Global Climate Bandwagon runs over Darwin
I have consistently feared that proving certain scientists went too far (far too far in some cases) in their claims about global warming could have negative consequences. It is simply the human reaction to get on board a bandwagon and roll with the momentum.
It seems that the anti-global warming bandwagon has claimed a victim, Mr. Darwin. Turns out the that religious right has gotten smarter. This is not really difficult on a relative scale, sort of like evolving from slime mold to algae. But they have figured out that while going after evolution alone comes across as unconstitutional, if they go after a few things then they are just "upholding scientific truth" or some such bs.
The problem is in fact partly related to news sources such as the BBC and the NYT. As long as they keep claiming the science of climate change is settled (its not), they put global warming and evolution on the same level as accepted theories. Since climate change obviously has issues, who's to say that evolution does not have issues as well? If the supporters would just admit climate change is not settled, it would actually undermine the position of the deniers - but that would be far too intelligent for the NYT to undertake. Instead you get this:
"For mainstream scientists, there is no credible challenge to evolutionary theory. They oppose the teaching of alternative views like intelligent design, the proposition that life is so complex that it must be the design of an intelligent being. And there is wide agreement among scientists that global warming is occurring and that human activities are probably driving it."
WRONG. Damn you NYT, you piss me off all the damn time. Please keep your opinions out of your hard news stories you journalistic pile of rubble.
The downside to all this is state legislators passing bills which instruct teachers to include both climate and evolution skepticism. Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Kentucky are all looking at or have passed these kinds of bills.
If idiots stopped trying to put climate change in the same damn bucket as evolution, a lot of this would go away. But the supporters of climate change have never been that big on logic, and I dont see that changing any time soon.
On a final note, I just want to say that I was pretty damn pissed off by a NYT article that included "anti-abortion" sentiment as one of the things tying together libertarians, independents, tea-party activists and the others dissatisfied with the current political climate. Screw you NYT. Get your damn facts straight. Independents are now the largest registered political group in this country, and I would be pretty damn surprised if many of them (and any libertarians) were anti-abortion and tied up in the religious right BS.
It seems that the anti-global warming bandwagon has claimed a victim, Mr. Darwin. Turns out the that religious right has gotten smarter. This is not really difficult on a relative scale, sort of like evolving from slime mold to algae. But they have figured out that while going after evolution alone comes across as unconstitutional, if they go after a few things then they are just "upholding scientific truth" or some such bs.
The problem is in fact partly related to news sources such as the BBC and the NYT. As long as they keep claiming the science of climate change is settled (its not), they put global warming and evolution on the same level as accepted theories. Since climate change obviously has issues, who's to say that evolution does not have issues as well? If the supporters would just admit climate change is not settled, it would actually undermine the position of the deniers - but that would be far too intelligent for the NYT to undertake. Instead you get this:
"For mainstream scientists, there is no credible challenge to evolutionary theory. They oppose the teaching of alternative views like intelligent design, the proposition that life is so complex that it must be the design of an intelligent being. And there is wide agreement among scientists that global warming is occurring and that human activities are probably driving it."
WRONG. Damn you NYT, you piss me off all the damn time. Please keep your opinions out of your hard news stories you journalistic pile of rubble.
The downside to all this is state legislators passing bills which instruct teachers to include both climate and evolution skepticism. Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Kentucky are all looking at or have passed these kinds of bills.
If idiots stopped trying to put climate change in the same damn bucket as evolution, a lot of this would go away. But the supporters of climate change have never been that big on logic, and I dont see that changing any time soon.
On a final note, I just want to say that I was pretty damn pissed off by a NYT article that included "anti-abortion" sentiment as one of the things tying together libertarians, independents, tea-party activists and the others dissatisfied with the current political climate. Screw you NYT. Get your damn facts straight. Independents are now the largest registered political group in this country, and I would be pretty damn surprised if many of them (and any libertarians) were anti-abortion and tied up in the religious right BS.
Comments
Post a Comment