Global Warming on Free Republic
Posted on 03/23/2014 7:37:53 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Preface: The scientific method requires allowing a free-for-all of hypotheses, which then rise or fall based upon the results of actual experiments. In other words, science means that you throw out theories - no matter how good they look on paper - that are disproven by experimental results, and adopt those confirmed by the results. [Economics is supposed to do that, too ... but hasn't.]
For example, putting Galileo to death because he didn’t agree with the “accepted” consensus that the Sun revolved around the Earth was not a great example of the scientific method. Instead of conducting experiments to see whether the Earth or Sun were the center of the Solar System, those with the prevailing view simply silenced the dissenter.
Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that many theories that were universally accepted and “known” to be true turned out to be false. See these examples from the Houston Chronicle and the Guardian.
Noam Chomsky said years ago that he would submit to fascism if it would help combat global warming:
Suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way understimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something. Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we’d probably have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I’d even agree to it, because there’s just no other alternatives right now.”
In 2006, Grist called for Nuremberg-style trials for climate skeptics. (The article was later retracted.)
Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at global warming skeptics in 2007, declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.”
In 2007, a UN official – Yvo de Boer – warned that ignoring warming would be ‘criminally irresponsible’ Excerpt: The U.N.’s top climate official warned policymakers and scientists trying to hammer out a landmark report on climate change that ignoring the urgency of global warming would be “criminally irresponsible.”
The same year, another UN official – UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland – said “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific consensus on climate.
In 2008, prominent Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be “thrown into jail.”
The same year, British journalism professor Alex Lockwood said that writers questioning global warming should be banned.
In 2009, a writer at Talking Points Memo advocated that global warming “deniers” be executed or jailed. (He later retracted the threat.)
James Lovelock – environmentalist and creator of the “Gaia hypothesis” – told the Guardian in 2010:
We need a more authoritative world. We’ve become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say. It’s all very well, but there are certain circumstances – a war is a typical example – where you can’t do that. You’ve got to have a few people with authority who you trust who are running it. And they should be very accountable too, of course.
But it can’t happen in a modern democracy. This is one of the problems. What’s the alternative to democracy? There isn’t one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.
Earlier this month, an assistant philosophy professor at Rochester Institute of Technology said he wants to send people who disagree with him about global warming to jail.
And there are many other examples of threats made in regard to the climate debate.
Postscript: If we can’t have free speech and an open scientific debate, then we are no longer living in a democracy or a society which follows the scientific method. Threatening scientific debate is anti-science and anti-liberty.
It is especially troubling given the background of climate discussions. Specifically, in the 1970s, many American scientists were terrified of an imminent ice age. Obama’s top science advisor – John Holdren – was one of them. Holdren and some other scientists proposed pouring soot over the arctic to melt the ice cap and so prevent the dreaded ice age. Holdren warned of dire consequences – including starvation and the largest tidal wave in history – if mankind did not rally on an emergency basis to stop the coming ice age.
Were those who questioned the likelihood of an imminent ice age also threatened with death or imprisonment?
Moreover, it is also concerning that many of the “solutions” proposed to combat a changing climate could do more harm than good (and see this). That’s sort of like invading Iraq after 9/11 because we had to “do” something…
Let’s say that – hypothetically – 100% of all climate scientists reached a consensus that manmade global warming from carbon dioxide was an imminent threat. Shouldn’t we choose approaches that actually work – and which do more good than harm (more) – instead of messing things up even further?
They DID ask Galileo to do an experiment: Show us the parallax! He couldn't. The instruments weren't precise enough. He WAS allowed to publish his theory as speculation. He was not allowed to publish it as proven because it wasn't.
But he insisted on doing so. So he was put in house arrest.
The author makes a good point. But the unnecessary and incorrect reference to Galileo makes him look silly, even thou he edited the error about Galileo's being executed.
Oh for goodness sake.
You ARE joking, right? The educated Catholics knew the earth was round. They also had a pretty decent idea of its size. And so they knew that the westward route to “the Indies” would be very long indeed.
Global Warming on Free Republic
If global warming was a scientific hypothesis with good supporting data, an actual scientist would say, “Come on, have at me, prove me correct or incorrect.” Polemics can allow no contradictions.
Boy, those ZeroHedgers sure know their history.
I think anyone who would imprison someone for expressing an opinion,,,should be shot like any despot. Just like you would for NKVD, Pol Pots Kymer Rouge, Gestapo, etc.
Free speech is my north star.
“And damn well don’t start talking about executing me for it!”
In the parts I came from, openly discussing killing or kidnapping someone was a good way to get your own lamp blown out if they heard about it. People are funny that way,,,
“Galileo was sentenced to house arrest because he lied to the bishops when he said he would delay publishing his paper on how the earth’s rotation caused tides, but then published it anyway.”
Gosh, everyone knows if you lie to a Bishop,, you need to be forcibly held there, against your will. That’s exactly something Jesus said it should be that way,,, right?
Nice!
That's just the way I see it. However, the enviro-whacko commies have already gone far beyond threats. Many of them are entrenched in government agencies that are stealing land, shutting down businesses, destroying jobs, fining people for bogus reasons, and otherwise causing real harm to productive citizens.
Fair is fair after all!
> Oh for goodness sake.
You ARE joking, right? The educated Catholics knew the earth was round. They also had a pretty decent idea of its size. And so they knew that the westward route to “the Indies” would be very long indeed.
you forget not everyone had Internet access back in the day where they knew all these things nor did they have the telphones here they ould instantly communicate knowledge like this to one another... The ancient Greeks knew it long before the Catholics did...: )
“Will the, mars rover see the moon flag?”
“Suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way understimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something. Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we’d probably have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I’d even agree to it, because there’s just no other alternatives right now.”
Not me, in 10 years i’ll be 87 years old and don’t give a damn!
Greenfield: The End of Science
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3136487/posts
Great commentary on the general subject being discussed here. Very worthwhile.
Which worked, sort of.
Spain didn't have a devastating religious war, like Germany, France and England, among others.
Yup. All educated people had known the earth was spherical for at least 2000 years.
Columbus underestimated the size of the earth, and overestimated the width of Asia.
The pundits at court were much closer to the actual distances involved and pointed out that Chris would run out of supplies long before he reached Japan.
They were quite right. If America hadn’t been in the way, CC and all his sailors would have died and the Crown’s investment would have been lost.
Due to some erroneous assumptions he was off by about 15%. Not too shabby for the time.
Fascinating story. Given the paucity of their equipment, the Greeks did some amazing scientific-like work.
OTOH, huge amounts of their speculations were wildly off, but we remember the ones that were reasonably close to the truth. Like Eratosthenes and Democritus.
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.