Religious Tweet of the Day
George Savage ·
February 23, 2012 at 10:57pm
Courtesy of Keith Olbermann.
Olbermann has discerned signs from the current unusually mild season that escaped him during last year's abnormally cold winter. Pleasant weather today portends imminent manmade catastrophe. If you don't believe in climate change "you've decided to kill your own great grandchildren."
Meanwhile, against the possibility of anthropogenic global warming, our fiery Obama partisan, late of MSNBC and now seen by a hardy few on Current TV, is untroubled by the certainty of stratospheric sovereign debt service bills balanced atop the shoulders of our great grandchildren.
Such faith!
- Comment (28)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Re: Religious Tweet of the Day
Percival: The really offensive thing is that they are trying to dress up this blind faith they've developedas science, but they won't play by the rules that the scientific method imposes.
Yes, it's a little offensive to call it a religion. It's not an insult to the mess the AGW cultists believe in, but to people who are truly religious, and speaking as one of the latter, I've had worse. · 38 minutes ago
I think the religious characterization of AGW hits the mark. Science is based on testing hypotheses. If a hypothesis is non-disprovable then, whatever else it is, it is not science. Religions differ in the ease with which rational apologetics can be constructed, but core tenets are typically not disprovable by the scientific method.
I don't mean to insult religion or religious thought. As a belief system, AGW is pretty diffuse and inchoate; low on the internal consistency meter from my perspective. But certain core tenets--e.g., Nature is divine; Fallen Man's depravity despoils Nature; Man must repent now or face divine retribution--come through pretty consistently. These tenets are untestable by science and therefore matters of faith.
Mar '11
Re: Religious Tweet of the Day
George, it's ok. Some people might not have my rhino (not RINO) hide. I made the same comparison to a friend of mine and got an earful, though.
I should have been more clear: I don't have any problem separating my religion from science, or vice versa. Some tools one just doesn't need for some jobs, and some are indispensable.
Unfalsifiable theories, as Joseph pointed out, are a big no-no in science.
Jun '10
Re: Religious Tweet of the Day
George Savage
But certain core tenets--e.g., Nature is divine; Fallen Man's depravity despoils Nature; Man must repent now or face divine retribution--come through pretty consistently.
And carbon offsets are the new indulgences.
Re: Religious Tweet of the Day
Percival, I am also one of the "truly religious." God is beyond scientific test.
My chief beef with AGW enthusiasts is the persistent attempt to camouflage a supernatural belief system as science.
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 2:43amAug '10
Re: Religious Tweet of the Day
"And carbon offsets are the new indulgences"...
.and WWJD ???
hopefully rend the altarcloth
split the columns
Whither the leadership ?
) Olbermann or Richards ?(
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 3:12amJul '10
Re: Religious Tweet of the Day
George, the Mark Levin Show aside for a moment, this is the most attention the Olbermann has received in months.
May '10
Re: Religious Tweet of the Day
I do like his RT, where the author 'DavidNSch' claims that there is an "ice free Arctic". This may be the propaganda that passes for public school education, but is easily disproved by this new thing called the "internet".
Daily Arctic Sea Ice.
Hmmm...there seems to be an awful lot of it to me. And compared to a day in 1996 (Release date for 'An Inconvenient Truth') there is pretty much still....a lot. OK, perhaps it is unfair to compare a day in February to a day in May, but that is more fair than to state that Polar Bears are drowning or that there is an 'ice free Arctic'.
Trust the science...unless it gores (sorry...) your Golden Calf....
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 5:07amSep '10
Re: Religious Tweet of the Day
Joseph Stanko has nailed it above. I would add that local weather, even continental weather is not sufficient to coax out the tiny levels of warming the IPCC is talking about. I would point your attention to the attached graph and further point out the the global average temperature for Jan is below normal for the last 30 year average. And as you have no doubt heard, there has been no statistically significant warming trend since 1998. None of this means that much, because the AGW crowd will tell you they anticipate fluctuations like this, but at some point in the next decade if warming does not speed up substantially even they will drop it.
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 4:20pm