Skip to comments.Why Did Global Warming Become a Moral Matter?
Posted on 03/23/2007 11:40:19 AM PDT by ventanax5
As a scientist, I find the current strategy of the global warming crusade to be fascinating. Particularly because I am a scientist, I also find it insulting. Everyone should find it very disturbing.
I am referring to the fact that the global warming issue is now regarded as a "moral" matter by its advocates. None other than The High Priest of Global Warming (Al Gore) has decreed it as such. Of course, there is some obvious humor in this because the liberals will also tell you that you "cannot legislate morality". Well, it does not take complicated logic to conclude that if global warming is indeed a moral matter and if it is true that you cannot legislate morality, then it should hold that you cannot legislate global warming.
But making funny distracts us from a deeper concern that should worry anyone who wants to see the truth remain relevant in the matters that face our society. To see this deeper danger, let us forget about global warming for just a moment and consider morality in very general terms.
There are numerous ways to define morality, but one that is particularly helpful here is to regard morality as the "lens" through which one views the facts. Morality should not be used to simply deny the facts; and people who really understand morality do not use it that way. Rather, they use morality to put the facts in a proper context. Morality tells them "what to make of the facts".
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
brilliant post. I love the quasi-religion reference.
It's not a quasi-religion, it's a full-blown one. It's as scientific as Scientology is, but no more. When you forbid anyone to question the tenets of your faith, you're no longer dealing in science, you're dealing in religion.
Making a "moral" argument out of Global Warming takes away all science and leaves just emotions. Truth doesn't matter, only feelings matter.......thus my tagline du jour....
He doesn't understand that it is a "moral" matter within the religion of Global Warming. Every religion has its own morality code, and this is in the code of the Global-Warming religion -- the Chruch of What's Happening Now.
One aspect of this that the author doesn't touch on is the "Bush factor." I am absolutely convinced that Bush's skepticism about global warming is one of the factors that motivated global warming proponents to ratchet up the rhetoric and demonize anyone who expressed any reservations about the reality, causes, or effects of global warming.
ALL liberal issues are moral - that's why they don't need the tenets of traditional religion, they have their own.
In this case 'why' is a valid question. 'Why' implies purpose, choice, and falls into the field of Ethics. That global warming has some of the trappings of religious matters does not make it religious nor its followers, but appearing in moral choice is possible outside religion. Global warming would not present a moral choice however, since that is an individual perquisite, but a state choice, which is possibly ethical. However, 'why' is not a scientific question and that a scientist asks it does not make it scientific.
because it is now a religion and Al Gore the High Priest.
Thorstenson apparently doesn't even recognize the fact that he's actually making a moral argument of his own -- which rather unfortunately concedes the point against which he's trying to argue.
Moreover, the controversy in question has to do with the assumption that human actions -- essentially voluntary ones -- play a role in global warming. And, on the other side, there's the questions of suppressing dissent, false reporting on both sides, and so on.
Of course there's a moral component to the debate.
The fellow makes many good points, but this isn't one. The charge is not unfair at all. One need merely read a FR crevo thread to see it. And I will say further, that even on AGW there are many conservatives who cannot view it as a scientific matter but only as a necessarily political one. But political vs. moral matters not, there's no essential difference in the behavior.
So that the masses would give up their freedom and their money willingly?
I agree. If Bush is for it, then you have to be against it. There is never a middle ground where you can meet. You have to fully demonize Bush and everything he believes in, period.
It's never been a moral mater. It's always been a means to advance socialism.
As a geologist I would like everyone to google "oolite".
See what happens to exess CO2 in the atmosphere.
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.