Here's an excerpt:
"Global warming is a matter of science, not theology. How to address the issue involves prudence rather than faith. Responsible political engagement requires understanding the issue’s complexity, man’s inadequacy, and government’s incapacity. Evangelicals are right to worry about environmental issues, but not to make government action on global warming a new tenet of their faith."
UPDATE: Kat Coble has an interesting post on the subject of Environmentalism here. Incidentally, I don't agree that dissenters on the GWOT are the same as global warming dissenters (there is no objective truth involved with the GWOT in my opinion; thus, dissenting turns into demoralizing grumbling at some point.
Money quote:
So, like crazy Berkley love-in folk, we on the right are feeling the burden of dissent. We feel your mockery and your patronisation. We fully expect it, too. But we also see the power of dissent and the necessity of speaking truth to power. Although in this case "power" is not the Federal Government, but the claque of go-along-to-get-along climatologists who abjure the scientific method in favour of being well-liked by their peers.
7 comments:
"Doug Bandow, Bastiat Scholar in Free Enterprise at the Competitive Enterprise Institute"
Yes, that's what it says . . . so?
Kat Coble's money quote is from an article by Timothy Ball - an example of a scientist she lionizes for bucking the scientific community and demonizing it for it's chastizing of GW/CC skeptics.
Timothy Ball has not published any new research in the last 11 years. None of his four papers specifically addressed the effect of CO2 on climate. Ball is listed as a "consultant" of a Calgary-based global warming skeptic organization called the "Friends of Science" (FOS). In a January 28, 2007 article in the Toronto Star, the President of the FOS admitted that about one-third of the funding for the FOS is provided by the oil industry. In an August, '06 Globe and Mail feature, the FOS was exposed as being funded in part by the oil and gas sector and hiding the fact that they were. Not only has Ball claimed "I've never received a nickle from the oil and gas companies" but he has repeatedly inflated his credentials. In a September 26, 2006 letter to the Royal Society, Dr. Tim Ball, the leading signatory, identifies himself as "Professor of Climatology, University of Winnipeg." Not quite. From 1988 until his retirement in 1996, Dr. Ball was a Professor of Geography at that university. He has not, since, had any official position at U of W or at any university. So, he is not now a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg and never was. He was a junior Lecturer who rarely published, and then spent 8 years as a geography professor. His work does not show any evidence of research regarding climate and atmosphere.
Find another hero Kat/ Ned.
Hey, DISSENT IS NOT UNAMERICAN!!!!!!
Gee, I guess I'll have to go back to worshipping Dubya or some other authoritarian.
But, William, it is good to see that your google is working this a.m. And , judging from your criticisms, can we count on you and yours to help fund research that doesn't presume the Global Warming thesis as fact?
Scientific issues need not be politicized. Skepticism is an integral part of critical thinking and alternative opinions must be scrutinized the same as the mainstream scientific consensus. You can argue the politics but you can't argue the data. GW/CC skeptics have historically clearly had a political agenda.
Sure, I have an incentive to be skeptical . . . and isn't that what science is all about?
Yes, skepticism is a good thing. Teach it to your kids.
Seen today's example of political agenda in the MSM?
Post a Comment