|
October 13, 2009
Darwin never raised my taxes!
One of the reasons I am against Global Warming theory is because it's not just a theoretical argument or a scientific position. The theory that man-made CO2 causes warming is so inextricably intertwined with the notion that the power of government must be utilized against CO2 that it can literally said to be built in. From Global Warming flows the need for draconian controls over every aspect of the way we live. Because the political application of the theory is built into the theory itself, naturally I must oppose AGW theory, and I do so without regard to whether man-made CO2 is the culprit. I am a complete skeptic about government solutions to problems, because history shows that government solutions are almost invariably worse than whatever the problem was. Now, in view of that old saying that the first step in addressing a problem is acknowledging the problem, if addressing a problem means using the government to solve it, then it follows that the best way to stop the government from addressing something as a problem is not to acknowledge that it is a problem. So, even if I were to become convinced that there is global warming, it would not follow that this would be a problem -- much less a problem that demanded a government solution. The best defense being a good offense, I have no moral qualms about opposing Global Warming theory at every turn. If the bastards intend to use this theory to rip my lungs out, I'd be a fool not to oppose it. What I have called my approach is not Global Warming Denial so much as Global Warming Defiance: As I've explained before, I'm not so much into Global Warming denial as I am Global Warming Defiance. That's because the AGW political campaign is the largest attempted power grab I've seen in my life, and if there's one thing I do know, it's that bureaucratic attempts to solve problems are worse than the problems the bureaucrats attempt to solve. Basically, we the people emit carbon, and they the bureaucrats want to squeeze us and punish us any way they can, and tell us how to live. Nothing in the Constitution gives them such power, but they'll try to grab it anyway.Defying them at every turn may not be scientific in the strictest sense of the word, but the science has become so hopelessly political that defiance makes perfect logical sense as political science. One of the memes that I find most annoying is the attempt by various scolds to conflate Global Warming skepticism and evolution skepticism. The idea being to shame global warming skeptics into feeling like moronic young earthers, or even flat earthers. And of course, the argument is repeatedly made that Global Warming skepticism is closely linked to religious conservatism: Is it mere coincidence that just about all 'skeptics' of both evolution and human-induced global warming are politically and religiously conservative? I doubt it -- though I'm not sure what the common factor is. Perhaps once having been introduced to anti-scientific ideology and/or the idea of preferring ideology over science, it's easier to do the same to a new subject. Perhaps the very rejection of evolution inclines one to disbelieve global warming, though I'm not sure how that would work.I guess the author (Austin Cline) realizes that this "just about all skeptics are religious conservatives" argument is lost on certain people, like yours truly. Because he ends his scold by putting the question to them: ...there seems to be people who reject the anti-evolution "skepticism" of creationists while disputing the global warming consensus of science. Such people should be asked why the anti-warming arguments look and work so much like the anti-evolution arguments. They should have to explain what distinguishes their position from that of creationism and Intelligent Design, ideologies which they readily reject as absurd. This also shouldn't be too difficult, if in fact their skepticism is based upon genuine skeptical and scientific principles while that of creationists is merely a front to rationalize a religious ideology.Well, at least he's civil enough not to demand that global warming skeptics explain why they're not like Holocaust deniers. Anyway, as it's not every day that I read that I "should be asked about something," I figured might as well respond to the argumentative question -- "why the anti-warming arguments look and work so much like the anti-evolution arguments." My central argument is that there is no crisis. Certainly nothing which would justify the massive government intrusions which are being demanded by a political consensus which masquerades as "science." Furthermore, I am against government solutions to "crises" -- whether the crises are real or not. Whether people agree with me or not, how does my position in any way "look and work so much like" an argument against evolution? Has Darwinian theory (natural selection, and gradual species changes that accompany survival of the fittest over time) ever been posited as a "crisis" which requires a massive government response? While it is true that Nazis and Marxists have attempted to invoke Darwin as justification for their discredited theories, this was pure demagoguery, and there's nothing in evolutionary theory which posits the need for the state to force evolution upon people by doing something. The idea that evolution is an urgent problem that needs solving right now is absurd on its face. I suppose that because the power to tax is the power to destroy, one could argue that the strong will tax the weak to death, but that's hardly an argument in favor of high taxes. I see no resemblance at all between evolution and global warming, and I resent the attempted linkage. Sheesh. But why stop with Darwin? Why not also demand that I explain why my anti-warming arguments look and work so much like the birth certificate truther arguments? Or anti-single-bullet-theory, Kennedy assassination arguments? And how about cholesterol theory skepticism, or AIDS theory skepticism? While I happen to be skeptical about all of the above forms of skepticism, the point is that one is not related to the other. Global warming skepticism may be many things, but tying it to creationism is a rhetorical cheap shot and not a legitimate argument against it. No wonder that a growing number of people on the right have grown tired of trying to engage in legitimate arguments. Reasonable though I try to be, even I am often tempted to think that one rhetorical cheap shot deserves another. That's a temptation that I feel I must resist, even though I am human and I sometimes fail. Because if you think about it, when both sides consist of people flinging rhetorical cheap shots at each other, when the choice is between two rhetorical cheap shots, then the winner invariably becomes the "better" of the rhetorical cheap shots! Fine if your cheap shot is the winner, but what does the game become? May the best rhetorical cheap shot win? Survival of the fittest rhetorical cheap shot? That sounds more like devolution than evolution. posted by Eric on 10.13.09 at 12:30 PM
Comments
That sounds more like devolution than evolution. Funnily, the Darwin-denying pro-eugenics "argument" looked and worked just like that. Twisty maze! Evolution is just whatever works, working. "Legitimate argument" is not one of those things. So here we are. Oh well. guy on internet · October 13, 2009 02:46 PM The link is this: Global Warming is the Creationism of the Left. Carl Henderson · October 14, 2009 08:44 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
October 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
October 2009
September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Certain opinions are worse than torturing dogs to death
Capitalism And Free Press Some things are more entertaining than politics Commemorating the good old days? World's biggest search engine makes a common search term difficult August 23rd, 1989: V-C Day Darwin never raised my taxes! The difference between art and music Nobel Prize Slap At Obama *** Media Threat Level Raised ***
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I have noticed that during the past few weeks we have had less sunlight with each passing day, If projected in a computer model we will get no sunlight at all in about six months.
We must lobby government to do something about this and perhaps "environmental scientists" can come up with some human activity to blame.