The following is the text of a letter written by a number of scientists asking for a federal investigation of climate science denial under the RICO statute.Okay, I guess most scientists would agree that if humans were to induce climate change, then there would be a potential of serious adverse effects.
Letter to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren
September 1, 2015
Dear President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren,
As you know, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced about the potentially serious adverse effects of human-induced climate change ...
We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.I did not know that it could be a crime to oppose the leftist climate agenda.
Pres. Obama himself has been using apocalyptic language on global warming.
This reminds me of the quote:
When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.Separately Laden promotes atheist causes, and complains that Ben Carson is violating the First Amendment by being a Christian and opposing a Muslim being elected US President, and is therefore disqualifying himself to be President.
I would think that an atheist would be happy to say that certain religious beliefs are not suited for the Presidency. But apparently his leftist egalitarianism overrides his atheism, and all religions must be hated equally.
This is somewhat off-topic for this blog, and I am not going to bother rebutting this nonsense. I just want to point out that this is a quite popular leftist-atheist-evolutionist blogger, and it shows the thinking of a lot of academic scientists, particular in the soft sciences, and social justice warriors. They are intolerant creeps who want to censor other points of view.
The soft sciences apparently include statistics:
ReplyDeletehttp://backwardations.blogspot.com/2015/09/stanford-researchers-bad-at-math-and.html
There is a simple cause for all of this leftism and it's over-funding the university system. Modern education produces no increase to GDP but simply encourages labor cartels and rent seeking. Only about three percent of all research occurs at universities but they enjoy enormous subsidies from the government, besides having large endowments. If people from the right want to fight all of these issues, they have to get at the source of the problem. Over-education is the sin of our age and it gives leftist too much free time to teach and produce propaganda.
http://backwardations.blogspot.com/2015/08/schooling-refuted_9.html
That's funny. I hear: you're Catholic; Catholics believe the Pope is infallible; the Pope has a Master's in Chemistry under his papal belt; and, despite apologists' claims that he's just "inviting dialogue" (via old FOX News -style trick, using questions as headlines and if challenged claim the questions were not rhetorical ones?), Il Papa is out there voicing presumably well-founded concerns about climate change.
ReplyDeleteOr maybe I'm just getting old and don't hear as well as I used to.
That's funny. I hear: you're Catholic; Catholics believe the Pope is infallible; the Pope has a Master's in Chemistry under his papal belt; and, despite apologists' claims that he's just "inviting dialogue" (via old FOX News -style trick, using questions as headlines and if challenged claim the questions were not rhetorical ones?), Il Papa is out there voicing presumably well-founded concerns about climate change.
ReplyDeleteOr maybe I'm just getting old and don't hear as well as I used to.
No, the Pope does not claim to be infallible about climate change in Laudato si'. Only on certain rare pronouncements of doctrine. See Papal infallibility (and this) for details.
ReplyDeleteYou're right. I forgot. So even with the Chem degree and all those advisers, he's still only a "marginal player". One would think that wih all those resources at his disposal, Francis would get it right. Maybe he has. In any case, good for Cafeteria Catholics. They've always been able to pick and choose what they believe, yet still retain the big "C" label.
ReplyDeleteYou're right. I forgot. So even with the Chem degree and all those advisers, he's still only a "marginal player". One would think that wih all those resources at his disposal, Francis would get it right. Maybe he has. In any case, good for Cafeteria Catholics. They've always been able to pick and choose what they believe, yet still retain the big "C" label.
ReplyDelete