President Barack Obama certainly is a politician. Either that, or he's afraid of his own policies and/or core constituency. The latest example of this is the delaying of a decision on a proposed US/Canadian oil pipeline until after the 2012 elections. It is clearly a move designed to appeal to the environmentalists, who hailed the decision as one which will lessen the production of greenhouse gases.
Maybe so, maybe no. Either way, we all know that liberal environmentalists are against anything which actually helps human beings go about earning the daily bread, and that they are fanatical supporters of the President. By refusing to make a decision before the next major electoral cycle plays out, he's simply playing to them to ensure their vote. Should he be re-elected, it would not be a surprise if he quickly approved some sort of pipeline then, when he doesn't have to worry about pandering to his supporters.
Never mind that we could desperately use the jobs now, or that Canada might just sell the oil to Asia. It's all about putting off the tough decisions until after a referendum on his power. He did the same thing with Obamacare, making it so that the major provisions of the health care overhaul don't take effect until after November 2012 as well. By that point, he will either be given another term or have been tossed out. He would then be in the position of not having to worry about 2016 while reaping the praises of his primary Presidential act, or be able to catcall as his masterpiece is altered or abandoned.
The bottom line is that what we see in President Obama is someone who paints himself a true believer while putting off the actual effects of his creed until they can't hurt him, or, at least, not hurt him too bad. If you think that's chicken of him, you may just be on to something.
Showing posts with label environmentalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environmentalism. Show all posts
Monday, November 21, 2011
Monday, August 8, 2011
Science and Religion
No good Christian would have any issue with good science. Indeed Christianity and science go rather well together, as better thinkers than myself have said in better ways than I for years. Yet there is a breed of science which will have no quarter with any ideals save its own. It is the realm of pop science, and its followers are legion.
Pop science is most noticeable in the area of global warming, but exists in many other forms. Environmentalists who see the Earth as better off without human beings and those who insist on evolution as the only acceptable theory on the origin of people and things are two other examples. We should of course be concerned with meteorological cycles and I will admit that we have not always used our resources wisely; further, we must allow that evolution may well be fact. All of this is, to one degree or another, open to reasoned debate. But what is truly galling about pop science is how it so readily dismisses religious belief when it is so nearly a religion itself.
You don’t think so? If not, why the presumption (for that is all it is; who out there has observed a world without us in order to rationally make such a judgment?) the earth would be better without humans? Science is the area of fact and observation; value judgments are beyond its scope. Likewise the assumption that short term warming is bad, or that all the matter in the Universe was once compacted into an object the size of a basketball which just happened to be around (while the possibility of God just being around is deemed fantasy). What do these beliefs sound like? What do they appear based upon?
The answer is obvious: faith. The pop culture, of which pop science is a part, believes what it believes simply on the faith. It is true because it is true; interesting how the seriously religious are accused of circular argument when they assert such things. Anyway, they believe because it is what their conclusions lead them to think. Which is not to say that, on a case by case basis, there may be no reason for their faith. It merely illustrates that their ideas emanate from what the religious readily admit about theirs: knowledge is ultimately built upon axioms, starting points which are simply accepted as true, truths so obvious as to be Reason Itself. We believe in God because without an uncreated Creator nothing makes sense. They believe in the big bang basketball because, well, matter had to start from somewhere, or that something simply had to be. It's no different that believing in a Creator.
So you see, much of today’s science and religion share an approach to their creeds. It is not unfair to say, in a very real sense, that science is religion.
Let’s see if the evolutionists and environmentalists can handle the rebound.
Pop science is most noticeable in the area of global warming, but exists in many other forms. Environmentalists who see the Earth as better off without human beings and those who insist on evolution as the only acceptable theory on the origin of people and things are two other examples. We should of course be concerned with meteorological cycles and I will admit that we have not always used our resources wisely; further, we must allow that evolution may well be fact. All of this is, to one degree or another, open to reasoned debate. But what is truly galling about pop science is how it so readily dismisses religious belief when it is so nearly a religion itself.
You don’t think so? If not, why the presumption (for that is all it is; who out there has observed a world without us in order to rationally make such a judgment?) the earth would be better without humans? Science is the area of fact and observation; value judgments are beyond its scope. Likewise the assumption that short term warming is bad, or that all the matter in the Universe was once compacted into an object the size of a basketball which just happened to be around (while the possibility of God just being around is deemed fantasy). What do these beliefs sound like? What do they appear based upon?
The answer is obvious: faith. The pop culture, of which pop science is a part, believes what it believes simply on the faith. It is true because it is true; interesting how the seriously religious are accused of circular argument when they assert such things. Anyway, they believe because it is what their conclusions lead them to think. Which is not to say that, on a case by case basis, there may be no reason for their faith. It merely illustrates that their ideas emanate from what the religious readily admit about theirs: knowledge is ultimately built upon axioms, starting points which are simply accepted as true, truths so obvious as to be Reason Itself. We believe in God because without an uncreated Creator nothing makes sense. They believe in the big bang basketball because, well, matter had to start from somewhere, or that something simply had to be. It's no different that believing in a Creator.
So you see, much of today’s science and religion share an approach to their creeds. It is not unfair to say, in a very real sense, that science is religion.
Let’s see if the evolutionists and environmentalists can handle the rebound.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Scare Stories: Why Environmentalists can't be Taken Seriously
This just in: mass extinctions could threaten life as we know it. At least, such is the belief of one John Alroy of Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia. His findings, after a study of fossil collections, concludes that when there are significant numbers of species extinctions there may be significant changes to the ecosystem. Indeed, it may alter the question of who is or is not the dominant species in any giving environmental arena. His research can be found in the latest edition of the journal Science.
The best initial reaction to this should not be shock. There are no grounds for panic here, despite the fact that it seems the world of science (meant here with the small 's') and the media want to use this as an example of how we humans are mucking up the planet. We are so smug, we humans, that we aren't even considering the possibility that we may advance ourselves from the top spot on the ecological pyramid. We may fall from the predator to the prey, if we aren't careful.
But to the point. It is not, in any way, an earth shattering conclusion that if some things change dramatically other areas may be altered as well. If you remove the key pitchers from the current New York Yankees or Tampa Bay Rays, you would likely have other teams competing for the American League lead in their division. Surely a look into the fossilized remains of 100,000 extinct species, which is what Dr. Alroy and his minions studied, was not necessary to realize that. In fact, it was almost surely overkill for an argument more philosophical than scientific, even if based on scientific data. It was not needed to found a conclusion based more on common sense than as a particularly scientific insight.
So, does this mean that humanity is doomed? No. Especially when the researchers and media types sprinkle their statements with all sorts of vague words and phrases. When we hear viewpoints such as, "Today's rate of extinction may be as great as 100 times the historic norm," as claimed by the people at Life Science, we wonder at what exactly is the threat made by the words may be as great. This followed by the rather astounding assertion of extinction rates 100 times the historic norm.
The columnist George Will famously says that, "If the data don't jibe with common sense, doubt the data." Or at the least, don't overstate its merely potential importance. For indeed that's all we have here: data which may, or may not, mean that we good folks are killing the Earth and ourselves in the process. Yes, of course we should be aware of it and serious consider the prospects to which it may lead. Yet that does not mean we are invariably bound for destruction. For two can play the what if game: what if it means that we are merely increasing our dominance? It may be that we are improving rather than destroying; our actions may be creating a better, and not worse, environment.
In the end, this is only so much more environmentalist fear mongering. If that's all they can bring to the debate, then we should not worry over their worries. It is far more disheartening to see how we hurt one another as people than as how we might, or might not, be affecting the lower species.
The best initial reaction to this should not be shock. There are no grounds for panic here, despite the fact that it seems the world of science (meant here with the small 's') and the media want to use this as an example of how we humans are mucking up the planet. We are so smug, we humans, that we aren't even considering the possibility that we may advance ourselves from the top spot on the ecological pyramid. We may fall from the predator to the prey, if we aren't careful.
But to the point. It is not, in any way, an earth shattering conclusion that if some things change dramatically other areas may be altered as well. If you remove the key pitchers from the current New York Yankees or Tampa Bay Rays, you would likely have other teams competing for the American League lead in their division. Surely a look into the fossilized remains of 100,000 extinct species, which is what Dr. Alroy and his minions studied, was not necessary to realize that. In fact, it was almost surely overkill for an argument more philosophical than scientific, even if based on scientific data. It was not needed to found a conclusion based more on common sense than as a particularly scientific insight.
So, does this mean that humanity is doomed? No. Especially when the researchers and media types sprinkle their statements with all sorts of vague words and phrases. When we hear viewpoints such as, "Today's rate of extinction may be as great as 100 times the historic norm," as claimed by the people at Life Science, we wonder at what exactly is the threat made by the words may be as great. This followed by the rather astounding assertion of extinction rates 100 times the historic norm.
The columnist George Will famously says that, "If the data don't jibe with common sense, doubt the data." Or at the least, don't overstate its merely potential importance. For indeed that's all we have here: data which may, or may not, mean that we good folks are killing the Earth and ourselves in the process. Yes, of course we should be aware of it and serious consider the prospects to which it may lead. Yet that does not mean we are invariably bound for destruction. For two can play the what if game: what if it means that we are merely increasing our dominance? It may be that we are improving rather than destroying; our actions may be creating a better, and not worse, environment.
In the end, this is only so much more environmentalist fear mongering. If that's all they can bring to the debate, then we should not worry over their worries. It is far more disheartening to see how we hurt one another as people than as how we might, or might not, be affecting the lower species.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
James Lee May Not have been Insane
An extreme environmentalist, James Lee, held three employees hostage at the headquarters of the Discovery Channel yesterday in Silver Springs, Maryland. The standoff ended when police sharpshooters killed him late in the afternoon, after they felt he was too threatening to the captives.
Lee's demands included that the long time cable channel rid itself of programs which encouraged overpopulation, such as Kate Plus 8, or war, such as Future Weapons. He had expressed on a website the opinion that human beings were essentially vile creatures bent on merely destroying the planet.
Let us set aside for the moment the questions of how much he may actually represent the overall environmental movement, which does at times appear to believe that humanity is the culprit in all too many (they seem to find quite a few) environmental problems. Because the one thing we must not do is dismiss him too readily as insane, which is an allegation already being heard from many quarters.
He may indeed have been insane. That may be the most likely explanation for his actions. But perhaps he was not, and that is a possibility which cannot be taken too lightly. He may have been someone who really meant what he said, with a full and reasonably complete understanding of what his actions may have wrought. His activity yesterday might actually reflect a mind which understood well enough what was going on and intended everything it engendered, and every idea it expressed was without regret or regard for others.
If we excuse such folks too readily as insane, we, in the long run, grant criminals and anyone else who threatens society or themselves, precisely the excuse they need to take responsibility off of them. We could, over time, inadvertently hand any particular individual the reason they need for committing any act they wish precisely because of insanity. Anyone might very well justify any outlandish action or crime with the excuse, 'Well, I wouldn't even be thinking this way if I wasn't insane'.
If James Lee was insane, then so be it. But if was not, if he meant what he said, then we gloss over a very real criminal act heinous enough that we insult the victims by letting him off the hook too easily. We actually may invite more, and more vicious, crimes when we are too quick to write recent ones off as little more than actions based on the mere rantings of someone forgivably deranged. We may only be protecting the legacy of someone unworthy, while endangering the lives of the wholly innocent.
Lee's demands included that the long time cable channel rid itself of programs which encouraged overpopulation, such as Kate Plus 8, or war, such as Future Weapons. He had expressed on a website the opinion that human beings were essentially vile creatures bent on merely destroying the planet.
Let us set aside for the moment the questions of how much he may actually represent the overall environmental movement, which does at times appear to believe that humanity is the culprit in all too many (they seem to find quite a few) environmental problems. Because the one thing we must not do is dismiss him too readily as insane, which is an allegation already being heard from many quarters.
He may indeed have been insane. That may be the most likely explanation for his actions. But perhaps he was not, and that is a possibility which cannot be taken too lightly. He may have been someone who really meant what he said, with a full and reasonably complete understanding of what his actions may have wrought. His activity yesterday might actually reflect a mind which understood well enough what was going on and intended everything it engendered, and every idea it expressed was without regret or regard for others.
If we excuse such folks too readily as insane, we, in the long run, grant criminals and anyone else who threatens society or themselves, precisely the excuse they need to take responsibility off of them. We could, over time, inadvertently hand any particular individual the reason they need for committing any act they wish precisely because of insanity. Anyone might very well justify any outlandish action or crime with the excuse, 'Well, I wouldn't even be thinking this way if I wasn't insane'.
If James Lee was insane, then so be it. But if was not, if he meant what he said, then we gloss over a very real criminal act heinous enough that we insult the victims by letting him off the hook too easily. We actually may invite more, and more vicious, crimes when we are too quick to write recent ones off as little more than actions based on the mere rantings of someone forgivably deranged. We may only be protecting the legacy of someone unworthy, while endangering the lives of the wholly innocent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
