The "Philosophy" of Climate Change?
I have been saying that science is becoming a religion (scientism), but this is ridiculous. A climate change parishioner has been found to have been wrongfully fired in the UK over his "philosophical belief" in global warming. From a column by the Telegraph's ever politically incorrect Christopher Booker:
Yes indeed. The double standards cut across many areas of social concern beyond what we deal with substantively here at SHS.A London employment tribunal has ruled that Tim Nicholson... was wrongly dismissed as a property firm's "head of sustainability" because of his fervent commitment to "climate change". Mr Nicholson had fallen out with his colleagues over his attempts to reduce the company's "carbon footprint". The tribunal chairman David Neath found the company guilty of discriminating against Mr Nicholson under the 2006 Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations, because his faith in global warming was a "philosophical belief".
Recalling how "eco-psychologists" at the University of the West of England are pressing for "climate denial" to be classified as a form of "mental disorder", one doubts whether the same legal protection would be given to those who fail to share Mr Nicholson's "philosophical belief".
Booker also notes that current measurements show that the Arctic ice is thickening, not thinning. But there is a remedy for that heresy: He can always be involuntarily hospitalized for mental health observation for his denial psychosis.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 2:14 PM
5 Comments
5 Comments:
Sitting in a coggee shop booth, I overheard one of a group of do-gooder, social-service-type females in the booth behind me wail "I'm so upset" that someone they were discussing did not accept the theory of global warming. It's interesting that a certain type of devotee to liberal causes cannot accept that others might not agree with the views they regard as sacred, while it's conservatives who do accept that others disagree with them. Frankly I think it's desperation on the other side's part that has them as concerned as they get when others subscribe to another view than the one they think everyone should subscribe to. We're actually much more liberal than the desperadoes are.
Oops that should have been coffee, not coggee, which does sound like what the next big thing in hip beverages or anything else might be called. It has a multicultural flair, doesn't it. If global warming doesn't snuff out its chance to manifest as whatever it would be...
I agree that once people lock into one position or another, it turns into less of a discussion and more of a turf battle. Also, as an idea gains mainstream acceptance, fringe groups will try to piggyback on it and cause it to lose credibility by association.
There's an excellent balanced discussion of data supporting/opposing climate change at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/20/AR2009032002660.html
My personal take is that regardless of what's happening climate-wise, most the things we're asked to do to reduce climate change (particularly reducing CO generation) are pretty good ideas anyway, so what the heck.
1,000 new visitors to SHS a day, like clockwork.
Great picture, Wesley. I especially like the balding Exxon thug in the leather jacket.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home