Wednesday, February 08, 2012 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

Rick Santorum on global warming

If I would be choosing among two otherwise identical candidates, I would choose the evolutionist.

Although it plays a paramount role in our understanding of the pillars of biology and any historical science, for that matter, this topic – and some related topics – is so abstract and unimportant for the decisions made by the U.S. president and for the aspects of the society that the U.S. president affects that it would almost certainly play a marginal role in all conceivable decisions I would have to make if I were a U.S. voter.



Rick Santorum who won in 3 states on Tuesday – and showed that there's nothing inevitable about Mitt Romney as the G.O.P. nominee – is caught to say some general things about the climate change issue.




As you may guess, I would subscribe every letter he has said; and be sure that I haven't been any long-term Santorum fan in any sense. His attitude is much more reasonable and scientifically well-informed than the attitude of dozens of people who consider themselves natural scientists and who are sometimes considered to be scientists even by their environment. Not only I agree with the spirit of Santorum's statements in some vague sense; I find his wording extremely careful and measured, too.

Incidentally, Senator James Inhofe has penned a book on the global warming propaganda, the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. You may pre-order it today and you will receive it at the end of the February. Thanks to Marc Morano for the tip.

In some sense, I also think that Santorum is more liberated from some of the ideological misconceptions commonly associated with Christianity than the atheist scientists and left-wing candidates. In particular, I am referring to his comments about the scientific insight that the mankind isn't the master of the Universe; we're a small part of the Universe.

This is exactly the kind of a general "Copernican" finding that could be expected to be misunderstood by someone who builds on religion so much. Atheists often humiliate believers by saying that believers are imagining an anthropomorphic God (who created Man to His image) all the time. Sometimes it's the case but when it comes to the anthropogenic climate change, it seems obvious that the leftwingers are much more anthropomorphic, anthropocentric, and anthropogenic than Santorum.

It's kind of paradoxical, isn't it?

Also I agree with Santorum's point that various scientific institutions, including the National Academy of Sciences, are preselected. They're more likely to admit new members who share the existing members' values. This is true because of the existing members' desire to be in a company of soulmates; as well as the new potential members' desire to be in a company of soulmates.

So one can't consider these institutions are representative of the scientists' opinions. Quite generally, any institution is biased because it is more likely to incorporate people who like to be members of institutions which is already a bias. But of course, even if these institutions were representative of the scientists' opinions, just a proclamation of some opinion isn't scientific evidence in any sense.

By the way, you may also want to check that Germany's most influential tabloid, Der/Die/Das Bild (well, probably Der), has switched to a clear climate skepticism by their article about the CO2 lies. Will it mean that some environmental common sense will return to Germany, an otherwise immensely rational nation, again?

Add to del.icio.us Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (0) :