Environmentalists Go Psycho

[Paul's Here 0]

The scientific debate is finally over

-------

Was there any doubt about this when the Dems won the elections in 2006? We've avoided a theocracy but we have now a new form of government: a democratic oligarchy. This form won't last long (my prediction). A leader will come on the scene who will promise to solve all problems, if he's given the power. This will be difficult because the Constitution will get in the way. Congress and the Senate will pass, and the Supreme Court will rule constitutional, a new law declaring that the EPA has the right to regulate any chemical on earth, which, of course, includes DNA and those organisms which are derived from those chemicals. This new EPA Czar will lead the country to prosperity (lower ocean levels, cooler summers, high gas mileage, etc).

(PS, for those who get depressed with this scenario, it presupposes that Objectivism was not formulated yet. Since it has, all bets are off).

"Those who fight for the future, live in it today."

AR

[ewv 0]

...a new law declaring that the EPA has the right to regulate any chemical on earth, which, of course, includes DNA and those organisms which are derived from those chemicals.

Seriously, this is the form and purpose of government the viros want -- rule by bureaucracy in the name of science.

[Paul's Here 0]

...a new law declaring that the EPA has the right to regulate any chemical on earth, which, of course, includes DNA and those organisms which are derived from those chemicals.

Seriously, this is the form and purpose of government the viros want -- rule by bureaucracy in the name of science.

Exactly. And the stem cell research funding debate is, in my opinion, the trial balloon in this front. The issue is not whether religious ideology or governmental funding or business will direct research, the issue is who will control the research: the religious, neo-conservative fascists or the Marxist viros. Neither side wants freedom for scientific research. Once that battle is won, "ethical" controls will be established determining what private organizations can or cannot investigate.

[Carlos 0]

The scientific debate is finally over

Now this is truly terrible, because under this precedent the Government has the right to enforce what Scientific Truth is, which is positively awful... The Government does not need to hold a force-based monopoly on Science, that would be a return back to the days when the Pope would have you beheaded for saying the Earth isn't the center of the Universe.

Dr. Peikoff and others say we should be terrified of Christian Theocracy, yet it is the Democrats through Environmentalism who are truly subverting Science in America (not to mention threatening us the most), not the Fundamentalist Creation Scientists.

[Carlos 0]

Global Warming meaning the theory that man's activities are causing a catastrophic warming trend. However I would argue that the term itself is nonobjective. Yes, the Earth is warming now, but only in a local sense because we are recovering from the "Little Ice Age". There is no evidence that the planet has a "normal" temperature that we are exceeding, so there is no real reason to call this "global warming" vs. "business as usual". Nor is the warming always "global", and nor is it always warming within the larger trend. Between the 40s and 70s climate was cooling. We don't currently know until after the fact what change is long-term and what is short-term...

Yes, there is plenty of confusion over this, but either way, the confusion only serves to push the Environmentalists' agenda, and is probably why so many people fall into the trap of supporting it.

I think common sense will tell someone to disagree with Global Warming because they see it as bunk, but when they voice their dissent Enviro's are quick to dump a torrent of facts on their head scientifically proving that the Earth has in fact warmed. Then they finish it off with a flourish of "How dare you deny Science?!", and I'm sure that intimidates and cows most people into caving in.

I don't think many people are careful enough to really look at the situation in the greater context of the Earth's history so that they can differentiate between whether it is a Man-made disaster or just a periodic fluctuation in the Earth's climate.

[PhilO 0]

The scientific debate is finally over

Now this is truly terrible, because under this precedent the Government has the right to enforce what Scientific Truth is, which is positively awful...

I agree, though this is not an entirely new phenomenon: In 1897 the Indiana legislature attempted to "legally establish" the value of pi, to be used in state math textbooks. Ironically it would have been a ridiculously inaccurate value, leaving aside the fact that pi cannot be expressed in a finite number of decimal digits.

[PhilO 0]

I don't think many people are careful enough to really look at the situation in the greater context of the Earth's history so that they can differentiate between whether it is a Man-made disaster or just a periodic fluctuation in the Earth's climate.

Beyond that, as Harry Binswanger so rightly emphasizes, if "global warming" is real, it's something to love, not treat as a disaster.

[Carlos 0]

I don't think many people are careful enough to really look at the situation in the greater context of the Earth's history so that they can differentiate between whether it is a Man-made disaster or just a periodic fluctuation in the Earth's climate.

Beyond that, as Harry Binswanger so rightly emphasizes, if "global warming" is real, it's something to love, not treat as a disaster.

No kidding! Free Spirit and I watched a documentary the other night that covered a period of the Earth's existence where it was much warmer overall than it is today, and they glowingly described it as some kind of biological/evolutionary heaven where the majority of the Earth was green and new and outrageously large species (Dinosaurs) could exist. Then later, and in all the other videos, the Ice Ages are regarded as an ecological disaster...

Fortunately for them and Leftists, consistency in facts and reasoning doesn't seem to be important!

[Carlos 0]

As a sidenote observation, I think it is interesting to contrast the behaviour of Leftist Environmentalists, vs Creation Scientists:

Creation Science is certainly dishonest science, but judging by the Creationists I've known and read about, they at least present their science in an honest way. What I mean is that their research and line of thinking may be complete bunk, but at least they approach it and argue their position in a civil manner.

Contrast this with Leftists Environmentalists, whose manner of presentation and argument rests almost completely on bitterly hostile intimidation ("how dare you disagree with Dr.Elite of this Ivy League school?!"), collectivism (their rage about "consensus" in the scientific community), and snarling hatred (threats of physical violence).

I think there is an important conclusion to draw here in comparing these two groups that is of particular importance in wondering which political party we should be voting for.

[ewv 0]

...a new law declaring that the EPA has the right to regulate any chemical on earth, which, of course, includes DNA and those organisms which are derived from those chemicals.

Seriously, this is the form and purpose of government the viros want -- rule by bureaucracy in the name of science.

Exactly. And the stem cell research funding debate is, in my opinion, the trial balloon in this front. The issue is not whether religious ideology or governmental funding or business will direct research, the issue is who will control the research: the religious, neo-conservative fascists or the Marxist viros. Neither side wants freedom for scientific research. Once that battle is won, "ethical" controls will be established determining what private organizations can or cannot investigate.

Their quest for rule by bureaucracy goes well beyond controlling research. It is the means by which they want to enforce social controls throughout society; it is the new form of government replacing protection of individual rights through objective law by social control enforced by bureaucrats exercising disretionary authority in the name of "science". For example, all rights to land are to be replaced by agencies deciding what people can do on their own land, and not just deciding based on any regulation you can understand how to apply, but on a "case by case" basis for the sake of viro goals. This simultaneous perversion of both the purpose of government and the rule of objective law is already being implemented.

In the realm of scientific research, they are fighting over who will get to control it, but a basic change occurred in the Bush administration with stem cell research. Previously, the decision on funding was at least claimed to be on the basis of scientific value; Bush openly changed that to religious criteria. Ironically, the viros don't want genetic research either. They openly oppose cloning of cells and genetic engineering in agriculture. It is curious that they kept this quiet during the religious stem cell debates -- it was probably too juicy a campaign issue against Bush for them to pass up.

But it is a fundamental battle over who will control scientific research for what ideological ends as is illustrated, for example, by the latest Congressional push for "climate change research" starting with a decreed premise. The difference is that Bush openly adopted explicitly non-scientific reglious standards, while the viros are in addition hijacking science itself, imposing their ideology in the name of science. Bush's approach made explicit a corruption of justification for funding research that was already implicit and growing dishonestly in the name of science, which the viros do not want openly debated. In fact they are exploiting Bush's policies -- across the board, not just on stem cell research -- in PR campaigns claiming that all Bush administration policy on agency funding and actions related to science is "anti-science", especially the administration's anti-viro policies on the Endangered Species Act and Globulwarming.