AGW: when a scientific theory becomes a religion…
…then those with an opposing view become apostates.
That’s especially true if the topic is one with very high stakes, such as AGW (anthropogenic global warming).
Think about it this way: if a person is—
(a) convinced that AGW has been proven beyond any doubt
(b) threatens life as we know it all over the globe; and
(c) can be halted and/or decreased by measures we understand and can control if only we had the will to implement them—then it follows that anyone who disagrees is a person who is endangering life on earth.
Science, of course, is not a religion, and the history of science is littered with theories that have been considered proven and then are disproven...
Which brings us to an article Bret Stephens wrote in his new venue, the NY Times.
It was really a rather modest suggestion that people listen to both sides of the issue—not so much on AGW (which he himself seems to believe is true) as on whether we know enough to accurately predict the future of AGW and/or to fix the problems it may cause.
The Twitter storm this caused has been virulent.
But if AGW (and intervention to halt or slow its effects) is your religion, then someone like Stephens becomes the AGW devil.
Then this sort of response seems perfectly reasonable (if crass):
Must read it all!“You’re a s–thead. a crybaby lil f–kin weenie. a massive twat too,” tweeted Libby Watson, staff writer at Gizmodo.“I’m gonna lose my mind,” seethed Eve Peyser, politics writer at Vice.“The ideas ppl like @BretStephensNYT espouse are violently hateful & should not be given a platform by @NYTimes,” she said..."
No comments:
Post a Comment