October 16, 2006

Inhofe--Apostasy From "Global Warming" Religion

From Debra Saunders, Sen. Inhofe's real crime is not allowing the "climate change" cognoscenti absolute moral authority on the subject of "global warming" by merely attempting to refute their bald assertions:
Global warming is a religion, not science. That's why acolytes in the media attack global-warming critics not with scientific arguments, but for their apostasy. Then they laud global-warming believers not for reducing greenhouse gases, but simply for believing global warming is a coming catastrophe caused by man. The important thing is to have faith in those who warn: The end is near.

So a New York Times editorial Thursday took after Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., not for being a Doubting Thomas, but as the headline read, a "Doubting Inhofe." The brunt of the editorial was not a scientific refutation of Inhofe's arguments against the global-warming craze -- other than to cite a National Academy of Sciences report that warned that the Earth is approaching the warmest temperatures in 12,000 years -- a short blip in time to your average geologist.

The Times' focus was on Inhofe's refusal to bow to "the consensus among mainstream scientists and the governments of nearly every industrialized nation concerning manmade climate change." That is, Inhofe has had the effrontery to challenge elite orthodoxy. Or, as the editorial put it, Inhofe "has really buttressed himself with the will to disbelieve."

. . .

"Consensus" is another word for clique science. The good people are true believers, the bad people exhibit a "will to disbelieve." Editors used to salute healthy skepticism. Now some are global-warming Torquemadas.
Sen. Inhofe's lone voice in the wilderness of Capitol Hill has made him the mark for derision, accusations of collusion with the usual suspects (big oil, tobacco), and utter stupidity. Liberal moonbats and environmental wackos are prone to conspiracy theories, and Inhofe is now nothing more than their "global warming" bogeyman.

David Roberts of Grist
half-heartedly retracts his "Nuremberg-style" trials comment about those who don't adopt "global warming" orthodoxy:
There are people and institutions knowingly disseminating falsehoods and distortions about global warming. They deserve to be held publicly accountable.

As to what shape that accountability would take, my analogy to the Nuremberg trials was woefully inappropriate -- nay, stupid. I retract it wholeheartedly.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home