[Vision2020] Hypocrisy & The Church of Global Warming

Ted Moffett starbliss at gmail.com
Wed Mar 7 00:16:25 PST 2007


All:

This might be fun!

Ted Moffett
-----------------
Mr. O'Neal:

You wrote in your Daily News editorial, topped with the headline in the
subject heading in this e-mail, printed Tues., March 6, 2007:

On this page, the faithful's rhetorical amamentarium consists of little more
than sophomoric personal swipes at one writer who dares to question the
faith.
----
In my editorial topped with the headline ""Human Effects on Climate Change
Are Real," from the Fri., February 23, Daily News, I presented a documented
rebuttal of Ed Iverson's claims that the scientific community's warnings
about human induced global warming are partly based on suppression of the
data from the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age, data he
implies contradict their theories.  I also presented data and well developed
theory on climate change that supports the claim that human CO2 outputs will
alter our climate in dramatic fashion.

My editorial was neither sophomoric nor based on faith, but premised upon
the empirical world of science, where scientist's data and theories are
questioned critically by other scientists, intent on determining the
functioning of the natural world apart from the irrational bias and
emotional wishful thinking so common among human beings, often driven by
religious superstition or "faith."  If a scientist's data or theories do not
stand up to scrutiny, they face a culture of exposure for their mistakes or
biases.  This is how the scientific method proceeds.

The misinformation campaign by those seeking to distort and mystify the
scientific evidence for human induced global warming qualifies more clearly
for the label "The Church of Global Warming Denial," than do those who
promote the scientific evidence for global warming deserve the label you
placed upon them.  Your claims that those who are warning of the dangers of
human induced global warming are not doing so based on the scientific
evidence, is doing a disservice to the respect for the impartial objective
pursuit of truth in regard to understanding the natural world, a pursuit
that science has fought a courageous battle to defend over centuries against
the forces of superstition and denial of the facts gained from observation.

If your logic prevailed, we would see attacks against the "Church of Nuclear
Weapons" for making arguments against nuclear fall out from nuclear war,
while they use nuclear power, or the "Church of Lead Poisoning" spouting
hypocritical propaganda about the harm of lead exposure, while they use lead
solder in their electronics, or the "Church of Psychiatry's" hypocrisy for
promoting the idea of genetic mental illness, while still believing in a
soul with human choice and responsibility.

Many of those who follow the conclusions of science would be under attack
for so called "hypocrisy," if they were caught in any contradiction between
their faith or lifestyle, and the science in question.

Which would pretty much catch most all of us, in one way or another.

Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070307/75b51ce1/attachment.html 


More information about the Vision2020 mailing list