Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Dr. Locrian
Published Letters: 77 Editor's Choice: 6
Someone said earlier, about the question of dark matter:
"So I'm not convinced of what is 90% (at least) consensus of scientists believe to be true."
This is nonsense. I'm so tired of people using inappropriate frames for scientific arguments, whether it's Paglia or commenters on a thread. Hello, astronomy is NOT climatology. We're actually living on this planet, we have a lot more access to evidence about climate change--it's just not the same thing!
But aside from using astronomy as a poor analogy to global warming, since when is it logical in principal to assume that what the majority of trained professionals in a given field are saying is wrong? To use another frame, do you also believe that evolution is wrong, just because a vast majority of scientists believe it to be true?
Poppycock.
"Camille Paglia's comments about the environment will surely be called blasphemous by the left. I subscribe to what Michael Crichton wrote and spoke about several years ago, that the left has taken to environmentalism as they would to religion. You can read his view at his website (www.michaelcrichton.net). The zealots of this new faith are just like any other religion's true believers, if you dare to not believe what they do than you are an infidel. And we know how zealots act when confronted with contradictory evidence, they attack the messenger."
I'm always surprised that people take Chrichton seriously as scientific authority. Yes, a former medical doctor is sticking to hundreds of more qualified, real scientists doing real research in their specialized fields. He's such a rebel.
Not only that, people like dfm1981 all share some kind of group delusion that they're the real independent thinkers, when all they're doing is parroting Rush, Crichton, Paglia, the entire auto industry, the Bush administration, etc., in exactly the same manner that they accuse the "Left" of doing.
And for (hopefully) the last time: Science is not religion. Please.
Who's REALLY following a cult of personality here?
For every consensus of 1 that's proven right, there are a 1000 cranks and idiots. I'm so tired of so-called individualists name checking Einstein and Galileo as a rationalization for their failures. Sorry, I mean, their maverick visionary genius.
There's a way to prove whether or not a theory is correct: it's called the Scientific Method. So far, it's very much on the side of those who believe that we've heavily affected the globe's climate.
"And there ARE science cults. (Scientology anyone?) Cults - around homeopathy. Therapeutic Touch. Global Warming and the Environment. Accupuncture. Chiropractic. Organic Foods. Qigong. Yoga. The list goes on."
Well, I don't want to point out the overly obvious, but I'm not sure where you stand on this. Cults based on pseudo-science are different from real science. I actually agree that the majority of that list above is a pretty good list of modern day superstitions--but to include global warming and environmentalism? Please.
So don't blame science for being the seed of New Age cults.
You can say that maybe some global warming activists might jump the gun a little on the exact causation of climate change. But even Richard Lindzen is admitting that, yes, there is climate change. His Newsweek musings are one scientist's opinion, and we won't know who's right until enough time and evidence accumulates. He's already stating something a little different than his WSJ piece a year ago.
About cults, though. Ever hear about the Left Behind series? Bush sure has. I'd say the apocalyptic evangelicals are more powerful than the nutritional supplements industry, or at least comparable in influece. Why aren't you including them on your list?
In your little list of cults, why don't you also add the Transhumanists--those wacky Libertarian types who think they're going to download their brains into immortal prosthetic bodies while the rest of us chumps die in a mere 90 yrs or so? Don't forget those survival of the fittest Objectivists as well--you can't be a laissez faire CEO without using Rand's blandishments as balm on your social conscience.
For fairness' sake, you know. Spread the love to those wacky Rightist weirdos.
I noticed as well a certain, shall we say, anti-Asian slant to your list of superstitions. Don't know what that means . . .
All of this anti-cult stuff only makes sense given the context of Bay Area politics. It's exactly the kind of reactionary overcompensation David Brock writes about in Blinded by the Right. I sympathize--really, I do.
Hence the suspicious exclusion of all cultish Right wing groups, of which there are at least as many as on the Lefty side--and they definitely wield MUCH more raw power than New Agers. Money. Government. Corporations. The VAST majority of churches. The frickin' military. Neo Cons. The list goes on and on.
I get sick of how much people in SF and Berkeley swallow the snake oil of much of the nutritional supplements industry--but only here could you pretend that New Agers are the power players of America.
Try telling the thousands of innocents killed as "collateral damage" that the Neo Con cabal is less dangerous than yoga and acupuncture teachers.
The Bay Area does not represent the norm in US. It's exactly the opposite of most of the country. SHAM can claim that "everyone" is looking at Christian and Rightist cults like Dominionism, only because they're not the power bloc in the Bay Area. But Dominionists get much more of a free pass in the media than New Age wackos. In reality, for whatever reasons SHAM gives, he's just attacking people that aren't on his political side of the fence.
Also explains the anti-Chinese slant of his targets--referring here to the shameful racist column in the Asian Times recently.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
