Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 02/18/2010 2:16:54 PM PST by Patriot1259
This is a quick response to a forum posting discussing my article a couple of days ago discussing how the global warming hysteria was foisted on the world population. I argued that it wasn't difficult to understand: global warming proponents merely needed to use the techniques that had already been shown to be effective in the promotion of evolutionary theory. This is a response and some clarification.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecypresstimes.com ...
I have always said ..The same people that think all plants and animals evolved a in a changing environment...now think the environment is incapable of change.
Anthony Horvath, Athanatos Ministries
http://athanatosministries.org
Published 02/18/2010 - 6:28 a.m. CST
This is a quick response to a forum posting discussing my article a couple of days ago discussing how the global warming hysteria was foisted on the world population. I argued that it wasn't difficult to understand: global warming proponents merely needed to use the techniques that had already been shown to be effective in the promotion of evolutionary theory. This is a response and some clarification.
In the first place, I can see from a tactical point of view people wouldn't want to link the debate over 'climate change' with the debate over unguided macro-evolution. However, my bone is not with evolutionary theory, but with how it is promoted, as ought to have been clear by my statement in the original post:
"...my previous paragraph above should not be construed as saying that GW and evolutionary theory are incorrect. My objection could stand with both being entirely true."
As is often the case, readers often seize on key words and imagine caricatures in their heads. Very often they stop actually reading what is before their eyes and read from the script in their head. I'm pretty sure this is one of those cases, since this statement makes two things perfectly clear: 1., both GW and evolutionary theory may very well be completely true and 2., nonetheless, I object to how they are promoted.
None of the commentators bothered to comment on the actual examples that I gave. For example, I pointed out that GW had set itself up to be virtually unfalsifiable- whether it is hot, or cold, GW proponents insist both are evidence for GW. In evolutionary theory, we are led to believe that unguided macroevolution is plausible since there is so much time available for it- only to discover that most of it happened only in the last 500 million years, and that very suddenly- thus, whether we see evolution going fast or going slow, it is still evidence for evolution.
The basic point is that the American people have long been conditioned to accept such specious argumentation so it is really no surprise that they would accept it in regards to climate change.
I cite other examples on the empirical parallels but won't revisit those here. Instead, I'd like to draw attention to a very profound parallel that forces me to abandon 'tactical' considerations and state the important truth: namely, both evolutionary theory and global warming have historically dovetailed very nicely into the far left liberal paradigm.
As I pointed out in my original column, but no one bothered to address, the original 'science' text book at the center of the Scopes-Monkey trial openly connected evolutionary theory to eugenics. Within just a few decades, Hitler would be taking the eugenic program to its logical conclusion. But population control is also one of the central strategies proposed by Global Warming proponents. It should be a matter of grave concern that rabid pro-abortionists find themselves completely at home operating either on evolutionary theory or on climate change.
How can the founders of Planned Parenthood promote the eugenics philosophy that Hitler would eventually put into action and then decades later have the same kinds of folks so easily speak openly about instituting a global 'one child' policy like in China in order to 'save the planet'?
It is because in both cases, the liberals hid behind 'scientific consensus' and so bamboozled honest and fair citizens who have a deep respect for real science.
If there is any lesson to be learned from from the rapidly deteriorating case for global warming it is that whenever we ever hear in the future someone invoke 'scientific consensus,' watch out.
In the old days when someone wanted to prove their scientific point, they directed your attention to an actual experiment or two to support their contention. Today all they need to do is invoke 'scientific consensus' and then berate you if you are not satisfied with this.
Now, some of the commentators smugly presume that I must be ignorant about science, blah, blah, blah. This is really another example of the berating we have come to expect rather than the production of hard data that can be tested, re-tested, etc. Science is not supposed to be established by insult, and in real science it never is, because real science is observable, measurable, and repeatable.
Berating extends to professional sabotage: Global Warming proponents have been trying to derail the careers of scientists who disagree with them for years, but evolutionary proponents have been doing that for years, as Ben Stein's documentary Expelled helped show.
A free citizenry can only remain free when it constantly and openly questions the powers that be, wherever and whoever they are. When dissenters are punished by being ostracized and the chief argument for the orthodox position is that there is a 'scientific consensus' for it a free population must refuse to go along with it.
My point in invoking evolutionary theory was not to try to promote my Young Earth Creationism, which I thought it only fair and a matter of integrity to be up front about. The point was to show that the very same methods and techniques used to promote global warming have been and are still being used to promote evolutionary theory. This does not, as I said before, mean that either is false.
I will say that a third time: it does not mean that either is false. It does mean that we need to wake up and be much more skeptical than we have been. We must refuse to tolerate underhanded shots at dissenters and we must insist on only the very best empirically verifiable data being made available to the public at all times, especially amongst those bearing the responsibility that comes with the position of 'scientist.'
If this data cannot be produced without being accompanied by derision, then you should suspect that something might be fishy.
But the whole liberal platform is advanced by derision and the politics of personal destruction.
Thus, we should stand up to these kinds of tactics wherever we see them. Otherwise, after we're done cleaning up the mess left from the global warming hoax, we'll find ourselves neck deep in the next attempt to control and manipulate us under the cover of 'scientific consensus.'
A free society needs checks and balances or it will be co-opted and enslaved. The scientific community is composed of humans who like everyone else require checks and balances. Just like we hold our politicians accountable, so too should we hold the scientific community accountable. Both groups exert huge influence over public policy and they should be held to the highest possible standards.
If we don't do this, the 21st century will end up just as bloody as the 20th century was... and much of that bloodletting was perpetuated under the blessing of the 'scientific consensus.'
Anthony Horvath , Athanatos Ministries
http://athanatosministries.org
Published 02/17/2010 - 5:00 a.m. CST
Though it probably won't be told to the great huddled masses for another few years, those who get their news through alternative media know that Global Warming is now one short step away from being completely debunked. It would be good to think about how things got here to prevent such a colossal fraud from occurring again.
At Townhall.com today there is an article by John Hawkings linking Global Warming, and the doublespeak it morphed into, 'climate change,' to bad science, bad politics, and rampant liberalism. It is a good article, and I submit it for further reading. I cite it because it hints at some of the reasons why Global Warming took hold across the world. In my article, I will explore that more directly.
Hawkings raises the point that liberals cited 'scientific consensus' as their rallying cry. But why shouldn't they? Appealing to 'scientific consensus' is a tried and true technique for stifling dissent, and the technique has been proven over the years in the area of... evolutionary theory.
Some anti-Global Warming proponent wags have tried to label the GW movement as akin to Creationism. Nothing could be further from the truth. GW is based on the same kind of evidence and promoted via the same kind of tactics as evolutionary theory. The 'science' of GW is very much the same kind of 'science' we see in evolutionary theory.
Now, I need to clarify something here. It is true that I am personally a Young Earth Creationist, but my previous paragraph above should not be construed as saying that GW and evolutionary theory are incorrect. My objection could stand with both being entirely true. What needs to be noted here is that the definition of 'science' employed in both GW and evolutionary theory is different in many ways than what most of us learned 'science' was in high school.
If we were to classify the 'science' employed in these areas we should have to call it a forensic science, that is, looking at the data in hand and attempting to interpret it, knowing that the events that produced the data cannot themselves be recreated. We might call it a 'historical' science, but this would be resisted because in our day and age calling something a 'historical' fact is like saying it isn't true at all but when people say something is a scientific fact, it is unassailable... except by the scientists themselves who reserve to themselves the right to change their interpretation on the fly as it suits them.
Here is an example of what I mean. Most of us learned in our science classes that science was about observation, experimentation, and hypothesizing. Science was about making predictions that could test that hypothesis. Karl Popper enhanced this understanding by arguing that a true scientific claim must be falsifiable. At least, the more falsifiable something is, the more robust the claim is. Additionally, experimentation ought to be repeatable. If others can't duplicate your experiment, it isn't thought highly of (see 'cold fusion.')
Now, you can heat a pot of water to the boiling point over and over again, carefully observing the temperature each time it hits it, and when others repeat the experiment and get the same result, you can be pretty confident that you know the boiling point of water. How, though, do you 'boil' the earth?
We are told, breathlessly, that climate change is going to produce this and that result fifty years down the line and this is the result of such and such. However, to really test that proposition- if you believe that actual experimentation is one of the centerpieces to true science- you'd have to run the earth through a battery of tests, pushing different variables, and so on and so forth, and then of course you'd need a control earth. Obviously, none of this is possible.
I do not hold it against climatologists that they are limited by reality in what they can accomplish empirically through experimentation. I do think, however, that the rest of us should be permitted to note that the robustness of their claim is pretty weak and grant us the right to act accordingly. But that is not what we saw happen. Instead, 'scientific consensus' was thrown into our faces, as though a shared interpretation of the facts was the same as a scientific fact.
This is very much what happens and has happened over the last hundred years in evolutionary theory. Nobody can re-create the last 4.5 billion years of putative evolution to test experimentally whether or not it could have happened in the manner that scientists tell us. When this is pointed out, evolutionary proponents appeal to 'scientific consensus' and fudge what they mean by 'scientific method.'
To question evolutionary theory or global warming (up until recently) is anathema and is countered not by argumentation and experimental evidence (because the thing being defended cannot be experimented at the level necessary to demonstrate it) but by mockery and derision, and if you are a scientist, professional chastisement.
Many people know about the Climate-Gate emails. Not as many know about the Evolution-Gate emails where a scientist working at the Smithsonian was driven out for not sticking to the party line on evolutionary theory.
Another similarity is worth mentioning.
For the last five years I have watched as the mainstream media told me that whether it was hot or cold, that was proof of Global Warming. If there were hurricanes or not hurricanes, that was proof of Global Warming. Essentially, there was no way to falsify Global Warming because no matter what happened, interpreters could find a way to make it fit into the GW paradigm. This is not bad if you are already sure that your paradigm is right, but it is bad if the very thing in question is the paradigm itself, and all the more so if you insist that your paradigm is the Holy Word of Science.
Evolutionary theory is chock filled with these post hoc paradigmatic revisions. For example, whenever old human bones are found the news reports detail how human history might now have to be revised! Have you ever heard anyone suggest that perhaps they have disproved an evolutionary history of humans altogether? Does any scientist even have an idea in his head what these bones would have to look like in order to show such a thing in order to look for them? Doubtful. But in forensic sciences, additional data is interpreted according to the chosen paradigm. This is by necessity, because the data cannot be re-created in the lab in order to test the paradigm directly.
An example that might be a better parallel to how both hot and cold climate conditions apparently support Global warming is the famous disjunction between what we are taught about evolution in high school- that it is a slow, gradual thing that may seem improbable if one only had 10,000 years to imagining it happening within, but fortunately we have 4.5 billion years- and what the fossil record really shows, which are many sudden introductions and surprising speed of evolution. The actual data led Gould to put forward something called punctuated equilibrium, which is lingo for, "everything was equal for a long time than BAMMO suddenly there was a big change." In short, by appearances, many evolutionary changes happened very, very fast.
This has led evolutionary apologists like Richard Dawkins to insist that PE does not in any way violate the step-wise gradualism that makes evolution otherwise plausible, it just speaks to the speed in which those gradual changes can happen.
So you see, whether speciation happens fast or happens slow, it is still evidence for evolution.
Perhaps the most disturbing similarity is how certain agenda groups have historically made good use of both evolutionary theory and climate change.
It is not widely known today that the 'science' book at the heart of the Scopes Monkey trial openly advocated for eugenics based on the premise that evolutionary theory was true. Evolutionary theory has as one of its philosophical forbears Malthus, who insisted that there were scarce resources and populations competed for them, leaving only the victors- and hence a better biological organism. The evolutionists of the late 1800s and early 1900s believed that keeping people around who could not survive on their own was damaging the gene pool.. A certain Margaret Sanger- essentially the founder of Planned Parenthood- seized on this way of thinking. A certain Hitler seized on it, too. The resulting holocaust has made it socially uncouth to openly advocate for eugenics, and there is overt hostility expressed if anyone links eugenics to evolutionary theory, despite the fact that it is a historical fact that for decades the 'best and the brightest' scientists saw the two inextricably linked. You know, it was the 'scientific consensus' of the 1920s.
The most rabid proponents of Global Warming also tend to have population control as one of their chief aims. This is not my characterization. This is stated as much in their own writings. Under the guise of 'sustainability' and the imminent danger posed by 'global warming,' in a word, under the banner of a 'scientific fact,' these people have taken up the same agenda that was being pursued in the 1920s. It is probably just a happy stroke of luck that Global Warming was exposed as a fraud now, or else we might be talking about the agendas pursued in the 1930s and 1940s.
One of our root causes was a change in the usage of the term 'science' to mean essentially 'whatever scientists happen to be doing or happen to believe right now' over against the strict observational and experimental nature of the scientific method most of us have come to know and rely on. This definitional shift took place without anyone really noticing. You see, people really respect the results of a robust empirical inquiry. They were under the impression that what they were being handed as the 'scientific consensus' were those kinds of results, but the truth is otherwise. This leads to the next root cause, which is an unhealthy deference to those things called 'science.'
Scientists- especially of the secular humanist breed- want to reserve to themselves the right to decide what the best interpretation of the forensic evidence is. If you challenge them, they will almost always invoke the 'scientific consensus' and then point out that you are not a scientist and so not qualified to speak.
Let us concede it. Let us admit that we are not climatologist or evolutionary biologists. Let us admit that we cannot spend hours upon hours each week reading the most recent literature. Pragmatics dictate that none of us will ever be able to reach this level of qualification. Nonetheless, a truly free and democratic society to work history is clear that checks and balances are necessary and it is our duty as uninformed, ignorant yokels to serve as a 'check' on all that which is presented to us as undisputable scientific fact. In fact, henceforth, our first clue that something doesn't add up will have to be the mere fact that it is presented as unassailable by commoners and something that we simply have to take their word on as 'experts.'
There is more at stake than evolutionary theory and global warming. Every day, new public policy initiatives are foisted on us under the banner of 'science' and 'public health.' (*ahem*, Swine Flu anyone?) We may not be able to invest 40 hours a week in investigating the various claims made to us and on us but we should at least demand that any kind of claim with sweeping consequences that are set to be unleashed upon the globe be accompanied by rock solid, experimentally verifiable, empirically demonstrable scientific evidence. I may not be able to perform 400 experiments to verify indeed that water boils at a particular temperature, but if you plan on revamping the entire global economy on account of your putative claim, you better at least be prepared to boil the water in my presence and the full view of the entire global community.
And frankly, we are probably at a point where we as citizens are being too soft with the scientific community who violates the trust we put in them. The scientific community thinks that they ought to be self-policing. We see what is happening when politicians police themselves. The stakes are too high to leave accountability in the hands of those with vested interests in the status quo. Perhaps a some judicious use of tar and feathers would go a long way towards preventing this kind of fraud from happening again. When people are arguing that it may be time to make it illegal to have more than one or two children knowing full well how specious their scientific basis is, this isn't a simple innocent mistake. The consequences should take that into account. Otherwise, why should we be surprised if 30 years from now when the Global Cooling crowd gets going, who are we to blame except ourselves, for not putting our foot down early on claims with flimsy experimental support?
I have said a great deal here and could have said a lot more but as you can see it is already quite lengthy. I have made numerous claims which I'm sure you would like to see verified. Google can help, but I also speak to many of these issues and provide documentation at my blog, which I invite you to visit. The search feature will be your friend.
Anthony Horvath is a Christian apologist and the Executive Director of Athanatos Christian Ministry. He is the author of the Birth Pangs series, a pro-life speaker, and blogs on apologetics at sntjohnny.com
Some anti-Global Warming proponent wags have tried to label the GW movement as akin to Creationism. Nothing could be further from the truth. GW is based on the same kind of evidence and promoted via the same kind of tactics as evolutionary theory. The 'science' of GW is very much the same kind of 'science' we see in evolutionary theory.
And that's exactly true, as those who deal with the false science of Evolutionary theory know.
The techniques are the same between the two. You don't have to deal with them both at the same time, if you don't want to -- but -- it's a "liberal mindset" that deals with both of those "false science" issues the same way...
One can expose the "liberal mindset" either with AGW or with the false theory of Evolution. Either one will work...
It’s one thing to gripe and complain about these things and disagree with it, but it’s quite another to convince your friends and neighbors and relatives and coworkers...
THEREFORE..., it’s also absolutely necessary for people to know the information in the following documentary. If there were simply one video that you could see and/or show people you know... this would be the one...
The following is an excellent video documentary on the so-called “Global Warming” I would recommend it to all FReepers. It’s a very well-made documentary.
“The Great Global Warming Swindle”
If you want to download it, via a BitTorrent site (using a BitTorrent client), you can get it at the following link. Information about BitTorrent protocol and BitTorrent clients and their comparison at these three links (in this sentence). Some additional BitTorrent information here and here.
Download it here...
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3635222/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
[This is a high-quality copy, of about a gigabyte in size. This link is the information about it, and you have to click the download link to get it on your BitTorrent client software. You'll also find users' comments here, too.]
It’s worth seeing and having for relatives, friends, neighbors and coworkers to see.
Also, see it online here...
http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/great_global_warming_swindle.php
[this one is considerably lower quality, is a flash video and viewable online, of course..., and also, you can download flash video on a website either yourself or some software doing it.]
Buy it on DVD here...
[this would be the very highest quality version, on a DVD disk, of several gigabytes in size...] At Amazon, it seems to be high-priced now and have only a few copies right now.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000WLUXZE
At WAGtv (a UK shop), but don't know about shipping. The price is reasonable, though.
https://www.wagtv.com/product/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle-322.html
[And..., some information from WAGtv about this item.]
Also, in split parts on YouTube...
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 1 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 2 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5rGpDMN8lw
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 3 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzFL6Ixe_bo
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 4 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNQy2rT_dvU
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 5 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dzIMXGI6k8
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 6 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GjOgQN1Jco
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 7 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHI2GfbfrYw
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 8 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N9benJh3Lw
The Great Global Warming Swindle - Credits (Part 9 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_1ifP-ri58
Nor will we sully your reputaion by mistakenly attributing to you any doubts about the possibility of the foundation of the two being less than rock solid fact and reality.
No, the problem is one of liberal excesses than excessive liberalism. Of course.
“I will say that a third time, it does not mean either is false”
What does it mean then?
Lots of similarities between the attitudes of
Global Warmers and Evolutionary Warmers.
Settled Science comes to mind...
Settled Science comes to mind...
Choosing any evolutionist and any creationist at random, I'll wager you'll more likely get the evolutionist to admit that he might be wrong every time.
“Choosing any evolutionist and any creationist at random, I’ll wager you’ll more likely get the evolutionist to admit that he might be wrong every time.
Those evolutionary warmers are quite humble...
Their detractors are quite creative....
I have been referring to Evolution as “DarwinGate” - I agree with the writer!
“Those evolutionary warmers are quite humble...
“Their detractors are quite creative....
:-)
I’ve seen more ugly tactics employed in oppostion to evolutionary theory than I have in support of it.
“I’ve seen more ugly tactics employed in oppostion to evolutionary theory than I have in support of it.
I do my best not to let the ugliness of the messenger
obscure my thoughts about the strength of the arguments.
It ain’t always easy!
I totally believe in evolution.
Nothing created everything!!
The author of the article says he doesn't have a probelem with the theory of evolution, but he disagrees with the way it's being spread. If that's true, then the whole point of the article is to take issue with the messanger.
tl,
“The author of the article says he doesn’t have a probelem with the theory of evolution, but he disagrees with the way it’s being spread. If that’s true, then the whole point of the article is to take issue with the messanger.”
Yea, but that wasn’t my point. I try to focus on the
strengths & weaknesses of an argument in deciding my
personal convictions - not the messenger’s appeal.
Others may approach it from the other side, as if it
is a beauty contest. I don’t think ideas are a beauty
contest - though culturally, there are reasons why
specific ideas catch hold.
In the example of TOE, there was a cultural underpinning
to why it became widely accepted when it was introduced.
As a thinker, it is our job (at least I see it as my
own job - not trying to foist extra work on you) to
understand those cultural reasons and then move beyond
them.
Today, the author disagrees with the way the TOE is
being spread/claimed. I don’t care about that, except
that it tells me that claims of the objectivity of
scientists working and believing in the TOE are not
much different than those that work on man caused global
warming - humans all and all subject to the same emotions.
let each be convinced in their own mind. I have a methodology
I try to follow in examining their claims.
best,
ampu
That the authors claims of equivalence between the way ToE is presented and the way AWG is presented are apparently accepted as factual, and conclusions about the scientists involved drawn from them is also an indication of objectivity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.