Well said.
I suspect you're on to something about scientists (or any group for that matter) who want to be good people, and so come at things with a particular bias of wanting to make a positive difference.
This idea might even be expanded somewhat to include the arrogance of some humans to assume they can in fact make a difference. In other words, some people want to justify themselves or their careers by claiming that global warming is caused by humans and is therefore a problem which can be solved by humans. But this is really an arrogant viewpoint which gives way too much significance to human existence.
...whereas greenhouse forcing is a rock solid experimentally proven phenomenon which does explain most current observations.
And I assume you've been able to experimentally reproduce the affects of greenhouse gases on climate change? When and on what planet did these experiments occur? Admit it, you cannot perform these kinds of experiments and have to rely on hypothesis, intuition and faith in potentially flawed computer model projections.
The majority of posters here have missed the point made by President Klaus of the Czech Republic. Even the title of the initial post is misleading, basically pitting the term "Scientific Consensus" against democracy. But this was only one point brought up by Klaus and was really just rephrasing the old line "the squeaky wheel gets the grease".
What is startling is how defensive anthropogenic global warming believers (many of whom apparently frequent slashdot) get when anything is said or written which might provide logical evidence contrary to their belief system. It truly does have the look and feel of religion when you begin to rely more on faith than facts, and actually attempt to stifle free speech and debate on the subject. How many times have you heard something like "the debate is over, let's do something about it"? Who has the right to say that the debate is over? Does the UN IPCC have this right? And if so, who gave the UN the right?
This talk and behavior leads to a totalitarian mindset which does threaten freedom and democracy. And that was the main point of Klaus' article.
Sorry, dave (and many others here). ID is not simply about irreducibly complex biological features (such as molecular motors). And ID does not claim to disprove evolution -- this is a common misunderstanding.
In many ways, Intelligent Design is a complimentary science to Darwin's evolution. However, there are certain aspects of biology that pure evolution theory does not attempt to explain, such as molecular design or prebiotic life (i.e. chemical abiogenensis).
If anyone here truly has an open mind, I recommend reading the paper "DNA and Other Designs" by Stephen C. Meyer. This essay exposes a number of problems with abiogenesis research. More importantly, however, it details several aspects of biology that at least appear to exhibit design and how logical inferrence can lead to ID.
IMHO, it is incredibly close minded to simply dismiss ID as some attempt by the reglious-right to open the door to the teaching of creationism in public schools. ID is a very serious scientific effort to promote thought and perhaps help explain some of the defenciences that currently exist in the theories of abiogenesis and evolution.
I'm sick and tired of politicians, and the special interest groups that control them, playing politics with our constitutional rights.
Free speech should mean free speech for all without discrimination. Gender, race, ethnicity and economic disposition should not play a factor. The argument that "the big guy" can drown out the voice of "the little guy" is faulty. There are a lot more "little guys" out there which provides power in numbers. In a democracy, its the majority that wins.
The only time free speech should be limited is when it is outright lies. Since we already have laws regarding slander and libel, campaign finance law that limits free speech is superfluous. It is simply bad for democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
Well said.
I suspect you're on to something about scientists (or any group for that matter) who want to be good people, and so come at things with a particular bias of wanting to make a positive difference.
This idea might even be expanded somewhat to include the arrogance of some humans to assume they can in fact make a difference. In other words, some people want to justify themselves or their careers by claiming that global warming is caused by humans and is therefore a problem which can be solved by humans. But this is really an arrogant viewpoint which gives way too much significance to human existence.
...whereas greenhouse forcing is a rock solid experimentally proven phenomenon which does explain most current observations.
And I assume you've been able to experimentally reproduce the affects of greenhouse gases on climate change? When and on what planet did these experiments occur? Admit it, you cannot perform these kinds of experiments and have to rely on hypothesis, intuition and faith in potentially flawed computer model projections.
The majority of posters here have missed the point made by President Klaus of the Czech Republic. Even the title of the initial post is misleading, basically pitting the term "Scientific Consensus" against democracy. But this was only one point brought up by Klaus and was really just rephrasing the old line "the squeaky wheel gets the grease".
What is startling is how defensive anthropogenic global warming believers (many of whom apparently frequent slashdot) get when anything is said or written which might provide logical evidence contrary to their belief system. It truly does have the look and feel of religion when you begin to rely more on faith than facts, and actually attempt to stifle free speech and debate on the subject. How many times have you heard something like "the debate is over, let's do something about it"? Who has the right to say that the debate is over? Does the UN IPCC have this right? And if so, who gave the UN the right?
This talk and behavior leads to a totalitarian mindset which does threaten freedom and democracy. And that was the main point of Klaus' article.
Sorry, dave (and many others here). ID is not simply about irreducibly complex biological features (such as molecular motors). And ID does not claim to disprove evolution -- this is a common misunderstanding.
In many ways, Intelligent Design is a complimentary science to Darwin's evolution. However, there are certain aspects of biology that pure evolution theory does not attempt to explain, such as molecular design or prebiotic life (i.e. chemical abiogenensis).
If anyone here truly has an open mind, I recommend reading the paper "DNA and Other Designs" by Stephen C. Meyer. This essay exposes a number of problems with abiogenesis research. More importantly, however, it details several aspects of biology that at least appear to exhibit design and how logical inferrence can lead to ID.
IMHO, it is incredibly close minded to simply dismiss ID as some attempt by the reglious-right to open the door to the teaching of creationism in public schools. ID is a very serious scientific effort to promote thought and perhaps help explain some of the defenciences that currently exist in the theories of abiogenesis and evolution.
Absolutely!
I'm sick and tired of politicians, and the special interest groups that control them, playing politics with our constitutional rights.
Free speech should mean free speech for all without discrimination. Gender, race, ethnicity and economic disposition should not play a factor. The argument that "the big guy" can drown out the voice of "the little guy" is faulty. There are a lot more "little guys" out there which provides power in numbers. In a democracy, its the majority that wins.
The only time free speech should be limited is when it is outright lies. Since we already have laws regarding slander and libel, campaign finance law that limits free speech is superfluous. It is simply bad for democracy.