December 04, 2004
PEPPERED MOTHS AND CARBON EMMISSIONS:
Meteorologist Likens Fear of Global Warming to 'Religious Belief' (Marc Morano, December 02, 2004, CNSNews.com)
An MIT meteorologist Wednesday dismissed alarmist fears about human induced global warming as nothing more than 'religious beliefs.'"Do you believe in global warming? That is a religious question. So is the second part: Are you a skeptic or a believer?" said Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen, in a speech to about 100 people at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
"Essentially if whatever you are told is alleged to be supported by 'all scientists,' you don't have to understand [the issue] anymore. You simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief," Lindzen said. His speech was titled, "Climate Alarmism: The Misuse of 'Science'" and was sponsored by the free market George C. Marshall Institute. Lindzen is a professor at MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences.
Once a person becomes a believer of global warming, "you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by all scientists -- except for a handful of corrupted heretics," Lindzen added.
It's remarkably similar to Darwinism, which makes it especially amusing that those who are the most passionate debunkers of global warming are so often the most credulous of Darwinists. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 4, 2004 09:43 AM
Well, duh. Of course all this nonsense is a religion. All these "progressives" are so progressive they yearn to progress backwards to stone-age Earth-mother worship. Engage one of thwese fools in conversation (if you dare), and see how long he or she can prattle before using the word "believe."
Posted by: Lou Gots at December 4, 2004 09:55 AMremembering the Crichton Speech
http://www.perc.org/publications/articles/Crichtonspeech.php
Posted by: tim belknap at December 4, 2004 11:28 AMTim:
Important to remember its implications:
http://brothersjuddblog.com/archives/009542.html
Posted by: oj at December 4, 2004 11:53 AMI read the Chrichton speech that Tim linked to, but I'm remembering something else that Chrichton wrote on the environment, probably in one of his books. I heard it being recited by Charlton Heston while I was listening to Rush Limbaugh about 10 years ago. Anyone else remember this? It said something to the effect that we could destroy our civilization through nuclear war, but Nature would still be there in the end.
My take on that comment at the time was, sure, Nature can outlive us, but that shouldn't be the point of environmental policy. It should be to avoid doing anything to the environment that could cause our own downfall.
The point to make about global warming is that we can't prove one way or the other whether CO2 emissions will melt the polar ice caps or destroy agriculture, but there isn't a lot we can do about it through legislation. We will have to burn fossil fuels until alternate energy technologies advance to the point of replacing them in an economically competitive way. The market will be the only solution to that problem, if it is a problem, that is. You can't control global behavior through international treaties.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at December 4, 2004 02:17 PMRobert: I think you're thinking of a passage in Jurassic Park in which the chaos expert (Jeff Goldblum, in the movie) responds to someone who says something about saving the Earth by noting, in effect, that, regardless of what car you drive or type of diaper you use, whatever happens, the Earth will still be here.
Posted by: David Cohen at December 4, 2004 02:42 PMBeam in an eye? That't not in my Bible.
Posted by: Joseph Hertzlinger at December 5, 2004 04:26 AM[W]hy beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Posted by: oj at December 5, 2004 08:44 AMIt's easier to focus on something at a distance. Besides, I'd like a trained ophthalmologist to work on it.