False Religion
July 26th, 2007 by Wyatt
This isn’t new, but that doesn’t diminish the value of reading it. Orson Scott Card, a scribe of many talents, writes a regular column in which he took the Global Warming religion to task for following ideology over science. I highly recommend reading his March 4, 2007 column in its entirety, but here are some key quotes:
In other words, whoever wrote this New Yorker piece [ February 12 New Yorker "Talk of the Town"] did not check. He or she just spouted.
What is really being said here is, “We believe in the IPCC and anybody else who supports Global Warming. We believe it so much that we refuse to listen to anybody who says otherwise.”
The only difference between this and Jim and Tammy Baker on the old PTL Club is that nobody says “Jesus.” It’s all faith, no science.
They’re like four-year-olds putting their fingers in their ears and chanting “La la la la” until the person talking to them goes away.
The Hockey Stick Hoax should be a scandal as big as the discovery of the Piltdown Man Hoax. Bigger, really, since so much more is at stake.
But because the media are dominated by True Believers, they are doing everything they can to maintain the hoax, to keep the public from learning the truth.
This reinforces my comments in “Truth or Obsession?“. This has long since moved from being a group of scientists stoically warning the rest of us about a potential problem to being a bunch of pompous, self-important pseduo-scientists claiming the world will end if we don’t turn our lives upside-down. The evidence is rapidly falling apart for the theory of calamitous, anthropogenic climate change, but the rhetoric is getting louder and more extreme. This is the common behavior of a dying idea, not one gaining traction.
As I continue to say: When you all are ready for an honest, logical debate of the facts and the research, we’ll talk.
August 30th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
I recently read an article from Western Washington University talking about the data used in Al Gore’s film and how they, as climatologist, have come to different conclusions, more along the line in Card’s article. I however, am not a fan of polution. I still remember wheezing as a kid growing up in Los Angeles. So I do support lowering CO2 if it means reducing polution. I would love to see a cleaner energy solution.