject to a faith test, 21st-century climate scientists have shown less tolerance than a 16th-century monarch. There is something rotten in the state of climate science. –Rupert Darwall, National Review, 15 May 2014
Ministers who question the majority view among scientists about climate change should “shut up” and instead repeat the Government line on the issue, according to MPs. The BBC should also give less airtime to climate sceptics and its editors should seek special clearance to interview them, according to the Commons Science and Technology Committee. Andrew Miller, the committee’s Labour chairman, said that appearances on radio and television by climate sceptics such as Lord Lawson of Blaby, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, should be accompanied by “health warnings”. –Ben Webster, The Times, 2 April 2014
The danger comes instead from self-censorship. Which BBC editor now is going to invite Lord Lawson or even Prof Bob Carter on to their programmes in the certain knowledge that they are likely to be criticised and perhaps have time-consuming complaints upheld against them? As Lord Lawson argues, surely correctly, he has, in effect, been banned by the BBC. It is an easy thing to judge. Let’s see when he next appears in the climate change context. There will, of course, be no edict. He will just never ever be invited to take part in any BBC programme on the issue. –Raymond Snoddy, MediaTel, 9 July 2014
The BBC has effectively banned Lord Lawson, the former chancellor (and former editor of this magazine) from appearing on its programmes to debate climate change, unless he is introduced with a statement discrediting his views. When people try to close down debate rather than engage with it, there is a pretty clear conclusion to be drawn: they lack confidence in their own case. —The Spectator, 12 July 2014
A religious message from 1010global.org. And a Limerick
http://lenbilen.com/2014/02/22/a-religious-message-from-1010global-org-and-a-limerick/
On this little movie I’ll hold my applause,
exploding of children just for “a good cause”,
for it lowers the bar,
have we now sunk this far?
It’s freedom of speech, the establishment clause.
When we talk of silencing our enemies– by death if necessary– we are no longer talking of scientific debate— which is supposed to be about testing theories– we are talking religion which cannot stand opposition to its “gods”. “Death to the infidels” is the cry not of the scientist, but of the radical priest.
Climate change “denier”, still wondering when he gets his fair share of the oil money that is supposedly being paid out for “denying”.
Excellent statement mjmsprt40. Your statement says it all in a few words.
In climate related reporting, the words ‘deny’ and ‘doubt’ are the negative words the media prefer to use instead of ‘question’ and ‘debate’. It’s all about slanting your perception before you process the content via the tone of the presentation.
This is not about free speech or censorship….
this is people that believe in a religion….forcing their religion on the world
Can I say they are also forcing their brand of Islamic on Muslims.
Jimbo. Can I say they are also forcing their brand of Islamic on Muslims.
____________________________
Jimbo, it is not ‘THEIR brand’ it is ‘THE brand’ (although the brand did split into two in the 7th century). If you don’t believe me, then read the K for yourself. Try chapter nine, for starters, it will open your eyes.
All of this mayhem stems from the instructions contained in the K. Yes, every … and every …. and every …. that has been committed by ISIS and others is all there in black and white.
The media will not let you know this, but I can assure you that at least half of the K is composed of …., ….. and ….. of unbelievers. As to why the media (and authorities) will not allow these quotes to be printed and continue to say the K is a book of peace, is another matter entirely.
R
Silver ralph, believe it or not I am well aware of the atrocities committed in the early days of Islam. Beheadings, looting of caravans et. al. I am also aware of Saladin and Richard the Lion Heart and their very ‘kind’ treatment of people. I know where you are coming from, I am not ignorant of atrocities left, right and centre. My main point (as I HOPE you will acknowledge) is that MOST of the victims of the beheadings and atrocities today in the middle east are MUSLIM.
People must avoid letting their biases get in the way of facts – wherever those facts come from.
Silver ralph, PS I have read chapter 9 and the “the verse of the sword” et al. I know what it says. And you are right that the media SHOULD make themselves aware of what they are trying to talk about. Therefore, it should tell you what you need to know about ISIS – MOST of their victims are Muslims not pagans! Not a minor point. My feelings are for innocent Christians, Jews, Muslims and all other human beings against this kind of barbarism.
At around the time of the Paris massacre (17 dead) there was another massacre of 2,000 Muslims and Christians in Northern Nigeria by Boka Haram. World leaders are expected in Northern Nigeria soon, holding hands, and the like.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-30728158
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/09/boko-haram-deadliest-massacre-baga-nigeria
Silver Ralph, There few if any religions regardless of primary text that do not have one or more profoundly intolerant adherent groups who purport to know the “real” true meaning of the given holy book. It is not a behaviour limited to Islam and anyone who has read western history knows that. Nor are the atrocious behaviours indulged in under the guise of “the truth” any different. Further, as Anthony’s quoted passages show, such intolerance is not limited to “religious” stances, unless you broaden the term to included non-spiritual stances such political affiliations and purportedly scientific opinions. The reality is that the preferred “prey” of ISIS are Muslims, the preferred “prey” of the Inquisition were nominal Catholics, the preferred “prey” of the AGW faithful – given the opportunity – would be AGW sceptics. It is not pretty but the reality is that “convictions,” as Shea and Wilson wrote, “make convicts.”
The Older of the two brothers, who it is alleged (without proof), blew up a number of people; all (presumably innocent collateral damage victims; and who was himself (allegedly) killed without a trial, in the Boston Marathon “anomaly”, was named by his mother; Tamerlan. A variant of Tamerlane; itself a bastardization of “Timor the Lame”, who was one of the great heroes of the religion of peace; a missionary you might say.
Is it any wonder that Obama and his disciples want to get at your children and grandchildren before they are even potty trained, so they can be educated in the proper way to live their life, and support the cause; whatever that cause the tyrants want it to be.
Now if you choose to name your child “Cain”, or the romantic nonsense Marco Polo equivalent of Cain; then don’t be surprised when it is your turn to endure the wrath that you fostered.
I do believe that Timor, or Timur, is the name of the mystery prince, who solved Turandot’s three riddles, and put a presumably peaceful end to her alternative to roasting marshmallows or chestnuts over the fire, for amusement.
All the same, I do hope that Sony Corp, can find a screen writer with more common sense, and also some actors with common sense, who have more imagination when it comes to writing or acting “comedy.”
Jimbo.
You are dividing the argument, for no reason. It matters not that more Muslims are subject to Muslim violence and terrorism than other religions. What matter to the world, is that this violence and terror is being conceived and nurtured by Islam. Name me any violence that does not involve Islam…..
And regards the Crusades, please don’t be sucked into the PC narrative. The Crusades were organised to liberate the Christian lands of the East from Muslim subjugation. Yes, the majority population in alll these nations was still Christian, Jewish and Sabaean at this time – allbeit with oppressive Muslim overlords. That is why the majority of cities, like Antioch and Edessa, welcomed the Crusaders in as liberators.
R
You will not engage anyone in thoughtful debate making statements like; “AGW is a religion” Trying to silence your adversary is not innately religious. Lots of ugly history shows us how widespread the tendency is. The religious precept; “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” would solve the problem.
But Mr Abbott, it if has feathers, and waddles like a duck, and quacks…
William Abbott, does it indeed walk like a duck? Does it quack?
Jimbo, it has feathers, walks and quacks like a duck because its the brainchild of shallow people who studied religion. The latter always started as a way to brainwash people into a more civil mindset and then was always hijacked for personal gain. The former began to be used for personal gain right from the beginning.
I don’t see anything even vaguely religious about the “Golden Rule.”
Just seems like plain common sense to me.
“Do unto others …” is part of the civil code of Hamarabi (1750BC). Though it was not stated in those words. It was the basis of much civil law including the proportionality of sentences. It has been found in almost every culture as the standard one should use to interact with other individuals in society. It seems to be divorced of the concept of religion though it was adopted by most religions as a way to tame society. It is simple wisdom, observed by someone lost in the mist of time, that societies break down into petty squabbles and major bloodshed if human thought does not extend beyond the self, and recognize that the other is similar in wants and needs to the self.
I know that was a pedantic rant over something small, but it has always been a pet peeve of mine that all wisdom gets ascribed to religion – even when evidence suggests it started outside of it. (This coming from a fairly religious guy)
Jesus Christ said it: I’m bringing you the news: the Golden Rule is not common sense or intuitive. Intuition tells us to do unto others as they have done unto us. Common sense is you look out after your interests. The Golden rule tells you to treat someone else’s interests as if they were your own.
It is phrased very differently in the Code of Hammurabi.
Muslims are not familiar with the golden rule – it is not in the Koran. (even though they are undoubtedly religious)
Yes, willybamboo, it’s common sense to look out for yourself, and one thing you can do to encourage your fellow humans to be nice to you is to be nice to them.
Most of the other critters on Earth have had that much common sense for a very long time, and, considering that people were chattering among themselves for millennia before any putative prophets showed up, it’s not a stretch to think that the patent on the golden rule was long expired by the time Pompey marched into Galilee.
I somehow overlooked the comment from Owen in GA and wound up echoing it.
I especially appreciate your last paragraph, and,as a very non-religious person had despaired of seeing that acknowledged by believers.
Well mother Nature’s rule is “the survival of the fittest.” Anything that aids in the survival of the unfit, wastes resources, and drives the system in the direction of non-survival.
It was thinking human beings who rejected that rule, and decided to take the risk of supporting the survival of those whom MN would discard.
Probably has something to do with that other thing; “Man does not live by bread alone.” Also a non religious common sense concept.
A lot of “blind people” are simply wonderful organists. Well if you don’t like organ music, you wouldn’t care about that.
The golden rule; wherever it comes from is a good way to look after your own interests.
Oh let me guess; you are one of these folks who believes that if you leave everyone else alone, that they will leave you alone.
Go make friends with your local ISIS chapter.
Climate alarmism is called The Church of Global Warming because nothing falsifies their faith. The “pause” is now over 18 years long and we still hear that “deniers” will cause droughts and famines, etc. etc.
They are frustrated people. Nothing they say gets their message across. This is because Mother Nature herself is the leading denier. Murder would not do the trick, either. It is too easy to find out what the phrase “climate optimum” meant before all the alarmism. Or other facts. Most people have just lost interest.
Yet something IS going on: chemical and burning based agriculture, and dams, are killing so many of the Earth’s organisms that carbon dioxide is sharply rising. CO2 is what carbon-based life forms turn into when they decay. A little of the CO2 surely comes from all the fossils we burn, but that is not the real story and is a good thing, fertilizing the Earth.
My current favorite book (I am half-done reading it) is “Cows Save The Planet,” by Judith D. Schwartz (2013). It has a little of the alarmist nonsense in it, but mostly it is fact-based science. It is defensible unlike the CAGW scare story. And it gives positive constructive things people can do to enhance the Earth, instead of a prescription to drop dead and stop industry.
The effort to attack “deniers” reminds me of the story of Galileo. Killing him did no good because he was right. It also reminds me of the Flat Earthers–considerably crazier than either alarmists/deniers, or Copernicus and detractors, yet who cares? The evidence for a round Earth is beyond overwhelming and convinces almost everyone.
Things like “Cows Save the Planet” can restore sanity. If it does that, it just might restore the original glorious definition of “science,” too.
Religion can be a powerful motivator. That’s why it is often usurped by politics. It would be foolish for power-hungry tyrants not to. But that is not the fault of religion. It is the fault of those who twist it for their own use and power. Their hypocrisy makes it clear they only pretend to believe the religion they misuse. I don’t know which is worse, uncritically accepting the corrupted religion political leaders try to foist on us, or uncritically throwing the baby out with the bath water by rejecting all religion because some have acted falsely and done evil in its name.
Jimbo
January 12, 2015 at 6:39 am
Can I say they are also forcing their brand of Islamic on Muslims.
====
Of course they are Jim…..ISIS is doing this in Muslim countries
Boko is killing Christians, because there are Christians there……
If ISIS was in Mississippi…they would be killing southern Baptists
“”ISIS is also despicably attacking Christians and of course the Yazidis, but the reality is that over the past five years, close to 90 percent of the victims of these “Islamic” terrorists are Muslims””
That’s because where ISIS is…..is 90% Muslim
If ISIS was in Mississippi, they wouldn’t last long! They’d take fire back better than they gave.
I rinse and repeat. Using some of your own words: Boko is killing Christians, AND MUSLIMS because there are Christians AND MUSLIMS there…… If there were Jews there they too would be killed no doubt.
That is a holy Jihad??? You make my point. ISIS is not about religion – it is something else and seems to attract rejects from around the world. Some have spent time inside for one reason or another.
Then Jim I don’t see your point…..
Other proposed treatments for sceptics: [click].
Don’t forget David Suzuki’s plan to jail skeptics:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/24/climate-campaigner-david-suzuki-doesnt-know-what-the-climate-temperature-data-sets-are/
All of this has destroyed climate science. It is very sad watching this. I grew up at places like Kitt Peak in Arizona, playing in the giant solar observatory there, for example, listening to scientists talk about theories and information.
I grew up predicting weather for myself via knowing how sun spots, volcanoes, distance from the sun, etc. all interact and it is fairly easy to predict future weather (that is, for a month in advance) via this.
But now the warmists are trying to disconnect everything! All the accumulated science knowledge of the past is being eradicated! They systematically try to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period and previous warm cycles like the Minoan cycle. They are trying to get rid of the 1930’s warm cycle, etc.
They are now working on denying that sun spot activity means warmer climate! I am furious about this. It is insane. And these same vandals want to make any of us objecting to this mess, to shut up due to fear.
The MWP can take care of itself. It’s demonstrable via interdisciplinary means, anyway (history, literature, archaeology, etc.).
What has destroyed climate science is stuff like the destruction (loss?) of raw historical datasets used to create HadCRUt.
I, too, am upset at the 180 on the definition of “science.”
This is happening because we are right and they are wrong. Nobody likes to be wrong.
Instead of trying to convince them they are wrong, look at the data in “Cows Save the Planet” (reviewed above) and get your local idiots doing something constructive that they can truly feel good about. It will help them be right in a way they can be enthusiastic about. It is also likely to restore the original definition of science because this method of investigation will help them again.
Well done.the climate obsessed are in their own way as destructive of civil society as any other fanatics in history. They appear to be constrained only be their lack of resources.
And the French brought us; Political Correctness! The “chooks” are coming home to roost!
Political Correctness is socially inspired censorship. It is the enemy of Free Speech; a right that took thousands of years to obtain, but only a single generation to lose.
The problem with free speech in many folks minds is that it doesn’t guarantee an audience. There is an unwritten right not to listen, nor is it required that an utterance be taken seriously merely because someone became infatuated with the sound of the wind between their ears. One reality about free speech is that it is rarely worth hearing.
One reality about free speech is that it is rarely worth hearing.
#B^)
evanmjones: I heard it as: “The reality of free speech is that you get what you pay for”
The real tragedy of the events in France is that Europe has already caved in to the anti-free speech agitators. After the Charlie Hebdo attacks it was proposed that all newspapers in Europe should carry the Mohammed cartons the next day. Only one German paper did – and that got firebombed. The rest of the press bravely decided not to…. [and before you ask No, I wouldn’t either]
Politicians who have already repressed much of free-speech in Europe held a march instead; a huge political gesture attended by representatives of freedom loving countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
There is a lovely talk on free-speech at Bishop Hill that is well worth 20 mins of anyone’s time (unless you are religious).
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/1/12/hitchens-on-freedom-of-speech.html
Absolutely brilliant, a very clear thinker.
The POWERLINE blog carried them. POWERLINE was the same blog that uncovered the forgeries that were presented by Dan Rather, and used to disparage President Bush’s military record: conveniently before the election. This episode later came to be known as Rathergate. Powerline carried the cartoons, however they were in French. Perhaps we could get John Kerry to translate them for us.
ultimately every idea is offensive to someone someplace. if we censor ideas because they are offensive, then we will in the end be powerless to speak up against evil.
The irrepressible siren, Mae West, was once asked which one she would choose if confronted with the choice between two evils. In her indomitable style she replied that she would pick the one she hadn’t tried yet.
As I have said before, one has to ask the question, what kind of person wants to frighten & intimidate another? They used to be called bullies back in the day!
Leftists, aka bullies.
Seriously, it’s what they do. Try saying one negative word to a large group of union protesters, all wearing the same protest tshirt. I did it. It was ultra-funny, all the yelling, cussing and threats I got back from them. I literally laughed at how worked up they got. I don’t recommend this for most people…
Hmm.
Sometimes I feel like puncturing one of those inflatable “union rats” one sees around New York. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflatable_rat
I note that the union protesters are not inviting the “oppressed employees” into their unions, or trying to organize them. They are protesting that the business does not hire from the union (i.e., them).
Yet I have to remind myself that doing such a thing would be lowering myself further than the rat. After all, if expression that offends me is not to be allowed (and defended), then there is no freedom.
Reblogged this on mjmsprt40, sez me. and commented:
Still waiting, where’s the oil money I am supposed to get for “denying”?
Lower oil prices if the likes of you and me win out? Also ~40 years of life expectancy for those who would get electricity. That’s the “oil money” we will get.
Speaking as one who posts here only under “Permanent Double-Secret Probation” – because I’m apparently entirely too effective at excoriating the progtard willful ignorance and arrogant stupidity wholly congruent with the great gaudy “man-made global climate change” fraud, thereby cutting to the bone in excision of the politics behind this proposterous bogosity – I’m just delighted to read complaints about “Liberal” fascist fighting words voiced in efforts to obliterate dissenting voices in public fora.
Bearing in mind what these bastids want – avidly! – to do with us heretics, we must be ever-so-polite and tender in dealing with them, mustn’t we?
Godwin’s Law runs rampant in climate alarmism
Bolshevictim,
As does Fen’s Law:
The Left believes none of the things they lecture us about.
Hello God,
can you hear me/us? could you give us a miracle or two, you know like you use to do all the time,, hello, hello, oh, you must be asleep, help, this world is coming off its tracks!!!
Well, yeah. But that’s a sword that cuts both ways.
History demonstrates that scoundrels abound on either side of anything.
We have denial of free speech in the west but it’s not when the BBC won’t have our guy on to make a point.
It’s also not when citizens take umbrage at opinions expressed publicly.
The impetus for repression of contrarian views may well come from the people but it’s only when it’s on the statute books that the state has switched from defending the individual to punishing him. Depriving protection, obviously, can constitute punishment, too.
Hate laws are a toe-hold for intolerance in our legal structure.
Our quarrel with Islam is much broader than freedom of speech, it’s freedom of just about everything.
Biggest issue: women.
Yup, I wouldn’t be surprised if the whole lunacy arose from an abhorrence of cuckoldry and a failure to grow a funny bone.
Yes AGW is a religion. Like all religions, you can not use logic, science, common sense or even hard cold bold facts to sway acolytes.
I am becoming more and more aghast how everybody seems to think they can reason with acolytes and expect some sort of enlighted kumbayah outcome. Acolytes can not be reasoned with, consider these points, have you ever reasoned with a communist and got them to understand not just what communism really is (as defined by Marx), but how it can ever work economically? The same can be said about fascists, just read the history of Europe in the last 100 years. Try arguing to a white-supremist rascist that non-white people are just as human as white people are, you think you are going to get anywhere? Try arguing to an Islamic fundamentalist that there is nothing wrong with people not believing in a religion that is not one of the those of The Book (i.e., The Bible) or Koran, you think you are going to get him to accept atheists?
What is the point of trying to argue with acolytes! Politicians will use any group of acolytes where they see benefit for their own greedy ambitions, or to cover their incompetent actions. Acolytes do not need science, truth or facts. They believe in things because that’s what they want in their worldview. This is where the problem lies, the worldview. The acolytes of Global Warming are from two fronts; those that would have no academic future and therefore no livelihood and so invent/cheat/lie/steal to fraudulently take tax payer money (i.e. grants) to satisfy their self serving ends, these are the mischieveous acolytes of greed, and then there are the acolytes of communism who do not want anybody else to have things they can not have and want everybody to give up their higher standards of livings and revert back to the Stone Age, these are the misanthropic acolytes for atavism. You can not argue to a happy ending with these people.
These greedy and atavistic people do not care about a world view that is prepared to accept the challenges and problems that nature and the future, will throw our way. They want everybody else to give them a lifestyle and world view where they are viewed as gods and we the rest of us must keep them, exalt them, and obey them. Take a good look at who these people are. Consider, infamous Mann and his hockey stick, his data and work have now been totally and inextricably discredited, Gore and his CO2 and Temperature forcing relation, have now been shown comprehensibly to be false, and we can go on and on. Yet politicians continue their evil, the same scientists who have elicit funding and grants promoting Global Warming still keep their jobs and positions, and what does everybody do here? Show another story or article on how foolish the next “so and so” is.
How many years must go on, no, how many decades must go on, before what must be done is done. As a scientist myself, I have been talking about this issue for years, and every body just turns their back on it, why? We have standards in engineering, where you can’t sell anything on the market that could endanger somebody’s life. I think it is about time to put some standards into Science, and that they are policed as effectively as those in engineering and the transgressors are punished. The problem is that we do have standards in the scientific community, but nobody does anything to enforce them. Being in science myself, I have read too many false statements and questionable data, and as the years pass by, its getting much worse. We need to subject science and scientific papers especially to a higher standards, furthermore, when transgressions occur, they should be dealt with harshly.
THERE IS TOO MUCH BAD STOCK IN SCIENTIFIC WRITING!
You can argue all you like with all these people who have some theory in something or another, in fact, as theories go, they come a dime a dozen now days. What are we going to do, fund every wacko and loonie theory out there? Governments are failing our scientific institutions, there is no question about that. But what makes it worse, is that the scientific community is failing itself, we need to police ourselves better. On the path we are on right now, we will soon have to come to the point were we are going to have to face the public, once they get tired with all the “false dawns or sunsets” that have been voiced and all the money that is wasted. Eventually, the questions will have to be asked.
Ladies and gentlemen of science, we have rotten apples in our community. These rotten apples do not care about science, they only care about their own careers or desire to bring the advancement of humanity to a halt. Science is about learning about Nature and the Universe, not about social engineering. We, as scientists, are bestowed with the opportunity to advance our understanding of the real world, invent the tools that the real world can use, and create the opportunities for human society to seek out its destiny and leave our ever humble beginnings to history. Social engineering is something that the public must decide via the ballot. I implore you all who have read this commentary, to stop this needless and futile arguing with a group of acolytes who should not even be in our community. It is time to change the discussion, from spending endless hours of showing how the acolytes lie and cheat, to getting rid of them. Many of these people have committed out right fiscal fraud, out right scientific fraud, out right publication fraud. If we allow these people to stay in science, we will have a greater threat to face in the future….The Public. How long do you think the public is going put up with this before they think, that we, even the honest and good scientists deserve the same outcome as the rotten acolytes? If we can’t police our own community…then it will be done for us…and that never ends well for anyone.
X1000
The way one does it is to drag the issue, kicking and screaming, to the realm of science. Then duke it out using data and mathematics. All one needs to do is remember that the known facts are your friends, and that is an inestimable advantage.
Science is the dog. Politics is just the brightly colored tail. Let the politicians pigpile. That’s what they do. This debate is going to be resolved in the field, the labs, and the journals, not the funny papers.
Wow. Thanks Dorian for clearly stating what needs to be said. I am in complete agreement with you. I agree that arguing with adults that have formed their views isn’t likely to be successful. My biggest concern is that our children whose minds are easily swayed, are being targeted in our public schools, TV, movies and churches. Yes I said churches. For the life of me I cannot understand how anyone can believe in iinvisible beings that control the world and do such a poor job of it. I could do much better if I had a tiny bit of power that the invisible beings that live in the sky are said to have.
I think of a comment I once ran across, can’t remember the source–“If it takes force to impose your ideas on your fellow man, there is something wrong with your ideas. If you are willing to use force to impose your ideas on your fellow man there is something wrong with you!”
+1000
Eric Johnson,
Is this what you’re looking for? :
1. Government is force
2. Good ideas do not have to be forced on others
3. Bad ideas should not be forced on others
4. Liberty is necessary for the difference between good ideas and bad ideas to be revealed
You could pay $100,000 for an Econ education and never learn the above.
u r welcome.☺
Please watch around the 2:50 mark.
http://youtu.be/2m1MbpdD2Z4
She (Lizz Winstead) took on the wrong “deal with with sacred cows” (sic) by including “zealots from climate deniers”, especially since (observationally) these shoes fit the AGW crowd like the skin of an eel. Obviously just another fanatic that changes the data to fit her distorted concept of the facts. Amazing how these people can even consider themselves logical or intelligent.
The inherent problem is zealots. It doesn’t matter what they are zealous about. There is no such thing as a good zealot, not even if they are zealots about a “rightful cause.” Zealotry does not know bounds.
Zealots a quite happy to kill you to save you
She could not help being stupid even when trying to express an intelligent thought.
“Climate denial” is a “sacred cow”? Ugh.
Freedom or Tyranny?
Where is freedom when minions imitate their masters saying “Off with their heads”!
The Charlie Hebdo Jihadists were explicitly following the pattern set by their prophet. See Muhammad’s Dead Poets Society
Having seen 100 years religious war, the Founders of the United States of America required that their Constitution MUST include a Bill of Rights beginning with:
The politically correct climate police are diametrically eliminating these freedoms, as well as destroying the foundations of science.
Uphold our unalienable rights to believe according to conscience, and to speak out and practice those beliefs, and speak for our children, the poor and those oppressed.
Isn’t it funny, that just a coupla dozen words following the above words of wisdom, suddenly the “right of the people” has degenerated to become the right of a “well regulated militia.” Doesn’t say just who is going to “well regulate” whom; but you can bet it isn’t “the people”.
And the two French Policemen, who went out to arrest the AK47 and RPG armed “misdemeaniks”, rode to their predictable outcome, on their bicycles, sans any sort of weaponry at all.
But I did say they were French Policemen.
george e. smith
An assertion without evidence carries no scientific value.
The militia I have read about have their own internal command and regulation. e.g., see Militia chain of command
“””””……
David L. Hagen
January 12, 2015 at 6:14 pm
george e. smith
An assertion without evidence carries no scientific value…..””””
I hope you didn’t think I was saying anything about science.
On that subject though, an assertion without contrarian evidence, might be a pretty good clue.
And as to your second point.
Article II of the Bill of Rights, says: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Doesn’t say anything about the right of a well regulated militia.
You need to ditch your dictionary, and get out your English grammar book, so you can see that that gobbledegook about a militia, in no way alters the meaning of the words above I put in quotes.
What if I substituted the following:
The sun rising in the east, being necessary for a warm day at the beach in a free State, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Means EXACTLY the same thing, just gives another of many possible reasons why “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
And if that does not ensure the right of the people to defend themselves; then Article IX of the BofR surely does. Yes the very same people who “peaceably assemble.”
Does this request for freedom to publish whatever theories you like also apply to WUWT (and others) – will we now see articles (or even just comments) from:
slayers,
iron sun believers,
warmists,
flat earthers,
Haarp radiation believers
Chemtrail believers.
Will all those warmists WUWT banned (perhaps just for commenting too frequently) be allowed to post again?
[No. .mod]
[Reply: Read the site Policy. There are a few rules here. If those rules are too onerous, there are millions of alternative blogs where you can post. Also, commenters are not arbitrarily banned; and there are relatively few on that list. Follow site Policy and you will not be banned for expresing a different point of view. For the handful that have been banned — we have to draw the line somewhere, or it will become a free for all.
~ mod.]
Reply – Think of it this way. A blog may be public, but it is, in a very real sense, a conversation, one with rules. One can be excluded from a conversation without violating anyone’s rights. One can be driven from a conversation if one is considered (rightly or wrongly) to have violated even unspoken rules. In this case, you have it easy; the rules are a matter of written record. ~ Evan
WUWT does not receive compulsory fees like the BBC, or taxes like NPR. This is a private blog.
Yet both of those examples are highly censored. On both of those sites, if the thrust of opinion on an article goes against the party line then the comments are summarily suspended without a word as to why. WUWT will simply pile on with facts until the opposing views are thoroughly explored and weighed on their scientific merits. Only when people violate policy do we see bans, and then only after several warnings for all but the worst offenders.
The Declaration was using the term “rights” in an extremely general sense. But when the Bill of Rights was written, explicitly not initially included in the Constitution, those rights had to be enumerated and defined. That is where the pedal hits the metal. (What you wind up with is either Liberty, or it is not.)
evanmjones
January 14, 2015 at 4:00 am
Some rights were enumerated. IX and X make that clear.
Such individuals are perfectly free to publish their own blogs, and more than a few do. Freedom of speech/right to publish doesn’t mean they get unfettered use of someone else’s soapbox.
I am aware of why there are limits to free speech. There is no unlimited free speech on WUWT (see the house rules). There are libel and slander laws in most western societies for good reason. If you want to talk about chemtrails and slay dragons you can – on your own blog.
Keeping out sceptics from much of the media — this is unreasonable. So far the sceptics appear to be right about ‘dangerous warming’ – there hasn’t been any in over 18 years and a raft of papers over the past year have dialled down climate sensitivity. The IPCC’s projections of surface temps fail time and again. Sea level is not accelerating. Global sea ice anomaly is just above ‘normal’.
Yes, and freedom of association does not mean I have to associate with you. (:
I find the difference between civil rights in the Amendments of the Constitution to be turned on their head by Human Rights. Human Rights are so often an excuse for compulsory participation: the right to a free public education becomes the forceful attendance of public schools, or for the use of nationalized curricula.
The “right” to renewable energy works in the same direction. “Neutrality “forces radio shows to say things they do not want to say.
And so on.
In short, in reality, and in history, human rights are covers for forced participation in very bad State policies.
Correction:
I find
the difference betweencivil rights in the Amendments of the Constitution are turned on their head by Human Rights. Human Rights are so often an excuse for compulsory participation: the right to a free public education becomes the forceful attendance of public schools, or for the compulsory use of nationalized curricula.The “right” to renewable energy works in the same direction. “Neutrality “ or the “right” to hear “both sides” of an argument forces radio shows to say things they do not want to say. thanks
Zeke,
Rights are specifically enumerated in the Constitution. And there aren’t very many of those. I don’t see “human rights” as a category listed anywhere in there.
dbstealey says, “Rights are specifically enumerated in the Constitution. And there aren’t very many of those. I don’t see “human rights” as a category listed anywhere in there.”
In the broader conversation about free speech, I thought it would be helpful to contrast the meaning of free speech/rights in the Constitution under the American model, and free speech/rights in European Union or under the UN, under the Human Rights model. After all, we do not all live under the same laws. Nor do we want to.
Well Zeke their aren’t any rights granted or guaranteed in “The Constitution.”
American’s “rights” are asserted as self evident in “The Declaration of Independence.”
In the Constitution the Government is TOLD that they may pass laws, limiting some of those rights “In order to form a more perfect Union.” Avoid anarchy if you will.
So the Constitution only curtails certain pre-existing “rights” by telling the government what they can and cannot do. It also tells them some things that they MUST do; such as protect ALL of the several States (57 by last count) against INVASION. See Article IV, section 4.
George E Smith, I did not say the individual rights are in the Constitution; I said the Amendments of the Constitution.
Our rights listed in the Amendments are not meant to be limited to the list. All rights not enumerated in the Amendments “are retained to the states and to the people.” See the IXth and Xth Amendments.
There were objections to the Amendments because it was argued that if they did not make an exhuastive list of rights, this could be misconstrued to be limiting rights to the ones included in the Amendments. James Madison won the argument, saying that “half a loaf is better than no loaf,” and he added the ninth and tenth to address the rights retained to the people and the states, even if not listed.
Moreover, most of the states reiterate all of the Amendments, with more specific language.
Okay george e smith, get your spectacles, because dbstealy said that, not me. And he wasn’t being literal. So you can have your Constitutional “gotcha” too. 🙂 😀
george e smith probably knows more about the Constitution than the average American. One thing that is routinely forgotten are States rights; we are the United STATES, not the Big Federal Gov’t.
The States may censor if they want. They can have an official State religion if they want. States can do lots of things that the federal government may not do, per the Constitution.
But since the 10th Amendment has beed ignored, they do what they want. The courts were supposed to keep them in line, but they didn’t. Look at the giant mess they’ve created.
American’s “rights” are asserted as self evident in “The Declaration of Independence.”
What the Declaration said was self evident was Liberty. The rights actually had to be carefully enumerated, defined, adopted, and (for better and worse), are continually subject to reinterpretation.
The constitution does not bestow rights on people; it tells the central government what it may not do! The constitution is a wonderful document when one understands the society for which it was written. In this society of the founders, all power lies within the individual. The individual is responsible for solving his own problems. For those things that are bigger than one man may solve, he is to offer himself to and accept aid from his family. Thus 90% of problems are solved within the individual and family structure. For those things that are larger than the family can overcome, one offers oneself up to the community and accepts aid of the community. This should solve half of the remaining problems. Again one offers oneself up to the county then the state to bring the total solved problems to 97%. Then the central government gets to solve that last 3% that deals with relations with other states and relations with foreign powers. Each one of these spheres of influence should have less impact on the person’s day to day life than the one closer to the individual, leaving almost no impact for the federal government at all.
With that understanding, many at the constitutional convention did not see the need for a “Bill of Rights”, because it was understood that the new federal government had almost no impact on a person’s day to day life. Once the Bill of Rights was written, the 9th and 10th amendments were worded to assure that the federal government would never take more power unto themselves. That lasted until the Wilson administration and the passage of the 16th and 17th amendments which shifted power away from the states and into an ever growing central government’s hands. The destruction was pretty much completed in the FDR administration with a series of court rulings that should have had the founders’ graves churned up for all the rolling over in the graves.
“”””””…..
evanmjones
January 12, 2015 at 6:02 pm
American’s “rights” are asserted as self evident in “The Declaration of Independence.”
What the Declaration said was self evident was Liberty. The rights actually had to be carefully enumerated, defined, adopted, ……”””””
“””””……
Zeke
January 12, 2015 at 5:20 pm
George E Smith, I did not say the individual rights are in the Constitution; I said the Amendments of the Constitution. ……”””””
Well Zeke, I never said you did say that.
And for Evanmjones; sheer balderdash ! The Declaration says “….among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (maybe it was property once)…”
I assume you do know what ” among ” means; or ” amongst ” as well.
e.g. evanmjones and george e. smith (dbstealey too are “AMONG” the 7 odd billion people on planet earth.
The Declaration does not limit our rights in any way; it asserts ALL of them belong to us.
The Constitution can only take them away.
For example the word “life” appears only three times in the Constitution. Well nowhere at all in the original Constitution itself, but three times in the Bill of Rights and the later amendments.
If my memory serves me, it appears once in the BofR article 5, and then twice in the 14th amendment. Well I’ll let you check that.
In the fifth amendment it says something like…”shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property,without due process of law….” or close to that.
Seems to me, that right there, the Federal Government is given the ability to make laws that could deprive one of life , liberty or property, with “due process”.
So rather than guaranteeing a “right to life”, the Constitution in the fifth amendment contains the machinery to take that away.
And the 14th amendment in similar words grants the same flexibility to the States.
So much for the “Constitutional right to life.” The Constitution ONLY mentions taking it away.
dbstealey
January 12, 2015 at 11:31 am
Could you list all the rights enumerated in the IXth and Xth Amendments?
Inre: deprived of life, liberty or property without due process
Due process includes:
1. there must be an indictment from a grand jury for a felony
2. the accused shall have the right to a speedy trial
3. the accused shall have the right to a public trial
4. you have a right to witnesses on your behalf
5. the accused has the right to appear and defend in person and with counsel
6. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense; nor be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
7. you also have a right to a local trial with a jury of peers
I took this from a state Constitution because we happened to be reading this right now.
The deprivation of life in some cases does mean we do have capital punishment.
All of these guarantees are obviously written by people well used to the abuses of royalty and despotic gov’ts.
This is why it is so astonishing that the DoJ under AG Holder attempted to gain a private court which would grant rulings against websites and shut them down for intellectual property violations, etc.. It is also problematic that the IRS has now powers over property etc. for taxes, and that this is used to enforce Obamacare and prosecute non-profits – ie political organizations.
M Simon,
Why bother? It’s all online.
George Smith says:
evanmjones and george e. smith (dbstealey too are “AMONG” the 7 odd billion people on planet earth
Good thing George didn’t say, “the 7 billion odd people…”☺
dbstealey
January 14, 2015 at 11:23 am
Obviously you know nothing of the Constitution. But I will help. Read the IXth and Xth Amendments. We have far more rights that those enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Unfortunately, the warming zealots are at that stage of childhood development termed ‘middle childhood’, that stage between about 8 and 12/13 when boys and girls do more things in single sex activities and less together before the big brain remodelling to come which transforms them from minors into sentient, independent thinkers.
That period is characterised by very tribal behaviour, affiliation to sports teams, gangs etc etc. Anyone who has been to English football grounds will know the form of behaviours displayed. Us vs them, true believers, huge sanctions for ‘traitors’ etc etc. It’s not pretty, but if you know it’s only about football and there is no threat to life and limb (mercifully that has been the case since our grounds were turned into places for human beings rather than carcasses for slaughter). Much of the behaviour is irrational, teams are serenaded with songs usually only strictly applicable to a subset of seasons (calling a side struggling in the bottom half of the league ‘by far the greatest team, the world has ever seen’ is a common event at football!) but there are certain tenets you ARE NOT ALLOWED TO QUESTION (like hating, yes really really hating the local rivals and their fans – I have always found hating to be an unhealthy occurrence, but well-remunerated UK journalists have written on more than one occasion that if you can’t hate Spurs you are not an Arsenal fan and you should get lost and support Man Utd or Liverpool instead) and if you do you may wish you hadn’t.
Of course, the atmosphere at football grounds is immeasurably ratcheted up with 50,000 people displaying such characterists. Indeed the only and only Roy Keane, iconic and iconoclastic captain of Man Utd for many years of their most successful campaigns, contemptuously referred to the well-heeled corporate visitors as ‘the prawn sandwich brigade’, suggesting that they were far too effete, polite and librarian like to be a true supporter of Man Utd.
Whether such atmospheres are so conducive to the more serious matters of climate science, I tend to doubt. But there we are. Defending the indefensible is often the lot of football fans if they wish to display overt loyalty to their struggling sides. Sadly, that is where climate science is currently and we can but hope that some brain remodelling amongst vast swathes of the relevant communities of ‘scientists’, ‘journalists’, ‘bloggers’, ‘pressure groups’ and ‘funders’ takes place over the next decade and a half.
At least football fans don’t claim to be science “professionals” like the climastrologists, indeed they act intellectually more like “pro”-wrestling fans.
sergeiMK says:
January 12, 2015 at 9:48 am
Does this request for freedom to publish whatever theories you like also apply to WUWT (and others) – will we now see articles (or even just comments) from:
slayers,
iron sun believers,
warmists,
flat earthers,
Haarp radiation believers
Chemtrail believers.
Will all those warmists WUWT banned (perhaps just for commenting too frequently) be allowed to post again?
[No. .mod]
—————————-
No freedom of speech here then!
[Wrong. The site Policy lays out the rules. If you cannot abide Anthony’s rules, there are literally millions of alternatives. Most folks have no complaints. ~mod.]
The Constitution of the United States of America provides protections for ownership of private property (i.e. 3rd Ammendment, supported by the 2nd Ammendment). WUWT is private property to which you are allowed to visit. If you do not abide by the publicly stated rules of the property owner, then you are trespassing (i.e. committing a crime). QED.
SergeiMK, this statement by Theo Barker is not accurate.
No one has ever been convicted of “trespassing private property” for attempting to comment on another person’s blog post. Blogs are set up so that comments are approved before being published. Not approving a comment is the decision of the individual blogger.
Zeke,
The point is that it is private property, and therefore subject to the property owner.
sergeiMK,
What you don’t understand is what “free speech” means. It means you are free to express an opinion. However, the constitution does not require anyone to listen your or anyone else’s opinion. The internet provides an infinite supply of soapboxes for those so inclined, but nowhere is it stated that one must share the soapbox. WUWT is Anthony’s soapbox. Anyone is free to start their own blog and utter absolutely anything (almost) if they are not satisfied with the available conditions.
sergeiMK (January 12, 2015 at 10:21 am): “No freedom of speech here then!”
What an ungrateful little troll!
Anthony Watts, a private citizen, pays for this blog out of his own pocket. He has no legal or moral obligation to do so, yet provides this forum anyway, for his own reasons, giving thousands of posters a soapbox they would otherwise not have. Since he pays the piper, so to speak, he calls the tune. SergeiMK has no more legal or moral right to demand that Anthony publish certain articles than I have to walk into a publisher like Random House and demand they publish my book for free.
No doubt SergeiMK, if/when he provides his own blog at his own expense, will publish everything submitted to it, including spam, profanity, pornographic stories, jihadist tracts, “proofs” of “intelligent design”, religious screeds, sleigh-er nonsense, etc. I wish him well, but I probably won’t visit. Just as I have (or should have) the right to free speech, I also have (or should have) the right to ignore crap.
This is Anthony’s “living room”. He’s never called for or promoted physical harm being done to those who disagree with him. He’s never called for the Government to bring the hammer down on those who honestly disagree with him.
Why don’t you name a few that were banned for simply “commenting too frequently”.
I’d like to add that Anthony is much more … accepting? … gracious? … open? … lenient? (I can’t find the right word but that word is NOT censoring.) about what he has allowed in his living room than what some other sites have been.
(He also appreciates humor.)
AGW has nothing to do with religion. AGW is a subcomponent of the Anthropocene Age scientific paradigm. In this paradigm, all human activities trigger “tipping points” on a “fragile earth.”
This environmental scientific paradigm shift took place in the 1960’s, which is when 10,000 chemicals began to be investigated for the sole purpose of convicting them of being guilty carcinogens or of harm to the atmosphere. In this scientific paradigm, if high doses could be found to be harmful, then environmental exposure must be reduced to zero. That is the science.
I remind you that even vitamin A and hormones produced by the body can kill you in high doses.
It is not surprising that the Anthropocene Age paradigm has now fingered carbon dioxide from power generation, methane from cattle, nitrous oxide from crops, and various refrigerants, etc. as harmful to the environment. Even plowing fields and driving on dusty roads has become a target of NASA spy satellites and scientific warnings about tipping points in the fragile global environment.
Please forgive me for a slight editorial tweek:
“In this scientific paradigm, if high doses could be found to be harmful, then environmental exposure must be reduced to zero. That is their “science“.
Exactly. AGW is part of a scientific paradigm. Several people on this thread do not like religion and do not like the AGW hypothesis. They see similarities in the thinking of the adherents of both and declare AGW a religion. Which is pretty pathetic because it obviously is not. Yes its disturbing scientific method can be perverted into a false epistemology – but don’t go blathering on about AGW quacking like a duck and being a religion.
[snip – ugly pointless comment with overtones of racism, keep it up and you’ll find yourself banned – Anthony]
What would prove AGW incorrect? If nothing then AGW is more religious than scientific.
How do CAGW supporters ‘know’ they are right? How do they know what they believe is true? Is there authority ‘revealing’ truth to them? Or do they look for the missing heat so they can measure it? Do they count tree rings? Do they measure SST?
They practice very bad science. No null hypothesis. Too many statistics. They don’t every seem to acknowledge the theory remains unproven. But they are not hearing voices or reading scripture. They have no prophets who speak for God. Ptolemy’s geocentric model was wrong and Ptolemy was into astrology, but the Ptolemaic system is scientific.
In my opinion Islam is a deeply flawed religion. But we all agree it is a religion. I hope nobody is confused and thinks Islam is science.
Just because some idea is widely believed and it is false doesn’t make it a religion. Scientists constantly balk at drawing broad conclusions when someone proves something is false. Because Global warming is about the future, it is bound to always be bad, flawed, science because science can’t say anything specific about the future. … and almost nothing about the past. Science is a very narrow way of knowing things.
The hubris of certainty is not an exclusive characteristic of the religious.
Zeke, I appreciate most of your comments. However, I must disagree with your assertion that it is “science”. As an engineer and skeptic of all religions, I assert it is a religion that calls itself science.
First a quick anecdote – Peter Hitchens, the brother of Christopher Hitchens, said that communism in Russia had become a “religion” under Stalin. How many of us agree that that is an act of sheer self-deception? Or was Stalinism a religion as well?
I have demonstrated the origins of the Anthropocene Age and it is clearly a scientific paradigm, and it has broad agreement across all of the journals, unions, academics, and societies. The practitioners and experts control the questions that are asked, the tools to be used, which data is significant, and how to interpret the data. That is why NASA sends up spacecraft now called ECOSTRESS and CATS and OCO-2 – because this scientific paradigm is asking what harmful effects any and all human activity have on the environment. The Anthropocene Age scientific paradigm and its subcomponent, AGW, are perfect illustrations of Kuhn’s paradigm shift.
Now back to the Hitchens’ anecdote. I do not think that it is very helpful to misattribute this Anthropocene Age science to religion. I suggest in fact this is a fair bit of self-deception. What would be more instructive is to be honest about the real history of science. In the 1900’s, governments and scientists destroyed agriculture in China during the Great Leap, in Russia under Lysenko, and Germany sought to use eugenics/population control using genetic science. All of these are pages in the history of both engineers and scientists.
Zeke, by your assertions that Anthropocene Age as science then you must also include Intelligent Design in the body of science, in my view. If you exclude one then you must exclude both.
Personally I see both as hypotheses lacking in compelling evidence.
Zeke, re: Eugenics/Lysenko/Great Leap participants: These are cases where most likely fear of an absolute ruler lead otherwise rational individuals to pursue courses of action that they would not in a free and open society. Their “science” was bent to the will of the rulers, and either through conscious or subconscious means chose to live with the cognitive dissonance of their actions.
Correction: Obviously it was Christopher Hitchens who said that. “My brother Christopher suggests that Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union was in fact a religious state. The specifically anti-religious character of the Soviet system under Stalin makes such a claim nonsensical.” ~Peter Hitchens
Zeke, If you buy Peter Hutchins assertions over Christopher Hutchins assertions, then Islam in a Caliphate is not a religion, since it seeks to destroy religions (that are not Islam).
IMO, Zeke, your definition of religion is a bit narrow. My definition includes any system of beliefs that contains assertions (as opposed to hypotheses) not supportable by current observational data / technology.
Communism & CACA are kindred belief systems, arguably religious in nature & both profoundly anti-scientific despite billing themselves as founded in science.
Correction: Hitchens not Hutchens
Science and religion are both epistemologies: Ways of knowing things. Religious knowledge comes from revelation. God speaks, prophets speak, scriptures speak, and they reveal things and you listen and gain religious knowledge (epistemologically speaking). In other words you know it is true because God told you it was true.
Scientific method also reveals truth. You conduct experiments, you measure things, you observe the results of your experiments and your measurements, and you know certain things are true. Most people don’t realize how narrow (epistemologically speaking) scientific knowledge is. In other words there are a lot of expansive conclusions drawn from the science method that the experiments and measurements don’t justify. An honest scientist says, “I don’t know” often. Especially dealing with something as complex as atmosphere and climate. You have many dishonest scientists.
So epistemologically speaking, CAGW is not a religion. It is very bad science. If you assert it is a religion you are asserting something that is not true.
And may I remind scientists that any time grand social engineering experiments and policies based on scientific theories are carried out, you are obligated to observe, acknowledge, and publish the results.
In the case of Lysenkoism, Great Leap destruction of agriculture, failed renewables, and eugenics/population control, these were all carried out in the 1900’s. Now decide if the intellectuals, activists, scientists and engineers got the results they wanted from these scientific paradigm shifts.
This transformism of scientific failures into “religion” looks like Alchemy to me.
If belief trumps evidence it is a religion. If belief fills in for no evidence it is a religion. I personally have faith in a “higher power” but I am wise enough to know that there is no evidence that I have found that would convince me on a rational basis that such a power exists. I have actually experienced “The Force”. But that is not evidence. If a billion people say the same – it is still not evidence.